Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: What we got going on here is economic constipation.

Posted 7 years ago on Nov. 20, 2012, 6:39 a.m. EST by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

What with inheritance hardly being taxed at all and investment income mostly getting a pass too the concentration of wealth has become the biggest problem we got.

Now what we need is a removal of all special treatment for investment income coupled with a return to norms on upper income taxes, to unblock the money and get this economy going again. Examples of the blockage are:

Hidden money:


And all the money held in government debt, after all isn’t that government debt just government saying we won’t tax you, we’ll just borrow from you instead?




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by elf3 (4074) 7 years ago

My fear is we will look back and call these the good times - cynical sure - but corporations are showing no signs of stopping their current practices, and government is getting more corrupt each day. We are headed down a path to becoming a third world nation. Do you see any signs to the contrary?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

not at all really, about thirty years ago I noticed the trend and the forces at work and realized that the nation would fall due to the concentration of wealth in time, the math says it must, trees don't grow to the sky, I noticed how the think tanks were slowly and carefully changing the way people think so that even common sense seems alien to them, I spent many hours deconstructing their lies as the think tanks cranked them out, (in face to face debate, one against 3 to 12 at a time of the smartest cons the nation has to offer), so I know both the problem and I feel i see a path to correct it, but I see little support for doing it

[-] 3 points by elf3 (4074) 7 years ago

Well the housing bubble eventually burst I had a the same conversation today with someone as I did ten years ago about that - things will not go on like this people aren't able to keep up with this (the flippers are selling to eac hother regular people can't pay these prices.) Wall Street and the one percent are selling to each other - they have pummeled the middle class into dust and when the dust settles and they realize they're just trading stocks instead of selling them and no one is profiting anymore, the whole economy and stock market is going to crash - regular folks haven't kept up, aren't keeping up, and are no longer part of the economy, nor can they afford the cost of living on their stagnant wages (same as what occurred in the housing bubble).

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

I think I understand, really, it is very depressing on many levels.

Perhaps one can take comfort in this, we got in this mess over a forty year or so period during which it became paramount to cut labor costs in order to, at first compete with the Japanese. We humans are good at doing things, esp. we American humans and we over did it a bunch and now labor costs are way too low, if we can just get the word out we can fix this too. Now don't get me wrong in the process of cutting labor costs corporations have found that some people are really good at it, let's call them sociopaths for now, well these people are real good at firing people, some of them even like it, and so with a lot of these people running stuff now, it won't be easy, but it can be done.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Fighting Fiscal Phantoms


Published: November 25, 2012

These are difficult times for the deficit scolds who have dominated policy discussion for almost three years. One could almost feel sorry for them, if it weren’t for their role in diverting attention from the ongoing problem of inadequate recovery, and thereby helping to perpetuate catastrophically high unemployment.

What has changed? For one thing, the crisis they predicted keeps not happening. Far from fleeing U.S. debt, investors have continued to pile in, driving interest rates to historical lows. Beyond that, suddenly the clear and present danger to the American economy isn’t that we’ll fail to reduce the deficit enough; it is, instead, that we’ll reduce the deficit too much. For that’s what the “fiscal cliff” — better described as the austerity bomb — is all about: the tax hikes and spending cuts scheduled to kick in at the end of this year are precisely not what we want to see happen in a still-depressed economy.

Given these realities, the deficit-scold movement has lost some of its clout. That movement, by the way, is a hydra-headed beast, comprising many organizations that turn out, on inspection, to be financed and run by more or less the same people; dig down into many of these groups’ back stories and you will, in particular, find Peter Peterson, the private-equity billionaire, playing a key role.

But the deficit scolds aren’t giving up. Now yet another organization, Fix the Debt, is campaigning for cuts to Social Security and Medicare, even while making lower tax rates a “core principle.” That last part makes no sense in terms of the group’s ostensible mission, but makes perfect sense if you look at the array of big corporations, from Goldman Sachs to the UnitedHealth Group, that are involved in the effort and would benefit from tax cuts. Hey, sacrifice is for the little people.

So should we take this latest push seriously? No — and not just because these people, aside from exhibiting a lot of hypocrisy, have been wrong about everything so far. The truth is that at a fundamental level the crisis story they’re trying to sell doesn’t make sense.

You’ve heard the story many times: Supposedly, any day now investors will lose faith in America’s ability to come to grips with its budget failures. When they do, there will be a run on Treasury bonds, interest rates will spike, and the U.S. economy will plunge back into recession.

This sounds plausible to many people, because it’s roughly speaking what happened to Greece. But we’re not Greece, and it’s almost impossible to see how this could actually happen to a country in our situation.

For we have our own currency — and almost all of our debt, both private and public, is denominated in dollars. So our government, unlike the Greek government, literally can’t run out of money. After all, it can print the stuff. So there’s almost no risk that America will default on its debt — I’d say no risk at all if it weren’t for the possibility that Republicans would once again try to hold the nation hostage over the debt ceiling.

But if the U.S. government prints money to pay its bills, won’t that lead to inflation? No, not if the economy is still depressed.

Now, it’s true that investors might start to expect higher inflation some years down the road. They might also push down the value of the dollar. Both of these things, however, would actually help rather than hurt the U.S. economy right now: expected inflation would discourage corporations and families from sitting on cash, while a weaker dollar would make our exports more competitive.

Still, haven’t crises like the one envisioned by deficit scolds happened in the past? Actually, no. As far as I can tell, every example supposedly illustrating the dangers of debt involves either a country that, like Greece today, lacked its own currency, or a country that, like Asian economies in the 1990s, had large debts in foreign currencies. Countries with large debts in their own currency, like France after World War I, have sometimes experienced big loss-of-confidence drops in the value of their currency — but nothing like the debt-induced recession we’re being told to fear.

So let’s step back for a minute, and consider what’s going on here. For years, deficit scolds have held Washington in thrall with warnings of an imminent debt crisis, even though investors, who continue to buy U.S. bonds, clearly believe that such a crisis won’t happen; economic analysis says that such a crisis can’t happen; and the historical record shows no examples bearing any resemblance to our current situation in which such a crisis actually did happen.

If you ask me, it’s time for Washington to stop worrying about this phantom menace — and to stop listening to the people who have been peddling this scare story in an attempt to get their way.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on November 26, 2012, on page A27 of the New York edition with the headline: Fighting Fiscal Phantoms.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

This is a hostage crisis! An occupancy! Economic terrorism!

Can you think of a dastardly economic tactic of coercion that Big$ IS NOT engaging in?? Bitch McConnell actually stated on the Senate floor, that Non-Cons are not for job creation, they're for job destruction!!!

It's Class War, we're losing, NOW we must fight back.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

They say "no tax increase" and Obama has already started out giving them spending cuts! I wish he and the Ds would be firm about NO spending cuts as they are about NO tax increases, then we could get the talks started.

We do need some tax reform though even entitlement reform take Social Security when it started most the money paid out was in wages today most the money is made other ways, we need to keep SS current we need to apply the tax to first dollar to last all forms of income, that's not a starting point that's what we should be insisting on.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

You simply overlook the power of RW propaganda! and the extent of censorship!

Prog-Talk from coast to liberal coast has been snuffed. NPR is toothless and neutered. MSM is 1% owned, Fox Lies and RW hate-Lie radio operate/agitprop 24/7/365/every city with complete impunity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tax the Fucking Rich!!!!!

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 7 years ago

We must also force mega corporations (such as GE that has a tax rate of negative ..... yes -45.3%). That means 45.3 % of their profit came from YOUR tax money ...... not from selling their products! What a business !! What a scam !! No wonder we're going broke!

REVEALED: The 30 American Companies That Paid Less Than $0 In Income Tax Over The Last 3 Years

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-30-american-companies-that-paid-less-than-zero-income-tax-from-2008-2010-2011-11?op=1#ixzz2DRo39idk

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

thanks for the links sparky

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 7 years ago

Glad to FF. This is why we need to pay special attention to this tax issue coming up. Not just individual taxes, but especially corporate tax. Most people don't feel this issue affects them directly - but they're robbing America's Treasury !

General Electric

'08-'10 Profit: $10,460,000,000

'08-'10 Tax: $-4,737,000,000

'08-'10 Rate: -45.3%

BTW - Both sides want to cut corporate taxes.


[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

They say that in 1993 we were below the normal on corporate tax rates now they say the world has dropped below us, I agree we should be leaders toward raising them but at least the Ds want to tax the offshore accounts and such to offset the costs, most people say the D's plan would bring in more tax dollars from corporations.

I am disappointed that so many Ds seem to want to keep most of the Bush tax cuts, it was bad when it passed and it's bad now. I do see a number of Ds saying let the whole thing expire, that's 4 trillion in debt reduction, now if we do about two dollars of tax increase to one dollar of cuts and focus the cuts in prisons and militarily to close the rest of the gap... ahh OK just daydreaming a bit.....

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 7 years ago

Austerity is a race to the bottom and that's where both parties are taking us.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Obama has put his plan out there 1.6 trillion tax increase, 400 billion spending cuts, cutting is bullshit when we are so flush as a nation overall, what with car elevators and all, even so there is reality and ideal, to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, will kill you every time.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 7 years ago

"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" is like saying "Here, take these crumbs and be happy we gave you anything at all." I heard the prez use that quote against the public option. As far as BO's plan - that's just his opening bid. We'll have to see where he settles.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

did I tell ya to be happy?

But pretending there no difference between the Ds and the Rs is like being a creationist or climate denier, no problem can be solved if truth is ignored, sure there are many things that the administration does that I might not if I were in charge, but to say you support a movement based on addressing the wealth inequality and then not acknowledge the huge difference in the policies between the Ds and Rs helps no one.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 7 years ago

If the only information I based my opinion on was delivered by the mainstream media, I may agree with you. Fortunately, that is not the case.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago


Just because the main stream reports it, doesn't make it a lie, may not make it true but it's not an automatic lie either, you're a smart guy sparky, I have a hard time believing you don't see the difference, it just may be another inconvenient truth. I understand how the Greens need to tell that lie just as the Ds and Rs tell their lies, but there is no solution worth doing that is based in a lie.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 7 years ago

I didn't claim that every utterance that the MSM is a lie, that would be too obvious. What they use is political spin.

Wasn't it a wake up call when congress did this:

New Bill Legalizes Government Propaganda and Disinformation on American Citizens


I know you're a smart guy too, and I know you've seen this, but you should watch again :


Cheers ;)

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

follow up, Here's the danger I see we let the things we don't like about the whole system take center stage and forget to apply pressure directly on wealth inequality and nothing gets done about that because after all everyone in the 1% would rather not face the fact that they are taking way more from the economy than they should be. So make a lot of noise and points about how our freedom is being restricted (because it is) we sound a lot like the TEA Party so that must mean we hate high taxes too, since we're suddenly not saying much about that, because we might get "co-opted" if we sounded too much like Democrats.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

When it comes to defending wages the Ds are miles ahead of the Rs, if we can't move forward acknowledging that fact then we are already hurting ourselves by deigning truth. and it doesn't matter where you get your info, if you can't see the huge difference between the Ds and the Rs then you have already lost, the only real power people have is the vote and any votes that don't act to defeat a Republican is a stake in the heart of America. We must kill the GOP if America is to survive, pressing the Ds on these other things will be easier without the Rs to give them cover, but I see no threat as great as the wealth concentration and only the GOP is fighting to make that worst.

Here's a well know D talking about economic policy if you don't see how much better it is than the Ryan Plan then well hell I know you can see the difference.


[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 7 years ago

I know your heart's in the right place man, but you gotta unplug from the TV. The media writes the fictional movie that you describe.


[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

In the 60's they were deep into Democratic politics, and knew damn well Nixon was the enemy, why do you think Johnson didn't run and maybe you remember a fellow name McGovern?


Labels can be useful when deciding things like who should write policy, if we don't change the people we can't change the policy, and politics ain't pinochle.

If we are to move the minds of enough people to change things we must speak in broad terms.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

It may be a useful lie for the Greens to say that there are no major differences, but it is still a lie, even now the GOP are slaying the unions in Michigan, a move to support the 1% while the Ds are there supporting the unions, deigning reality by calling it staged or movies or MSN helps no one.

No party is perfect, but the GOP is about as close to perfectly evil as anything can get.

Sure it would be nice, if it were the sixties and we could shout about whatever, but things have gotten much worse since then and we should start working on a plan that will actually work, killing the GOP will actually work.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 7 years ago

MSM = Main Street Media

IMO, attaching labels to individuals and then attacking them helps no one. That is what KEEPS us divided and that's by design.

I expect to see Michigan unions receive about as much support from the D's in DC & the WH, as Wisconsin did. Most of the support will come from the local D's in office.

As far as the protests of the 60's and 70's ................. did you live through it? I did! I spent my last yrs of HS expecting to get drafted into a trumped-up, BS war (most were drafted 1-3 months after graduation), and having to decide whether go or move to Canada. A lot of kids died man! For nothing! Many were my friends!!!!!!! Fortunately for me, the draft ended 3 months before I graduated. It wasn't a bunch of hippies, partying and shouting about "whatever". They were protesting for their very lives!! Is that not a worthwhile cause to you?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Do you really think that it is fiction that the Ds support working class people far more than the Rs? Is it fiction that Obama wants to raise taxes on the top two percent? Or is it fiction that, that matters? To say there is no difference is the fiction and is written by the 1%.

There are lots of things to be rightly critical of, but lying never helps anyone, no matter how useful the lie, that's what the Ds and Rs do (and the Greens) tell useful lies.

Pretending that the Ds are perfect is no better (or worse) than pretending the Ds and Rs are basically the same.

I hope that a new path, one based on truth can be found.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 7 years ago

The differences you quote between the TWO parties, are simply the script to the movie taken straight from the MSM. And excuse me, but WTF are "useful lies"? Can you define them?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I agree. Allowing wealth to be passed on without a fair tax just encourages more idle rich anyway.

The incentive to work hard and innovate should not betaken away from the children of those who HAVE worked hard & did innovate.

It's better for the society to get money back into the system, instead of sitting in a bank earning interest on some investment that creates no products, & no American jobs.

Great post.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

The children of the rich are timid by nature their grandchildren even more so, it has put a huge drain on the economy to support these third and forth generations of Royals.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

the idle rich. They feel entitled without having worked for the wealth, or 'building it'! The whole country is better if we can convince the wealthy to do there fair share.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

many make their living by appeasing family members, they learn to value appeasement above all else, then when it's their turn they expect the same

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

True that. Time to pay the piper.

[-] -3 points by mapleLaneser (-120) 7 years ago

Now what do we do?? steal the toys out of their sand boxes??

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

taxes are not stealing

we tax them till all the debt is paid in full then the money will be back in their hands with no safe government bonds to buy and they will have to create some jobs if they want their money to work for them, after all what choice do they have? go to work themselves? Can you Imagine Paris Hilton doing a real job? Do you think she could earn in a month enough for one of her night outs?

[-] -3 points by TheRazor (-329) 7 years ago

So i am guessing you are against foodstamps, welfare, free healthcare, which discourages incentives and working hard?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I support the safety net (welfare, foodstamps) for those truly in need. Furthermore I reject your assumption that these benefits discourage hard work. In fact I know 1st hand that most people work hard to get off of welfare.

Healthcare should be free for all, and has nothing to do with working hard.

[-] -1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Trying to revive the partisan atmosphere in order to regain control of the conversation? The game is over.

[-] 0 points by corazonroto (7) 7 years ago

There are billions of dollars of waste and fraud in the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program (EUC08). Money meant for our weak economy and millions of struggling workers and families, has been denied and wasted due to errors the incompetent federal government published in their implementation of this critical Recovery Act program ($97 billion spent since 2008).

The government errors were challenged in court and refuted for one claimant in California, but the feds REFUSE to honor the precedent request for this case that would expose their errors. State and Federal officials intend to protect themselves before they help anyone else. They won't admit these mistakes and our country suffers for it (unemployed man, woman and child):





[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

they only been wastin' money since '08? odd

the amount you speak of is hardly a drop in the bucket EXXON has got more from the government over those years by far and just keeps piling up the money and raising gas prices, when we got corporations stealin' by the trillions beatin' up on overworked government people ain't too appealing to me

[-] 1 points by corazonroto (7) 7 years ago

I did not realize it was a "contest"? Go after whoever wastes the most the longest?

How exactly did EXXON get in the "position" it has to do all that wasting and harm in the first place? How did they get away with what they did and continue to do? Who gives them all that money.

I think the government is at the roots of the problem is all. Mega corporations don't get that big without shady government involvement one way or the other (lobbying, crony legislation, writing their own regulations, white collar crooks never prosecuted, on and on).

If you stop EXXON from doing EVIL=GREAT! What about the next EXXON or all the other shady corporations combined? Why not force the government to use alternative energy sources and cut EXXON out? (of course they will get that money too sadly).

I say fight the fight individually against the EXXONs AND step it up against our wasteful and corrupt government. It seems they are getting a "pass" from all sides when they enable all of this mess in one way or another. You will be fighting corruption forever in corporations if we cannot fix the broken government systems that allow them to do what they do. If they are "defeated", another EXXON will just spring up,as the free market feeding frenzy keeps going because the government likes it that way. During the recession WE SUFFERED and THEY ALL profited. Why stop that? (if you are them). We should at least try...

Government people overworked? Have you seen their schedules? I used to do lighting for concerts and special events. Those people are overworked. The poor troops we have "shanghai'd" into multiple tour after tour in our endless empire wars are overworked. Teachers who get no love and no pay are overworked. Nurses and medical staff trapped in the insurance nightmare get no sleep nor respect know what it is to be overworked.

Government people? Overworked? Proof?

Again, somehow, unemployed folk get ignored. Millions of them are victims of government abuse of authority in my "little" fight. Among all the corruption and greed from the EXXONS of the world, our government screwed millions of people and our economy out of billions for the past four years during an emergency economic crisis.

Fight EXXON and the others. Step up the fight against the government corruption, waste and enabling of corporate malfeasance. AND help the unemployed and economy?

That's the start of a good path to stop economic stagnation and much more...charging in to fight the biggest baddest and ugliest bully over and over until the end of time is noble and sometimes needed...but in the end it just opens the door for more bullies to step up into the vacuum.

Sorry...I don't think I'm trying to beat up on "government people" as a whole. THE SYSTEM is the target. As for people who are at the bitter roots of it all, it is just a handful of crooks at the higher levels of the food chain as always. Like EXXON, there are many good folk in the "ranks" just trying to take care of their own. 1% vs 99%.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

In a democracy isn't hating government a bit like self hatred?

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

At what levels would you tax inheritance? What exceptions would be given? Remember that there are many middle class parents that preserve wealth soley for their hiers usage. And there are instances where sudden death creates a host of issues, especially when the wealth may be tied in home, farm, business, etc. should that be just taken away? I say no. There is no reason that wealth accumulated by parents should be taken upon death. The basis has already been taxed, and the gains are the result of good investing or valuation of property. Why should that be a penalty on a family. Farms would be instantly lost to who: the governement! Land would go back government. Homes would go back to governement. Cars,property, etc. What if the children are young? Do they just go live in the street? People talk of 90% tax. I am saving as much as possible to be able to provide my children a good future, provide them opportunity to purchase homes, etc. why would that be a bad thing. If inheritance is taxed at 90%, no one would ever save anything as they would lose it upon an untimely death. You would drive the savings rate to zero, and long term investing would also suffer considerably, which then affects capital markets, etc. I believe you should think carefully about this in the attempt to attack the 1%.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Why should those who have benefited from all this tax cutting and economy stimulating not be ask to pay anything on the debt ? It is more fair to let those who have benefited from the debt to pay it, also it is the top .001% or so that have paid for every election for the past forty years, or more. What's wrong with saying you have to pay the debt ran up by the people you gave money to so they could borrow the money in the first place.

As far as your question i would say the first 5 million gets a pass so middle class people can build and pass on some security. Then a 99% tax till the debt is paid in full, that way no one gets hurt and everyone who stands to inherent can live out their lives in security.

BTW nothing "goes to the government" it all goes to market and the government debt gets pad, the asset goes into new hands to be worked.

[-] -2 points by RedDragon (-161) 7 years ago

100k deposited now returns .06% interest. Tomorrow that 100K will be worth less than it is today; this is done intentionally to move the private investor into bonds thereby allowing this country to grow its debt at much lower interest rates.

So we - the middle class and wealthy - are already subsidizing national debt. And this IS a tax. And it's a heavy tax in the sense that the future is continually diminished.

Who buys bonds? Well, conservative investors buy bonds and they are quite often the middle class retiree. For this reason I think inheritance should be zero taxed at any amount under one billion; second generations have a long history of spending their inheritance which promotes economy and third generation and beyond are irrelevant due to inflation.

Giving one's life savings to government; why? I am totally befuddled here.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Investing and benefiting from purchasing bonds is not a tax. Sorry. Can't even say that's a good try.

Hard to believe anyone would protect the wealthy from tax increases but the wealthy are very influential.

Look at it this way. If the wealthy do their fair share it will reduce your childrens national debt burden.

Hows that?

[-] -1 points by RedDragon (-161) 7 years ago

I think you need a serious dose of reality: ten of the richest fifteen Congressmen are Dems.

Every month this Congress is in office it costs the middle class millions in savings because inflation and the cost of living are outstripping the rate of return. It IS a tax in that we are subsidizing the national debt.

What low interest rates do is make our national debt more palpable. And so, very likely, we will see more QE very soon.

How many in Congress refinanced their homes last year?

And yet many still lost money because they have failed even themselves.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Reality? You clearly are out of touch with reality to say "very likely, we'll see more QE" The reality is that more QE was announced weeks ago. Unending QE. So.

The wealth of a particular pol has never been the issue. Perhaps the favors they do for they 1% oligarch campaign contributors, but mostly where they stand on the issues is what matters.

EG" Rockefeller very rich, usually votes to my liking but never votes how I like when his coal state interests come up.

The issues/policy is what matters. Not how much money they have.

[-] -1 points by RedDragon (-161) 7 years ago

The fact that QE was announced does not make it so; many had hoped to see an end to QE.

The wealth of particular pols is at the heart of our economic issues. How much did Pelosi benefit in just the first two years of the Obama administration?

Where they stand on issues matter... and where does congress stand on monetary policy? Where does it stand on issues of the poor? How many on food stamps to the the benefit of JP Morgan? And now that we have grown that free food market, how much has that benefit to the starving been cut?

This is not a case of the 1% owning Congress; it is a case of rich greedy Congressmen selling legislation and the tax dollars that favor CEOs and corporations.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I think if the pro 1% conservatives would stop blocking the jobs bills, increased minimum wage, and increase tax on the 1%, we will begin to reduce the food stamp recipients the Bushes 'great recession created.

Right? Can we agree on that?

[-] -1 points by RedDragon (-161) 7 years ago

My projection would be continued decline for America's middle class. Which means the poor will also experience decline. Precisely for this reason: people like you do not hear us.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

You're projection is wrong! Much too negative & defeatist. I never buy fear mongering tactics because I know (like certain pols) that people become more selfish, greedy, & adopt the 'you're on your own' mentality when they succumb to the fear.

I know that this great progressive movement has only just begun! And with all the setbacks, and slow progress I know we will inevitably "get to the mountaintop".

No one can stop the inextricable march of fairness and equality.

The power of the people is far greater than the people in power!

Don't submit to the fear!

[-] 1 points by RedDragon (-161) 7 years ago

Dude, wake the F*ck up... put the pipe down, sign into rehab, whatever.

Everyday... everyday... the American middle class loses money to support this government and its debt. There is less disposable income, fewer consumer purchases, less travel. And it's going to impact future generations as well.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

You are correct. Much struggle yet remains. Very little progress has occurred. All the economic indicators are as you suggest. And they represent a good reason to be afraid, & to give up. They may even justify offensive insults towards those who disagree on the path forward.

But while I agree with the immensity of our problems I submit to you that giving up, insulting each other, vulgarity is not the answer.

There is a way forward. OWS provides that way. Put your faith in the people who are even now coming tohether in this great growing progressive movement.

Don't succumb to the fear. We SHALL overcome. But only if we work together against the 1% oligarchs who have stolen our govt and prey on us.

[-] 1 points by RedDragon (-161) 7 years ago

Beautiful sentiments... you could have been a contender.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I suspect you are being facetious. LOL

Oh well. I tried.

Don't be afraid. Find the strength to fight for the 99%. We need you.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Who's us?

[-] 0 points by RedDragon (-161) 7 years ago

We're America's middle class. We're predominantly - but not wholly - white people; who range in age from mid 30s to late 70s. Bear in mind, we are only "middle" class because we are neither rich nor poor.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

You're wrong here, just as you were about greed.

You do NOT speak for me.

Cease using terms like "us, "we", "them", etc.

You are speaking only for yourself.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

The establishment of a Royal class has destroyed our economy.

The interest rates are low because those holding the wealth are wimps and will not invest in job creating endeavors, but choose the safety of government debt, if we take away that option by eliminating the debt then the money will be forced to be put at risk or earn nothing, as it should be.

[-] -2 points by RedDragon (-161) 7 years ago

A Royal class? Interest rates are low because government cannot either afford its debt or restrain its spending. And every American pays for this in the devaluation of their dollar.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

America is among the most class fixed of all industrial nations.


Thus The Royal Class

(the things you mention would actually work to raise interest rates)

But we should levy enough tax to cover spending and pay off the debt.

[-] -3 points by RedDragon (-161) 7 years ago

The problem in my opinion is that it is not class fixed enough; if it were there would be no need of a NY Times study to define it.

I see this as a classless society; poor today, one can easily be rich tomorrow simply by grabbing some small portion of the market share which computing has greatly enhanced. The single biggest impediment is not so much race as it is a defeatist attitude of complacency.

This only presents part of the savings account as debt subsidy story but since you like the Times:


[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Interest itself being evil a low interest is most likely a good thing.

I never said anything about "race".

There is nothing easy about making a living, and hardly any become "rich".

There should be no interest payments at all so people would have to actually do something with their money if they want to profit from it, that would create jobs

[-] -2 points by RedDragon (-161) 7 years ago

Such thoughts regarding one's savings and future security are at odds with everything human. And I see no reason government should artificially hold interest rates at our expense; what they need to do is stop pissing away borrowed money.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

ahh you mean sitting on your ass doin' nothing while "your money" works for you, is like a human right to you?

they need to stop borrowing it in the first place, levy tax to cover what you spend, there should be an automatic tax increase on incomes over $250,000 if there is a shortfall in any quarter, that way when they're supporting the troops they will know they will be getting some calls from people who matter....

[-] -2 points by RedDragon (-161) 7 years ago

Absolutely, yes.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but interest is a human construct, like the Monarchy, if you feel bad about that imagine how King George must have felt.

[-] -2 points by RedDragon (-161) 7 years ago

What? Listen, as any working class individual can tell you, without some nest egg to fall back on all eventually starve. And if we are going to utilize the bank as a means of saving, and that bank is to use our money to grow its own, then it should pay interest. My generation has seen savings interest go from 5 or 6% to less than zero.

All our present monetary policy does is make debt more affordable for the Fed - poor people are subsidizing the national debt because our money is worth less with every passing day.

Why do you think the Chinese save? They do it because they do not inhabit our world of prosperity; in their world the money spent today is not so easily replaced, therefore a frugality. It is "natural."

George? Which King George are you speaking of?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Well now if you want to talk about what's real, for a minute, how about this, for real half of Americans die with less than ten thousand dollars to their name, so yeah I think we should look at that and tweak the rules so as to change that result, I suppose that would mean taxing the wealthy a bit more.

Now the whole interest thing as least we now agree it is a human ideal not some "basic right", and the problem we have is with all this government borrowing the banks aren't lending that money to people to create jobs, so the ideal and reason for interest has gotten upside down, I suppose it would straighten out if the government took the money from people that got it by way of tax and gave it back to them by way of paying off the debt, then any interest paid would actually be earned by putting the money at risk.

[-] -3 points by RedDragon (-161) 7 years ago

It's really bizarre that you would want to attack people for expecting interest on their savings. I would assume you have never attempted to save any money at all and that is a sad reflection on you.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

true I never saved much money, I spent it all on stocks of various sorts, it worked out for me because later people paid me more to buy them back

you seem more concerned about them that's got enough to worry about getting interest a lot more than them that don't, my experience has been that them that got enough to worry about such things are doing pretty well

PS where did I "attack" anybody?

[-] -1 points by RedDragon (-161) 7 years ago

Well, no, my concern is actually for the poor. The poor will always be poor if they do not make an effort to attain some level of future security.

My great grandfather died at the age of 32; my grandfather at the age of 57 following several years of illness. As a result, from the late 50s forward, my grandmother lived entirely on social security. She lived on a ultimate max of $256. a month, unaided by anyone, happily, and without so much as a single complaint, for over 40 years. Absolute truth.

My father started working at 7 years old; his father gave him a choice - contribute ten % or contribute half; he gave half to his parents until finally, like many of the early 50s, he landed in the service. From that day forward he saved and invested 5% of his income.

I started working in construction at 12; my son started working full time at 14.

Just as we do not assign our adult care to parents, we do not assign it to government, either. No one works forever; poor people, more than all others, have a need to save. With interest to offset inflation.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

I dont support this corrupt government taking money from dead people. I dont care if they are rich or not.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 7 years ago

Given that this corrupt government is going to take money from someone, why do you object to taxing large estates?

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Because honestly Im just not comfortable with the government saying "Ok you are now dead, give me half". Im just not down with that. Its kind of a cop out. If the government was handling its business as it should be, there would be no reason to do it.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 7 years ago

The mega wealthy often amass assets which have greatly increased in value, but have never been taxed, because they hold them rather than selling them. When unlimited amounts of this untaxed wealth are allowed to be transferred tax free to others upon death, it can escape taxation completely.

One of the best reasons for an estate tax is to prevent the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few families. IMO, it is far more fair to tax the transfer of huge fortunes than to increase taxes on money earned by working. The lack of an estate tax just adds to the already overwhelming tax advantages of the wealthy over those who work for a living. It really isn't taxing dead people, but the wealthy have done a masterful job of marketing it as a death tax to gain public support for laws which benefit only the most wealthy.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Well said. Enough of the free ride for the wealthy.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Well, seems how the estate is in the person's name who just passed away,, it is taking from the dead.

I understand what you are saying, and yes some assets do appreciate without a tax increase on them.

If our government wasnt so owned by a few rich, this wouldnt even be an issue. Unfortunately, the majority of the rich that will be affected by this have no influence on the government whatsoever, and probably do more good than harm to the overall economy through real, true small business.

If you had to be the person to go to the family and ask them to sign the papers to agree to hand it over, would you? I wouldnt be comfortable doing that. Our current tax system is fucked, totally outrageous and outdated. But this just seems to me to be kind of a despicable way of getting more of the pie.

Just saying, when you are dead you are dead, and what you got it what you got. Im not digging up the grave to take your watch and necklace :)

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 7 years ago

Why do you conclude that the majority of the rich affected have no influence on the government? The estate tax affects only about 1/3 of the top 1% - i.e. 0.3% . I would imagine that group has enormous influence.

I'd have no problem whatsoever, being the person to deliver the tax bill to the family. Nobody is talking about taking grandma's necklace. That' an emotional appeal that has no basis in reality.

I'm curious, would you see it differently if rather than tax the estate, the recipient of inherited wealth were taxed on amounts received ?

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Like I said, Ive known business owners who when they die would fall in that category. No influence on the feds whatsoever. None. Just good business owners.

And seems how our gov has proven time and time again what is important to them, Im really not thrilled with giving them even more money to pillage with.

As far as taxing it on the recieving end, same thing. The problems are much higher up than those with millions handing it down to their kids. Much higher up. The entire system is fucked.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Perhaps you would feel better if we tax it when it is transferred to the living. Who didn't earn it. And no they didn't build it, And who is just reaping a windfall of income without paying income tax.

Why should they pay income tax! The rest of us do. Enough with the free ride for the wealthy. They should be honored to do their part.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Why do you keep focusing on the dead instead of the living?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

It is our government if it doesn't do what it should it is our fault.

I'd much rather pay taxes after I'm dead, this being able to establish family wealth that last forever is nothing but ego, and ego is the enemy.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Ya, wanting to make sure your family is taken care of for a very long time after you are dead is stupid.

How you guys can look at this government, and how they spend our money on war and bailouts and QE, and think that we should be giving them MORE money to fund all this corruption, is beyond me.

I want SS and Medicare, medicare for all in fact. But simply throwing more money at them is only going to encourage them. Similar to voting for them. They get the votes, they take the money, and then they do whatever the fuck they want with it.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Did I say it was stupid?

Most everyone would make their child King if they could, that's kind of my point.


[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

you can't take stuff from dead people, they're dead