PDA

View Full Version : Why the US is collapsing



nAz
06-13-2008, 12:06 AM
I don't agree with whole article, but it does make sense and is still an interesting read.

I'd like to know everyone take on this.

oh and it's pretty long (6 parts?)so if you suffer from ADD skip it...

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Why the US is collapsing

Hello, visitors from Digg, Reddit, StumbleUpon, and Slashdot. Summary in one paragraph: This is the leader of the Swedish Pirate Party explaining how the US went bankrupt in 1971, and has been covering it up through an accelerating whack-a-mole borrowing frenzy that is bursting right now. It has been paying rapidly growing VISA bills using MasterCard and vice versa for 37 years. The creditors are catching up, and the US is about to go extinct as a superpower. Become irrelevant. It is not yet on its death bed, it is still walking, breathing and capable of entertaining a conversation in public. But there are ominous bloodstains on its hands used to cover the painful coughing.


Last summer, I wrote (in Swedish) about how the US is in grave danger of becoming the Fourth Reich. I also said that such a state would not last for more than 15 years, because of a number of factors I would elaborate on later.

I was right about the sequence of events, but horribly off on the timing. Where I had expected them to happen gradually in about ten or 15 years, instead they are unfolding before my eyes at an accelerating pace.

Some people believe that pirate politics is somehow about the right to obtain music and movies without paying. Some, a bit more initiated, believe it is for fight for civil liberties. In that, they are correct. But few understand the scope of this fight. It is not against the music industry. It is not against entertainment cartels.

I see the pirate fight as being against corrupt governments that systematically curtail civil liberties as the primary and only defense of a gigantic and growing financial bubble, built over four decades. A fight against a small elite that are literally killing people to be able to keep living in luxury without paying the bills for it. Some bloggers have called this Fascism 2.0. The entertainment cartels are just a small part of this bubble, and fascism is used here in its most lexical sense.

fascism n. a merging of the interests of big corporations and government, adjoined with a systematic curtailment of civil liberties

In order to understand what pirate politics are really about, you need to understand global economic politics in ways that most people will never encounter. You need to understand the gold coin of Bretton-Woods, Toyota's impact on Detroit, the strategic dollar advantage of the Marshall Plan, why the WTO and UN WIPO are rivals, how and why the US uses threats of trade sanctions, and how money is created and ceases to exist on today's financial markets. I will cover the basics in this blog post.

The most prominent of these bubble-pumping governments is the US. And their bubble is bursting. The dollar is not just falling in exchange rate, as in "oh, the curves are on a downslope, interesting, btw I wonder what's for lunch today". The US dollars are about to become as irrelevant as the rubles, the deutschmarks, and the sesertii.

For these empires - the Soviet, German and Roman empire - followed the exact same pattern. And if history is a teacher, future empires will do so too.


Part I: Background

Some of you may have noticed that the dollar has lost some of its value against other currencies, the euro in particular. Usually, with a healthy currency, this would not be a cause for alarm, other that a sign that the American households might be overborrowing and overmortgaging, and thus increasing the money supply, causing the rate to fall due to supply/demand rules.

It is much more serious than that.

Let's go back to 1947. The US did two extremely strategic moves at that point. One was called The Marshall Plan and looked like charity, giving money away to all of war-torn Europe, officially to help repel communism.

Three years prior, it had established the Bretton Woods system, which put the US Dollar at the center of rebuilding the countries, and guaranteed an exchange in gold for the US Dollar. Every 35 US Dollars would be exchangable and refundable with one ounce in gold.

I genuinely believe that these two deals were good for everybody involved. The ruined Europe got a foundation for rebuilding its nations.

But what the US accomplished was much more important than that: it succeeded in making its own currency into a world currency. The dollar became the trade standard.

This status is extremely important. In fact, it carries the entire US economy and its continuous overspending. Let's stop for a moment to understand why.

Every nation has a currency reserve today. Savings in a piggy bank, if you like. This currency reserve was filled with the world's most stable and standard currency, the dollar.

Let's take that again: every nation has been buying dollars for the past 60 years just to stockpile it, because the US Dollar has been the standard currency.

And since they are buying the dollar, this means that the US is getting something else of value in return. In effect, the US has been able to print money at a rate that outpaces its industrial production, just because countries have been buying its currency.

At the end of 2007, this stockpile across the world was two and a half trillion dollars. More specifically, it was 2,445,180 million dollars.

What this means, is that unless the US has an equivalent on two and a half trillion dollars in cash on hand, which it absolutely doesn't, the US has consumed goods and services for two and a half trillion dollars that are not yet paid for. The countries bought dollars in exchange for yen-or-whatever, the US bought shiny toys for the yen-or-whatever, and never gave it a second thought.

This is like going on a shopping spree and paying with checks, and having the luxury of the checks never arriving at the bank to charge the account.

But the checks for that two and a half trillion dollars haven't vanished. They are sitting in vaults. And they are starting to trickle in to the bank. A barely noticeable dripping at first, it is now starting to turn into a small stream, and once people figure out what is happening, it's going to be a burst dam torrenting down the valley of global finance.

How much is two and a half trillion dollars? Actually, it isn't a lot of money in the global economy. It's about $7,500 for every man, woman and child in the US. It is about four years' worth of American military spending. It's about one-quarter of the American GDP.

The key here, however, is not how much money it is. It is that there is no financial coverage for it. Spending $1,000 on a TV set isn't a lot of money, but it can cause a lot of bad consequences for you and your standing if you don't happen to have those $1,000, and no more creditors are willing to lend you a hand.

And the US is running out of new creditors fast.



Part II: The war bankrupted the US

I wrote previously, that under the Bretton-Woods agreement, the dollar was essentially an IOU. A loan paper, an obligation to the US. Every 35 dollars was good for one ounce of gold, to be paid at any time of the creditor's choosing. However, the war tore through the American economy like a plough through a golf course. At the start of the war, the gold coverage was 55%, which is healthy by modern bank standards. During just 1970, however, that coverage dwindled from 55% to 22%.

Wait. 1970? Right. I'm not talking about Iraq. I'm talking about Vietnam...


Here the rest if your interested... http://falkvinge.com/2008/03/why-us-is-collapsing.html

Gayle in MD
06-13-2008, 06:42 AM
Let's hope our resident hawks will get a lesson in economics from this, which they sorely need.

Just think, had we listened to Carter, and gone to conservation, and independence from foreign oil, we could be sailing righ now, in calm waters, BUT NO, the Repumplicans had other ideas, invasions of foreign countries for oil, that failed anyway.

While this mess may have began in the 70's, only one president made the effort to get us going in the right direction with dependence on foreign oil.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">fascism n. a merging of the interests of big corporations and government, adjoined with a systematic curtailment of civil liberties

</div></div>

Good definition of Republican style government. The Repubs have created a cottage industry out of torture. The CEO's are doing great, the rest of the country is in a recession.

It's really funny reading their posts and how focused they are on every tax dollar, while our ship is sinking in debt from their cowboy diplomacy. Penny wise, pound foolish.

Without conscience.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
06-13-2008, 09:49 AM
Naz,

Thanks. This is a very interesting article. I'll read the rest as soon as possible.

Thanks.

Chopstick
06-13-2008, 12:48 PM
I guess that feller missed the part where we went off the gold standard decades ago. The US dollar is no longer tied to gold reserves. That's why dollars say reserve note at the top instead of gold or silver certificate like they used to.

nAz
06-13-2008, 05:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess that feller missed the part where we went off the gold standard decades ago. The US dollar is no longer tied to gold reserves. That's why dollars say reserve note at the top instead of gold or silver certificate like they used to. </div></div>

Hey there chop, he mentions that and more in the full article...

Wait. 1970? Right. I'm not talking about Iraq. I'm talking about Vietnam.

At this point, economists no longer believed in the US' capacity of regulating its expenditure and making good on its promises. International pressure mounted to exchange dollars for the promised gold, particularly from France, which converted large amounts of its dollar currency reserves into gold at this time. It was a run on the bank to withdraw the savings while the bank was still alive.

On August 15, 1971, president Nixon declared bankruptcy. It wasn't worded like that, of course. But what Nixon did was to state that the US would no longer honor its creditors and pay gold for the dollar. He declared the credit documents invalid. This event has been dubbed The Nixon Shock. In any other milieu, cancelling payments is the same as declaring bankruptcy. Here, it was "just an executive order", and the world at large didn't really appreciate its consequences.

One such consequence was that the US was free to print as much money as anyone was willing to buy, inflating the bubble without any check, balance, or irritating warning light.

At the end of 1995, the foreign US Dollar stockpile was 610,337 million dollars. As I wrote earlier, today that number has grown to 2,445,180 million. That's close to two trillion in 13 years. A fourfolding of the debt. A 300% increase. Who is buying all of these dollars?

Asian countries, it turns out. A small handful of countries have been derogatorily called ODIC - Organization of Dollar Importing Countries.

link for full story...
http://falkvinge.com/2008/03/why-us-is-collapsing.html

nAz
06-15-2008, 12:57 AM
Part III: Compensating by enforcing lopsided trade terms

Towards the end of the 1970s, economists in the US administration panicked. The Japanese cars, which flooded the market, struck at the heart of the American pride.

Foreign cars were better than American cars from proud Detroit. This just could not happen. Toy-o-ta. Even the name didn't sound very American. And yet, people in America were rejecting the pinnacle of American engineering - cars - for a foreign-produced equivalent.

So the administration concluded quite simply that American's dominance in industrial production was over. Far from throwing in the towel, another question was asked: "How can the US have a continued economic dominance in a world where the US does not have an industrial production of tradeable value?"

The answer came from an unexpected source.

Some time in the early 1980s, the then-CEO of Pfizer, Edmund Pratt, was frustrated with competition from foreign companies that (quite legally) copied and improved Pfizer's products. At the point, however, there was no way to change foreign laws to create a trade environment where such competition would be outlawed.

To cut a long story short, Pratt ended up on the ACTN - the Advisory Committee on Trade Negotiations - and recommended a plan to the Department of Commerce that would guarantee American trade superiority.

In short, it involved a two-pronged approach. The first part of it was to enforce trade laws that favored American interests, and then establishing "free trade" within that framework, set up to favor US interests. The second part was to threaten trade sanctions against countries that did not agree to this lopsided "free trade" agreement.

At first this was believed a risky business, since trade sanctions had never been used as part of a systematic policy before, but only used in exceptional cases. However, the strategy - focused on intellectual "property", i.e. mostly-American monopolies - turned out to work extremely well.

A forum was sought to establish the new American trade terms as a world standard. Pratt and ACTN went to WIPO, the UN-controlled World Intellectual Property Organization, to seek their blessing. They were basically thrown out on their faces, when the UN realized what they were trying to accomplish.

So hijacking another vessel became necessary. That vessel was the GATT, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Using a combination of unilateral threats, bilateral agreements of "free" lopsided trade, and multilateral agreements once enough countries had agreed to the terms, an all-encompassing and lopsided trade agreement was devised. It would prohibit third world countries from manufacturing medicine to save lives in their own population. It would make sure that established players, primarily in the US, could outmaneouver upstarts not by building better products, but through the legal framework. The companies in the agreement, such as the record industry, are now lobbying for warrantless searches of people's mail and homes to find out when their monopolies are infringed.

Using a combination of deceit and tricky negotiations, the agreement was signed by many enough countries. That agreement is called TRIPs. The vessel enforcing it is GATT, which was renamed World Trade Organization, or WTO.

And that is how America came to enforce its monopolies over civil liberties of the people in the US and elsewhere. The key takeaways here is that America deliberately skewed international trade through a combination of threats and coercion, in an attempt to irrelevantize the fact that American industry didn't produce anything sellable.

With the US now having a record trade deficit, the strategy has ultimately failed.

(The full background to the TRIPs agreement can be found in the book Information Feudalism. A very worthwhile, although very heavy, read.)


Part IV: Understanding the monetary system

Most people, I would say it's so "most" it can be approximated to "all", do not know where money comes from. How does a dollar appear? If there is $1,000,000,000 in the total economy, who makes the decision to change that number to $1,000,000,100?

Most people would answer "the government" or "the central bank". This is wrong.

The correct answer is: you do. When you borrow a hundred dollars, those hundred dollars appear magically in the economy. They did not exist before and will not exist after they have been repaid.

The monetary system works like this, somewhat simplified: a bank must have a certain fraction of its outstanding loans as savings accounts. If that fraction is 1/9 (a common number), and you deposit $1,000 in a bank, that bank has the right to lend $9,000 to other people, at a higher interest.

UPDATE II: the above paragraph has received a lot of comments on various forums. To clarify: I simplified it a bit to not go into too much detail. In the full somewhat more complex picture, the $1,000-becomes-another-$9,000 involves a cascade of deposits in different banks, multiplying the original limit. The first bank can only lend $900 for the $1,000 of deposit, but those $900 becomes a deposit somewhere else, generating another $810 in debt and magical new money, which becomes a deposit in turn, etc, and that's how $1,000 of deposit generates another $9,000 of magical new shiny money in the economy. If you're interested, I reiterate - take 45 minutes to watch the Money As Debt animation.

This is called the Fractional Reserve banking system. It is now doing its third tour of the United States, introduced by President Wilson in 1913. Before that, Andrew Jackson killed the second tour in 1836.

Lately, through lobbying and obscurity, the fractional reserve requirement has all but disappeared. Banks can now practically create as much money as you want to borrow.

In short, while Andrew Jackson was able to remove the central bank, he wasn’t able to eliminate unsound fractional reserve banking. When one such unsound bank in Massachusetts collapsed, it was discovered that its bank note circulation of $500,000 was backed by exactly $86.48. Why is this obvious absurdity, and the banks’ protection from criminal prosecution if they suspended payments, not called into question?


This has a number of interesting consequences. From a monetary perspective, it means that if the interest rate is 4%, then 4% of all credit will default, as that money must be used to pay interest on the remaining money pool. Since every dollar in the system is borrowed, every dollar is also owed interest on. Every single one. Where would the money come from to pay that interest? The answer is that it doesn't. The system is designed so that a certain percentage of people must go bankrupt.

Europe has had a similar system since the 1600s. If you're interested in more about this, I would very much recommend the 47-minute movie Money As Debt.

But the most important aspect is that the money supply is tightly tied to household borrowing. If people were frugal and economical, and everybody paid off all their debts, there would not any money left in the economy! There would be a shortage of money, meaning that there would not be any money to pay wages, rents, or creating new businesses.

On the other side, the more people borrow (particularly using house mortgages), the richer everybody feels because it increases the money supply, without increasing actual value of goods, commodities and services.

In 2006, this household debt was $45 trillion, compared to $5 trillion in 1969. The money supply has been expanded ninefold.

This is significant because a collapse of the credit system means a collapse of the money supply, and therefore create a society where nobody will have any money.

You can see where I'm going with this with the recent subprime mortgage market collapse, which is now snowballing.

Oh, and you've heard about the crash of 1929? The crash which everybody talked about as the worst in history? That crash saw a mere 27% reduction in the money supply. Compare this with the fact that if the US is forced into going back to a pre-1971, pre-bubble economy, we'll see an 89% reduction in the money supply.

To be absolutely clear: These numbers mean that in a worst case scenario, every working citizen in the US is about to receive an 89% pay cut on average. The best case scenario is hard to predict but I'm betting my money that the money supply will reduce a good bit more than the 27% of 1929.

The United States is heading for something that will make 1929 look like just an ordinarily disturbing day with some red numbers. And its fall will affect the rest of the Western world, as well.

Gayle in MD
06-19-2008, 11:26 AM
Naz,
I heard that Ross Paroe has a new web site with loads of economic charts on it. I haven't found it yet. Let me kknow if you find where it is.

thanks,
Gayle

Gayle in MD
06-19-2008, 11:34 AM
Bush's Data Dump
The administration is hiding bad economic news. Here's how.
By Russ Baker
Posted Friday, July 11, 2003, at 3:56 PM ET

Slight of hand?
The Bush administration is finally facing tough questions about its selective use of intelligence in selling war with Iraq. But Americans shouldn't just be skeptical of what the president says about WMD. They should be skeptical of what he says about GDP. In economic policy even more than in war policy, the Bushies have successfully suppressed, manipulated, and withheld evidence to serve their policy purposes.

Of course every administration likes to trumpet its good news and hide its bad, but what's remarkable about the Bush team is its willingness to stifle data that had been widely released and to politicize data that used to be nonpartisan.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The administration muzzles routine economic information that's unfavorable. Last year, for example, the administration stopped issuing a monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics report, known as the Mass Layoff Statistics program, that tracked factory closings throughout the country. The cancellation was made known on Christmas Eve in a footnote to the department's final report—a document that revealed 2,150 mass layoffs in November, cashiering nearly a quarter-million workers. The administration claimed the report was a victim of budget cuts. After the Washington Post happened to catch this bit of data suppression, the BLS report was reinstated. (Interestingly, President George H.W. Bush buried these same statistics in '92, also during a period of job losses. They were revived by President Clinton.)

The Bush economic team has snuffed its own reports when they reach conclusions that don't match the administration's rosy scenarios. The administration deep-sixed a study commissioned by then Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill that predicts huge budget deficits well into the future. As noted by the Financial Times in late May, this survey, which asserted that the baby-boom generation's future health care and retirement costs would swamp U.S. coffers, was dropped from a 2004 budget summary published in February 2003—at the same time the White House was campaigning for a tax-cut package that critics warned would greatly expand future deficits. "The study's [analysis of future deficits] dwarfs previous estimates of the financial challenge facing Washington," wrote the FT. According to the FT, a Bush official said the study was merely a thought exercise.

The administration also muffled a customary report whose findings would have forced key corporate supporters to pay more to their employees. The annual Adverse Effect Wage Rate establishes the minimum wage that can be paid each year to about 50,000 agricultural "guest workers" in the H2A Program. From AEWR's 1987 inception until 2000, the Department of Labor released the report in February. But in 2001, DOL withheld the wage figure until August, and only published it after the Farmworker Justice Fund threatened a lawsuit. In 2002, the DOL held up the report until May, again releasing it only after the prospect of legal action. The delays helped big agricultural firms, largely in the tobacco states and the South, by allowing them to pay their field workers last year's lower wages, saving the employers millions of dollars. Among those benefiting politically were Labor Secretary Elaine Chao's husband, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, whose state relies on several thousand guest workers in its tobacco fields and who receives large contributions from agricultural interests.

Another administration trick is playing with the length of its economic forecast periods, which puts the best possible face on bad news while exaggerating the projected benefits of its own initiatives. For example, to heighten the impression that Social Security is running out of money (thereby strengthening the case for allowing workers to divert money from the system into private retirement accounts), the administration has predicted shortfalls far in the future by relying on preposterously long forecast periods. In a superb analysis of the budget in the June Harper's, Thomas Frank noted that in 2002 the administration declared an $18 trillion shortfall in Social Security and Medicare—about five times the current national debt. Frank notes that in order to arrive at the $18 trillion figure—since Social Security is currently in surplus—the administration used a "cumulative seventy-five-year estimate [Frank's itals] based on extreme long-term projections ... ." Meanwhile, even as it relies on 75-year projections for Social Security, the same document replaces traditional 10-year budget projections with five-year ones, claiming the longer-term numbers were unreliable.

President Bush also politicized the Council of Economic Advisers, which is supposed to produce straight analysis, not administration spin. CEA staffers complained that top Bush economic adviser Larry Lindsey, not even a member of the council, encouraged them to produce data supporting the president's controversial tax cut initiatives. CEA chairman Glen Hubbard also pushed staffers to find literature supporting the questionable argument that tax cuts created job growth.

On other occasions, the administration has punished economic officials who didn't follow the company line. Treasury Secretary O'Neill left the administration after, among other fits of candor, he expressed skepticism about economic figures the White House had released and suggested that the tax cut could be better used to buttress Social Security. And before Lindsey was made to take a dive, he predicted that the war in Iraq could cost upwards of $200 billion, a figure that infuriated the White House, which was selling the anti-Saddam campaign as a comparatively cheap victory.

Important economic data that casts a bad light on administration policies has been expunged from government Web sites. The Department of Labor removed a report showing the real value of the minimum wage over time, claiming it was "outdated." With no minimum wage hike since 1997, the Web site would have shown minimum-wage workers faring increasingly poorly under the Bush administration, while their real income went up under Clinton. (Some subheadings from the report: "Real Value of the Minimum Wage Continues Decline"; "Minimum Wage Falls Relative to Average Hourly Earnings"; "Minimum Wage Falls Below 2-Person Family Poverty Threshold.")

Earlier this year, a study predicting mediocre job growth from Bush's proposed $674 billion economic stimulus plan disappeared from the Council of Economic Advisers' Web site. The study forecast an average increase of only 170,000 jobs—0.1 percent of the workforce—every year through 2007. The study was pulled just after a major Jan. 7 Bush budget speech to the Economic Club of Chicago. "In the out years, by their own estimate, their plan is a job and growth killer," says Jared Bernstein, economist at the Economic Policy Institute. "Instead of doing what serious analysts would do and going to the drawing board to re-evaluate, they just took the offending document off the Web site."

Certainly, each one of these Bush team moves can be explained: administrative concerns, government paperwork reduction, outdated material, etc. Cumulatively, however, they certainly look suspect. We've seen the future, and it's been deleted.

<span style="color: #000066">the link for this story is on my other post about bush's Politisized Economic figures... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif </span>

eg8r
06-19-2008, 01:13 PM
Seemed easy enough to find... PerotCharts.com (http://perotcharts.com/)

eg8r

DickLeonard
06-19-2008, 05:46 PM
nAz any chance of you being Barack's Secretary of the Treasury if you turn down the Vice Presidency.####

Deeman3
06-20-2008, 07:20 AM
Naz would not be a bad choice in my book.

DickLeonard
06-20-2008, 07:52 AM
Deeman Great Minds think alike.$$$$

Qtec
06-20-2008, 10:31 AM
nAz, the US is heading for a Nat Debt of 10 trillion dollars.
Whats the interest payment on that loan?
The US is running a deficit, ie it spends more than it makes. This explains the devaluation of the Dollar under Bush at 25%. Yeah, thanks to Bush your dollar is now worth 75ct!
This govt actually borrowed MORE money in order to pay for the tax cuts for the rich.
This can't go on. Everything has to be paid for. Invading Iraq is an attempt to postpone the inevitable.

Q

Bobbyrx
06-20-2008, 11:14 AM
Tax cuts, which were for everyone not just the rich, had nothing to do with it. The government brought in more money than ever before. The problem was they also spent more than ever before. Did you get your rebate check yet?

Qtec
06-22-2008, 05:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tax cuts, which were for everyone not just the rich, had nothing to do with it. The government brought in more money than ever before. The problem was they also spent more than ever before. Did you get your rebate check yet? </div></div>

Imagine a Casino and there are 10 punters. The Casino GIVES them all $100 and they all lose on one table. According to the table count the Casino has won $1000 but the cashier's desk ............?

All the Govt did was get its money back, there was no profit! Its called a 'con'. A shell game. All it did was get the Govt into more debt because they had to borrow the money in the first place!

Q

DickLeonard
06-23-2008, 07:25 AM
Qtec I find it verrrryyy interesting that the only country that wouldn't accept the US Dollar for their OIL Payments we INVADED. I think we are not to be trusted. ####

Gayle in MD
06-23-2008, 08:06 AM
The spending was a huge problem, but the tax cuts favored the wealthy, the top ten percent. The wealthier, the more favorable.

How many middle class families, who are raising their children, do you think have any extra money left over after they pay their bills, to invest?

There is no question that Bush's tax cuts, Reagan's tax cuts, favored the wealthiest Americans.

Republicans will never admit that, but then, they don't admit to any of the messes they have made! However, ten trillion dollars of debt, cannot be denied, and tax cuts during wartime, pure insanity! Particularly when the war was a fantasy from the start! Particularly when it is going to be fought in the most expensive region in which to fight, in the first place. Particularly, when it requires that America take its collective eye off the region where the real threat lives and thrives, PAKISTAN! AFGHANISTAN! NOT IRAQ!

You cannot force democracy down the throats of people on the other side of the world, with guns and bombs, particularly when you don't have a clue about how they will react to an invasion, in the first place.

"We'll be greeted as liberators."

BWA HA HA HA...in their dreams!

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
06-23-2008, 02:19 PM
"How many middle class families, who are raising their children, do you think have any extra money left over after they pay their bills, to invest?"
<span style="color: #FF0000">So cutting taxes for the middle class and having tax rebates for the middle class somehow gives them LESS money to invest? </span>

Gayle in MD
06-24-2008, 08:02 AM
Trying to change the subject? Do you have a point? WE are discussing Bush's tax cuts, and how they advantage the wealthy, more than the middle class. Frankly, it is no longer necessary to argue about it. The Middle class loses ground every time Republicans "Cut" taxes, because they use methods which advantage the wealthy, much more so than the rest, and hence, the government charts show the corresponding results.

Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
06-24-2008, 08:15 AM
Bobbyrx Alan Greenspan who is considered the God of Finances said it was wrong to give a Tax break and go to War. A mixture for a financial disaster.

Gayle Keeps saying 10 trrillion in debt what I have been hearing from my sources there is another 3 trrrillion hidden in War Debt. ####

Gayle in MD
06-24-2008, 08:56 AM
We'll be lucky if it's only another three trillion! As with all things Bush, the crime is always worse than the statistics, especially where his waste of money is involved.

Greenspan is/was Republican, BTW, as is his wife, Andrea Mitchell, of MSNBC, and NBC, who leans so far right it's a wonder she can stand or sit, without falling over. Scuttlebutt around town suggests that Greenspan is leaving the Republican Party, which no longer represents his economic ideology. I guess ten to thirteen trillion debt has awakened him to the true meaning of "Conservative."

Love,
Gayle

Bobbyrx
06-24-2008, 09:02 AM
<span style="color: #FF0000"> Are you serious?? Do you ever read your own posts? ME trying to change the subject? All I did was take a quote FROM YOU and comment on it about the tax cuts. I agree with them and you don't. You want more taxes and I don't. Let's combine your last posts to me and see who's changing the subject. Remember, "We are discussing Bush's tax cuts" </span> Quote Gayle "Do you have a point? WE are discussing Bush's tax cuts, and how they advantage the wealthy, more than the middle class. Frankly, it is no longer necessary to argue about Republicans will never admit that, but then, they don't admit to any of the messes they have made! However, ten trillion dollars of debt, cannot be denied, and tax cuts during wartime, pure insanity! <span style="color: #33CC00">Particularly when the war was a fantasy from the start! Particularly when it is going to be fought in the most expensive region in which to fight, in the first place. Particularly, when it requires that America take its collective eye off the region where the real threat lives and thrives, PAKISTAN! AFGHANISTAN! NOT IRAQ!

You cannot force democracy down the throats of people on the other side of the world, with guns and bombs, particularly when you don't have a clue about how they will react to an invasion, in the first place.

"We'll be greeted as liberators."

BWA HA HA HA...in their dreams!" </span> unquote Gayle

Gayle in MD
06-24-2008, 09:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So cutting taxes for the middle class and having tax rebates for the middle class somehow gives them LESS money to invest?
</div></div>

That wasn't the point. The point was, the wealthier people are, the more money they have left over to invest, and investors are the the most advantaged by the tax cuts. Middle class people can barly hold onto their homes, and feed their kids.

Pay attention.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
06-24-2008, 01:03 PM
So you are for taxing the wealthy and not taxing the middle class?

Gayle in MD
06-25-2008, 09:10 AM
I am for removing the loopholes which allow them to avoid paying taxes altogether, and allow them to deduct from their taxes whatever fines they are assessed for trashing the environment, (and breaking other laws) so that they rest of us end up paying half of their fines and legal fees. I'm for removing tax cuts and subsidies for corporations which make money doing things that hurt our country, outsourcing jobs, hiring illegals preferentially to Americans, poisoning the population, and hiding their money in the Carribbean.

This administration supports and rewards the same corporate fascist pigs that are destroying our country. Looks the other way for eight years, while China cheats us on the global market. Allows Mexico to cross our borders and kill AMerican border patrols, and U.S. citizens, and does nothing, while the dollar becomes worthless. Bails out corporations after they bilk people out of their money, with predatory loans.

I could go on. China is practicing cyber war on us right now. Bush does nothing. They buy the companies that we hire to protect our cyber security. they are buying up the country through sovereign wealth funds, a euphemism for foreign government, and when a foreign government comes in and buys up our free market assets and entities, that IS called socialism, and it makes the private sector smaller. communist China is our strategic threat, while we're being jerked off over in Iraq, for nothing, China is cheating us, and building their army and power to be used against us at a later date.

A communist country, taking us from within.

Bush stand up there telling the people of this country that the economy is strong, while the former Fed, allen Greenspan, is saying that we are in a recession, that will be lasting, and deep. Our real debt is 54 trillion collars, if you use the accounting that all others use, but Bush uses CASH accounting, not acccrual, and hence, Americans have no idea how far in debt we actually are, 70 % of which we inherited from the last three Republican Presidents, Reagan, Bush and Bush, with their tax cuts for the wealthy, who use voluminous loopholes to avoid paying taxes.

Our former comptroller General of the Federal Government, David Walker, told the Budget Committee that we've got cancer. We're so burried in debt, that the costs of fixing everything that is nearly unaffordable.

Bush's approval rating is lower than even Richard Nixon's, and the right wants to uyap about congress's approval raings, but it is the Republicans that block everything they try to do, and actually, the Democratic Congressmen and Senators have high approval ratings in their home towns, but the Republicans are sweating every seat.

The party is over. It's time that the filthy rich start paying their far share. The only way we're going to get out of this mess is by removing all the benefits for the greedy crooks in this country who only care about how much they can bilk the rest of us out of, and screw the environment, poison in our food, illegals pouring over our borders, china bilking us daily, the Saudis sending support to the terrorists.

We're in the biggest mess ever.

Thank you George Bush, the Republicans, and the supporters who only cared about a measly tax cut, which they've already paid for a hundred times over at the gas pump, while the Saudis, Exxon, Halliburton, The Carlyle Group, and others, including and China, laugh all the way to the bank.

Gayle in Md.