Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Sh...

To be sure, there are lots of inter-generational transfers transfers of used objects... furniture, luggage, housewares, consumer electronics, artwork, and even clothes. As elderly people move away from large suburban houses to "senior housing" they often have plenty of stuff to hand down to children -- or nieces and nephews. Those keep young people from spending heavily on new stuff when they are just starting out.

I once had a "personal money management session" as a substitute teacher in which the topic came up -- what to do if you must go to an apartment. I suggested the not-so-surprising Goodwill and Salvation Army stores where one can get others' castoffs cheaply. I suggested dollar-store merchandise as stopgaps for the really-good stuff when it comes to such things as cutlery and housewares. Sometimes you get lasting bargains, and sometimes you get a two or three years of serviceable use before you replace your bent spoons with those that have more metal. In view of the electronic goodies that go obsolete... what is wrong with an old-fashioned CRT color portable even with a remote? Save your money for one of the newfangled ones. Entertainment? There are plenty of VHS tapes that others have dumped, and VCRs are cheap. Do you really need "the best"?

The one thing that I discouraged was rent-to-own merchandise. One is better off to save money while putting up with a stopgap object until one has saved for something really good. Saving is a good habit, and when one buys something big like a refrigerator, sofa, or high-priced TV, it is a good time to start saving for the replacement.

P.S. I do second the notion of getting tools and kitchenware at estate sales, or accepting those your grandparents leave to you. They are of much better quality, for one thing. Likewise, if you look carefully, linens. And other items.

While we all wring our hands over the angst of voting or not voting the lesser evil, let's not lose sight of the other side of the coin. And maybe it’s not "evil" but just sheer frikin stupidity -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rss=ezra-klein

GOP: ‘Deregulate Wall Street!’
from Ezra Klein by Ezra Klein


In recent days, more than 900 cities have hosted protests under the Occupy Wall Street banner. But the enthusiasm for intervening in Goldman Sachs’s affairs hasn’t trickled up to the GOP presidential campaign. There, the candidates want to leave Wall Street alone. And this isn’t just a passive disinterest in the finance sector’s affairs. They want to deregulate -- actively and aggressively.

“I introduced the bill to repeal Dodd-Frank,” bragged Rep. Rep. Michele Bachmann at last week’s Bloomberg/Washington Post debate. It’s true. Her bill is H.R. 87. It repeals the law in 67 words. It says nothing about any replacement. If it passed, Wall Street would be operating inside the exact same regulatory structure it had in the run-up to the crash.

But Herman Cain was not to be outdone. “Repeal Dodd-Frank, and get rid of the capital gains tax,” he countered. Repealing the capital gains tax would make it vastly more profitable to earn a living through investment income rather than wage income. A hedge-fund manager, for instance, might escape income taxation entirely. It would give smart, young college students even more reason than they have now to go into the hedge fund game than, say, medicine.

“Dodd-Frank obviously is a disaster,” agreed Rep. Ron Paul. “But Sarbanes-Oxley costs a trillion dollars, too. Let’s repeal that, too!” Sarbanes-Oxley -- or “SOX,” in congressional parlance -- is the law passed in the wake on the Enron scandals. It sought to make balance sheets more transparent and financial statements more trustworthy. It is not well liked by the financial sector.

Mitt Romney, while not quite as carefree in his denunciations of the financial-regulation reforms, largely agrees with his co-candidates. His jobs plan promises that a Romney presidency would “seek to repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with a streamlined regulatory framework,” though it doesn’t give much detail on what that streamlined framework would be. He also says that “the Sarbanes-Oxley law passed in the wake of the accounting scandals of the early 2000s should also be modified as part of any financial reform.”

So three years after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the consensus in the Republican Primary is that we should deregulate Wall Street not just to where it was before the bubble burst, but to somewhere nearer to where it was before Enron crashed.

This is the crucial context in which to understand Obama adviser David Plouffe’s prediction that “12 months from now, as people make the decision about who to go vote for, the gut check is going to be about, ‘Who would make decisions more about helping my life than Wall Street?’” It’s not just that the GOP is against Dodd-Frank but that it’s arguing for a fairly broad form of deregulation rather than for a different form of regulation. And the Obama campaign is betting that Americans have had their fill of deregulation and the ideology that sparked it.

It was always easy to see the question that the Republican presidential nominee would lob at a president who has presided over nine percent unemployment and slow growth. Ronald Reagan asked it of President Jimmy Carter in 1980: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

It was harder to imagine Obama’s response. But as the Republican Party returns to a platform of deregulation and regressive tax cuts, it’s becoming clearer. “How is your agenda any different than the Bush agenda that got us into this mess in the first place?”

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

And does Cain realize what "used food" is? Shall we send him a grade school lesson on the human digestive system?

That has to be a "Let them eat cake" quote. And by that I mean: "He couldn't have actually said that--that has to be propaganda"--just like Marie Antoinette never actually said "Let them eat cake" but the political cartoonists portrayed her as having said it. He can't be that stupid.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas88

That has to be a "Let them eat cake" quote. And by that I mean: "He couldn't have actually said that--that has to be propaganda"--just like Marie Antoinette never actually said "Let them eat cake" but the political cartoonists portrayed her as having said it. He can't be that stupid.

Though this is not a straight flat tax, the proposal is a variation of the flat tax idea. I used to work with a guy who was convinced that heaven on earth would arrive if only the income tax were replaced with a 23% national sales tax--that only applies on newly sold goods.
I pointed out to him that every time you buy food or almost anything except big ticket items like houses and cars you are buying a "new" product.
It made no impression on him. When I met him he had a sticker on his truck bumper that said FAIR TAX in letter big enough to see in a rainstorm from a block away. The last time that I saw him he still had the same sticker on his truck.

It is interesting though that they've come up with a variety of this regressive tax idea that mixes in an income tax. I guess that first proposal that my former associate was ao enamored with just didn't sell well enough.

Tonight's debate hit new highs of entertainment because of the increasingly bitter contest among Romney, Cain (whom everyone was after over his "plan") and Perry. Perry is losing ground badly and absolutely refuses to address questions like the huge increase in illegal aliens in Texas. He also called Romney a liar about hiring illegal aliens himself--he really tried to stress that one. The other big news this week, new to me at least, is that Romney has adopted the neocons and vica verca, which means, I think, that war with Iran is extremely likely if he wins. Still, he is the only one of them who looks remotely presidential.

The Tax Policy Center, generally considered non-partisan, did the analysis on Cain's 999 with the following results -



- basically everyone losses except the 10% and of course the bottom of that group doesn't get the payoff that the top 1% and the top 0.1% get.

This isn't really a question of the GREATER evil being stupid, this is really a question of how stupid they think the rest of us have become.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Though this is not a straight flat tax, the proposal is a variation of the flat tax idea. I used to work with a guy who was convinced that heaven on earth would arrive if only the income tax were replaced with a 23% national sales tax--that only applies on newly sold goods.
I pointed out to him that every time you buy food or almost anything except big ticket items like houses and cars you are buying a "new" product.
It made no impression on him. When I met him he had a sticker on his truck bumper that said FAIR TAX in letter big enough to see in a rainstorm from a block away. The last time that I saw him he still had the same sticker on his truck.

It is interesting though that they've come up with a variety of this regressive tax idea that mixes in an income tax. I guess that first proposal that my former associate was ao enamored with just didn't sell well enough.

It wasn't the tax idea that prompted the response so much as the "they can buy used foods & used products". What got me was the "used food" comment--it would be completely unsanitary. Beyond the "used foods" comment, Cain is clearly out of touch if he doesn't realize that most Americans already know where their local pawn/thrift/Goodwill/dollar store is & area already utilizing it in the current system.

~Chas'88

I think Romney won the debate (glad he said what he did about religion). Perry is a joke, is rude and doesn't allow people to finish their statements, reminds me of a Bush impersonator, and might have something on the boarder issue.

Cain did a good job spinning his Wall Street comment and directing the attention to the White House.

Paul is obviously the Occupy movement's Grey Champion.

Bachman, who?

Can Bachman at least attempt to stray from her invisible teleprompter or script and actually address the people who are standing next to her???

Originally Posted by Chas88

It wasn't the tax idea that prompted the response so much as the "they can buy used foods & used products". What got me was the "used food" comment--it would be completely unsanitary. Beyond the "used foods" comment, Cain is clearly out of touch if he doesn't realize that most Americans already know where their local pawn/thrift/Goodwill/dollar store is & area already utilizing it in the current system.

Of course.
Who wouldn't want a 50 cent used burger in a world of two dollar fries. !!!!

Yum yum.

Here Are Occupy Wall Street's Plans For A National Convention That Could Change The Face Of America

It's in the works. A massive Occupy Wall Street gathering with delegates from all over the country. And if these plans are carried out, Occupy Wall Street will be a major force to be reckoned with on Election Day 2012. The date? July 4, 2012.

Put aside questions of whether or not the movement will survive that long. Imagine that they do, because they have no doubt.

If only our economy had that kind of confidence.

Discussions on how to proceed will begin tomorrow at a massive General Assembly at 7 PM. Here's how they describe what they're about to do:

....the election of delegates and holding of a national general assembly or convention on July 4, 2012 must be organized. No calls for violence. No calls for the violent overthrow of the government.

...Once organized and the delegates have been elected by direct ballot in all 435 districts. They must demand that our elected leaders take action. If they do not take action within one year of the demand, we will demand their mass resignations and that new elections be held so we can take back our democracy from the corporations and those who BUY power and influence with MONEY. Yes this includes unions and lobbyists.

The Citizens United case must be reversed...

More concrete, long-term measures can also be found on their website in a document called The Steps to Non-Violent Revolution and the Convening of a National General Assembly. There are ten of them, and the most amazing thing about them, is that they outline a democratic plan to decide on a platform of reforms supported by occupations across the entire country leading right up to the 2012 election.

Perhaps Occupy Wall Street only thought of doing this now, but I sincerely doubt it.

Basically, if this is carried out, Occupy Wall Street could shift the course of American politics at its highest levels.
Here are the steps:

1. The Occupy Wall Street movement, through the local general assembly, should elect an executive committee comprised of 11 people or some other odd number of people that is manageable for meetings. Ideally this committee should represent each city in the U.S. that is being occupied.

2. The executive committee will then attend to local issues such as obtaining permits, paying for public sanitation and dealing with the media. More important, the executive committee shall plan and organize the election of the 870 delegates to a National General Assembly between now and July 4, 2012.

3. As stated in the 99% declaration, each of the 435 congressional districts will form an election committee to prepare ballots and invite citizens in those districts to run as delegates to a National General Assembly in Philadelphia beginning on July 4, 2012 and convening until October 2012.

4. Each of the 435 congressional districts will elect one man and one woman to attend the National General Assembly. The vote will be by direct democratic ballot regardless of voter registration status as long as the voter has reached the age of 18 and is a US citizen. This is not a sexist provision. Women are dramatically under-represented in politics even though they comprise more than 50% of the U.S. population.

5. The executive committee will act as a central point to solve problems, raise money to pay for the expenses of the election of the National General Assembly and make sure all 870 delegates are elected prior to the meeting on July 4th.

6. The executive committee would also arrange a venue in Philadelphia to accommodate the delegates attending the National General Assembly where the declaration of values, petition of grievances and platform would be proposed, debated, voted on and approved. The delegates would also elect a chair from their own ranks to run the meetings of the congress and break any tie votes. We will also need the expertise of a gifted parliamentarian to keep the meetings moving smoothly and efficiently.

7. The final declaration, platform and petition of grievances, after being voted upon by the 870 delegates to the National General Assembly would be formally presented by the 870 delegates to all three branches of government and all candidates running for federal public office in November 2012. Thus, the delegates would meet from July 4, 2012 to sometime in early to late October 2012.

8. The delegates to the National General Assembly would then vote on a time period, presently suggested as one year, to give the newly elected government in November an opportunity to redress the petition of grievances. This is our right as a People under the First Amendment.

9. If the government fails to redress the petition of grievances and drastically change the path this country is on, the delegates will demand the resignation and recall of all members of congress, the president and even the Supreme Court and call for new elections by, of and for the PEOPLE with 99 days of the resignation demand.

10. There will NEVER be any call for violence by the delegates even if the government refuses to redress the grievances and new elections are called for by the delegates. Nor will any delegate agree to take any money, job promise, or gifts from corporations, unions or any other private source. Any money donated or raised by the executive committee may only be used for publicizing the vote, the National General Assembly, and for travel expenses and accommodation at the National General Assembly ONLY. All books and records will be published openly online so that everyone may see how much money is raised and how the money is spent each month. There will be no money allowed to "purchase" delegate votes as we have in the current government. No corporate "sponsorship".

Very ambitious, we'll see how it goes.

This is what a Civic-driven movement looks like, folks!!!

Listening to the debate among the Greater evil candidates, I first was amused how any one could think one of these clowns is electable to the highest office....

....then I remembered, George W. Bush.

Halloween comes early.

Originally Posted by Odin

Here Are Occupy Wall Street's Plans For A National Convention That Could Change The Face Of America



This is what a Civic-driven movement looks like, folks!!!

OMG! I love it! I want to hug your entire generation.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

It is interesting though that they've come up with a variety of this regressive tax idea that mixes in an income tax. I guess that first proposal that my former associate was ao enamored with just didn't sell well enough.

Jerry Brown in 1992 floated a combination 13% VAT and 13% income tax.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

It wasn't the tax idea that prompted the response so much as the "they can buy used foods & used products". What got me was the "used food" comment--it would be completely unsanitary. Beyond the "used foods" comment, Cain is clearly out of touch if he doesn't realize that most Americans already know where their local pawn/thrift/Goodwill/dollar store is & area already utilizing it in the current system.

~Chas'88

Maybe there's a real scoop buried in that quote. Maybe they sell "used food" at Burger King and Godfather Pizza? I wouldn't be surprised. . .

Originally Posted by playwrite

Listening to the debate among the Greater evil candidates, I first was amused how any one could think one of these clowns is electable to the highest office....

....then I remembered, George W. Bush.

Halloween comes early.

I can't completely agree. I think Romney looks electable. Of course, the other guys do a lot to make him look that way.

In response to Odin's posted plan for Occupy Wall Street:

Well, you're right, this plan has a lot in common with two civic-led or civic-dominated movements, the French and Russian revolutions. (I am not red-baiting here. Please read the rest of the post.) The plan is outside the American constitutional structure as it now stands. I would have been impressed had it said that, after the convention and the writing up of the platform, they would approach every candidate running for office, ask them to endorse the platform, and work for the election of candidates who did. But that isn't what they say at all. Instead, they claim the right to tell every elected official what to do or face the consequences--the overthrow of the US Constitution, even if it's supposed to be non-violent--within a year.

This is very reminiscent of the Bolshevik slogan, "All Power to the Soviets." The original soviets were simply workers, soldiers and sailors councils (that's what "soviet" means) agitating for change and a new government in 1917-8, after the fall of the Tsar. Lenin argued that they, not the provisional government, should exercise political power.

It is an act of hubris worthy of 1968 Boomers to argue that the assembly they want to convene should be able to tell the elected officials of the US government what to do. If they go through with this, 70-90% of the candidates for office will blow them off entirely and claim, quite justifiably, after the election, that they, not OWS, have the genuine mandate from the people. Meanwhile, the Republicans will be claiming throughout the campaign that OWS is the socialist revolution for which Obama is the stalking horse, rallying their troops.

Sorry. The Constitution doesn't always bring about the best results. The Founders, wise civics that they were, knew even the best system could go wrong. But I'm not willing to throw it out.

As this forum proves, the left is becoming increasingly crazed, deranged, extreme and irrational. It is clearly desperation. After all the effort they put into destroying Bush and the Republicans and installing Obama and the Democrats, the absolute, utter failure of left wing ideology in the face of recession has left them now searching for any way of clinging to their world view, which is deeply woven into their personal identity, because for most it takes the place of religious faith. Put another way, the ill-educated, ignorant, delusional expectations bred by the false promises and false premises of the left has left those who have been duped by it in a blind, blank-minded rage now that it has so clearly failed.

A dose of reality for those swept up in the delusion:

Poll: Washington to blame more than Wall Street for economy

When asked whom they blame more for the poor economy, 64% of Americans name the federal government and 30% say big financial institutions.

OWS is trying to salvage the left from its own abject failure by placing the blame elsewhere. While it is publicly aimed at Wall Street, this is really the left trying to distance itself from the Democrats, on the premise that it's not their ideology that failed, their politicians were just bought off. In any case, the country is moving away from them, perhaps permanently, they know it, and this is the incoherent scream of panic and desperation.

If it continues, this is going to be the moment where the broad middle of the country, many of whom have been sympathetic to the Democrats and the left in the past, will look at the left and say "uh, no...I'm not one of those nuts". That has already happened to a great degree because of the failure of Obama and the Democrats, as last November's election shows. But this will likely be the point where the Democratic Party's long descent into madness, which began around 1968, finally consumes it and marginalizes it for generations to come.

On the bright side, all of this stuff has been a long time coming, and it's good that it's finally coming to a head. The flat-out looniness ushered into society and normalized during the 60s and 70s has been hanginga round with a degree of respectability it has never deserved, and it has eroded the society from within while the average American has ignored it and/or given a nod to it in the interest of being "cool". OWS is bringing it out to the fore, and showing people just how ignorant, delusional and "entitled" a large subset of the public has become. They really believe the government will take care of them, give them everything for free, and solve all of their problems if only it can be done right. They simply cannot comprehend the fact that the country is broke. Beyond broke, it is $15T in debt. And the entire net wealth of "the rich" is a tiny drop in that bucket, even if the bloodthirsty mob seized every dime of it.

The whole scam of "government will take care of you" is collapsing, exposed as the lie it is. Unfortunately, the primary qualification for buying into OWS is being completely ignorant about the realities of economics, and basic math.

Here's a list of the world's wealthiest people. There are an estimated 1,210 billionaires worldwide, out of almost 7 billion people worldwide.

Four of the top ten are Americans. Their combined net worth is $171.5B. There are over 300,000,000 Americans. If you seized the wealth of those four people, you would be able to give every American a one time check equaling exactly $571.66. After that, those billionaires would have no more money, so you're out of luck next time around.

The United States government is FIFTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT.


I know some people don't like to think, and don't want to think, especially when thinking leads them to the conclusion that there is no magic solution to their problems. But this is reality. "The rich" are not "hoarding all the money" and making you poor. THERE IS NO MONEY. The fact that a few people are doing well does not mean they stole it from you, and it does not mean your situation will be improved by taking what they have. LEARN BASIC MATH.

Government policy has wrecked the economy. The only thing that will get you a better life is a growing economy. We are in a downward spiral because of government debt and monetary policy, all constructed to fulfill promises made by politicians that they knew they could never keep, to satisfy voters who wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Sometimes reality sucks, but that doesn't make it any less real. It's everybody's fault, including yours. You don't get to throw off all your culpability on someone else. You were stupid too. You screwed up too.

The only legitimate criticism when it comes to Wall Street is the one that has already been made by the Tea Party. They should not have been bailed out. But guess what, the government did that too. Wake up and smell the coffee.

I was going to pick apart the JPT post above this one (#4143), but it was so wrong that the rebuttal would have had to be overly long, boring and beside the point. That anyone can actually post this, and tie with the tag line, "The whole scam of "government will take care of you" is collapsing, exposed as the lie it is. Unfortunately, the primary qualification for buying into OWS is being completely ignorant about the realities of economics, and basic math.", is simply astounding.

Even the RW economists are pooh-poohing this kind of thinking. Some, like Bruce Bartlett, are actively opposing it. In short, it's basic math that demonstrates that the ideas on the right are not merely wrong, but manifestly so.

During one of his many appearances on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Zbigniew Brzezinski nailed it when he noted that his party has lost its way, and the GOP has moved into the realm of insanity
.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I was going to pick apart the JPT post above this one (#4143), but it was so wrong that the rebuttal would have had to be overly long, boring and beside the point.

That you fail to do so indicates that you can't, and your post is "nanny nanny boo boo" hot air from someone who doesn't like facts.

That anyone can actually post this, and tie with the tag line, "The whole scam of "government will take care of you" is collapsing, exposed as the lie it is. Unfortunately, the primary qualification for buying into OWS is being completely ignorant about the realities of economics, and basic math.", is simply astounding.

Even the RW economists are pooh-poohing this kind of thinking. Some, like Bruce Bartlett, are actively opposing it. In short, it's basic math that demonstrates that the ideas on the right are not merely wrong, but manifestly so.

During one of his many appearances on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Zbigniew Brzezinski nailed it when he noted that his party has lost its way, and the GOP has moved into the realm of insanity
.

Brzezinski is a Democrat.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Here's a list of the world's wealthiest people. There are an estimated 1,210 billionaires worldwide, out of almost 7 billion people worldwide.

Four of the top ten are Americans. Their combined net worth is $171.5B. There are over 300,000,000 Americans. If you seized the wealth of those four people, you would be able to give every American a one time check equaling exactly $571.66. After that, those billionaires would have no more money, so you're out of luck next time around.

Is anyone suggesting this except you? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by JPT ...

The United States government is FIFTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT.

OK. I assume you think this makes a point, but it doesn't. National debt is only important when compared to the GDP that services it, and that ratio has been a lot higher than it is today.

Originally Posted by JPT ...

I know some people don't like to think, and don't want to think, especially when thinking leads them to the conclusion that there is no magic solution to their problems. But this is reality. "The rich" are not "hoarding all the money" and making you poor. THERE IS NO MONEY. The fact that a few people are doing well does not mean they stole it from you, and it does not mean your situation will be improved by taking what they have. LEARN BASIC MATH.

The rich control money ... much more than they own. Most of the money not currently working for us is held by corporations ... much of it outside the US. Right now, that's roughly $2T. But that's only a part of the problem. The worst part is the basic supply and demand effects of artificially suppressing the need for labor to force its price down. Now who consumes labor as a product? Oh yeah, companies ... primarily owned and controlled by the same malefactors keeping he money tied-up.

FWIW, the money not working is not going to create jobs ... not ever. Demand for goods and services creates jobs. So we are the engine of the economy ... but we're broke. Since we can't spend (too little income and too much personal debt), then the only spender left standing is our Uncle, who has the abilty to make or borrow money at will.

So in return, LEARN BASIC MATH and maybe a few advanced courses while you're at it.

Originally Posted by JPT ...

Government policy has wrecked the economy. The only thing that will get you a better life is a growing economy. We are in a downward spiral because of government debt and monetary policy, all constructed to fulfill promises made by politicians that they knew they could never keep, to satisfy voters who wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Sometimes reality sucks, but that doesn't make it any less real. It's everybody's fault, including yours. You don't get to throw off all your culpability on someone else. You were stupid too. You screwed up too.

90+% of the economic malefaction was the product of private entities trying to make money in a big hurry. Did government add to the problem? Of course! The government had no business deep-sixing the Glass Steagle Act and deregulating the economy. Even worse, we had open collusion between business and government entities (e.g. the Enron-managed power shortage in California circa 2000 that was enabled by VP Cheney). Fighting two major wars on a credit card is another prime example. But in the end, the biggest and most profound part of the problem was speculation in the markets on derivatives worth several times the value of the annual world economy. Government didn't stop it, but it didn't do it either.

Originally Posted by JPT ...

The only legitimate criticism when it comes to Wall Street is the one that has already been made by the Tea Party. They should not have been bailed out. But guess what, the government did that too. Wake up and smell the coffee.

OK, I agree that a bail-out was wrong. On the other hand, when Lehmann Brothers collapsed, all the credit markets froze in place ... immediately. You do know what that implies, I hope. If not, you might take a little time to understand the role of commercial paper in greasing the skids of everyday commerce. Without commercial paper (essentially very short duration borrowings), bills don't get paid - people's salaries included. In short, no one would have had access to money in any form, and no way to get any not hidden in a cookie jar. I'm sure you have a work-around … a larger cookie jar perhaps.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Is anyone suggesting this except you? I don't think so.


OK. I assume you think this makes a point, but it doesn't. National debt is only important when compared to the GDP that services it, and that ratio has been a lot higher than it is today.


The rich control money ... much more than they own. Most of the money not currently working for us is held by corporations ... much of it outside the US. Right now, that's roughly $2T. But that's only a part of the problem. The worst part is the basic supply and demand effects of artificially suppressing the need for labor to force its price down. Now who consumes labor as a product? Oh yeah, companies ... primarily owned and controlled by the same malefactors keeping he money tied-up.

FWIW, the money not working is not going to create jobs ... not ever. Demand for goods and services creates jobs. So we are the engine of the economy ... but we're broke. Since we can't spend (too little income and too much personal debt), then the only spender left standing is our Uncle, who has the abilty to make or borrow money at will.

So in return, LEARN BASIC MATH and maybe a few advanced courses while you're at it.


90+% of the economic malefaction was the product of private entities trying to make money in a big hurry. Did government add to the problem? Of course! The government had no business deep-sixing the Glass Steagle Act and deregulating the economy. Even worse, we had open collusion between business and government entities (e.g. the Enron-managed power shortage in California circa 2000 that was enabled by VP Cheney). Fighting two major wars on a credit card is another prime example. But in the end, the biggest and most profound part of the problem was speculation in the markets on derivatives worth several times the value of the annual world economy. Government didn't stop it, but it didn't do it either.


OK, I agree that a bail-out was wrong. On the other hand, when Lehmann Brothers collapsed, all the credit markets froze in place ... immediately. You do know what that implies, I hope. If not, you might take a little time to understand the role of commercial paper in greasing the skids of everyday commerce. Without commercial paper (essentially very short duration borrowings), bills don't get paid - people's salaries included. In short, no one would have had access to money in any form, and no way to get any not hidden in a cookie jar. I'm sure you have a work-around … a larger cookie jar perhaps.

Uh huh.

1. Debt doesn't matter.
2. We don't need to cut spending.
3. Raising taxes will not prevent economic growth.

I know you need to believe that stuff, but it's laughable.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

That you fail to do so indicates that you can't, and your post is "nanny nanny boo boo" hot air from someone who doesn't like facts.

OK, then read my rebuttal of your following post. BTW, a poster known to ignore facts should avoid accusing others of not providing them.

Originally Posted by JPT ...

Brzezinski is a Democrat.

That was my point. Bzezinski sees rot in both parties, but the rot has gone malignant in the GOP.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

OK, then read my rebuttal of your following post. BTW, a poster known to ignore facts should avoid accusing others of not providing them.


That was my point. Bzezinski sees rot in both parties, but the rot has gone malignant in the GOP.

Bottom line: the left did everything it believed in from 2008-2010. And it totally failed. Now they're just going nuts in the street making no sense, spouting class warfare, because they have no clue what else to do.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Uh huh.

1. Debt doesn't matter.
2. We don't need to cut spending.
3. Raising taxes will not prevent economic growth.

I know you need to believe that stuff, but it's laughable.

1. Debt matters more if Debt/GDP > the abilty to service it. Japan has a Debt to GDP ratio approaching 2 (the US ratio is less than 1), but very low borrowing costs make that easiliy servicable. The US also has very low borrowing costs. Since the bond vigilantes seem to be otherwise occupied, I don't see tha changing soon. If it does, it will be due to growth ... a good thing.
2. For now, we need to increase spending in productive areas, but cut in non-productive ones. Further impoverishing the poor and elderly is stupid, but cutting wasteful spending on miltary contracts gone wild maked perfect sense. Even at that, overall, spending (admittedly at a deficit) needs to rise ... for now. We need to increase economic activity, or we'll begin to mire ourselves in the mess that Europe is inflicting on itself. But cheer up! According to Dick Cheney, Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. I don't believe that. Perhaps you do.
3. Raising taxes has very little in any impact on growth if the taxes extract underutilized money. Needless to say, the biggest sources of stangant cash are the personally wealthy and large corporations. Rasing those taxes limits the need for borrowing. Since the only growth engine around is Uncle Sam, the money spent by the governmeent must be tax revenue, borrowings or newly issued money. Taxes on the ones who made the mess are a rightful part of the solution.