Zone1 The Number One Driver Of The Debt Is The Bush, And Trump Tax Cuts ForThe Rich

[badbob85037]

I think I got this. If it matters Trump has the win. If it is made up Bozo demo BS the Bozos are make it into something it's not making the rest of the clowns in the car believe what the Bozos tell them to believe. Right? Right.

There are two reasons. Joe's a democRat and Joe's a dim witted buffoon with all the clowns that voted for him.

 

[peacefan]

/——-/ If the rich hoard wealth then they wouldn’t be be living the lavish lifestyles you jealous socialist complain about. You can’t have it both ways.

oh, but living a lavish lifestyle is the same as hoarding wealth, bro..

 

[peacefan]

I started out as a CNC machinist when I was younger. About 12 years ago, in my thirties, I learned how to program CNC machines, and I get paid well, but I know that AI is now replacing me. I'm working with AI, unlike in the past when I had to do everything from scratch. Now I'm more of an AI CNC Prompt engineer. I know what to ask the AI, and how to make it do what I want (how to effectively "prompt" it) hence I now work like 70% less than before, for the same pay. This gravy train isn't going to last for long. Eventually, before I retire (I'm 50 1/2 now), that AI is going to say "Ciao, I don't need you anymore" and I will be out of a great job. The Tech-Apocalypse is coming to a theater near you. The shit is going to hit the fan in the not-too-distant future.

​

Keep in mind, that during our great depression in the 1930s, there was about 23% unemployment. The projected unemployment that is coming due to advanced, intelligent automation within the next 15 years is around 45%. Imagine will it will be in 30 or 40 years?

​

I started a business "side hustle" selling digital products online, with my wife and children (my "kids" are adults), and It's doing well, so I'm not that concerned anymore. Socialists like us living under this capitalist system, before it all crumbles due to advanced automation, need to do whatever we need to do to survive and avoid the inevitable "tech-armageddon" that's coming. Workers who don't prepare are going to be in hell until people figure out what the solution is (a non-profit, marketless system of production a.k.a. socialism/democratic communism). This is our future until people wake up and "smell the coffee":

​

Technofeudalism, until the people get smart and ask "Why the hell are we allowing the rich to own all of the robots and factories? We should own everything collectively and improve our lives, rather than remaining, the worthless, unemployed slave meat of the wealthy tech lords". The people who are wealthy today will become the communists of tomorrow, living together in gated communities, surrounded by big walls and canons. That's the irony.

The American public at large, the so-called working class (that was once employed by the residents of "Elysium"), will be consigned to the compost heap (poverty, crime, drugs, incarceration, wars, pandemics),, receiving a UBI (Universal Basic Income) from Uncle Sam, at least for a certain period of time while the rich-owner class figures out a way to get rid of them (the worthless members of the now defunct, former working-class, who are no longer needed by the rich).

The rich will live in Elysium, in absolute abundance, and opulence, thanks to advanced, intelligent automation and nano-technology. They will live like gods, in a democratic communist utopia of high-tech luxury and security. They will choose to produce everything they consume by employing intelligent automation (robotics, nano-tech.. etc.) and will own everything collectively as a community of wealthy elites.

Production will no longer be for a profit or to sell goods in a marketplace because all of that is meaningless and superfluous when technology replaces wage labor. When a human worker earning a wage can be replaced with an intelligent robot, why the hell do you need to hire human labor? Human beings need to be paid hourly, they complain, they unionize, they sue, they eat and sleep, and they're a fucking pain in the ass...Forget it. Intelligent robots are more efficient, they work 24/7, they're smarter, stronger, and do everything they're told without question.

The wealthy elites aren't idiots, they know that in the future they will have to create "enclaves" or colonies of the wealthy class, where they and their families can survive and thrive, while the American public at large (96% of the American population is of the working-class, selling their labor-power to the wealthy elites/owner class), will be gradually but surely, culled. Consigned to extinction.

Ironically, those who during the capitalist age, hated communism the most, will in a post-capitalist world, be in the best position to establish a utopian, high-tech, democratic communist society. The rich will become the democratic high-tech socialists, living together in Elysium, without the need for markets or profits, and the rest of humanity will be up the creek without a paddle (unemployed and living off the government until they're eliminated, one way or another).

my my, that's quite the dystopian outlook on the future you post there...

as a general rule of thumb, i don't look at the future and try to predict it when it's still that far away ( > 10 yrs).
it's just too unpredictable and influencable for that.

but i'll fight to keep the working classes well-fed. i can and will make you that promise right here and now.

 

[Cellblock2429]

oh, but living a lavish lifestyle is the same as hoarding wealth, bro..

/——/ To live a lavish lifestyle means you have to pump $$$$$$$$$ into the economy. To dumb it down for you, it means you gotta buy lots of stuff that provides jobs for others. GEEEEZE get a clue will ya.

 

[Red Front]

Just because some notable person writes this stuff doesn't make it true. Rich people aren't the biggest problem that the poor face. The poor are mostly responsible for their own financial state.

Adam Smith, generally considered by most capitalist economists as the father of modern capitalism, acknowledged that the capitalists (whom he called "masters" throughout his book, the Wealth Of Nations), employ the government and every public institution, to advance their vested interests.

"What are the common wages of labour, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine (unionize/labor unions) in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labor. It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine (form their own organizations/chambers of commerce/guilds/associations/super-PACs/armies of lobbyists legally bribing politicians/"think tanks"/ NGOs..etc) much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen."

Emphasis Mine

Conditions undermine or are prohibitive (more difficult), for the workmen, than it is for the masters. Smith wrote:

"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counselors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."(Chapter X, Part II)

"Whenever the law has attempted to regulate the wages of workmen, it has always been rather to lower them than to raise them." (Book I, Chapter X, Part II)

The selfishness and avarice of the masters....

"All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. As soon, therefore, as they could find a method of consuming the whole value of their rents themselves, they had no disposition to share them with any other persons." (Book III, Chapter IV)

Prophetic:

​

You're in denial because you're a pearl-clutching landlord. The father of capitalism despised landlords:

"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He must then pay for the licence to gather them; and must give up to the landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or produces. This portion, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of this portion, constitutes the rent of land, and in the price of the greater part of commodities makes a third component part."
(Wealth of Nations, Chapter VI)

He agreed with Einstein that the rich elites rig the system to serve their class interests, at the expense of everyone else.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Adam Smith, generally considered by most capitalist economists as the father of modern capitalism, acknowledged that the capitalists (whom he called "masters" throughout his book, the Wealth Of Nations), employ the government and every public institution, to advance their vested interests.

"What are the common wages of labour, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine (unionize) in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labor. It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine (form unions/organizations/chambers of commerce/guilds/associations/super-PACS/armies of lobbyists legally bribing politicians/"think tanks"/ NGOs..etc) much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen."

Conditions undermine or are prohibitive (more difficult), for the workmen, than it is for the masters. Smith wrote:

"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counselors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."(Chapter X, Part II)

"Whenever the law has attempted to regulate the wages of workmen, it has always been rather to lower them than to raise them." (Book I, Chapter X, Part II)

The selfishness and avarice of the masters....

"All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. As soon, therefore, as they could find a method of consuming the whole value of their rents themselves, they had no disposition to share them with any other persons." (Book III, Chapter IV)

Prophetic:

​

You're in denial because you're a pearl-clutching landlord. The father of capitalism despised landlords:

"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He must then pay for the licence to gather them; and must give up to the landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or produces. This portion, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of this portion, constitutes the rent of land, and in the price of the greater part of commodities makes a third component part."
(Wealth of Nations, Chapter VI)

He agreed with Einstein that the rich elites rig the system to serve their class interests, at the expense of everyone else.

/---/ If my only two choices are the rich elites and socialist dictators, I'll take the elites, because with them I can live in relative freedom and comfort. No socialist dictator ever gave me a job.

 

[DudleySmith]

If not for the Bush tax cuts and their extensions—as well as the Trump tax cuts—revenues would be on track to keep pace with spending indefinitely, and the debt ratio... would be declining," a new
@amprog.
report finds.

View attachment 791017

Yes, Republicans fell in love with deficits under Reagan's rule, but they were joined by the Democrats' Watergate Babies, all pro-monopoly and pro oligarchy, and still are. For some reason morons still fantasize they are 'different Parties' and care about the U.S. and its people. lol that's the sort of hilarious insanity the media excels at promoting.

 

[DudleySmith]

Adam Smith, generally considered by most capitalist economists as the father of modern capitalism, acknowledged that the capitalists (whom he called "masters" throughout his book, the Wealth Of Nations), employ the government and every public institution, to advance their vested interests.

"What are the common wages of labour, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine (unionize) in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labor. It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine (form unions/organizations/chambers of commerce/guilds/associations/super-PACS/armies of lobbyists legally bribing politicians/"think tanks"/ NGOs..etc) much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen."

Conditions undermine or are prohibitive (more difficult), for the workmen, than it is for the masters. Smith wrote:

"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counselors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."(Chapter X, Part II)

"Whenever the law has attempted to regulate the wages of workmen, it has always been rather to lower them than to raise them." (Book I, Chapter X, Part II)

The selfishness and avarice of the masters....

"All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. As soon, therefore, as they could find a method of consuming the whole value of their rents themselves, they had no disposition to share them with any other persons." (Book III, Chapter IV)

Prophetic:

​

You're in denial because you're a pearl-clutching landlord. The father of capitalism despised landlords:

"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He must then pay for the licence to gather them; and must give up to the landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or produces. This portion, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of this portion, constitutes the rent of land, and in the price of the greater part of commodities makes a third component part."
(Wealth of Nations, Chapter VI)

He agreed with Einstein that the rich elites rig the system to serve their class interests, at the expense of everyone else.

Yes, right wingers like to ignore most of what Adam Smith actually said, same as they like to ignore the fact that Milton Friedman, Robert Bork, and the rest of the 'Chicago School' con men were all paid shills who were pro-monopoly, pro-oligarchy, and pro-centralized economies same as Galbraith, Hofstadter, and other left wingers were, and still are. All were on the payrolls of the big banks and companies like General Electric.

Those 'think tanks' don't get their money from poor people donating stuff; they are all just PR and marketing firms publishing paid advertisements. College and university professors love them; they pay well, publish books, pay for 'studies', and pay for speeches and travel.

 

[Red Front]

Members who reacted to message #305

All (1)

Funny (1)​

• 1. 
     
  2. [IMG alt="Cellblock2429"]https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/58/58304.jpg?1624675523[/IMG]
     
     
     4 minutes ago
     

     Cellblock2429​

     Diamond Member · 72 · From New York
     • Messages 31,073
     • Reaction score 12,200
     • Points 1,560

Yes, right wingers like to ifnore most of what Adam Smith actually said, same as they like to ignore the fact that Milton Friedman, Robert Bork, and the rest of the 'Chicago School' con men were all paid shills who were pro-monopoly, pro-oligarchy, and pro-centralized economies same as Galbraith, Hofstadter, and other left wingers were, and still are. All were on the payrolls of the big banks and companies like General Electric.

Those 'think tanks' don't get their money from poor people donating stuff; they are all just PR and marketing firms publishing paid advertisements. College and university professors love them; they pay well, publish books, pay for 'studies', and pay for speeches and travel.

Much of the American "left" or liberals, during the Cold War, were "assisted", often funded by the US State Department, provided they were against the USSR. They're the "synthetic left":

​

 

[Woodznutz]

/---/ If my only two choices are the rich elites and socialist dictators, I'll take the elites, because with them I can live in relative freedom and comfort. No socialist dictator ever gave me a job.

So then, "rags to riches" stories are all myths?

How Many Millionaires Are There in the U.S.? A Look at the Statistics

How many millionaires are in the U.S.? More than you probably realize—and most of them lead pretty normal lives. Find out more here.

www.ramseysolutions.com

 

[Woodznutz]

Both sides love their dumbass spending. Republican lawmakers pretend they don't, and Democrat lawmakers admit they love it and can't get enough of it. And no, Dems don't have any high ground because they tax the crap out of people. They come nowhere close to their insatiable need to spend. They just kick working people in the nuts as they add to the debt. Such lovely people.

On the positive side government spending provides jobs for many people that are otherwise unemployable.

Government borrows at pretty low interest rates.

Government borrowing is driven largely by the trade deficit, and other ways that money leaves the general economy.

As the population grows more money is needed to balance the economy.

Government debt can be paid without raising taxes, but must be done 'off the books' bypassing the Federal Reserve. This would put real equity into the system instead of more debt. I recently gave each of my kids $5000 to help them out. If I had loaned them the money it would be 'on the books' for all of us. As it is there is no record (only an entry in my checkbook) just the lingering benefits.

 

[Billo_Really]

/——-/ Prove it, otherwise it’s just your opinion.

Here you go...

How did Trump waste his inheritance from his father worth 400 million dollars?

Answer (1 of 8): Fred Trump made his fortune building housing for low and middle income New Yorkers, mostly in the outer boroughs. Nothing glamorous, but a steady stream of dependable income. That wasn't good enough for Donald. He wanted to make his mark in the more glamorous and lucrative Manha...

www.quora.com

 

[Flash]

"Hey, lets spend trillions more than we take in and run up enormous deficits and then blame having taxes too low for it".

Yea, Liberals are that stupid.

 

[Billo_Really]

like I will link you to my fidelity account, are you being stupid again. This link shows us the Biden/Trump comparison:

Joe Biden vs Donald Trump Stock Market, GDP, and Jobs Created

Compare Joe Biden and Donald Trump to see how they stack up on stock market performance, jobs and GDP growth

www.factsarefirst.com

Do you even read the articles you post. It proves Biden beat Trump.

 

[Ordinary Guy]

Do you even read the articles you post. It proves Biden beat Trump.

Not in the market fool, the jobs numbers are skewed due to all the people not working during covid fool

 

[Red Front]

On the positive side government spending provides jobs for many people that are otherwise unemployable.

Government borrows at pretty low interest rates.

Government borrowing is driven largely by the trade deficit, and other ways that money leaves the general economy.

As the population grows more money is needed to balance the economy.

Government debt can be paid without raising taxes, but must be done 'off the books' bypassing the Federal Reserve. This would put real equity into the system instead of more debt. I recently gave each of my kids $5000 to help them out. If I had loaned them the money it would be 'on the books' for all of us. As it is there is no record (only an entry in my checkbook) just the lingering benefits.

On the positive side government spending provides jobs for many people that are otherwise unemployable.

Being "unemployable" (or unexploitable) in a capitalist labor market, doesn't equate dumb or unproductive. I'm generally unemployable in a capitalist labor market where people are reduced to a commodity and mere cogs in a machine of privately owned, for-profit production. The only reason I'm willing to be employed by a capitalist enterprise is because I'm a member of a powerful, kick-ass labor union that takes ZERO SHIT from employers. As a result, I get paid well and I have plenty of benefits, not to speak of the support that I get from my union (my community of fellow machinists and coworkers).

Your stupid disingenuous, right-wing conservative rhetoric against government employees conveniently discounts the fact that not everyone wants to labor for a fucking capitalist and hence works in the public sector instead. The government often provides by default many of the benefits that workers in the private sector have to fight aggressively for to acquire and keep. When I was in the military, I had decent, adequate housing, great healthcare, all types of training, education, cheap food, meaning, purpose, you're doing something of substance and genuine value, defending your country. All of those qualities in a job, are more likely found in a government position than in the private sector, where your work is essentially to make more money for a bunch of wealthy assholes.

Government borrows at pretty low interest rates.

The US Federal Government doesn't need to borrow anything. Unlike in the past when the USD was backed by gold, we now have a sovereign, fiat currency. The US Federal Government doesn't have to sell treasury bonds to "make dollars", it simply "prints" them (types them on a keyboard into a computer at the FED, depositing the money into the respective bank accounts). The budgetary constraints of the US Federal Government are based upon the nation's production capacity, which is generally identified as our "GDP"(Gross Domestic Product). The US Federal Government shouldn't spend more than that to avoid hyperinflation (too much money in the economy, chasing not enough goods and services).

THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL NEVER GO INSOLVENT (RUN OUT OF MONEY).​

When the government allocates funds, and resources to infrastructural development and programs that serve the public good, that increases production, hence expands our capitalist economy. Capitalism, to a certain extent, can function, with a bit of socialism. Take socialism out of the picture or good government management and needed regulations, out of the equation, and production and markets fail. If not in the short-term, inevitably in the long-term, due to various factors that I won't discuss here now. Capitalism must prioritize the public good, or it fails miserably, needing one government bailout after another, to avoid the collapse of the economy, ruining the lives of tens of millions of people.

​

What capitalists and their brainwashed, right-wing fan-worshipers refuse to recognize is that eventually, as technology advances, the need for wage labor is reduced, to a point that capitalism with its markets can't function. Society in the future, will eventually be forced by necessity to adopt a non-profit, marketless system of production, to meet everyone's needs.

Government borrowing is driven largely by the trade deficit, and other ways that money leaves the general economy.

Treasury bonds aren't government debt but rather a financial instrument used by the US government to control inflation and the amount of reserves in the banking system. By selling bonds, the government removes excess reserves from the banking system, which can help control inflation.

As the population grows more money is needed to balance the economy.

What do you mean by "balancing the economy"? You're regurgitating a bunch of right-wing gobbledygook.

Government debt can be paid without raising taxes, but must be done 'off the books' bypassing the Federal Reserve. This would put real equity into the system instead of more debt. I recently gave each of my kids $5000 to help them out. If I had loaned them the money it would be 'on the books' for all of us. As it is there is no record (only an entry in my checkbook) just the lingering benefits.

It's good to have a rich daddy huh?

You're confusing household microeconomics with national-scale macroeconomics. Individual or household debt has nothing to do with our federal government's ability to meet all of its financial obligations, due to the fact that it is the exclusive issuer of our nation's currency whereas you and I are simply users of that currency. Local and state governments are also just users of the USD, so they definitely rely on taxes and the federal government to fund themselves. The US Federal Government is in another realm financially than everyone else, because it creates the money that all of us use and rely on to live. It generates the legal tender and backs it with authority, coercion, big guns..etc.

 

[TNHarley]

Yeah our huge yearly deficits have nothing to do with it.Us spending money on other peoples wars. Our defense budget. Giving bums free money every month. Paying peoples pensions in other countries. Over spending on everything. No, that has nothing to do with it. The main driver is letting people keep more of the money they invested their blood sweat and tears into.
Good gawd almighty. STFU

 

[Red Front]

So then, "rags to riches" stories are all myths?

How Many Millionaires Are There in the U.S.? A Look at the Statistics

How many millionaires are in the U.S.? More than you probably realize—and most of them lead pretty normal lives. Find out more here.

www.ramseysolutions.com

So-called "rags to riches" stories are extraordinary for a reason. They're rare. First, what constitutes "rags" to you? What is "rich"? People climbing out of poverty, to become multimillionaires or billionaires, is indeed rare. The vast majority of people identify success, not as becoming RICH, but by having enough food to eat, adequate housing, a source of income, healthcare, access to education, and modern infrastructure (having electricity 24/7.. etc.). Having a truly rich family and social life, a lot of friends that care about them. Being able to enjoy a vacation once a year with your family, and engage in hobbies. A typical middle-class life, that's success, the American Dream, for most people.

Not becoming multimillionaires, or having a ten-room mansion, or fleet of Megayachts, a private airliner, ten Ferraris. That's just silly and immature.

 

[peacefan]

/——/ To live a lavish lifestyle means you have to pump $$$$$$$$$ into the economy. To dumb it down for you, it means you gotta buy lots of stuff that provides jobs for others. GEEEEZE get a clue will ya.

then again, the economy is organized more like a skyscraper than a pyramid, now isn't it?

 

[Billo_Really]

Not in the market fool, the jobs numbers are skewed due to all the people not working during covid fool

We all know the market wants Trump because he is a dishonest business man who is willing to break the law!