Will the successful stick around to be soaked?

What you have wrong is not taking into consideration is that some people are seemingly born with absolutely NO empathy. Balbus understands this country perfectly from an outsiders point of view and has no reason to worship "OUR" rich. Ayn Rand was a hypocritical ---person, for whom welfare was needed and taken by her.

The right always yaks about the poor/middle class not paying taxes---then create some fucking jobs and build the middle class up.

 

The whole damn thing is a farce, anyway. All this political bullshit keeps our eyes off the damage that is being done by--whom--the ruling class--continuing to use everything up for short term profits, while the land and oceans turn to shit. Mark my words. Some day the way capitalism (and the rest of the isms) has converted the world from agrarian societies to one of money gimmicks that affect all of us, will be seen as an aberrant period in which we were rushing to kill ourselves off. The system WILL have to change.

 

no sure who this was directed at. I agree with balbus post that's why I said "good post" my Q. "what do I have wrong" was for individual who said I wasted his time. I agree with what you said too if you re-read my midnight ramble I was trying to discribe "some people are seemingly born with absolutely NO empathy"

 

but everyone thinks their ism has our best interest at hart "this time" well at least life will be interesting on the way down.

 

scratcho

I think things will change – the question is will they change for the better or the worse.

Will we go the way that leads to some new type of feudalism with lords and serfs or do we move toward societies that are fairer and better to live in. Places where people are more likely to realise their potential and have the opportunity of having a healthy and fulfilled life.

Now to me the Ayn Rand/neoliberal/social Darwinist/free market route is frankly the road to hell, that would most likely lead to a lot worse – I say this because even the supporters of such ideas seem totally incapable of defending them from criticism.

So what we need to discuss is - what is the road to a better and brighter future and can we map a way to it?

 

It's not so much about the people, but about the government taking from some of the people and giving to others. Governments should not be set up as replacements for charities.

 

There should be no need for charities when you have a properly functioning government.

 

There would be no need for government if we had properly functioning people, and charities have nothing to gain from dividing one group of people against another, while government uses that very effectively and for its' own benefit more so than the benefit of those it governs.

 

you two seem to be on to it so close but yet you both will likely never get it fully.

if everyone was alike stuff would be great.

 

Indie why do you persist in pumping out stuff you know has already been covered and which you have never been able to defend from criticism?

Again -

It should be remembered that private assistance was never capable on its own, it was always backed up or ran alongside public assistance. In the US this was based originally on the English Elizabethan poor laws, which the colonists had brought with them when they came to Americas.

Now even in upturns such private assistance as was given however genuine and heartfelt as it could be, could be inadequate, but during downturns that system was often overwhelmed (and giving could even drop in times of greatest need as people looked to their own needs).

“While the genuine warmth emanating from these volunteer institutions produced a true sense of community with revitalising effects in depressed urban neighbourhoods, participants quickly realised that private charity was not enough. Charity Organisation Societies modelled on those of London and Berlin had emerged in the early 1880’s to be succeeded by Associated Charities designed to prevent duplication of effort among the score of secular and church philanthropies, but relief measures possible under a system of private endeavour, no matter how earnest or how efficiently organised, could not handle the problems arising in periods of economic distress.

Public institutions to care for indigents, the ill, the widows and orphans, the aged and the insane never had money enough during boom times, and when hard times set in and the burden increased, city welfare budgets lagged still further behind the amounts needed.”

The Rise of Urban America by Constance Mclaughlin Green

Also on the forum such things as sewage works and housing amongst other things have been discussed where public money and government legislation did a lot to help to improve the lives of poor and middle class people.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s....php?p=7470925

 

in the us all the income taxes collected(and then some) go to pay the interest on the national debt

"Net interest payments totaled $220 billion in 2012, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Net interest payments are what most economists cite when talking about interest on the debt, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ Richard Kogan told us. That figure corresponds to the roughly $12 trillion in debt that we owe outside creditors, such as China.

Total interest payments -- the $220 billion plus $140 billion in interest paid for intragovernmental borrowing, such as tapping surplus Social Security funds -- was about $360 billion in 2012. That corresponds with the total debt of roughly $17 trillion."

why does our country borrow money at interest in the first place??? when we can create are own! oh yah the last prez who tried to buck the fed res system wound up with a magic bullet in him. so who is soaking who??? if you could respond with facts instead of ignoring the facts stated like you usually do would be great

 

ALL the income taxes collected(AND then some) go to pay the interest on the national debt?

That sounds about right, but then in your first sentence you seem to be claiming that the total income taxes collected amount to LESS than $360 billion.

I have no arguement with what you have written above, in fact I've pointed out numerous times that much of our current problems began with the creation of the Federal reserve, along with the 16th and 17th amendments.

 

kind of old stuff but here you go
"Industrialist Peter Grace and syndicated columnist Jack Anderson formed the Grace Commission in 1982 in response to President Reagan’s “Private Sector Survey on Cost Control.” Two years later, after 161 corporate executives and community leaders directed over 2,000 researchers to investigate government spending, the 47-volume, 21,000-page Grace Commission Report was published.

The $76 million study was funded entirely from private sector donations and cost the taxpayers nothing. The commission made 2,478 recommendations that would save the taxpayers $424.4 billion over three years without cutting essential services or raising taxes.

In a letter to President Reagan dated January 12, 1984, Grace encapsulated his commission’s findings. He warned the president of multi-trillion dollar government debts by the year 2000 should the federal government not act upon his commission’s recommendations.

In this same letter, Grace told President Reagan that “one-third” of the tax dollars collected are wasted and another third not collected. “With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.”"
The fiscal year 2004 federal budget is about $2 trillion. The spending in percentages this year looks like this:
26.2%—military
22.6%—interest on the debt
19%—health care
5.5%—income security
3.4%—veterans’ benefits
3.3%—education
2.5%—nutrition spending
1.6%—housing
1.6%—environment
11.4%—everything else

Looking at it a different way, if you had $1,500 deducted from your paychecks as an “income” tax and your tax dollars were directly applied to government expenses, your contributions by category would be:
$393—military
$339—interest on national debt
$285—healthcare
$83—income security
$51—veterans’ benefits
$48—education
$38—nutrition spending
$24—housing
$24—environmental protection
$216—everything else

But, if the Grace Commission is correct, then not one penny of income tax money is actually being spent on services the American People expect their government to provide.

So what is funding government? Tax researcher Richard Standring believes the U.S. funds itself with loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The IMF?

The IMF was created at the United Nations Monetary and Financial conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, July 12, 1944. Per Title 22, Section 286 U.S. Code, the U.S. became an IMF member in 1945.

Standring followed checks naming the IRS as the payee. He claims the checks go to a Federal Reserve bank, a private banking institution that has never been audited. The money then goes to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and is deposited into what is called a “Quad Zero” account. It is from this account that IRS tax refunds are distributed (per 22 USC 286 and 31 CFR 11, section 214.7).

According to Standring’s research, whatever is left over is then transferred to the IMF. From there the money is redistributed among countries throughout the world—including the U.S.—in the form of loans. These loans must then be paid back to IMF bankers at interest.

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Public Debt, Americans were in the red $1.663 trillion in 1984. Twenty years later the debt has increased nearly five-fold to $7.1 trillion.""""""

as for the fed res if can see that how come you can't see the the same family's that control it are the one's soaking the people and the amount spend by govs, orgs and people on "gifts" is but a tiny fraction of the wealth and resources hoarded by these people. all for the sake of greed and power.
come on man have some facts to back up what you claim

 

The roughly one half of the population that don't pay federal taxes would love to make enough money TO PAY federal taxes. That result would be called jobs with wages adequate enough to do so. Don't know why the right always delights in pointing that out about non-taxpaying citizens. It's like confessing that those who "run" the system have failed. Instead, it's turned around as if all those not paying federal taxes just love the paltry wages they get. If they can even get a job.

This was a reply to posts made constantly by the right, bragging about a certain segment paying ALL the taxes, while the so-called "privileged" non- tax payers have it made. Who wouldn't like to make a lot and pay a fair share to help the country? Oh wait---I just remembered who it is that's fond of putting their money overseas. Hmmm--answered my own damn question.

 

and as further proof that the "successful" are one's doing the soaking the fact of rising profit and productivity at the same time wages have stagnated or fallen.
if every job possible was not outsourced for MORE profit and people were given adequate wages imagine how wonderful our economy would be. if every working person had at least enuff for the basic necessities of life(before taxes) for their family. they spend the money they make(or save small amounts) not hoard massive fortunes taking it out of the economy at the same paying as little taxes as possible on it. who is soaking who??? come on indiv still waiting for some facts that point to Rand being right

 

Quite a spin that is. Basically all I'm claiming is that government is spending too much and needs to get spending under control, eliminating deficit budgeting. Based on the spin you just posted, since Obama took office our debt interest has now risen to over $3 Trillion per year?

 

Further proof? You are only making claims, without providing anything that could be considered proof.

In a competitive free market system wages and prices would be regulated by the consumer. Government and the Federal reserve micro management of our economy through complex rules and regulations make it difficult for many to afford entering into competition, while the Fed plays with our money supply and interest rates ensuring economic growth by devaluation of our currency, causing price and wage increase demands, which result in the appearance of economic growth. Government creates a complex environment for business to work within, which only those who can afford to deal with the responsibiities burdened by government can succeed. Jobs which require no special skills, and therefore would be paid lower wages in a free and competitive market are then sent abroad where wages can be paid more relative to the value of the labor required, which in turn results in bringing back home products which are once again affordable to a larger portion of the society. Imagine if all products sold in the U.S. had to be produced in the U.S. paying high wages to the workers. The costs of production and price of the goods would increase greatly, which would allow only some of the employed the ability to afford them, and none of the unemployed unless government was to subsidize them with much greater amounts of money than now, which would demand even greater taxes and/or borrowing.
The root of the problem is our fiat money supply which allows us to live on debt alone. We argue constantly about the consequences without any attempt to agree on the source of our problems, instead trying only to resolve one consequence after another while the problem source remains having effect on each attempted solution. Neither Left wing nor Right wing government is going to solve any of our problems.

 

<here some grafts . http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=477642&page=2

.<BS

<how dose that apply against any thing I said. and thats justs so the big guys don't have to much little guy competition "burdened by government" you need to focus on the string pullers not the puppets

<So no jobs for a segment of the people here. and then you say it's there fault they are in there place and just leeches "bums" as Rand says and just because you say a job requires no skill does that mean someone time and labour are worthless to you???

.< wow a bunch of cheep plastic shit we don't need and clothing made bye kids in sweat shops(used to be an honoured skill here) what great trade for jobs

.<never said that. it's from rands bs

<no the corporations would lose a fraction of profit

<uhhh that's what we have now

< It's all those $50,000 hammers and $3mil web sites,ect. our government buy from all their corprit cronies

.< NO GOVERNMENT CONTROLS THAT SYSTEM!! THAT SYSTEM IS CONTROLLED BY THE "SUCCESSFUL" you and Rand hold so dear DEEEERRRRR DEEERRRRRR (sorry for the all caps)

deeerrrr they is no difference between the two but for bells and whistles. your funny if someone don't agree with you you think they're on the other side of your box.

you wont answer direct questions and disregard my answers to yours. then you find fault with my source of something while not even attempting to back up any of what you say.
what gives are you one of those disinformation agents that it leaked out about????

 

you have claimed many many more things than that. you say you known about the fed res and fiat currency. then why do you care about a FICTIONAL DEBT OF FAKE MONEY??????

 

Your previous post contained several things that would be worth discussing, but you seem more intent to avoid looking into the areas that we might be able to reach any agreement.

Yes, WE do.

Would they?

But that ends with Democrats in power?

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
The Congress shall have Power...
To coin Money,regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

Note, the use of caps on some of the words, boldened by me, in our Constitution.

Actually you seem to think I support the Republican party, which I do not, and would like to do away with partis entirely allowing politicians to run on the issues and their own merit.

Your thumbnails appear to show the Democrats have only worsened things.

Having lived abroad for many years, the poor in the U.S.A. and most other developed world countries for that matter, are quite well off compared to the middle classes in many third world countries. And jobs being sent abroad are in many cases making the poor in those countries where they are being sent much worse, for the price benefit of the poor in the developed world countries, and of course the profit of the owners and shareholders of those businesses too.