The Looting of America

[ti_boi]

Since 1979 the wealth of the top 1/100th of one percent of all earners increased by 384 percent, while the median earner gained only 12 percent in real wages! (New York Times, ) And yet the effective federal income tax rate for the 400 top taxpayers with the very highest incomes has declined by nearly half over the past two decades--even as their pre-tax incomes have grown five times larger, according to new IRS data. The 400 wealthiest Americans alone have more than $1.3 trillion (not billion) in wealth - just 400 people!


Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/slaughterhouse-10-the-gut_b_514306.html

[Louis]

Arthur: Old woman!
Dennis: Man!

Arthur: Man. Sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?
Dennis: I'm thirty-seven.

Arthur: I-- what?
Dennis: I'm thirty-seven. I'm not old.

Arthur: Well, I can't just call you 'Man'.
Dennis: Well, you could say 'Dennis'.

Arthur: Well, I didn't know you were called 'Dennis'.
Dennis: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?

Arthur: I did say 'sorry' about the 'old woman', but from the behind you looked--
Dennis: What I object to is that you automatically treat me like an inferior!

Arthur: Well, I am King!
Dennis: Oh, King, eh, very nice. And how d'you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers! By 'anging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there's ever going to be any progress with the--

Woman: Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here. Oh! How d'you do?
Arthur: How do you do, good lady? I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Who's castle is that?

Woman: King of the who?
Arthur: The Britons.

Woman: Who are the Britons?
Arthur: Well, we all are. We are all Britons, and I am your king.

Woman: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
Dennis: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship: a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

Woman: Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.
Dennis: That's what it's all about. If only people would hear of--
Arthur: Please! Please, good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?

Woman: No one lives there.
Arthur: Then who is your lord?
Woman: We don't have a lord.

Arthur: What?
Dennis: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,...
Arthur: Yes.
Dennis: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...
Arthur: Yes, I see.
Dennis: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,...
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis: ...but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major--

Arthur: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
Woman: Order, eh? Who does he think he is? Heh.

Arthur: I am your king!
Woman: Well, I didn't vote for you.
Arthur: You don't vote for kings.

Woman: Well, how did you become King, then?
Arthur: The Lady of the Lake,... [angels sing] ...her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!

Dennis: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!

Dennis: Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Arthur: Shut up!

Dennis: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Arthur: Shut up, will you? Shut up!

Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
Arthur: Shut up!
Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

Arthur: Bloody peasant!
Dennis: Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?

[Ray]

Well, that covers the politics pretty well. Now if I could just dig up an appropriate bit of text from The Life of Brian we could dispense with religion too.

Thanks bro - that's some of my favorite dialog ever.

-Ray

[Louis]

Got to get our licks in now while we still can.

Bring on the Spanish Inquisition... ;)

[ti_boi]

Heh heh heh! This thread is shaping up rather well I must say! :beer:

[Sandy]

Please be careful what shape it takes.

Thanks.




Sandy

[93legendti]

I thought the title referred to Sen. Baucus coming clean on the ends justify the means, unconstitutional, health care coup:

After the Senate passed a "fix-it" bill Thursday to make changes to the new health care law, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the influential Finance Committee, said the overhaul was an "income shift" to help the poor.

...This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY4Qbv7gPbo

[Wilkinson4]

"A shift to leveling"

Krauthammer wrote this article over a year ago and he was right then and right now. Eerie...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/02/AR2009040203287.html

mIKE

[93legendti]

"A shift to leveling"

Krauthammer wrote this article over a year ago and he was right then and right now. Eerie...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/02/AR2009040203287.html

mIKE
WOW, thanks for that:

...Obama has far different ambitions. His goal is to rewrite the American social compact, to recast the relationship between government and citizen. He wants government to narrow the nation's income and anxiety gaps. Soak the rich for reasons of revenue and justice. Nationalize health care and federalize education to grant all citizens of all classes the freedom from anxiety about health care and college that the rich enjoy. And fund this vast new social safety net through the cash cow of a disguised carbon tax.

Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. For him the ultimate social value is fairness. Imposing it upon the American social order is his mission.

Fairness through leveling is the essence of Obamaism. (Asked by Charlie Gibson during a campaign debate about his support for raising capital gains taxes -- even if they caused a net revenue loss to the government -- Obama stuck to the tax hike "for purposes of fairness.") The elements are highly progressive taxation, federalized health care and higher education, and revenue-producing energy controls.,,
It will come from Obama's real agenda: his holy trinity of health care, education and energy. Out of these will come a radical extension of the welfare state; social and economic leveling in the name of fairness; and a massive increase in the size, scope and reach of government.

If Obama has his way, the change that is coming is a new America: "fair," leveled and social democratic. Obama didn't get elected to warranty your muffler. He's here to warranty your life.

I would have changed the last sentence to "He's here to control your life."

[93legendti]

This has to do with health care or enforcing the looting of Amercia, you decide:


H. R. 3590-1312 (Page 1312) SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.

Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows: "SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS. "(a) ESTABLISHMENT.-
"(1) IN GENERAL.-There shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.
"(2) REQUIREMENT.-All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended.
"(3) APPOINTMENT.-Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with
the advice and consent of the Senate.
"(4) ACTIVE DUTY.-Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject
to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.

the USA has the Army, the Marines, The Navy, the Air Force, the
National Guard, state and local police, state troopers, first responders, firefighters, EMT, rescue workers of all kinds and in all locations, plus we have the Federal Emergency Management Agency, otherwise known as FEMA. So what exactly does Obama need a private "ready reserve corps" who are hand-picked by him and report directly to him for?

[sjbraun]

So you really think Obama is going to activate an armed ready reserve (that reports to the Surgeon General,) to take your money?

Are you really that paranoid?

Does the ready reserve come before or after the black helicopters?

[93legendti]

So you really think Obama is going to activate an armed ready reserve (that reports to the Surgeon General,) to take your money?

Are you really that paranoid?

Does the ready reserve come before or after the black helicopters?
Re the RR, can u please tell me:
Why we need it?
Why no one mentioned it in 1 year of debates?
How it helps lower the deficit?
how it helps the quality of health care?

[ti_boi]

Welcome to the Biggest Transfer of Wealth in History

Posted on: Jul 7th, 2008 | By Bill Bonner | Filed under Politics & Economics

Bill Bonner thinks we are witnessing the biggest transfer of wealth in history. Once a true global leader, America is now forced to borrow billions of dollars just to pay for its food and energy needs. And as the dollar heads downhill rapidly, things are going to get much worse…

Americans earn dollars. But the “almighty dollar no longer exists,” says the Associated Press. They have a currency without purchasing power…or staying power. Americans are all set – for a world that no longer exists. They have home equity lines and credit cards – but the easy credit is disappearing. They have their suburban palaces and their land barges – but they can no longer afford the energy required to run them. Even their eating habits evolved for a different world. Real wages failed to rise, so families put more people to work…and gave up home-cooked meals and backyard gardens in favor of dining out. Restaurants – in an era of cheap food and cheap energy – competed for customers by offering bigger and bigger portions. Everything got supersized – people too.

Now Americans are getting their supersized desserts. Not because they haven’t been nice. But because they haven’t been good. That’s how free enterprise really works; it rewards virtue – hard work, saving, investing, learning, taking risks, etc. As for those who spend too much and save too little – it kicks them in the derriere.

Today, they need to borrow almost $3 billion per day simply to make ends meet. And half the national debt – about $5 trillion – is owed to foreigners. Much of that money is in the hands of central banks, as part of their $4.8 trillion in foreign reserves. Then, there is a mountain of dollars in the hands of Sovereign Wealth Funds.

It’s the biggest transfer of wealth the world has ever seen. And it comes in many different forms. Billions are transferred from American motorists to oil-exporting countries. There’s also the billions transferred to the auto-exporters. When Americans buy cars today they’re more likely to buy one made by a foreign company than one made by the Big Three. And there are the billions shipped over to food exporters too. America used to be the biggest exporter of food in the world. Even today, we’ve seen estimates that the entire world’s population could be fed on what America COULD produce. But when the United States got squeezed by high energy prices, Americans decided to squeeze energy out of their own food crops. Result: they pay record prices for energy AND food.

Of course, it wasn’t just money the U.S. was sending abroad. It was also know-how, technology, and habits. The habit of saving, for example, packed its bags in the early ’90s – and moved to Asia. And foreign students filled America’s best universities and then often went back to Korea, or China, or Vietnam – taking their equations with them. Back at home, they set up newer, better factories – and ate America’s lunch! Back in the late ’90s, this loss of manufacturing seemed not to matter. Americans came to believe they could do something better than making things – we could create, invent and finance. “They sweat; we think,” was the conceit.

But how do you like those foreigners? It turned out, they could think too. Not only that, but the combination of thinking and making things proved hard to beat. Like Japan before them, the exporting nations soon equaled U.S. quality…and then surpassed it. The United States is now a net importer – of energy…of food…and even technology. At least, that’s what we hear. And finance? It’s collapsing…and will probably return to where it was before the credit bubble. Historically, the financial industry provided only about 10% of U.S. corporate profits. In the bubble, the percentage rose to 40%…and is now headed back down.

Wages are rising in China, India, Russia and Brazil…but they are stagnant or falling in the U.S. of A. We reported the staggering fact in these reckonings last week: Since ‘67, consumer prices are, officially, up seven times. Wages in America are up exactly the same amount. In other words, during your editor’s entire adult lifetime Americans’ per hour earnings have not increased a single penny.

Funny none of the presidential candidates mentioned it.

[1centaur]

Re the RR, can u please tell me:
Why we need it?
Why no one mentioned it in 1 year of debates?
How it helps lower the deficit?
how it helps the quality of health care?

This blog post from a site called logisticsmonster seems in the ballpark. One can imagine nefarious intent, but that's premature, or Reps would have highlighted this section already.

from a poster called merge in the comments section here:

http://logisticsmonster.com/2010/03/25/obamacare-barry-gets-his-private-army-ready-reserve-corps/

Most of those who have commented must not know about the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service. The Corps is over 100 years old and has been serving proudly alongside our fellow uniformed personnel in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. There is also a commissioned corps for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). All seven (7) uniformed services have an Active Duty and Reserve Corps. This legislation that you are “freaking” out about will essentially alter the status of present commissioned officers in the Corps. It will convert all active duty officers in the Corps to the Regular Corps and eliminate the “active duty” Reserve Corps. Prior to this legislation, commissioned officers on active duty in the Corps had to apply for assimilation into the Regular Corps. They were then boarded and accepted into the Regular Corps (permanent corps of the USPHS). This legislation will also eliminate the limit on the number of officers in the Regular Corps which was previously set to 4000. So, educate yourselves and understand that this is not a “New Army” created by Obamacare. Learn more at USPHS.GOV

[Louis]

One can imagine nefarious intent, but that's premature

For many folks out there the fact that Obama is president is proof of nefarious intent.

[Ray]

I think the conspiracy theorists on both sides (and there are PLENTY on both sides) give big gov and big biz waaaaaaay too much credit for competence. The kind of enormous nefarious plots I hear people theorize about could never be pulled off by mere mortals. They're so big and complex that it would take a LOT of people to make 'em work, every one of those people would have to do their job just about perfectly AND (and this is the kicker), all of this would have to happen in TOTAL SECRECY. There's just no way in hell people are that competent. Maybe a very small group of people could pull of a huge bank heist or art heist, but those don't work that often either. Or a small group of terrorists can sometimes pull off well planned enough attacks to kill some people and scare the crap out of the rest. But even these fail more often than they succeed.

But the US government staging 9/11? Not even the most died-in-the-wool liberal like me thinks governments are THAT talented. Or a secret squad of anti-constitutional soldiers who are gonna come and confiscate everyone's guns at once? Gimme a break. I don't know if this last one is a real theory but it sounds like something that could be floating around. But I've heard several over the years that just make me laugh at the pure implausibility of it all. Too many people have seen too many movies about these huge evil plots (DOCTOR EVIL comes to mind :cool: ) foiled at the last possible moment by Jack Bauer types and actually believe this stuff.

Unchecked, wealth does seem to concentrate in just about every capitalistic country. That's the real fly in the ointment in the great efficiency of capitalism. Democratic governments try to keep that trend in check through things like anti-trust laws and progressive taxation. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. America's greatest success was the creation of a REAL and thriving middle class. I don't know how much that was the result of a strong democracy that resisted those wealth-concentrating tendencies and how much it was just that we had SOOOOOO MUCH to go around for about the last hundred years or so? I suspect more the latter but I'm sure good arguments can be made on either side. As the OP points out, the middle class is getting horribly squeezed these days and wealth is indeed concentrating like at no time since the big monopolies were busted up.

I don't pretend to know the answer. If its the creation of vast amounts of new wealth (real or imagined - we've done both very well) to float all boats, historical trends indicate our time in that catbird's seat are ending quickly, probably have ended for good.

-Ray

[Kirk007]

NYT magazine has an interesting article on financial regulation that is somewhat relevant to the discussion here. I'd be curious to here others thoughts about it.

[Sandy]

Would you prefer eliminating our capitalistic society? If so, replace it by what, please?


Sandy

[93legendti]

This blog post from a site called logisticsmonster seems in the ballpark. One can imagine nefarious intent, but that's premature, or Reps would have highlighted this section already.

from a poster called merge in the comments section here:

http://logisticsmonster.com/2010/03/25/obamacare-barry-gets-his-private-army-ready-reserve-corps/

Most of those who have commented must not know about the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service. The Corps is over 100 years old and has been serving proudly alongside our fellow uniformed personnel in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. There is also a commissioned corps for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). All seven (7) uniformed services have an Active Duty and Reserve Corps. This legislation that you are “freaking” out about will essentially alter the status of present commissioned officers in the Corps. It will convert all active duty officers in the Corps to the Regular Corps and eliminate the “active duty” Reserve Corps. Prior to this legislation, commissioned officers on active duty in the Corps had to apply for assimilation into the Regular Corps. They were then boarded and accepted into the Regular Corps (permanent corps of the USPHS). This legislation will also eliminate the limit on the number of officers in the Regular Corps which was previously set to 4000. So, educate yourselves and understand that this is not a “New Army” created by Obamacare. Learn more at USPHS.GOV
Thanks. Here's why I posted. Obama said this on July 2, 2008 in Colorado Springs, CO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set.

We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

[93legendti]

NYT magazine has an interesting article on financial regulation that is somewhat relevant to the discussion here. I'd be curious to here others thoughts about it.
link please?

[Kirk007]

link please?

Here is the url: www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/magazine/28Reform-t.html?th&emc=th

[Louis]

Would you prefer eliminating our capitalistic society? If so, replace it by what, please?

Hi Sandy,

In order for you to ask this I assume Ray must have suggested it. I've looked around but have not been able to find where he says that eliminating capitalism is his prefered option - can you please share with us where he says this?

Thanks
Louis

[1centaur]

I thought the article was very fair and mostly on the money, a credit to its author. I agree with almost all of it, though I have a few comments:

The TARP tax is dubious in that the banks have largely paid back their support at a profit to the government whereas the losses are likely to come from the auto companies. That is not fair to the banks. Secondly, a minor tax won't stop a financial crisis (it will encourage risky behavior to out earn the tax) whereas regulation might. Let's not confuse the two. I think the TARP tax is a way for government to increase its income, and its stated rationale is disingenuous.

The main theme of the article - that hard rules have advantages over the whim of regulators - is very important. Regulators are not as bright as creative bankers but they are politically driven. I'd far rather have tighter bumpers on the bowling lane than have a judge have discretion over my score. Higher capital would fix a lot of risky behavior. Getting derivatives on exchanges and better understood is vital. Even making ultra high compensation contingent on multi-year success rather than single-year success makes sense. Where I and Wall Street get most concerned, I think, is the vague threat that someone in Washington can shut a firm down based on ill defined notions of excess risk. That's a formula for "do what I say or I'll shut you down," when "what I say" might be "lend more money to poor people" or "price credit cards at 10% APR regardless of your loss ratios" or thousands of other political thoughts that will lead to financial problems down the road. We DON'T want government telling banks how to use their capital - that's the nationalization route that was resisted in the credit crisis. Political choices are bad choices, and excess risk is bad, so reduce risk, don't increase politicization.

A side note: the effect of higher capital ratios (and associated measures to reduce risk) will be less GDP growth in America for years to come (the article underplayed that, but the housing industry made lots of money directly and indirectly for America during the boom, it was not just the financial industry). That's good in that it will be more sustainable and less subject to sudden reversal, but it's bad because our entitlements NEED economic growth to prevent fiscal problems of magnitude. We had no problem post FDR/war because our demographics were good, our economy was industrializing, labor was still an important part of GDP so the middle class boomed, etc. Now we have none of that going for us. We should not encourage excess risk in our financial system to goose GDP to fund government, but we need to understand that financial strictures WILL hurt the fiscal situation steadily and for a long time. We'll be looking at tax more or spend less to deal with fiscal deficits, not benefiting from a robust economy, as regulatory constrictions tighten.

Whew. Thank goodness we soon won't be allowed to have discussions like THIS anymore!

[metrotuned]

Blah blah blah blah blah :rolleyes: One thing for certain: I aspire to be one of the four hundred people or at least be on Team Trillion. Life's too short to be on the losing team. :bike:

[Ray]

Would you prefer eliminating our capitalistic society? If so, replace it by what, please?

Sandy
Not at all. But I do think that the strongest societies in the history of human-kind have been market economies but with strong democratic governments to counteract the worst excesses of capitalism. Such as anti-trust laws and progressive taxation to help moderate inevitable capitalistic trend towards concentration of wealth. These ideas are often demonized as socialism, but I don't agree that they are. Socialism is a fairly specific thing - democratic involvement in regulating a market economy isn't it. Everyone wants to oversimplify this into an either/or question. Its not. Its a question of finding the right balance between markets and regulation.

Pure capitalism doesn't work. Communism obviously doesn't work. But nations that have balanced the creative force of markets with a strong democratic government to maintain social cohesion seem to work better than anything.

-Ray

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . that many times through history, the redistribution of wealth has been attained through wars or armed revolution from within. At the rate our nation seems to be becoming increasingly polarized, how long is it before a secession movement like the one in Vermont that so many people casually dismiss actually reaches critical mass?

BBD

[Kirk007]

oye I so love an OT thread that turns really productive. Thanks for the critique 1Centaur. And Sandy, I think Ray articulated it well for us "liberalites" (at least for me). :beer:

Ok, up to the trainer as the sky has once again blessed us with a nice cold rain in Eugene.

[Ahneida Ride]

They are not dollars ..

They are fed reserve "notes" not redeemable in dollars.
Shopping coupons issued by a private corporation

At one time, all notes states that they were redeemable upon demand in dollars.

funny how the terms of redeemablility has vanished. Ask why ?

People only accepted notes in the first place because they were
redeemable in a tangible asset.

Now the fed creates notes outa thin air and the middle class gets raped
thru dilution. Wealth is being confiscated thru the back door frn dilution
tax. Trickle up poverty.


You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt.
Saint Peter, don't you call me, 'cause I can't go;
I owe my soul to the company store.

[Louis]

I'll say one thing Ray, I admire your persistence. ;)

[Pete Serotta]

Value add to bashing president? :confused: