>>”Pelosi Introduces The transaction Tax” A must read.
Posted December 10, 2009on:
Another must read from my friend ticker Mr. Produce aka ticker . In my comment to this post on his site i said, “dear lord but I hate to HATE! but it is getting harder and harder not to when these people are trying so hard to destroy the country I love.” BB
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
I wrote about this tax that was sure to come if Obama were to be elected in September of 2008. On Tuesday, September 9, 2008 I posted this Barack Hussein Obama, George Soros, the Tobin Tax and the Tie That Binds The link is for reference for those interested in reading the entire story of how all this has taken place.The full story includes Obama’s famous Global Poverty Bill, which by the way still languishes in the senate, and I believe will be unveiled with great ceremony when the time is right to proclaim his “savior of the world”. Should his so called Health plan fail to evolve in the way he desires and his “crap and tax” fails we can expect the surprise to come shortly there after and possibly just before the 2010 elections and certainly prior to 2012.
Today Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the money hungry democrats have taken it up as a way to bring prosperity. Prosperity to whom I would ask… certainly not to the common working people who for some reason have elected foolish people such as Pelosi, Reid and Obama to ruin (not a typo) this nation.
One of the organizations that took up the cry for immediate acceptance of this scheme back when it was first mentioned is a group called ATTAC, the Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions to Aid Citizens. The name says about all that is needed to be said at this time about this group. Under their ideology, the Tobin Tax would be used to raise money to spend in the Third World, but it involves calling people on the streets not to denounce capitalist exploitation, so they claim, but to demand a minimal tax on the financial transactions in which capitalists try to swindle each other out of the proceeds of their past exploitation of the working class. It really is one of the most pathetic reform proposals for which people have ever been called upon to demonstrate. When one reads the code words it is easy to see the real intent and purpose of this scheme—redistribution of wealth.
And of course now Pelosi and the democrats have taken up the cry all in the name of “helping the working class folks” of course. Here is what Speaker Pelosi said:
Tax ’em all: “I believe that the transaction tax still has a great deal of merit. The concern that many of us or others have had is that it will send, it will send transactions overseas. … The fact is, what we are talking about is a global transaction [tax], something that we would do in conjunction with other G nations, whether it is G8, G20, whatever the current G number is. Because it is really a source of revenue that has really minimal impact on the transaction, but a tremendous impact on helping us meet our needs. I think there would be a market for it among the American people to say that we are all participating in the economic prosperity of our country, and we are all pitching in to continue that prosperity.” –House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) touting a tax on stocks, bonds and other financial transactions.
This is nothing more that what George Soros has been waiting to do for a number of years now. With his “sock puppet” in place and the introduction of the idea by Pelosi look out folks cause here it comes. Just another step toward relegating the US to a member of a One World Government.
George Soros had taken the Tobin Tax a step farther and created what he calls SDRs, or Special Drawing Rights, which is the method by which the taxes would be distributed. SDRs are part of a country’s official foreign exchange reserves. They serve as a means of payment among Fund members. IMF creates SDRs “through a process of allocation and distribution to IMF members (International Monetary Members, created by the UN).” Before the U.S. could become involved in this scheme, it would have to be implemented by the U.S. Congress. Now hang on and you will see shortly how Barack Hussein Obama and his Global Poverty Bill fits into this scheme. Soros sees in this pending SDR allocation a readily available means “to finance the provision of public goods on a global scale as well as to foster economic, social, and political progress in individual countries …” (Richer countries would donate their SDR allocations to specific improvement projects in poorer countries. Poorer countries would keep their allocations as an addition to their monetary reserves. Can you say, redistribution of wealth?)
Projects worthy of funding proposed by poorer countries would win a place on an approved list created by an independent international board to be set up by the IMF. “Eminent persons”(rest assured that George Soros would be the appointer) appointed for fixed terms and free of control by their governments would make up this board.
Donor countries, using their SDR allocations, would choose to fund any program from the list created by the international board. But unlike the usual practice in traditional foreign aid, the donor countries would not control the programs. An audit commission, separate from the international board, would monitor and evaluate. Donors’ choices would be made public. Soros would limit the initial round of eligible programs to a few high-priority areas such as public health, education, information technology, or judicial reform.
The IMF’s international board would thus work roughly the way philanthropic foundations work. Poorer countries would submit a proposal to the board the way, say, a college now submits a proposal to, say, the Mellon Foundation. But the board’s approval of a program would merely be an enabling act. A richer donor country, interested in giving its SDR credits to a poorer country, would have to step up and select a project for funding from the list of approved projects. In doing so, it would be agreeing to follow the rules established by the board and IMF. Those rules would aim at keeping the donor country from using the “grant” for its own political purposes; and they would aim to place responsibility for executing the program in the hands of locals who were not agents of their governments. So far this type of system has failed but regardless there are those who will continue to call for such redistribution of wealth.