Does offering tax cuts to the rich create jobs? [Archive]

View Full Version : Does offering tax cuts to the rich create jobs?

Braggi

08-03-2011, 09:50 PM

The Republican Job Killing Machine is in full swing.

The debt ceiling "deal" could cost 1.8 million US jobs. Nice.

The Republicans, and especially the "Tea Party" faction, are doing everything they can to torpedo the economy and the American worker in an effort to make Obama look bad.

I predict they will fail badly and Obama will win reelection in a near landslide no matter what the unemployment rate is. It's the Republicans creating the job losses and that can be easily shown.

And who will they run against him? Seven Dwarves?

-Jeff

fafner

08-04-2011, 09:15 PM

Braggi

08-04-2011, 10:10 PM

We hear over and over that we cannot tax the wealthy because they are the job creators. Where can one find the number of jobs they created since the Budget was passed in December?

How about we go back to the W. Bush tax cuts and figure out how much each job has cost the US taxpayer?

Of course, layoffs and firings due to plant closings and outsourcing should be subtracted from the total number of jobs.

I think We the People deserve an accounting! Lets audit the Bush tax cuts to see how effective they've been. If they're not cost effective, let's dump them.

-Jeff

Braggi

08-05-2011, 06:33 AM

How about we go back to the W. Bush tax cuts and figure out how much each job has cost the US taxpayer?

Of course, layoffs and firings due to plant closings and outsourcing should be subtracted from the total number of jobs.

I think We the People deserve an accounting! Lets audit the Bush tax cuts to see how effective they've been. If they're not cost effective, let's dump them.

-Jeff

Here I go, quoting myself; but really, it's a good idea. We should separate any jobs "created" by the "stimulus" spending as well.

So people, how about we create a meme? Let's audit the Bush tax cuts and find out how much each job is costing us. I'll bet it's in the millions of dollars a year, maybe more. In fact, my thinking is that the Bush tax cuts actually cost us jobs as well as money. If that's the case, perhaps we need to increase taxes over the Clinton levels to bring the jobs back home.

Let's get on this. Everybody please put it on your facebook page, tweet your friends, contact anyone working for the Democratic party and anyone working for government that you know.

We demand a bottom line! How much is each job created by the Bush tax cuts costing us?

-Jeff

Speak2Truth

08-12-2011, 08:33 PM

We hear over and over that we cannot tax the wealthy because they are the job creators. Where can one find the number of jobs they created since the Budget was passed in December?

GW Bush took office and inherited the dot-com bubble collapse and frantic cries about a new "recession". When he proposed tax relief for job creators, he was attacked by the Democrats who insisted that would push the nation right down into a new Great Depression.

By 2006, the last year Republicans controlled Congress and the national purse strings, unemployment was at 4.6%. Letting job creators use their money to create jobs worked. Even the 9/11 economic crash could not stop the success of that plan.

Democrats got control of Congress in the 2006 elections and triggered their housing market crash (that they vociferously defended in Congress against Republicans who were trying to stop it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs ). Obama took the opposite approach with the recession he inherited - with opposite results.

Remember when Obama said if he didn't fix the economy his Presidency would be a one-term proposition?

https://www.ihatethemedia.com/obama-in-2009-if-cant-fix-economy-fire-me

(2009)
“I will be held accountable,” Obama said. “I’ve got four years and … A year form now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

All righty then - let's elect someone who actually HAS some business management experience! That would be a welcome CHANGE.

Braggi

08-12-2011, 09:04 PM

Barry

08-12-2011, 09:21 PM

fafner

08-12-2011, 09:23 PM

GW Bush took office and inherited the dot-com bubble collapse and frantic cries about a new "recession". When he proposed tax relief for job creators, he was attacked by the Democrats who insisted that would push the nation right down into a new Great Depression.

By 2006, the last year Republicans controlled Congress and the national purse strings, unemployment was at 4.6%. Letting job creators use their money to create jobs worked. Even the 9/11 economic crash could not stop the success of that plan.

Democrats got control of Congress in the 2006 elections and triggered their housing market crash (that they vociferously defended in Congress against Republicans who were trying to stop it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs ). Obama took the opposite approach with the recession he inherited - with opposite results.

Remember when Obama said if he didn't fix the economy his Presidency would be a one-term proposition?

https://www.ihatethemedia.com/obama-in-2009-if-cant-fix-economy-fire-me

(2009)
“I will be held accountable,” Obama said. “I’ve got four years and … A year form now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

All righty then - let's elect someone who actually HAS some business management experience! That would be a welcome CHANGE.\

have read and understand what you are saying, but the question was 'Where can one find the number of jobs they created since the Budget was passed in December?' I am looking for an answer to this question. How can that be a more simple question?

"Mad" Miles

08-13-2011, 01:58 PM

...It even started on his watch, and is directly related to his/Republican policy of de-regulation (which brought on the financial crisis)...

Barry,

I find the rest of your reply to S2T cogent, but the part I quoted above is demonstrably false. Deregulation started under Reagan, then Bush I, but took great strides forward under Clinton. In fact, the elimination of the restrictions separating banks from financial brokerage houses, was pushed forward and passed by the Clinton administration.

Many of the regulations that might have prevented the collapse in mortgage finance markets, by limiting credit default swaps bundling and the derivatives shenanigans were removed under Clinton.

Both dominant parties are deeply in bed with finance capital interests. As recent events have clearly shown once again.

Just look at who funded McCain vs. Obama's '08 campaigns. Finance capital, based on Wall Street and other global markets, along with the money markets, backed Obama over McCain. Oil money, what remains of U.S. heavy manufacturing, goods and services moguls like the Koch Bros. backed the Republican.

But financiers based in intangibles (money markets, brokerages, etc.) were big supporters of The Obaminator. Just look at his appointments, Bernanke and Geithner, who did they work for before they started working for President Obama, i.e. "us"? The Fed. Now, I don't share the view from the fringes that the FED is the source of all financial problems, but you don't get to run the Fed without being on the good side of financial capital.

Yes, Bush II's unfunded wars and Medicaid prescription plan, along with major tax cuts for the wealthy, play a central role in the current financial problems of this country and the world. But you can't put the blame for market deregulation solely on the Republicans. Democrats are deeply into it as well.

In fact, the problem is Corporate Neo-Liberalism. The whole Conservative vs. Liberal trope is a distraction. A very effective one because so many people still buy it.

Speak2Truth

08-13-2011, 03:30 PM

TIME FOR A REMINDER OF HISTORY

It even started on his watch, and is directly related to his/Republican policy of de-regulation (which brought on the financial crisis)

There are two major flaws with this assertion:

1) "on his watch" means the Democrat-controlled Congress did it during the last two years of Bush's Presidency. If you understand how our system of government works, you'll realize the President's policies only get enacted if Congress wishes to - they're the ones who actually control the nation's budget and presumably act as representatives of The People - so the President is always very, very hesitant to override the Representatives on anything. Please don't say "on his watch" - it is a disingenuous phrase meant to distract from WHO did WHAT.

2) It was clearly Regulation and meddling that manufactured the crash in 2008-2009. Here's a little more of a history lesson...

THE BUILDUP PHASE

"Affirmative Action" forced on the home lenders by Clinton Administration, leading to eventual disaster
Video of Clinton's HUD Secretary boasting of victory in forcing lenders to comply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64

New York Times: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
Under pressure from Clinton Administration
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Obama, working with ACORN, Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans – UPDATED
https://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/

How banks were bullied into making bad loans
'Community activists' used pressure tactics to secure high-risk mortgages
https://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94031

THE FIGHT TO STOP IT

Shocking Video Unearthed: Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Snopes: New York Times reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae was 'broken' and would lead to disaster in economic downturn
Bush tried to fix it with oversight committee, Democrats thwarted effort
https://www.snopes.com/politics/business/easescredit.asp

Snopes: Bush Admin tried to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congressional Democrats, with Barney Frank as spokesman, thwarted the effort.
https://www.snopes.com/politics/business/easescredit.asp

Time to Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Conservative Republicans proposed Congress phase out Federal support for risky lenders in 2005
https://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/bg1861.cfm

FOLLOW THE NETWORKS

Update: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Lawmakers
Barak Obama and John Kerry are number two and three
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

Rahm Emanuel on Board of Freddie Mac
Misreported profits by billions of dollars in order to deceive investors between the years 2000 and 2002
https://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2008/11/new-obama-chief-of-staff-others-on.html

Barack Obama Taps Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson to Help Choose Running Mate
https://www.associatedcontent.com/article/781141/barack_obama_taps_former_fannie_mae.html

HERE COMES THE NEXT BIG SCAM

Disgraced Fannie Mae deep in carbon scheme
Mortgage giant set to collect millions marketing homeowners' energy savings
https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=171457

Chicago bank has questionable ties to Obama administration
Shore Bank set up to launder "carbon" money expected to be very profitable for closely tied backers
https://www.examiner.com/x-15898-Cincinnati-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m5d21-Obama-ties-to-shore-bank-worth-examining (https://www.examiner.com/x-15898-Cincinnati-Conservative-Examiner%7Ey2010m5d21-Obama-ties-to-shore-bank-worth-examining)

Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Scheme He Is Now Pushing Through Congress
On Board of Joyce Foundation, Obama helped build Chicago Climate Exchange
Paula DiPerna, President of CCX International, was President of Joyce Foundation at the time
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2214213/posts

Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange—the rest of the story
https://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629

YOU ARE FOREWARNED AGAIN

Remember, we were forewarned that forcing lenders to give bad loans would crash the housing market. The huge fight in Congress was an eye-opener to us all. You DO remember that, right? I ask because the news people seem to have amnesia.

So, we now have forewarning as to the next big ripoff scheme. We know who the players are. We can see that they've been working for years to set it up. This time, try to remember, because for sure they'll pretend innocence again and the news media will happily help them point the finger of blame at someone else - just like that cartoon Barry posted with the jackass, the elephant and the vase.

If a company hires more workers then their costs go up and the taxes go down. By having a higher marginal tax rate, it makes the after-tax cost of hiring a new worker less (they can write them off!).

So, you're saying that the more employment increases, the less taxes government collects? Is that why our Federal tax revenues went from zero to negative as more and more businesses have been built?

In reality, Barry, a business hires people, pays them, they pay income taxes (more tax revenue), the company produces things other people buy (sales and other taxes), things that may get shipped (fuel taxes, transport taxes)... and so on. So, no, your claim that hiring people reduces tax revenues is illogical - otherwise there would be no revenues from private employment.

Speak2Truth

08-13-2011, 03:46 PM

have read and understand what you are saying, but the question was 'Where can one find the number of jobs they created since the Budget was passed in December?' I am looking for an answer to this question. How can that be a more simple question?

Merely passing a budget is not going to fix the mess. Un-fundamentally transforming our nation is going to take some major work to undo the damage that has been done.

When some progress is made to undo the government meddling and layers upon layers of taxation that are systematically breaking down the American free-market system, then we can see restoration of honest private-sector employment.

Don't even look at the "jobs created" - that's a false measuring stick. If Government borrows printed paper from the Fed and indentures today's children to toil the rest of their lives to pay it back with interest, in order to "create" some busy-work jobs out of thin air or subsidize some favored Green corporations or something - that is NOT, repeat NOT an increase in prosperity or private sector employment. It in fact creates MORE of a drain because MORE must be paid back, in interest, than was ever printed on paper.

It's a horrible scheme.

Step 1: Restore lawful control of US currency to the US Congress.
Step 2: Eliminate the National Debt (which is a constant drain on our economy due to interest payments)
Step 3: Allow the Federal Government to ONLY spend as much as it takes in each year except in the case of a military emergency.
Step 4: Eliminate all unconstitutional handouts (seizure and redistribution of wealth) by Government.
Step 5: KICK THIS GUY IN THE ASS

Judge Judy - Here's Who You Support With Taxes
https://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=15915

Then we can talk about "jobs created" with happy smiles.

We are currently going in the wrong direction.

Hotspring 44

08-13-2011, 06:53 PM

...Step 1: Restore lawful control of US currency to the US Congress.
Step 2: Eliminate the National Debt (which is a constant drain on our economy due to interest payments)
Step 3: Allow the Federal Government to ONLY spend as much as it takes in each year except in the case of a military emergency.
Step 4: Eliminate all unconstitutional handouts (seizure and redistribution of wealth) by Government.
Step 5: KICK THIS GUY IN THE ASS.

RE: "Step 2": We can pay the interest at first but there needs to be MORE not less actual wealth "stimulus" in monies into the actual economy (NOT like some crooked banking scams we have witnessed lately) somewhat like FDR did to forestall the "depression" in the 1930's. Also REGULATE correctly, the banking and loaning in a modernized way that is either equivalent or greater than the Glass–Steagall Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act) was in it's time.

RE: "Step 3": That would most likely require raisisng taxes on the most wealthy and reintroduce some kind of progressive profit tax on corporations and interest income on at least the top 10 to 15% to be successful (note: step 2").:onethindime:

If there were a choice between people (US Citizens) literally starving and dieing of exposure (due to austerity) or raising taxes on the most wealthy, what would you ask of your representatives to choose to do when it becomes apparent that there is only a choice between only those 2 ways of repairing the monetary system?

...We are currently going in the wrong direction. I think most of us here agree with that statement in general terms but, which direction the correct way is to go in is another plethora of apposing directions.:Firework1:

fafner

08-13-2011, 08:28 PM

Merely passing a budget is not going to fix the mess. .....
.

So we cannot talk about 'jobs created' with happy smiles. The answer must then be much less than touted.

Speak2Truth

08-13-2011, 08:56 PM

Fafner - yes, your summary is correct. "Jobs created" is a trick. The real question is whether the government is spending less than is coming in and can therefore reduce the debt. We must look at how current policies will change things in the long run. We should also ask, "Are our representatives obeying the Constitution like they swore an oath to do when taking office?"

That's a serious question. If they are not bound by that contract between us and them, we are in serious trouble.

If there were a choice between people (US Citizens) literally starving and dieing of exposure (due to austerity) or raising taxes on the most wealthy, what would you ask of your representatives to choose to do when it becomes apparent that there is only a choice between only those 2 ways of repairing the monetary system?

But that's not the choice.

That assertion is based on the notion that us Citizens cannot feed themselves or live in a home. That is true of a lot of them now BECAUSE their employers were taxed out of business in this country...

Workers sorry Vise Grip plant moving to China
Pliers are iconic in Nebraska; 300 workers to watch their jobs go overseas
https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26531610/

And the more employers are taxed out of business, the more people become dependent on tax dollars, so the more taxes must be raised, so the more employers are taxed out of business, putting more people on the dole, requiring raising even more taxes...

It's a choice between tax-and-destroy or leave-us-the-hell-alone-to-prosper. Leftists understand this clearly.

"The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." – Vladimir Lenin

"There is only one way to kill capitalism—by taxes, taxes, and more taxes." - Karl Marx

Every society has people who really are not capable of caring for themselves. There are plenty of ways to help them out without dragging us down the path of creating an ever growing body of people dependent upon resources forcefully seized from others. Unfortunately, the goal of the Left really is to crash and burn the American System so they can fundamentally transform it. They have ways of achieving that.

American Thinker: Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
Cloward-Piven Strategy
https://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html

The Cloward-Piven Strategy and Barack Obama
https://apathetic-usa.com/

I believe our real choice is whether to allow Americans to prosper or to continue imposing the planned destruction of the US by putting more and more people on the rolls of tax-dollar dependency.

There was a time, not too long ago, when a working-class man could support his whole family with his 8 to 5 job, living in a decent home with a car, TV and all the amenities. That dream has been stolen away by endless layers of taxation, much of which is being set out of this nation to pay a debt incurred by irresponsible politicians whose acts would land them in prison if they did not have government immunity.

I agree with this guy...

Felonious Munk Presents: Stop It B! OBAMA PAY YOUR &*%$#% BILLS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRmZ9zH-mYM

jbox

08-14-2011, 07:05 AM

Barry,

I find the rest of your reply to S2T cogent, but the part I quoted above is demonstrably false. Deregulation started under Reagan, then Bush I, but took great strides forward under Clinton. In fact, the elimination of the restrictions separating banks from financial brokerage houses, was pushed forward and passed by the Clinton administration.

Many of the regulations that might have prevented the collapse in mortgage finance markets, by limiting credit default swaps bundling and the derivatives shenanigans were removed under Clinton.

Both dominant parties are deeply in bed with finance capital interests. As recent events have clearly shown once again.

Just look at who funded McCain vs. Obama's '08 campaigns. Finance capital, based on Wall Street and other global markets, along with the money markets, backed Obama over McCain. Oil money, what remains of U.S. heavy manufacturing, goods and services moguls like the Koch Bros. backed the Republican.

But financiers based in intangibles (money markets, brokerages, etc.) were big supporters of The Obaminator. Just look at his appointments, Bernanke and Geithner, who did they work for before they started working for President Obama, i.e. "us"? The Fed. Now, I don't share the view from the fringes that the FED is the source of all financial problems, but you don't get to run the Fed without being on the good side of financial capital.

Yes, Bush II's unfunded wars and Medicaid prescription plan, along with major tax cuts for the wealthy, play a central role in the current financial problems of this country and the world. But you can't put the blame for market deregulation solely on the Republicans. Democrats are deeply into it as well.

In fact, the problem is Corporate Neo-Liberalism. The whole Conservative vs. Liberal trope is a distraction. A very effective one because so many people still buy it.

I recall that under Clinton's watch there was an unprecedented wave of corporate mergers, as if smaller (but still global) companies couldn't cut it any more. So now we have Exxon/Mobil and Chevron/Texaco and BP/Arco and so on. Banks and insurance companies did the same thing. So now Exxon's profits alone can fund Social Security. The natural competitive environment essential for the proper functioning of the capitalist economic model has been watered down and corrupted by the political parties and the Democrats are no better than the Republicans here. To hell with BOTH parties. As George Wallace said in '68 - There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two of them. As far as I can tell they're just two sides of the same coin, minted not by the people but by Wall St.

someguy

08-14-2011, 07:14 AM

Would someone care to explain how taxing the rich would create jobs?

Hotspring 44

08-14-2011, 09:06 AM

Would someone care to explain how taxing the rich would create jobs?
Who said that taxing the rich by itself would create jobs?
Obviously taxing the rich only would not solve in any significant way the negative economic situation we are in now.

When I mentioned taxing the rich ("raising taxes on the most wealthy and reintroduce some kind of progressive profit tax on corporations and interest income on at least the top 10 to 15% to be successful"), I was not in any saying that that only "taxing the rich" as you put it, would create jobs.

My question here is: In history, can anyone show how lowering taxes to the most wealthy has created any well paying jobs or more meaningful careers?... ...When?... ...Where?... ...how did that work then?...
...and, are we in a similar enough situation now that would suggest that tax cuts to the rich would in any significant way create enough jobs to be positive proof that the "tax cuts" to the rich were (would be) solely the reason for those jobs and not other trends?:hmmm::hmmm:

Braggi

08-14-2011, 09:16 AM

Would someone care to explain how taxing the rich would create jobs?

Jobs are created by money moving through the economy. When corporations and the extremely wealthy hoard their money, as they have over the last 10 years, there are job losses, as we have seen. I'm simplifying, of course, but the trend is clear. When governments are starved for income, as ours is now, basic services are reduced, which means direct job losses. Think of parks for instance. When a new park is opened, rangers, grounds keepers, maintenance crews are all hired. Those are obvious "government" jobs. But that park also uses goods and services from the community. Those benches come from somewhere as do the roads and buildings. Then all the people that use the park use goods and services related to their outings. More jobs are created.

One thing for certain, when we close a park, or shut down any government service, the whole community loses, and privatizing is no answer to anything.

-Jeff

Hotspring 44

08-14-2011, 12:41 PM

But that's not the choice....
It is the only "choice" the politicians (mostly because of the stalwarts of the Tea Party in the Republican House majority) seem to be forcing onto us.
The rest of the possibilities (compromises or other combinations of taxation adjustments, budget cuts, and regulation "reforms") are completely cut-out of the conversation in congress because of the Tea Party Republicans in the House.

...That assertion is based on the notion that us Citizens cannot feed themselves or live in a home. That is true of a lot of them now BECAUSE their employers were taxed out of business in this country...
I think that many but not all the "business" you are referring to have been exploitative, unpatriotic, unimaginative, and greedy... ...Business as usual.
They have in many cases, in doing so have exploited poorer people in other nations for their "cheap" labor, nonexistent labor safety, human rights, and environmental standards which has ended up supporting in some cases groups like the Taliban and the diamond barons and slavery in the Sudan and other areas in Africa... ...Then directly contributing to the national debt by outsourcing high tech labor to India, and Malaysia and manufacturing to Mexico and China which has directly affected the US so-called "job crisis".

What about careers?... ...I hear all this talk about "JOBS!, JOBS!, JOBS!", but no mention of reasonable paying careers; WHY?... ...One reason is that robber barons hate trade unions!... ...and they are pulling on the political purse strings!... ...The Citizens United (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/gideon-rosenblatt/citizens-united-v-united-_b_809262.html) decision made by the Supreme Court has more to do with the slow but sure direction of reenacting slavery by way of debt to a prearranged indentured servitude status by way of mounting interest on the national debt whereas the largest corporate entities will attain the wealth while all others would be beholding the monetary debt perpetually by way of a systematic interest scheme in proportions that will never end and would only increase.

...It's a choice between tax-and-destroy or leave-us-the-hell-alone-to-prosper. Leftists understand this clearly.
I totally disagree with your "Leftists" categorization into the actual existing situation. It seems to me that maybe you and I have a different definition of "Leftist".
There are radicals on both the left and right that do monkey-wrench the political process; you seem to mostly blame the "Left Wing" for the recent decline in the economy but the trend in the economic sense on the political spectrum in Washington has been steadily going to the right, therefore I am not convinced that the Left Wing is as responsible as you say.
In fact I believe that the Right Wingers have purposefully monkey-wrenched Washington economic politics just to get rid of the "black" man in the White House"; plain and simple, the Culture War has only deepened, it's not over, whoever thinks it is over or that it does not have a direct effect on the economic decisions in the country is not paying attention to the real bigoted realities that are so deeply rooted in America; (not only racial bigots but other pet peeves that are rooted in bigotry and prejudice; mostly coming from the Right Wing side of the isle in Congress; I might add.).

Every society has people who really are not capable of caring for themselves. There are plenty of ways to help them out without dragging us down the path of creating an ever growing body of people dependent upon resources forcefully seized from others. Unfortunately, the goal of the Left really is to crash and burn the American System so they can fundamentally transform it. They have ways of achieving that.
That is simply an assumptive and wholly inaccurate and prejudicial sound-bite of a statement if I ever herd one!... ...Or maybe you meant to say "Neo-Liberal"?... ...That would be more accurate. Both Pres. George Bush's fall into that ("Neo-Liberal") category; as well as Bill Clinton, and Barrack Obama... ...the list goes on.... ...Not to mention the conquest of attaining all wealth as they can by a few aristocracy at the expense of the weaker for the benefit of the, shall I say, the robber barons of the top 1 or 2% of income bracket.

I believe our real choice is whether to allow Americans to prosper or to continue imposing the planned destruction of the US by putting more and more people on the rolls of tax-dollar dependency.

I would rephrase that as the following:
I believe our real choice is whether to allow Americans to prosper or to continue imposing the planned destruction of the US by putting more and more banks, multinational and large corporations on the rolls of tax-dollar, land and resource grant and  "cheap" foreign labor market and exploitation dependency... ...while at the same time [I]giving tax exemptions to the same ones that the tax dollars go to, to benefit their sometimes completely untaxed profits:frustration:.

There was a time, not too long ago, when a working-class man could support his whole family with his 8 to 5 job, living in a decent home with a car, TV and all the amenities. That dream has been stolen away by endless layers of taxation, much of which is being set out of this nation to pay a debt incurred by irresponsible politicians whose acts would land them in prison if they did not have government immunity.

I agree with this guy...
I don't agree with that statement in regards to the taxation aspect of it.
Trade unions were stronger then they are now and taxation was more congruent to the financial obligations then they are today.

Granting tax shelters in foreign territories like the Bahamas for the financially privileged (large corporations and super rich individuals) is one nonexclusive example, (that) have to some extent chipped away at the ability to pay interest on debt to the Federal Reserve banking system (which is another example of what happens when privatization of government obligations has to offer, but that is another category to get into on a different thread) contributed to the burden on the rest of us beyond the ability to keep up with the obligations like the interest on the debt, infrastructure and safety-net social programs that we common folk have invested heavily into and have a major interest in.

Felonious Munk Presents: Stop It B! OBAMA PAY YOUR &*%$#% BILLS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRmZ9zH-mYM[/QUOTE]
I saw that.
:satire:: The (hypothetical) response from B!: https://pl.st/s/364900625:snorkel:

someguy

08-14-2011, 02:47 PM

My question here is: In history, can anyone show how lowering taxes to the most wealthy has created any well paying jobs or more meaningful careers?... ...When?... ...Where?... ...how did that work then?...
...and, are we in a similar enough situation now that would suggest that tax cuts to the rich would in any significant way create enough jobs to be positive proof that the "tax cuts" to the rich were (would be) solely the reason for those jobs and not other trends?:hmmm::hmmm:
Check out what Australia did in the 80's... You'll find your answer there.

Hotspring 44

08-14-2011, 04:33 PM

Check out what Australia did in the 80's... You'll find your answer there.
Australia?:hmmm:
American economic history is enough of a brain drain as it is.
Interjecting Australia's 1980's economy without some specific input in your own words is like a cop-out; so it seems to me at this point.
Can/will you be more specific of exactly what you are talking about?... ...in your own words without an overload of data filled links would be preferred.:):
:hmmm:What about here in USA?... ...where is the "proof" here?... ...that is what I was actually asking; because historically (giving tax cuts to the "rich") has had the opposite effect on (so-called) "jobs" (I am really talking about actual national prosperity (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/prosperity) and careers, not just mostly shit work with lower than bare-bone minimum so-called "living wage"[at best] "jobs" for the masses) ...

...To be more specific, government funded or at least start-up (stimulus) has been what has historically, had an over all effect of "prosperity" after a bust economy to a higher percentage of Americans than tax breaks for the wealthiest have.

In fact taxing the rich and what would be described today as "stimulus" (correctly targeted of course) has helped the economy to revive it from the great depression and the 2nd world war.
BTW, there is nothing that says a future stimulus would not have tax incentives that would have the effect of creating more "jobs"... ...The more wealth (prosperity) the "rich" "share" the more of it they can retain by way of tax relief (and yes profits too!:wow:) for doing so.:wink:

 Below is an interesting concept that should be considered with the return of a 90% tax on the wealthiest highest income.

I think (at least the first 3 ways as guide as a "moral" premise anyway) is worth considering.... ...(The R/W preaches "morality"; so here is an economic "morality" to seriously contemplate that should please a real true moralist; not just the R/W talking head mouth pieces for the Rupert Rupert Murdoch s' Coch Brothers and other aristocracies and profiteers):

<table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; mso-yfti-tbllook:480;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;mso-border-insideh: .5pt solid windowtext;mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes"> <td style="border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top"> 14 Ways a 90 Percent Top Tax Rate Fixes Our Economy and Our Country (https://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010041625/13-ways-90-percent-top-tax-rate-fixes-economy)

By Dave Johnson (https://www.ourfuture.org/users/new-1810)
April 26, 2010 - 12:05am ET

A return to Eisenhower-era 90% top tax rates helps fix our economy in several ways:
1) It makes it take longer to end up with a fortune. In fact it makes people [I]build and earn a fortune, instead of shooting for quick windfalls.

This forces long-term thinking and planning instead of short-term scheming and scamming.

If grabbing everything in sight and running doesn’t pay off anymore, you have to change your strategy.
</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-yfti-irow:1"> <td style="border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none; mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top"> 2) It gets rid of the quick-buck-scheme business model. Making people take a longer-term approach to building rather than grabbing a fortune will help reattach businesses to communities by reinforcing interdependence between businesses and their surrounding communities.
</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-yfti-irow:2;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none; mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top"> 3) It will lower the executive crime rate.

Today it is possible to run scams that let you pocket huge sums in a single year, and leave behind the mess you make for others to fix (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/business/23pay.html)....
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> The rest of the article can be found @:
https://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010041625/13-ways-90-percent-top-tax-rate-fixes-economy

Barry

08-14-2011, 04:50 PM

Would someone care to explain how taxing the rich would create jobs?
Jobs aside, it would sure help with the deficit!

someguy

08-14-2011, 05:03 PM

Australia?:hmmm:
American economic history is enough of a brain drain as it is.
Interjecting Australia's 1980's economy without some specific input in your own words is like a cop-out; so it seems to me at this point.
Can/will you be more specific of exactly what you are talking about?... ...in your own words without an overload of data filled links would be preferred.:):

Dude, its super simple... Didn't think you needed me to spell it out for you. But here goes. In the 80;s Australia was facing massive debt, unemployment and an economic crisis of sorts. They lowered taxes, decreased regulations to invite new investors, and now they are probably one of the only thriving economies in the world despite this global recession. In fact, this allowed them to implement a universal health care system for all.

someguy

08-14-2011, 05:07 PM

Jobs aside, it would sure help with the deficit!
Yes it would. But is it right? No. Especially when that money goes to fight massively expensive wars!!! Why don't have a war on war, instead of a war on the rich? To set the record straight, I'm not just saying lower rich people's taxes, but everyone's taxes. Thats a real stimulus if you ask me.

"Mad" Miles

08-14-2011, 05:12 PM

Hotspring 44

08-14-2011, 07:34 PM

Dude, its super simple... Didn't think you needed me to spell it out for you. But here goes. In the 80;s Australia was facing massive debt, unemployment and an economic crisis of sorts. They lowered taxes, decreased regulations to invite new investors, and now they are probably one of the only thriving economies in the world despite this global recession. In fact, this allowed them to implement a universal health care system for all.
But now it has higher taxation rates on the “rich” than the USA.

<table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; mso-yfti-tbllook:480;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;mso-border-insideh: .5pt solid windowtext;mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top"> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_AustraliaSome text:

"As with many other countries, income tax is withheld from wages and salaries in Australia, often resulting in refunds payable to taxpayers. A nine-digit Tax File Number (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_File_Number) (TFN) must be quoted to employers for employees to have withholdings calculated using the various tax brackets. While it is not an offence to fail to provide a bank or financial institution with a TFN, in the absence of this number, employers are required to withhold tax at the rate of 46.5% (the highest marginal rate plus Medicare levy) from the first dollar. Likewise, banks must also withhold the highest marginal rate of income tax on interest earned on bank accounts if the individual does not provide their TFN to the bank. In the same way, corporate and business taxpayers are required to provide their TFN or Australian Business Number (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Business_Number) (ABN) to the bank, otherwise the bank will be required to withhold income tax at the highest rate of tax.
[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Income_tax_in_Australia&action=edit&section=3)] Individual income tax rates (residents)

Financial years 2010-11, 2011-12<sup>[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_Australia#cite_note-1)</sup>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="mso-cellspacing: 1.5pt" border="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes"> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">

Taxable income

</td> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">

Tax on this income

</td> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">

Effective tax rate

</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-yfti-irow:1"> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> 0 – $6,000
</td> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> Nil
</td> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> 0%
</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-yfti-irow:2"> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> $6,001 – $37,000
</td> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> 15c for each $1 over $6,000
</td> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> 0 – 12.6%
</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-yfti-irow:3"> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> $37,001 – $80,000
</td> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> $4,650 plus 30c for each $1 over $37,000
</td> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> 12.6 – 21.9%
</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-yfti-irow:4"> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> $80,001 – $180,000
</td> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> $17,550 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000
</td> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> 21.9 – 30.3%
</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-yfti-irow:5;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> [I]$180,001 and over
</td> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> [I]$54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000
</td> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> 30.3 – 45%"
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; mso-yfti-tbllook:480;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;mso-border-insideh: .5pt solid windowtext;mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top"> Official 2011 US Income Tax Brackets (IRS Tax Rates) (https://www.bargaineering.com/articles/federal-income-irs-tax-brackets.html)

Head of Household
These tax tables are for those considered Heads of Household:
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="mso-cellspacing: 1.5pt" border="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes"> <td style="width:114.75pt;background:#0E5C9C;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt" width="153"> Taxable Income
</td> <td style="width:262.5pt;background:#0E5C9C;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt" width="350"> Tax
</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-yfti-irow:1"> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> $0 – $12,150
</td> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> 10% of taxable income
</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-yfti-irow:2"> <td style="background:#EEEEEE;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> $12,150 – $46,250
</td> <td style="background:#EEEEEE;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> $1,215 plus 15% of excess over $12,150
</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-yfti-irow:3"> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> $46,250 – $119,400
</td> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> $6,330 plus 25% of excess over $46,250
</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-yfti-irow:4"> <td style="background:#EEEEEE;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> $119,400 – $193,350
</td> <td style="background:#EEEEEE;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> $24,617.50 plus 28% of excess over $119,400
</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-yfti-irow:5"> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> $193,350 – $379,150
</td> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> $45,323.50 plus 33% of excess over $193,350
</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-yfti-irow:6;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="background:#EEEEEE;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> $379,150+
</td> <td style="background:#EEEEEE;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> $106,637.50 plus 35% of excess over $379,150
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> Source: https://www.bargaineering.com/articles/federal-income-irs-tax-brackets.html
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Also Australia has many taxes:

1 Personal income taxes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Australia#Personal_income_taxes)
2 Capital gains tax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Australia#Capital_gains_tax)
3 Corporate taxes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Australia#Corporate_taxes)
4 Goods and Services taxes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Australia#Goods_and_Services_taxes)
5 Property taxes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Australia#Property_taxes)
6 Excise taxes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Australia#Excise_taxes)

6.1 Fuel taxes in Australia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Australia#Fuel_taxes_in_Australia)
6.2 Luxury Car Tax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Australia#Luxury_Car_Tax)

7 Customs duties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Australia#Customs_duties)
8 Payroll taxes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Australia#Payroll_taxes)

8.1 New South Wales (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Australia#New_South_Wales)
8.2 Queensland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Australia#Queensland)
8.3 South Australia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Australia#South_Australia)
8.4 Western Australia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Australia#Western_Australia)

9 Fringe Benefits Tax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Australia#Fringe_Benefits_Tax)
10 Inheritance tax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Australia#Inheritance_tax)
11 Superannuation taxes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Australia#Superannuation_taxes)

Australia also has a higher minimum wage pay standard than here in the US:

From 1 October 2007, the Australia standard Federal Minimum Wage is $13.74 per hour or $522.12 per week.<sup id="cite_ref-9" class="reference">[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_law#cite_note-9)</sup>
From 1 October 2008, the Australia standard Federal Minimum Wage is $14.31 per hour or $543.78 per week.<sup id="cite_ref-10" class="reference">[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_law#cite_note-10)</sup>
In 2009, the Federal Minimum Wage was not changed.<sup id="cite_ref-11" class="reference">[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_law#cite_note-11)</sup>
In 2010, the Federal Minimum Wage was raised to $15 per hour or $569.90 per week<sup id="cite_ref-12" class="reference">[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_law#cite_note-12)</sup>
As of July 1, 2011, The Federal minimum wage is $15.51 per hour or $589.30 per week<sup id="cite_ref-13" class="reference">[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_law#cite_note-13)</sup>

And still I hear so much (:blahblah:) BS about how the minimum wage "regulations" here in US is "killing businesses".
If Australia is used as an example then where is the clamoring (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/clamoring) for raising the minimum wage here in the US? :hmmm:

Hotspring 44

08-14-2011, 07:50 PM

Someguy,

What you left out of your summary is that Australia is a Social Democracy with strong unions, a viable and powerful Labor Party, and a very deep and wide set of Social Services (expensive ones by the way). Plus they were well situated geographically, with substantial natural resources and a well educated (and socially supported) populace, at a time of economic expansion in the global market.

Everything is connected, and the tendency I see coming from the Free Market Libertarian Right is a tendency to reduce complex phenomenon, to a few reductive and totalizing, "cherry picked", partial truths.

There are also Immigration issues here that are less controllable then in Australia. Also, Australia still has Immigration issues; The Continental difference gives Australia a comparative advantage to the US on the immigration issues, but they are still making tentative plans to use immigration as a economic backstop for the lowering birth to aging ratio.... ...https://www.globalmovements.monash.edu.au/news/documents/ImplicationsOfTheEconomicDownturnReportFor%20ImmigrationAndSocialCohesionReport.pdf

BTW not meaning to argue with you "Mad" Miles, just adding to the mix of info.:wink:

someguy

08-14-2011, 08:17 PM

<OBJECT id=ieooui classid=clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D></OBJECT><STYLE> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </STYLE>
But now it has higher taxation rates on the “rich” than the USA.

The key word is 'now'. The example I gave was not about current day Australia, but of the reform policies that they enacted to pull themselves out of their dire economical situation in the 1980's. What you are saying has no relevance and is a sideshow of sorts. They could (for all we know) be screwing up their future economy... We just don't know. Or maybe we do.Why are you against cutting people's taxes and giving everyone more money to spend? Why do you need to government to decide how to spend our hard earned money? Why would you want them to have more of our money since they are so obviously irresponsible with how they use it?

beshiva

08-14-2011, 09:16 PM

Would someone care to explain how taxing the rich would create jobs?

if taxing the rich would create jobs.....it would have happened during the whole time Georgie Bush was in office, he actually gave those cuts on the backs of the middle class, now we all realize THAT, because he never had a way of paying for them before now....they didn't create jobs, they LOST jobs....the plain fact is....rich people get richer, and they Hoard their wealth, OR....they send it all over the freakin' world to make themselves more money....so to answer yur question once again....NO, the rich DO NOT, Nor do they WANT TO, create jobs.....unless your willing to work for about $2.00hr.......

Hotspring 44

08-14-2011, 10:53 PM

The key word is 'now'. The example I gave was not about current day Australia, but of the reform policies that they enacted to pull themselves out of their dire economical situation in the 1980's.... ...
I think it is up to you to be more specific on how that worked in the 1980's as you claim it did.
Just proclaiming that lowering "taxes" in Australia in the 1980's was the only thing that supposedly saved Australia's economy is too much of a generalization for any reasonable person that does not know most of the specifics on that topic, as I suspect you don't ether; because you have used such a vast generalization... ...(I could be mistaken about your knowledge of that but if I am, it is you that would need to prove it).

As far as I can tell just from what I read today, Australia did not recover until the 1990's; the same time we here in the US had the IT technology bubble for much of the same reasons as we did have a "bubble" so did they.

Also, Australia has had many of those taxes I mentioned in one of my previous postings throughout that same time line.

What you are saying has no relevance and is a sideshow of sorts. They could (for all we know) be screwing up their future economy...
LOL!!! You just admitted you (we) don't know one way or the other!... ...So I'm conjecturing that you don't really know how factual your statements actually are.

...We just don't know. Or maybe we do. :wtf:WE?... ...I don't, do you?... ...Does anyone?... ...if so, who?:hmmm:

Why are you against cutting people's taxes and giving everyone more money to spend?:wow:You don't seem get it. Are you really standing up for the ultra-rich so they won't have to pay their fair share?
Don't you know that in human nature there are hoarders and that some of those few hoarders are hording wealth (money) at the detriment of the many?

1- Corporations aren't "people"!

2- We are (or at least I am) talking about the highest income bracket. (which BTW I think the amount of top income tax should be raised from the $379,150+ bracket to (start at) at least $500,000. to reach the plus 35% of excess over; (but I also think that the 35% should go up progressively at some rate so for some that would lower the income tax.

3- corporate loopholes and outsourcing should be taxed IE Import Duty or at least the tax shelters in having places like the Bahamas so as to specifically avoid paying their fair share must be dealt with somehow; some sort of taxation or fines, fees on the corporate entities transactions that practice that is one way to get the ultra-rich to pay at least some of their fair share or at least some corporate fair practice regulations regarding labor as far as outsourcing is concerned; (in other words no slavery for our benefit in other country's that compete with our labor force).
4- After all we do use the military and/or subsidize other military's to "protect" the interests of those corporations in other country's and also the shipping lanes around the world.

5- I also gave a basic explanation of the "moral" issue of the large scale fast buck scammers and bank loan sharks and gave an example of one way those practices can be controlled by taxation enough to not have another financial institution meltdown and/or another "too big to fail" Government Bailout situation to crash the economy all over again...

...3) "It will lower the executive crime rate:Today it is possible to run scams that let you pocket huge sums in a single year, and leave behind the mess you make for others to fix (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/business/23pay.html)."
Why do you need to government to decide how to spend our hard earned money? Why would you want them to have more of our money since they are so obviously irresponsible with how they use it?

E Gads!... ...You don't seem to have much of a concept of what is going on with the whole infrastructure which our livelihood depends so much on and how the robber barons (as I am calling them) are using their monetary control of the mass media infrastructure to trick people into believing that it is the poor,elderly, disabled and disadvantaged people whom have needs that are the ones that are going make the country go broke... ...Actually, I think that it's the aristocracies that have infiltrated our democratic republic governance since before it's creation; note: the thread and postings by lolchan in the thread, "Columbus, Slavery, & Class War" :

O.K. , kids, School is In Session; (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?81439-Columbus-Slavery-amp-Class-War&p=137282#post137282)
Columbus, Slavery, & Class War

"THE HISTORY OF MONEY IN AMERICA FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION" (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?81439-Columbus-Slavery-amp-Class-War&p=137664#post137664)

CHAPTER II. (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?81439-Columbus-Slavery-amp-Class-War&p=138916#post138916) THE CONQUEST (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?81439-Columbus-Slavery-amp-Class-War&p=138916#post138916)

I could probably say more but for now I am getting tired and a bit burned-out on this thread for tonight so that's all for now.

zenekar

08-15-2011, 12:30 AM

S2T and cohorts,

This should probably be in "The Top 1%" thread but since we're on the subject here...

It is tiring to hear people regurgitating right-wing wrong-headed statements protecting the wealthy, esp. the top 1% that had acquired its wealth by theft! Yes, THEFT -- first by stealing land of the indigenous peoples (in all of the Americas, Middle East, Africa, Asia...), moving people off their land and creating plantations, mining for minerals and fossil fuel, to profit the greedy thieves. Enslaving and using indentured humans to do the labor.

Throughout the history of this nation, people have been exploited in order to create wealth for the capitalist elite. If a business does not provide a living wage -- a wage based on the real cost of living -- then it is stealing from its employees, making huge profits while we, the people toil to get by.

From the Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County:
A "living wage" is a self-sufficiency wage which enables a family to pay for housing, medical care, transportation, child care, and food without relying on public or private assistance. The term "living wage" is used by advocates to point out that the federal and state minimum wage are not adequate to enable workers to become self-sufficient. A living or self-sufficiency wage for Sonoma County in 2008 was $14.90 an hour (including benefits) and an annual family income of $62,940 based upon calculations for a two-parent, two-child family with both parents working full-time.

In California the minimum wage is $8 hr., nowhere near a living wage. So, if a true living wage is around $15 hr., the corporation is stealing $7 per hour from each employee. The corporation makes huge profits, CEOs are rewarded with million$. Imagine how much theft is going on in the so called "third world" where US multinational corporations pay pennies on the dollar as wages. Do you really believe that corporations earned their profits fair and square?

I expect there will be all sorts of explanations and fabricated justifications for the greed of the wealthy. It's difficult to comprehend how even Tea Party working stiffs who have nothing in common with the wealthy elite, buy into the right-wing propaganda.

Iolchan

08-15-2011, 07:59 AM

To Answer the Question: in a Word, No

Taxing the Rich - and the Multinational Corporations - would help to balance the Federal budget. But to really "fix the economy," Long term, and Systemic changes would have to be implemented. Driving the "Money-Changers Out of the Temple" - {which is what Franklin D. Roosevelt promised to do; but did not do} - would be a better Solution than merely taxing the Corporations and the Rich according to the rate they should be taxed... {As it is, Military-Industrial Corporations like Lockheed pay almost nothing in Federal taxes. They have clever accountants who know all of the loop-holes; of how to "write off" practically everything...}

https://www.paleoprogressives.org13595

This is a picture of the Fed's relationship with the Treasury Department. Instead of being a "sub-treasury" central bank of issue, it is actually above the Treasury in that it has been given the ultimate power and authority to "create" credit and issues of paper money out of thin air. "Federal Reserve Bank credit does not consist of funds that the Reserve authorities get somewhere to lend, but constitute funds that they are empowered to CREATE." (reference, "Federal Reserve System, Its Purposes and Functions," U.S. Government Publications, 1939 ed., p.85)

When the Federal Government needs money, it must turn to the Federal Reserve Bank, both for income-tax moneys, which are funneled from the I.R.S. through the Fed to the Treasury, and also for the creation of fresh debt, the annual deficit.

To get "money," the Treasury must print fresh U.S. Government Securities, on the presses of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. These are the same presses, the operating costs of which are paid by taxpayers, that the Fed utilizes to print fresh issues of Federal Reserve Notes. If the Treasury wants cash, the Fed will, in this manner, supply cash. The Fed pays the Treasury for the printing (paper and ink only), which is running about 3 cents a bill, whether it is a one-dollar bill or a thousand-dollar bill.

The Treasury must give the Fed a Million dollars in bonds or interest-bearing securities for every million dollars of cash or credit the Fed supplies the Treasury. This is the first unequal exchange. These U.S. Government Securities are interest-bearing Liabilities of the tax-paying American public. As long as these securities remain in the vaults of the Fed, however, they are, in theory, the property of the People. Taxpayers pay the interest that these bonds generate and this revenue pays for the work-a-day expenses of the Federal Reserve Banks. The surplus interest, in excess of the cost of running the Fed, is channeled back into the U.S. Treasury.

13596

This is a picture of the relationship of the Fed to its member banks, and the masses. The masses are on the bottom, the banks are in the middle, and the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank is on top. Behind the Federal Reserve, is the bond-holding class.

The Federal Reserve System is the instrument and tool of the private banking industry. Banks are allowed, in effect, to create Fiat Money on the credit (faith) of the people and to also collect interest on this money from the government, and people of the United States. The euphemism applying to this privilege is "Fractional Reserve." Banks are enabled to lend this money at profit-making interest rates to their customers.

Not only do the banks create money out of thin air (e.g., when the reserve ratio is 8 to 1, $8 can be loaned out for every $1 dollar "on deposit"), but also since the system requires the selling of government bonds to back up "the Fractional Reserve" funds created, the U.S. Treasury is paying interest on the funds it allows the banks to create. This is a money-making machine. Meanwhile, out on the street, there is always a dearth of money, actually about only $1,000 per person (though most people rarely see that much) of actual cash (paper money and token coins) in the system. This translates into only $250 billion for 250 million Norte Americanos. [1993] This artificially created scarcity of cash money in the System generates the necessity for the enormous undertow of bank credit and public debt.

Currently, [again, 1993] the total "debt" {Public & Private} has risen to more than 14 trillion dollars. The ratio of the amount of cash money in the system to "credit" and debt dollars is less than 1 to 50. Less than 2% of the "money" in the system is in "cash." When people need money, they must put up collateral at the bank. This is real estate or other property or bonds, notes, or some other kind of financial instrument. There is no other way for the public to obtain money from the system (except in the case of government loans and the G.I. Bill), than by putting up collateral to borrow it from the banks.

In periods of credit expansion, people tend to feel optimistic or "bullish" about America and borrow heavily. When the credit is contracted (as it was in the Spring of 1929), loans are called in and people without enough cash in the system to pay all the loans (remember, there is only about $1,000 per capita) lose their collateral. The long-term effect of this has transformed the masses of the Norte Americanos into a nation of renters (serfs). The corollary to this reality is that the landlord-bankers, and their holding companies, have acquired liens on the titles to most of the land and the resources, not only of North America, but of much of the Third World as well. This has been accomplished by means of that marvelous instrument of "credit," the Norte Americano carnivorous debt-dollar, which, like Pac-Man, gobbles up everything in its path.

13597

This is a picture of the Fed's relationship with the Federal Open Market Committee (the F.O.M.C.), the Fed's "window" upon Wall Street, the creation of which was part of the marvelous "Reform" package of that Father Christmas and friend of the people, Franklin D. Roosevelt. The F.O.M.C., in order to "regulate" the economy, buys and sells on the open market corporate and government bonds and securities. This is so it can create inflation when that is needed or deflation, should that be necessary. It creates "inflation" by buying corporate securities from both domestic and foreign corporations. It pays for the securities by issuing "new money," that is, money it has created out of thin air, as is its privilege.

The Fed operates on the principle that corporations need the money and that it eventually will find its way into the economy. Thus we find the New Deal was practicing "trickle-down" economics long before Reagan. In buying government bonds the commercial banks use the "Fractional Reserve" currency they are allowed to create. The Corporations which are favored with Federal Open Market Committee largesse, as a rule, have inter-locking directorates with the Commercial Banks, where they park their money.

These banks can then multiply their deposits by the factor determined by the current reserve ratio and purchase government bonds, speculate, or lend to customers. The Fed, meanwhile, when economic conditions dictate, pontificates solemnly that there is too much inflation and that they must put the brakes on the economy and institute a little deflation. The Fed, so the story goes, causes "deflation" by selling bonds and securities on the open market. The theory has it that the F.O.M.C. sells bonds, to take money out of the economy because "too much money" in the economy has caused "inflation," which in turn has caused prices to rise, and that's bad. That's the cover story.

When prices rise, it's generally not because of scarcity of commodities - or because the volume of money has made prices "dear." - It's usually because the cartels have simply jacked the prices up a notch. [This is no longer the case with regards to Oil.] Profit. The real reason the Fed sells bonds through the F.O.M.C. is because the business of the Fed is transfer wealth and energy (money rendered back in taxes is the tangible expression of labor and energy) from the People to the bond-holding class.

The term "bond-holding class" does not refer to the Ma & Pa owners of "U.S. Savings Bonds," but to the elite families who own the "preferred" stock in the Prime Banks, and utilize the ability of these banks to create "Fractional Reserve" dollars out of thin air. These Families receive Quarterly dividends from this bank-stock. The Fed sells U.S. government securities (the notes that were issued against the money in square 1) in order to raise money for the poor government, which is continually running into deficit, spending beyond its allocated budget.

These securities, as long as they remained in the vaults of the Fed, were the property of the People. But the Fed is continually moving these bonds, through bond auctions at the FOMC, into the "public," (that is, the banking) sector. You will remember that the prime banks are able to multiply their deposits to create new money. These prime banks and foreign, and domestic brokerage houses, queue up to buy government bonds when they are offered for sale.

This is merely one more way our hungry government obtains money. The "new" bank- created money is transferred from the "reserve accounts" of the prime banks at the Fed and is credited to the Government. The prime banks, however, have acquired interest-bearing bonds.

13598

This is a picture of how "America's 300 families" and the foreign stockholders of the "Class A" stock of the international prime banks collect interest off the National Debt.

The Commons, the People, must queue up and pay tithes to the government for the privilege of living in America and being able (forced) to use Federal Reserve notes and for the folly of being poor and not owning the preferred stock in the right banks, so they would be able to afford to live off of borrowed money (which is a liability and hence not taxable), the way the rich do.

The fact that debt payment is the Number One priority of the budget shows graphically that this system has been engineered to make the many work for the few. Payment to the prime banks holding the bonds against the National Debt is the first order of priority once the Fed receives the checks and drafts from tax-payers. {=OR= at the hereditary, annual Debt-Crisis.}

The I.R.S. is really nothing more than the collection agency for the Fed. The prime banks, after receiving from the Federal Reserve Bank their Interest Payment on the Bonds they are holding, then issue Quarterly dividends to the holders of their "preferred stock" from that part of their portfolio that is holding tax-exempt government bonds. Only after the interest on the "debt" has been paid does the Fed channel tax moneys to the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury.

This whole system is upside-down. The Treasury should be above the Central Bank, and the Treasury should be the original source of the creation of all new money and credit. The Central Bank should be subservient to and not the master of the people. The Treasury could then become what it was intended to be, the storehouse of the common (or collective) wealth of the nation. This is the idea of the Co-operative Common-wealth. This is what is meant to "nationalize credit."

In reality, Fiat Money need not be backed by bonds and is, in the final analysis, already backed by the credit-worthiness and "faith" of the American people collectively, whether or not the procedure of creating federal debt is engaged in. Our Federal debt and deficit is largely the result of the subsidization of private banking interests by the unwitting American people, through their elected representatives, who have sold out to the interests of the private banking industry.

Sources:

Adams, Silas Walter, "The Legalized Crime of Banking and a Constitutional Remedy (https://www.archive.org/details/LegalizedCrimeOfBankingAndItsConstitutionalRemedy),"
Boston, Meador, 1958.

See also, Silas Walter Adams' Commentary on:

"The Federal Reserve System, Its Purposes and Functions, (https://www.freedom-school.com/history/the-federal-reserve-system-its-purposes-and-functions.html)" United States of America,
Washington, D.C., 1939, Ed.

Morse, EIsa Peters, "The Key to World Peace and Plenty," San Francisco, Summit
Press, 1960.

Popp, Dr. Edward E. , "The Great Cookie Jar, Taking the Mystery Out of the Money
System," Wisconsin Education Fund, P.O. Box 321, Port Washington, Wisconsin,
53074.

Voorhis, Jerry,"Beyond Victory," Farrar-Straus, New York, 1944.

My thanks also to Wilson Ogg of Keith Street in Berkeley - retired corporate lawyer, genius; the son of the campaign manager of Jerry Voorhis (https://www.paleoprogressives.org/jerry-voorhis.html)- and the only person I know who has ever taken upon himself to read and intellectually comprehend the entire six-hundred, plus pages of the Federal Reserve Act as it is, together with all of its amendments, ancillary addendums and nullifications, etc... and who patiently explained to me, and made plain and simple the more arcane aspects of this elaborate shell game.

- Mark Walter Evans -
www.PaleoProgressives.org (https://www.paleoprogressives.org/index.html)
- Published in the North Coast Xpress, 1993 -

Hotspring 44

08-15-2011, 10:26 AM

A "super rich" person that thinks raising tax on the wealthy IS the right thing to do to "share" the "suffering":
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?82517-NYT-Stop-Coddling-the-Super-Rich-by-Warren-Bufett&p=139292#post139292

Thanks Barry:waccosun:.

Speak2Truth

08-15-2011, 01:04 PM

Since we were talking about Australia - bear in mind the Socialists there are not devoted to destroying the country as they are here. It's an important distinction. The USA has been targeted for take-down for a long time and now they have the power to do it by wrecking our economy, crushing US energy production while inviting foreign nations to come harvest our resources ("we want to be their biggest customer" - Obama), inviting a flood of foreign invaders into the US to further drain the economy, disrupt the employment market and establish a heavily armed fighting force hostile to the US within its own borders.

But what about Australia's actual handling of its economy?

"From the early 1980s until 2007, successive Labor and Liberal governments deregulated financial and labor markets and reduced trade barriers. Australia has enjoyed economic expansion for almost two decades and has come through the recession relatively unscathed, maintaining good levels of business investment and employment. However, recent stimulus spending by the Labor government has led the country into deficit in a single year."

See, to them "Liberal" means de-regulation and establishing more freedom from government meddling. It used to mean that here as well until Leftists started cloaking themselves with that label. It's important to NOT confuse other country's political terms and groups with our own. "Liberal", "Conservative", "Labor" - they mean different things abroad.

It is well known that deficit spending will destroy a nation's economy. That's why Leftists here are pushing us so hard down that slope. It's a goal of theirs.

Australia's government encourages mining and selling resources. Our Leftists actively work to prevent that, making it as expensive, burdensome or prohibitive as possible. They're working to "de-develop" the United States, in the words of Obama's science czar, John Holdren. As the owner of the Democrat Party put it, the "managed decline" of the US dollar is "desirable".

Are those people whose goal is to help the USA become more free and prosperous? No.

That's why the USA is going to hell. It's intentional.

The Communist Party USA has never wanted to make America the strongest, freest and most prosperous nation - Communists have wanted to take down the USA for a very long time. They couldn't do it militarily so they're doing it from the inside. That's why they worked so very hard to get Obama and his crew into power.

COMPARISON:

AUSTRALIA: "In the most recent year, total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, held steady at 34.3 percent of GDP. A large stimulus package of transfers to households and increased infrastructure spending shifted the fiscal balance into deficit. Although budget plans call for further government spending on infrastructure, the deficit should narrow on account of strong revenues led by the mining sector."

USA: "However, the national government’s role in the economy has expanded sharply in the past two years, and the federal budget deficit is extremely large, with gross public debt approaching 100 percent of GDP. "

And the "liberals" here are trying to INCREASE that unpayable debt by creating new programs to spend more and more (high speed train? Obamacare? Cash for Clunkers? d)

"Spending increases totaled well over $1 trillion in 2009 alone, an increase of more than 20 percent over 2008. Stimulus spending has hurt the fiscal balance and placed federal debt on an unsustainable trajectory. Gross government debt exceeded 90 percent of GDP in 2010."

--------------------------------------------------

Warren Buffet is absolutely free to give his cash to the US Government if he actually believes what he is saying. Know a man's intentions by his actions, not by his words.

It would be wise to look at Buffet's investment portfolio and see how he has strategically positioned himself to gain by government programs forcing our tax dollars into particular directions. You know, like Al Gore did by establishing Generation Investment Management Corporation (in England, not here) then stomping around hollering that Government must force our cash into "green" investments to "save the planet".

These guys don't get super-rich by giving their cash away - they get super-rich by getting other people's cash stuffed into their investments.

It is a power forbidden to the US Government but it's being done anyway.

podfish

08-15-2011, 01:09 PM

Since we were talking about Australia - bear in mind the Socialists there are not devoted to destroying the country as they are here. oh my.<br>sorry, it's hard to go cold-turkey. But i'm rising to the bait less often. I bet there's gonna be better bait ahead, though.

Speak2Truth

08-15-2011, 02:29 PM

oh my.
sorry, it's hard to go cold-turkey. But i'm rising to the bait less often. I bet there's gonna be better bait ahead, though.

Question: What nation has been the greatest obstacle to global Socialist/Communist domination?

There is a reason they have told us outright they will "tear it all down, man!", that they will "de-develop" the United States, that they will murder 25 million Americans who will probably not accept the fundamental transformation to a Communist Dictatorship (Weather Underground - member of which was William Ayers who launched Obama's political career).

FBI on Weather Underground.
Larry Grathwohl interview about William Ayers' Organization
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlN2t0oERHk

The USA has been a target for a long time.

“If the missiles had remained, we would have fired them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York. The victory of socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims.” (Che Guevara, November 1962.)

Now, as Van Jones (Communist appointed as Green Czar by Obama) put it, they have dropped the radical pose (violence, bombings, direct confrontation) and put on suits, ties and a veneer of presentability to achieve the radical ends.

If you attend some of their meetings, you'll hear the most amazing things.

The political Left in the USA is certainly not interested in restoring financial and personal Liberty, prosperity and in making the USA a prosperous, self-sufficient nation. Their goal is completely the opposite.

podfish

08-15-2011, 03:29 PM

If you attend some of their meetings, you'll hear the most amazing things. Aesop had a story that comes to mind, where the mice held a meeting where they addressed the question of how best to deal with their oppressors.<br>and you may have noticed that we don't really need to leave our computers to hear the most amazing things.

"Mad" Miles

08-15-2011, 04:37 PM

So S2T, according to you, and your "sources", Australian Socialists want to help Australia, but American (U.S. and apparently Latin American) Socialists want to destroy America and take it over and institute Communism.

And Socialism is the same as Communism, and everyone on The Left is either a willing or duped Communist.

(Bill Ayers launched The Obaminators political career, uh huh. And I thought it was graduating from Harvard Law School. Oh, and some people I know are firmly convinced that he and his parents and grandmother were all CIA assets, but let's not get too sidetracked.)

Distinctions such as Marxist-Leninist, Spartacist, Stalinist, Trotskyist, Maoist, Fidelista, Guevarista, Neo-Marxist, Heterodox Marxist, Post-Marxist, Democratic Socialist, Social Democrat, Anarchist, Anarcho-Syndicalist, Anarcho-Libertarian, Anarcho-Socialist, Liberal, Progressive Liberal, Progressive, and so on (believe me, there are plenty more Leftist ideological positions where those came from, I just covered the broad strokes off the top of my head) are completely irrelevant and it's all a "show" to cover up the Evil Communist conspiracy to destroy the Good Old U.S. of A.!!!

All of the infighting, including mass murder, on the Left over the last hundred to a hundred and fifty or so years, that's just an elaborate ruse to cover up the centralized, determined plot that has been in place this entire time, that you and your "fact" describers have uncovered and are exposing to the light of world opinion.

Oops, I guess you're on to us!

Forget that if you put three Leftists in a room, first they'll declare a United Front, but soon after one will split over the incorrect analysis of the other two, that person will be denounced as a Deviationist Wrecker and Police Agent, and any and all available weapons will be used to eliminate the threat to the great cause, the liberation of the working class from the chains of capitalist bondage.

As soon as the third person is dealt with, the remaining two will start to fight over who is creating a Cult of Personality around themselves, and who is the humble servant to the needs of their class. The insults, Bourgeois and Petit-Bourgeois, will be liberally bandied about.

And don't worry, if they're also Philosophical Pacifists (on top of being hardcore Orthodox Marxists) maybe no one will actually be tortured and murdered, but character assassination will still be an available and "liberally" used option.

The most glaring problem I see with your take in this matter, is that it ignores the Global Communist Plot to Take Over The World!!

How is it the Australian Left isn't in on the plan? Isn't that the big threat, and always has been since 1917? (Before that it was the Anarchists, but let's not quibble. Oh yeah, not to forget the March of the Internationals.)

You're completely wrong by the way, you're ignoring the real threat, like all the other dupes.

What about the Aztec-Mayan, Bilderberg, Illuminati, Davos, Bohemian Club, Satanist, New World Order, Alien Saurian Overlords, Communist/Socialist/Anarchist, CIA/Mossad/MI6, Bank of England, Child Molesting, Caliphate/Shari'ah, Cabal that WILL DESTROY US ALL!!!!

Unless and until a Laissez Faire Free Capitalist Market under Christian Dominion is (re)established over all the Earth and Sweetness and Light under the rule of Jesus is the Law of the Land.

Jeeze, get your facts straight!!???

Hotspring 44

08-15-2011, 07:05 PM

Since we were talking about Australia - bear in mind the Socialists there are not devoted to destroying the country as they are here.
I think podfish is correct about "bait". To clarify; I think your above statement as it is in it's context could be in the category of "Red bating (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/red-baiting)". I am not trying to pick a fight, I am noting the tone of some statements you make seem to me to have.
I probably won't go too deep with the pointing that out beyond this post, it would be too much of nit picking and a waste of our time.

It's an important distinction. The USA has been targeted for take-down for a long time and now they have the power to do it by wrecking our economy, crushing US energy production while inviting foreign nations to come harvest our resources ("we want to be their biggest customer" - Obama), inviting a flood of foreign invaders into the US to further drain the economy, disrupt the employment market and establish a heavily armed fighting force hostile to the US within its own borders.
Yeah, the "privatized" multinational banking and other large scaled multinational cooperate "interest" (I mean "wealth") "holders".
.

It is well known that deficit spending will destroy a nation's economy. That's why Leftists here are pushing us so hard down that slope. It's a goal of theirs.
Yeah, just omit the deregulation of the banking... (the repeal of the Glass Stegal act of 1932); IE: which allowed the Federal Reserve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve) to regulate interest rates in savings accounts, were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Institutions_Deregulation_and_Monetary_Control_Act) of 1980. Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_holding_company) from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act).
...and I can see how someone could blame the so-called "Leftists"... ...Add the mass amnesia and/or weapons of mass distraction and media hypnotism into the equation and there you have it!... ...IT IS ALL THE "LEFTIST" "COMMUNIST'S" FAULT!... ...(it was a "Communist plot")... ...Oh, I almost forgot; Al Gore! LOL!

Australia's government encourages mining and selling resources.
Australia has a finite agricultural area and population density that are in mostly the same geographical area near the fringes of the coastline.
Mineral, N/G, and coal mining are, in general, less intrusive to the present population in Australia then it is in the USA.

Most soil on the continent of Australia is extremely harsh and the arid climate makes it mostly impossible to live and farm on; so mining is a logical way for an industrialized, developed country such as Australia to do without too much impact on the population; Note:  Australia Population density per Sq. Mi. 7.55 (https://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/populations/ctypopls.htm)
United States of America Population density per Sq. Mi. 83.38 (https://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/populations/ctypopls.htm)

I DON'T ever want to have any off-shore oil wells anywhere near Point Arena or anywhere else off the Northern California, Oregon or Washington coasts.
Would you like a deep N/G gas drill rig and consequent well; how about 40 or 50 of those wells in a neighborhood near you within 1 mile of Sebastepol in Sonoma County?... ...How about that PG&E Nuclear Power Plant that almost got put in Bodega Bay?... ...Would it be OK with you if deregulation causes a nuclear power reactor to be put in Bodega bay, or, how about 4 or 10 of them for that matter?... ...Deregulation is the first step backwards into that pre-Fukishima / cold war kind of attitude; (only in this case it would be more a "war" over the, who can supply the so-called energy "needs"; us or "them" in the guise of a so-called international "free market"competition scenario...
(Fukushima Reactor Damage Picked Up in California Winds (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-15/california-researchers-detect-radioactive-release-from-fukushima-plant.html)
 Tiny amounts of radioactive sulfur from Japan in San Diego (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-15/california-researchers-detect-radioactive-release-from-fukushima-plant.html)
 Fukushima Reactor Damage Picked Up in California Winds (https://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/08/fukushima-reactor-damage-picked-.html?ref=hp)

Radiation Levels Strong Enough To Kill A Man In Seconds Detected At Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8lDUkKODR4I))...
...The word "[I]deregulation" is another buzz-word that (these days) is used to convey misinformation, and is another tool in the tool box of the cooperate talking "ditto-heads" used by the media, and is one of the "weapons of mass distraction" that uses economic fear mongering to scare the 'sheeple' into the economic 'slaughterhouse' so to speak.

A true government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" IS [I]supposed to REGULATE to protect and maintain the people's welfare; {BTW}; (n.1.a. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being. b. Prosperity (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/welfare).) is what I mean in this context when I say "welfare".

...Our Leftists actively work to prevent that, making it as expensive, burdensome or prohibitive as possible. They're working to "de-develop" the United States, in the words of Obama's science czar, John Holdren. As the owner of the Democrat Party put it, the "managed decline" of the US dollar is "desirable".
Knowing that the dollar is going to "decline", wouldn't it be preferable than an uncontrollable decline?

Are those people whose goal is to help the USA become more free and prosperous? No.

That's why the USA is going to hell. It's intentional.
Yes it most likely is "going to hell" however, the Right Wingers have their hands in the bloodied massacre as much anyone that you have blamed.
It is like you have a one-track unbalanced way of blaming everything on the "left" and "liberal" to the point that your vision is blurred by the spinning of your own web of "truth".

The Communist Party USA has never wanted to make America the strongest, freest and most prosperous nation - Communists have wanted to take down the USA for a very long time. They couldn't do it militarily so they're doing it from the inside. That's why they worked so very hard to get Obama and his crew into power.
That's another score on the Red bating (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/red-baiting) on just this one post.Big Smile

COMPARISON:

AUSTRALIA: "In the most recent year, total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, held steady at 34.3 percent of GDP. A large stimulus package of transfers to households and increased infrastructure spending shifted the fiscal balance into deficit. Although budget plans call for further government spending on infrastructure, the deficit should narrow on account of strong revenues led by the mining sector."

USA: "However, the national government’s role in the economy has expanded sharply in the past two years, and the federal budget deficit is extremely large, with gross public debt approaching 100 percent of GDP. "

And the "liberals" here are trying to INCREASE that unpayable debt by creating new programs to spend more and more (high speed train? Obamacare? Cash for Clunkers? d)

1- High speed train when the Highway system is in such lack of maintained shape in my view is rather unproductive.

2- I think the Highways and bridges etc should have been maintained to standard first; which would have created more good paying "jobs", but, the republicans would never have allowed enough money to successfully accomplish that because they are fixated on ruining Obama enough to "win" the election in 2012 based on his so-called "failure" that they are actually manufacturing so the chances of getting a Republican in the White House in 2012 are increased.

3- The "Cash For Clunkers" was Senator Dianne Feinstein's pet project; I remember that because I wrote to her to [I]appose it.

4- The so-called "Obamacare" was a sellout.
It should have been either left alone for the time being or it should have been to boot the for profit public health care insurance companies completely out and then use the same money to directly pay for the new data processing jobs and the doctors directly in a more affordable "universal Health Care" system; as I have written extensively on this board in the past I won't get into the details of that here.

"Spending increases totaled well over $1 trillion in 2009 alone, an increase of more than 20 percent over 2008. Stimulus spending has hurt the fiscal balance and placed federal debt on an unsustainable trajectory. Gross government debt exceeded 90 percent of GDP in 2010."

1- Instead of letting the banksters off the hook, they should have let them sink... ...I have always said that all along.

2- The "stimulus" money should have gone for actual production (both for domestic use and export), energy independence (with some tax incentives for large and/or efficient sustainable energy production and supporting infrastructure to get off or at least minimize our foreign energy dependance)... ...(but the coal industry states would of course have monkey-wrenched that in a heartbeat even if it would be in the nation's best interest); No such thing as "clean coal".

--------------------------------------------------

Warren Buffet is absolutely free to give his cash to the US Government if he actually believes what he is saying. Know a man's intentions by his actions, not by his words.
I agree with the quote: "Know a man's intentions by his actions, not by his words." That being said, sometimes words are part of the actions.
I am sure that if the government were to send him a tax bill (or form to fill) that he would (fill the form) and pay if it so required it.
Why should anyone pay if no one else in the same place has to, that seems ridiculous and baiting to suggest that in those terms.

It would be wise to look at Buffet's investment portfolio and see how he has strategically positioned himself to gain by government programs forcing our tax dollars into particular directions. You know, like Al Gore did by establishing Generation Investment Management Corporation (in England, not here) then stomping around hollering that Government must force our cash into "green" investments to "save the planet".

Regardless of what Buffet's investments are he has said what he said and I am sure that there are others that had invested in the real estate crash; like for example: the Goldman Sachs insider trading and all such "legalized outright fraud" come around and go around from all directions which is all speculative anyway. What I mean is that they all do it and until there are new and effective regulations in place; STFW Buffet's investments are?

These guys don't get super-rich by giving their cash away - they get super-rich by getting other people's cash stuffed into their investments.

So why the hell should they not pay more taxes help to fuel any recovery like the rest of us do?
After all, I bet their investments are heavily dependent on the dollar any way so it would be in their best interest to not let the country go down wouldn't it?
Or do you believe that some are investing in ways that will destroy the dollar because they have some sort of other currency or power?... ...Al Gore maybe?

It is a power forbidden to the US Government but it's being done anyway.:hmmm:
I think you are referring to the fractional lending scheme of the Federal Reserve here but i am not sure.:hmmm:... :dunno:...If so then maybe there is a technicality here that we can agree on.

Braggi

08-15-2011, 09:12 PM

I'm so done with this thread.

You can't teach a true believer. Facts are not important to a person who is sold on Holy Writ.

Bye,

-Jeff

Hotspring 44

08-15-2011, 09:26 PM

I'm so done with this thread.

You can't teach a true believer. Facts are not important to a person who is sold on Holy Writ.

Bye,

-Jeff
It has become rather redundant.:puterstare:

Braggi

08-15-2011, 09:32 PM

It has become rather redundant.:puterstare:

I should have added, "... Holy Writ, no matter how absurd, no matter how lacking of fact, no matter how divorced from history, no matter how divergent from reality."

-Jeff

Speak2Truth

08-15-2011, 10:45 PM

All of the infighting, including mass murder, on the Left over the last hundred to a hundred and fifty or so years, that's just an elaborate ruse to cover up the centralized, determined plot that has been in place this entire time, that you and your "fact" describers have uncovered and are exposing to the light of world opinion.

Not really. Sure, there's infighting, yet they do work against their common enemy. That was spelled out about 150 years ago...

"If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." - London Times

They certainly are working to eliminate this big "threat". Driving us into unrecoverable debt is a terrific strategy.

The most glaring problem I see with your take in this matter, is that it ignores the Global Communist Plot to Take Over The World!!

No, this is right in front of our noses. The Communists have changed colors, like chameleons, but they're not hiding.

Global Green is the American Arm of Green Cross International (GCI), which was created by President Mikhail S. Gorbachev
https://www.globalgreen.org/about/

They're quite busy working with leftists in various nations' governments to bring all world economies under their control in the name of "Carbon Management" to "save the Earth". Clever scheme.

I already posted some of the links showing Obama's prior work to do his part, setting up various institutions in the US that will serve that organization. He's been involved in this for many years. The Communist Party USA worked hard to get him elected for a reason.

Let's not forget the Communists he appointed to control our nation.

Cass Sunstein wants to spread America's wealth
Echoes Van Jones on using 'environmental justice' to redistribute money
https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110031

Van Jones also worked with top Weather Underground people such as Jeff Jones. You know, those folks who were happily considering murdering at least 25 million Americans who would not accept the "fundamental transformation" to a Communist Dictatorship.

That number was estimated a few decades back. What do you think their estimate is today?

Speak2Truth

08-15-2011, 10:56 PM

I think podfish is correct about "bait". To clarify; I think your above statement as it is in it's context could be in the category of "Red bating (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/red-baiting)".

Oops, I guess you're on to us!

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

But seriously. I'm not trying to bait or antagonize, I'm just trying to be factual.

1) Mikhail Gorbachev - Communist mastermind? Yeah.

2) Mikhail Gorbachev - created Green Cross International and directs it? Yeah.

3) Green Cross International - managing the global "Go Green" movement? Yeah.

4) "Go Green" - the slogan bandied about with pride and enthusiasm and "if you aren't on board with Green you're a bad person!" like Red used to be? Yeah.

5) Green - boils down to seizing and redistributing wealth? Yeah.

So why the hell should they not pay more taxes help to fuel any recovery like the rest of us do?

They DO pay taxes. The "rich" pay disproportionately high amounts of taxes. Meanwhile, 50% (and growing) pay no taxes and more and more are finding ways to become dependent on tax money.

Government spending does not fuel economic recovery because it is merely money seized from some people, devalued by expenses in the bureaucracy then hurled inefficiently at busy-work or at propping up folks who are favored by The Party.

As Greece learned, for every job "created" by government stimulus, about 2.2 jobs were lost in the private sector. We're experiencing the same.

Government is burying us in unrecoverable debt to other nations while shoveling our cash off to other nations that cannot be bribed to like us. Government is actively killing productivity in the US so we can become the "best customers" to other nations - Barack Obama. Government seizing control over our assets and our businesses is the problem, not the solution.

And it's illegal.

Iolchan

08-16-2011, 10:00 AM

If the Blind...

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png "Mad" Miles wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=139197#post139197)

Barry,

I find the rest of your reply to S2T cogent, but the part I quoted above is demonstrably false. Deregulation started under Reagan, then Bush I, but took great strides forward under Clinton. In fact, the elimination of the restrictions separating banks from financial brokerage houses, was pushed forward and passed by the Clinton administration.

Many of the regulations that might have prevented the collapse in mortgage finance markets, by limiting credit default swaps bundling and the derivatives shenanigans were removed under Clinton.

Both dominant parties are deeply in bed with finance capital interests. As recent events have clearly shown once again.

Just look at who funded McCain vs. Obama's '08 campaigns. Finance capital, based on Wall Street and other global markets, along with the money markets, backed Obama over McCain. Oil money, what remains of U.S. heavy manufacturing, goods and services moguls like the Koch Bros. backed the Republican.

But financiers based in intangibles (money markets, brokerages, etc.) were big supporters of The Obaminator. Just look at his appointments, Bernanke and Geithner, who did they work for before they started working for President Obama, i.e. "us"? The Fed. Now, I don't share the view from the fringes that the FED is the source of all financial problems, but you don't get to run the Fed without being on the good side of financial capital.
I agree with everything up to the last sentence, to which I just gotta say:

Hey, Buddy! Just what "fringes" are you referring to?
- And while you're at it, can you spare a paraDigm?

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Iolchan wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=139197#post139197)

...It is "We the People" who must {because of the Federal Reserve System,} do the borrowing - from the FED. To let you in on a little secret; which is no Secret at all: the "National Debt" is the Property and Corporate Asset of the Stockholders of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Fact: The National Debt was only One {1} Billion Dollars in 1913; the Year that the legislation that "Created" the FED was passed.

Fact: By 1933, when Franklin D. Roosevelt came in, it stood at about Eighteen {18} Billion.

Fact: By 1940, when World War Two had begun, it had reached Fifty {50} Billion Dollars.

Fact: By the time World War Two was over, and F.D.R. died, the National Debt had risen to Two Hundred and Fifty {250} Billion dollars.

Question: Do you begin to see a pattern here? The growth of the National Debt from 1933- to 1945, was all done by "Keynesian Deficit Spending." That is what made all this "growth" possible: the phenomenon that economists refer to as "the float." Regarding John Meynard Keynes, himself - a little factoid: He was on the Board of Directors of the Bank of England. So his "Cover" as a so-called "Socialist Economist" was pretty much hogwash.

Open Forum on the Question: What part of this pattern do you Not See?

“There is None so blind as those that will not see.”
Matthew Henry (1662-1714)

Need I say it Again?
Well, Alright :

To let you in on a little secret;
which is no Secret at all:
the "National Debt"
is the Property
and Corporate Asset
of the Stockholders
of the
Federal Reserve Bank. The Owners of the Prime Banks
Collect Interest off of this "Debt."
These are the Men
Who sit in Easy chairs
in the closed-to-the-public
Elitist hang-out
Beneath the big Pyramid,
- that covers the Top floors -
O' Bankers' Trust,
@16 Wall Street.

Sincerely,

Mark Walter Evans

Iolchan

08-18-2011, 08:23 AM

jbox

08-18-2011, 08:52 AM

Iolchan

08-18-2011, 11:35 AM

Good Questions, Jon

Thank you for your swift and perceptive Questions honing in on What, indeed, is the Achilles heal of the Issue - the Crux of the very Real Dilemma of what to do with this horrific Problem - a Banker-created problem, mind you, with which We, the Commons, find ourselves now beset.

In the first place, if you will read the missive again, carefully, it does state:

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Iolchan wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=139313#post139313)

Amendment XVIII makes a distinction between the United States Savings Bonds that were purchased by Ma and Pa bond investors and those U.S. Treasury Securities that were purchased by the Prime Banks at Bond Auctions held under the auspices of the Federal Open Market Committee, the Federal Reserve’s Window on Wall Street. Commercial Banks have always utilized the “multiplier” of the fractional reserve system to purchase U.S. Treasury Securities at cents on the dollar.

In recognition of this Fact - that such transactions are, and have always been, from the beginning, Fraudulent - AMENDMENT XVIII renders the outstanding “Debt” that is “owed” to the Prime Banks of this – and every other Nation - at a mere 7% [Seven per cent] of the face value of such Fraudulent, Banker-secured paper “Debt.”

This reduction of the Debt to a Sum that is payable in Credit, on the Books of the new Sub-Treasury Central Bank-of-Issue, the “Common-Wealth Central Bank” is, in Reality, exceedingly fair and Just, in recognition of the Fraud that has been committed by the Community of International bankers, in foisting the former system upon the unsuspecting Public.

Thus, AMENDMENT XVIII allows a large amount of Credit to be created on the books of the new Common-Wealth Central Bank - as compensation for that portion of the investment of the Prime Banks in the National Debt, that might actually be deemed ‘legitimate.” This gives the Prime Banks some Credit – but no Stock - in the new Institution.
This is because, as I wrote in the Article, The Problem With the Federal Reserve (https://www.paleoprogressives.org/problem-with-the-fed.html), the Prime Banks are able to use the device that the economists refer to as the "Multiplier" - that is, "fractional reserve" banking, to purchase U.S. Treasury Securities at cents on the dollar from the Federal Reserve Bank, when they are offered at Bond Auctions, conducted under the auspices of the Federal Open Market Committee, {the F.O.M.C.} the Fed's Window on Wall Street.

Ordinary Ma and Pa investors are not able to do this. But Banks - which receive their charters from either the Federal, or State governments, are allowed to multiply their deposits, i.e., Other People' Money {"O.P.M."} by a factor that varies anywhere from 7 to 20 times, {this factor is known as the "reserve ratio"} and Que up at F.O.M.C. Bond auctions, and"purchase U.S. government Bonds" at cents on the dollar. Ordinary Ma and Pa investors must pay for U.S. Savings Bonds with their hard-earned cash. And they should be paid in full, in cash. Sorry about the future yields of their formerly "sound" investment. Here is what I wrote about the mechanics of this process a few pages back on this thread:

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Iolchan wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=139197#post139197)

13681 (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=13597)

This is a picture of the Fed's relationship with the Federal Open Market Committee (the F.O.M.C.), the Fed's "window" upon Wall Street, the creation of which was part of the marvelous "Reform" package of that Father Christmas and friend of the people, Franklin D. Roosevelt. The F.O.M.C., in order to "regulate" the economy, buys and sells on the open market corporate and government bonds and securities. This is so it can create inflation when that is needed or deflation, should that be necessary. It creates "inflation" by buying corporate securities from both domestic and foreign corporations. It pays for the securities by issuing "new money," that is, money it has created out of thin air, as is its privilege.

The Fed operates on the principle that corporations need the money and that it eventually will find its way into the economy. Thus we find the New Deal was practicing "trickle-down" economics long before Reagan. In buying government bonds the commercial banks use the "Fractional Reserve" currency they are allowed to create. The Corporations which are favored with Federal Open Market Committee largesse, as a rule, have inter-locking directorates with the Commercial Banks, where they park their money.

These banks can then multiply their deposits by the factor determined by the current reserve ratio and purchase government bonds, speculate, or lend to customers. The Fed, meanwhile, when economic conditions dictate, pontificates solemnly that there is too much inflation and that they must put the brakes on the economy and institute a little deflation. The Fed, so the story goes, causes "deflation" by selling bonds and securities on the open market. The theory has it that the F.O.M.C. sells bonds, to take money out of the economy because "too much money" in the economy has caused "inflation," which in turn has caused prices to rise, and that's bad. That's the cover story.

When prices rise, it's generally not because of scarcity of commodities - or because the volume of money has made prices "dear." - It's usually because the cartels have simply jacked the prices up a notch. [This is no longer the case with regards to Oil.] Profit. The real reason the Fed sells bonds through the F.O.M.C. is because the business of the Fed is transfer wealth and energy (money rendered back in taxes is the tangible expression of labor and energy) from the People to the bond-holding class.

The term "bond-holding class" does not refer to the Ma & Pa owners of "U.S. Savings Bonds," but to the elite families who own the "preferred" stock in the Prime Banks, and utilize the ability of these banks to create "Fractional Reserve" dollars out of thin air. These Families receive Quarterly dividends from this bank-stock. The Fed sells U.S. government securities (the notes that were issued against the money in square 1) in order to raise money for the poor government, which is continually running into deficit, spending beyond its allocated budget.

These securities, as long as they remained in the vaults of the Fed, were the property of the People. But the Fed is continually moving these bonds, through bond auctions at the FOMC, into the "public," (that is, the banking) sector. You will remember that the prime banks are able to multiply their deposits to create new money. These prime banks and foreign, and domestic brokerage houses, queue up to buy government bonds when they are offered for sale.

This is merely one more way our hungry government obtains money. The "new" bank- created money is transferred from the "reserve accounts" of the prime banks at the Fed and is credited to the Government. The prime banks, however, have acquired interest-bearing bonds.Chinese and Japanese Prime Banks - as well as the British and Canadian - and all of the European Prime Banks from the rest of the G-7 nations also, own a good chunk of this vast Quantity of speculative paper; which is increasingly looking like a very poor investment. Look, I did not create this Problem. As a matter of fact, It is an almost insoluble Problem, which the Class of International Bankers created for the rest of us a long, long, time ago.

Now, as far as China declaring War on the U.S. as a result of a Credit Default - that is a very distinct possibility, which should make all of us more than a little uncomfortable. A very real possibility.

But it might be the Wave of the Future, and in the Cards, anyway. I would argue, however, that the "Debt" owed to Chinese or Japanese Commercial Banks is not any more real or tangible than the so-called "Debt" that is owed to Prime Banks that are located in New York, London, Paris, Frankfort, den Hague, or Geneva.

The whole species of so-called "Debt Paper" should be rescinded and repudiated - the sooner the better. It could have been done in 1948. {This particular "China problem" was not even in the cards then.} Robert LaFollette, Jr., and Jerry Voorhis wanted to Nationalize the Federal Reserve Bank after the War - and that is why the Big Money hired the hit-men, Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon, to take them down in 1946.

The "International Debt" - and the so-called "National Debt," of all nations, are nothing but banker-created Fraud - and the very worst aspect of "Capitalism." Obviously, the tentacles of International Finance are ubiquitous. And the International Bankers - who conceived this end game a long ago - have concocted a great big, huge, incestuous, international melange, in this "New World Order," this "Global Economy" of theirs.

The International Bankers, and the Families which own the CLASS A, preferred stock in the Transnational Banks, are a Class, mind you. And this one, {me-uns} being a Mishelling, am highly sensitive on that Subject. So let me make one thing perfectly Clear: the term, with me, is not a "code phrase" for "Jewish Bankers" - since 88% of them are not Jews, at all.

The core of the Power Elite in America are Anglo-Normans. A verifiable indication of this is the FACT that the wealthiest Jewish Bankers on Wall Street can not even buy a house on Fishers Island, New York, in Long Island Sound, off the coast of Mystic, Connecticut, where there's hamburger all over the highway. They gotta live in their spiffy town houses opposite Central Park or in the snazzy ghetto of Westchester County. FACT.

Seriously,
Mark Walter Evans

Speak2Truth

08-18-2011, 11:01 PM

Gee Mark, if this amendment is enacted and only 7% of face value is paid out don't you think alot of ordinary Americans holding T-bills will be hurt? And won't this result in a declaration of war by China? Am I missing something? The notion of simply printing money to pay for legislative spending and waving a magic wand to make the national debt disappear probably will result in a worldwide financial crisis. Can you imagine how downgraded the US credit rating will be?

Even more salient - why bother amending the Constitution when they're freely ignoring it anyway?

The FIRST step is to create an absolute enforcement of the Constitution. THEN we can think about what other restrictions we wish to put on our public servants. Those naughty, naughty folks seem to think they were elected to be Rulers.... tsk tsk.

How would we go about actually enforcing the Constitution?