OT - Failure of Society

On Jun 20, 6:11*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
Let's get the spending in harmony with the revenues. Is this rocket science
or what?

The reason why Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II ran up huge deficits was
because it does in fact boost the economy. Of course this is
temporary. It's like putting extra spending money on the credit card.
They did this to mask the fact that their socio-economic policies were
gutting the middle class and ruining our economy. Then the pile of
financial fraud (a separate issue) finally hit the fan in 2008... and
because the debt was already so high, we have no effective response.

Paying down the debt will further tank the economy... there is no way
around it... we are damned either way. Lets say you maxed out your
credit when times were good, and then you suffered a big drop in
income. Is now a good time to pay down that debt? Maybe you could, but
with your income already lower, paying the debt off will make your
living standard that much worse. All of the politicians should know
this, but since ruining our economy and living standard seems to be
part of the "plan", no doubt they will eventually push this through...
and pin the blame on someone else.

Ron Ruff wrote:

The reason why Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II ran up huge deficits was
because it does in fact boost the economy. Of course this is
temporary. It's like putting extra spending money on the credit card.
They did this to mask the fact that their socio-economic policies were
gutting the middle class and ruining our economy. Then the pile of
financial fraud (a separate issue) finally hit the fan in 2008... and
because the debt was already so high, we have no effective response.

Paying down the debt will further tank the economy... there is no way
around it... we are damned either way.

That's not true. The super rich are not fairly taxed, and are not
currently putting their fortunes to uses that benefit society as a
whole. The appearance of gratuitous, pointless financial derivatives
like CDOs were naked evidence of two things: taxation of the ultra-
wealthy was too low, and there were not enough disincentives for
economically unproductive investments. The result was destructively
rich people inventing destructive ways to try to multiply their
already excessive fortunes-- and predictably, the crash that
followed.

Neither of the basic problems has been addressed, so the next even
worse crash is already in store. But just fixing the first problem by
making progressive taxation work the way it's supposed to (by taxing
the richest at the highest rates) would solve the debt and deficit
problems without having to cut basic services or take away what shreds
are left of the social safety net. Fixing the second problem by
limiting tax incentives (e.g. capital gains being taxed less than
earned income) to only economically productive investments would solve
unemployment.

Trouble is, both the indebtedness of government and massive
unemployment are by design; they work for the benefit of the ultra-
rich. The baronial class lend the money they didn't pay as taxes back
to the taxpayers at interest, and get to screw workers out of fair pay
and reasonable working conditions without consequences when one out of
four of us is unemployed.

Chalo

"Ron Ruff" wrote in message
...
On Jun 20, 6:11 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
Let's get the spending in harmony with the revenues. Is this rocket
science
or what?

The reason why Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II ran up huge deficits was
because it does in fact boost the economy. Of course this is
temporary. It's like putting extra spending money on the credit card.
They did this to mask the fact that their socio-economic policies were
gutting the middle class and ruining our economy. Then the pile of
financial fraud (a separate issue) finally hit the fan in 2008... and
because the debt was already so high, we have no effective response.

Paying down the debt will further tank the economy... there is no way
around it... we are damned either way. Lets say you maxed out your
credit when times were good, and then you suffered a big drop in
income. Is now a good time to pay down that debt? Maybe you could, but
with your income already lower, paying the debt off will make your
living standard that much worse. All of the politicians should know
this, but since ruining our economy and living standard seems to be
part of the "plan", no doubt they will eventually push this through...
and pin the blame on someone else.

I mostly agree with your above analysis, but it is time to bite the bullet.
Stop the spending even if it causes a catastrophe. Then we can start over
with a clean slate.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Chalo" wrote in message
...
Ron Ruff wrote:

The reason why Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II ran up huge deficits was
because it does in fact boost the economy. Of course this is
temporary. It's like putting extra spending money on the credit card.
They did this to mask the fact that their socio-economic policies were
gutting the middle class and ruining our economy. Then the pile of
financial fraud (a separate issue) finally hit the fan in 2008... and
because the debt was already so high, we have no effective response.

Paying down the debt will further tank the economy... there is no way
around it... we are damned either way.

That's not true. The super rich are not fairly taxed, and are not
currently putting their fortunes to uses that benefit society as a
whole. The appearance of gratuitous, pointless financial derivatives
like CDOs were naked evidence of two things: taxation of the ultra-
wealthy was too low, and there were not enough disincentives for
economically unproductive investments. The result was destructively
rich people inventing destructive ways to try to multiply their
already excessive fortunes-- and predictably, the crash that
followed.

Let us say all of the above is true. Have either the Dems or Repubs ever
done anything to prevent any of it? I think not.

Neither of the basic problems has been addressed, so the next even
worse crash is already in store. But just fixing the first problem by
making progressive taxation work the way it's supposed to (by taxing
the richest at the highest rates) would solve the debt and deficit
problems without having to cut basic services or take away what shreds
are left of the social safety net.

Nope, it won't fix it. We are way too far gone.

Fixing the second problem by
limiting tax incentives (e.g. capital gains being taxed less than
earned income) to only economically productive investments would solve
unemployment.

It might help a bit, but not much.

Trouble is, both the indebtedness of government and massive
unemployment are by design; they work for the benefit of the ultra-
rich. The baronial class lend the money they didn't pay as taxes back
to the taxpayers at interest, and get to screw workers out of fair pay
and reasonable working conditions without consequences when one out of
four of us is unemployed.

Blaming the rich for our economic problem doesn't work since everyone wants
to get something for nothing. The middle and working classes are as much to
blame for our predicament as the rich.

A capitalist economy doesn't work perfectly. It is still better than all
other economic systems, especially if you want to create a large prosperous
middle class.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On 6/21/2011 1:19 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
wrote in message
...
Ron Ruff wrote:

The reason why Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II ran up huge deficits was
because it does in fact boost the economy. Of course this is
temporary. It's like putting extra spending money on the credit card.
They did this to mask the fact that their socio-economic policies were
gutting the middle class and ruining our economy. Then the pile of
financial fraud (a separate issue) finally hit the fan in 2008... and
because the debt was already so high, we have no effective response.

Paying down the debt will further tank the economy... there is no way
around it... we are damned either way.

That's not true. The super rich are not fairly taxed, and are not
currently putting their fortunes to uses that benefit society as a
whole. The appearance of gratuitous, pointless financial derivatives
like CDOs were naked evidence of two things: taxation of the ultra-
wealthy was too low, and there were not enough disincentives for
economically unproductive investments. The result was destructively
rich people inventing destructive ways to try to multiply their
already excessive fortunes-- and predictably, the crash that
followed.
Let us say all of the above is true. Have either the Dems or Repubs ever
done anything to prevent any of it? I think not.
[...]

Both wings of the duopoly are primarily funded by the same Wall Street
interests, so both fail to represent the people.

Without publicly funded elections and instant runoff voting, democracy
is dead at the federal and state levels in the US.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 6/21/2011 1:04 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
"Ron wrote in message
...
On Jun 20, 6:11 pm, "Edward wrote:
Let's get the spending in harmony with the revenues. Is this rocket
science
or what?

The reason why Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II ran up huge deficits was
because it does in fact boost the economy. Of course this is
temporary. It's like putting extra spending money on the credit card.
They did this to mask the fact that their socio-economic policies were
gutting the middle class and ruining our economy. Then the pile of
financial fraud (a separate issue) finally hit the fan in 2008... and
because the debt was already so high, we have no effective response.

Paying down the debt will further tank the economy... there is no way
around it... we are damned either way. Lets say you maxed out your
credit when times were good, and then you suffered a big drop in
income. Is now a good time to pay down that debt? Maybe you could, but
with your income already lower, paying the debt off will make your
living standard that much worse. All of the politicians should know
this, but since ruining our economy and living standard seems to be
part of the "plan", no doubt they will eventually push this through...
and pin the blame on someone else.

I mostly agree with your above analysis, but it is time to bite the bullet.
Stop the spending even if it causes a catastrophe. Then we can start over
with a clean slate.


But the catastrophe is not necessary - a one-time wealth tax on the
super rich would fix the problem.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 2011-06-22, =?UTF-8?B?VMK6bSBTaGVybcKqbiDCsF/CsA==?= "" wrote:

Both wings of the duopoly are primarily funded by the same Wall Street
interests, so both fail to represent the people.

Without publicly funded elections and instant runoff voting, democracy
is dead at the federal and state levels in the US.

As Gore Vidal famously noted, "America has one political party with
two right wings."

--

-John )

On Jun 21, 11:29*am, Chalo wrote:
That's not true. *The super rich are not fairly taxed, and are not
currently putting their fortunes to uses that benefit society as a
whole.

I think you are missing the point... paying down the debt will result
in money being removed from the economy... at the time when we can
least afford to do it. It would be very painful.

"Tºm Shermªn °_°" " wrote in message
...
On 6/21/2011 1:19 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
wrote in message
...
Ron Ruff wrote:

The reason why Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II ran up huge deficits was
because it does in fact boost the economy. Of course this is
temporary. It's like putting extra spending money on the credit
card.
They did this to mask the fact that their socio-economic policies
were
gutting the middle class and ruining our economy. Then the pile of
financial fraud (a separate issue) finally hit the fan in 2008...
and
because the debt was already so high, we have no effective
response.

Paying down the debt will further tank the economy... there is no
way
around it... we are damned either way.

That's not true. The super rich are not fairly taxed, and are not
currently putting their fortunes to uses that benefit society as a
whole. The appearance of gratuitous, pointless financial derivatives
like CDOs were naked evidence of two things: taxation of the ultra-
wealthy was too low, and there were not enough disincentives for
economically unproductive investments. The result was destructively
rich people inventing destructive ways to try to multiply their
already excessive fortunes-- and predictably, the crash that
followed.

Let us say all of the above is true. Have either the Dems or Repubs ever
done anything to prevent any of it? I think not.
[...]

Both wings of the duopoly are primarily funded by the same Wall Street
interests, so both fail to represent the people.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps both the Repubs and the Dems
represent the people perfectly?

Without publicly funded elections and instant runoff voting, democracy is
dead at the federal and state levels in the US.

Democracy, like capitalism, is not perfect but it is still better than all
other systems.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Chalo wrote:
Ron Ruff wrote:
The reason why Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II ran up huge deficits was
because it does in fact boost the economy. Of course this is
temporary. It's like putting extra spending money on the credit card.
They did this to mask the fact that their socio-economic policies were
gutting the middle class and ruining our economy. Then the pile of
financial fraud (a separate issue) finally hit the fan in 2008... and
because the debt was already so high, we have no effective response.

Paying down the debt will further tank the economy... there is no way
around it... we are damned either way.

That's not true. The super rich are not fairly taxed, and are not
currently putting their fortunes to uses that benefit society as a
whole.

Not fairly taxed? Or just over paid?

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/co...tent/12333.htm

$180,001 and over $55,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

That is the highest tax threshold in Australia for individuals income tax.

Unless you actively avoid paying tax, which I realise happens, it seems
like quite a hefty tax bill.

It seems difficult to understand how someone can be worth $180,000 , yet
those that sit at the top are often paid far more.

--
JS.