Gotta Raise Dem Taxes!

ok, i'll play along

Why can't I be paid in gold or silver, as outlined in the Constitution? I prefer gold or silver because those are instruments of wealth......this is a free country, right?

Oh for f%ck's sake

Lamarr, if you want to walk around with however much value in gold you need, knock yourself out. Most of us don't. People don't even want $1 dollar coins so I dont see the option of walking around with gold pieces being that much more palatable.
This is what I mean when I talk about applying philosophy to the real world.
 
ok, i'll play along

Why can't I be paid in gold or silver, as outlined in the Constitution? I prefer gold or silver because those are instruments of wealth......this is a free country, right?

Play along with this:

Corporate profits hit all-time high as wages drop to record low
 
This is what I mean when I talk about applying philosophy to the real world.

Real World UD? The presence of gold is what gave the "dollar it's status as the world's reserve currency. And now, we should abandon it? Respectfully, this country has 16 trill in debt with absolutely no plan to reduce the debt load. The govt is relying on the debasement of our currency to finance its expenditures. As I've said before, How long do you & others think the world will accept US dollars as a medium of exchange? Let's get back to Constitutional money & give the power back to the people.

Real World, We can't "print" or tax our way to prosperity! I'm open to historical examples
 
Play along with this:

Corporate profits hit all-time high as wages drop to record low

Is Lamarr

happy-chicken.jpg
 
Real World UD? The presence of gold is what gave the "dollar it's status as the world's reserve currency. And now, we should abandon it? Respectfully, this country has 16 trill in debt with absolutely no plan to reduce the debt load. The govt is relying on the debasement of our currency to finance its expenditures. As I've said before, How long do you & others think the world will accept US dollars as a medium of exchange? Let's get back to Constitutional money & give the power back to the people.

Real World, We can't "print" or tax our way to prosperity! I'm open to historical examples

No, we shouldn't abandon it now, we abandoned it years ago. Again, it's so much easier to deal with the present and reality.
If you want a smaller deficit then we need to create more jobs and that's far more likely to happen by doing things like extending unemployment benefits than continuing high end tax cuts.
 
No, we shouldn't abandon it now, we abandoned it years ago.

Why would anyone abandon a vehicle that led to the US becoming the world's largest creditor nation & grew the middle-class? UD, real world, since we've abandoned that principle, we are now the world's largest debtor nation!

Again, it's so much easier to deal with the present and reality.

There is no easy way out of this, the position is indefensible! Allow me to reference post 22 of this thread to illustrate the fact that there is no "easy way"

For years, Californians have encouraged this debt binge because we wanted services, and we didn't want to feel the pain of paying for them. Bonds were sold as a tax-free way to get everything we wanted.

If you want a smaller deficit then we need to create more jobs and that's far more likely to happen by doing things like extending unemployment benefits than continuing high end tax cuts.

Productive jobs are created by allowing citizens to keep money they earn, not by taxing it. Keep in mind that everyone in the Soviet Union had a job.....But they were broke because they did not produce anything of value to the rest of the world.....then their currency collapsed, real world. By not implementing policies that encourage production, we're headed down the same path.....

FORWARD?
 
Play along with this:

Corporate profits hit all-time high as wages drop to record low

Still Not Spreading the Wealth Around

Obama has always claimed to want to spread the wealth around. Yet, as I stressed this June (and in my first ever blog post way back in July 2011!) that’s the exact opposite of what he has achieved.

And it’s getting worse, not better.

Wages-as-a-proportion-of-GDP just hit another all-time low:

wascurgdp.png


And corporate-profits-as-a-proportion-of-GDP just hit another all-time high:

cpgdp.png


Obama might throw a lot of rhetoric about fighting for the middle class.

But the reality has been the opposite. America today is all about the enrichment of big banks, financial corporations and the military-industrial complex, while the working class has rotted.

The truth of Obama’s policies (and successive administrations prior to Obama) is more concentrated wealth within the financial elites and Wall Street. Banks get bailed out. Campaign donors get stimulus money. And the middle class and future generations pay for it in taxation and the Cantillon Effect.

The Obama reinflation is a rotten bubble built on rotten foundations. Trying to reinflate the economy from a starting debt ratio of over 350% of GDP through crony corporatism and helicopter drops to the rich is an absurd notion that is doomed to abject failure.

And the growing gap between the rich and the poor is steadily beginning to resemble neofeudalism.

FORWARD ?
 
After UD did a brilliant job of exposing your ridiculous conspiracy theory executive signings garbage, you have been exposed as not knowing a damn thing. You want to be paid in gold, so your rights are ending. LOL!

The only thing UD did was point out that it wasn't 900 EO's

Your rights are being eroded also! Damn, what was it you hated about the Bush presidency again?

This...only confirms this...

Corporate profits hit all-time high as wages drop to record low

So, as the op says...

Gotta Raise Dem Taxes!

Wrong.............If you want a healthy economy policies have to encourage production & saving, not barrowing to consume

The Obama reinflation is a rotten bubble built on rotten foundations. Trying to reinflate the economy from a starting debt ratio of over 350% of GDP through crony corporatism and helicopter drops to the rich is an absurd notion that is doomed to abject failure.

FORWARD
 
Still Not Spreading the Wealth Around

Obama has always claimed to want to spread the wealth around. Yet, as I stressed this June (and in my first ever blog post way back in July 2011!) that’s the exact opposite of what he has achieved.

And it’s getting worse, not better.

Wages-as-a-proportion-of-GDP just hit another all-time low:

wascurgdp.png


And corporate-profits-as-a-proportion-of-GDP just hit another all-time high:

cpgdp.png


Obama might throw a lot of rhetoric about fighting for the middle class.

But the reality has been the opposite. America today is all about the enrichment of big banks, financial corporations and the military-industrial complex, while the working class has rotted.

The truth of Obama’s policies (and successive administrations prior to Obama) is more concentrated wealth within the financial elites and Wall Street. Banks get bailed out. Campaign donors get stimulus money. And the middle class and future generations pay for it in taxation and the Cantillon Effect.

The Obama reinflation is a rotten bubble built on rotten foundations. Trying to reinflate the economy from a starting debt ratio of over 350% of GDP through crony corporatism and helicopter drops to the rich is an absurd notion that is doomed to abject failure.

And the growing gap between the rich and the poor is steadily beginning to resemble neofeudalism.

FORWARD ?
How is this Obama's fault when the opposition has been very clear that they have and will continue to do anything to safeguard highearners and their money and sacifice working class people? While there are valid criticisms of the Obama Admin and the Democratic Party, the GOP has been openly hostile to truly stimulative spending, like unemployment benefits, while fighting hard for expensive tax cuts that aren't stimulative.

The only thing UD did was point out that it wasn't 900 EO's

What I exposed is you dont do apply any skepticism to sources that agree with your philosophy.
You should.
 
How is this Obama's fault when the opposition has been very clear that they have and will continue to do anything to safeguard highearners and their money and sacifice working class people? While there are valid criticisms of the Obama Admin and the Democratic Party, the GOP has been openly hostile to truly stimulative spending, like unemployment benefits, while fighting hard for expensive tax cuts that aren't stimulative.

I'm not laying blame squarely at his feet, however, we must acknowledge the fact that the national debt has increased every year for atleast the past 40 years. Monetary policy has been a commonality between big govt Repubs & big govt Dems alike. So, I'm not blaming one party without blaming the other. The military-industrial complex, banks, unions etc. benefit from money printing.

Monetary policy must be examined, Why.....One of the major reasons for this: Those who have the closest ties to the Fed, big banks, Wall Street, etc. They get to use the money 1st before prices rise. They sit closest to the origin of newly created money. Wages end up rising last, and that is why the poor get poorer and the rich get richer! Since the Fed's inception, the dollar has lost 96% of it's purchasing power.

Each time they create new money, our purchasing power is diminished.....It's theft, gold / silver would eliminate that. A simple transfer of wealth, the rich are not affected as much as others.

Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.
- Alan Greenspan
 
The only thing UD did was point out that it wasn't 900 EO's

Oh yea, just a minor mistake. President Obama's 135 signings to the lie of 923. Only a difference of 788.

Analysis: This work of fiction not only grossly inflates the number of executive orders signed by President Obama, but attributes to him many that were actually penned by previous presidents.

As of Aug. 10, 2012, Barack Obama had signed 135 executive orders since taking office, far fewer than the 923 claimed and by no means the largest number signed by any U.S. president.

Your rights are being eroded also! Damn, what was it you hated about the Bush presidency again?

I do know the rights that are being eroded are by right wing conservatives and libertarians like Congressman Paul Ryan and Governor Rick Scoot among others who want to limit and or eliminate my constitutional right vote. You, nor any other so call libertarians have uttered a word in condemnation of these practices.

Wrong.............If you want a healthy economy policies have to encourage production & saving, not barrowing to consume

I think you meant: If you want a healthy economy you...

Anyway; If you want a healthy economy, you have to encourage reinvestment in your production among the wealthy and not hoarding of money.



 
Oh yea, just a minor mistake. President Obama's 135 signings to the lie of 923. Only a difference of 788.

yea, yea, I admitted to that, however, My point was that those 135 Executive Orders are the "blueprint" to totalitarian rule. Now if you want to rebut something, rebut that!

I do know the rights that are being eroded are by right wing conservatives and libertarians like Congressman Paul Ryan and Governor Rick Scoot among others who want to limit and or eliminate my constitutional right vote. You, nor any other so call libertarians have uttered a word in condemnation of these practices.

forgive me, I have 'tunnel vision'.....focused only on Bernanke, and how his agent is ensuring the demise of 'upward mobility'

I think you meant: If you want a healthy economy you...

Anyway; If you want a healthy economy, you have to encourage reinvestment in your production among the wealthy and not hoarding of money.

nice catch....looser :)

Seriously, Do You Realize That The Government Is Still Paying Banks Not To Lend...?

One of the most outrageous "open secrets" of U.S. government policy these days is that the Federal Reserve is still paying big banks not to lend money.

And it's doing that while screwing average Americans who have been responsible and lived within their means.

And whats wrong with trying to save? Companies save, to later invest
 
If you tax a nation to death, destroy its capital markets, nourish its unemployment, condemn it to an expensive currency and give its corporations liquidity at stupidly low costs you can only expect one outcome: Defaults.

Prepare
 
yea, yea, I admitted to that, however, My point was that those 135 Executive Orders are the "blueprint" to totalitarian rule. Now if you want to rebut something, rebut that!



forgive me, I have 'tunnel vision'.....focused only on Bernanke, and how his agent is ensuring the demise of 'upward mobility'



nice catch....looser :)

Seriously, Do You Realize That The Government Is Still Paying Banks Not To Lend...?



And whats wrong with trying to save? Companies save, to later invest

Nothing new on this post. Like i said:

Gotta Raise Dem Taxes!
 
<param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc12b618" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=50136496^2527^180783&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>
 
Considering the "self-imposed - fiscal cliff", I'm surprised no one in Congress is suggesting ending Nixon's War on Drugs so the feds could get a cut of the tax money.

wow, you could slash spending, reverse Nixon's racist policies AND tax the hell out of legal weed
 
How is this Obama's fault when the opposition has been very clear that they have and will continue to do anything to safeguard highearners and their money and sacifice working class people? While there are valid criticisms of the Obama Admin and the Democratic Party, the GOP has been openly hostile to truly stimulative spending, like unemployment benefits, while fighting hard for expensive tax cuts that aren't stimulative.

Both parties at fault because 'stimulative spending'. Same monetary policy

After 16 Types Of Stimulus Failed, What Can The US Government Try Next?

After 16 Types Of Stimulus Failed, What Can The US Government Try Next?
Mike "Mish" Shedlock|August 08, 2011|


Is there any kind of stimulus the US did not try in the last 10 years?

1 We had 1% interest rates from Greenspan fueling housing.
2 We had wars from Bush and Obama fueling defense industry employment.
3 We had two rounds of Quantitative easing from the Fed.
4 We had cash-for-clunkers.
5 We had two housing tax credit packages.
6 We had an $800 billion stimulus package from Congress for "shovel-ready" projects.
7 We had stimulus kickbacks to states.
8 We had HAMP (Home Affordable Mortgage Program).
9 We had bank bailouts out the wazoo to stimulate lending.
10 We had Small Business lending programs.
11 We had central bank liquidity swaps.
12 We had Maiden Lane, Maiden Lane II, and Maiden Lane III
13 We had Single Tranche Repurchase agreements
14 We had the Citi Asset Guarantee
15 We had TALF, TARP, TAF, CPFF, TSLF, MMIFF, TLGP, AMLF, PPIP, and PDCF
16 We had so many programs the Fed must have run out of letters because they were not given an acronym.

That is a partial list. Other than bailing out bondholders what exactly do we have to show for any of it? The one-word answer is "debt".

Decade of Stimulus Yields Nothing But Debt

Caroline Baum wrote an excellent article on this theme. It was so good I asked if I could reproduce it in entirety.

With permission please consider Decade of Stimulus Yields Nothing but Debt: Caroline Baum

When George W. Bush took up residence in the White House in January 2001, total U.S. debt stood at $5.95 trillion. Last week it was $14.3 trillion, with $2.4 trillion freshly authorized by Congress Tuesday.

Ten years and $8.35 trillion later, what do we have to show for this decade of deficit spending? A glut of unoccupied homes, unemployment exceeding 9 percent, a stalled economy and a huge mountain of debt. Real gross domestic product growth averaged 1.6 percent from the first quarter of 2001 through the second quarter of 2011.

It doesn’t sound like a very good trade-off. And now Keynesians are whining about discretionary spending cuts of $21 billion next year? That’s one-half of one percent. And it qualifies as a “cut” only in the fanciful world of government accounting.

The Budget Control Act of 2011 will save $917 billion over 10 years relative to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline. It leaves the tough work to a bipartisan congressional committee of 12, to be appointed by the leadership in each house. If this supercommittee fails to agree on a minimum of $1.2 trillion of additional savings over 10 years, automatic spending cuts -- evenly divided between defense and nondefense -- will kick in.

Is there any reason to think the same folks who couldn’t agree on a grand bargain this past month will join hands and find commonality in the next three, with one month off for vacation?

Rosy Scenario

Even if the committee agrees on the prescribed savings by Nov. 23 and Congress enacts them by Dec. 23, as required, laws passed today aren’t binding on future congresses.

Throw in the fact that revenue and budget forecasts tend to be overly optimistic, and there’s even less reason to think Congress has put the U.S. on a sound fiscal path.

In a July 2011 working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Harvard economist Jeffrey Frankel identified a pattern of over-optimism in official forecasts, a bias that gets bigger in outer years. (Who can forget the CBO’s 2001 estimate of a 10-year, $5.7 trillion budget surplus?) A fixed budget rule, such as the euro area’s Stability and Growth Pact with its mandated deficit-to-GDP ratios, only exacerbates the tendency.

“Political leaders meet their target by adjusting their forecasts rather than by adjusting their policies,” Frankel writes.

First Installment

The deal hashed out in Washington at the eleventh hour this week does nothing to curb the unsustainable growth of entitlement spending -- on programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Medicare outlays have risen 9 percent a year for the last 30 years in a period of stable demographics, according to Steven Wieting, U.S. economist at Citigroup Inc. The automatic spending cuts outlined in the budget act would limit reductions in Medicare expenditures to no more than 2 percent a year.

By the end of 2012 or start of 2013, the federal government will be back at the trough with a request for additional borrowing authority. The debt will keep rising, and the ratio of publicly held debt to GDP will increase from 62 percent last year to as much as 90 percent in 2021, according to some private estimates, depending on what Congress does about the expiring tax cuts, the Medicare “doc fix” and the alternative minimum tax.

The CBO’s estimate of $2.1 trillion in savings over 10 years is well short of the $4 trillion Standard & Poor’s says is necessary to stabilize the debt and avoid a rating downgrade.
 
Considering the "self-imposed - fiscal cliff", I'm surprised no one in Congress is suggesting ending Nixon's War on Drugs so the feds could get a cut of the tax money.

wow, you could slash spending, reverse Nixon's racist policies AND tax the hell out of legal weed

That and seriously slicing the defense budget!

And how long would it be before you bitch about the taxes are too {hiigh:D} on reefer?
 
There will be cuts in entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and other programs. All of this can be traced back to wars that were fought. Next time somebody wants to drag you into an unnecessary war in a part of the world that hates the United States period, does not want schools built for them like a helpless child.

These wars were mismanaged by the military and the government. The prolong occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq trying to subjugate the population to western ideas have costs trillions of dollars, now you have to pay the piper. Nobody is making this link with war spending to possible budget cuts and raised taxes, this could discourage prolong occupations in the future...

You have nothing to show for those trillions of dollars spent except dead bodies and raised retirement age to 75 probably.


:lol::lol::lol:

The human and economic costs of these wars will continue for decades, some costs not peaking until mid-century. Many of the wars’ costs are invisible to Americans, buried in a variety of budgets, and so have not been counted or assessed. For example, while most people think the Pentagon war appropriations are equivalent to the wars’ budgetary costs, the true numbers are twice that, and the full economic cost of the wars much larger yet. Conservatively estimated, the war bills already paid and obligated to be paid as of June 2011 are $3.2 trillion in constant dollars. A more reasonable estimate puts the number at nearly $4 trillion.

http://costsofwar.org
 
Last edited:
The rich supported and financed President Bush who went off to these prolonged wars trying to subjugate and dominate and Iraqis and Afghanis. They pushed for the war on corporatized media channels, any opposing viewpoint lost their job or was forced off. Forcing oil privatization onto Iraqis and using the war for political gain.

They should be held responsible and pay for all this with 6-10% percent increase in their tax rates.

Next time they back an incompetent right wing hack, they should pay for this person action.
 
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ihUoRD4pYzI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The government has borrowed 4 trillion from the Social Security trust and put that money in the general fund. By cutting benefits, raising retirement age, the amount of money that needs to be repaid can be reduced.

Reagan, an actor, was repeating what was told to him.


However, instead of cash, these two trust funds have IOUs from the US government. All of those assets are held in "special non-marketable securities of the US Government". So, the US government borrows from the OASI, DI and many others to finance its deficit spending.

As a matter of fact, as of this second, the US government currently has "intragovernmental holdings" of $4.776 trillion. "Intragovernmental holdings" is money that the government owes to programs such as OASI, DI and many others. This is money that will have to be repaid down the line.

--

So - how much does the US government owe the Social Security Trust Fund? Let's look to the most recent "Monthly Statement of the Public Debt of the United States" (courtesy of TreasuryDirect.gov, *.pdf) to get the answer.

On Page 9, we see that the outstanding amount of Treasury Securities to OASI and DI are currently:

OASI - $2,596,371,000,000
DI - $139,145,000,000

So, that's almost $2.6 trillion for the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund, plus an additional $140 billion or so for the Disability Insurance trust fund. Anytime you raise the age of retirement, it will become more of a tax, rather than entitlement and benefit for most people.
 
Last edited:
That and seriously slicing the defense budget!

And how long would it be before you bitch about the taxes are too {hiigh:D} on reefer?

:lol:


I had heard a long time ago that if they put the money they borrowed from Social Security back, that would alleviate whatever solvency issues the program has.
Interesting posts Cointelpro.
 
<iframe src="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/25/john-kasich/did-abraham-lincoln-say-you-cannot-build-little-gu/" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
 
Back
Top