News & Analysis
Robert Reich & the Debt Ceiling: The Softer Side of Radicalism
The battle for the soul of the GOP ... Who's more influential in the Republican Party - the so-called Tea Party, or Wall Street and big business? The answer will be critical in the weeks ahead as the House decides whether to raise the limit on the nation's debt. – Syndicated column/Dedham Transcript
Dominant Social Theme: Even radicals need to be sensible when it comes to raising the debt ceiling.
Free-Market Analysis: Robert Reich (left) has written a splendid article called "The battle for the soul of the GOP" (see article excerpt above). He writes that the battle is between the GOP old guard and Tea Party types. Guess which side the diminutive socialist/left wing powerhouse – former Secretary of Labor for Bill Clinton – comes down on? We'll tell you below.
Certainly, Reich understands the importance of what's going on; his analysis is presented with flair and wit. A self-admitted brilliant person, he cuts through the complexity both from an economic standpoint and a political one and comes up with sensible analysis. He begins by explaining what the stakes are. To continue paying interest on the federal debt and avoiding a default, he writes, the government will have to cut spending by about 35 percent, or about $3.8 billion a day.
After explaining the numbers, he puts it into human terms. This is very important. Politicians are always told to present things in ways that touch the emotions. He writes, "Seniors expecting Social Security and Medicare checks will be in for a rude surprise, as will military personnel and other government workers expecting to be fully paid. Meanwhile, America's creditors are likely to become spooked about the risk of not being repaid in the future. As a result, credit markets could go into free fall. Interest rates would skyrocket. The dollar would plummet. This would be a nightmare for Wall Street and big business, which depend on smooth-functioning credit markets."
Now that Reich has established the gravity of the situation, it is time to explain the political ramifications. He does this incisively as well, explaining that the issue of raising the debt ceiling has become hostage to Republican infighting: "The so-called Tea Party Republicans – including all of those elected to the House last year plus incumbents fearing primary fights with Tea Partiers – say they won't raise the debt limit unless Democrats agree to their demands."
What motivates Tea Partiers? They want to shrink government radically and they refuse to consider any tax increases, Reich continues, not even tax increases (he admits sadly) on the super-rich. Since this is unreasonable, Wall Street and big business (the traditional Republican backers) are trying to adjust the Tea Party hard line. But, he writes, "Tea Partiers couldn't care less about the debt limit. To them, the debt limit is a giant bargaining chit to get their demands met."
What else are Tea Partiers not worried about? "Global credit markets." They HOPE the full faith and credit of the US government is shattered, he explains. "Tea Partiers hate government more than they hate the national debt," he points out. "Their real aim is to shrink the government. That's why they refuse to reduce that debt with tax increases, even with tax increases on the wealthy."
This places the Tea Partiers athwart Wall Street and big business, which would choose raising the debt ceiling over chopping government. They'd even tolerate a small tax increase on the wealthy, Reich says (as they probably wouldn't even notice). It is a stance, he concludes, that is creating a "civil war" within the GOP.
What is Reich's personal opinion? It comes in the very last sentence of the article and is surprising. "Boehner and his colleagues are playing with fire. If the debt ceiling isn't raised and the financial system begins to collapse, the GOP loses not only Wall Street and big business. It loses everyone who's still sane."
Wow. We know what the hard left USED to be like. Anything that tore down capitalism was probably Grade-A OK. The USSR started WARS with US proxies in order to destroy capitalism. Now that's leftwing. Would Lenin or Stalin, or even Castro, be concerned about whether or not the US debt ceiling was raised? Of course, maybe Reich isn't that much of a leftist. So, we turn to "Discover the Networks,"(guide to the political left) which profiles the left wing. Here's part of his profile:
As a young man, Reich was a moderate liberal at Dartmouth College. He opposed the war in Vietnam but was careful to separate himself from more radical opponents of the war. Over time, however, he developed into a hard leftist, and he eventually became annoyed at what he perceived as a move to the political center by Clinton; he later revealed the depth of his discontent in his book, Locked in the Cabinet.
We can see that Robert Reich is considered by a "guide to the political left" to be a "hard leftist." Say what? In fact, Reich is just one example of what's gone wrong with America's – and the West's – political system. Reich is regularly presented by the mainstream media as a fierce critic of the powers-that-be, a radical friend of the workingman. It is apparently an act, a farce, a beard. This man foresees chaos if the debt ceiling is not raised and considers those who wish it to remain stuck where it is to be "insane."
Well, heck, count us as crazy. The West and America in particular is headed back down into a dreaded double dip recession (which counts as a Depression in our book). With two soul destroying Economic Ruinations in less than a century, the Anglosphere power elites that run the West are increasingly providing us with only one economic solution: War. Two world wars in the 20th century and a dozen smaller ones in the 20th and 21st provide us with a plain view of how this "capitalist" system works. It doesn't. It's good at killing and maiming but not much else.
The current fiat-money/central banking economy that eight or so impossibly wealthy banking families have foisted on the world is on its way out now in our opinion. But it's done tremendous damage and will do more before it's over. And those involved at the top will do anything they can, apparently, to stave off the inevitable.
The only other thing (beyond war) the current system is good for is creating and cementing disparities between the West and the rest of the world. There is plenty of money and capital available. Yet all over the world, billions of people live on the equivalent of two and three dollars a day. They are said to be hopeless, but most aren't. They don't have time to feel hopeless. They are too busy trying not to starve.
Reich is no radical freethinker, no rebel-with-a-cause. He is merely one more piece in the phony Hegelian dialectic that the elites have foisted on the West to make sure no real sociopolitical dialogue ensues. He's taken it on himself (nobody forced him) to become part of a dominant social theme. (The world is divided between communists and capitalists and there's no other choice.)
There are plenty of these people around. 99 percent of the journos, analysts and big-thinkers writing for the mainstream press participate in this false dichotomy. Ironically, many in the Tea Party (increasingly) don't. The "Right" who tried to take over the Tea Party and in our opinion, has already failed. The problems are too big and the Internet has provided a way to converse outside the white lines. As the conversation continues, and the elite's "dreamtime" dissipates, as the Internet Reformation takes hold, the Reichs of the world are increasingly exposed. This is part of the process. It is one of the things that makes it so hard for the elites to continue business-as-usual. As a critical mass is reached, credibility drains away.
We have little doubt that the Republicans will find a way to raise the debt ceiling and call it a victory. But the Tea Party itself likely will not be satisfied. As we often point out, the Internet Reformation is not an episode but a process. As people see the inadequacy and unfairness of the current system, they turn to the Internet for information and find it. It is happening all over the world, in our view.
Conclusion: It is ironic that the inflation, chaos, violence, food insecurity and all-around fear that the elites have relied upon for hundreds and even thousands of years to control the masses functions differently during a technology breakthrough. It happened during the era of the Gutenberg press and it seems to be happening now.
Posted by Wayne on 06/07/11 04:43 PM
Here's the heart and soul of the GOP!
REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START
Many patriots these days lament that the Republican Party has 'lost its way' and 'gone wrong.' It has 'diverged' from the fiscally responsible, small government philosophy of Republican heroes like Robert Taft whom Eisenhower's handlers finagled out of the nomination for President in 1952. We are told that is why today's Republican Establishment hates Dr. Ron Paul with such a passion; that they hate him because, like Taft, he is the quintessential Republican. Patriots who say that are mistaken, of course. The reason the Republican Establishment hates Dr. Paul is precisely that he is not a traditional, mainstream Republican, that his platform of freedom is an aberration. The Republican Party didn't 'go wrong,' didn't 'go left.'
It has been wrong from the beginning, from the day it was founded. From the beginning, the Republican Party has worked without deviation for bigger, more imperial government, for higher taxes, for more wars, for more totalitarianism. From the beginning, the Republican Party has been Red.
Why? In 1848, Communists rose in revolution across Europe, united by a document prepared for the purpose, entitled Manifesto of the Communist Party. Its author was a degenerate parasite named Karl Marx, whom a small gang of wealthy Communists - the League of Just Men - hired for the purpose. The Manifesto told its adherents and its victims what the Communists would do.
But the Revolution of 1848 failed. The perpetrators escaped, just ahead of the police. And they went, of course, to the united States. In 1856, the Republican Party ran its first candidate for President. By that time, these Communists from Europe had thoroughly infiltrated this country, especially the North. Many became high ranking officers in the Union Army and top government officials.
Down through the decades, Americans have wondered about Yankee brutality in that war. Lee invaded the North, but that sublime Christian hero forbade any forays against civilians. Military genius Stonewall Jackson stood like a stone wall and routed the Yankees at Manassas, but when Barbara Frietchie insisted on flying the Yankee flag in Frederick, Maryland, rather than the Stars and Bars, that sublime Christian hero commanded, according to John Greenleaf Whittier, 'Who touches a hair of yon gray head/Dies like a dog! March on!' he said.'
But the Yankees, invading the South, were monsters, killing, raping and destroying civilian property. In one Georgia town, some 400 women were penned in the town square in the July heat for almost a week without access to female facilities. It got worse when the Yankee slime got into the liquor. Some two thousand Southern women and children were shipped north to labor as slaves. Didn't you learn that in school?
Sherman's scorched earth March to the Sea was a horror the later Nazis could not equal. Why? Because the Yankees hated Negro slavery so much? There can be no doubt that the already strong Communist influence in the North, combined with that of the maniacal abolitionists, was at least one of the main reasons. Slavery was a tardy excuse, an afterthought they introduced to gain propaganda traction.
In retrospect, it appears that because nothing like this had ever happened here, Lee and Jackson did not fully comprehend what they were fighting. Had this really been a 'Civil' War, rather than a secession, they would and could easily have seized Washington after Manassas and hanged our first Communist President and the other war criminals. Instead they went home, in the mistaken belief that the defeated Yankees would leave them alone. Lee did come to understand - too late. He said after the war that had he known at the beginning what he had since found out, he would have fought to the last man.
What was the South fighting? Alexander Hamilton was the nation's first big government politician. Hamilton wanted a strong central government and a national bank. Vice President Aaron Burr killed Hamilton in a duel. The problem was that Burr didn't kill him soon enough. Henry Clay inherited and expanded Hamilton's ideas in something called the 'American System,' which advocated big government subsidies for favored industries and high, ruinous tariffs, what we today call 'socialism for the rich.' Clay inspired smooth talking railroad lawyer Abraham Lincoln, who inherited the Red escapees from the Revolution of 1848 and became our first Communist President.
All of this comes again to mind with the recent publication of Red Republicans: Marxism in the Civil War and Lincoln's Marxists (iUniverse, Lincoln, Nebraska, 2007) by Southern historians Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson, Jr. You must read this book, because it irrefutably nails down everything I have said above and then some. Let's browse through Red Republicans, and, as we do so, remember that the reason most Americans have never heard of all this is that the winner writes the history.
For instance, August Willich was a member of the London Communist League with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Needless to say, Willich became a major general in the Union Army. Robert Rosa belonged to the New York Communist Club and was a major in the 45th New York Infantry. Brigadier general Louis Blenker of New York was a 'convinced Marxist.' His 10,000 man division looted people in Virginia, inspiring the term 'Blenkered.' Many of his men were fresh from European prisons. Our first Communist President knew this, but turned them loose on the people of the South.
In Red Republicans we learn of nine European revolutionaries convicted of treason and banished to Australia. They escaped to the united States and Canada. Three or four of them, with no military experience, became Union generals, joining at least three other Marx confidants who already held that rank. 'Every man of the nine became a member of the Canadian Parliament, a governor of a territory or state in the Union, party leader, prime minister or attorney general.'
Many of these men, not all, were Germans, some four thousand of whom escaped to this country. Known as Forty-Eighters, they quickly added violent abolitionism and feminism to their Communist beliefs. In Missouri, Forty-Eighter Franz Sigel became a Union general and had uniforms made for his Third Infantry Regiment that closely resembled the uniforms worn by socialist revolutionaries in Germany in 1849.
Forty-Eighters who became high ranking Union commanders included Colonel Friedrich Salomon, Ninth Wisconsin, Colonel Fritz Anneke, Thirty Fourth Wisconsin and Colonel Konrad Krez, Twenty Seventh Wisconsin. Communist journalist Karl Heinzen wrote: 'If you have to blow up half a continent and cause a bloodbath to destroy the party of barbarism, you should have no scruples of conscience. Anyone who would not joyously sacrifice his life for the satisfaction of exterminating a million barbarians is not a true republican.' Heinzen came to this country and supported Lincoln.
Joseph Weydemeyer had to flee Germany when the Communist Revolution failed. In London he belonged to the Communist League and was a close friend of Marx and Engels. He came to this country in 1851, supported Lincoln, maintained his close friendship with Marx and became a Brigadier General in the Union Army.
Dedicated socialist Richard Hinton had to leave England. In this country he became a Union colonel, a Radical Republican and an associate of maniac John Brown's. So was Allan Pinkerton, who financed him. At one meeting with Brown, Pinkerton told his son: 'Look well upon that man. He is greater than Napoleon and just as great as George Washington.' Yes, Pinkerton was the great detective who founded the agency that bears his name. Why didn't you know that? In Kansas, mass murderer Brown enjoyed the support of wealthy Yankees (the Secret Six). August Bondi and Charles Kaiser, who worked with Brown there, were Fort
Reply from The Daily Bell
Wow. Thanks. Is this relatively new research? Sounds like the mechanism of the Civil War was partially European (the top people involved). Coincidence? Who funded Marx. Engels. And who was Engels ...
Posted by Wayne on 06/05/11 04:40 PM
You didn't answer my question about reforming/reformers
Posted by PotomacOracle on 06/05/11 07:53 AM
You are too cynical to accept facts but here's just one that is irrefutable.
Click to view link
Posted by Wayne on 06/05/11 03:25 AM
Something relevent to this issue
Click to view link
Posted by Wayne on 06/04/11 10:35 PM
oooops typo sb reform, not reorm
Posted by Wayne on 06/04/11 10:34 PM
This sill leaves the problem of dealing with the FED.
You mention reform.
When have we ever seen anything meaningful come from reorm attempts in any area of Government, or any group operating under government sanction?
And we all know the the FED, through their member banks, control the Congress.
We really need to think of a real world way to get the FED out of our bank accounts. This also includes the IRS.
Anything short of this will just be more wasted effort and time as the big parasite will still be sucking us dry.
The idea that we must pay interest on our own money is absurd.
If we want a loan, we will borrow the money to buy something with it.
Not pay interest to have money in our pockets that we earned by providing goods and services to obtain.
We might just as well have to pay a breathing tax to be allowed to breathe.
Posted by PotomacOracle on 06/04/11 10:19 PM
I said nothing about getting rid of the Fed. Reform is more plausible. If the Congress ever conducts a useful audit of the Fed that may be the foot in the door toward reform.
Then again, social conditions devolving into chaos andanarchy could force martial law and under it the nationalization of the Fed. That would allow the Gov to forego selling Treasuries into the market and simply issue Government notes, thereby circumventing the Fed.
And, as state governments charter publicly owned banks, these banks can operate without the Fed.
Intergovernmental debt owed to the Treasury is approx $4.7 trillion the balance is owed to the public, $10 trillion. There remain about $55 trillion in unfunded liabilities which could be easily eliminated by modifications in accounting methodologies.
And of course everyone who is adamantly opposed to the continuation of the Fed knows it's a privately owned cartel.
Even Reich knows it but won't raise his considerable voice about how the Fed has destroyed this nation. He along with thousands of American Economists are cowards when it comes to calling out the Fed.
Posted by MetaCynic on 06/04/11 06:53 PM
You fail to clearly distinguish between competitive economic entrepreneurs and their privilege seeking counterparts - political entrepreneurs. Unable or unwilling to compete successfully, the latter lobby strenuously behind the political scenes to harness the gun of the state to cripple competitors and to guarantee profits and market share for themselves, all in the name of the public good, of course. Political entrepreneurs are not creatures of the free market. Our tragedy is not that some businesspeople are unable or unwilling to survive in a competitive environment open to all comers. Our tragedy is that these people and their agents have convinced a gullible public that we need laws and regulations, manipulated by themselves behind the curtain, to protect us from them!
Rockefeller's Standard Oil company, for example, was dismantled not because he had a monopoly and was jacking up prices and impoverishing the public. It was dismantled because he was too successful. For decades, prices for his products were dropping to the benefit of his customers and to the detriment of his politically connected competitors. Some monopoly! On top of that, his employees were also paid well above industry rates.
Starting with the Progressive era through today, the entire apparatus of do-good alphabet soup agencies endlessly spewing out feel-good, coercive regulations, has been erected not to benefit the public as widely believed, but to benefit political entrepreneurs by making it too expensive for smaller or non politically connected competitors to enter their markets. It is no exaggeration that much of America's economic misery today is the direct result of the covert regulatory machinations of these real Robber Barons. In a truly free enterprise economy with no government erected barriers to entry, competition would quickly drive these Robber Barons to flipping hamburgers for a living!
The FDA, for example is under the thumb of the mighty pharmaceutical cartel. It routinely approves expensive, dangerous and ineffective drugs which kill tens of thousands of people every year and make billions in protected profits for the cartel. At the same time inexpensive, safe and effective natural alternatives to Big Pharma's poisons are demonized and their advocates are ruthlessly harassed by the very government agency which the public is led to believe is there to protect them.
Or how about the SEC, another government regulatory agency, which repeatedly failed to act on information provided to it that Bernie Madoff was operating a gigantic Ponzi scheme? Maybe its public servants were too busy with other things. It did come out recently that SEC employees making six figure annual incomes, spent lots of time surfing porno sites on taxpayer funded computers. I'm sure that our taxes will be raised so that offers of seven figure incomes can be used to induce government employees to pursue financial fraud and to not goof off during business hours!
In addition to easy central bank credit, the recent real estate bubble was also enabled by widespread fraud in loan origination, property appraisal, mortgage securitization, mortgage bond ratings and now foreclosures. These were all garden variety crimes which government prosecutors had plenty of budget, power and authority to pursue but failed to do so.
Yet you want taxes to be raised on the rich for what purpose? To reward and further expand the coercive powers of the various regulators and police state functionaries whose activities are impoverishing and enslaving us all? The best way to bring down the undeserving rich political entrepreneurs is for us to awaken and take back and dismantle the gun of the state so that they will learn to sink or swim like the rest of us. The best place to start is to repeal all legal tender laws. The too big to fail financial sector, which you and I both deplore, would, along with the Fed, quickly melt away, rebalancing the importance of finance relative to the real productive economy. There is no need to further empower failed bureaucrats to domesticate the banking monster which their taxes, regulations and fiat money have been nurturing for over a century.
It's a myth that the late 19th century was a time of general misery and poverty for the industrial working class. Despite economic booms and busts caused by unbacked currency, the purchasing power of an hour of a worker's income increased steadily throughout that time because of improvements in productivity due to capital investment. It's an instructive eye-opener to peruse the cornucopia of goods in the Sears catalog of 1897. Are we to believe that business from tycoons is what kept Sears afloat? It's obvious that Sears could not have succeeded without offering thousands of useful and affordable consumer goods to the working class.
You assert that "almost every great nation today used protective tariffs to achieve competitiveness." In almost the same breath, you point out that J.P. Morgan enriched himself fraudulently reselling rifles to the Northern army during the American Civil War. The politically connected Morgan would never have been in the position to play this scam if the agent of the Robber Baron political entrepreneurs - wealthy railroad industry lawyer and white supremacist, Abraham Lincoln - didn't provoke war with the South which was seceding because of protective tariffs designed to enrich Northern manufacturers at the expense of the agrarian South. So, Lincoln waged the most destructive war in history up until then in order to collect a tax which, according to you, ensures national greatness! Well, that criminal war over a tariff did at least ensure great wealth for the likes of war profiteer J.P. Morgan and history book greatness for the tyrant, Abraham Lincoln. It also ensured an abusive central government and a dictatorial President for subsequent generations of Americans.
We today with our failing economy, perpetual wars and an out of control federal government's assault on our liberties are still paying the price for Lincoln's National Greatness tariff and perpetual Union held together by brute force.
Posted by Wayne on 06/04/11 04:27 PM
Don't forget all the times that tariffs have backfired, and the other nations can and have retaliated at times.
and South Korea is under the protection of the USA. Is it a great nation, or a military dictatorship controlled by the USA?
Posted by Wayne on 06/04/11 04:20 PM
"The glorious time period you refer to relates to people like Rockefeller who was ruthless in cheating his foes to gain a huge monopoly he has never given up. The US government GAVE PUBLIC LAND to the railroads."
Only after the "new" Lincolnesque American Government stole that land from the American Indians, and forced the Indians to relocate.
Lincolnites were never ones to let details like Truth and Justice impede their plans. They had the power,and they slaughtered everybody that got in their way. Sort of a warm up for the coming Bolshevik butchering machine of the early 1917-1930 period.
And remember that Lincoln was a Railroad attorney!
Posted by Avatar on 06/04/11 01:06 PM
ALMOST EVERY GREAT NATION TODAY USED PROTECTIVE TARIFFS TO ACHIEVE COMPETITIVENESS. THE BEST EXAMPLE IS THE SOUTH KOREAN STEEL CORPORATION. I BELIEVE IT IS THE 4TH LARGEST IN THE WORLD. SOUTH KOREA DOES NOT HAVE COAL,COKE, OR IRON ORE SO THE WHOLE ENDEAVOR WOULD HAVE DEFIED REASON, YET IT BECAME IMMENSELY SUCCESSFUL READ "23 THING THEY DON NOT TELL YOU ABOUT CAPITALISM".
Reply from The Daily Bell
Please stop shouting. Yes, it is true that nations use tariffs - interferences with trade that allow market advantages. But once you rely on government, where does it stop? At a police state? Hm-mm ... Seems so.
That book should be titled, 23 Things They Don't Tell You About MERCANTILISM. (The conflation of the state with private enterprise.)
Posted by Avatar on 06/04/11 12:59 PM
I would simply suggest that you read his book. The top 1% is the issue not the next 4 %. Our economy can be explained by a "monopoly game comparison."
The monopolies are formed (concentrated wealth) and the winner is usually declared BUT in our system, the BANKER gives enough money out for losing players to go around the board once more.
The glorious time period you refer to relates to people like Rockefeller who was ruthless in cheating his foes to gain a huge monopoly he has never given up. The US government GAVE PUBLIC LAND to the railroads.
The Interstate Commerce Act was created to eliminate the small competitors.During the Civil War JP Morgan (a Rothschild representative) bought 5000 rifles for 3.50 each from an army arsenal and sold them to a general in the field for $22 each. (Great Capitalist like Halliburton).
By 1900 Morgan controlled half the track in the country. Carnegie paid his workers poverty wages while reaping huge profits. These robber barons enjoyed fabulous riches while millions worked in low paying unsafe conditions including children.
In 1893 the nation had its worst depression to date (692 banks failed along with 16000 businesses). By 1894 the Pullman Strike was brought about by Pullman's company town which paid the workers in tokens which were used to pay for over priced goods at the Pullman store and over priced housing at the Pullman rentals. (Unfortunately this spread to many companies.
People languished in poverty. Yes this period was a great time for the robber barons but not so much for the masses. The stock crash of 1929 was brought about by stock price manipulation (legal at the time) and selling stocks on margin. In 2004 the Big five Banks lead by Paulson of Goldman Sachs received the right to Regulate themselves. To do this they hired a staff of 7. This resulted in the 2008 fiasco.
As for your analysis of eras-look what the USA exports were from 1946-1970 and what it is now. The size of the finance sector and manufacturing sectors have about reversed. When we reach a TIPPING POINT where we have a significant portion of the masses unemployed we will have mass disruptions followed by a collapse or more likely a military dictatorship. If we really eliminate regulations the corporations (many pay 0 taxes now) would exhibit the same behaviors as the glorious time frame you describe.
Posted by Silky_Johnson on 06/04/11 05:02 AM
Silky Johnson only has two things to say about Robert Reich.
1. His surname, "Reich," is very fitting for a man of his political philosophy.
2. He disproves the old saying: Good things come is small packages.
Posted by Wayne on 06/04/11 01:13 AM
Amazing how this drama is so scripted!
Now we have Greenspan saying taxes must go up!
Click to view link
What a movie. Who is the Producer?
Posted by Wayne on 06/03/11 12:54 AM
You have got it right!
An activist, do gooder bunch of fools are what caused this.
And you have the right time frame for comparision purposes.
1870- 1916-18 works
After that the US started saving the world from?
Posted by MetaCynic on 06/03/11 12:40 AM
The worsening debt crisis is not caused by insufficient taxation of the rich. It is the result of central bank turbo charged, out of control government spending on anything and everything. Even if military spending is reduced to zero, the federal government's growing outlays on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would still produce huge deficits.
The Bush era tax cuts did not affect state and local tax collection. Those taxes were never cut and are now being raised on rich and poor alike. Yet state and local governments are almost all saddled with unpayable commitments.
The top 5% income earners pay about 50% of all personal federal income taxes and the bottom 50% pay only about 3%. Raising taxes on the rich will not result in much tax relief for the poor. The additional revenue will only give wealth destroying government busybodies even more scarce capital to waste bossing us and the rest of the world around. What is so good about that?
It's worth comparing the economic stagnation of the present not to the high tax, post WW2 era where the U.S. enjoyed an artificial economic advantage over its war ravaged competitors. The era to compare ours to is the 40 year period from around 1870. There was a reason why this was a prosperous era of rising productivity and falling prices. That relatively golden age was the result of capital investment enabled by very low taxes, a tiny federal government and a gold dollar. The lack of those ingredients in our milieu is the very cause of America's economic malaise. Higher taxes will only further entrench the nonproductive political class at the expense of everyone else.
We don't need strong political leaders to make things well for us again. We have been victimized by too many of them. What we need are weak and lazy political leaders too busy boozing and whoring to interfere with the wealth creation of the producing class.
Posted by Wayne on 06/02/11 09:37 PM
"There is a way to develop a "Silver Bullet Solution." however. The Democrats, Independents, Moderates, and Liberals must learn about the Feds creation of funds for its own account and for the Treasury without levying interest charges. The Coalition must then put to the people the contention that the Fed can and should do for Mainstreet what it has done for Wall St.
Refusal to do so, and so far the Fed has refused, will clearly tell Americans that systemic monetary reform is desperately needed for the survival of Federal safety net programs and those of State and local governments.'
Well, just how do you plan for the country that is owned lock, stock and barrel by the Feds to get rid of the FED?
We owe some much money to the FED right now that there is not enough money in the world to pay off the interest brearing debts that we have.
You are aware that the FED is a private corporation?
Congress has no authortity over the FED.
Posted by PotomacOracle on 06/02/11 09:15 PM
You wrote:"The current fiat-money/central banking economy that eight or so impossibly wealthy banking families have foisted on the world is on its way out now in our opinion. But it's done tremendous damage and will do more before it's over. And those involved at the top will do anything they can, apparently, to stave off the inevitable.
There is plenty of money and capital available. Yet all over the world, billions of people live on the equivalent of two and three dollars a day. They are said to be hopeless, but most aren't. They don't have time to feel hopeless. They are too busy trying not to starve."
Reich will not likely criticize the Fed or central bank psychopathy because he has been a beneficiary of their influence and his employer benefits from Fed largesse. So seldom does one bite the hand....
More importantly, Reich completely misses the point on the debt ceiling issue. He knows what I know. The Fed can buy up all the debt paper it wants and just sit on it or even liquidate it since it is mostly unmarketable.
Doing so creates non-interest bearing funding for the Federal government. Moreover, these funds are not scored against the debt ceiling. Reich and all the other Keynesians and supply-siders know this. They also know that 99% of Americans don't have a clue, and mistakenly, believe the debt ceiling is a real constraint to creating credit/money. So much for our educational system.
The tragedy is that so many middle class and economically challenged Americans will suffer savagely because the Money Power and known Republicans have long advocated the elimination by any means of those they consider to be "USELESS EATERS." Forcing additional financial crises is their form of socially acceptable genocide.
There is a way to develop a "Silver Bullet Solution." however. The Democrats, Independents, Moderates, and Liberals must learn about the Feds creation of funds for its own account and for the Treasury without levying interest charges. The Coalition must then put to the people the contention that the Fed can and should do for Mainstreet what it has done for Wall St.
Refusal to do so, and so far the Fed has refused, will clearly tell Americans that systemic monetary reform is desperately needed for the survival of Federal safety net programs and those of State and local governments.
Posted by Wayne on 06/02/11 08:10 PM
Wwell, I suppose they will continue to call us taxpayers rather thsn fools, chumps, or victims.
More might wake then!
BTW you will see term limits when either they get 1 billion dollars cash in retirement after serving 6 months, or when Hell freezes over.
Posted by John Danforth on 06/02/11 06:27 PM