cybercoma Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) On this one. People saving money instead of overconsuming to the point of economy-crushing debt would help. Debt doesn't crush the economy. Without debt the economy would collapse. The only time people saving would be a problem is if there was a problem with overinflation. Seeing as we're coming out of a strong recession, that's not exactly a problem is it? And if you're so concerned about debt, how is making it more expensive for the poor and working-poor to buy things like medicine and groceries going to correct that? It's probably going to make it worse. Edited February 25, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) Debt doesn't crush the economy. Without debt the economy would collapse. The only time people saving would be a problem is if there was a problem with overinflation. Seeing as we're coming out of a strong recession, that's not exactly a problem is it? And if you're so concerned about debt, how is making it more expensive for the poor and working-poor to buy things like medicine and groceries going to correct that? It's probably going to make it worse. Some debt is necessary. Excessive debt is bad. See mortgage crisis. As for the poor, any serious suggestion to raise consumption taxes always includes giving GST (or whatever the tax would be called) credits/refunds to those with low income anyway. Edited February 25, 2012 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 The problem is that it's on medicine and groceries. I can't stress enough how opposed to that I am. I'm not at all opposed to raising GST back to where it was at and neither are the majority of economists from my understanding. However, they sure as hell better not add it to necessities like groceries and medicine. In fact, they should take it off heating fuel as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) I'm focused on consumption taxes being a "disincentive to consume" because that's exactly what you said. Now you're saying it's not going to affect consumption because it allows them to reduce income tax. If you were to re-read my post at #15 you would see that I am talking about consumption taxes being a disincentive to "consume crap." I also state, immediately above that line, that consumption taxes help reduce income taxes. Your implication of "now" is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. But if they're just going to balance out a rise in the GST with a reduction in income taxes, what's the point other than to increase the burden on the poor? Their income taxes are already low and a much larger proportion of their income is consumed, if not all of it. Thus it disproportionately affects them and will hinder profits to companies by being a "disincentive to consume", although I wouldn't exactly call it that. What it does in actuality is leaves less money for the poor to purchase the things that they need, in this case medicine and groceries as well as all other consumables, How convenient of you to ignore in post #9 where I mention an increase to the GST/HST tax credit. [This leads me to lean towards dishonesty rather than disingenuous] Poor people in Canada who file income tax returns do not pay GST/HST because they get money back each quarter. while the government turns around and hands that money over to those that are doing just fine in the form of tax breaks and billion dollar incentives to corporations. It doesn't help the economy at all because businesses can't grow if people are increasingly finding it more difficult to buy things. Money needs to stay in the hands of the people. Through the markets they ought to decide what businesses get their money and what businesses don't. Businesses also can't grow if people's after-income tax earnings don't allow them to buy things. Edited February 25, 2012 by msj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 yeah, not gonna happen, why not tax the rich? what is with these ... Why don't we just go with a-holes for now ? I think that's called a bowlderism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Why is it people feel "the rich" should start being taxed more and not others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Why is it people feel "the rich" should start being taxed more and not others? Because the "rich" have a greater ability to pay taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Because the "rich" have a greater ability to pay taxes. Well what is classified as "rich" and how do we know they have a greater ability to pay taxes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 I'm sorry, wtf does an economist at U of Calgary have to do with Harper? It's just another illustration of the on-going problem of Harper Derangment Syndrome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Well what is classified as "rich" and how do we know they have a greater ability to pay taxes? Read up on progressive tax systems and why they're used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Read up on progressive tax systems and why they're used. I'm fine with having a progressive tax system but why should people who some classify as "rich" be expected to have their taxes raised when the economy starts having problems? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 I'm fine with having a progressive tax system but why should people who some classify as "rich" be expected to have their taxes raised when the economy starts having problems? Because the "rich" have had their taxes significantly lowered over the last 30-40 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Well what is classified as "rich" and how do we know they have a greater ability to pay taxes? I dont think its a matter of "rich" really. The government has to tax money where it EXISTS. If you control 90% of GDP, and I control 10% of GDP then the government is going to need to take a lot more money from you than it will from me. Progressive income tax is also there for political and economic reasons. Its not healthy for democracy for wealth to concentrate beyond certain levels because political power concentrates too. Mechanisms like graduated income tax, and estate taxation didnt just spring from a vacuum. People didnt like living in an aristrocracy where a few nobles controlled everything, and the nobles started to get uncomfortable with it too, because when a small percentage of the population controls too much of a nations wealth they tend to get rounded up from time to time, and slaughtered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 I'm fine with having a progressive tax system but why should people who some classify as "rich" be expected to have their taxes raised when the economy starts having problems? Well... a government should set tax rates based on what it needs to collect in revenue. Its not going to help the economy in the long term to run big deficits, and governments are just as scared of cutting spending in bad economic times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Because the "rich" have had their taxes significantly lowered over the last 30-40 years. This is historically ignorant. Try the past 10 to 15 years. But then, everyone's taxes have been significantly lowered in the past 10 to 15 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) This is historically ignorant. Try the past 10 to 15 years. But then, everyone's taxes have been significantly lowered in the past 10 to 15 years. I know... so based on supply side economic theory clearly those low taxes must have lead us to the strongest economy ever! Hmmmmmm... Not really. Besides a spurt of strong growth in the 90's thanks to the internet, the economy hasnt performed very well, and inflation adjusted wages have been basically stagnant for quite some time. I think the whole political philosophy behind regression taxation (which is the ideology behind consumption taxes) has been pretty much totally discredited. We dont have faster economic growth on these low income tax rates, than we had when rates were very high. Regressive schemes dont work because our economy is so dependant on taxation. This is really all just a big shell game because consumers pay ALL taxes at the end of the day anyways. If you tax business income at a higher rate, the ammount a consumer has to pay for a product goes up. If you tax consumption the ammount a consumer has to pay for a product goes up. We should have one simple system (graduated income tax) and if you want to move the tax burden you just tweak the formula. Its not going to make any damn difference. The money still all ends up in the same place. Collecting money from people then giving that exact same money back in rebates is just a waste of time and resources, and it complicates transactions between individuals in society. They oughtta abolish consumption taxes, modify the progressive tax rate formula so that the tax burder is set where they want it, and apply the same formula to investment income that is applied on wage income. You could potentially have a very small and simple tax code, and one simple collections branch. Edited February 25, 2012 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 This is really all just a big shell game because consumers pay ALL taxes at the end of the day anyways. If you tax business income at a higher rate, the ammount a consumer has to pay for a product goes up. If you tax consumption the ammount a consumer has to pay for a product goes up. This is true, and is the reason why we should have 0% corp taxes. Keep private sector jobs in Canada, grow the REAL tax base, and consumers get lower prices. As far as consumption taxes, I think it is more palatable to divide up taxes in this manner because people in higher income brackets will be pissed off if you raise their tax rates to 60% of income. People making 100k already pay 60% taxes if they own a home and consume enough. I think msj's suggestion is a reasonable compromise which will still decrease bureaucracy, just not quite as much. The full tax strategy would be the flat consumption tax on everything with gst rebates, 0% corporate taxes, progressive income taxes, and higher basic personal amounts like Alberta's. Cut a lot of the welfare/social support system to get people working since 20k will go a long way with lower prices and no taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 I know... so based on supply side economic theory clearly those low taxes must have lead us to the strongest economy ever! Hmmmmmm... Not really. Besides a spurt of strong growth in the 90's thanks to the internet, the economy hasnt performed very well, and inflation adjusted wages have been basically stagnant for quite some time. I think the whole political philosophy behind regression taxation (which is the ideology behind consumption taxes) has been pretty much totally discredited. We dont have faster economic growth on these low income tax rates, than we had when rates were very high. Regressive schemes dont work because our economy is so dependant on taxation. This is really all just a big shell game because consumers pay ALL taxes at the end of the day anyways. If you tax business income at a higher rate, the ammount a consumer has to pay for a product goes up. If you tax consumption the ammount a consumer has to pay for a product goes up. We should have one simple system (graduated income tax) and if you want to move the tax burden you just tweak the formula. Its not going to make any damn difference. The money still all ends up in the same place. Collecting money from people then giving that exact same money back in rebates is just a waste of time and resources, and it complicates transactions between individuals in society. They oughtta abolish consumption taxes, modify the progressive tax rate formula so that the tax burder is set where they want it, and apply the same formula to investment income that is applied on wage income. You could potentially have a very small and simple tax code, and one simple collections branch. I really don't think people really know what they are talking about. This is Canada - not the US. The corporate tax rates didn't start to go down until the early 2000's and are just reaching the end of the downward cycle. The cuts have been very slowly implemented. GST came in in 1991 and has been an important part of reducing our federal debt. In BC we have had a PST since the 1940's and then the HST since July, 2010 and now the PST again in April, 2013. Income taxes generally went up through the 1970;s, 80's, and 90's (capital gains started to get taxed after 1972, then they went through many changes to eliminate things like principal residence exemption for 2 homes per couple to 1, take the lifetime capital gains exemption away in 1995 etc....) The 1990's in Canada are not remembered that fondly as being a great time with the increased taxation (remember tax brackets were not indexed between 1990 and 2000). We didn't really start to see meaningful income tax cuts until 2001 through to 2005. Only seniors have seen meaningful income tax cuts since that time with pension splitting. Yes, Mulroney did lower some tax rates (and eliminate tax brackets) but compared to the clawbacks implemented (EI and OAS), turning tax deductions into tax credits and other nonsense the PC's and LPC's were able to wrestle the deficit down. through tax increases and some spending cuts. We are not talking about applying the Laffer curve to Canada. In BC we are talking taking the top marginal tax rate (combined federal/provincial) down from 55% in 1999 to 44% today. I think most people would recognize reducing a top marginal tax rate to under 50% as being reasonable. In the meantime, we have seen people who are "poor" go from paying a low amount of tax to nothing thanks to increasing the basic personal exemption and implementing other policies (working income tax benefit at the federal level, in BC a special tax reduction for low income people). Now, I doubt people like you or CC know any of these facts. Yet you will spout off on some broad brush big picture nonsense about how we need to end this tax and implement that tax. I'll take the economists advice on this instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilter Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) Back to the article, the study makes some interesting conclusions. I don't doubt that it is the wealthy that spend the most on medicine and food. From my experience, most people who are poor don't see a doctor or get meds unless they are on death's door... and they obviously spend a lot less on food. If you're on a tight budget you can get by with $200/mo on food if you shop for discounts at the grocery store. If you are wealthy you can spend $200 a day at fancy restaurants. most people who are poor don't see a doctor or get meds unless they are on death's door. Wrong, there is universal Medical for everyone in Canada. People, poor or rich are covered & the poor get taken care of long before they are at "death's door" Poor people don't spend as much because facelifts aren't at the top of the want list for waitresses & School teachers so they don't go to private clinics for those, nor do they they spend a lot of time getting liposuction or nosejobs. If you are wealthy you can spend $200 a day at fancy restaurants.Wow--- 200 bux a day--- where do you think these people go ---to Rotten Ronnie's?Rich people spend that on the bottle of wine they order at their 500 buck dinner. Edited February 28, 2012 by Tilter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Wow--- 200 bux a day--- where do you think these people go ---to Rotten Ronnie's? Rich people spend that on the bottle of wine they order at their 500 buck dinner. You don't get rich by exorbitant spending. I know a few rich people, and they are all very frugal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sa'adoni Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) I'm sure if you watched the evening news you heard about the economist from the U of Calgary, saying the government should place GST on EVERYTHING, including food and medicine, so the government could take more money in and help out the lower income more. He thinks the 100,000 incomers shouldn't get the benefits the low income need, like no GST on food. I don't know if this is another fishing events on the Tories part, but people won't stand for this one. IF they want more money than hit the 100,000 incomers with an increase in taxes or reduce a write on their incomes but leave the food and medicines alone. Thoughts? http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120224/food-economists-gst-120224/ GST should be compeltely scrapped and replaced with a direct DEBT TAX that apays down municipal debt, if there is no municipal debt it should go to the province, if no provincial debt it should go to the federation. BUT NO I don't think it should exist. GST WAS IMPLEMENTED TO PAY DOWN THE DEBT NOT GENERATE REVENUE 100% OF GST SHOULD BE APPLIED TO PAY DOWN THE DEBT! LIKEWISE NO DEFICIT SPENDING UNTIL THE DEBT IS PAID OFF.... IF YOU WANT SPECIAL MILITARY TAXES INTRODUCE THEM AS SUCH, STOP ACCUMULATING GENERAL REVENUE FOR PARISAN PET PROJECTS PAY OFF THE DEBT AND STOP STEALING FROM THE PUBLIC TO EMBEZZLE MONEY TO YOUR CRONIES! IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE LAST CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY GOVERNMENT THAT THE TAX WAS IMPLEMENTED IN THE FIRST PLACE TO OFFSET DEBT ACCUMULATED AFTER ALL THE PRIVATIZATIONS OF PUBLIC ASSETS WERE EXHAUSTED. NOW THEY ARE TAKING THAT 2% REDUCTION THAT BOUGHT THEM AN ELECTION AND INCREASING IT!!! WHAT SCAMMERS! right right its not happening only a suggestion... PAY DOWN THE DEBT AND STOP DEFICIT SPENDING KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS HAS ONLY DEMONSTRATED THAT COUNTRIES GO IN DEBT WHEN THEY DEFICIT SPEND! We should see how austrialia has used or NOT used keynesian economics TO BE A DEBT FREE COUNTRY! SHAME ON CANADA AND THE PARTISAN THEIVES IN OFFICE! http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1496/PDF/01_Debt.pdf THE EXTRA MONEY RAISED THROUGH EXPANDING GST TAXATION COULD BE GAINED BY SIMPLY NOT SPENDING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON DEFENCE EQUIPMENT THAT WONT DEFEND CANADA IN A WAR AND APPLYING THAT TO NOT GOING IN DEBT THAT MONEY SAVING 50% OF THAT AMOUNT ON DEBT REPAYMENT AND INTEREST INCURED DUE TO EXPEnDITURES THAT HAVE NO ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO CANADA! EXAMPLE WHY BUY OVER A 1000 BUNKER BURSTING GUIDED BOMB CASINGS? THAT IS 2x the number of bombs canada has bought and it only has a handful of aircraft... ??? LIKE OVER A BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF GUIDED BOMBS? WHO IS CANADA ATTACKING? OR ARE WE BOMBING OURSELVES IN DEFENCE? What are purchases like this for? http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/articles/20110525.aspx What are 50 f35's for? What is a new navy for in an age of missiles that will sink those boats in seconds or railguns that can do it from over 150 km away? Is there a reason Russia or china can't make these over the next decade? http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/12/13/navys-new-railgun-shoots-at-mach-7-can-hit-targets-100-miles-away/ Or what about these? Are these not going to make the f35 defence irrelevant? http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/04/27/darpa-loses-contact-with-mach-20-hypersonic-glider-during-test-flight/ Like look at what was achieved with the peacekeeper 40 years ago... the think could deliver nuclear Armageddon anywhere in the world in minutes. Why throw 100 billion dollars at the last generations toys of war? That could reduce the debt load eliminating 1/3rd of the debt the CPC under Stephen Harper has accumulated in office. Reducing total debt accumulated since 1867 by close to 1/6th. The f35 is 20 year old technology, and I can see that there is anything modern in the new Navy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118_Peacekeeper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman The US is down to 450 of these things, the least canada can do is aquire them instead of seeing them scrapped. It is the Iraqification of America, we should pick up missiles before they are trashed. Notice how the missiles are good until 2030.. the US ought to have even more advanced missiles by that point. THE PAST WAY OF MAKING WAR WILL BECOME INCREASINGLY REDUDANT ONLY 5 or 10 years after the planes and boats enter service.. IT IS A WASTE OF TAX PAYER DOLLARS! We could focus a high powered laser on something and burn it like a bug by then. Reducing Seniors Pension Benfits is not the only way to reduce the public debt. Why should Canadians pensions be going to US companies executive bonuses and American Pensions? http://www.asian-defence.net/2011/05/usa-f-35-jsf-vs-russian-su-35s.html Oh and the SU 35 has a price tag half that of the f35. if not less. Edited February 28, 2012 by Sa'adoni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Australia eliminated their net debt, something that Canada was on track to do before the recession, and and will soon be on track to do again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sa'adoni Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) Australia eliminated their net debt, something that Canada was on track to do before the recession, and and will soon be on track to do again. Was, A REAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T DEVIATE FROM A PLAN, IT WORKS. JUST LIKE PEOPLE CAN. GOVERNMENT COSTS SHOULD NOT INCREASE, THEY SHOULD DECREASE IF PRODUCTIVITY DECLINES. INCREASING DEBT ONLY SHOWS INCOMPETENCE OF ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT! There is no reason why spending should go up if productivity declines. On the contrary there should be less demand, and thus only esssential services would be required. IF productivity decreases so should spending proportional to the drop in revenue intake from incomes stream like taxes. Inflation likewise could be increase and taxes on wealth transfer to prevent asset flight. WEALTH PRODUCTION IS GAURENTEED IF CONSUMPTION(and waste) IS LOWER THAN PRODUCTION. If Canada directs the unemployed to non perishable resources accumulation wealth will be insured. EI makes people lazy. It should be mandatory work or employment training, send them to the mines and otherwise develop the resources of the land. Co-Op gardens, the EMPTY factories making essential goods. END IMPORTS AND BUY VICTORY PRODUCTS FOR A MORE PRODUCTIVE AND WEALTHY DEBT FREE CANADA WWIII THE WAR ON DEBT! IiI IiI IiI THE WAR ON DEBT! LET THE PHAOROHS OF JACOB BE A MODEL TO ENSHRINE! WE SHOULD STORE FOR TIMES OF LACK NOT BLAZE IN THE SIN OF INDULGANCE OF SODOM FOR SODOMIZATION WILL NOT BE ENJOYED BY MANY. END TAX SODOMY THAT DEBT SPENDING BRINGS AND END ECONOMIC SODOMY PROGRAMS OF THE SODOMSYMPATHIZERS THE CPC! If every Canadian earning more than 46,000 just put in a one time payment of 10% their income our debt would be gone, instead they are likely buying 10 bonds and adding to our future debt. Why a bonus when earnings are already more than the rest of Canadians? We need a YEAR OF CLEANSING!!!! STRUGGLE FOR 1 YEAR.. CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT IF YOU WANT TO DO GOOD FOR CANADA MAKE A 1 YEAR DEBT TAX ON THE WEALTHY TO REMOVE THE DEBT IN TOTALITY! IT IS MOSTLY NEGLIGIBLE BECAUSE THEY LIKELY OWN MOST OF THAT ANYWAY. END CANADIANS SODIMIZATION DO GOOD FOR CANADA GOD COMMANDETH THEE! 11. DO NOT ACCUMULATE DEBT FOR IT BRINGS THE SODOMIZATION OF THE PEOPLE! IT IS NOT A DEFAULT IT IS A CLEansing. 365 days TO FREE CANADA... GOD DID IT FOR ISRAEL MORE THAN ONCE.. DO IT FOR CANADA JUST THIS ONCE... A YEAR OF CLEANSING... stop debt. WITH PUBLIC GARDENS, PUBLIC HOUSING, AND FOOD STOCKPILES WE CAN DO IT! THE NATIVES had less than modern Canadians. 1 year is all it will take... ONE YEAR OF WEALTH TAX... TO END THE DEBT (it will not only pay down the debt but alongside stoping bonds and tbills Canada can eliminate 90% of the capability to accrue future debt. They just arn't doing it right. They are giving future benefits to the rich instead of taxing on a basis that pays for today. Why isn't that threshold just shifted so that the rich pay an equal share? And that we reduce excess unneeded spending. IT IS SANITY. The ways of yesteryear are unfair to the public, irresponsible to the public and just plane WRONG. Morally corrupt, and evil. We need an ECONOMIC REVOLUTION .. WE NEED PEOPLE THAT ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE PUBLIC BENEFIT NOT THE RICH ALONE. RAISE ARMS IN SOLIDARITY.. EVISCERATE! FOR AN UNYOKED FUTURE !!! FREE THE PEOPLE FROM THE EXTORTION AND SLAVERY MURDER THE DEBT KILL THE INCOME TAX. SLAUGHTER THE GST! FREE THE PEOPLE ONLY TAX FOR WHAT IS GIVEN AND IS DEMANDED BY THE PEOPLE! NO MORE CLOUD LINING! NO MORE LINING THE POCKETS OF THE CORRUPT, THE ELECTION RIGGERS AND THE PARTISAN BLOCK, RAISE THE VOICE FOR THE PEOPLE RATHER THAN THE PARTY OF CORRUPT AND TAINTED IRRESPONSIBLE RULE. RISE UP! RISE! UP! EVISCERATE! FORGET OCCUPATION!!! LIBERATE!!!! LIBERATE CANADA FROM THE RULE OF SATAN! THE RULE OF SODOM! THE RULE OF STEPHEN HARPER! RISE UP AND LIBERATE FOR YOUR CHILDREN, FOR THEIR CHILDREN, FOR YOUR RETIREMENT! RISE UP! Now before Ms. Frank is in a cattle car with the rest of the cows. End the inferno that is being unleashed by false economic policies! RISE. The Harper Government is failing the to uphold the LAW. The Lord will open his excellent treasure, the heaven, that it may give rain in due season: and he will bless all the works of your hands. And you shall lend to many nations, and shall not borrow of any one. 13 And the Lord shall make you the head and not the tail: and you shall be always above, and not beneath: yet so if you will hear the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you this day, and keep and do them, 14 and turn not away from them neither to the right hand, nor to the left, nor follow strange gods, nor worship them. But if you will not hear the voice of the Lord your God, to keep and to do all his commandments and ceremonies, which I command you this day, all these curses shall come upon you, and overtake you 16 Cursed shall you be in the city, cursed in the field. 17 Cursed shall be your barn, and cursed your stores. 18 Cursed shall be the fruit of your womb, and the fruit of your ground, the herds of your oxen, and the flocks of your sheep. 19 Cursed shall you be coming in, and cursed going out. END THE DEBT! Edited February 28, 2012 by Sa'adoni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Was, A REAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T DEVIATE FROM A PLAN, IT WORKS. THERE WAS A MASSIVELY DEEP WORLD WIDE RECESSION, if you hadn't heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman The US is down to 450 of these things, the least canada can do is aquire them instead of seeing them scrapped. LOL! Build your own....they have to be scrapped by treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.