Join The Trading Room

Pelosi Endorsement of GOP Plan Makes Us Very Afraid

By Rick Ackerman Posted on July 15, 2011, 1:35 am EDT Last Updated July 15, 2011, 4:10 am EDT

Shouldn’t we be very afraid when Nancy Pelosi thinks she can live with Mitch McConnell’s deficit reduction plan?  Actually, it’s worse than that: What Pelosi in fact said is that anyone rooting for an increase in the debt ceiling should be saying “bravo to Senator McConnell.” Uh-oh. Somehow, “bravo” wasn’t the word that sprang to our lips when this story crossed the wire.  Nor are we even sure which side to take, since both parties were poker-faced yesterday on the matter of just what it is that they think they might be able to agree upon. It would also appear that taking the side we had thought House Speaker Boehner was on – “More taxes? Over my dead body!” (or something to that effect) – may no longer be an option. How could it be after Mr. Obama has invested so much time and energy demagoguing the filthy rich – i.e., anyone making more than $250k? At times like this, we look to Sen. Harry Reid to point the way…so that we can bolt in the opposite direction. Again, no clues. The Nevada senator continued to vilify House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, stopping just short of insinuating that Cantor’s mother may have worked in a Mexican brothel and that Cantor himself might have just one testicle. But that was just Reid being Reid. With respect to the political football, he did what he always does: wrap himself in the flag, the better to warn that GOP stubbornness is threatening to halt Social Security checks, veterans benefits and paychecks to our troops.

That there is not a dime’s worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill is a recurring theme in the Rick’s Picks forum. Even though there is some truth to this, we’d rather take our chances with the GOP, especially when it comes time to replace a Supreme Court justice.  Or to repeal Obamacare. But in budgetary matters, with some very rare exceptions like Ron Paul, all D.C. politicians are pretty much in favor of dispensing however much of the taxpayers’ money it takes to get themselves re-elected. For our part, although we professed here just yesterday to like the idea of flat tax, it’s term limits that really rings our chimes. Throw the bums out every we chance get, and in just a few election cycles the Washington bureaucracy would die on the vine. The loosening tendrils might even send a few lobbyists crashing to their deaths. Just thinking about it makes us keenly aware of how much we’ll miss the British tabloids if they’re forced by this latest scandal to tone it down. Whereas the American news media would report on the splattering of lobbyists on the pavement as tragic news, Fleet Street’s tabloids would tell the story with glee in every sordid detail. The protests of the Sixties brought out the best in them:  “Tits, Ass and Hot Revolution Inside” is how Melody Maker advertised its inside pages in an edition that greeted us as we stepped off the Isle of Wight ferry in August of 1969, bound for the rock festival. But we digress…

***

(If you’d like to have Rick’s Picks commentary delivered free each day to your e-mail box, click here.)

  • Mava July 22, 2011, 3:45 pm

    Robert,

    Thank you, but you’re making me blush. I only wish I was a Doug Casey or even half as smart.
    No, I am not. Besides, I am Russian, and last I’ve read from Casey, he doesn’t think of Russians all that much.

    I am not sure if that was an opinion about the most usual Russia as a country, or of individuals. Knowing Casey, most likely, he doesn’t like Russia as a country, but have no specific opinion of it’s individuals as a broad bunch.

    Russia is an extremely violent country. For instance, Anglo-Saxons at least understand my point above about freedom and violence, if not necessarily agree with it practicality, just like Jill did, but I would be afraid to even bring that point up in Russia. Or in Saudi Arabia, for that matter.

  • Mava July 18, 2011, 11:37 pm

    Hi, Jill.

    There is some truth to that, I mean your assertion that we probably don’t have any common ground…

    This is because there is nothing I would want from you. I know nothing about you, of course, but I am guessing you support taking things away from me. For instance, do you happen to support government education?

    (if not, how about social security, lavish office of president, airforce one, war in afghanistan, war in Iraq, war in Lybia, war in Pakistan, bases all over the world, standing army, income taxes, government control over commerce, universal suffrage, obamacare, marriage law, smoking regulations on private establishments, etc, etc.)

    If you do, then we can’t possibly live in the same country and be both happy. And this is not because of our different opinions. No, this is because your version requires a violent compulsory implementation, where ALL are required to participate, while the things that I support require none of that , and allow each to build his own little socialism if they so desire.

    And the same can probably be observed in other matters. Because of this requirement (of violent compulsory participation, that I am guessing you support), we can never “each mind it’s own business”, well at least we know that you can’t just let me be.

    I have to either :
    -fight you
    or
    -escape from your violence

    Because I don’t want to cause anyone any harm, including you, I must choose to escape, lest you send your enforcers to beat me into the happiness.

    Pretty simple, huh?

    • Robert July 20, 2011, 7:58 pm

      Mava-

      That was awesome.

      Are you Doug Casey? 🙂

  • linda July 18, 2011, 1:49 pm

    Politics is out of our hands. The true components are discussed and arranged in advance at Bohemia Grove club,Bildenberg’s,Inner Circle,etc. Google these. So the results of elections are manipulated to turn out just as ‘was agreed upon’. The ‘ players’ are just power hungry sociopath’s..they don’t care about America. The GOP would hurt the economy to win in 2012. Watch the Jon Stewart show..that is the best ‘news’ show around,and very honest ,consice and non partisan.

  • Jill July 17, 2011, 8:45 pm

    Hi, Mava.

    You surely see the world differently than I do–through Ayn Rand glasses perhaps?

    I hardly know where to begin to look for common ground with you, or to understand you. I don’t see any “despotic government that is supported by the labor.” The big corporations which run government have been sending jobs overseas for decades now and sending unemployment skyrocketing– not what we would get if Labor were in charge.

    And labor unions in the U.S., at least in the private sector, have been losing power and numbers since the 1970s.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#Labor_unions_today

    Government employees’ labor unions have grown. But they are simply an extension of the government– and the TBTF corporations (certainly not the Labor movement) which run government.

    What country in S.E. Asia has the kind of Ayn Randian government that you see as superior to the U.S.? Nowhere probably, but thre must be places that have lower taxes on the middle class. I do agree with you that here, the middle class is taxed to death– to make up for the upper classes paying so little. That in itself proves that “Labor” is not the force in control here.

    Is there some party in the U.S. that you think would give you what you want politically here, if it were in power? Certainly George Bush didn’t do the things you say you want. Maybe the Libertarian Party would, if its members didn’t join and cave in to the Republican party? But its powerful members always do cave in.

    If I were you, I would move elsewhere too. There is no political group here that does the things you say you want– although Libertarian groups claim they will. But they never do it. Libertarians who rise to power do not follow through, and those who are sincere have never been able to rise to power.

  • Mava July 17, 2011, 8:05 pm

    Jill,

    The fund billionaires, the big corporations and the politicians are all the creatures of the labor side, they are the creatures of the despotic government that is supported by the labor, by those like yourself, in other words.

    Do they want the public education or not, is therefore irrelevant to your argument, because they are not the party you think you oppose. They are indistinguishable of the inner theft mandate that you approve of.

    These three that you have named, received all the “unfair” advantages from the government. In the absence of the government, not only that they could not receive any of this largess, they would not even exist at all.

    So, because you support the government, and therefore you support and empower the “unfair” advantages from the government being bestowed upon these three types, this, in turn creates the crisis.

    To solve the crisis, you turn around and offer to increase taxes on the rich. Taxes are not going up on your politicians, on your fund billionaires or your government big corps, this is for sure. Instead, taxes will be raised on people like myself, who:

    -received no government support ever.
    -want to receive no government support.
    -ready to sign a waiver excluding myself from ANY government support or subsidy, in exchange for my taxes.
    -support none of the things you mention
    -support NO public education (thanks, I am fine with private schools).
    -support NO obamacare (I’d rather work to pay for my own insurance)
    -support NO interstate or any kind of highways, but only the private roads, however long they might be.
    -support NO millitary, as per the United States Constitution that prescribes no standing armies but militia.
    -lend NO support for foreign entanglement, because I do not consider myself worthy to decide the fates of the people around the world, unlike any commie you ask.

    You see, if you were not the product of government funded and run education (properly described as brainwashing), then you could see this very problem with your argument that I have described above. Start small, do as I do and say, – speak for yourself.

  • Mava July 17, 2011, 6:42 am

    Thanks, Mario for your Chinese tip! Working on relocating to SE Asia, as this country seems to want to build a labor dictatorship, so I figure, I’l let them, there’s enough place for everyone.

    I am actually a very big fun of tips such as yours. Here is one from way back when I was pretty much useless to myself and others as employer/worker:

    Have a business, but do not incorporate! Do it as DBA. Why: Your labor income, in this case gets mixed up with your business income. What this means is that the losses you have from the business get deducted from the wages you earn as a worker! Just make sure you have a lot of losses (use Mario’s 2-3 steps ahead approach here, or just take example from the government). You can have just losses for 3 years, then you either have to argue with the jackbooted commies about this being a hobby, or simply open different business.

  • Jill July 17, 2011, 5:12 am

    It’s interesting to think about what would happen if the middle class were allowed to “bail out” of paying taxes, as wealthy individuals and corporations often do. The U.S. would become a 3rd world country, incapable of defending itself militarily, incapable of educating its citizenry to the level that they could be competent workers for industry etc.

    That’s not what hedge fund billionaires, big corporations, and politicians actually want. They want what they are now getting– education, military, Interstate highways etc. being paid for by the government. And the middle class– but not the wealthy– having to pay the lion’s share of the bill.

    • mario cavolo July 17, 2011, 5:57 am

      Two ideas to reduce your tax bite that a few of you might not realize:

      1. Cash gift to child – every year both parents can give tax free $12,000 to each child. Two parents to child and spouse – that’s $48,000 passed along tax free. For example, instead of receiving that chunk of pay in salary in a family business, pass it along this way.

      2. No matter what your status, START your own simple self-employed business, become any kind of rep for any kind of product group you like, register a sole proprietorship tradename, open a basic biz checking account and you’re done. You open yourself up to enormous amounts of deductions out of your monthly budget, travel, office expenses, etc. and, if you’re concerned about it, it is simple and easy to demonstrate simple, minimal legitimate effort that it is your biz not a “hobby” 🙂 For example, time your vacation to a particular convention/exhibition/show you want to attend to meet new distributors/suppliers; that’s why you went, the trip’s a deduction; to Cleveland or Oahu Paris makes no difference. Simple.

      3. For those of you involved in Asia/China; Each year, a Chinese citizen can walk up to the teller window of any major Chinese bank and transfer up to USD $50,000 overseas. I invite you to think 2-3 moves ahead to figure out how that can be meaningful to you in terms of international asset protection, diversification and tax reduction.

  • Mava July 17, 2011, 1:40 am

    Some very interesting reading, thank you. I am now almost used to the idea that the problem in our nation indeed could be explained using a sinking of the Titanic as an example.

    The titanic sinks and as the rich bail, the distance between the rich bailing out to lifeboats and the rest of the passengers locked up below the deck is growing larger and larger.

    The solution is clear, it is to bring the rich back from the lifeboats and lock them up under the deck. Nobody bails, yep. This is gonna solve it.

  • Jill July 16, 2011, 9:18 pm

    Good article on some of the above points:

    Greed, Excess and America’s Gaping Class Divide

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/the-new-let-them-eat-cake-20110713

    The new “Let them eat cake!”
    10 shocking, illuminating moments that prove just how out of touch the powerful really are

    http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/07/13/great_recession_elitism_slideshow/slideshow.html?slide=4

  • Jill July 16, 2011, 8:02 pm

    Excellent points all, Gary.

    If it weren’t for the fact that we are being fed propaganda constantly to get us to be divided and in conflict with one another over less important issues, we would probably all unite together to keep corporate welfare recipients, other Special Interest Groups, and corrupt politicians from draining evrey last penny out of our pockets.

    Perhaps the Libertarians on this board sincerely believe in their ideology of less government. But every time I see that ideology espoused by an electable politician– one that the Powers That Be would allow to be elected– the result is quite different from the ideology.

    The result ends up being MORE government restrictions and taxes for the middle class, and LESS government and restrictions ONLY for TBTF banks and other corporate welfare recipients. And more opportunities for politicians to profit from legal bribes from Special Interest Groups.

    I like a lot of Libertarian ideas, although not all of them. But Libertarians are being played for fools by Special Interest Groups who end up getting all the freedom and low taxes for themselves, with none of that left over for the middle class.

  • Mava July 16, 2011, 7:48 pm

    Wow, Gary…

    I think you’re so wrong, on so many levels…

    So, what you want to do on your sinking ship is to return the airlifted rich back onto the sinking ship and sink all together, without as much as even leaving the seed (capital)?

    Tell me, why do we need to figure out how to collect more in taxes? What do these rich people owe “fairly” their taxes for? May-be you approve of bailouts, and therefore you think they are paying taxes to be bailed out, huh? What is it that makes them liable to pay more than those not willing to work? Do you wish to re-condition all Americans into a hereditary-lazy creatures by taxing everyone who is productive?

    We all are slaves in this GULAG. Our owners are now spending so much that the taxes they collect are not enough. So, instead of watching the GULAG fall, you want to catch and return the escapees to put them to work? Have you asked yourself what are these taxes spent on? How come there isn’t enough? How about we simply stop spending?

    For instance, I can not find anything that government does for me. So, I have a hard time justifying the taxes, and especially calls to increase the revenues. Where is it spent? How come I see nothing of it? Is this what you call “fair”? So, I work and pay taxes, and someone else spends them, this is FAIR?

    I just don’t understand the eagerness with which you are willing to look for new revenue. Why don’t we demand the answer where is it spent, and how come it is not spent on me? Or am I slave who’s only purpose is to provide for others?

    As for your ideas on the regulations on the politicians, you have approached it from the wrong side. There is no way that you could control their theft. Even when the punishment was a purge and swift firing squad under Stalin, the politicians still were stealing, misbehaving, and taking huge bribes. Why? Because, you can not know everything about everybody at all the times. It is impossible, and if it was (say technologically possible), then you would not want to live in such a society anyway.

    The only way, seriously, this is THE ONLY WAY to stop politician from stealing is to not to give him any power to make decisions. Once you have empowered him to be capable of earning a favor by deciding in someone’s benefit, he definitely will accept the favor and he will figure out how.

    Are you going to punish politician for a simple fact that someone had willfully spent a night with him? This is one way to pay back. What about a politician who takes his family on a trip to stay at the house of his friendly supporter, an oil producer?

    These trick are endless, and every time you outlaw a trick like this, you prevent thousands of people doing similar things innocently, without that being a political setup.

    So, there, but most of all I would like to know why am I supposed to pay more in taxes, as if this collapse is my fault? I want to understand your definition of “FAIRNESS”.

  • gary leibowitz July 16, 2011, 7:16 pm

    There are a few points I would like to clarify. The first has to do with the huge disparity between rich and poor. I make the argument that every single economic calamity hits us at the same point that the gap is the widest. Is it coincidence? As for taxes there is no correlation between raising taxes and reducing economic growth. If that were true how do you explain the economic surge during Reagan and Clinton tenure? The notion that the very rich are unfairly being taxes is ludicrous. In fact Buffett, Gates, Turner and the like have been embarrassed by the ability to thwart their fair share. I am not talking about the people that make 250K. OIL subsidies? Offshore tax havens for corporations? Sorry but the government data shows that the tax revenues have been disproportionately placed on the middle class and it has been going up at a steady rate since the early 80’s. To not even unanimously dismantle the 10 trillion tax breaks and oil subsidies is a farce. To take away the loopholes for hedge funds and the like is also a shame.

    Fairness? Why not have very restrictive laws on our politicians to prevent greed and personal gains from ever occurring. How about total tax and revenue disclosure every quarter while in office. Disallow inside trading by politicians; disallow receiving any job after serving their term that has any smell of kickbacks. Treat political office as a sacrifice not a long term career. No perks that the average American doesn’t receive. I can guarantee you that any screw ups and incompetence will not be a result of orchestrated “mistakes” but rather honest ones.

    By attacking government workers and entitlements when the corruption is clearly at the top is called misdirection. Place the 1 balls under 3 cups and spin them around to have you guess where the ball is, is not my idea of solving the problems at hand.

    Think about this for one moment. We are talking about the sinking of the Titanic where the first class cabins have been airlifted onto another cruise liner.

    • gary leibowitz July 16, 2011, 7:37 pm

      I find it interesting that no one addressed the 95% money control by the top 5%, and the Murdoch Watergate II scandal. If these aren’t glaring examples of an oligarchy than I don’t know what is. The mother of all “misdirection’s” is to place blame on the people that can least defend themselves.

  • Mava July 15, 2011, 8:57 pm

    Gold Standard is a bad practice where the government violently enforces a certain ratio between real natural money (gold) and the official unit of accounting.

    It is bad, because the government is involved in it. The government has no right to be involved with money. Observe: Once the government establishes that say, 1 shmackel = 1 ounce of gold, then the people will get used to calling the ounce of gold a shmackel. Now, the government is free to start debasing the shmackel, because the people do not care for its weight or meaning, and before too long, you end up with a shmackel that is worthless.

    No, the only proper money is the natural money, counted in it weight and purity only. The government should not mandate any legal tender, it should be simply a matter of choice of a prevalent money. Further, as someone on this very forum keeps saying, the government should be forced to use strictly their own fiat money, which they can debase, but only to the detriment of their own revenues.

  • Mava July 15, 2011, 8:48 pm

    Darren,

    But what about the government? I mean the people who used to be driven in black suburbans, escorted by swat teams, all the while having their suburban windows tinted black, and prohibiting us all from doing so by the law. What do you offer to these folks? Are you proposing that they actually pay for everything?

    And then what about thieves? People who do not want to produce enough to pay for all the niceties of life, yet boast that it is only fair that they have the dignity of using all the stuff others pay for? Without the government violent jack booted thug to take your money, how exactly are these “dignitaries” to continue their lifestyle?

  • Darren July 15, 2011, 8:00 pm

    I hear the Siren song again. We can fix the govt if only (insert fantasy solution here). No, the classical liberals got it wrong. There is no such thing as good govt. It is always corrupt & evil. It is time to move past this charade & stop allowing ourselves to be willing victims of these thugs.

    Society can be run & ordered by voluntary organizations we don’t need coercive govt to do that.

  • Rich July 15, 2011, 6:50 pm

    0’s 86th Executive Order: #13575~
    Sustainable Rural Community Takeover:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUSRC-TOjlc&feature=player_embedded 13:33

  • roger erickson July 15, 2011, 6:44 pm

    “gold standard … an inflexible currency controlled by banks rather than the federal government”

    Sums it up well, for easily deluded sheople. It can be smart to temporarily hold gold when an electorate is ill informed, but it’s always an error to demand that all citizens use a gold std, since gold supply is even more easily controlled by banks than is fiat $. Abe Lincoln showed that.

    We’ve been through this all before.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenback_Party

    many more interesting facts at the link shown – sounds like they quickly lost out to bank-supported lobbies; the power of paid PR!

    Abe Lincoln may have been killed partly at the request of this same bank lobby.

  • Jill July 15, 2011, 6:32 pm

    It’s part of the Divide and Conquer strategy to do extensive expensive research on what divides people, what they think differently from one another about, so as to focus them on that. This makes it hard for people to unite and fight against tyranny. Lo and behold, people have different religious beliefs. So, you get them arguing about those, and they will forget that they are all being robbed blind by the banksters and other Special Interest Groups.

    Politics can then be all about abortion and gays and other things that the kleptocrats could care less about. The game is called “Let’s You and Him Fight while I Make off with All Your Money.”

    • Rich July 15, 2011, 9:41 pm

      Brava Jill. You nailed the Machiavellian Divide and Conquer gambit as old as the Pentatuch.

      Also the Bread and Circus American Idol Reality Shows filling people’s minds with unconscious memes where one person wins and everybody else is eliminated…

    • Robert July 15, 2011, 10:53 pm

      That’s a good video, but it only very briefly glances over the nucleus of the general topic:

      Wealth can not be created by governement decree, and the process of redistribution ALWAYS destroys more wealth than it creates.

      Atlas Shrugged can be summarized by the alternative title:

      Entrepreneurism Stopped.

  • Rich July 15, 2011, 5:29 pm

    @Jill
    Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul are two such non-ideological practical candidates, while monopoly media barely report they won the New Hampshire or Iowa polls over their boy Romney, too busy smearing them as kooks. We the people need to study the facts. Now that more are out of work, there is more time to do that. As even the NYT admits: ‘Behind Battle Over Debt, a War Over Government’…

    • jazzmaniac July 15, 2011, 5:46 pm

      Non-idealogical? How about the stands on private abortion rights? These are no libertarians; they want to impose a theocratic state. You think things are bad now? Wait till the god crowd fully takes charge of making every personal decision for you. That’s why I prefer Gary Johnson (if one has to have a president). A real fiscal conservative who has no interest in having government intrude into private affairs.

    • Rob P July 15, 2011, 8:41 pm

      Okay Jazzmaniac. I thought libertarianism had to do with life, liberty, and property, and nothing else. If you can’t even protect life, look in the mirror to find out who is not the libertarian that you think you are. Without life, luxuries such as liberty and property are of no consequence.

      In reality, there are many perspectives, and you won’t even get the Cato Institute to agree on abortion.

      Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_abortion

    • Rich July 15, 2011, 9:38 pm

      It appears some people fell for the Nightly News smears on the Pauls and Bachmann…

    • Joey July 21, 2011, 7:26 am

      jazzmaniac, before you smear RP you should check out what he says, instead of relying on what the media says about him.

      On MANY ISSUES Ron Paul says the federal gov’t should step aside and let each state handle the issue. This is one of those issues.
      http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/
      Ron Paul is personally pro-life and believes the federal gov’t should get out of this issue.

      If you believe in getting the federal gov’t off our backs, you must support the 10th ammendment (states have authority) and let each state choose.

      Thank you!

  • Rich July 15, 2011, 5:20 pm

    Rick, awesome calls on Gold and the SPU…

  • Rich July 15, 2011, 5:18 pm

    @ Martin Snell re “Anyone who thinks that balancing the budget can be done without tax increase needs to have their head examined.”

    You answered your own canard citing 50% cuts in the US Military Empire around the globe.

    @ Neighbor JimK & Mava : you spelled out the hazards of the current tax inflation system brought here by European Bankers in 1913. The uniform Constitutional 28 basis point Automatic Payment Transparent Transaction Tax replacing the IRS and Fed will correct that, but won’t happen until people are hungry and stop watching/listening to network media news controlled by a handful of corporations. Already NBC picking up the Murdoch slack.
    Ran for Congress signing pledges to term limit out and not raise taxes, but as Jill & Martin point out, the voters thought they were more concerned about abortion, gays and war, thanks to media mind manipulation of the masses.
    Worth remembering less than 10% of the colonialists supported the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War.
    Would they have a chance today with Big Sister and Fast & Furious selling them up to be disarmed?
    The only way to vote these days is in the market, and anyone who supports multinational monopolies and their government enforcers buying their electronics, GMO food and pharmaceuticals will not make it ere long…

  • Rick Ackerman July 15, 2011, 4:58 pm

    When I am not peddling papers, Hazlewood, I am, for one, energetically championing the redesign of the household toilet so that men are not forced to leave such a mess.

    • Chester Hazlewood July 16, 2011, 7:17 am

      Good for you, glad to hear it! I hope you can put the local youths to work before they get hooked on meth or even worse enroll into one of our prestigious colleges (god, look at dividends the country has reaped from that path).

  • Chester Hazlewood July 15, 2011, 4:34 pm

    Your attitude is a bit too high and mighty for someone that sits on is duff and peddles paper all day. It’s not like you’re a productive member of our grand society. Where’s your version of a smart phone, smart toaster, or smart toilet dispenser?

    • Benjamin July 15, 2011, 5:23 pm

      I think Chester thought he was in a different forum.

      @Rick: But the urinal is already here. What we really need is for someone to champion a bill to see one in every home (and that someone should have a term limit, to lessen the likelihood of them serving Big Commode!).

  • Jacques Redou July 15, 2011, 4:24 pm

    Term Limits? I’m all for it, BUT:

    like a lot of things, the Devil is in the Details.

    Problem is, a person who gets elected to the House for 2 years shows up in DC with little understanding of the system. Given our complex society, the learning curve is quite steep.

    That means he or she is Dependent on the staff of quasi permanent bureaucrats who Do understand the system. The newly elected are More dependent on staff than a Longer Term Member of Congress.

    Congress men / women vote on bills they have not even read. The people who read / write the bills are lobbyists and bureaucratic staff.
    Members of the House / Senate do not have time to read the bills, and EVEN IF they did read them – what a particular clause means (as written and later interpreted by gov’t agencies
    or courts) is often unknown except to the lobbyists or industries these clauses affect.

    Also, what prevents bankers or military contractors from promising a juicy job to One Term candidates? “We’ll find something for you.”

    Term Limits alone will not solve the problem of corruption or crony capitalism. For Term Limits to be effective – it will have to include
    pre-election training of candidates in the ways
    of DC, and it will have to prevent bribes of
    one term candidates.

    Without these measures, staff will have even more power than they do now. Unnamed staff will be making the decisions.

    Washinton and Jefferson wanted a few gentlemen to ride in off the farm, do the nation’s business in a few months, then return to the farm for spring planting.

    That is not possible now.

    Given the above, I would still vote for term limits.

  • Mava July 15, 2011, 3:54 pm

    Federales aren’t broke. Wake up already. They never needed taxes to pay for anything. They have a fake money system so that they can print fake notes. They force us to accept them. They pretend that the fake notes are actually borrowed from a “private” entity, the FED. The debt, is only a running tally of fake money printed / wealth extorted from the people. The fact that such tally exist, is a consequence of the need of the machinators to pretend they are not just writing bad checks. Foreign debt isn’t debt either. It is not secured, and therefore was gifted. You must ask yourself a question why was it gifted by a foreign government? It was gifted, in exchange of some favor to them, or because they were forced to, in either case, there is no expectation that it needs to be returned.

    The economy is in crisis not because we have hit some invisible line on how much fake money we can print, but because the wealth extraction has reached a rate where it meets the inefficiency introduced by the government and socialism. In other words, we can’t continue to be this stupid, while being this profligate and at the same time have a hole in the pocket this big.

    • roger erickson July 15, 2011, 5:18 pm

      Well said, mostly. Inefficiency introduced by gov = inefficiency introduced by voters.

      To a biologist, the following is a weird, superficially anthropomorphic approach, but perhaps it will resonate with Rick, who seems to think that modeling scalable systems is too implausible to matter to a single investor. [You have to assume he wouldn’t have taken a chance contributing back in 1776.]

      Debt and Deficit in a Nutshell
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei_B5MTJofI

      While idiots keep us distracted over fiat budgets, they are free to scale up the proportion of robbery, and wealth disparity. Why? It won’t scale, but it’s apparently not in their repertoire to actually scale up their own thinking. It is, however, in our long term interest to do so, if, that is, we love our children & grandchildren.

  • Mava July 15, 2011, 3:44 pm

    Fair – an irrational belief in justice that is based on an incorrect marxist assumption that values are subjective and can be compared by a third party. Such “justice” then, requires violence, and it is said, for instance, that “fairness” has occurred, when a violent extortion was accomplished. See “objectivism” and how far you could go using that.

  • John Jay July 15, 2011, 3:40 pm

    At the rate we are going, the Federal government could tax everyone at 100% and still broke. I don’t think there is a solution other than collapse. I think the DC crew are stalling in the hope that:
    1) Fukushima cripples Japan
    2) The Euro zone implodes
    3) China starts to have problems
    What else can they do, a simple exercise in four function math shows there can never be enough tax revenue, especially when the National Debt grows at trillions every year. On the employment front Cisco plans to lay off 10,000 and Unilever is closing a small plant in Clinton, CT laying off a couple of hundred.
    All you can do is watch it all go down.

  • Mava July 15, 2011, 3:37 pm

    Worker – someone who is needing others to provide his tools for him to work. Incapable, unwilling, unable to produce more goods that he consumes (except when no significant time has elapsed yet as is in case of young).

    • Donniemac July 16, 2011, 12:15 pm

      Very cynical and mean spirited. The progression of society from hunter/gathers proves that definition wrong.

  • Jill July 15, 2011, 3:32 pm

    The only way to address the dominance of Special Interest Groups in Congress in a way that seems possible– that is, that will not require current members to vote against their own financial and career interests– is that we voters decide not to vote for anyone who accepts a cent from Special Interests. And that we search high and low in our communities for honorable people to run, people who would act as true public servants.

    Current members won’t vote for term limits, or to meaningful campaign finance reform, any more than anyone else would choose to hurt their own career prospects.

    I agree with D Barber that we should not look to current career politicians for answers to anything other than how to enhance their own careers.

  • D Barber July 15, 2011, 1:17 pm

    The Constitution was written to protect us from politicians, not look to them for the answers. It should be obvious by now that too much government is the fly in the soup, the cat thrown in with the pigeons.
    A starvation diet is what they need.

    • kodiak July 15, 2011, 2:21 pm

      100%

      Our entire august body of elected officials must have a ONE term limit. They would not then have to worry their pretty little heads about EVER being reelected, and could address the business at hand.

      They should NOT have salaries, but a stipend for living.

      They should NOT get a pension.

      They should NOT have extraordinary medical benefits.

      Only at that point would the truly Honorable line up to honor their Country with service.

      Sounds like the Founding Fathers doesn’t it?

  • Edwardo July 15, 2011, 9:43 am

    Gary may choose to ignore your the first stated specific reason why you’d take your chances with The Republican Party but I will be delighted not to.

    “We’d rather take our chances GOP, especially when it comes time to replace a Supreme Court justice.”

    I would never, ever want to take my chances with the likes of the dead eyed, empty headed, and empty robed Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas.

    In the meantime, I will not be voting for anyone who runs for either of the two dominant execrable parties, or the obnoxious Tea Party. I will know the sort of office seeker who is worthy of support when I see it, but, unfortunately, I see no one on the horizon who, for starters is advocating for-forget about a credible advocacy- term limits or vastly shortened election cycles.

    • Benjamin July 15, 2011, 10:07 am

      On term limits, I just don’t see why some are so gung-ho about them. It’s not like agendas only live as long as the person in office. Term limits would just be re-arranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

      As for shortening election cycles, how about this: Instead of destabilizing every day life with intense and ultimately meaningless competition for a political throne, how about we just stablize the dollar? And by that, I mean a market re-weighted silver dollar, fixed by time, by our Congress, through a Coin Act.

    • rico July 15, 2011, 1:38 pm

      The point of term limits is that politicians will be less likely to be in the pocket of their big campaign contributors. Once in office they would be more likely to focus on the people’s business rather than getting re-elected. There would be much less incentive to pander to special interests.

      But it will never happen since career political hacks would have to vote themselves out of a job!

    • Anon July 15, 2011, 3:35 pm

      How about doing away with all “elections” and make “public service” a truly short term service that all “citizens” are “drafted” into for a short/fixed period of time – like jury duty. This would do away with the whole charade of pretending the sociopaths have “our” interests at heart.

      Most politicians spend far too much time and money “pretending” to be doing “good” for their constituents.

      Don’t tell me it takes any kind of “skill” to be a politician.

    • Rick Ackerman July 15, 2011, 4:06 pm

      Can you provide a single example of an empty-headed opinion that Clarence Thomas has written during his 20 years on the Supreme Court?

      That’s what I thought.

    • PhotoRadarScam July 15, 2011, 4:15 pm

      Another point of term limits – it *should* help to keep politicians more honest. For instance, if I were to run for office and win, while I would have very good intentions in the beginning, I can’t say that I’d be the same person after 2 terms. I’d like to think that I’d be, and I hope that I would, but I can see how after being in Washington for even 4 or 5 years, I’d have developed relationships with other politicians that would affect my actions (such as feeling the obligation to help someone out who helped me out, etc), not to mention being worried about being re-elected all of the time. If a politician doesn’t have to worry about being re-elected, it “frees” him up to do what’s right rather than what’s politically correct.

    • Benjamin July 15, 2011, 5:09 pm

      @ rico & PRS,

      Term limits will make corruption less likely? I guess. I mean, we’ve had such exemplary presidents since term limits were impossed on that office…

    • PhotoRadarScam July 15, 2011, 5:53 pm

      The presidential office is not a fair comparison. And there’s another equally important and that is campaign finance. But you can’t tell me that any rep or senator that’s been there a term or two doesn’t owe someone a few favors. Term limits can only help, they can’t hurt.

  • C.C. July 15, 2011, 9:07 am

    Define:

    – Rich (what is the benchmark/number/yearly salary, etc.?)

    – Fairness (to whom and from whom other’s expense?)

    – Workers (What kind of worker? What wage/salary bracket?)

    Ideology isn’t our problem collectively. Ignorance of what makes for a successful transaction between consenting parties is. The basis for a free market – even a free society, hinges on that basic supposition. Failure to understand it is what makes ‘divide & conquer’ a tried and true – and repeatable practice.

    • Robert July 15, 2011, 10:37 pm

      Here, Here!

      C.C for President 2012.

      Just kidding, I wouldn’t do that to poor C.C….

  • Jill July 15, 2011, 6:40 am

    The Special Interest Groups’ Divide and Conquer strategy works so well. Look at you, Gary, and Rick. Only it’s not just you two. It’s almost everybody, sometimes me too.

  • Jill July 15, 2011, 6:36 am

    “At times when the world needs fairness and sacrifice why attack the middle class?”

    For the same reason Obama sides with the banksters and attacks the middle class. Because they are paid to do it. Presidents and Congress persons of both parties are simply legislation salespeople, selling legislation to the highest bidders from Special Interest Groups who finance their campaigns. We vote for folks whose campaigns are financed by Special Interest Groups, and this is the result.

    The voters, taxpayers, workers, and consumers always get thrown under the bus, although they are thrown a bone (that costs the candidate nothing) when the candidate gives them pretty sounding ideologies to listen to. And when the candidate ridicules the opposite party’s politicians– thus giving voters someone to hate–since few, if any, members of either party can be admired. Some hate Pelosi and Reid. Others hate Boehner or someone else.

    I think we Americans need to get focused on who and what we want– rather than continuing to focus on who and what we don’t want. And on solutions that have a chance of working, without regard to ideology.

    Ideology is a story about the world that is comforting in its consistency and familiarity, and in its painting of people like us as good guys and people not like us as bad guys. The problem is that it is an untrue story.

    • fallingman July 15, 2011, 2:39 pm

      Well said…the first part that is.

      I’d love to know the “solutions” that have a chance of working that don’t spring from any view of what’s right or wrong for the government to be engaged in.

      You either believe it’s okay/advisable for the government to have the power to redistribute wealth and tell peaceful people what they can and can’t do…or you don’t. If you believe government should have that power, you’re saying you’re okay with the kind of corporatist government we have now, as a big powerful government will always attract power-hungry sociopaths to seize that power and use it to further their own ends and those of their “supporters.”

      Almost everyone believes in the legitimacy and beneficience of the powerful state and so they get what they get…and they deserve it.

    • Robert July 15, 2011, 10:34 pm

      Ideology is tough…

      There are people- including those right here on Rick’s forum, who would rather spend their time arguing about who should be taxed and who shouldn’t…

      They can’t even pull the blinders off their eyes and clearly focus on the FACT that taxation is theft when it is levied against the individual against their willingness to pay.

      Bottom line, the only legal “persons” who should be taxed without any legal avenue to discourse are corporations. Period. Instead, corporations are increasingly the only persons NOT being taxed at all.

      Fallingman has it right. The rest of you are trying to figure out how to stabilize a rickety structure while ignoring that the foundation is sitting on a bed of quicksand…

  • gary leibowitz July 15, 2011, 5:56 am

    Take your chances with the GOP? Bush, 6 of 8 years with total control, surplus to huge deficit before any debacle in sight. GOP’s 2003 prescription drug program enacted. Biggest tax break to the super rich in history, 10 trillion.

    Yeah I guess I can see where the Republicans have their house in order.

    Why has no one answered my simple questions. How has the rich become so much richer in the last decade than any other time in history, both individuals and corporations? Surely it can’t be because of the high tax brackets and restrictive laws?

    I just don’t get it. At times when the world needs fairness and sacrifice why attack the middle class? I do agree that entitlements should be given to the truly needy and a fairer litmus test should apply but the aim of the GOP is clear. Total dismantling. They propose to entice the young with the notion that the old are their enemy. Lets do away with these silly entitlements that burden the young from getting a decent job. They will not need these entitlements when they get old. They will be smart about their savings.(lol)

    I can guarnatee you that even if all the entitlements were to disappear tomorrow the GOP will find ways to keep rewarding the rich and powerful on the rest of our backs. Is there no end to greed?

    BTW, I haven’t heard much talk about Murdoch’s watergate. The sleaziest media mogul there ever was. A one man trickster that has FOX NEWS converts believing his garbage.

    • Rick Ackerman July 15, 2011, 6:26 am

      So, this sacrifice would be for exactly what? And by whom? Do the sacrifices start with fat cats at the $200,000 level who, with all their lucre, have risen above the mundane financial worries of the middle class?

      Regarding taking my chances with the GOP, you’ve ignored the explicit reasons that I gave. And anyway, what does a President have to do with the state of the economy? Or was Bill Clinton some kind of economic genius?

    • Benjamin July 15, 2011, 9:28 am

      gary leibowitz: “Why has no one answered my simple questions. How has the rich become so much richer in the last decade than any other time in history, both individuals and corporations?”

      And no one on the left ever dares answer my questions…

      Why utterly depend on “pure, concentrated evil” (aka anyone making $200k or more) to take care of the poor? Why, in the lefty way of thinking, do two wrongs make a right? And why redistributive government programs, to those who never had it to steal in the first place?

      On the latter question, the poor actually drain very little when compared to the growing army of govt employees. Add to that the overuse of our armed forces. Debt, ie. So the question is, worded another way, why redistrbute to the poor and then take away from them? Isn’t that Indian-giving? If so (and it is), then what happens when the poor have no more to surrendur to the almighty Debt?

      So, as one can see, there exists a reliance on the corrupt practices of our times. Even if we were to tax just the truly theiving rich, we would still have to rely on theft in order to make every day life “work”. And why in hell endorse _that_?! I thought we had learned to be tired of that BS…

    • martin snell July 15, 2011, 2:09 pm

      Exactly.

      What is astounding is how, with the help of Murdoch’s Faux News, the GOP has been able to get the average person to vote against their own interests by grabbing onto hot button “stupid” issues like abortion and guns and gay marriage.

      Anyone who thinks that balancing the budget can be done without tax increase needs to have their head examined.

      But I’d start with a 50% cut in the military over the next 3 years – then watch all the corporate welfare businesses scream – Boeing, Lockheed etc. about how important government is.

    • JimK July 15, 2011, 2:57 pm

      Gary, a short math lesson is in order – from a Generational perspective. When my Grandfather died in 78, the Federal Estate Tax took nearly half of his land from his heirs, and on the remaining half, we will have paid property taxes equal to half of the remaining land – this works out to a 75% tax on his estate for the two generations below who inherited. Meanwhile, the ranch generated almost no income because most working ranches barely make enough to pay the taxes. If land is sold, it experiences a nearly 1/3 ‘capital gain’ tax, which makes no adjustment for the debasement of the currency that has occurred over the long period that an asset is held – such as the house I bought in Reno and fixed up over nine years and that appreciated 60% while the currency debased similarly, but I had to pay $50k Tax nonetheless. None of this even begins to examine Income Tax or Sales Tax, which, together take away another third or better of a citizen’s winnings or earnings… At what point will you Gary proclaim that ‘the playing field is now level’ wrt tax rate? We are already a Socialist country by our tax rates.

      I suggest you find a way to visit Cuba and see how Communism works out before railing about the evil rich here – watch the bureaucrats being wheeled around in AC buses ‘redistributing the wealth’ while the people outside swelter and can barely afford to refrigerate any of their food. Lots of inspectors making midnight visits and snitches to make sure no one is selling a chicken or sneaking in an extra tourist to sleep without reporting the revenue – gotta catch those greedy rich.

      I suggest the focus should instead be on the open examination of where our money went. Where the bailout money went. What are the conflicts of interest permeating every DC agency supposedly saving us from ourselves and each other. And how we came to tolerate absurd indignities including the probing of our sick old Mothers’ ‘Depends’ and our children’s diapers at the airport. We will submit to anything and we will pay them whatever they say.

      What is left for us is to default – one way or another- on our preposterously large debt, which accrued without being reflected in any real value – instead we have lost productivity and quality of life – not gained. We the people will pick up the pieces – not Washington.

      Hooray for Ron Paul – may he blaze a trail for many, many others to follow at all levels of government.

    • SB July 15, 2011, 5:01 pm

      Gary, sorry, but I’m going to have to answer your question with a question. You actually think that because one person (or corporation) gets richer, that you automatically have to take that money away from someone else, don’t you? That’s how I interpret your question.

      With a direct answer, because the person or corp created something of value for someone else. What does taxes and regulation have to do with this? Who cares? I hope everybody and every corporation pays less and less tax in the future.

      The federal government has shown time after time that they can’t be responsible with our money. The next conclusion is that they shouldn’t get any more of it.

    • PhotoRadarScam July 15, 2011, 5:46 pm

      @Martin:
      Raising taxes in this economy is dangerous and will not help anything. When federal tax receipts exceed 18% of GDP it absolutely kills the economy. We are at 15% right now, which is lower than normal so there is a little room to improve but not a ton. The problem really is on the spending side, which is at 24% of GDP (was about 21% through the 80’s, 19-20% until about 2008. So while you could raise tax receipts a point or two, REAL spending needs to be cut by 30% regardless (none of this BS cutting future budget increases).

      To add to Ricks’ comments, I think people would have less of a problem paying more taxes if we thought it would do any good. Even if they raise taxes, guess what? Next year, and the year after, and the year after, and the year after we’ll STILL BE TALKING about lowering the spending and debt (or trying to), MORE TAX INCREASES, etc., etc. It’s like if you have a kid or a friend who keeps borrowing money from you, and you think they’re turning their life around but after 5 years of giving them money they’re still broke with no job and going nowhere. Do you still want to give them money, and will it do any good? Now if you knew you could give them one more check and they would actually accomplish something with it, you’d gladly give them that money. But the thing is, you know it’s not going to be any different this time.

      The other question is, even after they raise the debt ceiling again, do you really think it will be the last time? Not unless they cut spending immediately by 30%. We’ll be having this same headlines next year about raising it YET AGAIN. Why does it matter if tax collections increase $500B? It’s NOTHING in the grand scheme of things without HUGE spending cuts!

      And if you don’t think lower taxes don’t matter, think again. Many cities and states lure businesses with special tax treatments. My company moved a factory offshore to Malaysia not just because of cheap labor, but because they also gave them a 15 year tax holiday. There were a lot of factors in that decision, but perhaps if the taxes (and regulations and other factors) were a bit lower in the US, the option wouldn’t have looked so appealing. Oppressive tax rates NEVER lead to prosperity. If you think we can tax our way out of this spending and debt situation you are very naive.

    • Larry D July 15, 2011, 6:58 pm

      @Martin,
      Cut 50% of the military budget over three years. Absolutely. Watch Boeing and Lockheed scream bloody murder. Spend the savings on bicycle paths and wind farms. What fun!

      Then watch as those companies are nationalized to protect high paying middle class jobs and national assets !

      Examine my head, if you will. When my income drops, I spend less. Were I to use the office copier to run off a sheet or two of $20 bills to cover the gap, the Secret Service might send me away for a while. It doesn’t take the wisdom of George Soros to understand that reducing overhead in an economic depression is easier than increasing revenues.

      @leibchen – I’ve heard those same paranoid arguments since 1860 or so. Who owns your wealth?

    • martin snell July 16, 2011, 4:29 pm

      What is needed is a major overhaul of spending and taxation. We are well past the point where tinkering will help.

      Cut defense 50% – there is a quick $500 billion right off the top in savings.

      Bring in a VAT (tax consumption, not saving/investment) on most everything except food. Everyone, rich and poor, pays it.

      Get rid of the mortgage interest deduction (a deduction for those well off enough to own houses bought on credit). Why pump up a housing market that then makes American workers less competitive (they need more income for shelter). Lower house prices (and smaller houses) would help American competitiveness.

      Tax gasoline more. 1/2 of the trade deficit is oil. If there is to be any fix for the economy the trade deficit must come down, and reducing oil use is the easiest way (and forget about drilling solving the problem – about 5+ years to get a discovery on line). Oh and stop the ethanol stupidity. Printing money to give to corporate Iowa corn farmers is plain idiotic.


Exit From This Page Back to Trades