This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Obama Redirects From A Broke US Government By Playing The Class Warfare Card, Focuses On "Millionaires And Billionaires"
In what appears to be an increasingly tenuous attempt to redirect focus from terminal federal government failure through the imposition of yet another round of class antagonism, Barack Obama, as part of his earlier address to the nation, stressed that more revenue "must be part of any deficit-reduction deal" and criticized Republicans for protecting tax breaks for "millionaires and billionaires" in the process even invoking users of corporate jets (despite that fact that he himself boasted using the $56,000/hour taxpayer funded Air Force one to travel the 110 mile distance between Washington DC and Williamsburg, VA). As the WSJ puts it: Obama "staked out his position in budget negotiations, which have reached a critical phase and increasingly appear to hinge on which side wins the public-relations battle." Well-aware of the dead end trap that Bernanke finds himself in namely that monetary policy alone is now (or ever) powerless to fix the economy (although it sure would do miracle for the Russell 2000... and hyperinflation), and that a fiscal stimulus is currently unpassable, Obama dragged out the strawman, suggesting "that some initiatives designed to stimulate the economy in the short term should be included in a final deal, singling out a yearlong extension of the payroll-tax break for employees, which expires in January." The bottom line is that as the $4 trillion budget cutting goal is completely unattainable (something the Republicans have claimed is a priority in allowing a debt ceiling hike, yet which is nothing but a PR bluff), Obama has instead once again resorted to what he does best: foment class antagonisms within America, by singling out the rich versus the poor. Ironically, as a WSJ commentator puts it so eloquently, "Obama clearly wants all Americans brought down to a shared level of misery --- except, of course, our federal overlords who will continue to demand their own personal jets, international family travel at taxpayer expense, lifetime health benefits while being excused from the ravages of ObamaCare, and of course their recurring exemptions from all other laws that they impose on us lowly serf taxpayers. Obama wants class warfare? Well he got it: Americans vs their elitist, corrupt, irresponsible, thieving government." One can hope that the final outcome of said warfare here will be more effective than any and everywhere else, where said "governments" continue to dangle the carrot of (insolvent) entitlement program elimination should the population dare to change the status quo.
The WSJ summarizes Obama's speech:
"You can't reduce the deficit to the levels that it needs to be reduced without having some revenues in the mix," Mr. Obama said at a news conference on Wednesday that spanned a wide range of topics from the economy to gay marriage and Afghanistan and Libya.
"Deficit reduction, debt reduction should be part of an overall package of job growth over the long term," Mr. Obama said. "I think that it makes sense, as we're looking at an overall package, to see: Are there some things that we can do to sustain the recovery, so long as the overall package achieves our goals?"
"Democrats have to accept some painful spending cuts that hurt some of our constituencies and we may not like, and we've shown a willingness to do that," he said. "So the question is, if everybody else is willing to take on their sacred cows and do tough things in order to achieve the goal of real deficit reduction, then I think it would be hard for the Republicans to stand there and say that the tax breaks for corporate jets is sufficiently important that we're not willing to come to the table and get a deal done."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) reiterated Wednesday that a deficit-reduction package must contain big spending cuts and no tax increases or additional spending to stimulate the economy.
And while Obama was pumping up the rhetoric on the non-golf tour, and attempting to regain a shred of credibility with a general public that has long since lost all interest in both the hope and the change, Tim Geithner was waxing philosophically yet again and threathening with eternal damnation all those who dare oppose America's replacement of one tapped out credit card with another.
Below is Geithner's full response to a Jim DeMint letter from May 26 in which the republican made the all too clear observation that a US default is purely in the eyes of the tax evader.
Dear Senator DeMint:
I am writing in response to your letter of May 23, 2011, regarding the statutory debt limit. President Obama is strongly committed to restoring fiscal responsibility, and he has put forward a specific framework and set in motion a process to work with both parties to accomplish this critically important objective. Although agreement has not yet been reached, we have made progress toward that objective, and I welcome the statements by leaders of both parties making clear that the debt limit must be increased in order to protect America’s creditworthiness.
The debate over the debt limit can seem esoteric, but a failure to resolve it in the near term would have painful implications for people in every walk of American life. It would have a serious impact on members of the Armed Forces who depend on paychecks to feed and house their families. Social Security recipients who subsist on their monthly benefits, veterans who rely on the government for their retirement and health care needs, and small business owners or employees who provide goods and services to the country.
In your letter, you suggest that the debt limit should not be raised, and instead the federal debt be “capped” at the current limit. You further propose that after the government’s borrowing authority id exhausted in August, the United States should for some indefinite period pay only the interest on its debt, while stopping or delaying payment of a broad swath of other commitments the country has made under the law.
I have expressed my concerns about this idea before, but I will restate them to be clear: this “prioritization” proposal advocates a radical and deeply irresponsible departure from the commitments by Presidents of both parties, throughout American history, to honor all of the commitments our Nation has made.
The debt limit applies to past decisions of Congress. Increasing the debt limit is necessary to allow the United State to honor obligations previously authorized and appropriated by Congress. You explained this well in 2010 when you said:
You don’t have much choice if you charge something on your credit card. You have to pay it, and that’s effectively what this debt limit is … we’ve already spent the money. The question is now, do we shut down the government, or do we fund what we’ve already done.
Increasing the limit does not increase the obligations we have as a Nation; it simply permits the Treasury to fund those obligations Congress has already established. As James A. Baker III, Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, informed Congress in 1987:
I should stress that defaulting on already outstanding, validly incurred obligations has far graver effects than halting operations of the Government when spending authority is allowed to lapse, such as when there is a delay in action on appropriations. A failure to pay what is already due will cause certain and serious harm to our credit, financial markets and our citizens; it is not remotely similar to a lapse in authority to incur new obligations. (Emphasis in original.)
The statutory debt limit is not and never has been, as you argue, a “budget enforcement mechanism” that can be used to implement spending reductions by selectively defaulting on obligations previously approved by Congress. Our Constitution provides that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” When Congress determines that certain commitments in the law should be altered or terminated, those decisions must be effectuated through enactment of legislation, not by attempting to coerce the Treasury to renege on existing legal commitments.
Even if the idea of “prioritization” were not so unwise, it would not be a mere exercise in “belt tightening,” as you suggest. The United States in now required to borrow approximately 40 cents for every dollar of expenditures. Your proposal would require cutting roughly 40 percent of all government payments. These deep cuts would be felt by all Americans, and they would risk throwing the economy back into recession.
You are also mistaken when you state that the Treasury has “prioritized” payments in the past. This is false. Never has the Treasury failed to meet any obligation as a result of a debt limit impasse, nor has Treasury ever “prioritized” payments. Congress has never failed to raise the debt limit when necessary. It is true that there have been failures at time to enact appropriations legislation, and this has caused temporary government shutdowns. Specifically, the 1995-1996 furloughs and suspensions of programs you refer to were caused by appropriations lapses, not a failure to raise the debt limit. But as Secretary Baker explained, there is no comparison in either cause or effect between a shutdown and a failure to increase the debt limit.
At its core, your letter is based on an untested and unacceptably risky assumption: that if the United State were to continue to pay interest on its debt — yet failed to pay legally required obligations to its citizens, servicemen and women, and businesses — there would be no adverse market reaction and no damage to the full faith and credit of the United States. Again, this idea is starkly at odds with the judgment of every previous Administration, regardless of party, that has faced debt limit impasses.
“Prioritization” also fails to account for how payments on principal would be made if investors were to lose confidence in U.S. creditworthiness. In August of this year, for example, more than $500 billion in U.S. Treasury debt will mature. Under normal circumstances, investors who hold Treasuries purchase new Treasury securities when the debt matures, permitting the United States to pay the principal on this maturing debt. Yet in the scenario you advocate, in which the United State would be defaulting on a broad range of its other obligations, there is no guarantee that investors would continue to re-invest in new Treasury securities. In fact, some market participants have already indicated that they would be disinclined to do so. As one of the major ratings agencies concluded in a recent report, failure to pay non-debt obligations “would signal sever financial distress and potentially imminent debt default,” prompting the U.S. sovereign rating to be place on “Rating Watch Negative.”
If investors chose not to purchase a sufficient volume of new Treasury securities, the United States would be required to pay the principal on maturing debt, and not merely the interest, out of available cash. Yet the Treasury would be unable to make these principal payments without the continued confidence of market participants willing to buy new Treasury securities. Your proposal assumes markets would be unconcerned by our failure to pay other obligations. But if this assumption proved incorrect, then the United States would be forced to default on its debt.
I understand that you have a different view of what would happen if the United States were unable, for the first time in its history, to meet its legal obligations. Nevertheless, I hope we can all agree that we should not and must not gamble with the full faith and credit of the United States. The consequences of miscalculation are too grave. The full faith and credit of the United States is too precious an asset to risk. If you are wrong in your prediction, to quote then-Secretary Baker, “Future generations of Americans would have to pay dearly for this grave breach of a 200-year old trust.”
Ultimately, the notion of “prioritizing” payments is futile because the debt limit must be increased regardless of which spending path is adopted. There is no credible budget plan under which a debt limit increase can be avoided. In addition, a failure to enact a timely increase in the limit would have the perverse effect of increasing the government’s borrowing costs and worsening our fiscal challenges.
For all of these reasons, the idea of “prioritization” has been rejected by every President and Secretary of the Treasury who have considered it. It is unwise, unworkable, unacceptably risky, and unfair to the American people. There is no alternative to enactment of a timely increase in the debt limit. As President Reagan wrote in 1983:
The country now possesses the strongest credit in the world. The full consequence of a default — or even the serious prospect of default — by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass the legislation before the Congress adjourns.
I appreciate your attention to this important issue and I look forward to working with you and other Members of Congress in the weeks ahead.
Sincerely, Timothy F. Geithner
(incidentally, the bolded text above is an admission by the Treasury Secretary that the US financial system is a ponzi).
Zero Hedge will shortly present a technical update from the perspective of US debt, on just what is so magical about the August 3 date that everyone keeps referencing.
»
- 20852 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Carl Sagan, the Squirrel ain't.
I'm all in favor of 'raising revenue' by canceling the ethanol farce, and the wind fiasco.
Squirrels are conservatives, dammit.
Class warfare in America is real. Whenever workers in America complain about income disparities they are accuse of class warfare. Whenever unions complain about being destroyed by crony capitalist politicians they are accused of class warfare. American billionaires and their corporations expect the working men and women of America to pay for their luxurious life style without complaining. Standards of living and standards of education are being destroyed for the average American so that the rich can get richer. The capitalist controlled media keeps awareness at a minimum - no real news - no real facts just sit-comes and Jerry Springer.
BRING OUT THE CAKE.
Like this is an entirely different world from the one Greece exists in. The Trader Community seems a tad compromised . . . altogether apart from its tragically broken market.
Wow Lenin would weep in joy after your speech comrade. Capitalist controlled media? Really? America's MSM is starting to make the Pravda and TASS seem less censored. Government is in bed with your evil rich people! Billionaires can't "make" working men and women do crap without the gun of the goverment. It's called Facism and you are falling for their stupid socialist promises.
Just don't go after the Trillionaires. What would we do without the Rotschild Banking Cabal.
eyup.
Fascism is having its turn, but this time without the Nazis, and with the world's reserve currency.
Plan accordingly.
and a first step is to realize that the opposite of whatever obama, geithner, et. al. say is closer to the truth. only what they do has useful informational content.
p.s. yak it may be called facism but it's spelled fascism.
HH, the Nazi's never died out, you know that. The current US military prowess is based almost in it's entirety on Operation paperclip. But that is a can of worms.
We are living the 4th Reich, mercifully, the hubris and SS (Short Sighted) bomb is about to go off on it.
Tick tick... and about time too.
ORI
http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/thoughts-and-a-heads-up/
RTA Bonesmen were the original Nazis. Harrimans, Bushes, Rockefellers, etc.
Zigackly LH. it's an old, old game. Prescott B., and then onwards before and after.
In reality, from my reading of history, we are looking at the final chapter in the life of the Holy Roman Empire.
ORI
+1 I only hope it is the final chapter.
Indeed Dollym.
Sure feels like it. World gone insane.
ORI
In my reading of history, the Great Work was planned long before the Holy Roman Empire. We are witness to but one ending age of the Platonic Year, known of course to ancient sky-watchers long before Plato. History does not begin at Sumer. As planned, what the Architects have built, they will destroy with the skill of a 'thousand points of light'. Just a thought.
Cheers.
+1 trillion. You are correct sir!
+1. I am getting tired of the same old marxist socialist class warfare playbook.
Buffett said that his class was winning.
Does government control big money or does big money control government. Come on man. It's obvious.
That's a bit of a chicken-egg question. One thing for sure is that government through bailouts, through ZIRPs, through IP law and through regulation that requires large scale resources to comply with creates big money for a select few and hampers the small businessman.
Reptiles were laying eggs millions of years before chickens were even thought of
-8 junks! Well said!
ZH seems to be filling up with Marxist junkers rather too quickly.
[edit] -10 junks now, already! Sunstein must must have them working night shift again.
10 junks is my new record. The spelling mistake must have really upset people.
Nope. It's the truth that gets their amygdalae firing...and they think that by 'junking' then nobody will believe you. Whether DHS trolls or ostriches, the thought process is the same.
You nailed it, you can tell from the 10 junk flags by Hillary's 'techno experts', with their multiple personality social media software.
Operation Metal Gear is online already? I was hoping it was angry hippies over at Media Matters.
Kneejerk much? Fact is, capitalism did best when it had a robust middle class, a bona fide chance of mobility among the classes, and an equitable enough distribution of the pie where everyone felt that they had a stake in the prosperity of their community, their state and ultimately their nation.
This is not a stable form of capitalism. Hell, it's not even capitalism. It's a crony corporate oligarchy.
Next time you get all Bill O'Reilly reflexive on us either tie that knee down or have a cold steak ready to put on you eye after your knee jerks into it.
Jesus, so many of us are programmed to respond, not think.
What's ironic is that the London-schooled and financed Marx was the one that developed the concept of 'capitalism', as opposed to 'free-enterprise' (big difference). For those who believe in the egalitarian and utopian myths of Marxism, I suggest a reading of 'Wallstreet and the Bolshevik Revolution' by Anthony Sutton. Marx was a frontman, as was Trotsky and his ilk. Recall what Lenin said about his pal Armond Hammer, "He's my favorite capitalist"[paraphrase]. It's all about control and they play both sides in a game of synthesis through thesis and antithesis. There are no heroes, only frontmen for the dominant minority.
Let's just all try to get this fucking strait right here right now.
It's not about the Poor and Middle class vs the Rich, as the dead stream media and the ruling class want it to be.
We are making our current fight about Sector Warfare!
It's public sector ruling class vs private sector.
For all those morons out there, get it fucking strait!
Not only that, but this slimeball already did exactly what he is condemning here. He priotitized debt payments when he stole from the bond holders of GM to pay off his union cronies.
He is starting to sould desperate and is getting tangled deeper in his lies. Wouldn't it be a shame if he goes down in history as the first president not just impeached, butfound guilty of treason against the American people?
(impeachment is impossible with a wholly corrupt government and judicial system unless the rats start turning on each other--not that that is an unlikely scenario either)
do you know shit? the unions took more cuts than the bondholders - what fables you spew
No the unions did NOT take more cuts than the bondholder. The unions wound up with GM equity (and more of it) after bankruptcy, and the billions in debt for the previous bailouts of the unions was forgiven.
To be on par with the GM bondholders, the UAW plans would have been turned over to the PBGC - because they too are bankrupt, just as when countless steel companies and airlines in this country have failed.
The normal agreement with bankruptcy is that the assets get sold, the debt holders get payed first and the stoch holders 2nd.
In practice the taxmax comes first, because they control who the gun of state point to. WIth GM indeed bond holders got shafted.
Chrysler was another one:got a huge government loan and recently payed it back early, Obama declaring it a win for the government. Chrysler could do this after surprisingly good numbers came out. This might be related to the gigantic gvt flaat replacement order for new cars they got. That is indeed what Mussolini called fascism.
I also like the part about "justly incurred debts". Does he mean the ones to the robo-signing extortionist banks, or the ones to fuel the military-industrial complex for unjust wars?
No, no. He is talking about Fannie/Freddie. You know, the debt that isn't officially counted as a liability (yet).
Regards,
Cooter
@ Michael, spot fukin' on bro!
Well said!
TS, Thanks bro.
A libertarian query;
How many Obama wars does it take to make a democrat head explode? 5 no. 6, 7?
This is not a riddle or joke question. I really want to know.
by Michael
on Thu, 06/30/2011 - 03:00
#1414688
Excuse me, USA Obama act of war #6 has commenced, 7,8,9?
U.S. Drone Targets Two Leaders Of Somali Group Allied With Al Qaeda, Official Says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/us-drones-target-two-leaders-of-somali-group-allied-with-al-qaeda/2011/06/29/AGJFxZrH_story.html
What do I know about markets?
I've been studying markets for the past 35 years, it's one of my hobbies. Really, it's my hobby.
That being said, I guess the Northern European banks will be going on a buying spree with that 100 billion Euro being added to Greece's tab.
OK boys, lets go get some of those assets for pennies on the dollar with all this free first use loot courtesy of Greece.
Anyway Greece is a really cool laboratory experiment we can see in real time.
Will Greece be the first great country of the Earth to capitulate and fall prey to the International Banking Cartel? This was their plan all along wasn't it? Then to move on to consume many more countries on the planet?
It'll be interesting to see in real time how this experiment turns out.
Who writes on paper for all to read US Foreign Policy?
The Council on Foreign Relations(Not an agency of the federal government) (CFR) that's who.
I said in a previous thread Glenn Beck is an Israeli ass-licker. Virtually all people in Mainstream Media TV and in Print are card carrying members of the CFR, ie Israeli Ass-Lickers.
Who writes US fucking foreign policy? Israel, that's who. Their Israeli lobby, the biggest lobby in Washington DC, makes sure of that. We may as well call it Israel/US Foreign Policy.
So why should we trust MSM reporters, again?
For those who remember the previous conversation;
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/glenn-beck-only-four-outcomes#comment-1407504 Lets see if this comment gets deleted. Snark.No one junked you. Are people starting understand?
Michael
The US is not the only culprits in the war games. Eh
and lets not forget the North American Terrorist Organization who are buying more, made in USA, bombs these days than they have ever bought.
Remember the victors write history. Give is 50 years over which time we change the education (brainwash) protocols and Mount Rushmore will have some new faces. Obama, Hitler, Napoleon.
peasants/serfs over-lorded by the Mandarin bureaucracy, or something like that... just not as severe (yet)
"It's public sector ruling class vs private sector."
No, it's about bankers and corporate elite controlling our government (and other governments) and sucking the US and its people dry (and other countries). It is not caused by capitalism or socialism, but by corruption. Don't be fooled by the Right vs. Left stuff. That is just a show to make us feel like we have a vote, and to keep us arguing among each other instead of realizing who is behind the trouble.
Our government works for the bankers and the corporations against other countries, and these days they are working together against us too.
ratso, you are very confused as to cause & effect and the real war on the middle class. the big coporatist enterprises are the government. the banks are the Fed, Fannie, Freddie, FDIC & a gazillion other government agencies. the military industrial complex is the state department. the big agricultural & pharm compaines are the FDA, the USDA, the DEA, ObamaCare, Medicare & the AMA. the oil compaines are the interior department. the big investors are the SEC. the big energy companies are the EPA. the unions are the education complex & the national labor relations board. the global compaines are our trade representatives in NAFTA & the WHO. I can go on and on.
what you should learn is that big government (which controls virtually all of our economy at this point) is the instrument to define classes. as long as it is big enough to be corruptible, it will be corrupted at the expense of the average stadard of living. as long as the Fed exists, it will devalue the currency at the expense of the lower & middle class. the only way to stop them... dismantle the enterprise. obama wants to give the government more power. go figure.
Well said
what you should learn is that big government (which controls virtually all of our economy at this point)
No, government keeps it from collapsing into oblivion, at behest of capital owners. You know, the ones with the most capital, the capitalists. Not that they can hold it off too long, but they will try.
Sort of. At this juncture, the government has been wholly captured. The problem we as plebs run into is whether or not to reduce the size and scope of the government. On the surface, it would seem a simple exercise; if we reduce the size and scope of the government, then price discovery can occur, competition increase, and the glass ceiling imposed by regulation might be lifted. However, in practice it is not so simple... the wealth gap lies in the tall grass, waiting to pounce on its unsuspecting traveler victims. The "head start" created by utilizing the spoils of the wealth gap may very well prohibit the "normal" (conceptual) function of markets.
In short, we are left with a quandry... the only way to narrow the wealth gap is through the strong hand of the government... but, in giving the government the power to confiscate wealth and narrow the gap, we firmly plant and water the saplings of our own demise and servitude. There must be a "safeguard" built in...
In order to best understand the perspective of "capital owners" you have to understand the concept of limited liability organizations and diversification FROM them... while they may retain significant amounts of wealth inevitably tied to the monetary system, they are also vehicles of pillage and plunder whereby large amounts of wealth are siphoned to private coffers... and, subsequently, converted from the ether into real assets. I think it would be fair to assume that a collapse of the economy would disproportionately (generally) hurt those with the most capital therein... however, in doing so, the wealth gap may actually INCREASE... sure, the pie is smaller, but the amount we get may even be relatively smaller than before. At this juncture, the most prudent of the principal actors have hedged both ways and converted from the ether a significant amount of their holdings... which will translate well into the subsequent currency/economic regime... (there is little/no way for those without capital to convert anything to carry through to the next regime).
My proposal is to let private lawsuits work their way through and contemporaneously flog the regulatory pony to enforce its laws and utilize its fangs and giant paws to claw back ill obtained gains (illegally obtained, all others are for private causes of action). Once this process is complete, we may slip into the night gracefully... without this... we will never have any closure... and it must be done on the front end or we risk not having enough collective bargaining power to implement it post collapse... this is our quandry. If we can turn back the clock of moral hazard, then our children may have legitimate existences, built upon the fruits of their own labor... if not, then we damn everyone [especially the prudent]. (and the latter seems to be our desired course of action).
[PS, sadly speaking, if the largest financial institutions are government dependents, you've got sovereign immunity issues (at the very least, the same concept applies as to why they should have immunity), given it will be the public coffers that make good on their lawsuit losses (and hence why they should NEVER have gotten any money to start with)].
"as long as it is big enough to be corruptible, it will be corrupted"
As long as it is few ruling the many, it will be corruptible.
True. And an interesting thought popped up. Since everywhere we look, the world is trying to breed/train Leaders... that automatically implies a silent willingness of the masses to be led.
ORI
Again this is another attempt to divert and divide and conquer. Not all public American billionaires are working for the Oligarchy. I don't know for sure, but I think someone like Mark Cuban isn't, just for an example.
The Oligarchy is far wealthier than any public billionaires and has much of their wealth hidden or sheltered in multinational corporations, therefore not taxable.
Attack the public billionaires who could actually help the cause of our freedom, while the super rich Oligarchs who hide their wealth, laugh at us tearing each other apart.
"Attack the public billionaires who could actually help the cause of our freedom, while the super rich Oligarchs who hide their wealth, laugh at us tearing each other apart."
You're right, without stopping free trade, there is no way to tax those that move jobs overseas, don't have to pay import taxes on the money and keep the money out of the country. Without free trade, tax increases do stimulate the economy by the rich working hard to avoid those taxes. It causes them to grow businesses with the money in order to make the money tax deductable, but keep their net worth growing. That increases employment, which increases taxes.
Your Marxist BS is just that, BS. You cannot simultaneously support labor and yet attack corporations. Where will that labor work? Labor is free to go where it is treated best. When a corporation does well, it improves the lot of all employees. When the water level rises, all of the boats go up. The myth of making money by abusing labor, aside from China and slave labor areas, has been disabused. Facism leads to wage disparity, unfortunately we have Facism in spades here in the US, where the government and the largest (non tax paying) businesses work hand in hand to ship work off shore and screw the tax payers by socializing losses. Try starting a business (I've started 4), learn to make payroll and then see how your perspective will change when the government is your silent partner for about 50% of your profits but not there to take the risk and the losses.
I am willing to bet that in the course of your comments on previous posts (I am assuming you have made some) you and many other ZH people have raised hell about many corporations here. The Fed, BoA, JPM, Fannie/Freddie and too many more to name are likely groups everyone here has justifiably pointed out as official parts of the problems.
I think I understand what you are saying - that corporations as corporations are not evil. But considering that the word "Ponzi" is used a lot around here I'd think you'd at least understand and perhaps agree with where Ratso was coming from.
The difference is the Ponzis we're talking about are schemes in which entry is voluntary.
Ratso agitating for the Ponzi scheme in which entry is compulsory, by threat of imprisonment.
Interesting how ratso defends the unions, then goes on to say how education is being destroyed for the average american. NEA anyone?
Bob Chanin, General Counsel to the National Education Association, recently retired after 41 years of service. In his farewell address to the NEA convention earlier this summer,
Mr. Chanin said the following:
“Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power.”
No, it's Americans who have destroyed education in America. It was better when a high school diploma used to be the equivalent of today's bachelor degree and only 10% went to college--the ones who were serious about learning. In the sense that we've always had free public education, the education system was democratic (ie, equal opportunity). Now "democratic" means that every mouth breathing low brow takes AP courses in high school and goes on to take watered-down courses for dummies in college (ie, equal outcomes). Meanwhile college gets to be more and more of a financial burden for families and students are locked into life-long servicing of non-dischargeable debt in what has basically devolved into a scam.
It is the students themselves who should realize that it is in their own interest to have high standards in high school where the kind of educational rot we have nowadays would not be tolerated. In the long run, this would eliminate the life-long hamburger-flipping servitude problem.
And it might be where labourers are treated the worst.
There is no myth about making money by abusing labour. Actually, China went against the trend of making money by abusing labour (probably why they are getting all that flak by US citizens as it goes againt their interests)
Work conditions in China have been consistently increasing. One can easily find worse conditions elsewhere.
In smithian economics, the hunt for cheaper labour is vital to allow the concentration of wealth on one area. After that, it is clear that US citizens always try to discuss semantics as to know whether looking for reducing labour costs relentlessly is abusive.
"Your Marxist BS is just that, BS. You cannot simultaneously support labor and yet attack corporations."
The problem with corporations is that they have grown too big to the point that they control the government. They've got the FDA doing special things for them like going after a doctor legally who had found a treatment for cancer that would put other treatments out of business. They also let the food companies get away with putting unlimited amounts of additives in the food. The military also lets corporations do things like charge $100 per load of laundry from and make it against the rules for soliers to do their own laundry. The banks also get the government to bail them out. They get away with this crap because they buy the government.
As for where workers will work its called small business. If there is a need, there will be people wanting to fill it so they can make money. Isn't that how capitalism works, if one fails another fills the need in the failure's place? Well, failure can come from them being too crappy to people. There were no corporations at the beginning of this country. Our founders hated the East India Trading company working with the British government against them. Well, on that founding ideal, I am in total agreement with the founders.
This isn't the Acropolis, collectivist troll.
It's not Haves VS Have-nots
It's Makers VS Takers (and we know which side your on)
Right on ratso! Fuck the deniers, they too blind or stupid (or compomised) to hear the truth. I can't get why Tyler is pumping this left/right koolaid bs here. He should know better. Surely he knows the facts. Like that tax revenue have been lowest as % of GDP in decades, that wage/disparity gap has never been larger, that unchecked consolidation across all industries - banking, media, pharma, oil, insurance are exploiting without regard / killing off our consumer economy and now controlling the Supreme Court, Congress, captured regulatory bodies, and the White House. Why rail against Obama is such righteous rage and indignation when he is one of them? Save the drama, we are not stupid. Well, not all of us.
Because when you understand the gangs, you understand the US?
Left/right is no koolaid bs as one reads the comments. Most posters here are people who got tossed out of the bowl, they feel betrayed by their respective gangs (left/right) but still wish they might make a comeback in the bowl cocoon.
If you understand the gang, you understand the US.
+1
Right on ratso! Fuck the deniers, they too blind or stupid (or compomised) to hear the truth. I can't get why Tyler is pumping this left/right koolaid bs here. He should know better. Surely he knows the facts. Like that tax revenue have been lowest as % of GDP in decades, that wage/disparity gap has never been larger, that unchecked consolidation across all industries - banking, media, pharma, oil, insurance are exploiting without regard / killing off our consumer economy and now controlling the Supreme Court, Congress, captured regulatory bodies, and the White House. Why rail against Obama is such righteous rage and indignation when he is one of them? Save the drama, we are not stupid. Well, not all of us.
You got that right, the class war is over. The US Empire is entering late-stage capitalist imperialism and all that entails: export the proletariat for cheap labor, constant resource wars, more and more militarization of the economy and society, rapid growth of a bloated and corrupt financial capitalist over-class and maintenance of a heavily propagandized police state( a police state is a huge industry btw) with constant economic crisis and the commoditization of everything .
+1
You got that right! The class war is over. The US Empire is entering late-stage capitalist imperialism and all that entails: export the proletariat for cheap labor, constant resource wars, more and more militarization of the economy and society, rapid growth of a bloated and corrupt financial capitalist over-class and maintenance of a heavily propagandized police state( a police state is a huge industry btw) with constant economic crisis and the commoditization of everything .
You speak the truth, comrade ratso.
Check out the following chart:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=XK
Average hourly earnings for non-supervisory employees discounted by the CPI versus after tax corporate profits discounted by the PPI.
From someone at least half-ignorant of all things USA: I thought "class warfare" is a meme trotted out every time
1) taxation or
2) Unions are discussed,
and then with the remark that sounds roughly: "this could hurt the economy, don't rock the boat"...
to 1: former Soviet Union Republics have now the simples of tax codes (fits on a few pages): everybody pays about 20%-22%.
Oligarchs hate it. Tax Lawyers hate it. State employees hate it. Therefore it must be...
Tyler: don't agree completely with the "Ponzi Scheme" theme: if you keep Government debt somewhere between 40% and 80% and manage it properly you have a somewhat positive effect. Italy kept it at 100% for longer then I care to count and it was so-so. Kept pensioners happy.
Only three countries ever repaid their debts, as far as I know: two (Zimbabwe and communist Romania) by crippling the economy and the UK from 1815 to 1900 (this was the most special case of all).
What I mean is that the back-of-the-envelope calculation of "can we ever repay" is to be seen in the context of decades, not years.
Squirrels are conservatives, dammit.
1.) Chock full of nuts. Check.
2.) Tiny brain. Check.
3.) Play in street until hit by cars. Check.
I agree.
Liberals are the squirrel droppings. Check
I agree
+1
It is night time in parts of the US now - Obam's scum supporters will come out of the woodwork on ZH like cockroaches or vampires.
you republicant plants dont get it.. we hate you.. but dont feel bad! becuase we hate them too..
but the enemy of your enemy is not your friend here..
we want all of you ignorant fucks dead so that the Country can be a better place.
The far left & far right have more in common than you think. They both want freedom. It is the ones closer to the middle that are fine with oppression. I personally don't want the republicant plants dead. They may still come in handy destroying the Fed. They at least have that part right.
Sure, the TBTF banks and the well-beaten path between corporations, lobbies, and government will all disappear when the Fed is eliminated. Uh huh.
Have you no knowledge of banking in the US prior to 1913 with which to dispel these childish illusions?
I didn't say it would all disappear when the Fed is eliminated.
JW, after we fight side by side to take down the oligarchs, it will be an honor fighting you to the death. May the best man win.
Liberalism is an intellectual cesspool with a death wish attached to it.
Liberals are so open minded they forget to take their own side in an argument.
ok, ^^^ this is a win
ok, ^^^ this is a win
ok, ^^^ this is a win
Explaining liberalism to people is a thankless and possibly futile task, but it is one that must be attempted for clarity's sake.
Liberalism is a theory of political economy that arose in Great Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries. Its principal inspirations were Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704). It emphasizes "individualism", the "virtue" of competition and the "justice" of the marketplace. It opposed feudalism and mercantilism. It sought to replace the traditional landowners with the rising commercial and manufacturing classes and organize the serfs for labor.
Economic theory — then rightly called political economy — provided the merchants with a crucial ideological rejoinder to feudalism. It was called the political economy because they knew that "nature" required the assistance of an absolute authority capable of forcing natural order upon recalcitrant humans, namely the feudal serfs that were increasingly revolting.
+1
The American 'liberal' is the European 'socialist' ... the European Liberal is the American Libertarian.
The parasites like to steal names to hide behind. Just like Lenin called his party the 'Social Democratic Party' ... he had no intentions whatsover of either democracy or social equality, it was just a Trojan Horse.
At least we can eat during the winter without raiding someone else's home.
Yeah, you tell him squirrelly man! Weinerdogs are only good for practicing field goals, anyway.
Well the ones in my old man's neighborhood are currently chowin down on his strawberries. I told him they were communists, helping themselves to the fruits of his labor.
Never thought I'd see an 80-yr old have so much fun with a BB gun.
Sure you can, Kemo-sabe.
"Squirrels are conservatives..."
LOL!...as opposed to O'Bambi's new deer in the headlights look.
On the bright side...Michelle picked up some cool trinkets from her 500 million dollar African safari.
Whens my next tee time?...oh wait, its Wednesday...its party night at the WH!
Liberals are birds.
1.) Constantly bobbing their heads. Check.
2.) Eating a lot of seed. Check.
3.) Regurgitating it to their children. Check.
Don't you agree?
No. I don't agree. But do try to present a coherent argument. Doubtful as you appeart obe a Republic wannabe.
What, like yours? lol!
I'll await your reply while you outsource the arithmetic for your CAPTCHA.
I guess I can break it down for you in the meantime, point by point:
1) All nod mindlessly in agreement while their masters tell them what to do.
2) Gobble up (internalize) the ejaculate (talking points) their rulers tell them they should think.
3) Regurgitate (ree-ger-jih-tate) it to their children. Regurgitate means to vomit partially digested food. In this case it refers to liberal zombies who can't think for themselves regurgitating their state-sanctioned beliefs for their childrens' consumption.
There now, clear enough for ya?
mmm...K00l-Aid.
That's it, drink up sonny boy
A libertarian query;
How many Obama wars does it take to make a democrat head explode? 5 no. 6, 7?
This is not a riddle or joke question. I really want to know.
Excuse me, USA Obama act of war #6 has commenced, 7,8,9?
U.S. Drone Targets Two Leaders Of Somali Group Allied With Al Qaeda, Official Sayshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/us-drones-target-two-leaders-of-somali-group-allied-with-al-qaeda/2011/06/29/AGJFxZrH_story.html
42.
"How many Obama wars does it take to make a democrat head explode? 5 no. 6, 7?"
I don't know the answer. However...
Obama is owned by the bankers and corporations. There is no doubt.
Where were you for 1, 2, and 3?
hahaha! What are crows, then?
If you are riding a bicycle they are suicidal rats bent on your destruction.
http://www.rivbike.com/assets/payloads/249/thumb_squirrel_death_by_bike_...
Fear me Bike Bitchez!
http://www.scenicreflections.com/ithumbs/squirrel%20at%20bicycle%20tire%...
Rodent Berserkers, bitches.
.
Someone, on another post brought up something very pertinent "earlier".
"Why are O bamas lips Purple?" It's from kissing everyones asses!
YENcross.
I assume Basketball players are exempt...
What happened to the hatin on people making 250k and the 1099 reporting of miscellaneous income of even 600 bucks?
He moved the goal again didn't he? ;-)
Read "Rules for Radicals" by Alynski and this mosaic will come into focus.
Obama is the undisputed expert in this shit.
On Ethics:
"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody." p.24
"The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be...." pp.25-26
"The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means...." p.29
"The seventh rule... is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics...." p.34
"The tenth rule... is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.... It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time... Who, and how many will support the action?... If weapons are needed, then are appropriate d weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly..." p.36
On Tactics:
. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."
2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.
3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."
8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."
9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."
11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."
12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
I move that we adopt these rules, in their entirety, for Project Mayhem. Do I have a second?
Agreed - bought a copy years ago.
It's the instruction manual for this circus.
;-)
I studied them when he first came on the scene with his strawman nonsense and his "theology".
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
And I second the motion to use the same tactics against them (as I have done until the present) until people become disenchanted with styrofoam Greek columns, soaring rhetoric without any substance and class warfare initiated by those at the top of the class who play golf while the country bleeds out.
suddenly terms like these have a more clear meaning:
if you disagree with Obama you are racist
the Tea Party is a bunch of racists
Shall we start a list? Can you think of others?
This is easy. Unfortunately, republics won't be able to figure it out.
Racist.
I've always thought the traitors get the most mileage from rule four.
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
If your virtue is used against you to advance evil, it is no longer a virtue. Just shoot them in the face and practice virtue with those that are not evil.
"Shoot 'em in the face"
"If you kill for fun, you're a sadist...
If you kill for money, you're a mercenary...
If you kill for both, you're a Comanchero"
They're standing in the way of progress!
They refuse to "invest" in the future!...meaning, of course, more taxes.
Exactly! Roads, sewers, electric lights, etc... Communism!
Child labor = GREAT!
Love this one. Lord knows if the oligarchs in DC didn't spend our money like drunken sailors and didn't try to control everything in our lives, there would be no roads or sewers or electricity. Just keep tellin' yourself that, you racist.
the term "progress" is code for the Progressive Movement and used by Obama often. The one that comes to mind was during the state of the union referencing his "republican friends, his democrat friends and his progressive friends". Pelosi has used it often especially when talking about Obama care. When one peels back the onion the situation is really that the Democrat party is history, the Repubs have been neutered and control rests with the blue and red factions of the Progressive party which has its roots in the Fabien school of economics taught at the London School where Soros was taught the ways of the world. Their logo is a wolf in sheeps clothing. They are quite open about it and have been for a hundred years. So when you heard Obama say that it has taken 100 years for health care, he was not talking about the goals of Roosvelt (50 years) and he made no mistake. He was talking to his Progressive Friends about the government taking contol and the fight for it that started circa1910. All you have to do is listen to what they say.
A=B
B=C
C what I mean!?!?
Whoa, this shit is easy! Sure beats actual critical thinking, logic, and <gasp> god forbid (un)common sense.
RRegards,
Cooter
Ahhh, a refreshing and most excellent posting. Kissingerian realism.."RealEthik"...the horror, the horror.
Finally people are starting to get it! The left versus right argument is loosing steam! Unite. Let's get this party started. Time to march the elected turn-coats to the town square for a hangin'!
+1
jumpin' in at the top - sorry . . . . not really.
VIOLENCE IS THE ANSWER. LET'S DO THIS SHIT!!
Amen!
This paradigm can only end in violence.
eliminating the cap on social security taxes is my 2nd favorite
reducing government expenses by 50% is my favorite
eliminating the cap on social security taxes is my 2nd favorite
reducing government expenses by 50% is my favorite
+1
We keep hearing about these millionaire/billionaires that can't figure out how to get their money to the Treasury while the rest of us have to try and get our pay back from the Treasury. Does anyone think if the revenues are increased DC won't use it for leverage?
Until Americans get over their pathological aversion to taxing billionaires, they are fucked.
Bush's policy of "No Billionaire Left Behind" is clearly a failure. Why continue it?
Get a job, and get back to us.
I bet you're thoughtful.
I bet you're unemployed.
your pic looks a bit thin for a FatCat like you... try this one!
http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/corporate-fatcat.htm
You're still unemployed. Should have used that fat Greek from yesterday.
Still, it's very cute.
Well played, feline. Hat tip from WWI ace.
Speaking of cute, I think it's cute when statist-marxists refer to taxes as "revenues"...
Hey... Who mislabled that pic of Trumka?
@mynhair, Precisely! Billionaires should get a job rather than paying 15% tax for sitting on their ass drawing dividend payments from stocks, while the rest of us pay 25-35% tax (10% CA state tax pushes it this high for me) for actually WORKING FOR A LIVING!!!!!
More fool you for still doing that. You are just feeding the beast.
Hey, somebody's got to do it. Even the Billionaires appreciate that fact.
Or, alternatively, why tax anybody? Monetization has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the US government can drop the pretense it funds itself through taxes (tax revenues cover less than half of all spending)... At least so far (thank you selling of Treasury puts and keeping rates low). If Blackhawk Ben really wants to paradrop $ to Joe Sixpack, what will end up happening at T minus 1 D-Day, will be a complete halt in all taxation, with government funding coming purely from debt issuance.
Of course, the next step will be Weimar, but by then, as now, it will be too late anyway to prevent that outcome.
That's just to maintain the illusion of control. Can't let Joe get uppity.
maybe that is why he didn't invoke the dreaded weimar (TM).
I teared up when I discovered that Obama had forgotten to lay out his plan for providing U.S. citizens a cut of that global drug trade the MIC has got going.
Is it me, or just a silly dream that we could get to chase the dragon, spills the blood of foreigners, and all the while enjoy the spoils of our opium monetization stipend?
Thank you Tyler. (evens up your daily scorecard from the ASE Proof thread ;-) )
Of course, I'd given double-points for the idea that taxation is theft.
I think we need to look at the big picture here. You went Weimar. I’d go another way.
Question. Why did the Soviet Union collapse? Was it because of the cries of freedom of her citizens became too loud to bear? No. Those saps were happy to go slowly blind from drinking anti-freeze while building tractors that didn't work.
The Soviet Union went broke. America needs to start taxing its richest 1% or stop bombing the fuck out of people with a skin colour darker than a mochachino.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking
Yes agree! As soon as religious nuts quit flying airplanes into skyscrapers because we don't burn and/or stone women.
Preach it brother, lets spend billions killing people who fly planes into buildings. Cause dying on impact just isn't enough.
How many of the 9/11 hijackers came from Iraq or Afghanistan? Fuck it, I'm feeling generous so I'll save you the time, zero. Was Osama ever charged with the 9/11 crimes? No. What are these wars really about?....
First Derivative: American Hegemony.
Second Derivative: Oil.
Third Derivative: Petrol Dollar.