Economy

Rant

The Shaker Party

Posted 10 months ago|32 comments|511 views
You have to pay for what you purchase
Written by
Altruist
Eugene, OR
The Shaker Party

The Shaker religion was a radical branch of Quakers. They were wonderful workers and craftsmen. They lived simple and fulfilling lives and believed in equality of all. Shakers had a lot going for them and their furniture and crafts are still sought out for their quality and simplicity. Unfortunately the Shakers are all gone now. Why?

The Shakers took vows of celibacy. They believed that sex was bad, so over time they became old, and died off without any offspring to carry on the religion.

The Republicans are in a similar position today. They think taxes are bad so, all but 13 of the Republicans in Congress starting in 1986 have vowed never to raise taxes for any reason. The last time any Congressional Republican voted for tax major increases was in 1991. They enforce this vow of fiscal abstinence by cutting off all sources of funding and by finding and supporting challengers to remove the back sliders from office.

Because of the Republican pledge to never raise taxes for any reason, the taxes are at a 60 year low. http://www.thefourthbranch.com/taxes-at-...

Republicans are proud of this record and claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, however not raising revenue is only one part of the economic formula. When in power Republicans spent money like drunken sailors. They just didn't pay for what they bought. They put it all on the credit card.

In the past, any time there was a war the nation pulled together and everyone sacrificed to aid the war effort. Tax rates on the rich went to 90% to prevent war profiteering.

This time it was different. When 9/11 happened nobody was asked to sacrifice, they were told to go shopping. The rich were given bigger tax breaks. They doubled the defense spending and started two wars, but instead of paying for these expenditures, they gave more tax breaks. Katrina happened but no one paid any additional taxes to pay for that. They put it all on the credit card. They went from $250 billion surpluses projected indefinitely to doubling the debt, just because they refused to pay for what they bought.

So now we only have the money that we had in the 50's. But the population has gone from 150 million to 309 million now. Everything was cheaper then. In 1950 A new house cost $ 8,500, a gallon of gas was $0.18/gal. and the average cost of a new car was $1500. http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1950s.ht...

The cost of government should be double for double the population, but on top of that, the cost of everything else has gone up about 20 times. The cost of everything the government does has gone up about 20 times.

Does it make sense to promise to never raise taxes for any reason? What happens when global warming causes multiple disasters? What happens if we are attacked again? How can we compete unless we rebuild our infrastructure, and revitalize our schools?

So why do the Republicans tell us that we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem? Yes the cost of government has gone up. Yes there is horrendous waste and duplication, but most of that is in military spending. Military spending accounts for 52% of discretionary spending. But the Republicans have declared Military spending off the table.

If you look at what caused the National Debt, it is a combination of mostly increased military spending, and a loss of revenue from tax cuts. After the economic collapse that Republican policies caused revenue decreased an additional 18% because there were less people with jobs so less paying taxes.

The corporations are not paying their fair share either. In 1950 Corporations paid 28% of total government revenues which was about 6% of GDP. Now corporations only pay 1% of GDP and 2/3rds of corporations pay no taxes at all!

The same is true for taxes on the rich. In 1950 the top tax rates were 91%. Now the top tax rate is 35% but the richest Americans make most of their money from derivatives and hedge funds which are taxed as capital gains at 15%, so the richest 400 Americans only pay a tax of 17%.

In 2001 when we had $250 billion surpluses projected indefinitely into the future, Revenue was 20.6% of GDP. Now it is only 14.4% of GDP. The U.S. takes less in taxes than any other developed nation. Clearly we have a revenue problem – Not a spending problem.

Where is the evidence that we have a spending problem? Yes spending has gone up, but so has the needs of the country. Still our infrastructure is crumbling, schools are shutting down, teachers, firemen, and police are being laid off. Prisoners are being released from prison. The only part of the country that has too much money, is the military, the arms manufacturers, and the huge military Industrial Complex that supports the military. The oil companies and many other industries are also making record profits. Yet the military spending, and the corporate welfare are off the table. The only ones expected to sacrifice and pay for the profligate spending that the Republicans have already purchased are the poor, the old and the infirm.

Meanwhile the gap between the poor and the rich has never been greater. http://seekingalpha.com/article/240408-c...

The Republicans argue that raising job killing taxes during a recession is the worst thing we can do, so they plan throw another trillion dollars at the rich and the corporations, in the vain hope that they will create some jobs. Unfortunately this is what they have been doing for 13 years now and it is not working. The corporations are sitting on trillions so additional tax breaks will not spur them to hire.

Only increased demand from more people spending, will spur the economy and get businesses hiring again. To do that we have to get more money to the poor. The Republican austerity measures will do the opposite.

The nation's economy has been likened to our family spending. Yes to balance the budget we need to limit our spending and stop putting things on the credit card. But we still need to pay for those things we have already purchased, even if we have to go out and get another job to pay for it.

Nobody likes taxes just like few people would work if they didn't have to. But taxes are what makes revenue just as in the family working generates revenue.

Republicans who refuse to pay for their purchases are like a deadbeat jobless dad, that goes out and buy a Cadillac so he can look fine for the neighbors. He pays for it with a credit card, but refuses to make any payments on the card. Then he blames his wife when they want to take the car away. The wife wants to use the money she earned to pay for food, rent, medical bills, but the deadbeat dad wants the family to go without food clothes, and medicine, so he can drive in luxury.

The Military is the only unnecessary spending. This is where the waste fraud and duplication takes place. Social Programs didn't create the debt. Don't throw the old and infirm out in the street so Republicans can force the military to buy weapons they don't even want.

2/3rds of the people in the country said don't touch Social Security or Medicare. 2/3rds of the people said to tax the rich and cut the military spending. To balance the budget we should cut military spending to 2000 levels (1/2), but instead the Republicans have voted to increase military spending by 17%. They are willing to destroy the economy of the nation and take it off the cliff, to protect the tax breaks of the oil companies and the yachts of the rich.

The deadbeat Republicans should take responsibility and pay their fair share, and cut military spending where the waste is. Promising never to pay for anything they have already bought, is as unreasonable as promising never to have sex. Soon the public will see the madness and decide the only way to get our financial house in order is to get rid of the Republicans.

If they don't decide to compromise, they will go the way of the Shakers.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
10 months ago: You liberals live in your own little world.

I'm not following you at all. Not 1 bit.

You sheep.
10 months ago: What's it like in the other world? Is it the goat world?
10 months ago: Sheep are the folks who somehow believe that any amount of cuts is going to make money magically appear in the coffers. That if they click their heels three times they may never have to pay off the debt that they incurred with two wars and multiple tax cuts.

Sheep are the ones who believe when their told by their "betters" at tea party meetings that in the face of every historical fact ever presented somehow the United States as a nation can become more prosperous with less investment in its people.

Sheep play follow the leader because their too goddamn stupid to look at a history book to see what happens when a country stops funding its public works. Or to see that even their fore bearers understood the difference between fiscal responsibility and out right.

The sheep have been cutting our budgets for 30 years without regard to the future. We have cut education to the bone and our students are unable to compete. We have cut infrastructure spending to the point where our national highways are becoming unsafe. We even cut law enforcement and justice programs to the point where we cant get em to trial and if we find them guilty we cant get them into a cell.

I'm sick of sheep.
10 months ago: It ain't your money Al.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
10 months ago: "Social Programs didn't create the debt. Don't throw the old and infirm out in the street so Republicans can force the military to buy weapons they don't even want."

Social programs created about 75% of the debt. And not all social programs are not benefiting the old and the infirm. Not even a majority of social programs are aimed at the aged and infirm. You want to keep the social programs aimed at the aged, the infirm, the widows and orphans? Good, I do too. But it's time to examine each and every program, and get the able bodied folk off the welfare roles.

In 2010, the military budget was 1/7th of the national budget. Can we decrease that amount? I would think yes.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
10 months ago: OOTB Your figures are probably from non-military discretionary spending and the estimate of military being 1/7th is utter nonsense. Even the most conservative of sources claim military spending is 20% of total expenditures, but most of the true defense costs are hidden. For example all of the nuclear weapons are in the Dept. of Energy. Bush kept the costs of both wars off the books and I have no doubt that the costs of our operations in Lybia and all of the black ops and the mercenaries we hire are off the books. We have more mercenaries than regular troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and they often make 5 times the salary for doing the same thing. It costs a million dollars a year for one of our troops. You do the math.

The CBO estimates that the Pentagon underestimates the costs of the wars and their budget by 20% - 30%. http://www.concordcoalition.org/publicat...

Also Social Security should not be considered because this is a separately funded retirement trust fund that has 2.3 trillion dollars surplus. This is a more realistic estimate of the true military costs which is about 56% of discretionary spending. http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piecha...

Human Resources which includes Medicare and Medicaid, Soc. Sec. Administration, Education Dept., Food/Nutrition programs, Housing & Urban Dev., Labor Dept.,and all other other human resources total $789 billion, which is about 30% of total discretionary expenditures.

But no one really knows because there is no real budget watchdog for the military. Everyone agrees that there is more corruption, duplication, and waste in the military than any other government program. Remember the $500 hammers and $1000 toilet seats? Why don't we have a watchdog to see where military spending is going and try to reduce waste?

I agree with you that it is time to look at every single program in the entire government, to determine if the spending provides jobs, If the spending is efficient and does the job it is intended to do, and if the spending is a good investment and saves money in the future. Spend Smart, and Cut Smart. Don't just take a wrecking ball to everything.

Spending on Past wars and military spending caused about 75% of the debt. The debt has gone up every war and with the military buildups. Now we are spending more on the military than the rest of the world put together, so it is no surprise that other governments have more money to spend on their social programs. http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.ht...

The Republicans are the Macho deadbeat dads that like their sexy military spending, but the rich and the corporations don't like to pay for them. The Democrats are like the responsible nurturing parent that is more concerned with feeding and caring for the health of the people. Which would you rather determine spending priorities?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
10 months ago: ..."Which would you rather determine spending priorities? "...

Right now, neither. The Democrats and the Republicans all spend all day bashing each other in public, and then tuck each other in at night after a few jovial drinks. They're both playing the blame game, and getting nothing done except making things worse. Even when the Dems were a super majority with a Democratic President they whined "Waaaah, we can't get anything done because of those darn Republicans." Now that the Republicans are in power over the budget they are singing the same old tired tune.

I'm taking a line from Red's script and saying "Wake UP!!!" This has nothing to do with political parties any more, if it ever did. This is a case of government being held ransom by the (no, not the corporations) the VERY rich and powerful people THAT WILL SOON OWN EVERYTHING.

It's time to get off the talking point memos, and realize that the same people shoveling this "people's revolution" crap are also feeding the no taxes movement. It's called "fomenting unrest" ... and it's working.
10 months ago: "It's time to get off the talking point memos, and realize that the same people shoveling this "people's revolution" crap are also feeding the no taxes movement. It's called "fomenting unrest" ... and it's working. "

+1

Probably the only thing you've ever written that I agree with whole heartedly.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
10 months ago: Red try to contribute - don't just call people names.

The reason Obama's budget looks so much bigger than Bush's is that he has more honest accounting. They actually include the two wars in the Obama budget while Bush hid those costs. This makes it look like Obama is more of a big spender while Bush wasn't so bad but they both spent way too much on the wars and military. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/elf...

We can no longer afford to be the cops of the world. There are about 1000 military bases on foreign soil. Isn't it about time they all started defending themselves instead of relying on the support of the US military? Isn't this a type of welfare, where all of these foreign countries are sucking at the US teats? http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...
10 months ago: You're right Al.

Sorry about the name calling.

I'm just watching what I perceive as the ruination of my childrens' future by the most evil, bold face lying, marxist president of the United States. (Honestly.)

and it knocks me off my rocker at times.

I will try to do better.
9 months ago: Why worry about the future? Your guys are fit to ruin it now. Why don't you quit making excuses for your hatred and call a spade a spade.
9 months ago: Huh Slim? Why don't you have the guts to ask us to call a "Spade" a "Nigger"?
Your so far off base with you impiled question.

Let me ask you one...

When will you call for an end to and restrict my money (taxes which you don't pay) going to people that charge rent to their five families living in their single family home? You think they are telling the I.R.S. they have income property?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
9 months ago: @ Slim Pickens

Make Excuses? Hardly! I hold my hatred up as a banner.

I HATE (<<<-------notice the capital letters added for emphasis) inefficient, irresponsible, and/or corrupt government, and I don't care who knows it.

But I think maybe this is not what you were referring to. Could you be perhaps a bit more specific? I would really love to hear a detailed analysis of my hate.

10 months ago: Isn't Income Tax Unconstitutional?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YitrQsiGX...
10 months ago: Ron Paul The Federal Reserve Is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
therefore can be legally ENDED NOW...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j028PzXwQ...
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
10 months ago: It is Constitutional, but only on the following reasons. The Federal Income Tax is strictly voluntary. They just forget to tell everyone.
10 months ago: OOTB,

Exactly... voluntary or else !:]
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
10 months ago: "The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collections. They relate to taxpayers and NOT to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope.
No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their Rights and remedies in due course of law. With them [nontaxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal, and they [nontaxpayers] are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws."

Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, at 238 (1922).
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
10 months ago: Good post.

The biggest battle between the two parties seems to be revenue verses spending (I am narrowing it down, there are lots of issues). I believe that the government wastes alot but also that we dont contribute enough.

I have been trying to find middle ground recently by researching the role of government. If we can tightly define the role of government than we could have best of both worlds. pleanty of money for public goods and taxes that everyone can afford easily.

I have lots of work to do...
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
10 months ago: The Democrats and Obama are willing to cut spending. They have already agreed to all kinds of cuts and now Obama just proposed $4 trillion of draconian cuts, including the Democrats sacred cows of SS and Medicare.

The main thing holding up any compromise is the Republicans refusing to budge an inch on generating any revenue at all.

For once I agree with OOTB " "Wake UP!!!" This has nothing to do with political parties any more, if it ever did. This is a case of government being held ransom by the (no, not the corporations) the VERY rich and powerful people THAT WILL SOON OWN EVERYTHING."

"It's time to get off the talking point memos, and realize that the same people shoveling this "people's revolution" crap are also feeding the no taxes movement. It's called "fomenting unrest" ... and it's working."

The rich (and the corporations) own the media and are the ones that started and pushed the Tea Party which is behind this whole thing. No one is standing up for the people.

The main Republican line is that this is not the time to ask the rich and the corporations to pay more taxes, because these are the guys we are asking to create jobs. That is why they are throwing another trillion at the rich.

OK! If Jobs is what we are going for let's compromise and make the corporations and the rich pay their fair share, but give them tax breaks (say $1000) for every job they create. We have thrown money at these guys with the expectation of jobs for 11 years now, but they did not fulfill their obligations and produce the jobs, so we need a different contract.

It is just like the Republican's TARP Program threw money at the bankers with the hope that they would lend money to people and renegotiate home loans to help people keep their homes, but the bankers just took that money and invested it in more derivatives and then they made lending even harder. We should have made the money to the bankers contingent on their doing their jobs. We shouldn't have given them any money except that which they loaned to homemakers and small businesses creating jobs.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
10 months ago: The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). It was ratified on February 3, 1913.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
10 months ago: If some Taxes have a negative impact on jobs, lets concentrate on the "Good" taxes that don't. "Sin Taxes" like alcohol and tobacco taxes discourage harmful behavior. A small (0.2%) transaction tax on the harmful currency speculation, derivatives, hedge funds etc. would be so small regular users would not feel them but since there is $1.5 trillion in currency speculation, it would generate hundreds of billions yet it wouldn't effect jobs at all. It would merely curb the harmful speculation a bit and require a bit of "Skin in the Game".

This additional revenue would allow reduction of those taxes which do negatively effect jobs, so they would in actuality be job creating taxes!
10 months ago: Altruist,

ONE simple question... What do ALL taxes go to paying?
IF you say anything other than the interest on the debt you are wrong!!
"Good tax" or bad, it all goes to your black-hole called the FED.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
10 months ago: Just look at the sheer numbers.

Right now, 14.3 trillion/100 million taxpayers=$143,000 per taxpayer

Here's a neat little site: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com

The addition of several new taxes and tax proposals that would definitely adversely affect job creation, especially in the current economic climate, was negligent by the Democrats. To draw the new programs out over the next several years adds to the climate of uncertainty, and surely this cause and effect was realized by those who insisted on their speedy passage. Hang on boys, it's going to get a lot a rougher than it is right now.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
10 months ago: We can argue about the nature of civilization and how it is funded at a later date. I suspect Coloranter is working on this issue.

The point of the post is why have Republicans suddenly refused to pay for the things they purchased, and why have they shifted the balance of revenue from the rich and the corporations who have most of the money, onto the middle class who are already overburdened?

Why shouldn't the rich and the corporations who benefited the most from all of the military spending that created the debt, pay most of that debt off?

One of the fallacies that the Republican party pushes is that all taxes are equally bad, and that all taxes should be evenly split. So in OOTB's example above, both Bill Gates and some poor homeless dude collecting cans to live on the street would each be presented with a bill for $143,000. In fact the super rich, who no doubt had stock in the weapons companies, and made billions from that, should be willing to pay 90% of the debt off. Even if they were taxed at 90% someone making $1 billion would still have $100,000,000 to live off from.

The United states has 6.7 million millionaires and 400 billionaires. Now most only pay 17% taxes. If they were to pay 39.5% as they did when Clinton had budget surpluses and if we made the capital gains taxes the same as the income tax, instead of the 15% it is now, they would barely feel the difference and we would be very close to balancing the budget.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
10 months ago: "...in OOTB's example above, both Bill Gates and some poor homeless dude collecting cans to live on the street would each be presented with a bill for $143,000...."

Not at all. The homeless dude would continue to pay no taxes at all, joined by 230 million other citizens who pay no taxes and 20 million illegal aliens who also pay no taxes. Notice I said 100,000,000 TAXPAYERS out of a population of 320,000,000.

So you are saying that people who made billions should be willing to pay off trillions of debt. Think of it this way.

Supposing you could find a lot of people who are each willing to pay $100 million dollars per year for the next ten years to pay off the debt.

How many do you think you could find?

You'd need 14,300 people paying an additional $100,000,000/year for ten years just to pay down the current debt.

That's not even counting the additional $16 trillion of debt forecast over that same time period.

So at the end of the ten years, we would be even deeper in debt than we are now.
10 months ago: Who was in charge at the beginning of the the Vietnam War? What was that politicaldemographic of both the House and Senate? How about the political persuasion of the President(s)? Did they increase income taxes to 90 %? There are so many holes in this post it should be called Swiss Cheese.

Go to War so we can increase taxes! Libya is worth how much?

You forgot to blame G.W. for allowing Gaddafi to remain in power of that sovereign nation.

What are you going to do when we take to the streets? Allow Mexico to bomb the Whitehouse in support?
9 months ago: Ok another question game from our friend in Texas.

1.Q: Who was in charge at the beginning of the the Vietnam War?

1: A: The US became involved with the Vietnam Conflict in 1955. The US president at that time was Dwight D. Eisenhower a Republican.

2: Q: What was that political-demographic of both the House and Senate?

2: A: In 1955 the 84th Congress held a 1 member Democrat majority in the Senate and a 29 member majority in the House of Representatives.

3: Q: Did they increase income taxes to 90 %?

3: A: The Bottom Tax bracket (most of us) for federal income taxes in 1955 was 20%. The Highest tax bracket (think the top 4%) was in fact 91%. It had climbed to 94% during WW2 as the country tried to pay for a war on two theaters.
9 months ago: 2 out of 3 isn't bad... but I'll go for the 3 out of three.

your 1A says we had Congressional Approved War Boots on the ground in 1955...

Or, are you talking C.I.A.?
9 months ago: Consultation, RPC weapons and the re-organization of guerrilla forces into a regular army.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
10 months ago: I personally think the return of 90% tax rates for millionaires (as it was when we got involved in Vietnam) would solve our debt problems quickly, but I realize that will not happen.

What I am advocating is a balanced approach of cutting some from social programs, raising the cap on SS to $250K, Instating means testing for Medicare so that is stable, 25% cuts to the military, return tax rates to what they were under Clinton, and put a 0.2% tax on the harmful practices of the banks and Wall Street. Corporations should also pay their fair share but receive big tax breaks if they create jobs so that would be revenue neutral.

Letting Bush tax cuts for the top 2% expire as scheduled would pay down the debt by $700 billion over the next 10 years. This along with the other revenue and all of the cuts I suggested would balance the budget and start paying off the debt. The Republican plan wouldn't have a balanced budget for 64 years.

I am saying that the entire debt cannot be balanced solely on the backs of the middle class. The rich and the corporations should pay their fair share.

The Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Health wrote to Congress: "For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you increase taxes on incomes over $1,000,000."

"We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more."

"Our country faces a choice – we can pay our debts and build for the future, or we can shirk our financial responsibilities and cripple our nation's potential."

"Our country has been good to us. It provided a foundation through which we could succeed. Now, we want to do our part to keep that foundation strong so that others can succeed as we have."

"Please do the right thing for our country. Raise our taxes."

Bill Gates the elder. "I am a fan of progressive taxation," he wrote. "I would say our country has prospered from using such a system—even at 70% rates to say nothing of 90%."
http://patrioticmillionaires.org/
9 months ago: That's my main belief Al, of course we cant do it all by ending tax cuts on the wealthy. But if they are not on the table, there is no table. And the Tea Party can rejoice in the third world nation the US will become.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.