Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Dec 21 2012 Something Big, This Way Comes!

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 2, 2012, 4:18 p.m. EST by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

lets face it the world is going absolutely haywire. the big date is approaching. i'm not saying it's the end of the world or anything but SOMETHING is happening.

21 Comments

21 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

There is one website that is a quasi news outlet... they have a survivalist guest ...and its on video. I guess the point is a survivalist guide ...but has US Military kind of structure to the book. He examines all states in the US and lets everyone see the risks in the future whether natural or man made... he has maps. Joel Skousen is the name. Don't want to advertise. I see some criticisms that I would make ... his perspective is a little narrow for a 2 hour interview ... for what I would look for. Not sure if I could make a 2 hour video on the future risk of the USA that would cover as much as him though.

But he is saying the elite extremist are looking for Nuclear War ...and want to survive it to become globalist. He says the danger from nuclear weapons is less than 30 days. I never knew this before....

1) So provacatuers will try to get people against people ...group against group...

2) Technology is so advanced that we don't know if Weather is controlled by different governments.

3) Nuclear Energy is one of the Risks ... Like War ... that sit out there ALLWAYS which can strike at any time.

4) WAR ... NEOCONs say this is A-OKAY.

5) Energy, Food, Water, Gasoline, Disease, Financial Crash, Wages Crash, ...contaminated water won't go away, so I don't think this is one that government will ignore.... Low nutrician food is already a problem... Misquitos would be disease vector ... Food can have many problems from rodents if it is processed ...Chemicals in Products from China has already been a problem ... Imported goods that we eat are a risk since no one is really testing all foods only a sample .... Fish grown in water, but there are lots of contaminats possible... Polutions flows to rivers and wells where many populations get their water. Rain reflects part of the drinking water system for many US people.

The Weird: Underground Catacombs in Turkey 10,000 years ago, in Rome 3,000 years ago, in the USA for the last 10 years... Government facilities in Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, & Alabama (?) The rock is apparently good to build under with space to drive 18 wheel trucks & warehouses.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19193) 1 year ago

Age of Aquarius?

[-] -3 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 1 year ago

Ha, that scenario was rejected once it was found that homosexuality is incompatible with a love-centered planet within the Judeo-Muslim-Christian calendar. Do note, that the Jews have been anticipated this Transition.

There is a reason why there is yin and there is yang and not just a big shade of grey. This isn't homophobic; but to understand that, see my answer (Quora.com): http://www.quora.com/Gender/How-many-genders-are-there

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 1 year ago

It does if there's a G-d.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 1 year ago

Say what?

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 1 year ago

Oh, I guess you didn't actually take the trouble to follow the link. It isn't G-d that is against (male) homosexuality, it is Adam. There's a technical reason for being against it that has nothing to do with an imposed morality. Semen is conductive, and when Adam ejaculates into the poophole of (himself) another man, it collapses soul boundaries and causes an auto-immune disorder.

Did you know what homosexuality is/was?

[-] 0 points by Coyote88 (-24) 1 year ago

Just like Y2K? Yeah. Okay.

[-] -1 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

the nation collectively wakes up and realizes that we have to stop spending more than we earn?

[-] 6 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Wow, what a deep analysis, highlander! The profound neo-con mind in action! Enlighten us please in how we go about learning to count! Please, let's hear it! . . .one . . . two . . .? What's next my enlightened friend? We are waiting with baited breath for the full measure of your understanding!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6437) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

morning gypsy, good to see you

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Good Morning! It's now morning where I am.

[-] -2 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

Us villianous neo-cons are notorious for our simplistic economic ideas

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

true.

[-] -3 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

We have a 16 trillion dollar debt. The only way government can think of solving the problem is to throw money at it. The only solution people can think of is to increase taxes on the wealthy. Why don't we have a flat tax across the board - 10% and cut spending in every department of government. That, dumb ass, is called bringing in more money that you spend

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Well You can check my profile for a tax plan solution ... I'm not an expert. But I put my neck out there on this forum this year ... on my economic solutions post. I guess I should know more about tax policy...

Anyway, when you look at the federal income taxes you have to look at the tax credits. I'm a single guy with no kids and older. But poor people get tax credits for houses a) Interest expense on mortgage b) EITC credit for having kids c) some parents get a home heating tax credit d) You get to write off Health insurance expense e) write off other taxes paid for school supplies? I don't know what all. f) Work Expenses g) Education expenses

So... people with kids get a lot of write offs. I'd guess they get to write off things if they make less than $20K with kids for being below poverty level. But Federal Tax Policy Encourages US Citizens to:

1) Spend on Education
2) Buy a Home (or up to 2 homes?)
3) Pay for Health Care
4) Be Married and make a household
5) Invest in Pensions or Retirement Plans (Reduces Taxes)
6) Invest in Stocks or Equities
7) Have a Dental Plan(?)
8) Have Invest in Alternative Energy (1970s)
9) Insulate your home or make your home energy efficient
10) Could encourage Insurance (?) not sure here....
11) Contribute to Charity Organizations, CFC

You might be right about the Percent for a flat tax. I'm not sure. Others are better at the numbers than me. After thinking about it ... I'm pretty sure there should be a number of tax write offs or tax credits to encourage people to get health insurance, pay for education, buy houses, invest for their retirement, etc.

Check my profile, but my ideas are not original or the only way to go.

[-] 1 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

the flat tax is a long term proposition. Simplify the tax code to 1 page. Unfortunately, deductions, although extremely helpful (an understatement) are a handy political toy for the lobbyists. It will most likely take many years to pay down the debt, and part of the debt reduction will have to involve a paradigm shift in how people think about the government. Everyone should have a share in how the government runs and that can be done by giving each person an opportunity to get in the game by paying into the system.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Your a smart man... would say a smart lad or lass, but don't want to over step my assumtions (plus I'm trying to write in an Irish accent).

The flat tax is a strong platform, and solution. But the fighting amongst ourselves or voters is just a killer. (pun) It is a good Idea and A Good Fight. I would support it.

But what does that do to my mortgage and potential renting of a second home>?

1) I have a cheap home and little write off since it is over 4 years old. So I would lose the $1200 interest write off for my loan on Interest. Well everyone hs the same issue and probably more write offs.
2) The conclusion is that pay a smaller amount and we will adjust the tax over the next 2-3 years so that you are paying a similar amount in tax vs your adjusted tax with deductions.
3) Real Process, Real savings in taxes. Real Reduction in Income tax. No one can save you from the sale tax if you are buying, but that is the way...
4) the Plan depends on integrity of the federal tax plan to discount the tax to the same level as what you had with the many tax deductions (adjustable gross income - tax = currect tax dollars)

[-] 1 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

For a lot of people, I imagine it would be brutal. There would probable be a ton of protests from the lower income bracket. I sympathize, but I will not lose sleep. The entitlement process in this nation is unsustainable. And I strongly disagree with the progressive tax system. The federal government was never put into place to take care of people. The government is our protector from aggression, and a hands-off, only meddle in an emergency, referee of the state's handling of their local affairs.. The loss of tax reductions will probable anger about everyone. Yet, with reflection, it should satisfy most people. The wealthy will no longer have deductions and the lower income will not get off scott-free. In addition, a flat tax will hopefully offset the loss of such items as the homestead exemption. Defense, medicaid, interior, etc, etc, will all have to tighten their belts. By the way, I am just a boring old American who is a fan of the movie.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6437) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

let's flat tax Social Security first dollar to last all forms of income..I'm there baby...

Oh and as far as the debt goes remember if we had not changed fiscial policy in 2001 we would have no debt at all, don't have to believe me, here's Alan Greenspan,

“The most recent projections from OMB and CBO indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach about $800 billion in fiscal year 2010, including an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion. Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.

These most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions. This is in marked contrast to the perception of a year ago, when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically, nonfederal) assets.

At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly, as it is our extraordinarily effective allocation process that has enabled such impressive increases in productivity and standards of living despite a relatively low domestic saving rate.”

“Returning to the broader fiscal picture, I continue to believe, as I have testified previously, that all else being equal, a declining level of federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term real interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investment. The rapid capital deepening that has occurred in the U.S. economy in recent years is a testament to these benefits. But the sequence of upward revisions to the budget surplus projections for several years now has reshaped the choices and opportunities before us. Indeed, in almost any credible baseline scenario, short of a major and prolonged economic contraction, the full benefits of debt reduction are now achieved well before the end of this decade--a prospect that did not seem reasonable only a year or even six months ago. Thus, the emerging key fiscal policy need is now to address the implications of maintaining surpluses beyond the point at which publicly held debt is effectively eliminated.”

Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan Current fiscal issues Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives March 2, 2001

[-] 0 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

Lots of things for me to learn. Is Social Security and Medicare taken out of gross pay or net pay (after taxes)? If Social Security is an after-tax deduction, then Social Security should be exempt from a flat tax. Pensions and dividends from retirement accounts are taxed anyway, so lets keep them as part of a flat tax. As for the debt, it would be simplistic to blame the Bush tax cuts for the ballooning debt. 2001 was a period around the dot.com boom and a blossoming housing market.
When >1 trillion debt is accrued each and every year for going on 5 years, taxing the rich will not balance the budget.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6437) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

We got over 60 trillion in the bank, there's plenty of money, what we don't got is will power, as Alan Greenspan points out in the above quote all we have to do is return to the Clinton tax rates and the debt will be taken care of in short order, we would have the whole thing paid off by now if we hadn’t passed the Bush tax cuts as Alan Greenspan says. Of course you might be right we might need to raise the top rate to 90% like we did after WWII till we pay the debt off, since we let it get so out of hand. Do you really think Greenspan never saw a bubble? He says clearly that even if we have a down turn we are still going to pay off that debt, but then we cut taxes, at least we need to undo that, but as you say we will need more now.

What I'm saying is the first tax we "flat tax" is the Social Security Tax first dollar to last all forms of income, that way "entitlements" are no longer a problem as SS would never run out of money, if we applied the tax to all forms of income, the only problem we have with entitlements is that people make their money in different ways than they did when SS was first set up, we just need to apply the tax to all income and entitlements would no longer be a problem.