Debt is Pushing the US Into Fascism

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,627
Reaction score
5,191
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
"With the money that these tax cheats owe"

How do you know they owe anything?
Because some of them wouldn't be rich otherwise:

Trends in the Internal Revenue Service’s Funding and Enforcement | Congressional Budget Office

"The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) collected $3.5 trillion in taxes in 2018, nearly 95 percent of total federal revenues.

"To do so, it relied largely on taxpayers to report their income, calculate the amount of tax they owed, and remit that amount to the IRS through withholding or other payments. However, some taxpayers have failed to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes, the IRS estimates.

"Policymakers have expressed interest in how changes in IRS funding, particularly for enforcement of tax laws, could increase the federal government’s tax revenues."
Now that is absolutely ridiculous.

Name one.... just one... that wouldn't be rich, and provide clear proof of that.

All of them would be rich.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,125
Reaction score
2,696
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
If you are telling me that the only reason for the Greek crash was the lack of a Sovereign currency, then why didn't all those others have similar crashes?
I never said the lack of a Greek sovereign currency was the only reason for the Crisis...you did.

Rich Greeks didn't pay their taxes, and rich Americans at Goldman Sachs doubled the Greek deficit; sound familiar?


How Goldman Sachs Profited From the Greek Debt Crisis

"The investment bank made millions by helping to hide the true extent of the debt, and in the process almost doubled it."
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,627
Reaction score
5,191
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Really? So you want to cut taxes? Finally something we both agree on.
Cut taxes on productive and public service labor, you bet.
Tax financial and commodity speculators into extinction, sure thing.
View attachment 391016
America’s FIRE Economy

Really? So you want to cut taxes? Finally something we both agree on.
Cut taxes on productive and public service labor, you bet.
Tax financial and commodity speculators into extinction, sure thing.
View attachment 391016
America’s FIRE Economy
If there were no financial sector, how do people get loans to build things?
If there were no commodity traders, the result would be huge loss of commodities.

You do understand that, right? Commodities traders, are people who buy and sell commodities.

How do you get food from the mid-west, to the cities? People in the mid-west sell food commodities to traders, who sell them to retail outlets in the cities.

Those are the people you call "commodity speculators".

Without them, you have no food. Everyone starves. Good job.

Same is true of houses. How do houses get built, when people don't have the money to build the houses? People with money, invest in new housing construction, sell them to landlords that rent them.

Without those housing commodity speculators, those houses wouldn't be built, and people would be homeless.

We've seen that in California.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,627
Reaction score
5,191
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
If you are telling me that the only reason for the Greek crash was the lack of a Sovereign currency, then why didn't all those others have similar crashes?
I never said the lack of a Greek sovereign currency was the only reason for the Crisis...you did.

Rich Greeks didn't pay their taxes, and rich Americans at Goldman Sachs doubled the Greek deficit; sound familiar?


How Goldman Sachs Profited From the Greek Debt Crisis

"The investment bank made millions by helping to hide the true extent of the debt, and in the process almost doubled it."
Goldman sachs provided the bond investments that Greece requested.

If Goldman Sachs had not done this, the Greek government would have imploded years before they did.

This is one of the oddest aspects of left-wing ideology. You demand to borrow and spend money.... then you do so.... and then when your system crashes, you blame the people who allowed you to borrow and spend money.

Further, you point out the "Rich Greeks didn't pay their taxes"

You don't say? Really? They didn't? I'm shocked! Shocked I say!

georgephillip..... that's our point. That's been our point the entire time.

You can't force people to pay high taxes. They simply won't. Why do you think Hugo Chavez had to confiscate farms, and stores, and company factories?

You can't get people to give you all their hard earned money. You can't. They won't do it.

And if you somehow get enough police, and call in the military like Hugo Chavez did... and try and make people pay super high taxes at gun point..... they leave.

They pack up their companies, and their wealth and their stuff... and they leave.

Why do you think the Soviets were shooting people who tried to escape to West Berlin?

Because no one is going to work hard, to have 70% of their income stolen from them. No one will.

Why do you think the super wealthy in Denmark, have half their assets in other countries? They are not going to pay 70% of their income in taxes. So they move their stuff out of the country.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

"The rich didn't pay all their taxes" YEAH.... YES..... RIGHT..... That is the point.

You can't get people to pay all their hard earned wealth, to the government. Won't work.
Screenshot_2020-09-20 JCE_Page_3.png

Are you seeing this? The amount of taxes collected, verses the tax rate, doesn't have a connection.

For decades the tax rate on the rich was HIGHER... and the actual amount of taxes collected was LOWER.

How is that possible? Because the rich simply are not going to pay that tax. They will move their money elsewhere, put it in tax shelters, and so on.

Reality. It trumps theory. You can theorize how much money should be collected from taxes until the end of time, but the facts contradict the theory.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,627
Reaction score
5,191
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
You earn the wage you work for. If you agree to work for whatever money, and I pay you the agreed wage.... no one is taking anything from you
Except your right to form a union:

Union membership in the U.S. hit record low in 2018
Well.... yeah. Because Unions suck, and harm labor.

I was at the Cadillac dealership, when the Unions came and tried to organize.

Not a single person there, wanted to Unionize. Not one. Zero. They all said the same thing. The unions just take our money, sit in their luxury office, and do nothing for the working people.

Again, back when I was in high school, when I was finding a job, there were two grocery chains in the area. One was Kroger, and the other was a non-union shop.

I picked the non-union shop. A guy in my class, picked Kroger. We compared checks. My was larger....... because I didn't have a union payment.

Same pay, just he had to pay union dues, and I did not. And honestly, the company that I worked for was better, but that's a different story.

Unions are like ticks, sucking blood from the butt of working people. They do nothing.... but suck down our money, and live on the backs of our blood sweat and tears.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,627
Reaction score
5,191
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
We have a child obesity problem. Child hunger is a joke.

All your post did, was prove what an idiot Sanders is.
My post confirmed your ignorance again:

6 startling facts about child hunger in the U.S. -- and how you can help

"According to Feeding America, 1 in 7 people in the U.S. face hunger every year. The rates of hunger in children are even higher, with about 1 in 5 lacking proper access to food at some point during the year."
So first, lets distinguish between two different things.

If your parents are druggies, and are failing to feed their kids, because they blow all their welfare money and food stamp money on drugs.....

That's not Capitalism fault, or Americas fault, or Jeff Bezo fault, or anyone's fault.... except perhaps the people who want to legalize drugs, and stop law enforcement.... which is basically the entire left-wing.

That's not a problem of the system. That's a problem of bad parents.

We should kill drug users, and put their children into families that are responsible.

However, society wide, I don't believe we have a starvation problem. Where are these starvation people? They don't exist?

Where are the people in the US, that are like Venezuelan people, huddled around rubbish dumps outside the city, eating trash.

Screenshot_2020-09-20 starvation in venezuela - Google Search.png


Not happening here in the US.

Screenshot_2020-09-20 child obesity - Google Search.png
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
61,510
Reaction score
10,727
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
If you are telling me that the only reason for the Greek crash was the lack of a Sovereign currency, then why didn't all those others have similar crashes?
I never said the lack of a Greek sovereign currency was the only reason for the Crisis...you did.

Rich Greeks didn't pay their taxes, and rich Americans at Goldman Sachs doubled the Greek deficit; sound familiar?


How Goldman Sachs Profited From the Greek Debt Crisis

"The investment bank made millions by helping to hide the true extent of the debt, and in the process almost doubled it."
and rich Americans at Goldman Sachs doubled the Greek deficit; sound familiar?

Greeks doubled the debt, by borrowing and spending.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,125
Reaction score
2,696
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Except that left-wingers have always used violence. Which far left government has never used violence? All have. All. And they have to. You can't take people's stuff, without using force.
Which "far left" government has ever used violence to accomplish its "exceptionalism" to the extent as the USA? Perhaps you can provide us with an example of a "far left" state that used chattel slavery and genocide to lay the economic foundation for its MAGA wealth? Which "far left" government has murdered, maimed, and displaced MILLIONS of innocent civilians on the opposite side of the planet since 1945? When right wing trolls WHINE about violence, I'm always inclined to believe they are as ignorant as

their Dear Leader.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,627
Reaction score
5,191
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Except that left-wingers have always used violence. Which far left government has never used violence? All have. All. And they have to. You can't take people's stuff, without using force.
Which "far left" government has ever used violence to accomplish its "exceptionalism" to the extent as the USA? Perhaps you can provide us with an example of a "far left" state that used chattel slavery and genocide to lay the economic foundation for its MAGA wealth? Which "far left" government has murdered, maimed, and displaced MILLIONS of innocent civilians on the opposite side of the planet since 1945? When right wing trolls WHINE about violence, I'm always inclined to believe they are as ignorant as

their Dear Leader.
That is simply not true. I can't argue against factually false claims. And even if it was true, you do know that between China and the Soviets, an estimated 120 Million people were killed. So yeah, pretty much every socialist left-wing country has attempted, and failed to achieve exceptionalism through murder and violence.

Go read the Gulag Archipelago, to actually have any amount knowledge about the difference between the US and left-wing nations. Not even remotely comparable.
 

eagle1462010

Diamond Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
48,194
Reaction score
15,763
Points
2,250
Anyone who opposes free public education is close to having a learning disability.

Want to get a hold of debt and deficit? Go after DOD and perpetual warfare.
Go back to enumerated powers.......derp
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,627
Reaction score
5,191
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Moreover, why would I want to provide free schooling to people? I had to work for my schooling. Why should other people get schooling for free?
Free education means more low-income students reach graduation. Trillion$ of student debt will no longer serve as a burden on graduates and overall consumption. More people would go to college and pick majors they prefer. More educated people means society can solve problems better. A better educated electorate wouldn't be as likely to vote for senile geezers like Trump or Biden. What's not to like?
More people would go to college and pick majors they prefer

That's part of the problem though. If you pick a major that has no value, the result is society is poorer, and the person getting the education is poorer.

I know lady that didn't college. She worked at a bank, as a teller. After several years, she got promoted, joined the banks in-house training program. Today she makes 6-figures.

Her sister, went to a university, and got a Ph.D in the humanities. She got out, and is paid $30,000 a year.

I actually make more than $30,000 a year, without a degree.

The worst thing in the world, is to give people a free education, where they can get whatever degree they want. Because many degrees are useless, and trash.

I know a lady that got a degree in Art History. She works at a Kinkos type store.

Why should the tax payer, have to pay for bad degrees?

One of the huge values of forcing people to pay for their own education, is that they make wiser choices in what education they get.

I'm entirely against tax payer funded education.

And by the way, we saw this in India. They gave away free education, and then these educated people would leave the country. Zero benefit to India to educate people who effectively say 'thanks for the education' and leave to work in Europe or the US.

My roommate who is from Bangladesh, he has a masters degree from Bangladesh. He moved to the US. The people in Bangladesh live in poverty, while he lives in the US in luxury (makes $120K a year), and the tax payers of Bangladesh paid for it.

Same is true of Canada by the way. Thousands of doctors trained and educated in Canada on tax payers dollars, move to the US to practice. They pay higher taxes, so we can have trained doctors here, while they wait in 12 month long wait lists for health care in Canada.

Trillion$ of student debt will no longer serve as a burden on graduates and overall consumption.

Interesting theory. So in your world, if you nationalize a debt burden, then it ceases to exist?

Why didn't that work in 2008? So you are in favor of socializing the debt of banks? Because in your world the debt just magically vanishes?

Left-wingers contradict themselves constantly. You have posted a dozen times about how taking on the debt burden of banks that crashed in 2008 is bad, but then spin right around talk about how taking on the debt burden of students, will just magically disappear into the supernatural ether of left-wing ideology.

Those debts, have to paid. Someone, somewhere has to pay the burden.

If it isn't the student who is getting the education, then it has to be everyone in society.

So what you are saying, is mutually contradictory. Either the cost has to be paid by the student, or it has to be paid by over all consumption. Someone has to pay the bill. The bill doesn't magically go away just because you don't like it.

A better educated electorate wouldn't be as likely to vote for senile geezers like Trump or Biden.

Well honestly, AOC was "educated" in your world, and she claimed she could "spend" a tax deduction on schools and health care.

So I'm not seeing that your "better educated electorate" is actually better educated. In fact, the school bribery scandal in my book, kind of proves you guys are not educated that much.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,125
Reaction score
2,696
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Only Capitalism, which is right-wing, believes in freedom. The people are free, to use for whatever purpose they wish, their own property.
Milton was wrong.
Capitalism doesn't produce freedom.
Capitalism produces autocratic workplaces and billionaire tyrants.
Depending on how you view "positive" vs "negative" freedoms, capitalism does not provide individuals access to a fair share of the production of goods and it fosters a huge buildup of private power by concentrating wealth and entrenching corporate control over markets(not to mention destroying the environment and the freedom of future generations)
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: DBA

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,627
Reaction score
5,191
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Only Capitalism, which is right-wing, believes in freedom. The people are free, to use for whatever purpose they wish, their own property.
Milton was wrong.
Capitalism doesn't produce freedom.
Capitalism produces autocratic workplaces and billionaire tyrants.
Depending on how you view "positive" vs "negative" freedoms, capitalism does not provide individuals access to a fair share of the production of goods and it fosters a huge buildup of private power by concentrating wealth and entrenching corporate control over markets(not to mention destroying the environment and the freedom of future generations)
Ridiculous. By DEFINITION.... capitalist is about freedom. By definition, your property, is your property.

By definition, you have to have ownership of your own property, and that in and of itself.... is freedom.

You say capitalism doesn't produce freedom, because of autocratic work places?

But wait... you could make your own work place, right? And contrary to the word "autocratic".... I don't have to work there.

Again, I have the freedom to do with my labor, that I under Capitalism own.... whatever I want.

I had a boss years ago who was a jerk. I walked up to him "I finished what you asked, and now I'm going home. I quit".

What did that "autocratic" do? Nothing. Because there was nothing he could do. Because I am a Capitalist, and I own my own labor, and if I don't want to sell him my labor, there is nothing he can do to stop me.

You know what happened in Socialist China if you deserted your rice field? The police came, put a gun to your head, and escorted you back to your rice patty. In Soviet Russia, the military would come and beat you until you did your work.

Here, you have freedom.

If you don't want to work for someone else, you don't have to. The lady across the street from me, babysat kids, made over $1,000 a week, heating up Mac&Cheese, and hitting play on Netflix.

No "autocratic" showed up and dragged her off to a job site.

"individuals access to a fair share of the production of goods"

Sure it does. Your fair share... is how much you agree to work for.

If someone hires you to do a job for $30,000, and you agree to it... that's your fair share.
If someone hires you to do a job for $100,000, and you agree to it.... that's your fair share.
If they hire you for $200,000, or $500K, or $1.8 Million...

Whatever someone is willing to pay you, and you agree to it, that *IS* "your fair share."

If you think your labor is worth more, then prove it. Find someone who is willing to pay you more, and work for them.

If no one anywhere is willing to pay you more for what you can do.... than how much you were making, is your fair share. Because your labor isn't worth more. If it was, someone would pay you more.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,125
Reaction score
2,696
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
This by the way, is evidence in your post above, where you talked about people not paying enough taxes. As if, their money was "owed" to you. You view the money they rightfully earned, as yours. That's is proof of a slave-mentality view of the public. They exist for the benefit of the state, in left-wing ideology.
The key phrase is "their money."
Conservatives have a gut instinct that tells them they have a moral right to their pre-tax income.
You don't.
1600683341344.jpeg

Convince us the "free" market distributes pre-tax income in a perfectly just manner; how is it a Wall Street speculator earns thousands of times the pre-tax income of a scientist working on a cure for cancer?

No it’s not your money: why taxation isn’t theft
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: DBA
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,125
Reaction score
2,696
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
You mean spending. Giving half of my money to charity is not "investing". You don't get a "Return on Investment" from donating money to charity.

And you have some bad math. That's $16,000 a month, not $25K.
An income of $1 million some of which comes from investments.
Donate half to legitimate charity. For example, find a local meals-on-wheels non-profit and donate enough money to double its starting wage.
Pay 40% in federal and state income taxes on the remaining half-a-million dollars leaving you with $25,000 a month net income: "$300,000/12)
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,125
Reaction score
2,696
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Charity existed before profit? You are crazy. Profit existed the moment the first man, traded the first lamb for the first vegetable.

For 90% of human history individuals who attempted a private surplus were banned? You are crazy. Not true.
Profit comes from surplus, and there was no surplus prior to the formation of the first cities.

During the time when humans lived in hunter-gatherer tribes surplus was virtually impossible to obtain, and anyone attempting to hoard more than he or she needed for survival was ostracized; the economy was based on gift giving, not on debt.

Palaces and temples dispensed credit based on agricultural cycles. Debts were regularly forgiven for "acts of god" and other disasters in Bronze Age societies.

It wasn't until Greek and Roman times when creditors assumed control of governments that humans began practicing the sort of venal zero-sum economics that capitalists worship today.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,125
Reaction score
2,696
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
If you own a car, you own a luxury good. If you have air conditioning, you own a luxury good. If you have internet, you have a luxury good. If you have a cell phone, you have a luxury good.
Luxury goods are goods whose demand increases more than proportionally as income rises. Necessity good have demand which increases proportionally less than income. All your examples are necessities not luxuries in this country.

Luxury comes from the Latin word luxus which means indulgence of the senses regardless of cost.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,125
Reaction score
2,696
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
As modern day classical liberals we are often called Libertarians. The right wing supports minimum government at every turn & MAXIMUM wealth for the individual. As one can plainly see the right wing is hardly a left wing fascist/communal command system in any way shape or form. In reality the RepubliCratic duopoly party(RCDP) is a LOT closer to a statist left command & control ideology.
Where do you place yourself on this diagram?

"The Nolan Chart is a political spectrum diagram created by American libertarian activist David Nolan in 1969, charting political views along two axes, representing economic freedom and personal freedom.

"It expands political view analysis beyond the traditional one-dimensional left–right/progressive-conservative divide, positioning libertarianism outside the traditional spectrum."

Nolan Chart - Wikipedia
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top