Your Questions About Wealth Creation

Donald asks…

What are the FAQ on wealth creation?

Wealth creation can also be referred to as financial freedom, financial independence, prosperity

admin answers:

There really is no way for an easy answer you have to figure what your financial questions are and what are the answers you need and are seeking. Most important answer though for anyone and everyone would to start savings accounts, emergency accounts, retirement accounts, remember that you never should stop learning learning about everything and anything may one day help you move up in the working world. Wealth creation is learning to live with what you got, not wanting more but being happy with what you have, giving to others that need it, no being selfish, learning to respect others, being honest may also help.

Mary asks…

Discuss the trade-off between wealth creation and social harm? Which is more important?

admin answers:

To whom?

The rich can live well anywhere. They can afford gated communities, hiring private armies, etc. They don’t care about the general welfare and hence social harm.

For the rest of the population, of what use is any wealth if the social fabric is so strained that you can’t feel safe?

Of course the difference is never just one decision, and the costs and benefits associated with any one decision may well seem so small as to be not worth worrying about.

Yet it is clear that the push to wealth creation has pushed the human population to beyond the carrying capacity of the Earth:

which means that a day of reckoning will be coming.

Some have argued that the original mistake was taking up agriculture.

Lizzie asks…

What do you think will happen to wealth and job creation?

33 MIllion Americans do NOT pay taxes. Obama wants to increase that number to 66 million. Leaving the tax bill to the rest increasing the bill to higher tax payers to 140 billion dollars. The biggest Wealth redistribution in the History of America. You cannot make the Poor rich by making the Rich POOR.

admin answers:

“What do you think will happen to wealth and job creation?”

What job creation? There won’t be any. And you can thank NObama for that.

Daniel asks…

Is it fair to say Jesus was/is pro wealth creation?

spiritual wealth that is …

“For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.” Mt. 25:29.

admin answers:

Yes. As the Parable of the Talents indicates, we are expected to invest what we have, whether material wealth or understanding of God’s plan, and develop new wealth and understanding.

For those who said that Jesus was against material wealth, he merely said it could be a distraction and a danger, but he told a number of parables likening the pursuit of God with seeking material gain–the Pearl of Great Price, the Treasure Buried in the Field, the Talents. It is only when a person becomes narrowly focused on money for its own sake that he begins to act foolishly, e.g., in building new barns for possessions that will never be used, rather than taking on the greater challenge of living the gospel.

As your quote shows, Jesus saw knowledge of and faith in the gospel, along with the attitudes and skills of living as a child of God, to be things that accumulate as they are sought and applied. If we do nothing with the gift of knowledge and love that comes from God, we lose it.


Lisa asks…

Why do Conservatives confuse distributing the ‘means of wealth creation’ with distributing ‘wealth’?

Every American has the potential to contribute enormously to the development and sustainability of the U.S. But, factors such as education & healthcare, play a massive role in how well they are able to do so. It only takes a fraction of a the U.S. GDP (less than it spends annually on war) to provide 2 things that will ensure that every citizen later has the knowledge and physical strength necessary to do so.

You are giving people a fishing lesson with these 2 things, you are not giving your fish

admin answers:

Exactly, a person who cannot get healthcare is a person who cannot work. A person who does not get a good primary education, and subsidized college education, is a person who is one less doctor, lawyer, and small business owner

Powered by Yahoo! Answers


Your Questions About Wealth Creation

William asks…

What are the contributions of marketing to employment and wealth creation in the US?

admin answers:

I don’t know and I don’t care. Oh, and you asked the question in the wrong section.

Sharon asks…

Is it true that markets are a necessary evil for the creation of wealth?

It’s often said by people on the left that while the abolition of regulation will cause markets to eat themselves, the abolition of markets will cause starvation. Is it true that (regulated) markets are a necessary evil for the creation of wealth?

Because if it’s not, then I guess I’m a Marxist.

admin answers:

There needs to be some marketing system,
The control of that, and ownership, is the issue.

Steven asks…

Workplace diversity and wealth creation?

Could enhancing workplace diversity contribute to increased shareholder wealth? How?

Could enhancing workplace diversity hinder wealth creation? How?

I have been researching these two questions and have not found any good leads. Could anyone point me to a good website for information on these questions or post what you think about the questions?

All help is greatly appreciated!!!

admin answers:

Sadly I have not solid resource other then my work experience. Diversity training in the work place doesn’t increase profits. It only waste time on tasks teaching this oppose to getting a project done. Reason I feel this way is diversity training is mainly mocked among employees and childhood environment plays more of a roll on weather a person can relate to co-workers and be diverse. So no increase to shareholder wealth decrease value due to cost to start program. With the second question wealth creation remains the same. Whether diversity increases or not.

Carol asks…

What is motilal oswal wealth creation strategy?

admin answers:

Every year, Mr Raamdeo Agrawal, Joint Managing Director, Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd, commissions an Annual Wealth Creation Study. Initiated in 1996, the Wealth Creation Study is an annual study which identifies the fastest, the biggest and the most consistent wealth creators in the Indian markets over the last 5 years.

Laura asks…

What is the secret of wealth creation?

Who, in your eyes, is truly wealthy ( not in dollar-value but in happiness value, too ). When do you reach your next financial goal? Where is the one city on earth catering to the creation of wealth? Why do you even want to fight poverty?

admin answers:

Nicole Kidman and Angelina Jolie are truly wealthy with their lives, but for common wealth, oprah a few other that like to publicise that they do charity work, its the silent ones we should praise, cause they dont just give money, but they time and of themselves and thats more important. Most others its just greed! I like to see equality and dont like seeing people with no shoes or no home, we dont have a lot cause we are on a pension, but we have a roof over our heads, food in our tummies, and clothes and shoes, so we are rich compared to others standards!

Powered by Yahoo! Answers


Your Questions About Wealth Creation Economics

Helen asks…

Is this Britains policy on Domestic poverty?

Protect our the creation of a “hated and despised underclass”.


If the non beneficiaries of capitalism were treated with any sympathy – through the media, this would essentially mean redistribution, high taxes, high inflation, and a drop in the value of your savings…and our economic model and society would be brought into disrepute.

1) Every single poor person – must now be portrayed as either dumb, inferior, morally bankrupt, uneducated, unskilled, illiterate, undeserving or criminal.

Every Single One.

There cannot be a minority of undeserving poor, or a list of people – who have been let down of left behind, through our necessary poor and unequal distribution of wealth or employment opportunity. The media must continually broadcast this message to allow this perception to grow in the public. This will create stability and a moral faith in our society as a whole.

2) There must be a whole vocabulary established that instantly discredits the poor.

Some examples are…
Young adults – being failed by our societies vastly expensive housing economics must be labelled Mummies Boys.

3) There must be absolutely no vocabulary that discredits us.

4) If there is criticism – it can easily be dismissed with tried and tested Victorian esq. language such as

5) You must never at any time resort to the language of the underclass.

6) The poor must never be able to take the moral high ground, even if they have spent the last fifteen years writing out application forms, for every minute of every day, or they somehow manage to get very qualified, skilled and experienced in areas such as voluntary work.

7)“Chinks” must always be exposed in their moral or ethical or intellectual armour.

Our society (and your sustained wealth) now desperately rely on the creation of the perception of our moral superiority..

8) We will turn the society against itself – on the basis of employed/unemployed, by creating an environment where the poor / working man moralise and judge themselves, and not either us or our perfect system.

9) The exception must always be the rule, to now protect our ageist, elitist, low opportunity, poverty dependant and discriminatory society.

10) Any abuse of the system must be developed, and encouraged to have maximum impact and then thoroughly exploited through the media – to maintain the illusion of the criminality in the poor.

11) A perception of a perfect moral and rewarding world through “work” (even if there in no employment) must survive, at all costs…through the creating of heroes and villains. It is suggested we create a perception of an abundance of work society by publishing the case of illegal aliens and illegal workers.

12) The plight of the poor in other countries – must be put at the forefront of of any debate of this issues, to divert attention from the poor people of Britian.

By creating this environment, we will protect YOUR WEALTH, and YOUR economic stability – and will instill terror in the critics of our poverty dependant society.

Carry On.

admin answers:

Being one of the benefit claiming council house dwelling uneducated social parasites that people on here are always whining about (who gets thousands of pounds and produces one illegitimate child after the other) i have to agree with you. But even though my answer makes no sense my English is poor my spelling is terrible and my punctuation non existent (as i often get told if i have the cheek to ask a question or in the unlikely event of me thinking i might have an answer) i will try to answer this one.The patronising pompous know it alls should think themselves lucky that they had the chance to get an education find a job and be able to afford a house and a car .they should get on with they’re own life instead of making assumptions about people who they know nothing about no body wants to live in poverty and have no hope of getting out of it unless they`re crazy ,and do these people who point there finger know how much an unemployed person actually gets a single person on benefit gets about £50 a week they still have to pay water rates gas electric TV licence food and with whats left they can buy cigs and go to the pub every day ,living the life of Riley arn`t they.Well none of the superior class knows what might be around the corner ,cause tomorrow they could get knocked of their perch and and find them self among the socially inferior and lucky enough to live in our privileged lifestyle i wonder if they would still go on about how great it is.

Mandy asks…

Conservatives/Republicans who are also scientists: from a purely scientific standpoint, doesn’t it strike you?

as a little pathetic that with all the non-stop talk that we get from Corporate America about “synergy, innovation, new ideas, etc.” that we haven’t developed a more comprehensive basket of energy resources? Doesn’t it strike you as incredibly lame that the on-going solution to our nation’s energy needs has been “get more oil”?

Let’s take this all the way back to Adam Smith: in his book “The Wealth of Nations” – considered by many to be the founding text of modern economics – Smith outlined two means of creating wealth:

1. The development of as yet unused natural resources (by which he meant not just developing new stores of resources already in use but also the development of technologies that would permit the creation of social utility using materials that were largely ignored)

2. The development of ways to extend the useful life of existing resources. i.e. efficiency.

To me, it seems quite strange that our country has developed a willful ignorance of these basic economic precepts and there is an on-going demand that we ignore the development of alternative resources and focus solely on a single resource.

Maxwell, your statement about btus/kg is correct, but we also don’t use anywhere near the full energy potential of gasoline. 65% of the btus in gasoline go out the tailpipe of the car. Use of micro-turbines in a hybrid power arrangement could increase that figure dramatically, but car-makers have willfully avoided using that kind of technology, even though technology for the various components has existed since the 60s. The real problem with energy is a wholesale failure of the free market to provide the kind of innovation that they claim is there stock in trade.

admin answers:

We achieved nuclear, but society shunned its further development after 3-mile and chenobyl

The problem is, we simply haven’t found an alternate form of energy that contains the stored energy per kg that fossil fuels contain that is anywhere near as usable or cheap.

We have gotten markedly better even in automobiles with getting more energy out of the gas we do burn compared to 20 years ago.

The hybrid tech is growing, and there have been a couple of turbine vehicle engines introduced, but society has yet to be on board with them yet. I think when a hybrid car implements a high efficiency turbine to run a generator, it will be a hit with the public.

I think the problem is more the market inertia than the technology on that front. People are afraid to be the first to invest in new things, and that goes for the manufacturer and the customer. So in that respect our progress is slow.

Linda asks…

How do you feel about bailing out the liberal banking cartel after the bubbles that they nurtured burst?

especially now as they are off again with naked longs and naked shorts, this time with tax payers money.

Liberal Lassiez faire economics until it goes wrong then liberal socialism to bail out their companies. This boom bust cycle is not an unavoidable cycle, its a deliberate creation, nurturing and destruction of bubbles that transfers wealth up the chain.

I wonder why we allow it and why people like Ron Paul are seen as crazy for speaking against them. Well, maybe he is crazy, Kennedy took the same position.

Bit of a rant I know but Im annoyed by this and Im annoyed by the lack of real information thats given to the public as they worship another wall st. / military industrial complex / globalist puppet and vote him into power when there was an other option.
Treacy, above and beyond the left / right bait and switch system theres is the group that are behind modern globalist liberalism, its more or less the British Empire, associated banking families and de facto owners of the US fiancial system and government.

You know, the people that indoctrinate society with the falshood that average white people were responsible for their wars, slavery, classism and sexism.
and you didnt answer me, how do you feel about the debt that you and all your decendants will never escape from, defaults will result in the US handing over natural resources to private banks.
American liberalism was adopted, infultrated and corrupted by elements of the british empire after your war of independence.

There is more to the UKs and Americas “special relationship” than the public know.
Well said Capone, we need to clear them out.
Everyone please have a read of I LUV U’s answer.

admin answers:

Honestly, anyone know got burned because of the 06 housing bubble deserves to get burned because of personnel stupidity.

In a healthy economy the burst would of been painful but not “Next great depression land!”.

We are simply paying the price of shipping all our real job’s over sea’s, runaway immigration, HB1 visa (aka citizen replacement visa).

I have no sympathy for those idiots that thought an adjustable load was a “GREAT” idea.

I figured it out in 06 that it was bad(didn’t think it would have such a domino effect) and yelled at half a dozen people who where thinking about it(half tempted to use those “I told you so’s” but there suffering enough).

The UK is a former Empire that uses America as a crutch since the first world war. I don’t know why we should be so cozy with the red coats(had ancestors that fought in the revolution so call me a traditionalist if I show my dislike for the British crown and people).

America would be better off if we closed our doors and let the Europeans defend themselves.

Donna asks…

What do you think of these ideas for a radical transformation of Christianity?

Here are Matthew Fox’s 95 theses. What do you make of them?
1. God is both Mother and Father.

2. At this time in history, God is more Mother than Father because the feminine is most missing and it is important to bring gender balance back.

3. God is always new, always young and always “in the beginning.”

4. God the Punitive Father is not a God worth honoring but a false god and an idol that serves empire-builders. The notion of a punitive, all-male God, is contrary to the full nature of the Godhead who is as much female and motherly as it is masculine and fatherly.

5. “All the names we give to God come from an understanding of ourselves.” (Eckhart) Thus people who worship a punitive father are themselves punitive.

6. Theism (the idea that God is ‘out there’ or above and beyond the universe) is false. All things are in God and God is in all things (panentheism).

7. Everyone is born a mystic and a lover who experiences the unity of things and all are called to keep this mystic or lover of life alive.

8. All are called to be prophets which is to interfere with injustice.

9. Wisdom is Love of Life (See the Book of Wisdom: “This is wisdom: to love life” and Christ in John’s Gospel: “I have come that you may have life and have it in abundance.”)

10. God loves all of creation and science can help us more deeply penetrate and appreciate the mysteries and wisdom of God in creation. Science is no enemy of true religion.

11. Religion is not necessary but spirituality is.

12. “Jesus does not call us to a new religion but to life.” (Bonhoeffer) Spirituality is living life at a depth of newness and gratitude, courage and creativity, trust and letting go, compassion and justice.

13. Spirituality and religion are not the same thing any more than education and learning, law and justice, or commerce and stewardship are the same thing.

14. Christians must distinguish between God (masculine and history, liberation and salvation) and Godhead (feminine and mystery, being and non-action).

15. Christians must distinguish between Jesus (an historical figure) and Christ (the experience of God-in-all-things).

16. Christians must distinguish between Jesus and Paul.

17. Jesus, not unlike many spiritual teachers, taught us that we are sons and daughters of God and are to act accordingly by becoming instruments of divine compassion.

18. Ecojustice is a necessity for planetary survival and human ethics and without it we are crucifying the Christ all over again in the form of destruction of forests, waters,
species, air and soil.

19. Sustainability is another word for justice, for what is just is sustainable and what is unjust is not.

20. A preferential option for the poor, as found in the base community movement, is far closer to the teaching and spirit of Jesus than is a preferential option for the rich and powerful as found in, for example, Opus Dei.

21. Economic Justice requires the work of creativity to birth a system of economics that is global, respectful of the health and wealth of the earth systems and that works for all.

22. Celebration and worship are key to human community and survival and such reminders of joy deserve new forms that speak in the language of the twenty-first century.

23. Sexuality is a sacred act and a spiritual experience, a theophany (revelation of the Divine), a mystical experience. It is holy and deserves to be honored as such.

24. Creativity is both humanity’s greatest gift and its most powerful weapon for evil and so it ought to be both encouraged and steered to humanity’s most God-like activity which all religions agree is: Compassion.

25. There is a priesthood of all workers (all who are doing good work are midwives of grace and therefore priests) and this priesthood ought to be honored as sacred and workers should be instructed in spirituality in order to carry on their ministry effectively.

26. Empire-building is incompatible with Jesus’ life and teaching and with Paul’s life and teaching and with the teaching of holy religions.

27. Ideology is not theology and ideology endangers the faith because it replaces thinking with obedience, and distracts from the responsibility of theology to adapt the wisdom of the past to today’s needs. Instead of theology it demands loyalty oaths to the past.

28. Loyalty is not a sufficient criterion for ecclesial office—intelligence and proven conscience is.

29. No matter how much the television media fawn over the pope and papacy because it makes good theater, the pope is not the church but has a ministry within the church. Papalolotry is a contemporary form of idolatry and must be resisted by all believers.

30. Creating a church of Sycophants is not a holy thing. Sycophants (Webster’s dictionary defines them as “servile self-seeking flatterers”) are not spiritual people for their only virtue is obedience. A Society of Sycophants — sycophant clergy, sycophant semina

admin answers:

I think they’re great. You should check out this site it is very consistent with these points

Betty asks…

Do liberals really want to create jobs?

If so, why are they endorsing policies that do the complete opposite? Like increasing minimum wage that harms small businesses(meaning less job available), contributes to negative employment rate, inflated cost of commodities, etc? The harmful effects(such as unemployment rate) of raising minimum wage drastically is self-evident in 1950s in the USA. This is just simple supply and demand. There are unintended consequences for distorting equilibrium in the market. To deny this would be going against modern economics.
Why are liberals fund of other state imposed policies that stifles prosperity and coerce the market into stagnation? A brief analysis of OECD 1960-1996 on the effects of government spending revealed that government spending is negatively correlated with growth rate. And why more tax when it impedes job creation in the private sector, consecutively resulting in less wealth growth?
This is not about “correlation does not equal causation” matter, logically speaking the more money people have in their pockets the more likely they will invest, create jobs, etc even if you have other factors that come into play that overshadows this rationally/empirically sound proposition. Most of all, why do liberals complain about cartels and whine about high prices when they were the ones endorsing policies that contribute to high prices, and maintaining oligarchical structure in the market?
Proud Progressive, i provided sources, and stated one of the most fundamental “laws” of economics. Thanks for the reaffirmation of my perception of liberals, proves my point.
stop being whinny and address my arguments or are you liberals too retarded to do so?

admin answers:

Yes, they want to create jobs.
Will their policies work? Probably not.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers


Your Questions About Wealth Creation

Susan asks…

What are some good books to do with wealth creation?

I need to be able to buy them in Australia … maybe on ebay though …

I’m after books with simple tips for dense people like me.

Suggested category – religion and spirituality (give me a break)

admin answers:

“Think & Grow Rich” by Napoleon Hill and “The E-Myth Revisited” by Michael E. Gerber are the ones I’ve found to be the most useful. If you’re looking for one that’s well organized with fairly clear points, “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People” by Stephen Covey is also a good one.

(Yeah, creationists have pretty much ruined the word “creation” for everyone else. :P )

Feel free to use my Amazon Shop just to the right…!

Chris asks…

A.)What has the stock market to do with wealth creation? (or does it only change the value of companies)?

and b.)should/does employment/the employment pattern only follow this evaluation of the stock market?

admin answers:

When stock prices go up people who had invested in those stocks see their stock portfolios go up as well. The extra money they have made on paper can be gotten by them by selling their shares for a profit. They have made money on their investments and thereby their wealth has gone up. Even if they don’t sell their shares at least on paper their portfolios are worth more so they can be said to have gained wealth wise. This is wealth creation whenever stock market goes up in value.

Ruth asks…

If Christianity is the great wealth creation story, why don’t you have shares?

How much money has Christianity made over 2000 years?
How much wealth has been generated?

Yet Christians remain so poor. The shareholders remain impoverished.
Is Christianity one great swindle?

admin answers:

I have a share of eternal life,
life with jesus forever

jesus said..
What does it profit a man to gain the whole world
and lose his own soul ?

John asks…

What liberal policies or ideas actually lead to wealth creation?

Is it the high taxes, big government, socialized medicine, no drilling, gay marriage, or terrorists rights that is supposed to lead me to the “American Dream”? Or don’t you liberals actually give a damn?
Oh yeah, helping a bunch of bums get liberal arts degrees is money well spent. Try again. Oh, and for the jerk who said that investing is “doing nothing”, if it’s so damn easy, why don’t you become a millionaire?

admin answers:

Equal educational opportunities certainly do, as does Healthcare reform. Further, pouring Federal dollars into R & D helps industry. And, Job Training programs allow folks to improve their marketable skills.

Carol asks…

Does gov’t spending in an economy assist in wealth creation or does it hinder it?

So many views on this that one doesn’t know where to start.

admin answers:

Hinders economic growth. It takes resources from private individuals who have their own choices on what to buy, and spends it on what it thinks is better for society. But who knows how to spend money better than the very person who worked for it?

Refer to the broken window fallacy. When government intervenes, society loses.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers


Your Questions About Wealth Creation

William asks…

I am wondering if anyone knows anything about Jamie McIntyre and his wealth creation education? Is it a scam?

I am considering taking part in his wealth creation seminars, but want to knwo if anyone has doen this or if it is a scam before I shell out the money to do his course.

admin answers:

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has successfully brought legal proceedings against McIntyre.

21st Century Academy Pty Ltd (21st Century Academy) and Mr Jamie McIntyre have been ordered by the Federal Court of Australia to stop or change the way they arrange, promote and hold live seminars in Australia.

In making final orders the Federal Court declared that 21st Century Academy had contravened the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act) in that it had carried on a financial services business without holding an Australian financial services licence (AFSL).

The Executive Director of Enforcement at ASIC, Ms Jan Redfern said the Federal Court’s action should remind consumers that it is important to check the credentials of people providing financial advice.

He Court found that 21st Century Academy had provided financial product advice, by arranging, promoting and holding live seminars in Australia to members of the public at which Mr McIntyre spoke about certain strategies involving shares and derivatives. Furthermore, the Court found 21st Century Academy had breached this provision by publishing and promoting a book entitled ‘What I didn’t learn at school but wish I had’. This book contained financial product advice with respect to securities and derivatives.

In relation to Mr McIntyre, the Court declared that he was knowingly concerned in the contraventions of the Act committed by 21st Century Academy. The Court also declared that Mr McIntyre had contravened the Act in that he had provided financial product advice, on behalf of 21st Century Academy, without being authorised to do so by the holder of an AFSL.

As a consequence, the Court granted injunctions to restrain 21st Century Academy and Mr McIntyre from:

* arranging, promoting and holding live seminars in Australia at which advice or recommendations are given in connection with securities and derivatives (including blue-chip shares and exchange traded options) unless that advice is given by the holder of an AFSL or by the authorised representative of an AFSL holder, covering the provision of such advice;
* printing, publishing and distributing written material that promotes and advertises live seminars at which advice or recommendations are given in connection with securities and derivatives, unless that advice is given by the holder of an AFSL, or the authorised representative of an AFSL holder, covering the provision of that advice; and
* printing, publishing and distributing the book ‘What I Didn’t Learn At School But Wish I Had’ (in the form as reprinted in March 2004).

Steven asks…

Why is it that many liberals are unable to comprehend the concept of wealth creation?

One person’s economic success is not necessarily another person’s economic loss. Punishing financial success does not elevate the condition of the general population as a whole.

admin answers:

Because they fail to engage in critical thinking and open-mindedness when anything goes against the grain of their beliefs. As seen by their lack of presence here:;_ylt=Ar4xSg1AOmJNLDeiUSXt3ynsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20100102113948AAPeLTF

Sandra asks…

Describe several ways that governments can foster entrepreneurship and encourage the creation of wealth?

Describe several ways that governments can foster entrepreneurship and encourage the creation of wealth.

admin answers:

I agree with Meg’s comments. Some additional things:

– continue to improve trade relations that reward trade by reducing trade barriers to us goods and services and protecting us intellectual property

– invest in public education and reduce financial barriers to higher education

– reconsider the existing immigrations rules. There are so many people who want to work and live in the us, many of these people came on student visas and are working thru h1b’s. It’s so hard for them to go through this process that many of them opt to just leave the country and go to another developed country where it’s easier to immigrate. These are folks trained in the us, shouldn’t we derive the benefits of their enhanced productivity if they want to live and work here.

– government really needs to do some serious additional policy research. For example, supply siders will tell you that cutting taxes as a rule stimulates investment and thus build wealth. And this has become a sacred cow for repulicans. But an economist will tell you there is a big difference between true investment in the productive assets of a country and financial investment.

– example. Investing in public education and infrastructure is a long term investment that improves the productivity of our labor and infrastructure assets, which creates more good and thus wealth. But merely investing money in the stock market doesn’t actually make the economy more productive in the long run.

– many of the tax cuts have been geared towards rewarding financial investment. Really, we should reconsider the merits of these tax cuts or change the tax code. For instance, instead of having a 15% capital gains tax, it may make more sense to take it back to 20% and compensate by raising the income bar at which student loan interest payments are no longer tax deductible.

Sandy asks…

Is the concept of States competing for businesses really a means of wealth creation?

Or is it like turning an hour glass upside down and saying that because there is sand moving from one end to the other that there is somehow more sand?

admin answers:

It’s a market that became quite popular some years ago. The lowest bidder (a particular state), gets the prize. They will get special tax exemptions that others in that state do not receive, they will get waivers pertaining to certain laws, and they create jobs.

We’ve reached the point that many of these companies, in order to remain competitive in a global market, don’t have very many options.

Your choice: Open a major business in New York (taxed to death state) and guaranteed to become unionized, or open one that is willing to give you breaks for job creation and growth within that state.

Nancy asks…

Can Chinese pirates offer any lessons about wealth creation to the Somalian pirates?

admin answers:

Yes, in fact the first chapter would be learning the basics of imitation. Fooling one’s eyes with deceitful outside appearance.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers


Your Questions About Wealth Creation Economics

Linda asks…

economics question pls help?

how can wealth creation reduce poverty, and how can it create poverty.

admin answers:

Wealth Creation CAN reduce poverty.

By making people wealthy (by lowering taxes) People will spend that money. The wealth they spend will create jobs. Creating Jobs reduces poverty.

By increasing taxes and giving the money away to the lower or even middle class the wealthy will not spend as much and that won’t be good for companies so the companies will lay off workers to keep making a profit (and not go Bankrupt completely) and that will increase poverty.

Susan asks…

What does “bit actors” mean in this context?

The uncomfortable truth is that, in terms of global economy, nation states have become little more than bit actors. They may originally have been, in their mercantilist phase, independent, powerfully efficient engines of wealth creation. More recently, however, as the downward-ratcheting logic of electoral politics has placed a death grip on their economics, they have become — first and foremost — remarkably inefficient engines of wealth distribution…

*From Michael Ohmae’s “The End of the Nation-State”

I don’t understand what “bit actors” means in this sense. Help anyone? Thanks in advance!

admin answers:

Bit actors are the ones on the jury in Law and Order, or the waitress who hands the coffee to the hero in the diner. Or the hispanic guy on the bus in Speed. Unmemorable, could be played by anyone, could be cut out without affecting the rest of the story, are pretty ineffectual, don’t advance the story.

Nation States are bit players, multi-national corporations have taken over as the main actors. Corporations pick where they want to invest, where they want to build, how they want to market products. It’s easy for them to pick up and move operations to another country if taxes get too high, regulations get too strict, workers demand higher pay. Nation states no longer control the world.

William asks…

Economics Class 101…?

In all honesty – please explain how you think a nation becomes wealthy.

To simplify the process, one can point to 2 processes:

- Either the government allows people to make their own money and dictate the market, thereby promoting growth and job creation.


- The government grows and controls the economy. The market influence is reduced and is no longer controlled by consumer interest. You are told what you need, there is no private sector. The notion of wealth creation is abolished in favour of wealth redistribution, simply consuming and living.

Yes, I understand this is a simplified version – but I struggle to understand how the second option creates wealth. Taking a look back into history, every nation that has a strong state influence in the economy has been backward….until people were allowed to make money for themselves.
Yes, I know it’s simplified. Believe you me I could have gone into a whole lot more detail. Unfortunately I had to take into account the IQ of some of the people posting here.
Wirestring: Exactly. Which is dependent on producing something.

admin answers:

I understand your reasons for over simplifying your question, though I think it’s rather insulting albeit true. A more accurate and kinder reason should have been that people won’t read a long rant.

But to your point, the laissez faire option is of course the proper one.
And to those who ask if “we” should allow poorly managed companies or industries to go under, the short answer is Yes.
The reason is that there is no allowance for Congress to bail out any business. The US Constitution is the law of the land and ANY Congressman who votes to violate that law is guilty of treason! Any president who signs such a bill is equally guilty of treason as is any Supreme Court justice who upholds such a bill.

And so now, since we know every single one of those mentioned above (except one Congressman) is guilty of treason by violating his or her sacred oath of office, and since nobody is calling them out on it, the Constitution is basically voided by our tacit agreement with government’s law-breaking.

We’re all waiting for *somebody* to do *something*. We hopelessly want the very people who have tossed our beloved Constitution into the shredder to make it all better; we dutifully line up at our polling place like good little sheep just as we’ll dutifully line up to the slaughterhouse when the time comes.

Anyway, here’s a link to a story about a Congressman who lived long ago (Davy Crockett) and his take on government’s role in our economy.

Sharon asks…

Okay, so the Bush tax cuts have been in effect for years now and Americans are paying?

less in gross taxes than ever before in modern history. According to supply-side economics, shouldn’t the money be trickling down causing creation of jobs/wealth/ect? Why then is unemployment still high?

admin answers:

Laffer Curve theory is an academic myth.

Debunking One of the Worst Ideas in Economics
by Charles Wheelan, Ph.D.

Chris asks…

Should Americans be Punished For Their Economic Ignorance?

Average Americans have been living a cozy existence for many decades now and have become very spoiled. They expect the economy that provides their lofty life styles to keep chugging along regardless of what they do. So many feel they don’t really need to learn basic economics…after all economics is rather dry and boring. So now we have a majority of Americans who are economically ignorant ripe for the picking. And of course these breeds a class of preditor politicians who will feed off this herd of docile dummies.

A majority of Americans today feel they can have an endless supply of free government goodies and that evil rich people will pay for it all. Unfortunately a minority of us know that this is plain ignorant. We know that in a few years as the predator politicians lounge around with their lavish retirement benefits, the average American and their offspring will suffer greatly in dire straights from the economic turmoil the actually inflicted on themselves.

But throughout life humans learn their most valuable lessons by suffering the consequences of their own mistakes. Children who burn their fingers dramatically learn the danger of fire. Can America as a whole learn from the mistake of believing in the lies of the class warfare and welfare state predator politicians? Can a majority of Americans learn that wealth has to be created before it can be redistributed and that wealth creators should be admired not despised?

Can a generation of Americans be brought up being weary of predator politicians and their false government solutions? Can this new generation learn that all of societies needs are addressed by wealth and that wealth creation is a fundamental and vital role to be viewed with respect and admiration? And can the next generation devise a system that rises the wealth creator to a position well above that of the predator politician who reigns supreme today? Maybe if the punishment Americans suffer today is harsh enough can it lead to a society with a realistic understanding of basic economics.
White Lightening: I have two words for you, poor angry man, and they are not “Merry” or “Christmas”.
HAH! I am no democrat, that is a given.

admin answers:

The majority of Americans are not taking handouts from the government. The extremely loud minority are. The majority are hard working and take care of their own lives while the minority sit and wait of government assistance. At the rate we are going the next generation may have a majority of freeloaders, but I doubt the system can hold up that long. The hard working majority will take control again or America will go into bankruptcy. Hopefully the former happens first.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers


Your Questions About Wealth Creation Economics

Daniel asks…

Does anyone know if Obama took an economics class in college?

The definition of wealth is taking a raw resource and transforming it into a good or service that people want to buy. Taxing people to pay others to build out-houses in national parks is not wealth creation.

admin answers:

That is the definition of production, not of wealth. Google wealth.

John asks…

Does the success of a society depend on economics or ethics?

One of the most authoritative theories about the constitution of society in the modern world is that economics and economic relationships define the fundamental structure of all social relationships, indeed of society itself. Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx, in their very different ways, either asserted or implied the primacy of economics and economic relationships as fundamental to the existence and evolution of nations and to the creation of wealth. But these views displaced an older conception of society which considered ethics and ethical codes as the fundamental bedrock of societies. In that older view, the success of a society was judged by its adherence to the ‘good’ rather than to its store of accumulated wealth. Ethical codes may have had a religious dimension, but it was the way conduct and behavior were regulated by or referred to ethical judgement that allowed for the stability, maintenance, and success of social relationships and, hence, of society as a whole.
this came from an essay topic for the 2007/2008 national Humanitaries essay competition at UBC…

admin answers:

Coming from a guy who is devoting his career to the study and application of economics, all I can say on ethics and economics is that econ is a GREAT way to maximize profits, but it’s not a good way to live your life.

Charles asks…

How can the capitalist system remain stable without redistribution of wealth?

It’s very well known that it’s easier to make money when you already have a lot of it. For someone with a net worth of $50 million, it’s easy to have an extremely comfortable life by just sitting back and investing in investment-grade fixed income securities – you collect millions of dollars in interest payments, and can just as easily continue increasing your fortune with no risk and no effort. For someone starting out at the bottom though, it’s become very difficult just to advance to middle-class status. Even if you’re incredibly smart and have an innovative idea for a business, securing the capital necessary to get it running is nearly impossible, at least without toiling away for years and years, working in comparatively unproductive menial jobs.

Despite the social and moral problems with allowing such a neo-aristocratic society to develop, the inherent nature of unfettered capitalism presents us with economic problems as well. In the example above, it is highly uneconomical for the idle beneficiaries of a large inheritence to consume society’s resources without taking any risk or exerting any effort. Likewise, it is highly uneconomical to make a bright, innovative person born into poverty toil away at Wal Mart. Would it not be far better economics to tax the idle holder of idle capital, not to give the smart, poor person a handout, but to invest in them (i.e., providing low-cost education), allowing them to advance in economic and social status, and therefore realize their potential to the benefit of all?

Structurally, there’s also the problem of wealth concentration. As more and more wealth is concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people, much of our economic output is devoted to “managing” their wealth – in practice, this means loaning it out to businesses (which is somewhat productive) and consumers (which, in the case of things like credit cards, is often wholly unproductive). Not only is this uneconomical, but eventually, if those at the bottom do not have the playing field leveled in their favor somewhat, we reach a point in which all “production” centers around kicking an ever-increasing share of the society’s income up to the idle creditors at the top.

Left unchecked, this inevitably leads to a total economic collapse (i.e., what’s happening now), as business doesn’t have enough customers financially able to buy their products. In other words, as the working classes become more and more heavily indebted, the people at the top hold the claims on so much of workers’ income that they can’t consume enough to warrant current levels of production, so economic output must fall. So then, how can the capitalist system continue to be productive without government action to ensure that the ratio between work and reward remains at least somewhat equitable?

Along the same lines, those who favor letting this concentration continue cite two objections – first, that of wealth creation. Of course new wealth can be created, but what is there in the laissez-faire paradigm to ensure that the gains won’t simply be sucked up by those at the top? They necessarily control capital allocation.

Second, they often object on moral grounds, saying that it’s immoral to “take” from the upper classes to invest in the lower. Now, I think this objection has some merit, but on the other hand, if what’s being “taken” are just paper assets and they’re left with more than enough to maintain their lifestyle, is anything really being taken at all? For the most part, it’s really just an accounting adjustment – there’s no material effect to them – to ensure the durability of the system, is it not?

You make a valid point. You are correct that if too much is redistributed – especially, possibly exclusively, if it is merely handed over – the incentive to produce at all disappears. I don’t think anyone would dispute that.

However, looking on the other side of this, surely there’s a point wherein too much wealth concentration causes systematic problems, no? I mean, capitalism functions though finance and accounting, and those have to operate within certain mathematical limits. What I’m saying, in mathematical terms, is that in the system without redistribution, the share of income going to those at the top increases geometrically approaching a limit of infinity. However, for obvious reasons, the material limit is 100% – and in practice, it is far lower still. Once we get to whatever the practical limit is, physical production cannot continue, as the accounting/math of the thing cannot deal with such a high degree of concentration.
“Your follow up under your question is way too long to read.”

Imagine how I felt writing it! It’s really not my fault that reality can’t always be expressed in soundbytes, however.

“‘Redistribution of wealth‘ is socialism.”

Actually, socialism is state control of wealth. Redistribution proper necessarily occurs within the strictures of the capitalist system.

“With free enterprise, everyone has an opportunity.”

They do in theory, but do they in practice? For instance, in the US, a poor black student with straight A’s in high school is much less likely to finish a 4-year college degree than a rich white C-average student. Call me crazy, but I don’t think this is the “meritocracy” that capitalism is supposed to embody. What I’m asking is, IN PRACTICE, is some redistribution necessary for the theoretical potential of the capitalist meritocracy to be realized?
For the last time, I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR SOCIALISM, CENTRAL PLANNING, or anything of the sort. I agree that socialism proper does not and cannot work. However, it seems to me that totally unfettered capitalism is every bit as impractical.

Indeed, is there even a single example of the “pure” form of any ideological system EVER existing, much less working, in practice? Not to my (quite extensive) knowledge.
Mo Fayed,

“Tax-and-spend socialism” is a contradiction in terms. Under socialism, the state owns all income-producing property, so there is no need for taxation at all.
Mark M,

The United States experienced its most rapid economic growth and development when the tax rate on the wealthy was a staggering 91%. Your claim is historically and materially false.

admin answers:

We already tried that under Bush. Huge tax cuts for the rich, paid for by the middle class. You see where that has landed us, don’t you?

The remarkable thing is that after 8 years of that–it is still the only only answer the republicans can come up with (even though the results show it does not work).

Mary asks…

Are illegals really taking away jobs from Americans? Do people no understand Economics?

Do people who say “illegals are taking jobs from Americans” not understand how an Economy works?
Do they not realize that our economy is not a “Zero Sum” system??

A job held by an illegal immigrant is a job taken away from an American seems to be what most think. That jobs can be stolen, moved, but not created. this is known as the “lump job fallacy” and has been used mostly in political instances. they assume that there is a fixed amount of work to be done, and that by reducing the amount that those are already employed are allowed to work, the remaining amount will then accrue to the unemployed.

The truth is that the number of jobs in an economy is not static and is not limited in principle or practice. this number fluctuates by the minute. If there were a fixed number of jobs to be filled, then how would native-born Americans find employment when they reached working age? The fact is there are always more wants that can be satisfied if we have more resources available to do the work—and this includes the two hands and mind that come with each new member of a society

there is not a single shred of evidence that suggests illegal immigrants have actually stolen a job from anybody nor driven up the unemployment immigrant workers most often enhance the productivity and demand for other workers in the market, increasing the opportunities of almost everyone in society.

Immigrants increase the supply of labor, but they also increase the aggregate demand for the output of labor. thus helping to create more jobs. The average illegal immigrant actually tends to pay more in taxes as a percentage of their income than the average U.S. citizen because they aren’t entitled to a tax refund if they overpay,

So are the people who claim “illegals are stealing jobs from Americans” just no understand economics? or are the people who spread this assumption just trying to spread fear and hatred towards illegal immigrants?

admin answers:

Close detailed examination of illegal immigration does in fact show it’s a net loss for the USA. Read the paper “The Fiscal Cost of Low Skill Immigrants to the USA Taxpayer”. The cost of illegal (ie low-skill) immigration is huge.

What part of economics analysis do you not understand?

Lizzie asks…

Why Did The Western World Move Away From Keynesian Economics After The 1960s?

The world never experienced such a boom and it was hailed as the ‘golden age of capitalism’ with Britons ‘never having it so good’ and economic progress high. Standards of living rose along with relatively low unemployment (by modern neoliberal standards) as well as a constant rate of GDP growth which was slower than neoliberalism but stable. Until I took Politics at school I was virtually a Marxist, but thanks to my class I use my own brain to analyse the political systems and to me Keynesian economics seems to have been the ideal system of macroeconomics in the Western world. I seriously think this, mixed with a modern approach to social issues which is fairly libertarian in attitude would create the ideal conditions for life in the Western world. To sum up my question, it seemed ludicrous to move away from a system which had struck the balance right in terms of the political spectrum in keeping wealth creation and ambition alive whilst giving the working class a good standard of living.

admin answers:

Because it made the rich richer and the poor poorer, like almost any monetary system.
It was not the Keynesian system that made some people better off in the late fifties, it was the re- building of the country after the war. In the mid sixties the rot set in again.
In the ‘Never Had it So Good’ time the plight of the homeless was first higlighted with ‘Kathy come home’ on tv, and damaged ex soldiers wearing old army greatcoats were sleeping in shop doorways and buying inexpensive pea soup for breakfast at the UCP chain.
You are not necessarilly a marxist if you believe that a labourer is worthy of his hire. It’s in the bible somewhere.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers


Your Questions About Wealth Creation

Lizzie asks…

What would you like to learn at a Wealth Creation Seminar?

If you attend many seminars and still haven’t achieved success, what key things would you like to learn at wealth creation seminars?
List topics in order of priorities.

admin answers:

Most people would like to know what they can do now with their available resources with little or no risk.

Donald asks…

What policies do Liberals support that lead to wealth creation?

Is it the high taxes or the huge entitlement programs? Seems to me liberals don’t give a damn about wealth creation.

admin answers:

They don’t believe wealth is created. They think there’s a fixed supply of wealth that just gets passed around or accumulated. Or, at least they hope that’s what the voters will think.

That’s why they talk and write in terms of “share of the total income” – - – - X makes $20K, Y makes $70K. W makes $120K. Five years later, W is dead, X makes $50K, Y makes $200K and new immigrant or 20-something Z makes $25K.

Clearly everyone who is still alive is better off, and things are better whether you’re at the top or on the bottom than was the case five years earlier. And clearly it’s not the same person at the top or the bottom.

But the New York Times will tell you “the share of the income received by the top earner increased while the share of the income received by the bottom earner fell.”

Good thing we have the Wall Street Journal to set the record straight.


What Greg does not understand is that the “progressive tax system” to fund programs for people who “fall through the cracks” actually widens the cracks, and brings in LESS tax revenue.

There is NO reason for a steep “progressive tax system” other than to punish the successful for their success. It does NOT help anyone else. Since 2000, tax revenue has gone up, and so has the share of the tax burden paid by the “rich.”

James asks…

What’s a good wealth creation company in Sydney?

We’re looking for a good wealth creation company in Sydney. Does anyone have any good experiences creating wealth with one of these companies. Thanks…..

admin answers:

We had good luck with a wealth creation expert called Gabriel from
We consolidated a bunch of loans and had enough left over to make a good investment decision which is yielding us around 17% every 6 months.
His number is 0410 504 774. He’s mobile and is based in Sutherland in Sydney. Can’t recommend highly enough. Hope this helps.

Donna asks…

How can there be wealth creation without inflation when economic growth creates inflation?

Sure; a buck twenty five today was just a buck 10 years ago. However haven’t you observed that, in nominal terms, the US economy doubles in size roughly every 12 years?
And isn’t it true that we try to keep our growth at a steady 3% a year sweet spot so they we don’t trigger too much inflation with our growth? So as it wipe out the gains of the wealth added? Notice economies that grow at a rate faster than 5% a year often suffer high inflation as a result.

admin answers:

Economic growth is likely (not always) to lead to inflation when capacity utilization is high. The key is productivity. That is to say, economic growth is possible, even when capacity utilization is high, as long as productivity increases.

Sandy asks…

Did the rapid creation of wealth in Florence contribute to the burst of activity in the arts?

Did the rapid creation of wealth in Florence contribute to the burst of activity in the arts? Explain your answer.

admin answers:

No. Cosimo D’ Medici was responsible for the rebirth of culture. He was already wealthy. The Renaissance was the CAUSE of the rapid creation of wealth, not the result.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers


Your Questions About Wealth Creations Network

Lisa asks…

How can an average person create wealth without risk?

Any wealth creation venture involves risk… or does it? Do online marketing and network marketing businesses mitigate that?

admin answers:

Yes they do. Check out a full post here:

Laura asks…

Should I become an internet networker or just an investor?

I am 17 years old, I have thought about becoming an options trader or investor but I also have a massive burning interest in the internet. What will get me further when it comes to wealth creation, will becoming an investor get me far or will becoming an internet network marketer create more wealth for me? Please give a reasonable no spam answer to earn 5 star best answer.

admin answers:


If you have to pick one or the other, then internet networker. Trading is socially useless, yet provides funds for other intentions. Just think how much people would value you if their business couldn’t thrive without you. You might even use your networking skills to start your own business. Some people delegate investing to mutual funds so they can focus on what they do best.

Best of luck whatever you decide.

Ruth asks…

The Cuban Revolution resulted in… (10 pts)?

a. widespread illiteracy.
b. a decline in life expectancy.
c. a free press.
d. free education and medical care.

China’s Great Leap Forward resulted in?
a. better relations with the Soviet Union.
b. the creation of an extensive transportation network in the country.
c. an increase in both imports and exports as the economy improved.
d. sharp drops in agricultural production and widespread famine.

After the Congo won its independence
a. members of the Kikuyu tribe were tortured and murdered.
b. the new prime minister was assassinated.
c. it joined the French Community.
d. a civil war erupted.

Which of the following were effects of apartheid?
a. Equal rights for women
b. Poverty
c. Division of land between blacks and non-blacks
d. Equalization of wealth in South Africa
e. b and c
f. b, c, and d

admin answers:

Cuban Revolution – d.

Great Leap Forward – d.

Congo – d.

Apartheid – e.

Donna asks…

Are Zionists in control of the United States?

First i have nothing against other religons. Just trying to understand how we fit in this power hungry world. Fact: Jews represent 2% of the U.S population: and somehow they own 65% of U.S wealth. All major oil companies: Shell, Mobile and others… all major Media Networks: Fox, CBS, ABC and others. All major Bank and financial instituations. Citi Bank, Goldman and Sachs, chase, and others. They hold all the top positions that effect the U.S and the world: Federal reserve chairman, world bank chairman, IMF chairman and others. So are the Jew/ Zionists in control of the U.S thus the true masters of the Universe? from the facts i read they defintly are: that is why Israel can attack, occupy and expand since its creation by them in 1948, what do u think? no racisit answers plz

admin answers:

Your question and my subsequent answer is the kind of question and answer the FIGHTERS AGAINST TRUTH on this website FALSELY REPORT as abuse.

The same hold on things that Jews have in America is the reason that Hitler wanted to genocidally rid Germany and possibly the world of them.
And there seems to be a lot of glossing over the fact that the US was VERY INSTRUMENTAL in helping the Jews win that war when the Palestinians tried to stop them from settling on THEIR LAND which they continue to do to this very day.
The question used to be, ‘does Israel have the right to exist’.
Notice how adroitly the question has now been shifted to ‘does PALESTINE have the right to exist?’
Odd question considering that as far back as man can trace, that part of the world has ALWAYS been known as PALESTINE.

The following linds are to a few of MANY translations of “The Protocols of the Learded Elders of Zion”
One also includes links to other websites that repudiate this tome.


Mark asks…

is this where you want your money going??? do you want your military family to be under the UN?

I wrote about this last Fall, but it’s about to happen, unless Americans stand up and say, enough is enough! It’s already “half-approved,” and it’s in the hands of the Senate, now. Please take the time to read this . . . after all, it is your money they plan to give the world!

According to David Bossie, President of the group ‘Citizens United for American Sovereignty’, based out of Merrifield Virginia , website: the above- mentioned Senate Bill (S. 2433) is a piece of legislation in the works that all Americans need to know about and know now!

This bill, sponsored by none other than Sen. (President-Elect) Barack Obama, with the backing of Joe Biden on the Foreign Relations Committee, and liberal democrats in Congress, is nothing short of a massive giveaway of American wealth around the world, and a betrayal of the public trust, because, if passed, this bill would give over many aspects of our sovereignty to the United Nations.

The noble sounding name of this bill, ‘The Global Poverty Act’ is actually a Global Tax, payable to the United Nations, that will be required of all American taxpayers. If passed in the Senate (the House has already passed it), this bill would require the U.S. To increase our foreign aid by $65 BILLION per year, or $845 BILLION over the next 13 years! That’s on top of the billions of dollars in foreign aid we already pay out! (and, on top of the Trillion dollar-Plus Stimulus and Bail-out monies taxpayers are expected to pay).

In addition to the economic burdens this potential law would place on our precarious economy, the bill, if passed in the Senate, would also endanger our constitutionally protected rights and freedoms by obligating us to meet certain United Nations mandates.

According to Senator Obama, we should establish these United Nations’ goals as benchmarks for U.S. spending. What are they?

1 The creation of a U.N. International Criminal Court having the power to try and convict American citizens and soldiers without any protection from the U.S. Constitution.

2 A standing United Nations Army forcing U.S. Soldiers to serve under U.N. Command.

3 A Gun Ban on all small arms and light weapons –which would repeal our Second Amendment right to bear arms.

4 The ratification of the ‘ Kyoto ‘ global warming treaty and numerous other anti-American measures.

Recently, the Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations (where Sen. Joe Biden sits) approved this plan by a voice vote without any discussion! Why all the secrecy? If Senators Obama and Biden are so proud of this legislation, then why don’t they bring it out into the light of day and let the American people have a look at it instead of hiding it behind closed doors and sneaking it through Congress for late night votes.

It may be only a matter of time before this dangerous legislation reaches a floor vote in the full body of the Senate.

Please write or call, email your representatives, the White House, the media, or anyone you think will listen, and express your opinions regarding this Global Tax giveaway and betrayal of the American people at a time when our nation and our people are already heavily burdened with the threats to our freedoms and economic prosperity.

Please send this to as many folks out there in your networks as you can. And ASAP!

If you want to see the actual legislation, go here.

Thank you.

admin answers:

When Congress ends its session, all bills not enacted by both the House and Senate die. Nothing carries over to the next session. (We are now into the 111th Congress)!

So I really don’t know what your issue is!

Powered by Yahoo! Answers