Forum Post: Lacking Responsibility
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 27, 2011, 2:15 p.m. EST by cubedemon
(185)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If those who could not succeed in America today were completely to blame, lacked responsibility and extreme internal locust of control is correct should it not be possible for the advocates for self-responsbility to tell exactly in concrete and in specific terms what they did wrong step by step,why it was wrong, what the correct path is, and why this path is correct?
This I have to hear, from someone other than the one that has recently posted, as it is missing a hella lot of history.
...and people say I'm retarded. How does this answer my question? The truth is the responsibility advocates lack substance. All they do is parrot their hackneyed abstract phrases which say nothing. It is like on that movie idiocracy when they say "Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes." Metaphorically, do you responsibility advocates know what an electrolyte is?
Easily.
PART 1
Mistake 1: National Bank Act of 1864; causing two variations in banking: State Banks and National Banks. (Why? creates a schism of banking and assumes
privately owned and less regulated banking institutions are more trust-worthy than State regulated and member banking institutions which were feared to be
corrupted by State representatives)
Mistake 2: Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which introduced the Federal Reserve System for centralized banking and pulled all State Banks and alike into being
Federal Reserve Members governed by a Board of Governors elected by the President of the United States at odd intervals. (Why? Due to not addressing
National Banks, grows the schism of two bank types into the introduction of a central banking ideology, and thereby creates the Banks Bank potential; but does
create the Federal Reserve System and Member Banks, thereby instituting Federally regulated banking infrastructure; unfortunately, National Banks are not
applied)
Mistake 3: Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 which forced a separation of Deposit and Investment Banking institutions; thereby causing many institutions to split into
subsidized specialty banks of each other. (Why? may not seem like a mistake, and it wasn't too much of one, but it becomes one later)
Mistake 4: Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 and Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982; which combined
allows individuals to draw loans, such as mortgages, beyond their asset worth; and reduces regulations upon which the National Banks are restricted in floating
money. (Why? More people probably need a "why", for how this could possibly be seen as good; simple really: the 70's were terrible and it was an idea to try to
get the economy on its feet again. It worked...well, sort of. It worked, but it also accelerated lending. That may sound good to some ears, but in long-term that
turns out to be akin to Forest Gump pushing the gas pedal down and never letting up after someone asked Forest to give the old clunker a punch of gas when
trying to get it started. It got started, but Forest just never heard anyone tell him to take his foot back off the pedal, so he's now racing off at 130mph in the
clunker.)
Mistake 5: Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 which repeals the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, but does not repeal or amend other primary acts. (Why? The above
separated subsidies in Mistake 3 then were allowed to reunite into one institution, and with the subsequent fallout almost a decade later, mergers after bailouts
caused exactly these kinds of unities between institutions of investment and deposit; if they had not already taken place for nominal business interests. This
would be fine, considering we're in centralized banking in America - so fewer schisms is more logically ideal, except that Mistake 4 and Mistake 1 combine into
now creating National "Super-Banks" that can lend beyond their means, extend lending to individuals well beyond their worth, partaking in investment portfolios
and assets as well as deposit banking (the latter being of lesser interest and more the "store front" business, with advertising investment services to customers),
and during a financial crises, Mistake 2 creates the monetary infrastructure which allows for National Banks that are overly extended on floated worth to receive
monetary loans to pull out from financial ruin of the National Banks.
PART 2
Now, this isn't directly the problem. The problem is that the individual has to take out loans in some fashion to achieve Education. Education to achieve occupation; at least, that's the hope. And the individual will, inevitably, be in debt to at least one National Bank institution for sizable amounts of money.
Later, that same individual will want to attempt to start a family - most likely while still in debt from education. This will create a need for home loans and the like. These home loans will generate further debt. Medical coverage may not be provided by the company that they work for, may be too low of quality, or may require monetary FSA investment by the individual
which may need to be achieved by the individual via private loan from - most often - a National Bank.
Sum total here means that the individual is just constantly in debt to institutions which are ramping up generating interest potentials without regard to any
advancement of the individual's liberty from debt, and there's no free market competition for educated workers. There's no fight over who will hire them. It's more
the other way around, a free market fight over who can get the jobs.
This all causes some problems. Like Public Debt soaring:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/USDebt.png/514px-USDebt.png
Income division increase (meaning, widening of gap between middle class and upper class)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg/800px-United_States_Income_Distribution_1947
-2007.svg.png
Declining College Completion Rates:
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/graduationrates.png
(that is quite simply the best graph representation of the current decline rates of education that I've seen, but if you want general sources, then there is the wiki
blip on it as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decreasing_graduation_completion_rates_in_the_United_States#Current_situation)
And, increasing unemployment rates: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/US_Unemployment_measures.svg/720px-US_Unemployment_measures.svg.png
As well as increased cost in education and medical coverage:
http://209.85.12.231/670/83/upload/p3523029.jpg
The last chart comes from this Federal handout:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/college_completion_tool_kit.pdf
PART 3
Essentially, what I believe would need to occur is a removal of National Banking (repeal of USC Title 12, Chapter 2) and force all banks to then be under the
Federal Reserve System (USC Title 12, Chapter 3), and then for a new Board of the Secretary of Education in each State established of which is tasked to
evaluate the budget requirements (through requests by schools) of higher learning (college, etc...) schools.
They then send their assessment to the Secretary of Education without mind to budget limitations. The Secretary of Education then passes this to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, who then forwards to the Federal Reserve Banks, who
then releases loans to the United States Treasury, who then passes this to the Secretary of Education, who then forwards to the individual State Boards of the
Secretary of Education mentioned previously, who then distribute this to the higher education schools as previously outlined in their charter of lending to the
Secretary of Education.
In these loan assessments are included the cost of tuition for students. Keep in mind, the Federal Reserve and Treasury make money on the interest, even when it's only a deal between the two of them (the Federal Reserve delivers
the larger portion of its earnings on interest to the Treasury, so the Treasury taking a loan actually generates the Treasury money). So no school actually needs
to be leaned or involved in the party of borrowing or lending to receive the money for the funding, as the interest from the juggling will accomplish similar rates just
from tossing back and froth between the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury.
Then, when the student exits, any company which highers them receives a tax break equal to that student's account in education per year equal to the number of
years that student was in school. (then remove 50-60% of the other tax breaks that exist for businesses)
If the individual is self-employing after education, then they (as the business; keeping in mind the idea of no separate rights retained by the business than the
individual does not mean that there is no separation between personal income and business' income, nor the taxes therein) receive the same upon their business
at half the rate for twice their length spent in school - and not applicable to their personal income.
So institutions of finance deal with the government, which generates interest earnings for both parties involved (if all banks are part of the Federal Reserve System
and National Banks are done away with), the 95th percentile continues to earn on their investments in those institutions since those institutions are generating
(even more than previous actually) returns on investments and loans through the government, the business sector invests more in the working force which
promotes employment loss reduction as a market competition (companies fight to hire so they can receive the tax credits; free market competition of employers
over workers, not free market competition of workers over jobs), the business sector pays less per employee on the book-balancing for the first 4 to 8 years
average (which allows for more business earnings, and higher wage payments, and more business support for supply of company medical plans), and the
working force (85th percentile and lesser) can focus their earnings on purchasing power of their own growth and start investing in similar manners as the 95th
percentile or starting more of their own ventures in the market capitals.