Archive for the 'Finances' Category

18
Dec
09

What ONE TRILLION dollars looks like in dollar bills

(Original HERE)

Have you ever thought about it. What would 1 trillion dollars look like, layed out in front of you?

I mean, these numbers numbers are tossed around like doggie treats.

So I thought I’d take Google Sketchup out for a test drive and try to get a sense of what exactly a trillion dollars looks like.

We’ll start with a $100 dollar bill. Currently it’s the largest U.S. denomination in general circulation.

Pretty much, everyone has seen a $100 bill. But fewer have owned them. :-)

They’re also guaranteed to make friends wherever you go!

$100 

A packet of one hundred $100 bills is less than 1/2″ thick and contains $10,000.

It’s fits in your pocket easily and is more than enough for week or two of shamefully decent fun.

 

Believe it or not, this next little pile is $1 million dollars (100 packets of $10,000).

You could stuff that into a grocery bag and walk around with it.

 

While a measly $1 million looked a little unimpressive, $100 million is a little more respectable.

It fits neatly on a standard pallet…

 

And $1 BILLION dollars… now we’re really getting somewhere…

 

Next we’ll look at ONE TRILLION dollars.

This is that number we’ve been hearing about so much.

What is a trillion dollars anyway?

Well, it’s a million million. It’s a thousand billion. It’s a one followed by 12 zeros ($1,000,000,000,000)

You ready for this?

It’s pretty surprising.

Scroll down…I give you $1 trillion dollars

Almost there…

 

(And notice those pallets are double stacked.)

So the next time you hear someone toss around the phrase “trillion dollars”… that’s what they’re talking about.

12
Dec
09

Audit the Fed Attached as an Amendment

(Original here)

I was pleased last week when we won a vote in the Financial Services Committee to include language from the Audit the Fed bill HR1207 in the upcoming financial regulatory reform bill. As it stands now, if HR 3996 passes, because of this action, the Federal Reserve’s entire balance sheet will be opened up to a GAO audit. We will at last have a chance to find out what happened to the trillions of dollars the Fed has been giving out.

Finally, the blanket restrictions on GAO audits of the Fed that have existed since 1978 will be removed. All items on the Fed’s balance sheet will be auditable, including all credit facilities, all securities purchase programs, and all agreements with foreign central banks. To calm fears that we might be trying to substitute congressional action for Fed mischief in tinkering with monetary policy, we agreed to a 180 day lag time before details of the Fed’s market actions are released and included language to state explicitly that nothing in the amendment should be construed as interference in or dictation of monetary policy by Congress or the GAO. This left no reasonable objections standing and the amendment passed with a vote of 43 to 26.

This was a major triumph for transparency and accountability in government. With unprecedented turmoil in the financial markets, the people are demanding to know and understand the extent of the Federal Reserve’s involvement in the creation of out-of-control business cycles, who they are helping, and how. We need information. The excuses for not giving out this information are flimsy at best, and the passage of this amendment is a major step to finally getting at the truth.

Of course I could not have done this without the help and support of many other members who have been strong allies in this fight. Having over 300 cosponsors was obviously helpful.

However, as great as this victory is, we have to remember that this amendment is attached to a bill that would give sweeping new powers to the Federal Reserve. The Fed has taken its mandate to maintain stable prices and full employment and used its immense power to help elite friends at the great expense of everyone else. The answer is not to increase their powers and ability to interfere in the economy, but that is what the legislation will do. It is a disaster waiting to happen, and unfortunately it looks as if it will pass.

At least with the Audit the Fed amendment attached to the bill, the Fed will not be able to do its destructive work in secret. The people will know exactly who the beneficiaries are of this immoral system of money management.

20
Nov
09

Where is Our Money Going?

It seems like a no brainer to me. If you are having money problems, you need to sit down and know where all the money is going. With the government, it is no different.

Enter HR1207 and S604, Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 and Sunshine Act of 2009 respectively. The former has 313 co-sponsors and the later has 30 co-sponsors.  So this equates to 72% of the House and 30% of the Senate that are signing onto this bill. So why has this bill barely moved with so much support? HR1207 has been sitting since Feb 26, 2009 and seems to be getting currently stalled in Committee.

Why?

Why would we not want to audit the Federal Reserve and learn where our money is going? My only answer is… because someone doesn’t want us to see.

If you are in support of knowing where our money goes, please consider doing a few things – (1) Sign the HR1207 petition HERE (2) Sign the S604 petition HERE and (3) Contacting your Congress-critter HERE.

15
Nov
09

H.R. 1919: Federal Withholding Tax Repeal Act of 2009

As our government spends more and more it seems wise to have more control over the money we have to give them.

There is a new bill out, HR1919, that will make it possible to stop the withholding of money from your paycheck (No more mandatory W-4).

I love this for multiple reasons. First, it will allow you to keep your money and spend it on things you want and need. If you want to, you can invest it and make some money with it. This is versus giving it to the government and earning nothing off of it. (In other words, $500 in your bank account earning interest for a year is better than paying $500 to the government and earning no interest).

Secondly, it will cause the government to be more responsible. It is easier for us to ignore the fiscal doings of government when the money never even hits our pocket. If it is in our pocket and we have to cut a check at the end of the year, we are more likely to wonder where that money is going. I also think that it will make people more aware of how wasteful the government is and how much we TRULY do give up to the government.

Third, and this may not make sense to some of you, it will cut the presumption that we are voluntarily indulging in taxable activities. What is and what is not a taxable activity.

111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1919
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the withholding of income and social security taxes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 2, 2009
Ms. FOXX (for herself, Mr. PAUL, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. BARTLETT, Mrs. MYRICK, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. PENCE, Mr. KINGSTON, and Mr. WILSON of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means——————————————————————————–
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the withholding of income and social security taxes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Federal Withholding Tax Repeal Act of 2009’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) At the onset of the Civil War, Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861, which imposed a tax on personal incomes and to assure timely collection, taxes were ‘withheld at the source’ by employers.
(2) The need for Federal revenue declined sharply after the war and in 1872, the income tax was abolished and along with it, the Federal withholding mandate.
(3) With passage of the 16th amendment to the Constitution, Congress swiftly passed legislation creating a Federal income tax, withheld before employee salaries were paid.
(4) In response to growing taxpayer criticism of the withholding mandate, Treasury Secretary William G. McAdoo stated that ‘it would be very advantageous to . . . do away with the withholding of income tax at the source’ because it would ‘eliminate a great deal of criticism which has been directed against the law’; a statement reflecting the sentiment which ultimately led to the repeal of Federal withholding authority in 1917.
(5) In the 1920s and 1930s, income taxes were due on March 15 following the end of the tax year and could be paid either in one lump sum on that date or in quarterly installments.
(6) With the onset of World War II, fearing that taxpayers might refuse to pay the higher tax rates and surcharges associated with funding the war effort, Federal officials, lawmakers, and political leaders such as President Franklin D. Roosevelt used the military crisis to draw on Americans’ sense of patriotism and resurrect the Federal withholding authority as a ‘temporary wartime measure’.
(7) The campaign to reinstitute a permanent system of withholding overcame public hostility with the passage of the Withholding Tax Act of 1943 which incorporated suggestions proffered by Beardsley Ruml to eliminate individuals’ 1942 tax liabilities by counting amounts paid or withheld in 1943 as tax payments for that year.
(8) Since that time, Congress has stubbornly refused to repeal the Federal withholdings mandate contained in the Withholding Tax Act.
(9) In fiscal year 2007, the Internal Revenue Service refunded overpayments amounting to over $248,625,001,000 more than actual individual income tax liabilities, effectively denying interest payments otherwise owed to taxpayers and amounting to a hidden tax.
(10) These overpayments are returned annually in the form of tax refunds to taxpayers who often confuse the payments as a reward.
(11) According to an April 2007 report released by the Joint Economic Committee, millions of families, many in the bottom fifth income percentile, have either zero tax liability or receive a net transfer from the Government due to the refundable portion of the Earned Income Tax Credit or the Child Tax Credit. Those without Federal tax liability would benefit the most from keeping their entire paycheck, rather than temporarily surrendering portions to the Government.
(12) The absence of the Federal withholdings mandate leaves employers and employees free to negotiate alternative, private means of collecting and paying Federal income taxes, thereby allowing individuals to voluntarily earn interest on their withhholdings.
(13) The Federal withholdings mandate allows the Federal Government to disguise tax increases and hampers Federal accountability and transparency by requiring the assistance of an intermediary tax collector.
(14) Complying with the Federal withholdings mandate imposes costly burdens and legal liabilities on employers forced to act as de facto IRS agents, without compensation for lost time and resources.
(15) Referring to the Federal withholding mandate in his work Public Finance in Democratic Process: Fiscal Institutions and Individual Choice, 1986 Nobel Prize winning economist James Buchanan stated that ‘The individual who does not have possession of income before paying it out cannot’ sense ‘the real cost of public services in a manner comparable to that experienced in a genuine act of outpayment.’.
(16) In CATO Institute study, Charlotte Twight has noted that ‘[W]ithholding is the paramount administrative mechanism enabling the Federal Government to collect, without significant protest, sufficient private resources to fund a vastly expanded welfare state.’
(17) The Federal tax withholding mandate was listed by Human Events in 2005 as the fourth ‘Most Harmful Government Program’ and seventh ‘Worst Tax Law’ in 2006.
(18) The National Taxpayers Union notes that the incremental nature of withholding masks the true cost of Federal income taxes, which would be much more apparent if individuals had to write monthly, quarterly, or annual checks to the Federal Government.
SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

The purposes of this Act are–

(1) to increase transparency and accountability in the Federal tax system by providing the public with a more accurate account of–

(A) the annual tax burden; and
(B) the Federal budget deficit;
(2) to decrease the overall tax burden and increase the personal wealth of taxpayers by allowing for the personal collection of interest during the fiscal year on overpayments that are otherwise used by the Federal Government to partly avoid interest payments;
(3) to decrease the burden on employers by freeing them from the task of collecting income tax withholdings from their employees; and
(4) to end the deceptive practice of masking higher tax rates from taxpayers.
SEC. 4. REPEAL OF FEDERAL INCOME AND SOCIAL SECURITY TAX WITHHOLDING MANDATE.

(a) In General- The following sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are hereby repealed:

(1) Section 3102 (relating to deduction of social security tax from wages).
(2) Section 3202 (relating to deduction of railroad retirement tax from compensation).
(3) Chapter 24 (relating to income tax withholding).
(b) Requirement of Estimated Tax Payments for Employee Social Security Taxes- Subsection (f) of section 6654 of such Code is amended by striking ‘minus’ at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting ‘plus’, by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4), and by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:

‘(3) the taxes imposed by section 3101(a) and 3201(a), minus’.
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to amounts paid on or after the first January 1 occurring after 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. CONTINUED VOLUNTARY TAX WITHHOLDING.

(a) Authority of the IRS- Nothing in this Act may be construed to limit the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to accept voluntary tax payments from employers electing to continue collecting Federal income taxes from employees.
(b) Voluntary Employer Participation- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent voluntary employer sponsored withholding of Federal income taxes on behalf of employees.
(c) Voluntary Employee Participation- Nothing in this Act shall be construed–

(1) to require any employee to participate in an employer Federal income tax withholding system, or
(2) to prevent any election of an employee to opt in to an employer Federal income tax withholding system, with all terms and conditions for participation being negotiable between the employee and employer.

If you support such an idea, I urge you to write your Representative.

11
Nov
09

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time.

Pretty scary if you ask me.

28
Oct
09

I Can Prove That You Are a Slave in America

When someone mentions “slavery” we immediately think of black people being forced to work for free. If they do not work for us for free then we beat them with fists, whips, or threaten death. Sure the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, but I contend that slavery still continues today and with even greater fervency than it did in the past.

The 13th Amendment reads:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Definitions:
Slavery:

Peonage:
18 USC 1581: (a) Whoever holds or returns any person to a condition of peonage, or arrests any person with the intent of placing him in or returning him to a condition of peonage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. (link)
Forced Labor:
18 USC 1589: Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person— (1) by threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against, that person or another person; (2) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or (3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. (link)

Involuntary Servitude:

18 USC 1584: Whoever knowingly and willfully holds to involuntary servitude or sells into any condition of involuntary servitude, any other person for any term, or brings within the United States any person so held, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. (link)

So what the 13th Amendment outlaws is you forcing people to work for free for repayment of a debt. You cannot hold someone captive by phyiscal force, threats of physical force, or legal coercion to be bound into compulsory service against ones will. In Bailey v. Alabama 219 U.S. 219 (1911) it was decided by the Supreme Court that one could not be forced to refund money (link).

Later on in 1988 in the Supreme Court case of United States v. Kozminski it was decided that you could not place someone in [psychological] fear of involuntarily servitude. The Court held that, “[a] holding in involuntary servitude occurs when an individual coerces another into his service by improper or wrongful conduct that is intended to cause, and does cause, the other person to believe that he or she has no alternative but to perform labor.”

With this said, what does that make of the taxation scheme of America?

We are told that we must pay taxes. The good old saying of “Two things in life are certain, death and taxes” is familiar to many Americans. But, why are taxes so certain? If the 13th Amendment does not allow us to be forced into physical labor and the courts have ruled that you also cannot be forced to believe that you have no option of working against your will, then why is it that you are working against your will?

If you don’t think that you are enslaved, then try to tell the IRS or the government that you are not going to pay taxes anymore. They are going to threaten you with penalties, fees, court, levying on your paycheck, coming and taking your property, and lastly… putting you in prison. Back in the “slave days” if a salve said they were not going to work for free, they were beat. Today, if you say that you are not going to work for free, the IRS threatens and sends the dogs after you. Same thing but different methods of accomplishing the same thing – salvery.

In United States v. Warren, 772 F.2d 827, 833-834 (CA11 1985) the court specifically said, “Various forms of coercion may constitute a holding in involuntary servitude. The use, or threatened use, of physical force to create a climate of fear is the most grotesque example of such coercion.” (link)

Ask any American, do you fear the IRS and they will probably say “yes” or they will say “no, because I do everything they say.” I plea now to you, how is this not a “climate of fear”? Either you pay the government out of fear or you do whatever they say out of fear (i.e. highway robbery).

It is important to note at this point that I am not against taxation itself. But, I am against forced taxation. If you tell me that I must pay taxes on every dollar I earn, then how is that not slavery? Would it be any different if the government told you that you can keep 100% of whatever you make at Job A and then you have to come to Job B (government factory or something) and work for free? I contend, no. Just because the government does not force you to work in a certain location, them demanding a percentage of your earnings is still them forcing you to work for free – is it not? If you do not understand what the difference is between forced taxation (direct) and voluntary taxation (indirect), I suggest you read up on each and decide what type of taxation the Federal/State Income Tax really is. (Crash course: Direct taxation is a tax that you cannot avoid and essentially says, you are a human so pay it. Indirect taxation is a tax that you can avoid, such as a tax on liquor which you can circumvent by distilling your own, buying from someplace that does not have tax [Indian Resevervation maybe?], or simply by not buying liquor.).

If you disagree with me, then I’d be happy to entertain your thoughts. I’ve yet to find anyone that can rebutt my case above. Even if you feel that paying taxes is your duty then that still does not answer my question of whether or not taxation as it is now is slavery or not. The issue is, does the government force you to give them a cut of your labor pay otherwise they threaten you?

Furthermore, if you agree with me then why are you continuing to be a slave – either by choice or by your silence. Is this what you want of your children, friends, and neighbors – to be enslaved in fear? Is it somehow OK for your government to enslave you instead of an individual? As I started out, slavery can no longer be considered just for black people – it is for everyone. You are living it now and have been for some time…

25
Oct
09

When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: ‘Are You Serious?’

By Matt Cover (original here)

(CNSNews.com) – When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Pelosi’s press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a ”serious question.”

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

Audio HERE.

Currently, each of the five health care overhaul proposals being considered in Congress would command every American adult to buy health insurance. Any person defying this mandate would be required to pay a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service.

In 1994, when the health care reform plan then being advanced by President Clinton called for mandating that all Americans buy health insurance, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office studed the issue and concluded:

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

Later on Thursday, CNSNews.com followed up on the question, e-mailing  written queries for the speaker to her Spokesman Elshami.

“Where specifically does the Constitution authorize Congress to force Americans to purchase a particular good or service such as health insurance?” CNSNews.com asked the speaker’s office.

“If it is the Speaker’s belief that there is a provision in the Constitution that does give Congress this power, does she believe the Constitution in any way limits the goods and services Congress can force an individual to purchase?” CNSNews.com asked. ”If so, what is that limit?”

Elshami responded by sending CNSNews.com a Sept. 16 press release from the Speaker’s office entitled, “Health Insurance Reform, Daily Mythbuster: ‘Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform.’”   The press release states that Congress has “broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.”

The release further states: “On the shared responsibility requirement in the House health insurance reform bill, which operates like auto insurance in most states, individuals must either purchase coverage (and non-exempt employers must purchase coverage for their workers)—or pay a modest penalty for not doing so. The bill uses the tax code to provide a strong incentive for Americans to have insurance coverage and not pass their emergency health costs onto other Americans—but it allows them a way to pay their way out of that obligation.  There is no constitutional problem with these provisions.”

So much for that damn pesky Constitution…

But there you have it, the Commerce Clause. Ha!

23
Oct
09

Fraud OK for us IRS says

Well, the IRS shows it’s true colors. “Fraud is OK in our house!”

(Original here)

Thousands of individuals claiming the first-time homebuyer’s $8,000 tax credit may have been attempting to scam the system, including purported four-year-olds and illegal immigrants, according to a watchdog report released on Thursday.

Nearly 74,000 individuals who claimed the tax credit did not appear to qualify for it, at a cost of half a billion to the government, the inspector general for tax administration for the U.S. Treasury Department said in a report to be delivered to lawmakers on Thursday.

“Some of our findings, while preliminary, are somewhat disturbing,” inspector general Russell George said in an interview. Among the most striking instances of fraud include four-year-olds, non-U.S. citizens and IRS employees inappropriately claiming the benefit, he said.

The report comes amid a heated debate about the popular credit, which the real estate and homebuilding industry is fiercely lobbying to protect. It expires at the end of November, and some say it simply doles out cash to those who would have purchased a home without it.

A subcommittee of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives will hear from IRS, IG and other officials at a hearing Thursday.

About 1.4 million tax returns have been filed to take advantage of the credit at a cost to the government of about $10 billion. Many powerful lawmakers want to extend it, including some that back broadening it to all homebuyers and doubling its benefit.

Extension in its current form would cost about a $1 billion a month. A proposal in the Senate to double the credit and extend it until June would cost about $17 billion.

In response to a report last week citing thousands not qualifying properly for the credit, the IRS said it intends to vigorously root out fraud in the program.

An IRS spokesman also said potential for fraud exists whenever a new refundable credit is put in place. The agency has opened 107,000 civil cases related to the credit and identified 167 criminal schemes. Also, they have selected thousands of returns for those claiming the credit for deeper audits.

The report finds that 582 taxpayers under the age of 18 claimed about $4 million using the credit, with the youngest being 4 years old.

It further faults the IRS for failing to take its advice that a third party be required to document an individual claiming the credit actually purchased a home.

The IRS refuted some of the findings of the IG, and argued for example that some findings are premature because some taxpayers may eventually purchase a home.

Under the law, the credit should be claimed after purchase.

The IRS has responded to some of the IG’s advice, including installing computer filters so those who filed for a home mortgage interest deduction could not also claim the first-time tax credit.

“The IRS is having a very mixed bag in terms of its implementation of this important tool to help the economy,” George said.

A 2008 law created a $7,500 tax credit for those who haven’t purchased a home in three years and who meet certain income limits, with the intention of jump starting the moribund housing market. A 2009 law boosted the credit to $8,000.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, want to extend the credit but the housing chief for the Obama administration on Tuesday expressed doubts the United States could afford to extend the credit.

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan said the administration would decide in coming weeks whether it backs an extension.

22
Oct
09

What is Wrong with People in Collections?

So my father has a loan that has been in default since 2002. It has bounced through multiple collection agencies. It has gone to court and they have agreed to garnish his paycheck.

But guess what. My dad does not make a steady paycheck and at that, not a very large paycheck. So, the garnishers stopped. To put it simply, those who are owed don’t have much to get from him.

Enter me. I call up this place and tell them I am possibly willing to take over the loan. I say that I want the entire history of the loan – ever since it was “born” all the way until now. They said they are not sure if they can get it. They get a bunch of information from me and see what “deal” I can get.

They come back and ask me how much I want to pay a month. I say, nothing until I can get the history like I originally asked for.

They asked again if I was the one that was taking over.

I told them, possibly, if I can get the history of the loan and work a deal.

They asked again how much I was going to pay.

I told them, look, this isn’t my loan. My name isn’t on the loan, I never signed for it and I can walk away at any time.

Then they come back and start telling me “well the loan was taken out on your behalf. You should pay it back.” It is true that the loan was taken out for me, but that still doesn’t negate the fact that I asked for the history of the loan and that I wanted to negotiate, not just start paying on a severely defaulted loan.

So I told them, “quit with the terrorist tactics.”

Then they had the nerve to come back and tell me that I was negating my duty and that I was just going to let my dad go into ruin…

… then I just hung up. Like I warned them, I don’t deal with terrorists.

These people are out of their minds. They have someone that is willing to start making a loan right. A loan that even garnishing has failed to repay. And I ask for just two small things – the account history and the negotiation terms. And they get evil on me and start trying to play with my emotions.

If that is the game, then have fun trying to collect from my father!

11
Oct
09

Could You Survive With No Money? Meet the Guy Who Does.

(Original here)

DANIEL SUELO LIVES IN A CAVE. UNLIKE THE average American—wallow….ing in credit-card debt, clinging to a mortgage, terrified of the next downsizing at the office—he isn’t worried about the economic crisis. That’s because he figured out that the best way to stay solvent is to never be solvent in the first place. Nine years ago, in the autumn of 2000, Suelo decided to stop using money. He just quit it, like a bad drug habit.

His dwelling, hidden high in a canyon lined with waterfalls, is an hour by foot from the desert town of Moab, Utah, where people who know him are of two minds: He’s either a latter-day prophet or an irredeemable hobo. Suelo’s blog, which he maintains free at the Moab Public Library, suggests that he’s both. “When I lived with money, I was always lacking,” he writes. “Money represents lack. Money represents things in the past (debt) and things in the future (credit), but money never represents what is present.”

On a warm day in early spring, I clamber along a set of red-rock cliffs to the mouth of his cave, where I find a note signed with a smiley face: CHRIS, FEEL FREE TO USE ANYTHING, EAT ANYTHING (NOTHING HERE IS MINE). From the outside, the place looks like a hollowed teardrop, about the size of an Amtrak bathroom, with enough space for a few pots that hang from the ceiling, a stove under a stone eave, big buckets full of beans and rice, a bed of blankets in the dirt, and not much else. Suelo’s been here for three years, and it smells like it.

Night falls, the stars wink, and after an hour, Suelo tramps up the cliff, mimicking a raven’s call—his salutation—a guttural, high-pitched caw. He’s lanky and tan; yesterday he rebuilt the entrance to his cave, hauling huge rocks to make a staircase. His hands are black with dirt, and his hair, which is going gray, looks like a bird’s nest, full of dust and twigs from scrambling in the underbrush on the canyon floor. Grinning, he presents the booty from one of his weekly rituals, scavenging on the streets of Moab: a wool hat and gloves, a winter jacket, and a white nylon belt, still wrapped in plastic, along with Carhartt pants and sandals, which he’s wearing. He’s also scrounged cans of tuna and turkey Spam and a honeycomb candle. All in all, a nice haul from the waste product of America. “You made it,” he says. I hand him a bag of apples and a block of cheese I bought at the supermarket, but the gift suddenly seems meager.

Suelo lights the candle and stokes a fire in the stove, which is an old blackened tin, the kind that Christmas cookies might come in. It’s hooked to a chain of soup cans segmented like a caterpillar and fitted to a hole in the rock. Soon smoke billows into the night and the cave is warm. I think of how John the Baptist survived on honey and locusts in the desert. Suelo, who keeps a copy of the Bible for bedtime reading, is satisfied with a few grasshoppers fried in his skillet.

HE WASN’T ALWAYS THIS WAY. SUELO graduated from the University of Colorado with a degree in anthropology, he thought about becoming a doctor, he held jobs, he had cash and a bank account. In 1987, after several years as an assistant lab technician in Colorado hospitals, he joined the Peace Corps and was posted to an Ecuadoran village high in the Andes. He was charged with monitoring the health of tribespeople in the area, teaching first aid and nutrition, and handing out medicine where needed; his proudest achievement was delivering three babies. The tribe had been getting richer for a decade, and during the two years he was there he watched as the villagers began to adopt the economics of modernity. They sold the food from their fields—quinoa, potatoes, corn, lentils—for cash, which they used to purchase things they didn’t need, as Suelo describes it. They bought soda and white flour and refined sugar and noodles and big bags of MSG to flavor the starchy meals. They bought TVs. The more they spent, says Suelo, the more their health declined. He could measure the deterioration on his charts. “It looked,” he says, “like money was impoverishing them.”

The experience was transformative,…. but Suelo needed another decade to fashion his response. He moved to Moab and worked at a women’s shelter for five years. He wanted to help people, but getting paid for it seemed dishonest—how real was help that demanded recompense? The answer lay, in part, in the Christianity of his childhood. In Suelo’s nascent philosophy, following Jesus meant adopting the hard life prescribed in the Sermon on the Mount. “Giving up possessions, living beyond credit and debt,” Suelo explains on his blog, “freely giving and freely taking, forgiving all debts, owing nobody a thing, living and walking without guilt . . . grudge [or] judgment.” If grace was the goal, Suelo told himself, then it had to be grace in the classical sense, from the Latin gratia, meaning favor—and also, free.

By 1999, he was living in a Buddhist monastery in Thailand—he had saved just enough money for the flight. From there, he made his way to India, where he found himself in good company among the sadhus, the revered ascetics who go penniless for their gods. Numbering as many as 5 million, the sadhus can be found wandering roads and forests across the subcontinent, seeking enlightenment in self-….abnegation. “I wanted to be a sadhu,” Suelo says. “But what good would it do for me to be a sadhu in India? A true test of faith would be to return to one of the most materialistic, money-….worshipping nations on earth and be a sadhu there. To be a vagabond in America, a bum, and make an art of it—the idea enchanted me.”

THERE ISN’T ENOUGH SPACE IN SUELO’S cave for two, so I sleep in the open, at the edge of a hundred-foot cliff. No worries about animals, he says. Though mountain lions drink from the stream, and bobcats hunt rabbits under the cottonwoods, the worst he’s experienced was a skunk that sprayed him in the face. Mice scurry over his body in the cave, and kissing bugs sometimes suck the blood from under his fingernails while he sleeps. He shrugs off these indignities. “After all, it’s their cave too,” he says. I hunker down near a nest of scorpions, which crawl up the canyon walls, ignoring me.

The morning ritual is simple and slow: a cup of sharp tea brewed from the needles of piñon and juniper trees, a swim in the cold emerald water where the creek pools in the red rock. Then, two naked cavemen lounging under the Utah sun. Around noon, we forage along the banks and under the cliffs, looking for the stuff of a stir-fry dinner. We find mustard plants among the rocks, the raw leaves as satisfying as cauliflower, and down in the cool of the creek—where Suelo gets his water and takes his baths (no soap for him) —we cull watercress in heads as big as supermarket lettuce, and on the bank we spot a lode of wild onions, with bulbs that pop clean from the soil. In leaner times, Suelo’s gatherings include ants, grubs, termites, lizards, and roadkill. He recently found a deer, freshly run over, and carved it up and boiled it. “The best venison of my life,” he says.

I tell him that living without money seems difficult. What about starvation? He’s never gone without a meal (friends in Moab sometimes feed him). What about getting deadly ill? It happened once, after eating a cactus he misidentified—h….e vomited, fell into a delirium, thought he was dying, even wrote a note for those who would find his corpse. But he got better. That it’s hard is exactly the point, he says. “Hardship is a good thing. We need the challenge. Our bodies need it. Our immune systems need it. My hardships are simple, right at hand—they’re manageable.” When I tell him about my rent back in New York—$2,400 a month—he shakes his head. What’s left unsaid is that I’m here writing about him to make money, for a magazine that depends for its survival on the advertising revenue of conspicuous consumption. As he prepares a cooking fire, Suelo tells me that years ago he had a neighbor in the canyon, an alcoholic who lived in a cave bigger than his. The old man would pan for gold in the stream and net enough cash each month to buy the beer that kept him drunk. Suelo considers the riches of our own forage. “What if we saw gold for what it is?” he says meditatively. “Gold is pretty but virtually useless. Somebody decided it has worth, and everybody accepted this decision. The natives in the Americas thought Europeans were insane because of their lust for such a useless yellow substance.”

He sautés the watercress, mustard leaves, and wild onions, mixing in fresh almonds he picked from a friend’s orchard and ghee made from Dumpster-dived butter, and we eat out of his soot-caked pans. From the perch on the cliff, the life of the sadhu seems reasonable. But I don’t want to live in a cave. I like indoor plumbing (Suelo squats). I like electricity. Still, there’s an obvious beauty in the simplicity of subsistence. It’s an un-American notion these days. We don’t revere our ascetics, and we dismiss the idea that money could be some kind of consensual delusion. For most of us, it’s as real as the next house payment. Suelo doesn’t take public assistance or use food stamps, but he does survive in part on our reality, the discarded surfeit of the money system that he denounces—a system, as it happens, that recently looked like it was headed for the cliff.

Suelo is 48, and he doesn’t exactly have a 401(k). “I’ll do what creatures have been doing for millions of years for retirement,” he says. “Why is it sad that I die in the canyon and not in the geriatric ward well-insured? I have great faith in the power of natural selection. And one day, I will be selected out.” Until then, think of him like the raven, cleaning up the carcasses the rest of us leave behind.




Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories