Debt Elimination Companies

Has anyone tried a company called debt jurisprudence inc.? They claim to be able to eliminate debt completely. The company claims that they can completely eliminate your debt for a $4500 dollar fee. I couldnt find any thing negative about them on the internet but they were not even listed in the better business bureau. When I spoke to someone over the phone they seemed believable. Is it too good to be true?

Can I use the law to eliminate my debt completely? I know there are laws on the books to eliminate debt but I don't know them. Does anyone out there know them? In addition, HSBC Bank is constantly calling me. Is there anyone out there who has had or is having trouble with HSBC and its collection practices?

Every time the U.S. has completely eliminated its debt there has been a financial panic or a depression.? Can you explain why?????? Every time the U.S. has completely eliminated its debt there has been a financial panic or a depression. That has been true for every period in our history, including the payment of the debt from the American War For Independence.

What is the proper order of things when buying a house and paying off debt? I would love to buy a house but also have a small amount of debt. It's only about $3000. Not a significant amount to some, but for me it is a lot of money. I have the money in savings to pay the debt off but that would decrease my down payment. Do I continue to make monthly payments (I do make more than minimum monthly payments) or just eliminate the debt completely and go from there? Thanks for all answers!

Why not just completely eliminate medicare, medicaid and privatize social security? That's $1.354 trillion of savings right there. If more people are forced to purchase insurance by the laws of supply and demand it will become cheaper. Privatizing s.s could lead to higher payments for Americans and save the federal government money. Then the federal government could use the savings to pay back our debt and invest in our infrastructure.

How do i eliminate a thousand dollar debt? I am wondering how to pay off a remaining sum on my CC I pay it off each month but end up always surpassing the limit on my credit card. I want to be able to pay it completely off. I can't imagine setting aside a 100 a month due to the fact that I am constantly paying off the remainder of what I owe. thanks for reading my question. yeah thanks for your outstanding sarcastic remark (first guy) way to go buddy

I can no longer afford my car payments, can I do anything to keep this from negatively affecting my credit? Between my car payment, insurance and gas I cant afford to keep the car I purchased last year. I don't necessarily need it as I can move to within half a mile of my workplace and walk to work. Is there anyway to mostly or completely eliminate this debt and not have it negatively affect my credit?

What's the deal with John Commuta's Transforming Debt Into Wealth Program? Back when I had some horrible financial problems and debt I looked into this program. Thankfully I sent it back BEFORE they charged me for this. However, the "counselor" on the phone told me that I could use my credit card if I had to and charge anywhere from $2000 to $10,000 to learn how to eliminate my debt completely. I told this "counselor" that if I had the money wouldn't it make more sense to PAYOFF MY BILLS rather than incur NEW ONES!? So, has anybody on Yahoo Answers experienced this "program" and what happened?

What if the Government eliminated all Debt? Would this fix the economy? Lets say the U.S. Government declared that as of February 1st.. all businesses and individuals are completely FREE of their prior debts. This means any debt you get into after Feb. 1 you have to pay back. BUT you would be freed from all the debt you got into before Feb. 1. This would mean every person and business would get a clean slate and not own ANYONE money. What impact would this have on the economy? Please be as detailed as you like.

Would it help the economy if the Government eliminated all Debt? Not Government debt... just personal and business debt. Lets say the U.S. Government declared that as of February 1st.. all businesses and individuals are completely FREE of their prior debts. This means any debt you get into after Feb. 1 you have to pay back. BUT you would be freed from all the debt you got into before Feb. 1. This would mean every person and business would get a clean slate and not own ANYONE money. What impact would this have on the economy? Please be as detailed as you like.

How do people control their debt? I don't think I've ever kept my bills paid.? It is completely beyond me how people are able to do anything. I've worked my whole life and despite a flakely, short-term approach to careers, I've always made a decent salary. I just finished my 2nd degree and a new job. I make $1700/month and just can't seem to get things straightened out. I wait for paychecks and upon receiving them, I pay everything possible, leaving myself with $50 for two-weeks and repeat the same thing later. I always swear that I'll skip a bill, but it never seems to work that way. Is it because I've been single and dependent on a single salary most of my life? Is it because 30k/yr just isn't a decent salary? Is there some trick that I can employ to improve my credit such as getting 0%apr/12 month credit cards to eliminate debts or auto-pay and then just keep up with the credit cards?

What kind of a tax system is most effective? Here I provide six scenarios on taxes in the United States. Decide which one you think is most effective. When I say effective, not only do I mean fair and just, but also strong in stimulation of the economy and reduction of the national debt as it is. Assume a tax plan that will be effective for the next ten years unless otherwise noted like in #3 and #4: 1. Every family in the United States, regardless of income, will receive or be deducted a certain amount of currency such that the net income be $43,896.72. Here is how I am getting this number: The national GDP is approximately $14.33 trillion, and the national debt is approximately $12.25 trillion. Divide out the debt over ten years, and that leaves us with $1.225 trillion. Subtract that from the GDP and we are left with $13.105 trillion, or a GDP per capita of $43,896.72. Let everyone make that much for ten years, and we can expect a complete elimination of the national debt by 2020. 2. Every family in the United States, regardless of income, pays 8.5 percent of its gross income. The national debt of $12.25 trillion paid off over ten years leaves $1.225 trillion per year, which is $4,103.28 per capita, or about 8.5 percent. Similar to option #1, this will completely eliminate the national debt by 2020. 3. Every family in the United States, regardless of income, pays 17 percent of its gross income. With the exact same strategy applied in option #2, this will eliminate the national debt completely, but it will cut the amount of time spent in half (from 2020 to 2015). 4. Apply the tax system similar to the 1970s and 80s. The top tax bracket will be set at 91% (currently 35%). Corporate tax will be set at 28% (currently 15%). As a result, the national debt (based on economic conditions) can be completely eliminated by 2015. 5. Apply the tax system similar to the 1990s. The top tax bracket will be set at 39%. Corporate tax will be set at 20%. As a result, the national debt (based on economic conditions) can be eliminated by 2020. 6. Keep the tax system as it is, but cut government spending. If this strategy is done correctly and cautiously, this approach would also reduce the national debt, but the task will take time, perhaps not by 2020, but it is a conservative approach, not trying to change things too much, therefore keeping things stable and consistent. At least this is the ideology.

Is our national debt topping $$13,000,000,000,000 or 90% of GDP, $72,000 every man/woman/child a lot of money? And that's the good news. In the next few years, our major entitlement programs, in particular Social Security and Medicare, will begin to run cash-flow deficits, adding hundreds of billions each year to the debt. In fact, Social Security's total unfunded liabilities top $15.8 trillion, and depending on what accounting measure is used, Medicare's future shortfall could exceed $100 trillion. Before long, we may be thinking about today's debt as the good old days. There is simply no way to control our debt without getting serious about reforming entitlements. Politicians like to pretend that you can deal with the debt crisis by eliminating "fraud, waste and abuse." And certainly there is plenty of that. This is, after all, a federal government that is spending $34 million to help Americans learn to be better shoppers, and $4.2 million to conduct "A National Conversation on Pluralism and Identity." But the sad fact is that such outrages account for only a tiny fraction of federal spending. For example, there has been enormous anger over "earmarks," yet all earmarks together amount to less than 1% of the federal budget. In fact, if you completely eliminated all non-defense discretionary spending — everything from the Department of Education to the FBI, from NASA to the Food and Drug Administration — we would still face a budget deficit this year in excess of $500 billion. Throw in the entire defense budget and we barely break even. Now add Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, and Obama's 2011 budget has a $1.27 trillion deficit. It's the entitlements, stupid.

Isn't a "spending freeze" completely useless after you raised the debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion beforehand? I mean Obama used the "I have to do this to pay for the last guy" argument when Democrats raised the debt ceiling to $12 trillion LAST YEAR. WTF is this?? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100128/ap_on_bi_ge/us_senate_debt_limit;_ylt=AgfbY9II1VcgDYwDVypHZYwGw_IE;_ylu=X3oDMTM5amQwZG05BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTI4L3VzX3NlbmF0ZV9kZWJ0X2xpbWl0BGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDNARwb3MDNARzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA3NlbmF0ZXBlcm1pdA-- Senate Democrats needed all the 60 votes at their disposal Thursday to muscle through legislation allowing the government to go $1.9 trillion deeper in debt...............The measure would would put the government on track for a national debt of $14.3 trillion — about $45,000 for every American — and it served as a vivid reminder of the United States' dire fiscal straits. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100128/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_state_of_the_union_text Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/57493-senate-must-raise-debt-ceiling-above-12t The Senate must move legislation to raise the federal debt limit beyond $12.1 trillion by mid-October, a move viewed as necessary despite protests about the record levels of red ink. The move will highlight the nation’s record debt, which has been central to Republican attacks against Democratic congressional leaders and President Barack Obama. The year’s deficit is expected to hit a record $1.6 trillion. Democrats in control of Congress, including then-Sen. Obama (Ill.), blasted President George W. Bush for failing to contain spending when he oversaw increased deficits and raised the debt ceiling.

What is "fiscal responsibility"? Politicians and journalists talk frequently about “fiscal responsibility”—lamenting that we don’t have it now, but that we need to acquire it to avoid financial disaster. Curiously, though, few of them ever define what they mean by that term; either they think it goes without saying, or they think equivocating better serves their agenda. Does it mean "eliminating" the deficit? If so, should we sometimes run surpluses? Or does it mean getting the deficit "under control"? If so, what the heck does that mean? Here are several possible, mutually-exclusive meanings for “fiscal responsibility”: • reducing the debt (dollars) • completely eliminating the debt (dollars) • balancing the budget (i.e., keeping the dollars of debt constant) • reducing the debt burden (growing GDP faster than debt) • maintaining a constant debt burden (GDP growth=debt growth) • keeping unemployment low and inflation under control (...forget debt, it doesn’t matter as long as those two stats are in good shape) Six different ways of defining “fiscal responsibility.” A foggy atmosphere like that is definitely not conducive to a rational debate. In my judgment, a strong parallel to the growth-friendly federal policy I advocate can be found in the way corporations fund their own growth. They almost never use 100% equity financing; similarly, they almost never use 100% debt financing. You can bet there’s a point somewhere in between those two extremes that minimizes the cost of capital for funding growth projects. (To test that assertion, pick a few NYSE companies at random, and see how many of them have zero long-term debt. And if you lucked out and got Microsoft in your random sample, you found the needle in the haystack—the exception, not the rule—For the federal budget, think of tax receipts as “equity financing” and deficits as “debt financing.” When a prudent measure of borrowing is used to supplement tax receipts, tax rates can be lower than they would have to be to “balance the budget.” That's a growth-friendly policy. Because borrowing permits tax rates to be lower, private sector business-builders have more after-tax resources to fund their ideas for better hot dog stands, day-care centers, plasma televisions, bullet-proof vests, video games, alternative-fuel auto engines, and anti-gravity machines. (Did I leave anything out?) In other words, they have more financial resources to create new products, new services, new jobs—and new tax receipts from all those for our government. That, by the way, is how we can “increase taxes” without increasing tax rates. It is happening as we speak, and the short way to say it is “economic growth.”

What do you think about Gov. Schwarzenegger's plan to eliminate programs that help families & students? "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing to completely eliminate the state’s welfare program for families, medical insurance for low-income children and Cal Grants cash assistance to college and university students." I think his proposal is completely insane. Yes, let's just stop helping those who need the most aid/assistance. It makes perfect sense......not! The last thing we need here is for people to go sick, homeless, and stupid. & I like how every time we need to make some cuts, our Gov. takes it out on the education system. It's just criminal. Look at it this way, he's already eliminating a lot of teachers from our schools, which in turn creates less job openings. Because of this, college students will have to stay in school longer because there aren't enough professors to teach each semester. What does this mean? Well if they can't receive any financial aid (because the Gov. eliminates Cal Grants) this means students will either (1) become even more in debt (inadvertently causing our state to create an even higher deficit) or (2) have to drop out of school & somehow find a better paying job. Everything goes in a damn circle. It's like he wants to punish those who want a good education. Has he ever even thought about just forcing schools to lower their costs (such as tuition)? Making students pay around $27,000-$37,000 (UC & private institutions) each year when this doesn't even include their books, seems quite ridiculous doesn't it? So, what are your thoughts?

Should I pay off my car loan early? I have a $20K car loan and am considering paying it off early. I have been making payments for the past 10 months, never late, and already have an great credit score (791), but I want an excellent credit score (800+). I have the cash and reserves to pay it off completely today, but am unsure on what to do. Should I: 1. continue paying off my loan on time to continue building my credit history, 2. payoff the loan completely to eliminate debt and avoid the 5% interest charges, OR 3. payoff $19K of the loan AND adjust my payments lower in order to diminish debt, avoid most of the interest charges, and continue building my credit history? Does it even matter what I do? I have a goal to get my credit score over 800. I have no other debt and my bank will allow me to payoff early without any penalties. I guess what I am really getting at is, do I really need to extend my credit history by continuing to make payments past a year (is there even a set time frame for good history)?

Anyone had luck with a credit card consolidation company?? Have u really eliminated your debt....? I'm talkin about these companies u hear on TV/radio that 'claim' they can negotiate your balances and cut your debt up to half..and have you completely out of debt in a few years? What if any companies have u found that have actually done this??? help!! thanks!

Is it still possible to file chapter 7 bankruptcy ? I may at some point have to file bankruptcy due to situations beyond my control. Filing for chapter 13 reorganization won't help my financial situation. The only thing that would help is if I could completely eliminate the debt and not have to pay any of it back. And would I still be able to keep my home which I have no equity in and my car? Would I still be able to get a mortgage if I lost everything? I have always had excellent credit and just thinking about having to do this is killing me! When I asked if I would still be able to get another mortgage after filing bankruptcy I meant : If I lost my current home in the process.... Would I then be able to obtain a mortgage on a more affordable home after filing and eliminating all my debt..? Jeff T: Yes I have a budget, no I can't cut back more than I have, No car payment, and I already have a beater. And if I could avoid Bankruptcy I would.

Advice on bargaining a debt? About 9 years ago, i was convicted of a possession of marijuana charge and fined $250. I never paid the debt and now i am looking to expunge it from my record, but i have to have paid off all of my debts in order to do so. I found that the debt still exists at a total of about $850, with alliance one. Does anyone have experience with them or have any advice on how to bargain to erase the debt? I need it to be completely eliminated, so do collection agencies write up paperwork that says the debt is settled? Do i need to ask for that? How much should I offer? Any advice is appreciated.

Put extra money to reduce debt or put into savings? I am currently putting about $1000 a month towards eliminating a debt incurred as a result of a divorce 6 years ago. At this rate, I will have it paid off in full in about 1.5 years. My new wife and I have seen a significant increase in our income in the past few months and we are planning on moving to a new home (we need more space). However, now we have a dilemma: Should we put that extra money towards reducing our debt, or should we put into saving for the purchase of a new home? We have $2000 extra a month to 'play' with, either for Plan A: putting it towards the debt (for a total of $3000 per month), or Plan B: we could maintain the $1K per month for the debt, and put $2K per month into savings so we can purchase a new home. We had been doing "Plan B" but now I'm wondering if we should put all the money towards the debt, had it completely paid off by July, and then we'd have an extra $1000 per month to put towards savings for a house. But on the other hand, I REALLY want to get out of our current home. It's much too small for us and our kids and dogs, I'd like to live closer to my ex-wive to make being with the kids easier, and it's quickly coming up to the best time to put our home up for sale (spring). Opinions?

What happens to my stock after a company goes bankrupt? It's value is close to zero. Should I hold onto it in hopes that it will go back up. The company is in Chapter 11 and insists that it is completely just a restructuring move. They were recently able to eliminate a substantial portion of their debt and are looking to be out of Chapter 11 early this autumn. Should I have already sold it? Should I buy more while it is this low?

Why should marijuana be legalized? Every year there is an estimated to be well over 100 billion dollars. Did someone just hear a cha-ching? Being an illegal substance in almost every state (except for some who accept it to be sold for medical purposes), and in do ind so the local and federal government miss out in a lot of profit. Being that the price for black market items is so high, the government could in theory put almost any price or taxation they wanted to on this. May that be even well over 100% tax. Not only would that generate billions in revenue, but it would also lower arrests and similar felonies. The cost of running the justice system is emence. In saying so it also takes an average of thirty to fouty thousand dollars a year to keep fellons in jail. Based off of this fact alone this would stop many drug dealers and buyers (for marijuana only) from going to jail, but would also let them buy from basically the government. Sounds like a win win to me. -----------------------------------------------for 100 people Convicting a felon- $ widly ranges jail for selling/buying marijuanah (1-15 years baesd on number of convictions)- well over $3-35 million now thats only for a hundred, but thousands get arrested every year for this crime. Subtract that and add the tax, and the government is making some SERIOUS cash. Enough even to help reduce if not completely eliminate our country's debt over time.

Women only, what's the point??? Read completely. Let's say you know what's really going on behind the scenes in society and you know specific steps to take that will improve the quality of life for people that you'll never even meet. Examples include: 1. Paying for government while eliminating public debt and all forms of taxation while creating self-financed government w/o either debt or taxation. 2. Lowering fuel prices and cleaning the environment in the same whack. 3. Having discovered the cure for cancer, as well as heart disease and diabetes to name a few others. 4. There's more but you get the point so we'll move on. So everything that is currently going on, especially in American society, is part of someone's plan. Things happen for a reason rather than randomly. And when you talk with people about taking specific action to make these other things happen they just give you a blank stare and go back to the rut of their job, bills, paying taxes (while politicians increase public debt to burden the next generation with), being married and having kids. What's the point?

How can I get 100,000 dollars? Hello I recently had to drop out of college. I only have a year left but it is just too expensive for me to finish. I cannot even begin to express how difficult this is because not only have I let myself down but my family is also ashamed of me and now no one believes that I will amount to anything. I have really bad credit so I cannot take out loans and I currently owe my school 6,000 that I cannot afford to pay. I don't qualify for grants because my mom's income puts me in too high of a tax bracket and I have tried applying for scholarships but nothing ever goes from it. I attend an out of state university so roughly just for tuition it costs me 26,000 dollars a year meaning that I am already 76,000 dollars in debt not including the money I owe to my school currently and the credit card debt I have that I used to pay other bills. I do have a full time job but I still don't make enough to save money because of the bills that I have. If I could eliminate my debt including my student loan debt and finish my last year of school I could start giving back to the community and really do what I want to do with my life. My goals are to work towards fixing poverty in the US as well as other countries. I currently try to volunteer as much time as I possibly can by having 2 girl scout troops. I am with one of my girls almost everyday helping them with homework or providing childcare because their parents cannot afford it. I signed one of them up for basketball and take her to her games and practices. I would love to be able to volunteer more however I cannot with my work schedule. I would love to have a degree so that my family isn't so disappointed in me as well as for myself so I can be an educated person. Plus with having spent so much money already on college it would be so stupid for me not to finish. I am putting in anywhere from 38-73 hour work weeks but still only have enough to pay my bills. Does anyone know how I can make 100,000 dollars so I can get almost completely out of debt and finish my last year of school? Please don't waste my time by giving stupid answers I really don't have time for it and I just need some help. I am not looking for a loan. I am looking 100,000 whether someone know of people who give away that kind of money or a job that I could gte without a degree where I could make that kind of money. Also if I transferr my credits I will lose a year and a half of credit because my major isn't offered in state. I actually now have residency in the same state as my school but because I came to Indiana for school they will not give my instate tuition even though I could now go to any other in state school and get instate tuition. Also they won't release my transcript until I pay them the almost 7000 I owe. I did cut back on my volunteering a lot already. The local university is where I was going to school. Everyone keeps responding with such simple answers, don't you realize that if there was a simple answer that I would have done it. I am working my butt off by working the hours that I work and still trying to do a little good in the community. I wouldn't become a stripper. For those who can do it I pass no judgement but it is not for me. I have looked at filing for bankruptcy but student loans aren't part of it and since that is the majority of my debt what would be the point. My living expenses are as follows: 362.50 for rent, roughly 60 for electric, water is included, don't have cable, internet and water are free, I have a payment of 156.00 dollars that I pay every month to a loan consolidation place for my creditcard debt. Cell phone is 40 dollars a month but it is my only line, and then my student loan payments which are 396 dollars a month. I finally turn 24 this year. So it won't be an issue any more because legally I cannot be claimed by my mom but I tried to emmancipate myself and she wouldn't cooperate because she wanted the tax breaks. It isn't an easy as you would think. I tried even had a lawyer and everything. It didn't work just so you know.

Do we still need a 10-20% down payment? I have been renting for two years and have decided to buy the home. My landlord told me to tell the bank/lender I have given him $10,000. We have paid $12,000 in rent. How does this work? Do I just tell the bank we have given this money as a down payment? Logically, I know the process is much more complicated than that. I am just confused b/c loan apps ask how much you "have" for a down payment. Right now we only have $3,000 to apply toward a DP. A 20% down payment on this home would be $10,000. Applying for a $0 down pmt./high interest, high monthly pmt. loan is not an option. I will only buy if we have a good down pmt. If there is anyone with real estate experience with this type of situation any advice is appreciated. Also, I don't know how relevant this is but... Our credit is good, not great. Our landlords are really great. We have decreased our debt to ~$3,000. It should be completely eliminated in 4 months.

legalizing marijuana? I must agree with liberals (terrible, no?) that legalizing marijuana might actually be a good idea. the idea might even support capitalism, which is ironic since liberal ideas don't. under communist and very socialist systems, the black market is huge. as a result, the "man" receives less revenue because it cant tax those goods. I'm not saying the black market should be completely eliminated, but since marijuana is such a huge business, the government could make a killing from the revenue, which could help pay down the debt. people are going to do it even if its illegal, you might as well tax them for their irresponsibility. LibsRwimps, you have a point. so make it so that only businesses in commercial zones can produce it. etaguf, marijuana would still be cheaper because we wouldnt need drug smugglers demanding high prices for risking their lives and using expensive transport methods (planes, boats, radar, etc,) trying to get it here.

Do you think obama will follow through with his promise? Do you think President-elect Obama will keep his word to end the federal raids on medical marijuana patients? Here is a letter I wrote that I will be emailing to him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUze-oYsswI This second video is contradicting because he said he doesn't think people should be allowed to grow their own, but under California law patients are allowed to grow their own marijuana as recommended by their doctors. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvUziSfMwAw I want to know if you think he will end the federal raids and keep his word or do you think he will make no changes to the current war between the states defined law and the federal governments interference? Here is the letter: Dear President Obama, You have said that you will end federal interference with states that have made laws allowing medical use of marijuana but I believe marijuana should be legalized and taxed instead of being a criminal matter. I have written a plan for legalizing and taxing marijuana, I would ask that you read over it, and let me know what you think of it. I know you are a busy man and you have many other important issues to address but this is a very important issue that should have been addressed a long time ago. My plan for the legalization and Taxation of marijuana Introduction: Our country is 11 trillion dollars in debt, 43% of adults have admitted to trying marijuana [including you and me] yet billions of dollars of our countries resources are spent every year arresting and imprisoning Americans like you and I at the taxpayers expense. Marijuana should be regulated like alcohol and sold in designated privately owned taxed government permitted stores similar to ABC stores, where adults over 18 or 21 can purchase various amounts and varieties of marijuana. But the marijuana has to come from somewhere... Induction of Marijuana: The marijuana should be grown by privatized companies independently American-owned [non imported] Or grown personally by the consumer if a taxed tag was paid for each plant with enforced penalties for untaxed marijuana plants. Non tax paid marijuana plants would be treated as growing un permitted untaxed tobacco for commercial use or brewing moonshine. Sale: Sale would be treated as an alcohol purchase for adults over 18 or 21 in a designated store similar to an ABC store. All marijuana sales would be taxed as well as when grown. Use and Restrictions: Marijuana should be able to be consumed in a designated area such as an equivalent to a bar, or smoked in ones own home. Users of marijuana should not drive or operate machinery similarly to alcohol enforcement would be a sobriety test if suspected of driving under the influence of marijuana. Outcome: Marijuana is a multi-trillion dollar a year industry in the united states, and if taxed would a great source of government income,would help eliminate national debt, fund government spending and would eliminate the criminal aspect of marijuana buying and selling. Marijuana is useful for treating medical ailments as well but should not be restricted to medical use. Cigarettes and Alcohol are completely legal, yet too many drinks or too many cigarettes will kill you. There has never been one report of a marijuana overdose yet hundreds of thousands of people die every year from drunk driving,alcohol poisoning, and cancer from cigarettes and alcohol. Marijuana has been proven not to have any link to lung cancers or other any other health related problems. President Obama, please give this some thought and get back to me, when I voted for you- you said that the peoples voice matters- I am speaking my voice and I hope you can hear me out.This is a very brief version of this letter if you would want to know anything else about the aspects of introducing this please let me know.

Specialized gutiar? So I'm trying to build my dream guitar but does this all sound like too much to fit into one guitar (I understand that it would probably be cheaper to eliminate national debt than build this guitar) Violin Shaped Hollow Body Violin shaped headstock, with big bass pegs (for better emulation) Classical sized neck, scalloped frets, (neck completely black) Not quite sure about pickups yet, will take a lot of time to decide No pickguard Wooden block in center (to reduce feedback typically found in semihollows) 12 string do I dare ask for more?

Is this a pretty good description of what the Fed is doing now with its trillions in commitments of new credit? "#4 – The Fed blows up yet another bubble Conventional wisdom said that the Fed was out of bubbles to blow up once the housing market fell apart (and continues to do so). True, the home was probably the most convenient way that people could be cajoled into borrowing money on ‘equity' that in fact never really existed to begin with. However, the Fed properly understands the relationship between debt and economic growth in a fiat monetary system. As such, Fed governors know that the American public must continue to borrow money. They also know that the US government, like consumers, is flat broke and needs to borrow money. So the Fed is now using its member banks to indirectly monetize debt. Put simply, the Fed creates money from nothing, then exchanges it for bad assets on the balance sheet of its member banks. The banks get rid of the toxic assets, then take the Fed's new money and buy US Treasuries. The government ends up with the fresh money, and you the taxpayer have not only the responsibility to pay the principal back, but also to make interest payments to the Fed (vis a vis its member banks) in the meantime. In doing this, the prices of US government bonds have gone parabolic, and correspondingly, yields are now scraping against the ocean floor. The net result of this is that savers are further punished by near zero or even negative rates of return on short-term money market instruments and other debt that as recently as a year ago were paying north of 4% interest. On the consumer side of things, mortgage rates have dipped significantly. The idea here is to stimulate borrowing by creating (once again) artificially low interest rates. Doesn't this sound familiar – a la 2001? One problem is that banks are not lending like they were in 2001. Ironically, they are invoking lending standards again even though the Fed has almost completely eliminated risk from the equation! While money is available, it is generally available to only those with the best credit at the lower rates. The rest it seems need not apply. On the other side of the ledger, consumers are in much worse shape overall than they were in 2001. In many cases, mortgages are underwater, there is no ‘equity' to be tapped, and credit card balances are higher than ever. In addition, the one means of supporting a debt lifestyle (employment) is being yanked out from under many people as weekly unemployment claims and monthly job loss numbers continue to mount at an alarming rate. http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7948 -- and by the way - Merry Christmas and a Happy Holiday!

I need general life advice....? Alright, I've kind of gotten myself into quite a difficult predicament and I need advice from several others. Every time I feel like I know the answer, a reason that presents itself to stop me from making that choice. To begin with I'm 21 years old, and due to poor decisions on my part and my parent's part I have not finished high school. I'm 3 credits short. I also have about 2000 dollars in debt, and a great girlfriend whom I've been dating for nearly three years. She is one of the reasons I don't get too discouraged with myself. Anyway, I recently got this job that pays fairly well, but it completely eliminated every other aspect of my life. The hours are absolutely terrible, and they refuse to switch them for anything. There's no time for schooling, and no time for my girlfriend. My life has turned to complete misery, and for a few extra hundred dollars every month. I hate the work I do. Simply put, I'm a telemarketer and I hate it more than you can imagine. Nothing would give me more happiness and relief than to be able to relinquish myself of the job and go home and relax, but I can't. I need the money. I need to know if you think I should find another job that pays less, and gives me more time. I know my schooling is the most important thing, and I'm doing all of this for my girlfriend in the first place, so I'm becoming demotivated. Anyway, I don't mean to sound like I'm complaining. I just need your advice. What I think would be best, is to take a part-time job, focus completely on school until these three credits are done, then once high school is out of the way I can spend next year working full-time and paying off my debts, then go to college. Thing is, I don't know. I need some outside advice. Thanks in advance people. I aprpeciate the honest replies; however I haven't gotten a direct answer. Should I find a job with fewer hours and finish my schooling?

Has anyone ever obtained a top secret or secret clearance after filing bankruptcy? The reason I ask is because everyone tells me they know of someone who was able to get it, I could never find an actual person who did it so I am hoping I find one here I am pretty sure its possible because they look at your outstanding debt, and filing chapter 7 eliminates debt, plus bankruptcy is a program that the government offers so it cant look too bad if you really think about it the only other thing I have on my record is one misdemeanor which was like 1 years ago, and I am certain that wouldn't affect it because most of my military buddies have 1 or 2 themselves. Keep in mid that I have 2 more years to go until the military has to requests the clearance, so is it better to do it immediately so everything would be completely cleared up by then???? @PooPoo: I am pretty sure you are wrong because that doesn't make any sense. The military wouldn't even bother considering me if that was the case. I didn't ask you to explain the shit to me, don't you think I already know how its done?? I just want to find at least 1 person who has done it successfully because I keep hearing of people who did it, I just wanna be sure. I hateeee street lawyers!!!!!! That's exactly what I did and that's why I got accepted into the officer program. You fail to realize that DOD clearances are done differently so stop referring me to websites for civilian lawyers who DONT even do clearances. I only want to hear advice from military personnel who have done bankruptcy , DSS personnel and OPM personnel How can you speak on behalf of the interviewer that is gonna make his/her decision after interviewing me?????

Will the economic collapse bring the one world banking scheme to fruition? http://www.businessinsider.com/now-bernanke-wants-to-eliminate-reserve-requirements-completely-2010-3 Now Bernanke Wants To Eliminate Reserve Requirements Completely And below are three separate banking swindles of the last ten years. This first TV broadcast discusses how Lehman Brothers fudged their books fuelling the recent economic crash. The incident is being covered up by the Federal Reserve and other major overseers because they become implicated. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/35841681#35841681 Goldman Sachs helped to obscure billions in Greek debt from auditors. http://news.globaltv.com/money/Wall+Streeet+helped+Greece+further+into+debt+report/2562618/story.html This next clip shows how Goldman Sachs has key influencial players behind the Canadian and American Administration. It also show how they manipulate the economy to create boom and crash results to their own benefit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SFywA_LQuU

How do I start improving credit? Hi all! I'm new to Y!A and Im looking for a bit of help...not judgement HELP. I am a 21 year-old college student and have had credit since the age of 18. I have had one credit card with a 700$ limit that I used up to the limit and havent made a payment on in about a year. Needless to say that situation is not good. I have another card with a 300$ limit that is current and completely up to date and paid off. I have only one more debt to my recollection for 208$ bill collectors have just started calling so I know that I need to get this stuff paid off ASAP before I get in deep. I have no student loans because I am on scholarship working has just been hard in this current economy and a 40 hour school week. I would like to take the steps to find out what I owe in entirety, to whom I owe, and start making payments towards eliminating my debt and improving my credit. I would like advice from anyone with experience (be it life or professional) with this situation. Thank you.

How can I help my girlfriend deal with her mother? Just a little background information: My girlfriend and I are 27 years old and live in Southern California. Her parents got divorced when she was a teenager and her mother hasn't been the same since. Her mother has trouble sustaining a job, says suicidal things, is living with her sister who is well, lets just say, not the nicest person in the world. She used to live on the East Coast where she had a job that she was sustaining and could tolerate the people she was living with. She then decides to move out here with NO job, and NO real place to live to be closer to her daughter (my girlfriend). While the notion is sweet, it was a terrible err of judgment on her part to come out here so ill prepared. Before she knew me, about two years or so, she was taking care of her mother all on her own and sustained a substantial amount of debt and was living in poverty due to this fact. My GF shortly moved out from her mother and moved in with a relative where she currently resides as she builds up her credit score and eliminates her debt, which I believe she is doing a wonderful job of. Now her mother is back, all be it not living with her but latching on and dragging her down when what she needs to be doing is taking care of herself. Ever since her mother came back to town, she gets called daily by her mother who regales her of the hardships that she endures at her sister’s home along with other assorted sad/unfortunate events. I've noticed as well that she is also highly stressed lately, and hasn’t been to the gym which shows in her figure. My GF has had weight problems before, but these turn of events have truly exacerbated them to the point that I am concerned about her health. Additionally, my GF often feels obligated and compelled to help her mother, which I completely understand, but it is getting to the point where the requests are getting unreasonable and the burden put on her is becoming unbearable. I have a genuine concern for her mother and believe it is truly tragic that she is in this state, however, my girlfriend is dealing with A LOT right now and this is a large portion of the stress she is dealing with. How does one deal with this in my position? I know she needs to do something but, I dont know what my options are at this point in terms of advising her. I know this relationship she has with her mother right now is NOT healthy so I need to find a way to help her...

12 year relationship on the verge of divorce please help!!? part 3? I also was just recently offered a higher position with a very reputable company earning a significant amount higher than I was previously. I see light at the end of the tunnel, I can presently make my minimum payments and feel that with this new position I could eliminate all or atleast most of our debt, I am not an avid spender, these debts are due to a new home we purchased and completely remodeled and renovated. I want to make this work but Im not sure if he does. I also want to make sure that if we try once again we dont fail like all the other times we have. Anyone out there with experience in this situation .... PLEASE HELP!!!!!

Question about credit score/ hard inquiries? My husband and I are finally on our way to almost eliminating all of our old debt. I checked my credit score while I had a free trial and saw that I had 9 hard inquiries. I'm not sure why there would be 9, but I did notice some of them were from a very long time ago before I was married and trying to get a car on my own (eventually needed my brother to co sign). So Im wanting to know how long it will take for these to come off of my credit score?? And although my debt is close to being completely paid off, I want to open a chase credit card in the future rather than the capital one cc's we have now, am I able to even be approved with these hard inquiries on my score? Thanks..

Why can't all restaurants remove trans fat from their menus? Trans fat, existing only from the artificial partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, is terrible for your health and not needed in any levels in your body. It's completely artificial, and is only used because it saves companies a little bit of money, and makes food taste a little better - it lasts longer and keeps foods more moist. However, while this oil makes the salty, fatty foods served at most fast food and chain restaurants even worse for you, restaurants continue to use it. There are oils out there like sesame seed oil and olive oil which even when processed, are still good for your health, filled with beneficial unsaturated fats. I just want to know why more isn't being done to prevent these restaurants from removing trans fat from their menus? New York City has passed a law banning it, but how far behind is the rest of America? Couldn't the huge healthcare debts in America be subsided significantly if trans fat were eliminated from all foods?

I am so sick of the War On Drugs, Any hope left? Let's really think about it. What is inherently wrong with the actual act of using drugs? Nothing. There's nothing wrong in making, transporting, or selling drugs either. What's wrong is the things that people might do under the influence of drugs, and that's what they should be punished for. Would the use of drugs increase if they were legalized? No, because there's enough education out there right now that everyone knows how dangerous they all are. Does anyone actually think that the people who don't use drugs now are going to start just because they're legalized? They're not, because the reason they don't use them now has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with thier own set of values. The people with values low enough that they might want to use drugs don't care if they're legal or not. I'm not saying all drugs should be completely legal. I think there should be an age minimum like there is with alcohol, and once you reach that, you do what you want. Sell it only in places like bars and liquor stores where kids aren't allowed, license the shit out of the sellers, tax the shit out of the buyers, and make the act of giving/buying drugs to/for minors a crime like alchohol. Now we can eliminate all these damn money-pit "task forces" and "drug czars" whose only purpose is to shore up a political agenda for the party in power and grab votes from one of the largest voting groups, that being the old folks who still believe that if something's "morally wrong" there should be a law against it. We can also turn loose everyone in prison whose only crime was to come somehow in contact with drugs, buying, selling, using, etc., and commited no other crime. Imagine how much money our government could spend in more useful places if it didn't have to shell out 75k a year to house and feed every guy who got caught smoking dope a few times too often. Imagine how many gang-bangers would have to get real jobs. How many fewer gangs, period. Imagine how many fewer people would get killed, and how many fewer undercover agents put in danger in "drug deals gone bad". Hell, what could the government do if the entire budget of the DEA was freed up for other things? As of right now I dont use drugs, I have been clean for years and i even quit smoking cigarretes. I think its pretty god dam rediculous i cant even do something like smoke a joint after work or pop a vicodin while im watching a movie without the risk of paying thousands in fines, court fees, possible jail time. I mean seriously are people just too damned stupid to *rule themselves*?.... or hopefully thats just what our government believes. I can give a hundred examples of poisonous things in our food/enviornment, here is one... Aspartame- This is proven in large amounts to be more toxic than taking ecstasy (MDMA) on a normal basis. Aspartame is NEURO-TOXIC which means you can develop cancer, become blind, deaf or retarded just from drinking too much diet soda. its in almost all chewing gum, diet drinks, and other common food products. (ofcourse keep in mind everyone will react differently). Yet for some odd reason our current chimp-in-chief/congress is doing NOTHING to outlaw this Poison which kills and harms so many. How much more are Americans going to take of this? Why is nothing changing??? And please i really dont think calling our stupid ass corrupt local representatives is going to do much. Government/politicians dont even have to respect us, let alone give into our logical demands. Is it seriously going to take a violent uprising for things to change? Our nation is beyond bankrupt. Were in such debt because of enlarged government/gov programs that things really are looking gloomy. Nuclear war is on the horizon. is that what its going to take for things to change, Washington DC getting blown up? Im just really looking for some ideas on what to do so things can really CHANGE. Being our government doesnt even listen to us anymore, Im hoping you good people can give real ideas on what could be done to initate change for things like the War on Drugs, Poverty, Economy crisis, etc. And please, Big Ideas People!!! None of this rallying or calling local reps being thats obviously ineffective.

For people who say "the GOP has no ideas," what do you think about these? In 2013, when President Mitch Daniels, former Indiana governor, is counting his blessings, at the top of his list will be the name of his vice president: Paul Ryan. The former congressman from Wisconsin will have come to office with ideas for steering the federal government to solvency. Not that Daniels has ever been bereft of ideas. Under him, Indiana property taxes have been cut 30 percent and for the first time, Standard & Poor's has raised the state's credit rating to AAA. But in January 2010, Ryan released an updated version of his "Roadmap for America's Future," a cure for the most completely predictable major problem that has ever afflicted America. Some calamities -- the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, 9/11 -- have come like summer lightning, as bolts from the blue. The looming crisis of America's Ponzi entitlement structure is different. Driven by the demographics of an aging population, its causes, timing and scope are known. Funding entitlements -- especially medical care and pensions for the elderly -- requires reinvigorating the economy. Ryan's map connects three destinations -- economic vitality, diminished public debt, and health and retirement security. To make the economy -- on which all else hinges -- hum, Ryan proposes tax reform. Masochists would be permitted to continue paying income taxes under the current system. Others could use a radically simplified code, filing a form that fits on a postcard. It would have just two rates: 10 percent on incomes up to $100,000 for joint filers and $50,000 for single filers; 25 percent on higher incomes. There would be no deductions, credits or exclusions, other than the health care tax credit (see below). Today's tax system was shaped by sadists who were trying to be nice: Every wrinkle in the code was put there to benefit this or that interest. Since the 1986 tax simplification, the code has been recomplicated more than 14,000 times -- more than once a day. At the 2004 Republican convention, thunderous applause greeted George W. Bush's statement that the code is "a complicated mess" and a "drag on our economy" and his promise to "reform and simplify" it. But his next paragraphs proposed more complications to incentivize this and that behavior for the greater good. Ryan would eliminate taxes on interest, capital gains, dividends and death. The corporate income tax, the world's second highest, would be replaced by an 8.5 percent business consumption tax. Because this would be about half the average tax burden that other nations place on corporations, U.S. companies would instantly become more competitive -- and more able and eager to hire. Medicare and Social Security would be preserved for those currently receiving benefits, or becoming eligible in the next 10 years (those 55 and older today). Both programs would be made permanently solvent. Universal access to affordable health care would be guaranteed by refundable tax credits ($2,300 for individuals, $5,700 for families) for purchasing portable coverage in any state. As persons under 55 became Medicare eligible, they would receive payments averaging $11,000 a year, indexed to inflation and pegged to income, with low-income people receiving more support. Ryan's plan would fund medical savings accounts from which low-income people would pay minor out-of-pocket medical expenses. All Americans, regardless of income, would be allowed to establish MSAs -- tax-preferred accounts for paying such expenses. Ryan's plan would allow workers under 55 the choice of investing more than one-third of their current Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts similar to the Thrift Savings Plan long available to, and immensely popular with, federal employees. This investment would be inheritable property, guaranteeing that individuals will never lose the ability to dispose every dollar they put into these accounts. Ryan would raise the retirement age. If, when Congress created Social Security in 1935, it had indexed the retirement age (then 65) to life expectancy, today the age would be in the mid-70s. The system was never intended to do what it is doing -- subsidizing retirements that extend from one-third to one-half of retirees' adult lives. Compare Ryan's lucid map to the Democrats' impenetrable labyrinth of health care legislation. Republicans are frequently criticized as "the party of no." But because most new ideas are injurious, rejection is an important function in politics. It is, however, insufficient. Fortunately, Ryan, assisted by Republican representatives Devin Nunes of California and Jeb Hensarling of Texas, has become a think tank, refuting the idea that Republicans lack ideas.

If we end up with a "public option" after all, what will the government's insurance agency do with its profits? But wait...it's a government agency...there are no profits! OK, but if there are no profits, then there are losses...unless the books just balance at zero at the end of every year. So that means one of two things: the government's "public option" insurance agency will have to work to protect its bottom line (same as private insurance companies), in which case it will NOT be able to compete and be completely ineffective; OR the government's "public option" agency will be allowed to operate at a loss and will count on being bailed out year after year by the either taxpayers or by monetization of its increasing debt. Or it could be supported by the individual states, as yet another unfunded mandate. Either way, if it doesn't have to watch its bottom line, it will have an unfair advantage over the private insurance companies and eventually eliminate them. So, given the above, what is the point of the public option? duker918, my point exactly. Several Congressmen, including Barney Frank, have admitted as much. So why don't the Dems just come out and say it? Actually, why don't the Republicans just come out and spell it out more clearly? Your Master, did you read the entire question? If the government doesn't make a profit, then it must take a loss. That loss must be made up somehow. If it is made up, then the government option does not have to watch its bottom line. If this option competes with private entities that DO have to watch their bottom line, then eventually, unless the people running it are COMPLETELY incompetent, the government option insurer will eliminate the private competition. That is my point. I know that the party line is that you can afford to cover more for less because the government doesn't make a profit. But my question simply points out that this is a total scam unsupported by reality. GimmeSomeChang, you obviously have never been screwed over by the government. What does that have to do with anything?

What's the best use of my cash, given the following details:? - I have 10k cash. - I bought a house in Nov 2008. - I was laid off in April 2009. - I have been working almost a year, but I'm at a job where my position is temporary. I'm also making 10k less a year than I was when I bought my house, a situation that's making it difficult month-to-month. There's real potential for me to be hired permanently, and possibly at my old salary level, but it's not certain yet. - I now have 20k debt (some due to medical bills, some due to house issues, some due to being laid off for 6 months+, and some was just spent on fun- not smart, I know.) This amounts to about $500/month that goes towards my two cards. $200 of this is ridiculous interest, each month. - My 1995 Camry that I've been driving all my life recently died, and now I need to get another car in the next few weeks. - My cash was my security blanket while I was unemployed, and I lived on cards so as not to dwindle my savings. I didn't realize how far into debt I was getting, but I'm glad to have this 10k at least. I feel that I need to keep at least 2k in my account to feel comfortable, so I have about 8000 in play. I feel like I have 2 options. 1) paying $8000 off on my cards and freeing up around $250/month. I could then buy or lease a car with that money. I like this obviously because it eliminates a lot of my card debt/high interest payments. If I didn't do this, I have no idea when I'd be able to pay my debt down. 2) buying a car outright with 5000-7000$. No car note, which will help me month-to-month, but I'll still be paying (wasting) money on my card debt. My questions are-- which seems like the better decision, long term? And between the buying vs. leasing option, since my finances are indefinite (with my job situation), could leasing at a lower note be an acceptable alternative for a year or two until things firm up? I generally disagree with leasing, but I don't have a lot of room for mistakes here with my money, and I hate to *buy* a car under pressure, I'd rather buy the one that's right, when I'm ready. Also, to be completely honest, the cars I like are out of my price range. I know I'm being unrealistic, but I'd much rather be in an '06-'09 toyota/honda or small SUV, and those are not what I can afford. I'm kind of in denial that I actually have to make this decision pretty quickly, and all alone. What I want and what I probably should do are not in alignment. Thanks for reading this. Please only serious replies. Thanks.

Cash Vrs. Credit, which is better? If America is moving towards a credit based system, which it is, and eliminating the value of cold hard cash, then where will the real value be coming from? Wouldn't that make the country's GDP worse? If everything is on credit and no cash value or nothing to back up the credit, it seams the value of America will get even worse. People will be a slave to the debts they owe, and always having to struggle to have good credit. Unless of coarse if your rich, which is fine, but the rich only make up about 10% of the population. What about everyone else? Medical bills, say something goes wrong, they have to take out a loan, eventually they will be enslaved with debt and no way to pay it off. Should we devalue our people of this country, or restore financial wealth with real currency and valuables to back it up? I for one am never leaving cash behind. I make a considerable cash income every month which 10 years ago I would have been considered rich, but because of my poor credit score, I am not able to purchase a home, car, etc... I guess I will just wait a short while and buy everything cash, that way I can own my property outright, and sit back while everyone is slaving away to pay on their debts, which they may never pay off completely, just to have a good credit score. They may have nice things now, but what are they passing on to future generations? Nothing but mountains of unpaid balances that other countries will be glad to own! Get with it America!!

What do you liberals think about this? READ ALL, THIS IS A VERY LARGE QUESTION. You say Reagnomics failed. Well Reaganomics is comonly reffered to as supply-slide economics. In 1948, Ludwig Erhard put supply-slide economics, or aka Reaganomics, to the test in Western Germany. He introduced an economic shock therapy completely in line with Reaganomics. He abolished rationing and price-controls, although he restricted his own power with this measure. Erhard believed in the self regulation of the market and not the liberal belief in government regulation. Later on Erhard, as secretary for the economy, cut the high marginal tax rate in two steps: first from 95% to 63% and afterwards to 53%. The first 8000 DM earned became tax free. Erhard’s leadership allowed Germany to rebuild at an economic pace never seen before. Ludwig Erhard is a perfect example of conservatism in another nation. There’s a reason why he’s called the “Father of the Wirtschaftswunder”… After Reagan, the theory of supply-side economics was applied in numerous countries. In Iceland, David Oddson became prime minister in 1991. He inherited a poorly performing economy burdened by heavy income taxes. He lowered the corporate tax rate from 50% to 30%. During the next five years the economy grew by 5% per year. Government income did not fall and social outlays could be maintained. He too is another great example of this success. Ireland is another example. In 1987 this country was the “sick man” of Europe, with a public debt of 135 % of GDP. After the elections of 1987 a new economic policy was introduced. Corporate tax rate was reduced from 32% to 12.5% and capital gains tax was lowered from 40% to 20%. Ireland is now the fastest growing country of the European Union. Japan, on the other hand, is a classic example of the failure of a Liberal demand-side policy. The economy has been in shambles for many years and public debt has risen to a gigantic 170% of GDP. All because in the early 1990’s they bailed out many banks which were collapsing. What happened in Japan is happening now… And now i go back to Reagan. How do you explain 18 million new jobs, trippled GDP, doubled revenues to the government, reduced poverty, and a booming economy? I knwo you will point out the debt from massive military spending, but you liberals enjoy spending large amounts of money too. Not to mention, you liberals enjoy raising taxes which never leads to economic growth! Tell me once when rasing taxes worked. Clinton? He stopped spending, rose taxes to pay for defcits while lowering capital gains and eliminating usless government progerams--that is not liberal economics.... I don't know of any credible economist that says Reaganomics or supply-slide economics failed... Secondly you idiots point to Bush acting like Reagan, when that is false... So please, wtf? Sources: http://lvb.net/item/960 Please give a logical answer instead of trying to hange the subject--wait, you can't give a logical explination.

Can my fiance claim me on Tax returns i have a L.L.C partnership business but never been operated it? So in May I registered a small business as an L.C.C partnership with a colleague as the manager. Unfortunately, between raising our new baby and my colleague in college, we never had a chance to start the business as we hoped. Reason being is we never found a wholesaler for the products that seemed reasonable and profitable enough to begin our start up costs without going directly into debt. With that being said my question is. now that its tax time im unsure on how to file and my fiancee has completely supported the daughter we have together and my daughter from a previous relationship and obviously myself,He has claimed us both in previous years {I have full custody of my oldest and her father is not involved by any means with her in order to claim her. Hes unfortunately never been or wanted to be a part of her life so that eliminates his rights to claim her). so he should be able to claim us three right? Legally since I registered my business federally and through state of Oregon am unsure of my liabilities. Therefore can someone please help let me know what my options are and what steps to take since this is all completely new to me. Thanks in advance, Monique.

What is the Main Objection to the Public Option in Healthcare Plan? Surely it's not the idea of government offerring a reasonably priced and fairly administered health insurance contract? We have seen how corporate America works. From the big banks, to the big credit card companies and mortgage lenders, right. You don't pay these guys at least $10 million per year, they wouldn't even consider showing up for work. Most of them wind up getting $20 Million or $50 million when all parts of their pay and compensation and pension and healthcare and expense account are figured in. So the idea that corporate America is ludicrously greedy and rapacious is not news to anybody who has actually been on planet Earth for the past 10 years, right. Now comes government, and says it wants a non-greedy, and non rapacious healtg insurance company. It wants to set one up. It wants a chance to compete with the insanely greedy private companies, maybe offer a better product, or make them offer better products by giving them some honest competion. Well, if that's all there were to the offer, only a real Chicago School Purist would object. So, what's the big objection to the Public Option? Here it is. Imagine a company that wanted to sell flood insurance. OK so they sell most of their policies in the floodplain areas of the USA. In order to attract customers they say "We will pay off on these policies even if you buy them after your house has been completely washed away and destroyed utterly by a flood." Well, of course they sell a lot of policies, particularly after big floods. Everybody whose house has been destroyed buys a policy for $5,000 and then puts in their claim for their destroyed house for $500,000. Miracle of miracles this company soon finds itself in big financial trouble. Why? Because $5,000 is a much smaller number than $500,000. Now come the company executives, and they say, "How were we to know that our business model was faulty?" We went to Princeton, Harvard, and Yale, we studied speechmaking, and community organizing, and political theory. We have never seen the inside of any business, met any payroll, done any cost accounting, kept any books, or developed any business models. How were we to know? Is this really similar to a health insurance company that agrees to insure all persons regardless of pre-existing conditions. Imagine that the person is like the house. Imagine that the pre-existing condition, perhaps glioma of the brain, is the house already having gotten washed away in the flood last week. Imagine that the premium is $5,000 per year. Imagine that the operation for the glioma costs $500,000. Now, the rule of arithmetic that we visited earlier is still true, $5,000 is a smaller number than $500,000. Who could possibly imagine that such a health insurance company would run into financial trouble, and quite quickly, and quite deeply? No one in government. They went to Princeton, Harvard and Yale, you know the drill. The problem is this: The bad flood insurance company only hurts itself, it's policyholders, its employees and it shareholders. It winds up in bankrupcy Court and gets eliminated, within about 6 months. But the bad (crazy) U.S. Government backed health insurance company, can't go bankrupt. It has the full faith and credit of the Federal government behind it, who can print money, or take the bad debt onto the Fed Balance sheet. So this becomes the money black hole. It's like a cash whirlpool. The money disappears down it, and never comes back, and it gets bigger and hungrier every day, every hour. The rathole down which USA disappeared. So -- the problem is all about the fact that the government has a completely crazy business model for how a health insurance company can operate -- and it's not their fault -- what do they know from insurance? Zilch -- they are community organizers! So this is an idea in which everybody is a victim, even the ones coming forward with the idea now, they are victims too ''How were they to know?"

How's my essay? Please give out any suggestions or opionions? Foreign aid policy of the United States is a program by which the United States of America interacts with other nations and set standards of interaction for its organizations, cooperations and citizens. The policy only spends a tiny portion of America’s annual budget (about 0.1% of the Gross National Product), but the United States still spends over billions of dollars the program. There have been arguments rising for the past few years about this policy. Some people feel that it is not enough and that we should spend a lot more helping other nations. Others criticize that we spend too much and that we should spend all money addressing problems our own problems. I think that we should spend all our money to solve our own problems before helping others. The Great Recession is an economic decline began started after Lehman Brother’s bank declared bankrupt in December 2007. The financial crisis has also been linked to reckless lending practices by financial institutions encouraged by the government in the United States. It spread around the world and affected much of the industrialized world and has caused a significant problem in the economic world. The effect of this depression has caused deceleration in economic activity across the globe. The financial crisis has caused people in America to loose their jobs and the rate of people without jobs to increase around 10%. The situation in Europe was a lot worse, with Iceland declared bankrupt and Greece announcing that it’s going to sell land to return debt. The condition of Spain isn’t so good either, with the unemployed rate up the roof, a staggering 20%. United States is one of the world’s most important economic world leaders and it should spend more money trying to improve its economics before helping others. If America improves their economy, it’s going to affect worldwide. During recent years, Public Colleges/Universities increased tuition to support the school due to shortage in funds. Increase in tuition has caused a problem in many of the poorer families since they couldn’t afford the school anymore. This would make those who can’t afford university lose the ability to compete with others and ultimately get eliminated. The result of this would cause the poverty to increase greatly, and for these people, they might rob/steal to try to survive in this world. The crime rates are going to rise and the society is going to be in chaos. To stop that from happening, the government of United States of America should stop spending billions of dollars to help others but to try to improve the student’s ability to afford tuition for school by offering more scholarship and/or support the public university/college. Some people might argue that foreign aid is vital for helping countries with major catastrophes and creates a safer and prosperous world to those who need help. Major Catastrophes like Haiti Earthquake that happened in the past few years is one of the most serious natural disasters that happened in January 12, 2010 with a magnitude of 7.0. This disaster has been responsible for the death of over 230,000 people. Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the western hemisphere and the earthquake has completely destroyed Haiti’s ability to relieve victims of the disaster. Although America should preserve the funds of Foreign Aid Policy to solve the problems occurring within the country, the government should still send out resources and manpower to assist the survivors of the disaster. America should act as a leader for the rescue effort, coordinating rescue attempt between countries to make steady progress and avoid miscommunication or misunderstanding. I think that the Foreign Aid Policy should be canceled since the United States of America should spend the money on their own problems first before assisting others. We have to help ourselves before assisting anyone else or our own country will be in serious trouble. America should spend the fund from Foreign Aid policy on helping improving the economic situation and decreasing the tuition needed to go to Public college/university. After solving the issue within the states, then the country should help others with their problems.

I support both Obama AND the tea party. Is there something wrong with me? This happens to me all the time. I pride myself on my ability to see both sides of an issue equally, and then take those observations to decide which side of the issue I agree with. The problem is, I often look at the "other" side with such understanding that I start to agree with them. For instance, let's take Obama. I agreed with his measures to save the economy which, almost all economists will agree, worked. However, when listening to the tea party arguments, I am also upset that Obama is not following his promise of payGo, and that the ever increasing debt IS a serious problem. (Although, one that can be overcome, as it was after WWII). However, I don't think that letting poor people die by eliminating welfare, medicaid, or the new healthcare system is the way to go, either. In other words, I almost completely agree with Obama and the tea party crowd simultaneously, as far as such a feat is possible. Is this a virtue or a vice?

Why not just completely eliminate medicare, medicaid and privatize social security? That's $1.354 trillion of savings right there. If more people are forced to purchase insurance by the laws of supply and demand it will become cheaper. Privatizing s.s could lead to higher payments for Americans and save the federal government money. Then the federal government could use the savings to pay back our debt and invest in our infrastructure.

Does Obama hate the term "Budget"? I think it hilarious and sad how much of a spending frenzy these silly liberals are in right now. You know that 787 billion dollars that Obama spent just weeks into office? He could have completely eliminated federal income tax for everybody in the United States for 3 years for LESS. These bafoons just spend and spend and spend, and it's disgusting. How many times are we going to repeat this mistake before, I don't know, realize that spending only accelerates recession (oh wait, that's right, we aren't in a recession anymore...it came from Obama's mouth himself so it's true!!!!). Recession is natural. You waste trillion and trillions in spending and drive up our debt so that by 2018 our INTEREST on our debt will be 2/3 of our (alleged) national budget (we don't have one). That being said....do you think Obama hates the word "budget", at least close to how much he hates the word "capitalism"?

Should we give money to poor ppl? ZAKAAT (Alms) Ramadan is the month of giving and benevolence, the Messenger was more benevolent than a falling rain. Muslims are encouraged to emulate the Messenger of Allah (saas), to assess and pay their Zakaat during the month of Ramadan, thus combining the two pillars of Islam at the same time. Zakaat (alms) is the name of what a believer returns out of his or her wealth to the neediest of Muslims for the sake of the Almighty Allah. It is called Zakaat because the word Zakaat is from Zakaa which means, to increase, purify and bless. Who Should Give Zakaat The obligation of Zakaat is mandatory on every Muslim who possesses the minimum Nisaab, whether the person is man, woman, young, old sane or insane. Because the proof of Zakaat in Al-Qur`an and Sunnah is general and does not exclude young or insane. Allah (SWT) stated that: "Of their goods take alms so that thou mightiest purify and sanctify them..." (Al-Qur`an, 9: 103) Imam Ibn Hazim said that every Muslim young or old sane or insane needs to cleanse his or her wealth with Zakaat because of generality of the evidence. Anas bin Malik reported that the Messenger of Allah (saas) said: "Trade with the money of the orphan, lest it is eaten up by Zakaat." (At-Tabraani) In another Hadith `Amru bin Shuaib related from his grandfather that the Messenger of Allah said: "Whoever is entrusted with money of an orphan should trade with it and should not leave it sitting to be used up by charity." (Tirmidhi) The point of reference in these reports is that the Messenger (saas) urged the trustee on the estate of people who due to age or other reasons cannot manage their own financial affairs, to invest it in a business that will yield a return and make it grow until they are in a position to do so themselves. For, if proper investment is not made with an ophan's inheritance, it will be depleted by charity, thus leaving the orphan with little or nothing. The Nisaab The Lawgiver, Allah has prescribed the minimum amount that is obligatory for Zakaat in different ranges of properties, and that minimum amount is known as nisaab. The reason for nisaab is to ensure that no one is forced to give Zakaat out of what he or she does not have, and that no wealth goes without Zakaat. Nisaab is also an insurance against the tyranny of the state to tax the poor and or the neediest as is the case in many countries. Nisaab is a reference point for the average Muslim who is not sure whether he possesses the minimum wealth on which Zakaat is obligatory. The wealthy need not worry about the Nisaab. Zakaat is obligatory on their entire wealth and must be paid out at the end of financial year that they set for their Zakaat. The Nisaab will not be valid unless it fulfills two conditions: 1) The amount that has reached Nisaab must be the excess or surplus known as "faadil" from one's essential needs such as food, clothing, housing, vehicles, tools and machinery that is used in business. The essentials for living are exempted from Zakaat. Although what constitutes nisaab may change from one country to another, the amount that is needed for the basic needs of living in different countries is very similar, because the market place determines the prices, whether it is an official market or a non-official market. In the poorest countries people do without or live below the poverty standard, and that is why many go hungry or without basic essentials. However, we must realize that Zakaat is an act of worship (ebadah) like Salaat. The element of intention (niyyah) is necessary, and we should not overly rely on state agencies to determine for us the requirements of our religious duty. The so called the "consumption basket" (that is poverty level as determined the social security administration which are updated every fiscal year) may not be the same as what Islam considers minimum Nisaab. In the industrialized countries, the consumption basket may include items that are not necessarily essential, such as entertainment, extra clothing, variety of food, eating in restaurant or eating at home, owning more than one car as opposed to having three cars in the driveway, drinking water as opposed to juices, eating regular food or special "health" food. This is why I believe it is essential that we do not lose site of the fact that Zakaat is ebadah of wealth, like salaat and fasting. Non Muslims may consider all the things mentioned above as essentials while Muslims will not. Indeed, no Muslims in good standing will attempt to hide behind the label of consumption basket so as to evade Zakaat. Nisaab eliminates the possibility of injustice or unfair treatment of the Zakaat payer. To suggest that if we do not follow the rules of International Monetary Fund or the arbitrary figures of social security administration or department of agriculture we will be doing injustice to the Zakaat payer is ludicrous. 2) Nisaab must mature, that is the money is not liable for Zakaat unless it has remained a full year in the possession of a person. This is the understanding of the majority of the scholars. Imam Abu Hanifah (raa) said: "What should be considered is the existence of nisaab at the beginning and the end of the Zakaat year set by the payer". It does not matter if the nisaab money increases or decreases during the calendar year, as we will explain later. This condition does not include farm produce, for it is due on the day it is harvested. Allah (SWT) stated: "... But render the dues that are proper on the day that the harvest is gathered..." (Al-Qur`an, 6: 141) According to Imam Al-`Abadi, (raa) Zakaat money is of two kinds: one that by its nature can not be invested and Zakaat of this category is due on the day of harvest. This includes all the farm produce that is liable for Zakaat. The other is wealth that can be invested in the hope of a good return, like cash, gold or silver, because the opportunity is there that cash in one's hand can be invested for a good return. This includes currency investment, merchandise and livestock. Their Zakaat is not due until they have matured in one full year. The proof of this condition is the Hadith related by Ibn `Umar that the Messenger of Allah (saas) said: "He who acquires property is not liable for Zakaat on it till a year passes." According to Ibn Rushd (raa) this is the understanding of the majority of scholars, including the four rightly guided Khalifahs. Zakaat Of Salaries The condition of yearly term maturity applies to the commodities on which the Lawgiver said Zakaat is due, and this includes silver, gold, modern paper currency and livestock. Paper currency is analogous to silver, therefore, it takes the case of silver. There is no Zakaat on salary, earned income from wage earners or professionals or independent contractors until such money matures in a full year. There is no such thing as paying your Zakaat on the day you receive your paycheck. What the wage earner must know is that he or she can purify that money with charity (sadaqah) anytime they cash the paycheck. Allah (SWT) states: "And in their wealth and possessions (was remembered) the right of the needy, he who asks and he who (for some reason) was prevented (from asking)." (Al-Qur`an, 51: 19). We can deduce from the concept of "yearly maturity" of wealth on which Zakaat is due as encouraging, among other things, saving on the part of the Zakaat payer, and enhances the chances for eradicating poverty, because if the poor receives his rightful share of Zakaat there will be the possibility that he can take Zakaat money and invest it and become a Zakaat payer instead of recipient. This possibility will be lost if he receives few Zakaat dollars every month. To say that the wage earner just brings his check home and spends everything on necessities and lives from check to check with nothing left over means the person is eligible for Zakaat. Using farm produce as analogous to salary for Zakaat is wrong analogy. As Imam Al-`Abadi said, these are two different categories of money. $2, 500.00 cash can be invested by the person and expect a good return whereas it will be difficult to invest a bushel of corn. It can be traded as a commodity, which is what it is. This why we must know that analogy has rules that must be followed before it is applied. Certainly the jurists are unanimous that earned income, known as almal al-mustafadah, should either be added to existing money and wait until that amount reaches maturity and then give their Zakaat; or if there is no money on hand the time one possesses this money, he or she should wait one full year before assessing it for Zakaat. Zakaat is one of the five pillars of Islam and a vital element in the religion of Islam. It is the twin sister of Salaat. In Al-Qur`an, Allah (SWT) stated: "So establish regular Prayer and give regular Alms; and obey the Messenger; that you may receive mercy." (Al-Qur`an, 24: 56) Also, "...Establish regular Prayer and give regular Alms, and loan to Allah a beautiful loan...." (Al-Qur`an, 73: 20) "And they have been commanded no more than this: to worship Allah, offering Him sincere devotion, being true (in faith); to establish regular Prayer and to practice regular charity; and that is the religion right and straight." (Al-Qur`an, 98: 5) In a famous Hadith reported by `Umar Bin Khattab (raa), the Messenger of Allah (saas) responded to Jibreel (as) and said: "... Islam is to testify that there is no deity but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, to perform the prayer, to pay Zakaat, to observe fasting in Ramadan, and to make pilgrimage to the house of Allah if you are able to do os...." (Bukhari, Muslim) There is consensus among Muslim scholars that it is mandatory on every believer who is financially able. Whoever knowingly denies this obligation, while he possesses the minimum amount, would be considered a disbeliever and a renegade from Islam. Whoever is stingy, or tries to cheat, is considered among the wrongdoers. Zakaat is mandatory on four categories of items. 1. Farm produce of seeds and fruits, such as wheat, barley, rice, dates, raisins, cocoa, pistachios, coffee, cashews. Allah (SWT) stated: "O you who believe, give of the good things which you have (honorably) earned, and of the fruits of the earth which We have produced for you..." (Al-Qur`an, 2: 267) Also: "... But render the dues that are proper on the day that the harvest is gathered..." (Al-Qur`an, 6: 141) Thus, these two verses and many others indicate that Zakaat is due on farm products that reached the minimum amount (nisaab). No farm product is liable for Zakaat unless it is a product that is considered as food and can be stocked or saved naturally without refrigeration. If the produce is perishable fruit, such as grapes, there is no Zakaat. But if one sells them they will pay their Zakaat on the profit earned when it matures. The nisaab is 612 kilos, which equals 1,346.40 lb. There is no Zakaat on produce that is less than this amount. If the farm produce or crops grow dependant on rainwater, or without any man's labor or irrigation, Zakaat due is one-tenth of the total. If it is grown by irrigation, then the Zakaat due is half of one-tenth of the total produce. There is no Zakaat on fruits like apples or oranges or vegetables which are perishable and need refrigeration for long storage, but they should be considered as any income if the profit earned from their sale reaches the amount of Zakaat, then Zakaat should be given. 2. Cattle, including camels, cows, sheep and goats, that are freely graze and are raised for trade and production. For Zakaat to be obligatory, the number must reach the nisaab. The nisaab of camels is five, of cows 30, of sheep and goats, 40. By freely grazing is meant the animal goes out to feed without the owner buying or bringing it feed or hay. If it is not a grazing animal, there is no Zakaat in the stock by itself. The stock will, however, be considered as articles of trade, then will be assessed for Zakaat as articles of trade when the profit earned from their sale reaches the amount by itself or in combination with other articles of the trade. 3. Merchandise and goods of trade and commerce. This includes anything that is obtained for the business of buying and selling: land, animals, food provisions, fabric, cars, spare parts, etc. This inventory is evaluated annually and assessed for Zakaat, whether the value is the same as the amount spent on it, more, or less. The owners of grocery stores, like any other business, must evaluate every item and give their Zakaat. Simple bookkeeping of inventory, orders, cash on hand, and credits, that is non-delinquent loans, will give one a good picture of the zakaatable assets. But if one is unable to account for everything in the store or shop, he should assess it according to his ability until he is sure that his conscience is clear. There is no Zakaat on what is within one's dwelling or property which includes food, drinks, furniture, houses, animals, cars, clothes and shoes. The only exception is gold and silver. There is no Zakaat on assets from rentals or lease, whether they are apartment units, taxi cabs, etc. That is, there is no Zakaat on the apartment units, buses or cars for rental like yellow cabs company or trucks for rental or equipments. But there is Zakaat on the proceeds or incomes from these rental assets if these assets reach the executable amount, either by themselves or in combination with other assets. Business Activities Many scholars are of the opinion that any business activity that brings any return to the entrepreneur or investor should be assessed for Zakaat. If the activity has a prescribed nisaab, such as gold, silver or paper currency, that nisaab is applied for Zakaat. But if the business has no declared nisaab, its nisaab is the nisaab of commerce, one reason being that most business activities are considered as commerce and because, in actual fact, it is not factitious business name, such as GM, Apple or GE that is taxed for Zakaat, it is the individual investor. We do not tax cooperations such IBM, Apple, GM or Rajihy Bank but the individual investors, share holders and owners of these corporations. Indeed, there are enough rules in Zakaat books to cover all types of business activity, be it cash or risk investment. If the business activity is analogous to commerce, it should be assessed the same rate as commerce. To subject the business to a different Zakaat rate of 10%, which is the rate of farm products instead of its correct rate of 2.5%, the rate of commerce, is unfair and unjustified. Besides, there is no proof, even a weak one, to justify this unfair arbitrary taxation. The difference between 2.5% and 10% is high. The Zakaat system is not like a state revenue collection, but Allah's `ebadah. However, if a business person decides to give more than 2.5% after deducting all the expenses including depreciation, Allah (SWT) will accept it from him. 4. Gold and silver, whether used for commerce or jewelry. Allah (SWT) states: "...And there are those who bury gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah: announce unto them a most grievous penalty. On the day when heat will be produced out of that (wealth) in the fire of hell, and with it will be branded their foreheads, their flanks and their backs. This is the (treasure) which you buried for yourselves: taste you, then, the (treasures) you buried." (Al-Qur`an, 9: 34-35). By hoarding is meant refusal to give it in the path of Allah, which includes Zakaat. In a hadith reported by Abu Hurairah (raa), the Messenger of Allah (saas) said: "For the owner or possessor of gold and silver who does not fulfill its obligation, on the Day of Resurrection it will be cast into sheets of fire and be branded on his forehead, side and back. Whenever it cools it is to be repeated for him in a day whose length is the length of fifty thousand years, until the judgement is rendered among the people." (Muslim). By its obligation is meant assessing it for Zakaat. In another version: "No possessor of a treasure who does not give its Zakaat." Zakaat is mandatory in gold and silver, irrespective of its form: in coins, raw or nugget, or jewelry for wearing, or for rent, because of the generality of evidence of Zakaat without any detail. In a report by Abdullah bin `Amr bin `Aas (raa), he related that a woman came to the Messenger of Allah with her daughter. On the daughter's wrist were two heavy gold bracelets. The Messenger asked her, "Do you pay Zakaat on this?" She replied, "No." The Messenger said: "Would it please you that Allah will encircle you with two bracelets of fire?" The reporter commented that she took them off and threw them down in front of the Messenger, and said: "They are for Allah and his Messenger." (Ahmed, Tirmidhi). The Messenger's wife reported that: "The Messenger entered into my house and saw in my hand a huge ring made of silver, so he asked, `What is this?' I replied, `I made them to beautify myself for you, O Messenger of Allah.' He inquired, `Do you give their Zakaat?' I said, `No,' or `Allah willing.' He said: `It will suffice you in the hellfire.'" (Abu Dawuud). Zakaat is due on gold when it reaches the amount of (nisaab), which is 20 Dinaar. According to a hadith, the Messenger said: "No Zakaat on you is due until it reaches 20 dinaar." (Abu Dawud) The Islamic dinaar (currency) is one mithqal, a unit of weight which weighs four and one quarter of a gram. Thus, the nisaab is 85 grams. This is equal to $30.00 US dollars. Similarly, there is no Zakaat on silver until it reaches five oqiyah, because the Messenger said: "There is no Zakaat on less then five oqiyah." (Muslim/Bukhari) Oqiyah is equal to forty Islamic dirhams. The nisaab is 200 dirhams. One dirham is equivalent to 595 grams. The zakaatable amount in both the gold and silver is a quarter of a tenth only. Paper Currency There is Zakaat on modern paper currency because it is equivalent to silver. During the early days of Islam, silver and gold were the currency of exchange minted into dirham for silver and dinaar for gold. Silver, not gold, had a larger circulation. Thus many scholars are of opinion that silver should be the standard for the paper currencies of today because that is more advantageous to the Zakaat payer, as it raises the minimum nisaab whereas gold lowers it. Although both metals are no longer circulated, they are still considered as a security against ever fluctuating paper money. Silver should be used as a standard to assess Zakaat annually, not paper currency, even if the currency is hard currency like the US dollar, Yen and Deutch Mark or Pound Sterling. Because these currencies are backed by political decisions that may not have anything to do with the economy, the value and strength of this paper money depends largely on all haram usury system of interest rates. Thus, the Zakaat payer should look up in the local newspaper's financial or business section for the price of silver which is currently about $3.82. per ounce. The nisaab, then, is 596 x .04=28.80 ounce multiplied by$3.82= 90.91. therefore. The nisaab is about $100.00, as of December 17, 1991. The nisaab should be based on the market value of the currency. If the money is hard currency, there will be no problem, but if the money is a non-marketable currency, like most currencies in the third world countries, the nisaab should be based on the black market, which realistically reflects the value of the currency on the money market. In any case, the silver rate should be used to assess the Zakaat. If the nisaab is determined, the zakaatable amount is 2.5%, or .025 multiplied by the amount. For instance, if the zakaatable amount is $56,000.00 it will be 56,000. x .025 = $1,400.00. Zakaat is due on gold, silver, and or paper currency, whether it is cash in hand or credit in the hands of borrowers. Zakaat is due on debts or cost of merchandize or rental money. If the borrower is a wealthy person that you know will pay back the debt, the lender (that is Halaal lending free of usury) should include that money in the assessment and give its Zakaat. However, one can delay Zakaat on a loan until he receives payment, then return its Zakaat for the past years that he was unable to assess for Zakaat. If the borrower is poor or is refusing to pay the debt, there will be no Zakaat on the money until the lender receives the money. Then he will assess it for Zakaat of one past due year, but there will be no Zakaat in the years before that. There is no Zakaat on precious stones such as diamonds, or metals such uranium, regardless of their value. Gold and silver, of course are assessed for Zakaat. However, if a person possesses any of these stones or metals, he should give their Zakaat like any other articles of trade. If a person possesses diamonds or any other precious stones as an edge against inflation or for ornaments, there will no Zakaat on these. How To Give Zakaat Zakaat may be assessed and returned in two ways: a) Make a record of all money earned, either daily or monthly, which has reached the nisaab and remains in the treasury. The Zakaat of that money would be due one year later on the same day the money was earned and reached nisaab. This means every month's income must be set aside and assessed for Zakaat and so will be the case for the rest of the months. For instance, the income of January, 1991 will be assessed for Zakaat in January, 1992, and the income of February, 1991 will be assessed for Zakaat in February 1992, etc. This method of assessing Zakaat is very difficult because it entails complete bookkeeping of daily or monthly earnings. b) The best way is to set a day or a month, preferably Ramadan, for your annual Zakaat return calendar, say Ramadan 1st, 1412. One year later on the same day Ramadan, 1413, your Zakaat is due and payable. Whatever is in the savings is due for Zakaat, regardless of whether all the amount in the savings reaches a year or not. For instance: if you have $20,000.00 in the savings account on the 1st of Ramadan, 1412 and one year later by the 1st of Ramadan, 1413 there is $50, 000.00, your Zakaat will be assessed for $50,000.00, that is: $50.000.00 x .025= $1,250.00. If, on the other hand, by the 1st of Ramadan, 1413 the amount in the savings is $15,000.00, your Zakaat will be for the amount in the savings, that is $15,000.00 x .025= $375.00. This method is the best because it is easy to assess, meets one's obligation and relieve one's conscience. The Recipient Of Zakaat Knowing who qualifies as recipient of Zakaat is an important aspect of Zakaat collection in Islam. Fortunately, Allah (SWT) has been merciful to us in that He Himself spelled out the people eligible to receive Zakaat. In Surah Tawbah He stated: "Alms are for the poor and the needy; and those employed to administer (the funds); for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to truth); for those in bondage and in debt; in the cause of Allah; and for the wayfarer: (thus is it) ordained by Allah, and Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom." (Al-Qur`an, 9: 60) In this verse Allah enumerated the people who deserve this divine welfare, and they are as follows: The poor and the needy. These are individuals, and those under their care, to live on. By the poor and needy is meant the people whose income or salaries, or whatever material goods they have, fall short of the cost of living in a given environment and economy. The poor and the needy should be given what will suffice them and their families for one full year. The needy who want to get married and have no means should be given enough for this purpose, and so, too, the student who needs money for tuition, rent, food, and books. The working poor should be given supplementary Zakaat. But the wealthy, or any person with enough income to live on should not be given Zakaat, even if they asked for it. Instead, they should be warned and admonished for asking for what does not belong to them. In a hadith reported by Abdullah bin `Umar, the Messenger of Allah (saas) stated: "A man keeps on asking others for something till he comes on the day of Resurrection without any piece of flesh on his face." (Bukhari/Muslim). This hadith indicates a humiliating appearance before Allah (SWT) that awaits a person who asks illegally. Some said: this hadith implies Allah will punish a person with the very limb, the face, that he used to impress on others to give him their money unlawfully. In another hadith reported by Abu Hurairah, the Messenger of Allah said: "Whoever asks people for their money so as to get rich, he is asking for flames of fire. It is up to him to ask for more or less (he should beware)." (Muslim) This hadith indicates the severity of the punishment, the more one asks the more punishment, the less one asks the less the punishment. In another hadith, reported by Hakeem bin Hizaam said: I begged the Messenger of Allah and he gave me. I begged again, and he gave me. I begged again and he gave me. He then said: "This money is green and sweet; he who receives it from people with a cheerful heart, Allah will bless him in it; he who receives it, with an avaricious mind would not be blessed in it. He will be like the person who eats without being satisfied; and the upper hand is better than the lower hand" (Muslim) This hadith gave an analogy between money and green, ripened fruit that people love to eat. Thus, it indicates that both are greatly loved but easily finished. For money that is easy come easy go, one must be careful about the punishment that awaits the illegal eater. If a person asks for Zakaat and there are no signs of wealth, and he does not know that he should not ask, or a person who is well and able, who can work, but does not; if these people do not know that it is not permissible for them to ask, it may be given anyway. In a hadith reported by Ahmed, Abu Dawud, and Nasa'e, two men came to the Messenger of Allah (saas) and asked for Zakaat. He looked at them closely and found them strong and able, he said, "If you want I will give you. But you should know that the wealthy or an able person who can work has no share in Zakaat" (Ahmad) Those who administer the Zakaat department, assigning people for collecting, bookkeeping, making lists of people eligible for Zakaat, and a financial calendar. These people will receive Zakaat as compensation for their work, even if they are wealthy. This does not include a person who works as an agent for one or two wealthy people to take Zakaat for himself. They should donate their time for Zakaat disbursement and do it with honesty and truthfulness. If they can not, they should be paid or rewarded for their time. In a hadith related by Abu Musa Al-Ashi`ari (raa), the Messenger of Allah said: "A trustworthy Muslim executor is the one who executes completely what has been entrusted to him of Zakaat money in good faith." (Bukhari) That is, he will give the Zakaat money to any of the eligible recipients of Zakaat. He should carry on the duty voluntarily, but if he can not distribute the money without being paid, the Zakaat payer should pay him for his work. The payment for the service of distributing Zakaat should not come out of Zakaat money. The new converts to Islam whose hearts we want to harmonize into the fold of Islam, either because their faith is weak or we are afraid of their being harmed, should be given Zakaat to strengthen their Iman or until we no longer fear their harm. The bonds person who has contracted with his master to buy himself out of bondage deserve Zakaat and should be given enough to pay off their debt to the master and be freed themselves; similarly, Muslim prisoners of war if their freedom is tied to monetary payment, deserve Zakaat sufficient enough to secure their release. On the other hand, if a pearson accidently killed someone and have no means to pay off the blood money, he should be helped from Zakaat funds. The people in debt are of two kinds: (A) The guarantor, who takes the responsibility of someone else's debt so as to reconcile the two warring parties, to extinguish the fire of fitnah between them. If the person requests Zakaat money to pay off this debt he should be given it, which will encourage him to continue in this noble cause. In a hadith reported by Qubaysah Al-Hilaaly (raa), he said I was under debt (hamaalah) and I came to the Messenger (saas) and begged him to help me pay it off. The Messenger told him: "Wait until we receive charity, so we will command that it be given to you." However, the Messenger stated: "O Qubaysah, begging is not permitted except for one of three categories of people: A man who has incurred debt (as guarantor to reconcile blood wit) for him begging is permissible till he pays that off, after which he must stop it; a man whose property has been destroyed by calamity which has smitten him; for him begging is permissible till he gets what will support life or will provide him reasonable subsistence; and a man who has been smitten by poverty, the genuineness of which should be confirmed by three knowledgeable members of his people; for him begging is permissible till he gets what will support him, or will provide him subsistence. Besides these three, Qubaysah, begging is forbidden for every other persons, and one who engages in such consumes that which is forbidden." (Muslim) (B) Whoever incurs debt and has no money to pay it back will be given from Zakaat to help pay his debt, whether the amount is large or small; or his creditor should be paid directly on his behalf, so long as it is paid off. Zakaat can be given in the path of Allah. By this is meant to finance a Jihad effort in the path of Allah, not for Jihad for other reasons. The fighter (mujahid) will be given as salary what will be enough for him. If he needs to buy arms or some other supplies related to the war effort, Zakaat money should be used provided the effort is to raise the banner of Islam. The wayfarer. This is the traveller who in a strange land runs out of money. He or she deserves Zakaat, enough money to take him back to his country, even if he is wealthy and can find someone to loan him the money. On his part, he should take with him on his trip sufficient money, if he is wealthy, so that he will not need Zakaat. Zakaat money can not be used to pay off other obligations, such as giving Zakaat money to people you are obligated to take care of by law; or Zakaat money can not be used to pay for hotel and food expenses. It is, however, permissible to give Zakaat to a wife or family member, provided it is not part of their daily living expense money, but is needed to pay off a debt for one's wife if she can not pay it. So is the case for one's parents if they can not pay their debt. Zakaat money may be given to members of the family for their expenses if one is not obligated to take care of them financially. The wife can pay off a debt of her husband with Zakaat money, because he may be among the eight eligible recipients and she is not obligated to spend on him as he is on her. The eight eligible recipients of Zakaat can be denied their right to Zakaat without proof from Al-Qur`an or Sunnah. In a hadith reported by Ibn Mas`ud, his wife Zaynab heard the Messenger of Allah order women to give Zakaat, so she asked the Messenger (saas): " O Messenger of Allah, you commanded us to give Zakaat, and I have jewelry that I wanted to assess for Zakaat, but my husband Abdullah bin Mas`ud claimed that his son deserves it more than anyone." The Messenger replied: Your husband Ibn Mas`ud is right. Your son deserves your charity more than anyone." In another hadith reported by Salman bin `Aamir, he said the Messenger of Allah said: " Charity to the poor is only charity, but charity to the rest of kind is charity and maintenance of relations (sillah)." (Nisaee) No loan should be written off as Zakaat because Zakaat is taken and given. Allah (SWT) said: "Of their goods take alms...." (Al-Qur`an, 9: 103) And in a Hadith the Messenger has been reported as saying: "Allah has mandated on you Zakaat to be taken from the wealthy and to be given to the poor." Thus, writing off debt is not taken. For instance, If you loan a person money, you can not write off that loan as a Zakaat. However, it could be written off as sadaqah charity. Furthermore, loan, delinquent or not, is considered an absent money, therefore, it should not be transacted in Zakaat. for Zakaat is assessed only in cash in hand. Besides, debt money is valued less than cash in the hand, and using that money for alms is like exchanging good money for bad. The assessor of alms should try to give his Zakaat to an eligible person, but if he makes a mistake and gives it to an ineligible person it is accepted. In a hadith related by Abu Hurairah, he said the Messenger said: "A man expressed his intention to give charity, so he came with his charity and placed it in the hand of an adulteress. In the morning the people were talking and saying charity was given to an adulteress last night. The donor said: O Allah, to thee be the Praise - charity to an adulteress! He then again expressed his intention to give charity, so he went out with it and placed it in the hand of a rich person. In the morning the people were talking and saying charity was given to a rich person. The donor said, O Allah to You be the praise - charity to a rich man! He then expressed his intention to give charity, so he went out with his charity and placed it in the hand of a thief. In the morning the people were talking and saying charity to the thief. So the man said, O Allah to You be the praise (what a misfortune that charity has been given) to the adulteress, the rich and the thief! Then someone came to him and told him your charity has been accepted. As for the adulteress the charity might become the means whereby she might restrain from fornication. The rich man might perhaps learn a lesson and spend from what Allah has given him, and the thief might thereby restrain from committing theft. (Muslim/ Bukhari) http://www.islamfortoday.com/beliefs.htm

Friends Essay? This is My friends intro and 1st body paragraph, I told him i was not going to copy, but I have the urge of copying it will I feel guilty for doing it. The basis behind the ultimate struggles and sacrifices of human life conquer to the belief of freedom, success, and general world wide peace. The harsh survival against peace and poverty is well put in Stephen Lewis's novel entitled “Race Against Time”, which overviews the struggles of Africa and its inhabitants to pay off the debts that are due, while suffering through extreme poverty, and an aids pandemic that has ravaged the continent of Africa. To successfully limit the high rate of poverty in Africa the UN must consistently contribute its share of profits to the African governments in order for a better, and proper education system; which will allow the African children to grow up with a sense of knowledge and understanding of their coastal surroundings. The fruitful sense of satisfaction, pride, and courage of one's reputation has caused a wide structural barrier within different nations, and different entities. The Colossal ideology of peace and freedom has been distorted in the midst of our mindset, which have led to complete chaos, pressure on world leaders, and most of all the rapid increase of poverty and diseases all over the world. Past decisions by the fallen governments of Africa, and the improbable misuse of the funding for education, water supplies, meal services, and direct support for health care systems such as hospitals, have left the estate of Africa in complete destruction, and abolishment. The UN has fallen completely short of its short term list of goals to secure the rise of Africa against lifelong poverty, and the lethal aids pandemic that has currently killed more then 25,000,000 people since it was first recognized back in 1981. To effectively limit and keep the populating countries in Africa stable the United Nations had come up with both short-term, and long term solutions in order to decrease the rate of poverty each year, while attempting to contribute to the long list of debts that are due for the continent of Africa. One of the main ordeal's to accomplish in the list passed down by the United Nations was “to rediscover the continent of Africa, maintain a peaceful, and stable environment, while ultimately providing a better and much more promising education system” to the children of the plagued Africa. Despite the fact that the United Nations have contributed to the aid of Africa every year in hopes of eliminating the debt due, they were not legitimately accurate with their agreements,which has left the continent of Africa struggling to maintain low paying jobs, and an average income per capita (GDP) each year. In particular back in 2005 at the G8 conference in Gleneagles, Scotland, The United Nations presumably could not budge to make its eight “solutions” goals much more realistic then it already had been. Most countries in the G8 did not meet their part of the promise, which was to provide Africa with maximum amount of income they could possibly lend over for that particular year, at the same time the rest of the G8 members forcefully backed out of their promises and forfeited any possible future agreements it had made with the African leaders, and the rest of the members in the G8. One of the most integral and most important topics about education was laid out to the UN, “ the extremes of any poverty stricken area must be used as a learning tool to provide education within, in order to enhance the aging of the children of Africa”. To begin with, education was not the primary goal for many spectators viewing the horrific site of many families losing their lives to hunger, and the aids (HIV) pandemic, as it was just to save as many lives as possible in the short-term run without thinking about the future. As time wore on it became apparent that the children of Africa needed to be properly and uniformly educated on their surrounding as they grew up, most notably on the issues of safe sex, overpopulation, and primary education. Although a great deal of time was taken to emphasize the importance of an education system in all parts of Africa, the G8 have disagreed on how to use the income in Africa, thus leading to excessive turmoil and the misuse of the money that was sent over to the African governments. As a result many solutions have failed to extensively stabilize the poverty rate of Africa in the short run, thus leading to longer, and more painful suffering for the inhabitants of Africa. Consequently, most of the successful achievements and solutions have stemmed from an education system which in fact has allowed the G8 members to stabilize the continent of Africa long enough to make another set of goals for the future. The barrier between the UN and Africa is largely spread out due in part to the miscommunication between both parties on the issues of handling the money (income), and what viable solution in the longterm is the most prominent in helping limit poverty in the aids ravaged Africa.