That's a good one, nice and concise. Hercules Rockefeller (gotta love that name) posted a similar list as a sticky and there's a more tedious one on wikipedia. I like yours better. It may be hard for some folks here to follow if they're already bucking broncs to begin with. But it sure works for me. It seems like beating a dead horse to be railing against taxes, since they haven't gone up in a long, long time, and--correct me if I'm wrong--they haven't even kept up with inflation. We just funded one of the most difficult and expensive wars ever, so it's understandable there would be debt even if we didn't go through the crash, which was monumental, and it's still wreaking havoc today. Everyone would like to have more money (except the few that take vow of poverty) but this isn't going to cut it. The people who are hurting the most don't pay that much in taxes to begin with. It probably wouldn't affect them very much if they paid no taxes at all. I would be in favor of extending the poverty rate upward and lowering taxes for the poorest workers, and doing more to help the middle class. But other than that, I'm not willing to give up the services (from Michael's chart above) my taxes are buying, and besides, no one seriously believes there's a free lunch anyway.
Disregard the red outline as that had something to do with the article it was used in. The point was that Income Tax and SSI make up >80% of Federal Revenue. The agreements are being undermined as we speak. Ben Benanke has a stated GOAL of 2% inflation. You can see, 2% is pretty much the bottom of their range. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If we take inflation at 5% then in 10 years we've wiped out a large chunk of those obligations simply by defaulting on the value of those payments through inflation.
Hah! That reminds me of the scene at the end of the Wizard of Oz, where the wizard is telling them to ignore the man behind the curtain. (By the way, the yellow brick road symbolized the Gold Standard, and Emerald City represented the transition to the greenback.) I can't disregard that part of the chart, without overlooking the the truth about expenditures. It shows that well over half are entitlements are owed out of medicare/medicaid premiums you paid (plus unemployment, paid by your employer) and the of course there's huge cost of running the world's most sophisticated department of defense. Not too shabby considering that barely covers entitlements and Defense. You agreed only to collect your net proceeds, nothing more. The rest is all benefits. All those warriors who died to protect you - and the ones in wheelchairs, the shell-shocked and all the rest - they have to get paid. There's no altering the deal. You can't go back and say they're stealing from you. That doesn't even make sense. The primary goal is recover from the crash, which has apparently worked. Tweaking interest rates is designed to reduce inflation. That has worked too. Right now they've bottomed out that control. So what's the issue? The economists are doing exactly what they get paid to do - to clean up after the brokers who crashed the economy. And it's working. But I can't tell what bugs you about interest rates and inflation. Neither one of them have been out of control in this administration. So where's the beef? And what constitutes rates that are either too high or too low? How do you determine that? You mean you're worried about a theft that will take place in 10 years? I thought you were hot about getting ripped off now. In any case, bonds are the cheapest way to raise money, so the bondholders will eat those losses if your scenario pans out. By the way, inflation is another reason why Government debt makes sense. Build the bridge now, at today's lower prices, before they become inflated, float the cost on interest-free bonds (or nearly so), benefit from its usefulness now, and save money. You call that theft? Sounds like they're acting wisely and responsibly. And with the pittance they took from the gross paid by your employer, not the net you agreed to work for. All in all it sounds to me like you owe Ben Bernanke et al a big thank you card for making your life better, without having to touch any of your private property, and without having to raise taxes.
Yes, that's partially true. The children born today have had no say in a number of the promises baby boomers made to themselves about their lavish future retirement they were going to bless themselves. It seems you're asking: Is default moral? We ARE defaulting. Ben Benanke has a stated GOAL of defaulting to the rune of 2% per year. Although it's more like 6-8%. So, yes, technically speaking retiree's will be paid what is owed, it just isn't going to buy anywhere near what they thought it would buy. The "Crash" would been over and done with had we simply let the bad banks fail. Contrary to some people's predictions that we'd be "living in the stone-age eating road-kill" we'd be on the mend (as is evidenced by Icelands recovery). Economic "Crashes" are supposed to occur to clean out the mal-investment. If we lived in an economy with competing currencies, I maintain, they'd be MORE isolated as one Central Planner in Chief wouldn't have so much control over the monetary lives of the Nation. It is your opinion we're recovering from "The Crash". I OTOH think we've ONLY JUST STARTED. That was just the warm-up, the real show's about to begin. We haven't even begun to see the start of "The" Crash. MOAD as I like to call it. They didn't cure us of the mal-investment. They doped up the patient with a massive hit of morphine. And every time the body came to, and started to hurt, to start to heal (which is painful), they hit it with another round of morphine. Just today they hit us with Operation Twist 2.0 (Operation Steal more like it). So, whereas you see a cure. I see the effects of morphine-like stimulants which will result in an even WORSE collapse to come. But, we will see won't we? Joe was on here last year talking up the economy. Then came another round of QE and he was still talking up the economy. Then came OT and he was talking up the economy. Today was OT2.0 and I'm sure Joe sees that as a positive sign. Five more QE's and boy will we be really doing well! Maybe for the top 1%. In 2010 — the top 1 percent captured 93 percent of the nation’s gains in income. The top 1 percent grew by 11.6 percent on average while the incomes of the bottom 99 percent increased by just 0.2 percent. Research Paper ----> Here Just wait until interest rates rise. That'll be an interesting time in the USA. It's OK for YOU to sell Bonds on YOUR labor and/or assets. It's not moral for YOU to sell Bonds on MY labor or my children's labor. Which is exactly what is happening and why the next generation is total screwed. You are more than able to borrow today as long as YOU pay. You don't get to borrow from the future generation and make them pay. The interest is supposed to be there to balance the inflation. Although, as it stands now interest is low. Too low IMO. But, it's not my choice. It's all up to a douche at the Fed. It should be set by the Market. If so, it'd be much much higher. But, we don't live in a free society, we have no free market on money, we live in a Central Planned society. Which history suggest's will fail just as they all do. So, yes, you get a "cheaper" bridge and the poor and the retiree's (who actually worked and saved the capital you borrow against) get to eat cat food. Lucky You. But, what about them? You think they like eating cat food?!?! Firstly, if something is immoral, then something is immoral. Slavery created quite a bit of wealth, which inadvertently on occasion helped out a Slave or two. When new medicines where invented, was not the Master kind in giving this aid to his Slaves (you know, so they could get back to health and work)? Was not the Master merciful and shouldn't that slave have "owed his Master a big thank you card for making his life better?" Stealing is immoral. Voting does not change an immoral act into a moral act. Drawing lines on a map and calling it the USA doesn't not make it moral. Telling yourself you know what's best for the next generation and then selling THEIR labor is IMMORAL. And, over the long run, so NOT work. Which is why History is littered with failed Central Planned economies. I know this is a really really hard idea to grasp. But, taking a person's private property is stealing from them. You're stealing their time - that's Slavery. It'd be no different than if I were to take your kidney and give it to someone else. You'd recognize that as being immoral. Why? Why is taking your kidney immoral? Why is it YOUR kidney and not "everyone's" kidney. Asguard was on here saying there is NO private property. Anyone's money is everyone's money. Well, apply that to other property - such as your kidney. Why can't we take it to help someone who needs a kidney? Suppose we passed a law that said we could - would that make it moral to take your kidney? I maintain that you can't recognize income tax as immoral is the same reason why a Slave owner 300 years ago didn't see Slavery as immoral. You were raised to think it is moral and you think about the benefits you see that arise from the institution and therefor you think it's moral. But, Ethically, it's immoral. The McSociety was an excellent example and made the point rather nicely.
Then YOU define in your words what Stealing is. Because I am sure that forcing your to give up your private property IS indeed stealing. If I and my friends come up to you on the street, point a gun in your face and coerce you into giving us your private property then you'd recognize that as having been stolen from and that this was an immoral act. If I and my friends vote to take the EXACT same amount of money from you via a new tax. Suddenly you think it's moral? As if the act of voting on the act changes the morality? So, let's see what your definition of stealing is. Then we'll move to deciding if INCOME tax is stealing.
Yes, this is correct. AND I have NO PROBLEM admitting that Libertarianism has in it acceptance for immoral acts. What's so hard to get?
No one would be "Forced" to accept anything. You either would or would not accept the trade. Service providers would no doubt make facilitating trades so freaken easy you wouldn't even know anything other than you just got the currency in the amount you wanted. I do it all the time in Japan. I have credit cards from multiple countries and if I want to I can use whichever card I think will give me the best deal. The seller get's Yen regardless. See how easy that was Joe?
We can take this over to the formal debate thread and follow the rules to a T and see where it ends. Who are the moderators? Is Income Tax moral? Are US Bonds moral?
Oh, then why are you complaining that the US government demands that citizens pay their obligations to the government in US dollars? Is it not their right? Isn't that what you just said? There is nothing stopping Walmart or any other corporation in the US from accepting other currencies in payment for goods. Why are they not doing so? Because it will drive up their cost of doing business. It will expose them to added currency risk. In your example, the seller gets his local currency. Thus he bears no currency risk. There is nothing stopping you from doing something similar in the US. If you want to hold other currencies you can do so. But like Japan, virtually all sellers in the US want US dollars. So you willl need to convert to the US dollar prior to payment in the US.
Well, obviously the first problem is the US Government back-stops it's currency with my personal labor by leveling an income tax against me and selling bonds on my and any future generations labor. It's pretty hard to compete against that Joe. I mean, if I had the power to level a 10% tax on every single working American, yeah, my currency (fiat or otherwise) would have a value inherent to it that would make it hard for any other private currency to compete against - particularly if I made you purchase MY currency in order to pay said 10% tax. Also, the nation as a whole is so stupefied most people STILL think the Federal Reserve is a branch of the US government. A big thanks to the US Department of Education and public school system there. American's of 100 years ago understood what economy and money meant. I'd argue that as government has taken on the role of Big Brother people have lost a lot of what used to be an inherent understanding of economy. My grandmother used to tell me, as a child, to "do something productive with yourself" whenever I was idly standing around doing nothing. It's not that my grandmother knew anything formal about economics, it's that her parents taught her to be productive with her time and so-on into history. As government grows and takes on more responsibility people quickly forget, or worse, never learn what made the nation a productive prosperous place to begin with. Which is why we have these IDIOTS on WallStreet screwing over the nation hand in glove with politicians who couldn't find their own ass with both hands. I was listening to an economist who was visiting University overseas. He was shocked as he sat in on some lectures to hear the lecturer describe, mathematically, how best to predict when to sell a known "hand grenade" on to a customer (legally) to maximize your profit (knowing full well the buyer will be totally screwed). Welcome to YOUR world Joe. You liked moral hazard, you like big bailouts, big government, central planning. You wanted that world. Well you got it. We now have the top 1% raking it almost ALL of the productivity gains with the bottom 99% scraping a measly 0.2% which Bernanke will quickly wipe away in inflation. Hell, we'd make the Communists blush. I see Operation Twist 2.0 was initiated today. Yup, 5 years so far. Let's see how the next 15 feel...
THESE are the idiots you are happy to give a near total monopoly and control over the money supply? REALLY Joe? Why on Earth would any SANE individual not let the Free-Market set interest rates? As if a couple of insular well-connected douches who live in a bubble would have anywhere NEAR the same foresight as 100s of millions of individuals. Why? Even if you can't get your mind wrapped around the elegance of competing currencies (a sign of age IMO) then at least you can see the foolishness in handing over the Nations' Monetary sovereignty to a few FAT banking Oligarchs in New York?!?! The mind boggles. Is individual responsibility and civil freedom really THAT scary? I think the answer is a resounding YES IT IS. Particularly as the Age of Religion passes, people need a new security blanky. Big Government. Well, as someone who has worked in numerous large bureaucratic institutions, I can safely say, these are the very LAST people you'd trust with anything sharper than a spoon, least they hurt themselves or someone else. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. -- Thomas Jefferson Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. -- Benjamin Franklin
Not to over simplify things here or anything, but if you are a us citizen and did not support Ron Paul you suck at life and should kill yourself.
Yes because a theocratic nut job either ignorant or uncaring of the consequences of his ideas is such a treat pick
So you are admitting that multiple currencies would be less efficient. That is why no one but you and your fellows are advocating same. Are you suggesting that we should give you the powers of our government or are you arguing that we should weaken our government to the point where it cannot govern?
For most of our history we did NOT have a central bank and the founders where EXPLICIT that we shouldn't! Many POTUS fought against central banks when they did arise. Second of all, YES I do think we should weaken our Central Government! Not to the point where it can't function, but so that it ONLY functions as it was intended to by the US Constitution. Lastly, so what if multiple currencies are less efficient. So is raising your children in your home. It'd be much more efficient if all children were raised in State run institutions and you didn't own a home but instead lived in a State run dorm. See Joe, that's the difference between running a PRIVATE company and a Republic. You can run a private company as efficiently as you'd like to try to. You can NOT morally do that to people as that is immoral. See the difference? I have an innate belief morality always triumph immorality in the end - that the weak always do inherit the Earth, which is why your system of Force has a Sold By Date that History suggests is fast approaching. Lets wait and see Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, the alternatives are NOT worse. Iceland DID the alternative. They suffered a few years as the mal-investment unwound. Now they're growing again. It's a perfectly natural fact of free-markets and runs part and parcel with the human condition. By not taking our medicine back then, we'll be force to take much more of it later, and it'll hurt much more as they'll probably have to amputate a limb or two as we let the rot fester for that much longer. The government could have backstopped every single savings account in the USA, lets the banks go bust, sold them off, and WE the middle class would be doing perfectly fine right now. Tell me Joe, if BoA was supposed to go bankrupt ... when is that suppose to take place? Suppose BoA was no longer fiscally sound. When do we get rid of it? Suppose that in a just free market BoA was supposed to have gone bust - when is that going to happen? It certainly is NOT going to happen when you shove their debt onto the tax payer. You don't seem to want the inevitable to happen. You want to keep shoving the pain onto the American tax payer. That's not right. AND it will happen, if not sooner, then later. Only it's going to be much much much worse.
Shoveling pain onto the Amerian tax payer? The US government loaned money to the banks, it did not give it to them with no strings. And the government has made money from those loans. The US government also purchased equity in some banks and an some companies. And the government has made money on some of those investments. What you don't seem to understand is that businesses need money to operate. They normally get that money from the free markets. Those free markets were paralyzed with fear. The government stepped in on a temporary basis to provide that funding to the banks and other key businesses to keep money flowing and people employed. Had the government not stepped in and let the banks collapse, the costs of a massive bank would have dwarfed the sized of the bailout. And as previously mentioned the government, the tax payer, is making money on the bailout. As for Iceland, Iceland is not any better off than the US. Iceland borrowed money from the IMF, an organization largely funded by the US government. And you cannot make legitimate comparisons between Iceland, a small country of 300k people and The United States a country with more than 300 million people. The US did not nationalized its banks, because there was no need to do so. The banks just needed loans, most of which has been paid back with interest. And the rest of it should be paid back over time.
Perhaps you can name them? For most of our history we have not had antibiotics. Does that mean we should not use them? And who decides what that point is? Where are your tells? You think raising children in institutions is more efficient than raising them in healthy families? I think most professionals would disagree with you. We no longer have orphanages for that very reason. I have asked you this many times before and you have yet to respond, who is your morality/ethics master? You seem to go back and forth between force is ok and force is not ok, depending on how you apply your code of ethics. And you have not been able to provide any detail on your code of ethics. It appears that your code boils down to this, anything that you don't like is against your code of ethics.
Are you smoking crack Joe? Tell me you're not?!? The American Tax Payer WAS SHOVELED ONTO. A big steaming pile of SHIT. Just where the hell do you think the mal-investment WENT!?!? You know, those billions of dollars of fraudulent loans. They just disappeared? Well? Where did they go? OH OH YEAH, the Federal Reserve / Tax Payer now owns them. Of joy, lucky us. Now all we have to do is cause enough inflation so that it appears they aren't tanking the economy. Yeah, brilliant one there Joe. The fact is WE ARE feeling the pain. And we're going to feel much much much more of it. Is government debt immoral? If that debt is shoveled on to the unborn then a resounding YES IT IS. But don't worry Joe. You get your immoral monetary system and the American Tax payer gets screwed. I see the fat CROOK Corzine, Obama's biggest campaign donor, is still enjoying his mulit MILLION dollar BONUSES HE GOT AFTER BANKRUPTING MF GLOBAL. Yeah, you carp on about "corruption in Washington".... well, there it is Joe. And no one is going to do a damn thing about any of it. Nothing will be done. Americans are too fat, stupid and apathetic. They barely have the will to press the remote on the TV let alone notice the toilet bowl they're circling like the pump little turdlets they've become. One good flush would do this nation a world of good.
I do not go back and forth. I stated that Initiation of Force is immoral and that for now the State has the role of protecting private property with our bodies being the most intimate of private property. Oh, so is it OK for the government to redistribute your kidney for the betterment of society? You only need one and there's someone else out there that could benefit from your kidney. So: Yes or No? Why? You do use the roads Joe.
