Metro Jacksonville

It’s the End of the World As We Know It
What are 308,367,109 Americans supposed to do?
First of all, despite clamping down on immigration, our population grew by 2.6M people last year.  Unfortunately, not only did we not create jobs for those 2.6M new people but we lost about 4M jobs so what are these new people going to do?  Not only that, but nobody is talking about the another major job issue: People aren’t retiring!  They can’t afford to because the economy is bad - that means there are even less job openings…   The pimply-faced kid can’t get a job delivering pizza because his grandpa’s doing it.
There are some brilliant pundits who believe cutting retirement benefits will fix our economy.  How will that work exactly?  Pay old people less money, don’t cover their medical care and what happens?  Then they need money.  If they need money, they need to work and if they need to work they increase the supply of labor, which reduces wages and leaves all 308,367,109 of us with less money.  Oh sorry, not ALL 308,367,109 - just 308,337,109 - the top 30,000 (0.01%) own the business the other 308,337,109 work at and they will be raking it in because labor is roughly 1/3 of the cost of doing business in America and our great and powerful capitalists have already cut their manufacturing costs by shipping all those jobs overseas, where they pay as little as $1 a day for a human life so now, in order to increase their profits (because profits MUST be increased) they have now turned inward to see what they can shave off in America.

How does one decrease the cost of labor in America?  Well first, you have to bust the unions.  Check. 
Then you have to create a pressing need for people to work - perhaps give them easy access to credit and then get them to go so deeply into debt that they will have to work until they die to pay them off.  Check. 
It also helps if you push up the cost of living by manipulating commodity prices.  Check. 
Then, take away people’s retirement savings.  Check. 
Lower interest rates to make savings futile and interest income inadequate.  Check. 
And finally, threaten to take away the 12% a year that people have been saving for retirement by labeling Social Security an "entitlement" program - as if it wasn’t money Americans worked their whole lives to save and gave to the government in good faith.  Check.

As Allen Smith says: "Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people in the history of this great nation, and the underlying scam is still alive and well, more than a quarter century later.  It represents the very foundation upon which the economic malpractice that led the nation to the great economic collapse of 2008 was built.  Essentially, Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills.  The results were catastrophic.  Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.  By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!"
Both Reagan and Greenspan saw big government as an evil, and they saw big business as a virtue.  They both had despised the progressive policies of Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson, and they wanted to turn back the pages of time. They came up with the perfect strategy for the redistribution of income and wealth from the working class to the rich.  If Reagan had campaigned for the presidency by promising big tax cuts for the rich and pledging to make up for the lost revenue by imposing substantial tax increases on the working class, he would probably not have been elected.  But that is exactly what Reagan did, with the help of Alan Greenspan.  Consider the following sequence of events:   
1) President Reagan appointed Greenspan as chairman of the 1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka The Greenspan Commission)
2) The Greenspan Commission recommended a major payroll tax hike to generate Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could be drawn down during the years after Social Security began running deficits.
3) The 1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses.
4) As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs. None of the surplus was saved or invested in anything.  The surplus Social Security revenue, that was paid by working Americans, was used to replace the lost revenue from Reagan’s big income tax cuts that went primarily to the rich. 
5) In 1987, President Reagan nominated Greenspan as the successor to Paul Volker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.  Greenspan continued as Fed Chairman until January 31, 2006.  (One can only speculate on whether the coveted Fed Chairmanship represented, at least in part, a payback for Greenspan’s role in initiating the Social Security surplus  revenue.)
6) In 1990, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York,  a member of the Greenspan Commission, and one of the strongest advocates the the 1983 legislation, became outraged when he learned that first Reagan, and then President George H.W. Bush used the surplus Social Security revenue to pay for other government programs instead of saving and investing it for the baby boomers.  Moynihan locked horns with President Bush and proposed repealing the 1983 payroll tax hike.  Moynihan’s view was that if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the cookie jar should be emptied, so there would be no surplus Social Security revenue for the government to loot. President Bush would have no part of repealing the payroll tax hike.  The “read-my-lips-no-new-taxes” president was not about to give up his huge slush fund.
The practice of using every dollar of the surplus Social Security revenue for general government spending continues to this day.  The 1983 payroll tax hike has generated approximately $2.5 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue which is supposed to be in the trust fund for use in paying for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers.  But the trust fund is empty!  It contains no real assets.  As a result, the government will soon be unable to pay full benefits without a tax increase.  Money can be spent or it can be saved.  But you can’t do both. Absolutely none of the $2.5 trillion was saved or invested in anything.
That is how the largest theft in the history of the world was carried out.  300M people worked and saved their whole lives to set aside $2.5Tn into a retirement system that, if it were paying a fair compounding rate of 5% interest over 40 years of labor (assuming an even $62Bn a year was contributed), would be worth $8.4Tn today - enough money to give 100M workers $84,000 each in cash!  The looting of FICA hid the massive deficits of the last 30 years in the Unified Budget. Presidents and Congresses were able to reduce taxes on the wealthiest Americans without complaint from the deficit hawks, because they benefited. The money went directly from the pockets of average Americans into the pockets of the rich.
Now that it is time to repay those special bonds in the Trust Fund, we are inundated in opinion pieces in the leading newspapers and magazines complaining about Social Security and its horrible impact on the budget.  Government finances have been trashed by foolish tax cuts, unpaid wars, tax loopholes for corporations and the very wealthy, the failures of economists, the greedy search for greater returns in financial markets and the collapse of moral values in giant businesses but Social Security is supposed to be the problem that needs fixing…
Social Security is not "broken" the money is in the Trust Fund. But the people who manage the finances of the United States don’t want to repay the bonds held by the Trust Fund. They want to default selectively against average people, their fellow citizens, who paid their taxes expecting to be protected in their retirement.  Refusing to repay the $2.54 trillion dollars in bonds held by the Social Security Trust makes the US look like Greece, just another nation unable to govern itself coherently. The people who manage US finances come from the financial elites, the best that Wall Street and enormous corporations have to offer. Selective default exposes them as charlatans. The claims of the economics profession to expertise are puffery. Their theories about the benefits of tax cuts are proven false. Their mathematical proofs about free markets collapse in the real world.
So, what is this all about?  It’s about forcing 5M people a year who reach the age 65 to remain in the work-force.  The top 0.01% have already taken your money, they have already put you in debt, they have already bankrupted the government as well so it has no choice but to do their bidding.  Now the top 0.01% want to make even MORE profits by paying American workers even LESS money.  If they raise the retirement age to 70 to "balance" Social Security - that will guarantee that another 25M people remain in the workforce (less the ones that drop dead on the job - saving the bother of paying them severance).
What’s next?  Is it fair to say that children can’t work in a struggling family business?  Isn’t it to everybody’s benefit that kids should be allowed to help out at the family store?  That will be the next step towards turning America into a 3rd World country.  The seemingly innocent concept of "letting" kids work will deprive another 5M people of paying jobs - throwing them out into the labor force as well and driving labor costs down even further.
There’s an expression that goes "give them an inch and they’ll take a yard."  The top 0.01% of this country have taken their inches and they are foreclosing on the yards and they will come for the rest of your stuff next.  If you think you are "safe" from the looting of America, it is only because they haven’t gotten around to you yet.  As I explained in "America is 234 Years Old Today - Is It Finished?" - the game is rigged very much like a poker tournament.  The people at the top table don’t care how well you do wiping out your fellow players at the lower tables, they know they will get you eventually and your efforts to scoop up a pile of cash for yourself simply makes their job easier when they are ready to take it from you.
The average American is $634,000 in debt thanks to the efforts that Reagan and Greenspan put in motion 30 years ago and the richer you are, the more of that money is going to come out of your hide eventually and the more you lobby to make sure that the "rich" are not taxed unfairly, the less fair it will be to you because, no matter how rich you THINK you are, unless your income is measured in MILLIONS PER MONTH, you aren’t even close to the top 30,000.
No progressive tax?  That means that people and corporations who make $1M PER DAY should pay no more tax than a person making $1M per year, right?  Well that means that the $2.5M debt that your family of four owes will be paid by you over 2.5 years of labor while the $2.5M owed by your Billionaire competitor will be paid over a long weekend, after which he can turn his attention back to crushing your business by creating cheaper goods - maintaining profit margins by driving down local labor costs and outsourcing the rest.
It’s a new world, America, and you’d better get used to it - we were sold down the river on a slow boat to China long ago and we’re only just beginning to feel the first effects of waves that wash back to our own shores.  The people who own the media don’t want CHANGE.  That’s why you never hear this stuff in the MSM - things are going exactly according to plan and the old money crowd is playing a long, patient game and they already have most of the chips - the last thing they want is people questioning the system…

http://www.philstockworld.com/

I love you, finehoe.  You tell it like it is...

Thats pretty powerful stuff , FH.  Sad that it is reality as well.

Great article! While Greenspan is taking his lumps now in the media and deservedly so, I can never understand why Reagan is still the poster boy for the Republican Party. If you didn't know any better you would think that he was this great fiscal disciplinarian and that he singlehandedly defeated the Soviet Union. All smoking mirrors!
He was one of the worst presidents in recent history.

And If I read this right, the Rich get richer while the poor suffer.....

All utter hogwash.

Um .. okay Jerry

So you are saying very same people who start wars around globe,ho brought us Iraq-Iran war,9-11,Gulf Wars and tons of "smaller" conflicts are ripping off Americans too thru government???

That can't be,must be a mistake.

I think its entirely possible and even likely

It's been great talking with you guys!

Now there is but to wait for the bitter end.

Well heck.. lets have a party at least. The group here is pretty cool. :)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_H2DePAZe2gA/TER_1jnFFVI/AAAAAAAAN0Q/2aQevfr-ur0/s1600/themaestro.jpg)

Thats what happens when people only discuss "current" events as Bridgetroll would suggest instead of looking at big picture even if it stretches decades.
Past 40 years same old company of ol' boys have been ruining both USA and world with their greed,criminal acts,theft and murder of innocent people.

But fault lies with Americans,you allowed people like this to do this,to run this country into debt and economic disaster while battling wars around globe to make even more money.

I remember when I had an argument with a co-worker about the importance of having a surplus.  She, an avowed fiscal conservative, claimed that the government running a surplus meant that they were taxing us too much.  She justified the growing deficit back then.  I have not seen her in ages, but I have a hunch that she is a deficit hawk now...

It might be interesting to note that the largest raise in the FICA tax came during the Carter administration.  4% for both the employee and the employer.  The Reagan/Greenspan increase was 2%.  Per the following the is a small nod to the interesting fact that Greenspan tried to remove SS from the budget and have it stand alone but he was shot down by (a Democrat) Congress.  

Also, the SS trust fund was placed on the budget (FICA taxes went into general fund, while special "bonds" were placed into the trust fund) not during Reagan's watch but during the Johnson administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)



"The negative financial outlook
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, during the phase-in period of Social Security, Congress was able to grant generous benefit increases because the system had perpetual short-run surpluses. Congressional amendments to Social Security took place in even numbered years (election years) because the bills were politically popular, but by the late 1970s, this era was over. For the next three decades, projections of Social Security's finances would show large, long-term deficits, and in the early 1980s, the program flirted with immediate insolvency. From this point on, amendments to Social Security would take place in odd numbered years (years that were not election years) because Social Security reform now meant tax increases and benefit reductions. Social Security became known as the "Third Rail of American Politics." Touching it meant political death.

Several effects came together in the years following the 1972 amendments which rapidly changed the outlook on Social Security's long-term financial picture from positive to problematic. By the 1970s, the phase-in period, during which workers were paying taxes but few were collecting benefits, was largely over, and the ratio of elderly population to the working population was increasing. These developments brought questions about the capacity of the long term financial structure based on a pay-as-you-go program.

During the Carter administration, the economy suffered double-digit inflation, coupled with very high interest rates, oil and energy crises, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Productivity growth in the United States had declined to an average annual rate of 1%, compared to 3.2% during the 1960s. There was also a growing federal budget deficit which increased to $66 billion. The 1970s are described as a period of stagflation, meaning economic stagnation coupled with price inflation, as well as higher interest rates. Price inflation (a rise in the general level of prices) creates uncertainty in budgeting and planning and makes labor strikes for pay raises more likely.

These underlying negative trends were exacerbated by a colossal mathematical error made in the 1972 amendments establishing the COLAs. The mathematical error which overcompensated for inflation was particularly detrimental given the double-digit inflation of this period, and the error led to benefit increases that were nowhere near financially sustainable.

The high inflation, double-indexing, and lower than expected wage growth was financial disaster for Social Security.

[edit] 1977 Amendments
To combat the declining financial outlook, in 1977 Congress passed and Carter signed legislation fixing the double-indexing mistake. This amendment also altered the tax formulas to raise more money,[47] increasing withholding from 2% to 6.15%.[48] With these changes, President Carter remarked, "Now this legislation will guarantee that from 1980 to the year 2030, the Social Security funds will be sound."[49] This turned out not to be the case. The financial picture declined almost immediately and by the early 1980s, the system was again in crisis.

[edit] Amendments of the 1980s
After the 1977 amendments, the economic assumptions surrounding Social Security projections continued to be overly optimistic as the program moved toward a crisis. For example, COLAs were attached to increases in the CPI. This meant that they changed with prices, instead of wages. Before the 1970s, wage measurements exceeded changes in price. In the 1970s, however, this reversed and real wages decreased. This meant that FICA revenues could not keep up with the increasing benefits that were being given out. Continued high unemployment levels also lowered the amount of Social Security tax that could be collected. These two developments were decreasing the Social Security Trust Fund reserves.[50] In 1982, projections indicated that the Social Security Trust Fund would run out of money by 1983, and there was talk of the system being unable to pay benefits.[51] The National Commission on Social Security Reform, chaired by Alan Greenspan, was created to address the crisis.

[edit] The 1983 Amendments
The National Commission on Social Security Reform (NCSSR), chaired by Alan Greenspan, was empaneled to investigate the long-run solvency of Social Security. The 1983 Amendments to the SSA were based on the NCSSR's Final Report."Report of the National Commission on Social Security Reform". http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/gspan.html. Retrieved 2008-03-15.  The NCSSR recommended enacting a six-month delay in the COLA and changing the tax-rate schedules for the years between 1984 and 1990.[52] It also proposed an income tax on the Social Security benefits of higher-income individuals. This meant that benefits in excess of a household income threshold, generally $25,000 for singles and $32,000 for couples (the precise formula computes and compares three different measures) became taxable. These changes were important for generating revenue in the short term.

Also of concern was the long-term prospect for Social Security because of demographic considerations. Of particular concern was the issue of what would happen when people born during the post-World War II baby boom retired. The NCSSR made several recommendations for addressing the issue.[53] Under the 1983 amendments to Social Security, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, a previously-enacted increase in the payroll tax rate was accelerated, additional employees were added to the system, the full-benefit retirement age was slowly increased, and up to one-half of the value of the Social Security benefit was made potentially taxable income.[54][55]

[edit] The 1983 Amendments and the Social Security Trust Fund
The 1983 Amendments also included a provision to exclude the Social Security Trust Fund from the unified budget (In political jargon, it was proposed to be taken “off-budget.”[citation needed] Yet today Social Security is treated like all the other trust funds of the Unified Budget.[citation needed] It is a political way[citation needed] of using a cash budget instead of the more appropriate[citation needed] accrual budget, for all the budgets in the U.S. government. It is a way of disguising total debt.[citation needed](Source: Webb, Roy, (1991). “The Stealth Budget: Unfunded Liabilities of the Federal Government,” Economic Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond), 77,2 May/June.) This provision also provided for the exemption of Social Security and portions of the Medicare trust funds from any general budget cuts beginning in 1993.[45] This change was one way of trying to protect Social Security funds for the future.

As a result of these changes, particularly the tax increases, the Social Security system began to generate a large short-term surplus of funds, intended to cover the added retirement costs of the "baby boomers." Congress invested these surpluses into special series, non-marketable U.S. Treasury securities held by the Social Security Trust Fund. Under the law, the government bonds held by Social Security are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Because the government had adopted the unified budget during the Johnson administration, this surplus offsets the total fiscal debt, making it look much smaller[citation needed]. There has been significant disagreement over whether the Social Security Trust Fund has been saved, or has been used to finance other government programs and other tax cuts.

[edit] The Supreme Court and the evolution of Social Security
The Supreme Court has established that no one has any legal right to Social Security benefits. The Court decided, in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), that "entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right". In that case, Ephram Nestor, a Bulgarian immigrant to the United States who made contributions for covered wages for the statutorily required "quarters of coverage" was nonetheless denied benefits after being deported in 1956 for being a member of the Communist party.

The case specifically held:

2. A person covered by the Social Security Act has not such a right in old-age benefit payments as would make every defeasance of "accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 608-611. (a) The noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits are based on his contractual premium payments. Pp. 608-610. (b) To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and [363 U.S. 603, 604] boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands and which Congress probably had in mind when it expressly reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of the Act. Pp. 610-611. 3. Section 202 (n) of the Act cannot be condemned as so lacking in rational justification as to offend due process. Pp. 611-612. 4. Termination of appellee's benefits under 202 (n) does not amount to punishing him without a trial, in violation of Art. III, 2, cl. 3, of the Constitution or the Sixth Amendment; nor is 202 (n) a bill of attainder or ex post facto law, since its purpose is not punitive. Pp. 612-621.[65]

The Supreme Court was also responsible for major changes in Social Security. Many of these cases were pivotal in changing the assumptions about differences in wage earning among men and women in the Social Security system.[56]

Goldberg v. Kelly (1970): The Supreme Court ruled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required there to be an evidentiary hearing before a recipient can be deprived of government benefits.[27]
Weinburger v. Wiesenfeld (1975): A widower claimed that he was entitled to his deceased wife’s benefit, even though he had not been dependent on his wife. The court upheld his claims, stating that automatically granting widows the benefits and denying them to widowers violated equal protection in the Fourteenth Amendment.[57] "


None of this should be construed as a defense of Republicans.  They have screwed the Citizen's of this country almost as much as the Democrats, only managing a bit less damage because they were not in power as much, I suspect.  Finehoe's source in inaccurate and obviously biased.  The truth is that our Federal government has not served the best interests of the country for a long time.

Finehoe's (quote?) on immigration points to what I see as a real problem.  All of those jobs should be available to Americans at a living wage.  If we still need foreign workers, then we should have an organized and ENFORCED guest worker program that protects the worker and ensures that the employment cost the employer just as much (if not more) than hiring an American.

QuoteIn The New York Times today, investment banker and former Clinton Treasury official Roger Altman announced that the alleged "tension between President Obama and the business community" can be solved only if the political class is willing to "fix Social Security" -- i.e., to slash Americans' retirement security.  Sooner or later (probably sooner), one way or another, that's going to happen.  It's inevitable.  As George Carlin put it several years ago, in an amazingly succinct summary of so many things: 

And now, they're coming for your Social Security money - they want your fucking retirement money - they want it back - so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street.  And you know something?  They'll get it.  They'll get it all from you sooner or later.  Because they own this fucking place.  It's a Big Club: and you're not in it.

That's really the only relevant question:  how much longer will Americans sit by passively and watch as a tiny elite become more bloated, more powerful, greedier, more corrupt and more unaccountable -- as the little economic security, privacy and freedom most citizens possess vanish further still?  How long can this be sustained, where more and more money is poured into Endless War, a military that almost spends more than the rest of the world combined, where close to 50% of all U.S. tax revenue goes to military and intelligence spending, where the rich-poor gap grows seemingly without end, and the very people who virtually destroyed the world economy wallow in greater rewards than ever, all while the public infrastructure (both figuratively and literally) crumbles and the ruling class is openly collaborating on a bipartisan, public-private basis even to cut Social Security benefits?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/07/19/secrecy/index.html

Re-read my last post.  They already have your money.  The Supreme Court has already said that you have no "right" to any SS benefit.  They can give you however much or little that they want to.  They had to dance all around "tax" and "insurance" to even get it past the Supreme Court in the thirties!   The Federal government has no business in our retirements.  If you want government run retirements (I don't), then States should run individual SS systems.  They will still steal you blind but not as bad as the Feds are doing.  And your source is wrong again.  The majority of the money is going to SS and Medicare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

The thing about it is if you have worked all your life and now in retirement, then you do need Government in your business because that is where your contributions went, big or small. On the other hand if you are self-sufficient or still not able to see beyond your own horizon, you want Government to stay out. It's all about where you stand in this wide socio-economic land of ours and you can usually tell where some people here stand by their posts in this thread.

Quote from: Cricket on July 19, 2010, 07:26:57 PM
...you can usually tell where everyone here stands by their posts in this thread.

Except, laughably, many of the posters on here think they're in the top 0.01% who actually control the wealth of this country when they rant about "taxes" and "redistribution" when in actuality they are lowly peasants just like the rest of us, destined to have their money siphoned away from them, not by "welfare queens" or "socialists" but by the plutocrats who own the government lock, stock, and barrel.

I think there are few here who consider themselves as you describe.

Taxes? Who controls them, according to your last rant?

Redistribution? Who benefits? Is the Stimulus a form of wealth redistribution?

Aside from all the secret society plutoconspiracy, there are most certainly deadbeat welfare recipients, just as there are needy persons incapable of providing for their own means.

Where we differ is in desiring to hand those who "own and operate" the gubmint, ever increasing power and latitude.

Q: Is President Obama a member of the Plutocracy you describe?

A:???

The Plutocracy is not a conspiracy in the formal sense of a membership which gathers like the Bohemian Club or even an informal assemblage such as the Bilderberg Group. "Membership" is granted solely by great wealth and control of productive assets; political influence flows from that.
People who control, say, $100 million or more (via family ownership or managerial position) tend to meet one another socially or to do business, and while they jockey for advantage within a group like the rest of us, they form a small class of citizens possessing virtually unimpaired political influence.
Thus in describing a Plutocracy I am not positing a semi-formal conspiracy but simply a financial elite which controls some 2/3 of the productive wealth of the U.S. This is simply a statement of fact. Their collective self-interest is in maintaining the conceptual, legal and financial systems which enable their continued dominance of wealth and influence.
So, yes, we can coose to recognize this fact, or we can pretend that voting for the Democrats or the Republicans will change this.

I like Judge Judy, but I think a contract for that kind of money is absolutely insane!

Judge Judy?Try Sean Hannity who gets 100 million to spit crap on TV every night.

Americans are passive in general and also not very interested in pursuing justice and truth.
For example all the stories I have been telling regarding Middle East past 40 years,people are simply ignoring but very same people are now ripping off Americans.Some might call it karma but it is also lack of investigation on behalf of Americans.
Simillar to 9-11 which most people ignore and dont take serious,instead of investigating in details they simple take things as-is,whatver they have been told on TV and ignore any investigations.

Second problem is "two-party system" which blocks any real independent and democratic way for honest people to run country,instead both corrupted parties which ,most likely work for same boss, are misleading Americans with their "elections".
People are sick of both Republicans and Democrats yet they dont have any other choice,when elections come they end up picking one or lesser evil which leads you to nowhere.
They got monopoly on "democracy" and votes of Americans end up going to same corupted parties election after election...there is no real democracy.

You sound like a real TV aficionado yourself. Judge Judy, Men in Black, Elmer Fudd. Who are these people? When do YOU find time to watch these characters? Hmmm!

Quote from: finehoe on July 19, 2010, 09:05:39 PM
The Plutocracy is not a conspiracy in the formal sense of a membership which gathers like the Bohemian Club or even an informal assemblage such as the Bilderberg Group. "Membership" is granted solely by great wealth and control of productive assets; political influence flows from that.
People who control, say, $100 million or more (via family ownership or managerial position) tend to meet one another socially or to do business, and while they jockey for advantage within a group like the rest of us, they form a small class of citizens possessing virtually unimpaired political influence.
Thus in describing a Plutocracy I am not positing a semi-formal conspiracy but simply a financial elite which controls some 2/3 of the productive wealth of the U.S. This is simply a statement of fact. Their collective self-interest is in maintaining the conceptual, legal and financial systems which enable their continued dominance of wealth and influence.
So, yes, we can coose to recognize this fact, or we can pretend that voting for the Democrats or the Republicans will change this.

It almost sounds like we have the same opinion, finehoe. I tend to lean further right than you but I don't disagree with a single word of your latter post.

It will always be thus. This socio-economic system could collapse or be overthrown, but would soon be replaced with another. Every system involves people using what power (gubmint) they can wield for their own advantage and advancement.

You have likely seen me denounce communism and socialism. Neither system is evil and each could actually be workable, except for the human element. I'm not sure we have seen true examples of either.

This is why I believe governments should be as small as possible. Exactly how small or limited is difficult to define.

I agree.  The focus seems to be on the "financial elite".  Eliminating the "financial elite" has been tried in the good old USSR.  It was replaced with the "political elite" who then had control of the productive wealth of that country...

It was simply an example of an attempt to eliminate the financial elite... my point was that another elite group will simply replace it... there have been elite groups "controlling" things since the beginning of humanity... I suspect it is in our nature... :)

Luckily, Emperors end up naked

The progressive tax system has eliminated tyranny, classism and elitism!

Well done my fellow Americans! We can sleep well tonight.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 20, 2010, 08:34:38 AM
I agree.  The focus seems to be on the "financial elite".  Eliminating the "financial elite" has been tried in the good old USSR.  It was replaced with the "political elite" who then had control of the productive wealth of that country...

Except in this country there is almost like a natural symbiosis (not a conspiracy) between the financial elite (big business) and elite politicians and the hell with the rest of us.

Quote from: Cricket on July 20, 2010, 09:01:09 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 20, 2010, 08:34:38 AM
I agree.  The focus seems to be on the "financial elite".  Eliminating the "financial elite" has been tried in the good old USSR.  It was replaced with the "political elite" who then had control of the productive wealth of that country...

Except in this country there is almost like a natural symbiosis (not a conspiracy) between the financial elite (big business) and elite politicians and the hell with the rest of us.

It is a symbiosis alright. It's called incest, nepotism and cronyism. They (big money and politicians) are one in the same. Why on earth would someone worth hundreds of millions get into politics? Benevolence??? HA!!!

There will always be "political realities".

Your assumption that progressive taxation works to tax the "rich" at a greater rate than the "middle class and poor" is misguided imo.

What could prove telling is to learn what the wealthiest actually pay in taxes. (the hundred million plus club).

Wealth is not taxed. Only income. Those in power (that's right, the hundred million plus club, along with their government employees {congress}) use loopholes and tax advantages along with grants to gain competitive advantage over the rest of the public.

Taxing consumption seems far wiser to me.

Quote from: sanmarcomatt on July 19, 2010, 10:10:50 PM
Of course, I have no problem with those that choose to do so..........I just don't want to support them with my tax dollars as they numb themselves into dependence on government.........

Somehow I don't picture the Wall Street banksters, defense contractors, and agribusiness concerns that are supported by your tax dollars laying around watching Judge Judy, but you may well be right.

What of the poor?  Should we maintain the current federal taxation policy which does not tax the poor at all, and if fact pays (or redistributes the wealth if you please) many.  Or should we "tax" everyone at least to some extent so that we maintain:

Quote
    A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means

I like the consumption tax idea as well.

This topic turned into taxation debate instead of original topic how criminal elements inside US government has turned prosperous country into debt driven society and failing economy.
This is not topic about "opinions" how country should function but about corrupted people who commited crimes agaisnt Americans and walked away while leaving Americans in debt.

More food for thought:

QuoteNever before has so much debt been imposed on so many people by so few financial operatives--operatives who work from Wall Street, the largest casino in history, and a handful of its junior counterparts around the world, especially Europe.

External sovereign debt, as well as occasional default on such debt, is not unprecedented. What is rather unique in the case of the current global sovereign debt is that it is largely private debt billed as public debt; that is, debt that was accumulated by financial speculators and, then, offloaded onto governments to be paid by taxpayers as national debt. Having thus bailed out the insolvent banksters, many governments have now become insolvent or nearly insolvent themselves, and are asking the public to skimp on their bread and butter in order to service the debt that is not their responsibility.

After transferring trillions of dollars of bad debt or toxic assets from the books of financial speculators to those of governments, global financial moguls, their representatives in the State apparatus and corporate media are now blaming social spending (in effect, the people) as responsible for debt and deficit!

President Obama's recent motto of "fiscal responsibility" and his frequent grumbles about "out of control government spending" are reflections of this insidious strategy of blaming victims for the crimes of perpetrators. They also reflect the fact that the powerful financial interests that received trillions of taxpayers' dollars, which saved them from bankruptcy, are now dictating debt-collecting strategies through which governments can recoup those dollars from taxpayers. In effect, governments and multilateral institutions such as the IMF are acting as bailiffs or tax collectors on behalf of banksters and other financial wizards.

Not only is this unfair (it is, indeed, tantamount to robbery, and therefore criminal), it is also recessionary as it can increase unemployment and undermine economic growth. It is reminiscent of President Herbert Hoover's notorious economic policy of cutting spending during a recession, a contractionary fiscal policy that is bound to worsen the recession. It is, indeed, a recipe for a vicious circle of debt and depression: as spending is cut to pay debt, the economy and (therefore) tax revenues will shrink, which would then increase debt and deficit, and call for more spending cuts.

Spending on national infrastructure, both physical (such as roads and schools) and social infrastructure (such as health and education) is key to the long-term socioeconomic developments. Cutting public spending to pay for the sins of Wall Street gamblers is bound to undermine the long-term health of a society in terms of productivity enhancement and sustained growth.

But the powerful financial interests and their debt collectors seem to be more interested in collecting debt claims than investing in economic recovery, job creation or long-term socioeconomic development. Like most debt-collecting agencies, the IMF and the states serving as banksters' bailiffs through their austerity programs may shed a few crocodile tears in sympathy with the victims' of their belt-tightening policies; but, again like any other debt-collecting agents, they seem to be saying: "sorry for the loss of your job or your house, but debt must be collected--regardless."

A most outrageous aspect of the debt burden that is placed on the taxpayers' shoulders since 2008 is that most of the underlying debt claims are fictitious and illegitimate: they are largely due to manipulated asset price bubbles, dubious or illegal financial speculations, and scandalous conversion of financial gamblers' losses into public liability.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Vicious-Circle-of-Debt-by-Ismael-Hossein-zad-100606-391.html

Quote
Not only is this unfair (it is, indeed, tantamount to robbery, and therefore criminal), it is also recessionary as it can increase unemployment and undermine economic growth. It is reminiscent of President Herbert Hoover's notorious economic policy of cutting spending during a recession, a contractionary fiscal policy that is bound to worsen the recession. It is, indeed, a recipe for a vicious circle of debt and depression: as spending is cut to pay debt, the economy and (therefore) tax revenues will shrink, which would then increase debt and deficit, and call for more spending cuts.

So with all of the European austerity measures and spending cuts, are we repeating history?

QuoteIt is reminiscent of President Herbert Hoover's notorious economic policy of cutting spending during a recession, a contractionary fiscal policy that is bound to worsen the recession.

Citations, please.

Quote from: Cricket on July 20, 2010, 09:01:09 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 20, 2010, 08:34:38 AM
I agree.  The focus seems to be on the "financial elite".  Eliminating the "financial elite" has been tried in the good old USSR.  It was replaced with the "political elite" who then had control of the productive wealth of that country...

Except in this country there is almost like a natural symbiosis (not a conspiracy) between the financial elite (big business) and elite politicians and the hell with the rest of us.

I could not put this into better words ,personally.  I have no problem with someone who WORKED and WORKED HARD to make their wealth.   I do have a problem with someone who skimmed off the suffering and hard work of the middle or lesser class to gain their wealth.  I am not, nor likely will I ever be wealthy ,but if I were , I hope that I would be humanitarian enough to immensely help less fortunate folks..

Eventually, who care? The new world is going to be more massive and powerful then ever. Trust me, you'll find your way and your workload will be tireless.

If you want to work that is. Look at all the peeps on the unemp. list. Millions...for years.  You'd think they retrain, but why bother if you've got the backing of the dems and the repubs...can't go wrong.

I have never collected unemp.  Only disability..and that was rightful ,, But I definitely want to work

Quote from: gatorback on July 20, 2010, 11:51:11 PM
If you want to work that is. Look at all the peeps on the unemp. list. Millions...for years.  You'd think they retrain, but why bother if you've got the backing of the dems and the repubs...can't go wrong.

Yes, all those people living in the lap of luxury on their $275.00 a week (maximum).

A return to a simpler life. That moola is keeping family afloat. I'm not liking the huge deficit but I'd rather foot the bill for this one. I've used the system twice in 20 years of working. Keep me drunk, ah... I mean, not homeless during that troubling time.

Quote from: finehoe on July 21, 2010, 09:53:34 AM

Quote from: gatorback on July 20, 2010, 11:51:11 PM
If you want to work that is. Look at all the peeps on the unemp. list. Millions...for years.  You'd think they retrain, but why bother if you've got the backing of the dems and the repubs...can't go wrong.

Yes, all those people living in the lap of luxury on their $275.00 a week (maximum).

Not entirely correct, according to this AP story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100721/ap_on_bi_ge/us_unemployment_benefits

Quote
The overall measure would reauthorize the extended benefits program through the end of November, providing payments to millions of people who've been out of work for six months or more. Maximum benefits in some states are far higher than the $309 a week nationwide average payment. In Massachusetts, the top benefit is $943 a week; in Mississippi, it is $235.

Probably due to different cost-of-living standards, but that's my uneducated supposition.

However, I would like to know what the 'national average' is for this one:

Quote
At issue are payments averaging $309 a week for almost 5 million people whose 26 weeks of state benefits have run out. Those people are enrolled in a federally financed program providing up to 73 additional weeks of unemployment benefits.

Just how many unemployment programs are there?  And what's the final bill?  Does anyone know?

Quote from: Doctor_K on July 21, 2010, 12:28:23 PM

Not entirely correct, according to this AP story:

The figure I used is the maximum one can collect in Florida.

Quote from: Doctor_K on July 21, 2010, 12:28:23 PM
Just how many unemployment programs are there?  And what's the final bill?  Does anyone know?

This article has some good facts and figures:  http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/the-case-for-and-against-unemployment-insurance/60046/

What many people collecting unemployment will do is earn money under the table. What percentage of people do this, I could not begin to speculate. I have seen it in action though.

Quote from: gatorback on July 20, 2010, 11:48:53 PM
Eventually, who care? The new world is going to be more massive and powerful then ever. Trust me, you'll find your way and your workload will be tireless.

Roofs made out of oil/shingles that need replacement way too often
The River advocates call for "personal responsibility" in the face of growth worship,"inevitable" population growth
Related:Marching to the drumbeat of "projections"
Water Conservation hypocrisy
Related: traffic congestion,trip time increases
Utility rate hike(s)
Sprawl
Alternative off grid cpability limited due to can't afford
Food supply  Lack of   increased cost
Water supply  Lack of  increased cost-by design (see 'Growth/ projections/hypocrisy)
Living the double speak-after decades of "reduced taxes" mantra state and local taxes overtake,strain
the Biigie hurricane
Declining neighborhoods,infrastructure
Population pressures
Shifting demographic towards uncomfortable,dangerous profile
Government services collapse
Public conservation lands surplused to private use & development
Living in the Third World
Haiti was metaphor for US future

...and a few select areas within the US "Ecotopia" region spared from most of the above,leading to the biggest sad surprise for many elsewhere who so badly desire to move there: Can not. Immigration strictly controlled,zero population growth policy embraced.

Not on my 10 acres north. I'm working toward off the grid island-able organic. I want to fish and raise pigs and goats.

Quote from: Doctor_K on July 21, 2010, 12:28:23 PM

Quote from: finehoe on July 21, 2010, 09:53:34 AM

Quote from: gatorback on July 20, 2010, 11:51:11 PM
If you want to work that is. Look at all the peeps on the unemp. list. Millions...for years.  You'd think they retrain, but why bother if you've got the backing of the dems and the repubs...can't go wrong.

Not entirely correct, according to this AP story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100721/ap_on_bi_ge/us_unemployment_benefits

Quote
The overall measure would reauthorize the extended benefits program through the end of November, providing payments to millions of people who've been out of work for six months or more. Maximum benefits in some states are far higher than the $309 a week nationwide average payment. In Massachusetts, the top benefit is $943 a week; in Mississippi, it is $235.

Probably due to different cost-of-living standards, but that's my uneducated supposition.

However, I would like to know what the 'national average' is for this one:

Quote
At issue are payments averaging $309 a week for almost 5 million people whose 26 weeks of state benefits have run out. Those people are enrolled in a federally financed program providing up to 73 additional weeks of unemployment benefits.

Just how many unemployment programs are there?  And what's the final bill?  Does anyone know?

  Disability income is not even this, after taxes . Trust me, I am past ready to return to work.

Banker Bailout exceeds entire US Federal Budget, yet it's "entitlements" that are the problem?

Total US govt financial system support seen at $3.7 trllion

WASHINGTON, July 21 (Reuters) - Increased housing commitments swelled U.S. taxpayers' total support for the financial system by $700 billion in the past year to around $3.7 trillion, a government watchdog said on Wednesday.

The Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program said the increase was due largely to the government's pledges to supply capital to Fannie Mae (FNMA.OB) and Freddie Mac (FMCC.OB) and to guarantee more mortgages to the support the housing market.

Increased guarantees for loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration, the Government National Mortgage Association and the Veterans administration increased the government's commitments by $512.4 billion alone in the year to June 30, according to the report.

"Indeed, the current outstanding balance of overall Federal support for the nation's financial system...has actually increased more than 23% over the past year, from approximately $3.0 trillion to $3.7 trillion -- the equivalent of a fully deployed TARP program -- largely without congressional action, even as the banking crisis has, by most measures, abated from its most acute phases," the TARP inspector general, Neil Barofsky, wrote in the report.

The total includes Federal Reserve programs and a myriad of asset guarantees, including Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. protection for bank deposits.

The increased government commitments more than offset about a $300 billion decline in the U.S. Treasury's TARP commitments in the past year as programs have closed and banks have repaid taxpayer funds.

Austerity measures to follow.

We the people are just doing our duty :). Is the Stimulus (banker bailout as you describe it) anything more than an entitlement program?

Quote from: gatorback on July 21, 2010, 03:14:36 PM
Not on my 10 acres north. I'm working toward off the grid island-able organic. I want to fish and raise pigs and goats.

Excellent gatorback. The Suwanee River region from the Gainesville on up to the north seems to be a real attractant for such leanings-many from south Florida.

Good thing you have some acreage nailed down-hopefully in an area slated for like future land use.Or perhaps you will have to defend against area 'development'.
(A previous proposed Beltway route throgh the Gainesville region was shot down decisively years ago in part by astute rural residents)

The acreage option can not to be acommodated by millions.Get established while you can.Even if the world goes to hell the lifestyle could prove beneficial, per Gainesville region "Hobby " farms.And if things really go to hell our acreage retreats likely to no avail anyway.

QuoteIt was asked, what would I find essential in Financial Reform legislation?  I will take one piece of that question today because today I am angry.  I was thinking about Civil versus Criminal consequences and the lack of prosecution that has gone on in regard to the financial crisis.    Today the European Union announced a bailout of immense proportion to try to stabilize the Eurozone and bring the immediate market turmoil to an end.  One reason that such is required is that there has been theft.  The usual bunch of suspects are implicated.

I am certain that the penalties for financial crimes are lax.    I am equally certain that financial crimes were committed and that these are egregious, premeditated, and extremely lucrative.  If somebody (the SEC for example) fines a company after the fact for crimes that were committed by individuals who were enriched by the crime, justice has not been served.  Individuals must be held responsible.

I looked at the FBI web site.   This tells me that the value of all property crime in America in 2007 was $17.6 Billion.   That’s just a Thursday’s work on Wall Street.   In 2008 approximately 2.4 million Americans served time, most for drug or property crime.  How many of these had worked on Wall Street?   I’m sure it’s not many.

The transactions that have contributed to the financial crisis are immensely complicated and the firms engaging in them can effectively obfuscate.    Identifying individuals, providing just punishment, and the removal of such individuals from society will take a long time.  It is certain that the vast majority will go unpunished.  The New York Statute of Limitations seems grossly insufficient given the magnitude of these crimes.  Further, the class of felony that such crimes fall into should be reviewed.

If Goldman or others had information on the financial status of Greece that was not public information, then traded on that information in the CDS or currency markets, they have traded on inside information.  This is in addition to the multitudes of other violations which are already alleged.  Where are the arrests?   I understand the investigations may take a long time.  Quite honestly, the effective prosecution of such crimes may take decades.

Who is our Simon Wiesenthal?  Who will track down these criminals in the coming months, years, decades?  Perhaps we need some old men to spend their last years in prison after thinking they effectively fleeced the world.  Perhaps the cycle of crises can be mitigated if the prosecution for these particular crimes continues for decades and every so often Wall Street is reminded that there is no sanctuary and that individuals will be hunted down at whatever time in whatever place.

Do not tell me these are small matters.  People starve when you manipulate markets to speculate the price of corn up 100%.   People die when you do not put proper safety equipment on a well to save a half million bucks and then destroy an ecosystem.   Some people jump onto subway tracks.  Some have heart attacks when their life savings are gone.  Some burn to death in street riots.  Do not tell me these are small things, errors in judgment, rogue actions.  If we have figured out anything, have we not figured out that these are systemic problems and that the institutions involved make decisions that the rewards justify the risks, not just financial risks, but also the risks of sanctions or prosecution of any sort?  Are we going to do anything to alter the balance of risk and reward so that the rational decision is to do the right thing?

http://thefourteenthbanker.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/financial-crime-the-statute-of-limitations-and-simon-wiesenthal/

No To Oligarchy
Bernie Sanders | July 22, 2010

The American people are hurting. As a result of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street, millions of Americans have lost their jobs, homes, life savings and their ability to get a higher education. Today, some 22 percent of our children live in poverty, and millions more have become dependent on food stamps for their food.

And while the Great Wall Street Recession has devastated the middle class, the truth is that working families have been experiencing a decline for decades. During the Bush years alone, from 2000-2008, median family income dropped by nearly $2,200 and millions lost their health insurance. Today, because of stagnating wages and higher costs for basic necessities, the average two-wage-earner family has less disposable income than a one-wage-earner family did a generation ago. The average American today is underpaid, overworked and stressed out as to what the future will bring for his or her children. For many, the American dream has become a nightmare.

But, not everybody is hurting. While the middle class disappears and poverty increases the wealthiest people in our country are not only doing extremely well, they are using their wealth and political power to protect and expand their very privileged status at the expense of everyone else. This upper-crust of extremely wealthy families are hell-bent on destroying the democratic vision of a strong middle-class which has made the United States the envy of the world. In its place they are determined to create an oligarchy in which a small number of families control the economic and political life of our country.

The 400 richest families in America, who saw their wealth increase by some $400 billion during the Bush years, have now accumulated $1.27 trillion in wealth. Four hundred families! During the last fifteen years, while these enormously rich people became much richer their effective tax rates were slashed almost in half. While the highest-paid 400 Americans had an average income of $345 million in 2007, as a result of Bush tax policy they now pay an effective tax rate of 16.6 percent, the lowest on record.

Last year, the top twenty-five hedge fund managers made a combined $25 billion but because of tax policy their lobbyists helped write, they pay a lower effective tax rate than many teachers, nurses and police officers. As a result of tax havens in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and elsewhere, the wealthy and large corporations are evading some $100 billion a year in U.S. taxes. Warren Buffett, one of the richest people on earth, has often commented that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.

But it's not just wealthy individuals who grotesquely manipulate the system for their benefit. It's the multinational corporations they own and control. In 2009, Exxon Mobil, the most profitable corporation in history made $19 billion in profits and not only paid no federal income taxâ€"they actually received a $156 million refund from the government. In 2005, one out of every four large corporations in the United States paid no federal income taxes while earning $1.1 trillion in revenue.

But, perhaps the most outrageous tax break given to multi-millionaires and billionaires happened this January when the estate tax, established in 1916, was repealed for one year as a result of President Bush's 2001 tax legislation. This tax applies only to the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of our population. This is what Teddy Roosevelt, a leading proponent of the estate tax, said in 1910. "The absence of effective state, and, especially, national restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise.… Therefore, I believe in a…graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate." And that's what we've had for the last ninety-five yearsâ€"until 2010.

Today, not content with huge tax breaks on their income; not content with massive corporate tax loopholes; not content with trade laws enabling them to outsource the jobs of millions of American workers to low-wage countries and not content with tax havens around the world, the ruling elite and their lobbyists are working feverishly to either eliminate the estate tax or substantially lower it. If they are successful at wiping out the estate tax, as they came close to doing in 2006 with every Republican but two voting to do, it would increase the national debt by over $1 trillion during a ten-year period. At a time when we already have a $13 trillion debt, enormous unmet needs and the highest level of wealth inequality in the industrialized world, it is simply obscene to provide more tax breaks to multi-millionaires and billionaires.

That is why I have introduced the Responsible Estate Tax Act (S.3533). This legislation would raise $318 billion over the next decade by establishing a graduated inheritance tax on estates over $3.5 million retroactive to this year. This bill ensures that the wealthiest 0.3 percent of Americans pays their fair share of estate taxes, while making sure that 99.7 percent of Americans never have to pay a dime when they lose a loved one. It also makes certain that the overwhelming majority of family farmers and small businesses never have to pay an estate tax.

This legislation must be passed because, with a $13 trillion national debt and huge unmet needs, we cannot afford more tax breaks for millionaire and billionaire families. But even more importantly, it must be passed because the United States must not become an oligarchy in which a handful of wealthy and powerful families control the destiny of our nation. Too many people, from the inception of this country, have struggled and died to maintain our democratic vision. We owe it to them and to our children to maintain it.


Source URL: http://www.thenation.com/article/37889/no-oligarchy

I'm all for tax breaks for anyone who will spend money at my restaurant.  Maybe then I could hire some folks and make a decent living at the same time.  

I long for the days when Reagan was in office.  I had 35 plus employees, a half million dollar payroll, and paid for everyone's health insurance.  Most employees got a bonus at the end of the year.

Within 2 years of opening a little hole of a restaurant on Kingsley Avenue in Orange Park, I built a 7000 square foot building on Wells Road and paid cash for it.  I (illegally) hired underage black kids from Floyd Circle in Orange Park to work the dish pit at well above minimum wage and kept them off the street and out of jail.  They learned good work habits and most went on to be successful adults.  The joke among us was, if we ever got caught, Reggie would tell the judge "If I had not been working for Jerry, I would probably be holding up Jiffy Stores." Ever hear of Bistro Aix?  Tom Grey got his start at my place, and by his own admission, learned to make fresh egg pasta. David Meyer, who had David's in OP too.  He's now an executive with an elder care company. Multiple careers were launched, all because the frigging government cut tax rates and let the people decide how to spend their own money.  What was unfortunate at the time, and currently,  is that Congress continued to spend money like there was no tomorrow, and worst of all, on non productive projects.

Now, I can't offer anyone a job, or the opportunity to learn a trade.  The Government is sucking up all the money, and threatening the most productive segments of society with confiscation of their assets.  Citizens and business are paralyzed, because they do not know what the Federal Government is going to do next.  People are afraid, and  consumer spending has declined. Small business can make jobs, if only the government would get off every ones' back.  We are headed for a replay of the Great Depression, driven by misguided and corrupt Keynesians, hungry for ever increasing power over our lives.  Keynesian Theory is wrong, dead wrong, and lead to protract the Great Depression.  Hoover illogically increased government spending, and FDR followed suit in spades.

I have been disgusted with what I have read on this thread.  The majority of posters are either brainwashed, or idiots.  I'm leaning towards brainwashing, that started years ago in this country.

I can remember as an 8th. grader in the late '60's, being told in class by my black arm band wearing social studies teacher that corporate America was corrupt and businessmen were crooks.  My father was a finance executive in NYC at the time.  When he got home, I asked him if it was true that "businessmen were crooks".   He turned red as a beet, and within in a few days, sat in on my class and presented the other side of the story, much to the teacher's chagrin.  

Fast forward to Macro Economics 101 at UNC-CH.  Before a class of 500, some pinko monkey of a professor who looked like he just stepped out of the Anvil at Bleeker and 9th.,  had us all believing that for economic success,  "pump priming" by the Federal Government was required.  If you wanted an A in the class, all one had to do was memorize the prof's flow chart, and inject government spending where indicated.  Hell, most of the students didn't know a debit from a credit at the time, and we all believed him.

With experience comes knowledge, and knowledge precipitates wisdom.  I say to you, just about everything revealed in this thread is nonsense.  Finehoe is wrong on history and all issues.  To be a successful American, all one has to do is follow a few simple rules:

Spend Less Than You Earn
Delay Gratification
Save for a Rainy Day

If our government at all levels would follow these rules, we would all be better for it.

Quote from: Jerry Moran on July 24, 2010, 06:09:38 AM
Finehoe is wrong on history and all issues.  

Talk about brainwashed....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986

QuoteThe U.S. Congress passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA) (Pub.L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, enacted October 22, 1986) to simplify the income tax code, broaden the tax base and eliminate many tax shelters and other preferences. Referred to as the second of the two "Reagan tax cuts" (the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut of 1981 being the first), the bill was also officially sponsored by Democrats, Richard Gephardt of Missouri in the House of Representatives and Bill Bradley of New Jersey in the Senate.

The tax reform was designed to be revenue neutral, but because individual taxes were decreased while corporate taxes were increased, Congressional Budget Office estimates (which ignore corporate taxes) suggested every tax payer saw a decrease in their tax bill. As of 2009, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was the most recent major simplification of the tax code, drastically reducing the number of deductions and the number of tax brackets.

I would like to know what were the marginal tax rates in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.  That would shed some light on this discussion, too!

My point is this was a VERY popular and bipartisan effort.  NOT a Reagan/republican scheme to line the pockets of the rich or corporations.  My guess is based on your previous relationship with the republican party at the time... even you were supportive of this measure... :)

Quote from: stephendare on July 24, 2010, 12:41:09 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg/585px-MarginalIncomeTax.svg.png)

Thanks, stephendare!

Quote from: stephendare on July 24, 2010, 12:41:49 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 24, 2010, 12:41:15 PM
My point is this was a VERY popular and bipartisan effort.  NOT a Reagan/republican scheme to line the pockets of the rich or corporations.  My guess is based on your previous relationship with the republican party at the time... even you were supportive of this measure... :)

And I was wrong.

I may blow this quote up and frame it!!

 :D  Just kidding Stephen!  I just got a chuckle... Thanks! :D

Quotea republican scheme to line the pockets of the rich and the corporations.

Quite a feat... since he raised taxes on corporations...

QuoteThe tax reform was designed to be revenue neutral, but because individual taxes were decreased while corporate taxes were increased,

Not an economist here... would not pretend to be.  I can say "I was wrong" too.  While you were supporting Reagan and his cuts... I (embarrassingly) supported Jimmy Carter.  Boy... Was I wrong!  (I too blame it on youth!)

I did come around though and saw the light.  I watched interest rates come down... I watched the economy pick up steam...  I saw this country turn it around... and it never really slowed... until Bush's last year.

Once again... for the record... while called the Reagan tax cuts... the bill was actually sponsored by Democrats.  I suppose they could have been a part of the republican scheme... but I doubt it.