The Bankrupt United States of America

[amicus]

The 'usual suspects', the left liberal progressives, are hell bent to destroy any vestige of decency and morals in American society. They gleefully announce another Judge overriding the vote of the people in issues like Gay Marriage and Homosexual adoptions; they are all anti war when A Republican is in Office, but strangely quiet when a Democrat in office expands one war and starts another.

They happily support the thugs of Union coercion and sex education for eight year olds; they promote and aggrandize promiscuity and infidelity and male on male, female on female sex, love socialism and hate capitalism, and yet proclaim their moral superiority over those who advocate and live by traditional and conventional morals and ethics.

They want a welfare State where every so called 'need' is considered a right, and advocate stealing from the rich to reward the non productive poor. They really want all minorities on government run Reservations so they can better administer to their needs.

They happily enslave doctors and nurses to tend their addictions and psychological problems, and, my, oh my, they have a lot of them as they subvert the right and proper and natural lifestyle with their amoral predictions of enforced equality on all.

There is no mystery as to why they want all rational thought banned from this muck of pornography and progressive opinioned commentary.

Let one State Court over-rule the peoples vote banning Queers, and they join in a celebration with Thread after Thread.

Zeb, these people are but an obscene joke. Keep up the good works...

Amicus Meritas Veritas

 

[cloudy]

And my dog shows more restraint than you. If you don't like what I say or what the thread stands for, stay out. We obviously don't give a shit what you think, do or say.

So now you're using the royal "we" to refer to yourself?

Very grown up...good job.

(I was here before you, retard. I'll come and go as I please)

 

[Zeb_Carter]

(irrelevant text here)

(I was here before you, retard. I'll come and go as I please)

Good go, please. And nobody cares...still.

 

[cloudy]

Good go, please. And nobody cares...still.

Translation: Zeb wishes I'd go because I call him on his stupidity.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Translation: Zeb wishes I'd go because I call him on his stupidity.

No, I wish you would go 'cuz you look stupid.

 

[cloudy]

No, I wish you would go 'cuz you look stupid.

"I know you are, but what am I?" seems to be what all your political arguments boil down to. I'm done with your immaturity, since I don't think anyone really needs to be further shown your low intelligence level. Carry on.

 

[trysail]

It died of self-inflicted gunshot wounds

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/08/08/broelmanaugust08-cag_custom.jpg?t=1312808797&s=4

​

 

[trysail]

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/06/139027615/a-national-debt-of-14-trillion-try-211-trillion


A National Debt Of $14 Trillion? Try $211 Trillion

by NPR Staff
August 6, 2011

When Standard & Poor's reduced the nation's credit rating from AAA to AA-plus, the United States suffered the first downgrade to its credit rating ever. S&P took this action despite the plan Congress passed this past week to raise the debt limit.

The downgrade, S&P said, "reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics."

It's those medium- and long-term debt problems that also worry economics professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff, who served as a senior economist on President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. He says the national debt, which the U.S. Treasury has accounted at about $14 trillion, is just the tip of the iceberg.

"We have all these unofficial debts that are massive compared to the official debt," Kotlikoff tells David Greene, guest host of weekends on All Things Considered. "We're focused just on the official debt, so we're trying to balance the wrong books."

Kotlikoff explains that America's "unofficial" payment obligations — like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits — jack up the debt figure substantially.

If you add up all the promises that have been made for spending obligations, including defense expenditures, and you subtract all the taxes that we expect to collect, the difference is $211 trillion. That's the fiscal gap," he says. "That's our true indebtedness."

more...

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/06/139027615/a-national-debt-of-14-trillion-try-211-trillion

 

[utguy77]

the solution

Step 1: take the DOD (dept. of defense) junk program like their F-22 advanced fighter jet program and sell those aircraft which cost us hundreds of millions each to build.

Step 2: i dont mean sell them to other countries, sell them to a scrap metal buying company who will pay about 20 dollars or so per jet (thats how much they are really worth).

Step 3: You (the taxpayer) would have lost some money (in the billions) but atleast you would have made 20 dollars per jet, which is more than any use you will see from these constantly malfunctioning money drains in the future.

Source:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/77-billion-22-raptor-fleet-grounded-indefinitely/story?id=13545306

by the way, the total cost of this program so far:
$77 Billion USD

 

[fifty5]

Germany's financial problems were caused by reunification. The investment necessary to bring the whole country up to the living standard earned by West Germany will eventually pay back over decades, we hope.

The UK's retirement ages have also been increased but our private retirement plans have been wrecked by the government suddenly taxing the pension providers and making it too expensive for employers to continue their previous pension schemes. The UK had the best private pension provision in Europe until the then Chancellor, now Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, raided the pension funds.

Og

Me too!

UK pension funds have always been run by folk who were on a par with other Financial Geniuses, such as those who caused the bank crashes. The difference used to be that pension funds had a tax break that put them ahead of the game. George effing Brown, as Chancellor, removed that advantage. The consequence, as I see it, is that UK pension funds no longer had that edge, which meant that final pension schemes were no longer viable.

This all seems to me to be a matter of political will rather than necessity.

The same applies to UK National Insurance. In reality, this is just a matter of taxation on income. Nevertheless, people who get paid more than about £42k have their NI contributions reduced by 10% in income over that figure (from 11.5% to 1.5%). Now think of bankers' bonuses in 6 or 7 figures...

The same applies to all of the super-rich.

The Tories argue that 50% is too high for those with huge incomes. Now consider that those people already pay 10% less than those who are paid below 40 grand.

Mind you, most of those in the UK Government are in that income bracket.

NI is supposed to pay for social security benefits like old age pensions and the NHS, but so is Income Tax.

NI (with its invisible tax break for the most wealthy) ought to be abolished and added to the visible Income Tax rates.

Some of those who have the highest incomes of all are now arguing that they should pay more into the common pot. They, and not current members of the UK government, are right.

Maybe the argument that 50% is too high and should be reduced to 40% is right, but they should also add that 10% on NI into the equation. They'll still pay 50%, while those under 40k pay 11.5% less, particularly those on much, much lower incomes.

Income tax ought to be a way to take from the rich to help the poor, while everyone pays their dues.

 

[amicus]

Income tax ought to be a way to take from the rich to help the poor, while everyone pays their dues.

~~~

How does one morally justify stealing from some to give to others?

Amicus

 

[Handley_Page]

~~~

How does one morally justify stealing from some to give to others?

Amicus

1. It ain't stealing, it's towards a common good. A person can only spend so much of his/her income.
Anything else it wasted, unless for a charitable purpose.

2. It is supposed to work along the lines of "From each according to his ability (= 'means') : To each according to his need".
[ there are those who reckon, somewhat cynically, that this should not include the indigent immigrant ].

3. "from some" should be "from all the well-off".

 

[DeeZire]

~~~

How does one morally justify stealing from some to give to others?

Amicus

That same question could be asked regarding the transfer of wealth from the working class to the elite, (as has been happening in this country since the 80's) or in your case, the transfer of wealth from the people who paid taxes all their lives to those who didn't pay taxes for 40 years but then collected a huge Medicare windfall when they got old.

Looking at the bigger picture, the rich amass their wealth from within the society they reside. If there was no society, there would be no riches. It's a symbiotic relationship. When that society slips into decline because of a lack of investment - as is happening today in the USA - it is the responsibility of those who have benefited from that society to give back. It's simply a matter of patriotism and fairness - a moral absolute. (Granted, this concept might be hard to comprehend if one's moral compass has been obliterated by the seductive wordplay of Ayn Rand. )

 

[fuckwaffle]

1. It ain't stealing, it's towards a common good. A person can only spend so much of his/her income.
Anything else it wasted, unless for a charitable purpose.

2. It is supposed to work along the lines of "From each according to his ability (= 'means') : To each according to his need".
[ there are those who reckon, somewhat cynically, that this should not include the indigent immigrant ].

3. "from some" should be "from all the well-off".

That same question could be asked regarding the transfer of wealth from the working class to the elite, (as has been happening in this country since the 80's) or in your case, the transfer of wealth from the people who paid taxes all their lives to those who didn't pay taxes for 40 years but then collected a huge Medicare windfall when they got old.

Looking at the bigger picture, the rich amass their wealth from within the society they reside. If there was no society, there would be no riches. It's a symbiotic relationship. When that society slips into decline because of a lack of investment - as is happening today in the USA - it is the responsibility of those who have benefited from that society to give back. It's simply a matter of patriotism and fairness - a moral absolute. (Granted, this concept might be hard to comprehend if one's moral compass has been obliterated by the seductive wordplay of Ayn Rand. )

Geez, the communist rhetoric is just oozing from you pours.

 

[DeeZire]

Geez, the communist rhetoric is just oozing from you pours.

Rather than name calling, how about justifying the looting of society for the benefit of the rich who sit at the top of the pile? That would make an interesting discussion. I would encourage you to google "income disparity" and reflect on the affect of the rising gap between rich and poor, which seems to be coinciding with the decline of America. Cause and affect, or just bad luck?

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

1. It ain't stealing, it's towards a common good. A person can only spend so much of his/her income.
Anything else it wasted, unless for a charitable purpose.

2. It is supposed to work along the lines of "From each according to his ability (= 'means') : To each according to his need".
[ there are those who reckon, somewhat cynically, that this should not include the indigent immigrant ].

3. "from some" should be "from all the well-off".

You know, I have not heard from Amicus yet whether he would move to this Libertarian paradise that is being built:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html

If his argument is that he'd rather change America, then that's NOT what John Galt would do. John Galt, according to the most holy book of Ayn Rand, left America and founded his own paradise with his fellow "wealth creators" ( ) and went on strike.

So when is Amicus planning to pack his bags and leave?

 

[stephen55]

You know, I have not heard from Amicus yet whether he would move to this Libertarian paradise that is being built:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html

If his argument is that he'd rather change America, then that's NOT what John Galt would do. John Galt, according to the most holy book of Ayn Rand, left America and founded his own paradise with his fellow "wealth creators" ( ) and went on strike.

So when is Amicus planning to pack his bags and leave?

He can't afford the place and they aren't willing to give him a free ride.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

He can't afford the place and they aren't willing to give him a free ride.

If Amicus will pledge to leave America and do what the most holy John Galt did in the great book of Atlas Shrugged, I will pay for him to go when that island is complete.

I will help to pay all the plutocrats, the Koch's, the ALEC activists, and so on, to GTFO and go on their high and mighty strike. Go on strike, leave working class America alone, do what John Galt would do and condemn us rapacious confiscationalists to a life without their "innovations".

 

[fuckwaffle]

Rather than name calling, how about justifying the looting of society for the benefit of the rich who sit at the top of the pile? That would make an interesting discussion. I would encourage you to google "income disparity" and reflect on the affect of the rising gap between rich and poor, which seems to be coinciding with the decline of America. Cause and affect, or just bad luck?

How do you feel about ball players, football players, basketball players salaries? Do they also sit at the top of that pile? What about the rich politicians that now want a raise? How about all those government toadies that now make more than the median wage of the private sector?

Thought so.

As for the rich? I don't know who you think they are, but I'm pretty sure they worked for what they have, they didn't get it handed to them. And why you would begrudge anyone of hard earned wages is beyond comprehension. In fact it's communism.

 

[DeeZire]

FW - you still haven't answered my question about the justification for looting society's wealth and causing that society to fall into ruin.

Answering yours , I believe anyone making over a million bucks a year should be taxed at the level we saw in the early 50's - you know, that magic era conservatives like to harken back to? Maybe you don't recall, but back then, schools actually furnished books for all their students. What a concept, eh? Not only were taxes much higher then, but the median wage for the working class was higher, due in large part to the strength of unions.

America was very prosperous back then. You could argue that that prosperity was due to our robust manufacturing base, but you could also argue that the gap between rich and poor was much smaller back then than it is today. The affect of the poor having more money to spend means more money will circulate through the local economies. As it is now, corporations suck money out of the local economies and sock it away in offshore accounts, or gamble it away on Wall Street. Does Wall Street produce anything, besides billion-dollar-a-year hedge fund managers? I'd rather see that billion dollars circulating back into the schools.

On the issue of government workers making more than private sector workers, I believe it's a wash, depending on whether you get your numbers from Fox or NPR. Take teachers for example. They're grossly underpaid compared to others with the same qualifications in the private sector. I do believe that lavish government (and union) pensions are unsustainable. Thankfully, that issue is finally bubbling to the surface, so we can expect reform in the near future.

I'm no fan of communism, but I'm also no fan of the oligarchy we're living under today. If we want America to prosper, we must find some middle ground where the needs of society are not sacrificed for the benefit of those who profit from that society. This is a basic concept, like gravity. If it's beyond your comprehension, there's nothing I can do about that.

Peace, brutha.

 

[fuckwaffle]

FW - you still haven't answered my question about the justification for looting society's wealth and causing that society to fall into ruin.

Answering yours , I believe anyone making over a million bucks a year should be taxed at the level we saw in the early 50's - you know, that magic era conservatives like to harken back to? Maybe you don't recall, but back then, schools actually furnished books for all their students. What a concept, eh? Not only were taxes much higher then, but the median wage for the working class was higher, due in large part to the strength of unions.

America was very prosperous back then. You could argue that that prosperity was due to our robust manufacturing base, but you could also argue that the gap between rich and poor was much smaller back then than it is today. The affect of the poor having more money to spend means more money will circulate through the local economies. As it is now, corporations suck money out of the local economies and sock it away in offshore accounts, or gamble it away on Wall Street. Does Wall Street produce anything, besides billion-dollar-a-year hedge fund managers? I'd rather see that billion dollars circulating back into the schools.

On the issue of government workers making more than private sector workers, I believe it's a wash, depending on whether you get your numbers from Fox or NPR. Take teachers for example. They're grossly underpaid compared to others with the same qualifications in the private sector. I do believe that lavish government (and union) pensions are unsustainable. Thankfully, that issue is finally bubbling to the surface, so we can expect reform in the near future.

I'm no fan of communism, but I'm also no fan of the oligarchy we're living under today. If we want America to prosper, we must find some middle ground where the needs of society are not sacrificed for the benefit of those who profit from that society. This is a basic concept, like gravity. If it's beyond your comprehension, there's nothing I can do about that.

Peace, brutha.

The only looters are the folks in Washington DC. As for the rich...like I said most of them earned what they have by working hard. If you don't think hard work should be rewarded...then you are a communist.

Pretty words "the needs of society", I believe Karl Marx was the first to use them. Every single word you spout is communist propaganda.

Don't get me wrong, there are those people in society that could use a little help once in awhile, but to just suck at the government tit for a lifetime is no benefit to society.

As for profiting from society, only the political class benefit from society as a whole. None of your hated, vile rich have the power to forcibly take your earnings. Only government has that power.

So while you fight your class war against the vile, disgusting rich, I'll be waving the banner for freedom and small government.

 

[fifty5]

How do you feel about ball players, football players, basketball players salaries? Do they also sit at the top of that pile? What about the rich politicians that now want a raise? How about all those government toadies that now make more than the median wage of the private sector?

All the best to them - as long as the Income tax regime makes sure that they pay their dues to support the common wealth.

Thought so.

Did you really?

As for the rich? I don't know who you think they are, but I'm pretty sure they worked for what they have, they didn't get it handed to them. And why you would begrudge anyone of hard earned wages is beyond comprehension. In fact it's communism.

No, mostly it's capitalism.

I used to drive wagons as an agency driver. Pay was set by the agency, but conditions - and the work expected - were mostly set by the clients. Amongst others, I drove for a furniture importer, builders' merchants and low cost shoe retailers.

Where the product was high cost, high profit, then the managers were generous (still hard work: 200 miles a day, then manhandling heavy, ceramic-topped tables and so on). The middle rank were decent: do a decent day's work and the clients were, mostly, satisfied. Move down to the low cost, low profit commodities and the client managers were slave drivers: drive almost the limit allowed by law, then unload for as many hours as that part of the legislation allowed; finally, arriving back from the 4th days work, they didn't just cancel the 5th day's work, but refused to sign the time sheet because, "driving so long is illegal!" (In fact, it wasn't. Drivers' hours law allowed exceptional hours for two days a week, as long as the total per week wasn't exceeded.)

My point is that the more money is involved, then the higher the rewards that capitalists are prepared to pay: it's just a matter of percentages, with little or nothing to do with the work and effort involved.

That's the biggest factor affecting the income of the rich.

I applaud the brains and risk-taking of manufacturers of new products - Sir Clive Sinclair and Mr Dyson spring to mind (or for a contrary example, look back at Nevil Shute Norway and his aircraft manufacturing company) - it remains true that those who make a packet do so because they are riding on a business that has a large turnover. Sure it was their brains that made that possible, but it wasn't the amount of work they did. Frank Whittle, inventor of the jet engine had the brains, but not the commercial success.

Let's also look at bankers. They manipulate possibly the highest value product: money itself. They deal with millions or billions of dollars. They expend an enormous amount of energy and some brain power, but it isn't their hard work that generates those huge bonuses, it's the value of the commodity with which they gamble.

My personal position is largely pacifist, but I do accept that military forces put their own lives on the line. In any realistic evaluation, they are offering the highest possible sacrifice. Now look at what the basic 'grunt' is paid. They don't get rich.

Capitalism doesn't reward work and effort, it rewards those lucky (or self-seeking) enough to work in the right industry - back to your example of football players and for that matter pop stars.

Granted they have talent, but do they work so much harder than someone handling a lathe, or pushing a brush?

My point is that it is fine for the lucky ones (or the self-seeking who are canny enough to get into the right job) to get paid what they are, but the Income Tax regime ought (to be fair to all the others) ought to claw back enough to support the ordinary working man or woman - and their children and old folks - who put in just as much hard work and effort, but don't have the luck to work in a high value job.

I'm from the UK. The scandal here is something called National Insurance. In theory this is supposed to pay for unemployment benefits and the health service. In practice, people who get paid more than about £42k ($68.8k) a year see their contribution drop from 11.5% to 1.5% - a ten percent reduction in contributions on their higher pay.

Given my thesis that pay above that level isn't actually due to working harder, or brighter, but just because of the sector in which they work, that is immoral and inexcusable.

Are you sure this is communism?

 

[amicus]

Just wanted to commend you for referencing Nevil Shute Norway and his history. He wrote mainly under the name of Nevil Shute because he was enbarassed at being a writer of fictional stories and thought his engineering colleagues would think badly of him.

ami

 

[fuckwaffle]

All the best to them - as long as the Income tax regime makes sure that they pay their dues to support the common wealth.


Did you really?


No, mostly it's capitalism.

I used to drive wagons as an agency driver. Pay was set by the agency, but conditions - and the work expected - were mostly set by the clients. Amongst others, I drove for a furniture importer, builders' merchants and low cost shoe retailers.

Where the product was high cost, high profit, then the managers were generous (still hard work: 200 miles a day, then manhandling heavy, ceramic-topped tables and so on). The middle rank were decent: do a decent day's work and the clients were, mostly, satisfied. Move down to the low cost, low profit commodities and the client managers were slave drivers: drive almost the limit allowed by law, then unload for as many hours as that part of the legislation allowed; finally, arriving back from the 4th days work, they didn't just cancel the 5th day's work, but refused to sign the time sheet because, "driving so long is illegal!" (In fact, it wasn't. Drivers' hours law allowed exceptional hours for two days a week, as long as the total per week wasn't exceeded.)

My point is that the more money is involved, then the higher the rewards that capitalists are prepared to pay: it's just a matter of percentages, with little or nothing to do with the work and effort involved.

That's the biggest factor affecting the income of the rich.

I applaud the brains and risk-taking of manufacturers of new products - Sir Clive Sinclair and Mr Dyson spring to mind (or for a contrary example, look back at Nevil Shute Norway and his aircraft manufacturing company) - it remains true that those who make a packet do so because they are riding on a business that has a large turnover. Sure it was their brains that made that possible, but it wasn't the amount of work they did. Frank Whittle, inventor of the jet engine had the brains, but not the commercial success.

Let's also look at bankers. They manipulate possibly the highest value product: money itself. They deal with millions or billions of dollars. They expend an enormous amount of energy and some brain power, but it isn't their hard work that generates those huge bonuses, it's the value of the commodity with which they gamble.

My personal position is largely pacifist, but I do accept that military forces put their own lives on the line. In any realistic evaluation, they are offering the highest possible sacrifice. Now look at what the basic 'grunt' is paid. They don't get rich.

Capitalism doesn't reward work and effort, it rewards those lucky (or self-seeking) enough to work in the right industry - back to your example of football players and for that matter pop stars.

Granted they have talent, but do they work so much harder than someone handling a lathe, or pushing a brush?

My point is that it is fine for the lucky ones (or the self-seeking who are canny enough to get into the right job) to get paid what they are, but the Income Tax regime ought (to be fair to all the others) ought to claw back enough to support the ordinary working man or woman - and their children and old folks - who put in just as much hard work and effort, but don't have the luck to work in a high value job.

I'm from the UK. The scandal here is something called National Insurance. In theory this is supposed to pay for unemployment benefits and the health service. In practice, people who get paid more than about £42k ($68.8k) a year see their contribution drop from 11.5% to 1.5% - a ten percent reduction in contributions on their higher pay.

Given my thesis that pay above that level isn't actually due to working harder, or brighter, but just because of the sector in which they work, that is immoral and inexcusable.

Are you sure this is communism?

If you believe in wealth redistribution, robbing the working rich and paying the poor to do nothing to better themselves, then yes, it's communism.

 

[trysail]

Never, in a million years, did I ever expect to live to see this happen:



Transcript Of Standard & Poor's Teleconference Held On Aug. 8, 2011: United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+', Outlook Negative


http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316815902