The Bankrupt United States of America

[Stella_Omega]

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.

1) What kind of work do "the working rich" do?

2) What should "the poor" be doing to better themselves?

How about the kind of wealth redistribution where we rob the working poor and give to the rich?
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1519/images/infographic-bigbucks.jpg

 

[fuckwaffle]

1) What kind of work do "the working rich" do?

2) What should "the poor" be doing to better themselves?

How about the kind of wealth redistribution where we rob the working poor and give to the rich?
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1519/images/infographic-bigbucks.jpg

Another of the wealth envy crowd.

LOL - robbing the working poor. How? Because you don' think you earn enough? Well maybe your skills need to upgraded? I hear the great all powerful government is giving away grants to go to school, even if the courses you take are worthless in the job market. Why don't you apply for one of them.

The thieves in this country are the political class. Even that dude Obama will smile at you and tell you what you want to hear as he slips his hand into you pocket to take your last dollar. Just when will the people wake the fuck up?

eta: that stupid flyer you posted is just a ploy of the wealth even crowd. Just what does the CEO salary have to do with the taxes paid by the company? Nada. It's the CFO that does the books and files the tax return. If you have expenses that outstrip profit then you won't pay taxes, just like you. I know you're probably in the lower 50% of taxpayers, which do not pay taxes either.

 

[trysail]

...and the answer is, "Yes."

One of the big questions that remains is: will the Swiss be dragged into the cesspool by the fiscal and monetary irresponsibility and profligacy of the U.S. and the E.U.?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=1fx

​

...and the answer is, "Yes."

Swiss National Bank Pledges Unlimited Currency Purchases
By Klaus Wille
Sep 6, 2011

The Swiss central bank imposed a ceiling on the franc’s exchange rate for the first time in more than three decades and pledged to defend the target with the “utmost determination.”

The Swiss National Bank is “aiming for a substantial and sustained weakening of the franc,” the Zurich-based bank said in an e-mailed statement today. “With immediate effect, it will no longer tolerate a euro-franc exchange rate below the minimum rate of 1.20 francs” and “is prepared to buy foreign currency in unlimited quantities...”

...The SNB last set a franc ceiling versus the Deutsche Mark in 1978 to stem currency gains...


more...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...m-exchange-rate-of-1-20-against-the-euro.html

 

[trysail]

I didn't write what appears below. I know the person who did. That person would not want to be identified here.

Economic illiteracy and demagoguery are destroying what was once the world's richest nation.

...Without market pressure, both Japan and the U.S., at the national level, continue to spend like drunken sailors piling on new debt despite the obvious warnings emanating from Europe. The U.S. will continue to do so until either market forces demand a change or strong leadership acts responsibly and convinces Congress to act now to avoid a crisis in the future.

Rarely in American history has that happened. I don’t want to get too political but there are few signs at the moment that either President Obama or any of the leading Republican candidates have the strength, fortitude or vision to act. Everyone will recognize the problem and voice concern. Everyone will state that it is a long term problem that needs to be solved. And then everyone will go on perpetuating fiscal policies now in place because they can’t cobble together enough support to change Washington’s behavior of continually spending beyond our means.

In time, and I don’t mean immediately, this will all come home to roost in any ugly way. When markets decide that U.S. debt isn’t the most favored, rates are likely to rise here as fast as they did in Italy where interest rates have doubled in less than a few months...

 

[trysail]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-30/taleb-says-euro-breakup-not-a-big-deal-as-u-s-scariest.html



Taleb Says Euro Breakup ‘Not a Big Deal’ as U.S. Scariest
By Frederic Tomesco
May 30, 2012

Nassim Taleb, author of “The Black Swan,” said he favors investing in Europe over the U.S. even with the possible breakup of the single European currency in part because of the euro area’s superior deficit situation.

Europe’s lack of a centralized government is another reason it’s preferable to invest in the region, said Taleb, a professor of risk engineering at New York University whose 2007 best- selling book argued that history is littered with rare events that can’t be predicted by trends.

A breakup of the euro “is not a big deal,” Taleb said yesterday at an event in Montreal hosted by the Alternative Investment Management Association. “When they break it up, there will be a lot of fun currencies. This is why I am not afraid of Europe, or investing in Europe. I’m afraid of the United States.”

The budget deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product in the U.S. amounted to 8.2 percent at the end of 2011, government figures show. That’s twice the 4.1 percent ratio for euro-region countries, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

“Of course Europe has its problems, but it’s in much better shape than the United States,” Taleb said. He voiced similar concerns about U.S. prospects at a conference in Tokyo in September.

Yields on two-year Treasury notes were little changed at 0.285 percent at 9:19 p.m. New York time yesterday, while yields on five-year notes dropped more than one basis point to 0.761 percent.

Interest Rates
Rising interest rates would make things worse for the U.S., said Taleb, a principal at hedge fund Universa Investments LP who also serves as an adviser to the International Monetary Fund.

“We have zero interest rates,” Taleb said. “If interest rates go up in the United States, you can imagine what the deficit would be. Europe is like someone who is ill but is conscious of it. In the United States we are ill, but we don’t know it. We don’t talk about it.”

Europe’s lack of a centralized government works in its favor, he said.

“The best thing Europe ever did is managing to have members bickering with each other, so you don’t have the big government,” Taleb said. “Centralized government doesn’t work. In Europe they tried to have a powerful Brussels, but what happens when you have a powerful Brussels? You have lobbies hijacking Brussels.”


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-30/taleb-says-euro-breakup-not-a-big-deal-as-u-s-scariest.html

 

[trysail]

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2012/06/04/europeanspreads_enl.jpg?t=1338826145


Once everybody realized that some eurozone countries might not be able to pay
back their debts, they started demanding higher interest rates to lend to weaker countries.


​

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, when the USA becomes several different micro-nations, it will be a lot easier to deal with. I suspect that there will be a combination of regional governments and large, independent states (such as Alaska, California, and Texas). The wealthier ones will recover faster and make full use of their resources, I suspect.

The Native-American tribes will also form their own countries, I think. Many of them have a lot of potential that is held down by DC and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It can be tapped when the white man gets out of their business. Part of me is tempted to make full use of my Algonquian heritage, but then it's only 1/16, so that would probably be wrong.

The real ticket to prosperity will be the end of some of the dumber environmental regulations that don't actually protect the environment and simply hurt local economies and medium-level entrepreneurs. The richer corporations can take the hit better than regional ones. With the Feds off their back, these smaller companies can take off like a rocket.

Mind you, in the short run, it will be rough. And this is the best case scenario. The worst is something out of Mad Max, which may happen temporarily, if the states and local governments don't act swiftly.

I'm in a more optimistic mood today than yesterday. It's all in how it happens and how much warning the states and tribes to allow them to act before the Feds collapse.

 

[PoppingTom]

I'm feeling so very sorry how America will turn into a Third world country because its people think it's a good idea to eliminate their efil efil state, which, by the way, is a very communistic idea...

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

My gradualist approach wouldn't turn America into a Third World country. What will turn her into one is the reckless government spending which will never be paid off in a thousand lifetimes. I'm hoping for a more rational, slower, phased withdrawal of the State from people's daily lives and decentralization of its functions, without all of the chaos pursuant to a sudden collapse. It is, however, a grim reality that the State will fall rapidly without much warning to those caught unaware. Those people will feel cheated and deceived, as indeed they have been, when the rude awakening happens. And it will. Not because I want it to....I want a much nicer, softer landing. But when we're in for a rough one, nonetheless. Yeah, I've switch into a pessimist mode now. It happens a lot.

Think not for a second that I will gloat when my warnings come true. I'll be too busy trying to survive and protect and provide for my family, too. And I will be sad that my warnings were not heeded and the rough landing avoided. Sad and angry at the stupidity and ignorance of Man.

I would much sooner be proven wrong than right. But I am right, like it or not.

And, no, I'm not a Communist, nor is this a Communist idea. Marx wanted the oxymoronic expansion of the State to somehow wither it away along with property. I want to skip the middleman, gradually eliminate the State, and protect property in the process. Marx was naive. An expanded State will never wither away. It will only collapse of its own weight, like the Soviet Union.

 

[PoppingTom]

I want to skip the middleman, gradually eliminate the State, and protect property in the process.

No state, no property.

Say it clear: you want wilderness lifestyle. And you'll get it.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

No state, no property.

Say it clear: you want wilderness lifestyle. And you'll get it.

That's a fallacy. Property can become a reality by mutually accepted custom and tradition, just as new, voluntary institutions can eventually displace the State by making it redundant.

Not that we will have the time to do this, since the Feds are heading over the cliff at 150 mph. It will be a train wreck and like all train wrecks impossible to tear my eyes away from it as it happens.

 

[topace]

Considering the USA has a debt of 1.3 Trillion dollars (and growing with each passing budget), you guys need to cut back on spending and/or find some new sources of income. Debt is a bad thing - trust me on this one.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

That's my point....that the debt will crush this country and drastic measures are needed. A major step forward would be to dramatically reduce our foreign interventions. We can't really balance the budget without cuts in defense spending. Tax hikes carry dangers of harming the economy. Times are too hard for that. The rich are too necessary and the poor and middle class are too hard hit already. So major reductions to more appropriate peacetime spending levels (not "hollowing out", as some hawks claim) is a key move in terms of savings.

Sale of federal lands is another thing that can be done. Privatize that and Amtrak for good measure. Bullet trains aren't going to work in this country, so it's best to simply sell off Amtrak.

Also, ending the war on drugs would save much in terms of an enforcement budget and result in a deep cut in the federal prison budget, as well as providing revenue from sales of marijuana for the states, which are also cash strapped.

Just some ideas. All of the libertarian/anarchist in nature, of course.

 

[topace]

Why not tax the wealthy? They can clearly afford it, if Warren Buffington is to be believed.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

That's just it. I don't believe him. But I'm also predisposed to mistrust people like him and the President. There is a difference between Wall Street billionaires and Main Street millionaires, too. Buffett probably can afford it more than the newly affluent, so where is his check? As much as I dislike Bachmann (well, hate is closer to it), I agree with her comment of "Just write a check." Nothing's stopping the guy. Instead, he wants to impose taxes on those have millions instead of his billions. Convenient, I think.

Then again, I'm an anarchist, so a large part of me just plain doesn't like taxes. Period.

Now, if we had a Roman-style republic, I'd push for fining George Soros his entire fortune by means of a jury conviction and banishing him back to France (where he is a wanted felon).

Then again, a Roman-style republic would have fewer budgetary issues. The Romans were good at trimming public expenses. Using exile and fines instead of prison, for one thing.

By the way, as much as I hate raising taxes on the rich, I hate raising them on the poor and middle class even more. Fuel and tobacco taxes are clear examples of this, as well as Herman Cain's revolting 999 plan (coincidence that reversed, it's 666...j/k).

 

[topace]

Did you know that the GST at fuel pumps here in Canada is a tax on a tax?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Did you know that the GST at fuel pumps here in Canada is a tax on a tax?

Shit, I thought that we have it bad here....damn fuel taxes really hurt the little guy bad. Not to mention raise the price of food and medicine.

Sounds like someone else deserves a Tammany.

 

[topace]

Shit, I thought that we have it bad here....damn fuel taxes really hurt the little guy bad. Not to mention raise the price of food and medicine.

Sounds like someone else deserves a Tammany.

Give it to the government of Brian Mulroney in 1988 who brought the tax in, and to the Liberal governments of Chretien that followed who never removed it despite their promise to do so because it had become a cash cow for the feds.

At least Conservatives lowered it from 7% to 5%.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Give it to the government of Brian Mulroney in 1988 who brought the tax in, and to the Liberal governments of Chretien that followed who never removed it despite their promise to do so because it had become a cash cow for the feds.

At least Conservatives lowered it from 7% to 5%.

Bunch of liars. But kudos to the Tories for that.

I propose that bad Canadian pols be exiled to the USA and vice versa, where they can't do as much harm.

 

[topace]

Bunch of liars. But kudos to the Tories for that.

I propose that bad Canadian pols be exiled to the USA and vice versa, where they can't do as much harm.

Umm, if the US politicians became Canadian citizens (takes seven years but it could be done), one of them could eventually become the Prime Minister here.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Umm, if the US politicians became Canadian citizens (takes seven years but it could be done), one of them could eventually become the Prime Minister here.

That's where the non-naturalization clause comes in.

 

[topace]

That's where the non-naturalization clause comes in.

I don't believe I've heard of that clause. Care to point it out to me?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I don't believe I've heard of that clause. Care to point it out to me?

Just a wicked idea of mine.

 

[Hubs_in_hose]

Why not tax the wealthy? They can clearly afford it, if Warren Buffington is to be believed.

if you taxed the "wealthy" (and that is everyone that made more than $200,000/year) at 100% then you could pay for about three months of what the US Government spends.

Also, in less than five years the projected federal spending on healthcare will be larger as a percentage of the total budged than anything else in the budget, including military spending. Retirement spending would be #3 and less than 1% behind military spending. This is with the debt financed at historically low rates. As soon as the interest rate goes up a percentage point or two then the amount of debt we have will really skyrocket.

Bill Clinton today said "we are in a recession, we need to extend the 'Bush tax cuts' to not push us farther in recession"

When the Government increases taxes it takes money out of the economy. That money does not grow.

WE HAVE TO CUT SPENDING.

We need to greatly reduce the number of people that rely upon the government for a paycheck. Government workers do not produce goods so they do not make a profit. We need more people working in the private sector so that the engine of commerce can thrive. Turning government workers to private sector workers is like a double save.

We need to close most of our overseas military bases and bring those service men and women home (with the civilian support staffs) having them spending their money at and around US bases and not overseas would be like a stimulus for those economies.

Finally, WE CAN NOT AFFORD GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTHCARE. There is no money for it. We need to do something along the lines of 100% tax free and 100% portable HSA. But that is another discussion.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

if you taxed the "wealthy" (and that is everyone that made more than $200,000/year) at 100% then you could pay for about three months of what the US Government spends.

Also, in less than five years the projected federal spending on healthcare will be larger as a percentage of the total budged than anything else in the budget, including military spending. Retirement spending would be #3 and less than 1% behind military spending. This is with the debt financed at historically low rates. As soon as the interest rate goes up a percentage point or two then the amount of debt we have will really skyrocket.

Bill Clinton today said "we are in a recession, we need to extend the 'Bush tax cuts' to not push us farther in recession"

When the Government increases taxes it takes money out of the economy. That money does not grow.

WE HAVE TO CUT SPENDING.

We need to greatly reduce the number of people that rely upon the government for a paycheck. Government workers do not produce goods so they do not make a profit. We need more people working in the private sector so that the engine of commerce can thrive. Turning government workers to private sector workers is like a double save.

We need to close most of our overseas military bases and bring those service men and women home (with the civilian support staffs) having them spending their money at and around US bases and not overseas would be like a stimulus for those economies.

Finally, WE CAN NOT AFFORD GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTHCARE. There is no money for it. We need to do something along the lines of 100% tax free and 100% portable HSA. But that is another discussion.

I'm Severusmax and I approved this message.

Top, I have a lot of respect for you. But I must honestly agree with what hubs said. He is right on those issues.