Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread >Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Tea Party - a true (?) reflection of today's society?

Peach Pro





Posts: 490
(490 all sites)
Registered: 12/12/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/16/2013 at 03:52 PM
Just waxing philosophical (and painting with very broad strokes): An odd thought recently entered my mind - does the emergence of the Tea Party, and the recent debt debates, actually provide us with some real insight as to what 'Society' in the U.S. is becoming/has become (i.e. the 'it's all about me' Society)? To me, it seems like the Tea Party's open willingness (I might almost use the term 'encouragement') to let the U.S. default on it's obligations isn't really that different from an individual deciding to just walking away from a mortgage that is 'underwater', because they may be losing money in the relative short term (i.e. not necessarily because they cannot afford to make payments/pay their debts). That is, money was borrowed, and spent, and promises were made, contracts signed, etc… to purchase something that maybe couldn't be afforded, or was a poor investment decision. Then once the individual's personal situation changed, they determined that they had no responsibility at all - so they no longer needed to fulfill their obligations/promises (e.g. repay their loans, etc…), so they just 'walk away' and say 'eff you' to everyone else who may be inversely affected by their decision. Some may then declare bankruptcy, etc… and don't pay other obligations they have committed to, again without any thought about potential repercussions, or hardships for others, that do not affect them personally, and immediately.

I personally believe that everything possible should be done to meet their current obligations (i.e. there shouldn't have been so much drama these last 3 weeks). If current obligations start becoming overbearing (obviously they are), then we need to either start cutting some expenses and/or gather more revenue BUT we still need to do everything possible to meet our current obligations (i.e. pass an extension and then legislate new laws that 'fix what is currently broken/not desirable). Bankruptcy is the last, last, last result (and I personally do not believe the U.S. is at that point…yet), yet I almost get the impression that is what the Tea Party really wants.

Please note that I know I am using very broad strokes and definitely realize that not everyone who was caught 'underwater' took the way out described above, at least by choice. However, it seems many more did than should have/needed to and I'm just beginning to wonder if the recent escapades involving the Tea Party are illustrative of this 'new(er) age' mentality in the U.S., and also reveals what we can expect in the near future if/as the Tea Party's influence actually grows (friggin' scary)!

BTW, I blame it on the parents (not mine, but yours/theirs)!

Peace!

 

____________________
Many into one!

 
Replies:

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15998
(15990 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/16/2013 at 04:00 PM
Only one way we were going to miss an interest payment, and that's if Obama decided not to pay it.
 

Peach Pro



Karma:
Posts: 490
(490 all sites)
Registered: 12/12/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/16/2013 at 04:52 PM
LOL, originally I assumed you missed my point...now I'm wondering if you are actually re-enforcing the concept?

 

____________________
Many into one!

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8247
(8247 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/16/2013 at 06:19 PM
Concept reinforced!

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8375
(8376 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/16/2013 at 11:46 PM
Prior to any "reflecting", there should be clear definitions of the words "default" and "obligation" so that everyone can converse from a common starting point. These concepts are intermingled in the media, and within your first post, but they mean very different things from a fiscal perspective.

Default is when you can not meet required payments to your creditors. In the case of our gov't, that means being unable to meet the interest payments due on Treasury bonds. I've heard figures in the $20-30 billion a month range for the interest payments we currently make to service our Treasury bond debt. Since the Treasury has not stopped collecting taxes due to the recent shutdown, as long as their monthly collection (more than $200 billion/mth) is more than the monthly amount needed to pay that interest, the US can not default. Unless of course the President orders the Treasury not to make those payments. So with more than sufficient money coming into the Treasury to pay the interest to our creditors, there was no possible way for the US to actually default unless the Prez decided to do that. Hence, Alloak was absolutely correct with his comment.

It appears that use of the term "obligation" is intended to have a much wider reference. This might include all internal gov't spending: social security, medicare, military, food subsidies, golf outings, nuclear bombs - you name it. I hate to break this to anyone, but all of that spending is subject to change at gov't whim. You may think that SS dependents have some sort of "right" to a payment because they paid into the system for decades, but they do not. The same goes for every job, service, program, or payment the gov't is involved in. If they don't want to pay, they don't have to. It the law.

When the ruling elite decide that they can no longer afford specific programs (or all of them), cuts will begin immediately. In today's media drenched world, such cuts will most likely be accompanied by a media barrage designed to change the cultural zeitgeist to align with govt's actions. The poor will go from today's political advantage to tomorrow's liability, with negative connotations aplenty to help manipulate the masses. But we're not there. Yet.

I never once heard anyone of significance from the Tea Party proclaim that they wanted the US to default, or declare bankruptcy, as mentioned in the first post. Affecting the internal spending, or impacting those "obligations", is another matter which I believe they did/do want to influence. As well they should, given that they were elected to do just that.

I see their faults in this recent escapade, and those of the Republican party, as threefold...

-- They failed to devise a winnable strategy
-- Their leadership failed to coordinate members under that (or any) strategy
-- They failed to explain their case to the people in a compelling way

The winnable strategy should have been: negotiate a one-year waiver on the individual mandate of Obamacare, remove the Congressional and Administrative Obamacare special provisions, and remove the Obamacare medical device tax. All three are potentially repulsive to a wide swath of Americans - even Democrats. They could have run a national campaign on those issues and found broad support.

Their leadership should be so embarrassed by their performance and failures that they should voluntarily step down. We shouldn't have to ask. Their failure to lead in any way, shape, or form is appallingly obvious.

And one of those main failings is explaining to the country what they are doing, and why it is important. I'd see Boehner emerge from some meeting and grunt a few sentences into a mic, then walk off in a huff. Does he remotely understand his role? Communication skills are severely lacking from most of these dimwits, but it their most vital weapon, and the only one they can use to start making sense and winning some battles.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7168
(7166 all sites)
Registered: 4/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/17/2013 at 08:06 AM
The real problem is that there are two sides to the Republican Party. The one side that wants to be fiscally responsible and the side that wants to continue the spending spree. The side that wants the spending spree to continue has the power and is the "voice" of the party. Much in the same way the Progressives have now silenced most of the blue dog democrats. So you really have two sides to both parties. The sides that want to continue the spending spree, the Progressives and the Conservatives, far outweigh the Blue Dogs and the Tea Party members. The media is on the side of the Progressives and the Conservatives, there is no doubt about that. Thus the message is controlled by the spenders and the people that want the government to be fiscally responsible are labeled as terrorist and anarchist.

We don't have a tax issue, we have a spending issue. More revenue is not the answer.

Eventually they are going to kill the economy with all of this spending and printing of money. The path we are on is unsustainable. The Progressives and the Conservatives won't be happy until they have overdosed this economy with fiat paper and debt.

I would imagine when it happens the media will gladly blame the Tea Party and any blue dog democrats for the demise of the economy.

Clearly there is a problem, but nobody wants to hear what the real solutions are. We just keep kicking the can down the road, and one day, they are going to kill this economy with all of their debt and money printing.

This is just more divide and conquer, and it is working. Where are the uniters that are for the good of this country and the American people? Pretty much nowhere to be found. Sad.






[Edited on 10/17/2013 by jerryphilbob]

 

____________________
"If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace."

- John Lennon

 

Peach Pro



Karma:
Posts: 490
(490 all sites)
Registered: 12/12/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/17/2013 at 09:26 AM
Nice post Fuji! I do agree that in the short-term, there was no serious risk of defaulting on our interest payments, and one would HOPE we never end up in a comparable long-term situation. I also agree that I have never heard the Tea Party, nor any other party, lobby for U.S. bankruptcy - I personally just have a very hard time envisioning situations where a U.S. Gov't shutdown and/or inability to borrow is beneficial to the general population as a whole (short-term or long), so I was wondering (OK, not too seriously) if the underlying theme may have been to ultimately get the U.S. into Bankruptcy. We can then ignore/write-off all of our current debts - and all of our financial problems will be solved! Our credit rating will be destroyed (but who cares, it'll get better in a decade, or so), we'll have to pay higher interest rates (but who cares, we will we have no debt to pay interest on) and 'eff what the rest of the world may think, or how our decision may affect anything anywhere else '.

The 'winnable strategy' theory you proposed seems reasonable enough - which is why it was probably never considered. That is, I would have preferred some sort of bipartisan agreement (does anyone on Capitol Hill actually remember what a bipartisan agreement looks/feels like?) and the specific points you reference as starting points may have enabled something productive to happen. But, regardless of whether or not a bipartisan agreement was able to be reached, I personally believe that an extension of 18 months to 2 years should have probably been passed - because it seems like we've been arguing about nothing else for 2+ years, while NO other significant legislation (OK very little) has been debated/passed. Once the longer term extensions were in place, one would then HOPE that legitimate discussions/debates could be held and bipartisan consensus could be reached that attempts to address the current spending and/or tax levels, etc… (i.e. just because the limit was inceased, doesn't mean we have to max it out again). Instead, what'll happen now is that we'll go back to square one and start debating the Ceiling and borrowing limit that is approaching in 3 months while not addressing any of the underlying issues.

Trying to tie back to the thoughts in my original post: While I agree your statement '… that they were elected to do just that.', I might add 'and that could be the root of problem!". That is, is it possible that they were elected by a base made up of the exact same people who no longer want to take any personal responsibility for any poor decisions they may make/have made? I.e. Were they elected by the 'new(er) age', 'it's all about me' Society'? And if they were, could this provide an accurate insight as to what we can expect in the future (as previously noted: friggin' scary)?

No right answers here (or left one's either)!

And BTW, before the bashing begins - I am a political party of 1! I believe there is more than enough blame to go around on Capitol Hill - I blame them all (Obama, Dems, Reps, Tea Bags, Indep., etc…), the cr@ppy situation we are in is NOT the fault of a single person or political party (doesn't matter how strongly some state that it is).

Peace!

 

____________________
Many into one!

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15998
(15990 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/17/2013 at 09:36 AM
quote:
Default is when you can not meet required payments to your creditors. In the case of our gov't, that means being unable to meet the interest payments due on Treasury bonds. I've heard figures in the $20-30 billion a month range for the interest payments we currently make to service our Treasury bond debt. Since the Treasury has not stopped collecting taxes due to the recent shutdown, as long as their monthly collection (more than $200 billion/mth) is more than the monthly amount needed to pay that interest, the US can not default. Unless of course the President orders the Treasury not to make those payments. So with more than sufficient money coming into the Treasury to pay the interest to our creditors, there was no possible way for the US to actually default unless the Prez decided to do that. Hence, Alloak was absolutely correct with his comment.



"Concept reinforced." Thank you.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46252
(46253 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/17/2013 at 10:22 AM
quote:
Default is when you can not meet required payments to your creditors. In the case of our gov't, that means being unable to meet the interest payments due on Treasury bonds. I've heard figures in the $20-30 billion a month range for the interest payments we currently make to service our Treasury bond debt. Since the Treasury has not stopped collecting taxes due to the recent shutdown, as long as their monthly collection (more than $200 billion/mth) is more than the monthly amount needed to pay that interest, the US can not default. Unless of course the President orders the Treasury not to make those payments. So with more than sufficient money coming into the Treasury to pay the interest to our creditors, there was no possible way for the US to actually default unless the Prez decided to do that. Hence, Alloak was absolutely correct with his comment.



Do we have a hard source for that $200 billion a month number?

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/17/2013 at 11:24 AM
quote:
Nice post Fuji! I do agree that in the short-term, there was no serious risk of defaulting on our interest payments, and one would HOPE we never end up in a comparable long-term situation. I also agree that I have never heard the Tea Party, nor any other party, lobby for U.S. bankruptcy - I personally just have a very hard time envisioning situations where a U.S. Gov't shutdown and/or inability to borrow is beneficial to the general population as a whole (short-term or long), so I was wondering (OK, not too seriously) if the underlying theme may have been to ultimately get the U.S. into Bankruptcy. We can then ignore/write-off all of our current debts - and all of our financial problems will be solved! Our credit rating will be destroyed (but who cares, it'll get better in a decade, or so), we'll have to pay higher interest rates (but who cares, we will we have no debt to pay interest on) and 'eff what the rest of the world may think, or how our decision may affect anything anywhere else '.

The 'winnable strategy' theory you proposed seems reasonable enough - which is why it was probably never considered. That is, I would have preferred some sort of bipartisan agreement (does anyone on Capitol Hill actually remember what a bipartisan agreement looks/feels like?) and the specific points you reference as starting points may have enabled something productive to happen. But, regardless of whether or not a bipartisan agreement was able to be reached, I personally believe that an extension of 18 months to 2 years should have probably been passed - because it seems like we've been arguing about nothing else for 2+ years, while NO other significant legislation (OK very little) has been debated/passed. Once the longer term extensions were in place, one would then HOPE that legitimate discussions/debates could be held and bipartisan consensus could be reached that attempts to address the current spending and/or tax levels, etc… (i.e. just because the limit was inceased, doesn't mean we have to max it out again). Instead, what'll happen now is that we'll go back to square one and start debating the Ceiling and borrowing limit that is approaching in 3 months while not addressing any of the underlying issues.

Trying to tie back to the thoughts in my original post: While I agree your statement '… that they were elected to do just that.', I might add 'and that could be the root of problem!". That is, is it possible that they were elected by a base made up of the exact same people who no longer want to take any personal responsibility for any poor decisions they may make/have made? I.e. Were they elected by the 'new(er) age', 'it's all about me' Society'? And if they were, could this provide an accurate insight as to what we can expect in the future (as previously noted: friggin' scary)?

No right answers here (or left one's either)!

And BTW, before the bashing begins - I am a political party of 1! I believe there is more than enough blame to go around on Capitol Hill - I blame them all (Obama, Dems, Reps, Tea Bags, Indep., etc…), the cr@ppy situation we are in is NOT the fault of a single person or political party (doesn't matter how strongly some state that it is).

Peace!



I agree with your last paragaph and it needs to be pointed out that it is the OBLIGATION of the president of the United States to find a way to deal with the co-equal branch of Congress as all presidents have done throughout our history. Despite what many may think Obama does not have it worse than any other presidents who dealt with a difficult opposition Congress. Hell his party controls one of the branches. Instead of finding a way he just shifts all blame and absolves himself of any responsibility for the fact that NONE of the real difficult issues before us are being dealt with in ANY way. And before I get attacked, yes Congress as a whole is co-equally responsible, both House and Senate but the very fact that it is a body of 535 members means that leadership is required and none is shown.

 

____________________

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8375
(8376 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/17/2013 at 11:36 AM
quote:
quote:
Default is when you can not meet required payments to your creditors. In the case of our gov't, that means being unable to meet the interest payments due on Treasury bonds. I've heard figures in the $20-30 billion a month range for the interest payments we currently make to service our Treasury bond debt. Since the Treasury has not stopped collecting taxes due to the recent shutdown, as long as their monthly collection (more than $200 billion/mth) is more than the monthly amount needed to pay that interest, the US can not default. Unless of course the President orders the Treasury not to make those payments. So with more than sufficient money coming into the Treasury to pay the interest to our creditors, there was no possible way for the US to actually default unless the Prez decided to do that. Hence, Alloak was absolutely correct with his comment.
Do we have a hard source for that $200 billion a month number?
I've heard that figure, and others in the $200-250 billion range, from a number of media types. But there's a better and easier way to figure it out.

We know from gov't reporting and budget data that we're collecting about $2.6-2.8 trillion a year in taxes. We're spending roughly a trillion more than that, hence our annual deficit. But if we take the known collections number and just divide by 12, we get a rough monthly estimate of $200+ billion.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8375
(8376 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/17/2013 at 12:19 PM
I think this is a key observation Tex....

quote:
Trying to tie back to the thoughts in my original post: While I agree your statement '… that they were elected to do just that.', I might add 'and that could be the root of problem!". That is, is it possible that they were elected by a base made up of the exact same people who no longer want to take any personal responsibility for any poor decisions they may make/have made? I.e. Were they elected by the 'new(er) age', 'it's all about me' Society'? And if they were, could this provide an accurate insight as to what we can expect in the future (as previously noted: friggin' scary)?
We're flooded with the concept that our society is more polarized than ever. Many interpret that to mean D vs R. I don't feel that is specific enough, as the parties position themselves not along philosophical lines, but along whatever policy they feel keeps them in power.

I see us dividing into two main camps: those who want their personal fiscal success tied to a gov't relationship, and those who don't.

Let's first eliminate from the equation the basic gov't services that help everyone equally. We all want decent roads, a military to defend us (we've gone overboard there), schools, a system of courts to enforce laws, police and fire protection, some level of consumer protection so that harmful products don't come to market, coordinated air traffic control, etc. I'd even include a basic social safety net in there for those who are mentally or physically unable to care for themselves.

Once we get past those core needs, the debate really starts. Should gov't be involved in everyone's retirement, healthcare, child-rearing, mobile phones for the poor, food stamps, housing programs, college tuition loans, farm subsidies, auto subsidies, loans and grants to individual businesses, etc? Should we have a tax system that permits so much manipulation and corruption? Should we have regulation that targets individual industries? The list could go on forever.

The folks who line up behind all that gov't involvement are on one side of the growing divide. That includes everything from the poor, who like the benefits, to the rich, who like the influence they can buy and the favors that come from it. The other side are all those who don't believe such an activist gov't is good for the country, nor can we afford it. Some of those folks have aligned with the Tea Party movement.

I don't see these two camps finding much in common at any point in the future, especially since our current economic trajectory strengthens the resolve of both sides. Both the poor and the crony capitalists are tying their future survival to govt's help. As economic conditions continue to stagnate (at best), they want no change of course. The other side believes that their poor economic outlook is a direct outcome of the policies the other side clings to, and the accumulating debt will destroy us all.

There is very little room for compromise between those two positions, which is reflected in our national politics. Regrettably, we have reached a point where the two sides are fighting over pieces of a shrinking pie, and we have no leadership working to make the pie larger again.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2404
(2404 all sites)
Registered: 11/5/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/17/2013 at 12:45 PM
quote:
I think this is a key observation Tex....

quote:
Trying to tie back to the thoughts in my original post: While I agree your statement '… that they were elected to do just that.', I might add 'and that could be the root of problem!". That is, is it possible that they were elected by a base made up of the exact same people who no longer want to take any personal responsibility for any poor decisions they may make/have made? I.e. Were they elected by the 'new(er) age', 'it's all about me' Society'? And if they were, could this provide an accurate insight as to what we can expect in the future (as previously noted: friggin' scary)?
We're flooded with the concept that our society is more polarized than ever. Many interpret that to mean D vs R. I don't feel that is specific enough, as the parties position themselves not along philosophical lines, but along whatever policy they feel keeps them in power.

I see us dividing into two main camps: those who want their personal fiscal success tied to a gov't relationship, and those who don't.

Let's first eliminate from the equation the basic gov't services that help everyone equally. We all want decent roads, a military to defend us (we've gone overboard there), schools, a system of courts to enforce laws, police and fire protection, some level of consumer protection so that harmful products don't come to market, coordinated air traffic control, etc. I'd even include a basic social safety net in there for those who are mentally or physically unable to care for themselves.

Once we get past those core needs, the debate really starts. Should gov't be involved in everyone's retirement, healthcare, child-rearing, mobile phones for the poor, food stamps, housing programs, college tuition loans, farm subsidies, auto subsidies, loans and grants to individual businesses, etc? Should we have a tax system that permits so much manipulation and corruption? Should we have regulation that targets individual industries? The list could go on forever.

The folks who line up behind all that gov't involvement are on one side of the growing divide. That includes everything from the poor, who like the benefits, to the rich, who like the influence they can buy and the favors that come from it. The other side are all those who don't believe such an activist gov't is good for the country, nor can we afford it. Some of those folks have aligned with the Tea Party movement.

I don't see these two camps finding much in common at any point in the future, especially since our current economic trajectory strengthens the resolve of both sides. Both the poor and the crony capitalists are tying their future survival to govt's help. As economic conditions continue to stagnate (at best), they want no change of course. The other side believes that their poor economic outlook is a direct outcome of the policies the other side clings to, and the accumulating debt will destroy us all.

There is very little room for compromise between those two positions, which is reflected in our national politics. Regrettably, we have reached a point where the two sides are fighting over pieces of a shrinking pie, and we have no leadership working to make the pie larger again.
BULLSEYE! Very well stated. We need about 536 of you in DC.

 

____________________
"With the help of God and true friends I've come to realize,
I still have two strong legs and even wings to fly"

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5090
(5090 all sites)
Registered: 7/18/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/17/2013 at 01:37 PM


 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3627
(3622 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/17/2013 at 02:36 PM
quote:
I'd even include a basic social safety net in there for those who are mentally or physically unable to care for themselves.


LOL, thanks Rich.

quote:
Should gov't be involved in everyone's retirement, healthcare, child-rearing, mobile phones for the poor, food stamps, housing programs, college tuition loans, farm subsidies, auto subsidies, loans and grants to individual businesses, etc? Should we have a tax system that permits so much manipulation and corruption? Should we have regulation that targets individual industries? The list could go on forever.

The folks who line up behind all that gov't involvement are on one side of the growing divide. That includes everything from the poor, who like the benefits, to the rich, who like the influence they can buy and the favors that come from it. The other side are all those who don't believe such an activist gov't is good for the country, nor can we afford it. Some of those folks have aligned with the Tea Party movement.


It all boils down to who we trust more. There are corrupt evil people in government and the private sector, so who is the lesser of the 2 evils? Who do we trust more? For me, I have more faith and trust in the government, and here's why: The government has more incentive to help the middle class to get their vote. Wealthy private citizens, with the exception of the 2 greatest Americans Gates and Buffet, care more about increasing their own families' wealth, rather than helping the middle class.

 

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7168
(7166 all sites)
Registered: 4/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/17/2013 at 03:30 PM


[Edited on 10/7/2014 by jerryphilbob]

 

____________________
"If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace."

- John Lennon

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3242
(3248 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/17/2013 at 04:11 PM
quote:

The folks who line up behind all that gov't involvement are on one side of the growing divide. That includes everything from the poor, who like the benefits, to the rich, who like the influence they can buy and the favors that come from it. The other side are all those who don't believe such an activist gov't is good for the country, nor can we afford it. Some of those folks have aligned with the Tea Party movement.




So where do you think the likes of the Koch Brothers & FreedomWorks & Citizens United line up? No chance that they are interested in buying favors and at the same time support the Tea Party? They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Aren't those entities as such playing activists from their own self interest & perception of what is good for the country?

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8375
(8376 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/17/2013 at 05:00 PM
quote:
Who do we trust more? For me, I have more faith and trust in the government, and here's why: The government has more incentive to help the middle class to get their vote.
Yes, and it's sad that the middle class is so easily duped into believing that they're being helped, while the facts are just the reverse.

Our gov't and our President condones the Fed policy of creating $85 billion a month to keep stock prices propped up. Who's making the most from that? Who stands to benefit the greatest from that? The 1%. The same group so many of the 99% say they despise. It's the greatest act of 'trickle-down' gov't policy in history, yet it is never reported that way because the media fawns over this President, while being owned by those same 1%'ers benefiting so nicely from current policy. What do you think was the reason Obama spent so much time on Wall St sucking up for campaign cash, and what was promised in return?

Aha! you say, but what about 401k's? Isn't this money printing policy good for those too if it keeps stock prices up?

How quick memories fade. Where's the outrage from the masses who had their 401k's crash but a few short years ago? Our gov't lets the sheep receive a small portion of their income tax-free, all with the proviso that it must be invested in market. This helps keep stock prices high, which once again primarily benefits who? Most have no where near the smarts to manage their investments properly and avoid being sheared when the inevitable crashes come.

If that wasn't enough, gov't also supports the policies of artificially low interest rates. Our parents and grandparents were able to put their money in the bank, and realize 3%-5% gains on their savings. While modest growth to be sure, it was a damn sight better than virtually 0% that you will get today. It gave them a safe option to avoid the stock market and still prosper a bit from saving. But not today. Between the money printing that lowers the value of the dollar, and the near-zero interest rates, the middle class is forced into the casino of Wall St just to hedge their savings. Most will get eaten alive, and if not, the trading houses will still make tidy profits managing their investments.

Can we find any gov't policies helping the middle class, other than making them outright dependents? Are there broad policies at work that are helping revive our industrial manufacturing base? How about trade negotiations to favor US-made goods? Any tax or regulation policy designed to help reinvigorate productive enterprise here in the US? I'm not talking crony capitalism one-off deals to help some political buddy. I mean broad, industry-wide relief that will spur private investment and not more gov't debt. No?

The middle class is being sold down the river by our gov't. Especially by those whom they have recently voted for in the majority, who talk a good game, but whose actions speak anything but. The facts tell the story far better than any flowery political rhetoric. Too bad so much of the middle class doesn't know how to interpret the actions and cut through the bs. Too bad they'll never get an answer to how that "economy built from the bottom up and the middle out" is supposed to work, even while the question is never asked.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8375
(8376 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/17/2013 at 05:10 PM
quote:
quote:
The folks who line up behind all that gov't involvement are on one side of the growing divide. That includes everything from the poor, who like the benefits, to the rich, who like the influence they can buy and the favors that come from it. The other side are all those who don't believe such an activist gov't is good for the country, nor can we afford it. Some of those folks have aligned with the Tea Party movement.
So where do you think the likes of the Koch Brothers & FreedomWorks & Citizens United line up? No chance that they are interested in buying favors and at the same time support the Tea Party? They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Aren't those entities as such playing activists from their own self interest & perception of what is good for the country?
Never said they were mutually exclusive, or not subject to the same scrutiny.

I have no problems with the wealthy working to expand their wealth. But we've reached a point where for many, doing so is far easier accomplished via gov't manipulation than investment and effort. Our broken system of taxation is a major cause of that. But so is the many and varied ways special interests and companies can get cash from gov't. We're in need of serious structural changes in those systems, buy I doubt we'll see it.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3317
(3315 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/18/2013 at 03:22 PM

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9082
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 2/25/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/21/2013 at 08:40 AM
quote:
we're collecting about $2.6-2.8 trillion a year in taxes.


This number is astonishing to me. The federal government takes in over $2 trillion in revenue a year and its not enough to run the government? WTF?

quote:
Aha! you say, but what about 401k's? Isn't this money printing policy good for those too if it keeps stock prices up?



Politics aside, this is most troubling, and its going to hurt even more the next time it happens, and it will happen. The liability side of the consumer's balance sheet is shot, nearly unrepairable, so what they did to try to correct 2008, is to inflate the asset side of the balance sheet. How did they do that? Through cheap money and rates. So things like home prices, equity prices, commodity prices and anything hard asset related have gone through the roof. Yes, we have reparied the asset side but we have created another massive bubble that must pop. We had a housing led recession followed by a consumer led recession. When consumers were getting most of the money from their homes and the home was already recessed, for lack of a better term, then we had a real shtshow. We are headed for an even nastier storm, because now people don't have jobs and they don't have liquidity in their homes. They just feel wealthy from their artificially inflated assets. Have fun accessing your depressed 401k to get liquidity when you are 39 years old. OR even worse, and something I think is criminal, is that seniors and others approaching retirement are almost forced to put their assets into risk based instruments because the interest on fixed income instruments is almost nothing. When I think about a 65 year old with massive exposure to the stock market, it makes me cringe. I have a feeling there are far too many of them with that exposure too.

 
 


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software


Privacy | Terms of Service
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com