Sigh of Relief

[Flanders]

Wow, what a surprise. Taxes and retail prices are going up. They always do. That’s one of the reasons I seldom post messages about the economy.

There must have been a million media stories about the fiscal cliff, and at least that many hours of talking heads telling their audiences what was happening. Media manipulators call it the softening up process —— pound away until the public is ready to heave a sigh of relief because those wonderful crooks in Washington did something bad to the country rather than let something bad happen to the country. I call it a Sigh of Relief Sales Campaign.

Happily for me, I never paid attention to the softening up process because I knew what the outcome would be; TAXES ARE GOING UP.

My advice for starting the new year. Take a deep breath because raising the debt ceiling in a few months still has to be sold to the public.

 

[georgephillip]

The richest 1% of Americans (the Takers) get richer by shifting the tax burden off banks, real estate, natural resources and monopolies and onto labor. Since labor has more votes in the political marketplace, the easiest way to accomplish this is by rolling back everyone's taxes.

The easiest way to decrease taxes is to shrink government spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, yet these are the same programs that enjoy the greatest support among voters. What are the Takers to do?

They create another Big Lie.
The pretense that government can only create money to pay the financial sector.

 

[Flanders]

georgephillip;6582904

The richest 1% of Americans (the Takers) get richer by shifting the tax burden off banks, real estate, natural resources and monopolies and onto labor.

To georgephillip: You’re preaching class warfare. The impossible dream of equal distribution of the wealth is the only possible outcome for anyone who calls for class warfare against the wealthiest Americans. They’d have a better chance of success if they preached class warfare against the parasite class rather than against the richest one percent.

NOTE: Labor is converted to money; hence all taxes are paid with labor. The rich pay their taxes with the labors performed by the private sector.

georgephillip;6582904

Since labor has more votes in the political marketplace, the easiest way to accomplish this is by rolling back everyone's taxes.

To georgephillip: The easiest way is to repeal the XVI Amendment; thereby, denying parasites the money in the first place.

georgephillip;6582904

The easiest way to decrease taxes is to shrink government spending on Social Security,

To georgephillip: The easiest way is to eliminate entitlements. SS is not an entitlement. Labor performed pays for Social Security. And never forget it was the government that forced working people to pay into SS. Now, the government wants to punish SS because the government looted the money to fund welfare state programs, and mismanaged the way it operates. Example: Millions of illegal immigrants are entitled to SS benefits in addition to welfare state programs.

Incidentally, welfare state entitlements are untouchable by law, but SS is not. In plain English, parasites are protected, while people who worked for whatever benefits they might receive are under constant attack. Many younger working Americans believe they will never receive SS, while parasites have no fear of being driven away from the public trough.

georgephillip;6582904

Medicare, and Medicaid, yet these are the same programs that enjoy the greatest support among voters.

To georgephillip: The government is trying to destroy Medicare & Medicaid by replacing them with socialized medicine and all of its evils. The Affordable Care Act is infinitely more expensive and destructive than Medicare & Medicaid could ever be. That is why an overwhelming majority of Americans wanted no part of it. That foul piece of legislation would never have passed if voters had voted on it.

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard complaints about SS from posters who never say a bad word about welfare state entitlements; the parasitic education industry and its teachers’ unions; the huge salaries and retirement benefits enjoyed by federal, state, and local government-employees who never create a penny’s worth of wealth, nor do they do a helluva of work to get so much. Nor do the people who blame SS for every economic ill ever rail against the hundreds of billions of tax dollars that annually go to parasites in foreign governments. All things considered, I wish someone would tell me how SS recipients became the only villains among so many parasites.

georgephillip;6582904

What are the Takers to do?

To georgephillip: I’m not clear as to who you define as takers. To me, members of the parasite class are the biggest takers. Parasites are defined as everyone who derives the majority of their income from tax dollars without being necessary to the operation of limited government. A parasite can be a billionaire or an unnecessary government employee of which there are millions, or a welfare recipient living on an entitlement program. AT LEAST four million more parasites will begin living on tax dollars when the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented.

georgephillip;6582904

They create another Big Lie.
The pretense that government can only create money to pay the financial sector.

To georgephillip: Again, I’m unclear as to your meaning.

The government cannot create wealth. The government either absorbs wealth directly, ot it absorbs the nation’s wealth through redistribution schemes.

 

[Rozman]

Kick the can down the road on spending....
That's what these fuckers are all about.
Raise the debt ceiling because Obama and his ilk will blow through what it's set for now.

Get ready my little pretties for the full force of Obamacare.
And we haven't even gotten to Cap and Tax yet....

Welcome all to 2013.
It's gonna be a bumpy ride.

 

[Flanders]

Kick the can down the road on spending....
That's what these fuckers are all about.
Raise the debt ceiling because Obama and his ilk will blow through what it's set for now.

Get ready my little pretties for the full force of Obamacare.
And we haven't even gotten to Cap and Tax yet....

Welcome all to 2013.
It's gonna be a bumpy ride.

To Rozman: It’s much worse than your accurate analysis. Charles Krauthammer’s final words in this brief video is more right than he knows:

“. . . I think he wants to go over the cliff, and dare the Republicans to take the blame.”

[url=http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/31/krauthammer-obama-showed-incredible-arrogance-in-astonishing-press-conference-video/]Krauthammer: Obama showed 'incredible arrogance' in 'astonishing' press conference [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller[/URL]

This excerpt from a previous thread pretty much sums up Hussein’s strategy:

Going over the fiscal cliff is Democrat doublespeak for “We welcome another Great Depression.” And why not? The Great Depression gave Democrats their operating strategy: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” The “good” crisis in the 1930s turned Americans away from individual liberties and towards big government.

The Great Depression was fertile ground for utopian promises made by Socialists/Communists. Handing their freedoms to big government was the biggest mistake Americans made in the 1930s. Fight for more liberties and less government is the only way for Americans to beat Democrats at their own game when they push the economy over the cliff.

Never mind that WWII —— not socialism —— ended the Great Depression. Today’s Socialists/Communists see another major economic crisis as a golden opportunity to frighten Americans, and the world, into surrendering what’s left of their freedoms.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/235079-high-prices-and-cheap-labor.html

Socialists got away with blaming robber barons et al. during the Great Depression. Hussein’s biggest supporters are among the wealthiest Americans like Warren Buffett who swear they want to pay more taxes. Ergo, Hussein can’t blame the robber barons; so he has to blame Republicans and average Americans this time. Should he fail the public just might lay the blame where it belongs —— ON BIG GOVERNMENT PARASITES.

 

[DiamondDave]

No real spending cuts... keep class warfare going... and tax more everywhere that does not cost you enough votes to lose an election...

Our wonderful government

 

[iamwhatiseem]

This bill hasn't passed the house...so you are counting the chickens a little early.
Let's hope this piece of junk does not pass. It is crap - it does not address the deficit whatsoever, it just increases taxes...which will be swallowed by new spending 120%.

 

[Flanders]

This bill hasn't passed the house...so you are counting the chickens a little early.
Let's hope this piece of junk does not pass. It is crap - it does not address the deficit whatsoever, it just increases taxes...which will be swallowed by new spending 120%.

To iamwhatiseem: I considered passage a foregone conclusion:

1. Boehner is a wimp.

2. Republican party leaders want huge tax increases as much as do the Democrats.

3. Republicans must know by now that spending cuts is pure fantasy.

When Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush increased taxes in return for spending cuts—cuts that never ultimately came—they did so at ratios of 3:1 and 2:1.

“In 1982, President Reagan was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes,” Americans for Tax Reform says of those two incidents. “The tax hikes went through, but the spending cuts did not materialize. President Reagan later said that signing onto this deal was the biggest mistake of his presidency.

"In 1990, President George H.W. Bush agreed to $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. The tax hikes went through, and we are still paying them today. Not a single penny of the promised spending cuts actually happened.”

4. The new ratio makes passage a cinch since spending cuts will never materialize anyway.

Fiscal Cliff Deal: $1 in Spending Cuts for Every $41 in Tax Increases
by Matthew Boyle31 Dec 2012

Fiscal Cliff Deal: $1 in Spending Cuts for Every $41 in Tax Increases

 

[georgephillip]

In the mid 1970s a single minimum wage job paid enough to cover the rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay off and maintain a six year-old Chevy without out any help from social welfare agencies.

The richest 1% in the US earned about 8% of total national income at that time.

In less than two generations, the "Takers" have increased their share of national income to over 20% and a single minimum wage job translates to homelessness without any welfare assistance.

During those forty years of increasing inequality between Takers and Workers, rising levels of debt provided workers with a sense of parity until the Great Recession:

"The aim of financial warfare is not merely to acquire land, natural resources and key infrastructure rents as in military warfare; it is to centralize creditor control over society.

"In contrast to the promise of democratic reform nurturing a middle class a century ago, we are witnessing a regression to a world of special privilege in which one must inherit wealth in order to avoid debt and job dependency."

The Financial War Against the Economy at Large » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[Katzndogz]

Get ready for some little country to become a financial powerhouse.

The rich leave. That's what France is finding out. The rich leave and take their money and their enterprise with them when they go.

In the 70s, a minimum wage job certainly did not pay the rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment. The minimum wage wasn't a living wage. In those days minimum wage was intended to be a training wage for young people entering the workforce. Some jobs were held by people supplementing income made by the primary wage earner.

 

[Truthmatters]

Wow, what a surprise. Taxes and retail prices are going up. They always do. That’s one of the reasons I seldom post messages about the economy.

There must have been a million media stories about the fiscal cliff, and at least that many hours of talking heads telling their audiences what was happening. Media manipulators call it the softening up process —— pound away until the public is ready to heave a sigh of relief because those wonderful crooks in Washington did something bad to the country rather than let something bad happen to the country. I call it a Sigh of Relief Sales Campaign.

Happily for me, I never paid attention to the softening up process because I knew what the outcome would be; TAXES ARE GOING UP.

My advice for starting the new year. Take a deep breath because raising the debt ceiling in a few months still has to be sold to the public.

Dude the people already have an opinion on this one.

remember hhow the people reacted to the crazy republicans trying to bankrupt the country because of their "ideals"

 

[Flanders]

In the mid 1970s a single minimum wage job paid enough to cover the rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay off and maintain a six year-old Chevy without out any help from social welfare agencies.

The richest 1% in the US earned about 8% of total national income at that time.

In less than two generations, the "Takers" have increased their share of national income to over 20% and a single minimum wage job translates to homelessness without any welfare assistance.

During those forty years of increasing inequality between Takers and Workers, rising levels of debt provided workers with a sense of parity until the Great Recession:

"The aim of financial warfare is not merely to acquire land, natural resources and key infrastructure rents as in military warfare; it is to centralize creditor control over society.

"In contrast to the promise of democratic reform nurturing a middle class a century ago, we are witnessing a regression to a world of special privilege in which one must inherit wealth in order to avoid debt and job dependency."

The Financial War Against the Economy at Large » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

In the 70s, a minimum wage job certainly did not pay the rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment. The minimum wage wasn't a living wage. In those days minimum wage was intended to be a training wage for young people entering the workforce. Some jobs were held by people supplementing income made by the primary wage earner.

To georgephillip: You’re only blaming the wealthiest Americans who could not have acquired so much without the support of the parasite class. Note that the parasite class grew in size in direct proportion to the ever-widening spread between private sector producers and the richest Americans who benefit the most from taxes and favorable legislation.

I will concede that the wealthiest Americans are guilty of knowing how to use collectivist ideology to protect and increase their fortunes. Neither would have been possible without the parasite class sharing the wealth at everybody else’s expense.

When & Why

America’s ruling class formed an alliance with American Socialists not long after Communists toppled the czar. FDR’s New Deal was lifted almost verbatim from Norman Thomas’ Socialist party. That’s when the parasite class began the march to where they are at today. The alliance allowed the rich to keep their fortunes.

On their side, American Socialists took unopposed control of private sector Americans AND THEIR BEHAVIOR. Behavior meant that working Americans could no longer work for themselves —— it meant that they must work for the common good as dictated by the government.

NOTE: Wealthy Americans also handed control of America’s children to Socialists for indoctrination purposes.

I agree with Katzndogz on the 1970's.

For the sake of discussion let’s say that the decline did begin at that time. If so, it was nothing more than LBJ’s war on poverty kicking in.

LBJ’s war set the standard for government-dictated behavior. LBJ’s war was the first real test of telling Americans who they had to work for. Note that the war on poverty —— America’s most expensive war by far —— is still being fought with no end in sight. In fact, LBJ’s war has become a global conflict and Americans will eventually foot the bill through UN treaties, environmental claptrap, and everything else the New World Order crowd can implement.

Finally, instead of relating the private sector’s decline since the 1970's to the wealthy, compare it to the enormous increase in wealth, and political power, that went from the private sector to the parasites in government in that same time period.

 

[boedicca]

No real spending cuts... keep class warfare going... and tax more everywhere that does not cost you enough votes to lose an election...

Our wonderful government

And don't forget The Inflation. Governments around the world are in a race to deflate their currency as a debt management strategy.

 

[georgephillip]

Get ready for some little country to become a financial powerhouse.

The rich leave. That's what France is finding out. The rich leave and take their money and their enterprise with them when they go.

In the 70s, a minimum wage job certainly did not pay the rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment. The minimum wage wasn't a living wage. In those days minimum wage was intended to be a training wage for young people entering the workforce. Some jobs were held by people supplementing income made by the primary wage earner.

I lived on a single minimum wage job in the East Bay area during the mid 1970s
The money I earned paid the rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment ($175/month)
I'm unsure what percentage of French income the richest 1% of that country earned in the 70s.
The richest 1% of Germans earned about 11% of total German income at that time.
They earn about the same percentage today.
Possibly because German labor unions have voting members sitting on the boards of directors of the corporations they work for. Hence, when German " money and enterprise" suggested moving German jobs to China, German workers said "no!"

The rich don't create jobs.
Demand creates jobs.

 

[georgephillip]

No real spending cuts... keep class warfare going... and tax more everywhere that does not cost you enough votes to lose an election...

Our wonderful government

And don't forget The Inflation. Governments around the world are in a race to deflate their currency as a debt management strategy.

If 90% of Americans wake up one morning and discover every $10 bill in their possession has morphed into a $5, who will you blame?

 

[georgephillip]

In the mid 1970s a single minimum wage job paid enough to cover the rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay off and maintain a six year-old Chevy without out any help from social welfare agencies.

The richest 1% in the US earned about 8% of total national income at that time.

In less than two generations, the "Takers" have increased their share of national income to over 20% and a single minimum wage job translates to homelessness without any welfare assistance.

During those forty years of increasing inequality between Takers and Workers, rising levels of debt provided workers with a sense of parity until the Great Recession:

"The aim of financial warfare is not merely to acquire land, natural resources and key infrastructure rents as in military warfare; it is to centralize creditor control over society.

"In contrast to the promise of democratic reform nurturing a middle class a century ago, we are witnessing a regression to a world of special privilege in which one must inherit wealth in order to avoid debt and job dependency."

The Financial War Against the Economy at Large » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

In the 70s, a minimum wage job certainly did not pay the rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment. The minimum wage wasn't a living wage. In those days minimum wage was intended to be a training wage for young people entering the workforce. Some jobs were held by people supplementing income made by the primary wage earner.

To georgephillip: You’re only blaming the wealthiest Americans who could not have acquired so much without the support of the parasite class. Note that the parasite class grew in size in direct proportion to the ever-widening spread between private sector producers and the richest Americans who benefit the most from taxes and favorable legislation.

I will concede that the wealthiest Americans are guilty of knowing how to use collectivist ideology to protect and increase their fortunes. Neither would have been possible without the parasite class sharing the wealth at everybody else’s expense.

When & Why

America’s ruling class formed an alliance with American Socialists not long after Communists toppled the czar. FDR’s New Deal was lifted almost verbatim from Norman Thomas’ Socialist party. That’s when the parasite class began the march to where they are at today. The alliance allowed the rich to keep their fortunes.

On their side, American Socialists took unopposed control of private sector Americans AND THEIR BEHAVIOR. Behavior meant that working Americans could no longer work for themselves —— it meant that they must work for the common good as dictated by the government.

NOTE: Wealthy Americans also handed control of America’s children to Socialists for indoctrination purposes.

I agree with Katzndogz on the 1970's.

For the sake of discussion let’s say that the decline did begin at that time. If so, it was nothing more than LBJ’s war on poverty kicking in.

LBJ’s war set the standard for government-dictated behavior. LBJ’s war was the first real test of telling Americans who they had to work for. Note that the war on poverty —— America’s most expensive war by far —— is still being fought with no end in sight. In fact, LBJ’s war has become a global conflict and Americans will eventually foot the bill through UN treaties, environmental claptrap, and everything else the New World Order crowd can implement.

Finally, instead of relating the private sector’s decline since the 1970's to the wealthy, compare it to the enormous increase in wealth, and political power, that went from the private sector to the parasites in government in that same time period.

When you say, "the private sector's decline since the 1970s," are you referring to the loss of millions of US middle class jobs to countries like China and the subsequent loss in consumer demand in this country?

If so, it was the rising corporate-creditor class in the US, facilitated by bribing elected Republicans AND Democrats in the government, that benefited the most from the corporate-instigated decline.

I suggest it's that rise in the political power of the creditor class in the US that has most influenced the decline in living standards for a majority of Americans over that time.

"By not raising taxes on the wealthy or using the central bank to monetize spending on anything except bailing out the banks and subsidizing the financial sector, the government follows a pro-creditor policy.

"Tax favoritism for the wealthy deepens the budget deficit, forcing governments to borrow more.

"Paying interest on this debt diverts revenue from being spent on goods and services.

"This fiscal austerity shrinks markets, reducing tax revenue to the brink of default.

"This enables bondholders to treat the government in the same way that banks treat a bankrupt family, forcing the debtor to sell off assets – in this case the public domain..."

The Financial War Against the Economy at Large » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[Katzndogz]

George Phillip is motivated by envy and unrequited greed.

 

[georgephillip]

I'm not motivated to increase the political power of 1% of the US population.

"Financial lobbyists quickly discovered that the easiest ploy to shift the cost of social programs onto labor is to conceal new taxes as user fees, using the proceeds to cut taxes for the elite 1%"

Are you?

The Financial War Against the Economy at Large » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[Flanders]

If 90% of Americans wake up one morning and discover every $10 bill in their possession has morphed into a $5, who will you blame?

To georgephillip: The parasite class because the purchasing power of the dollar has decreased in tandem with the growth of non-producers supported by tax dollars. See this OP for a bit more on the topic:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/215462-gold-is-god-s-money.html

If so, it was the rising corporate-creditor class in the US, facilitated by bribing elected Republicans AND Democrats in the government, that benefited the most from the corporate-instigated decline.

I suggest it's that rise in the political power of the creditor class in the US that has most influenced the decline in living standards for a majority of Americans over that time.

"By not raising taxes on the wealthy or using the central bank to monetize spending on anything except bailing out the banks and subsidizing the financial sector, the government follows a pro-creditor policy.

"Tax favoritism for the wealthy deepens the budget deficit, forcing governments to borrow more.

"Paying interest on this debt diverts revenue from being spent on goods and services.

"This fiscal austerity shrinks markets, reducing tax revenue to the brink of default.

"This enables bondholders to treat the government in the same way that banks treat a bankrupt family, forcing the debtor to sell off assets – in this case the public domain..."

The Financial War Against the Economy at Large » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

To georgephillip: This is the core problem. Outsourcing industries began in the 1930s with America’s merchant fleet. WWII slowed the flight for a few years.

America is surrounded by water on three sides; four if you count the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway. Yet this country has no merchant fleet to speak of, not to mention the harm done to the steel industry. Nor is there one shipyard in America building oceangoing merchant vessels. Outsourcing jobs and industries is all part of the effort to establish a global government which is fully supported by the parasite class.

Economically speaking, the New World Order could not raise wages and the standard of living in Third World countries; so they set about lowering America’s standards though equal distribution of poverty. That fact has largely gone unnoticed because it is a long process.

Paying the vigorish

No doubt the federal government has all of the charms of a Mafia loan shark. Again, those transactions cannot be blamed solely on the wealthy. The parasite class is equally guilty because laissez faire economics is their mortal enemy:

laissez faire also laisser faire (noun)

1. An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.

2. Noninterference in the affairs of others.

 

[georgephillip]

Is the "parasite class" composed of creditors or debtors?