The Truth About The 1%

• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;1582025 wrote:You assume taxes fund government spending which is false.

  
  
  "You didn't fund that!!!"
  
  
  ---- obama to the taxpayers
  
  
  
  
  Change we can believe in ...
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;1582066 wrote:"You didn't fund that!!!"
  
  
  ---- obama to the taxpayers
  
  
  
  
  Change we can believe in ...

  If Obama said that, he might actually have some hope for becoming a decent President. Unfortunately he thinks the Federal Government is "broke" like every other delusional soul out there even though that is impossible.
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;1582064 wrote:It is a simple question: should those who receive free benefits > food, shelter, utilities < have to pay some amount of tax on those free benefits? Everyone else has to pay taxes on wages or imputed income, why shouldn't those who receive all of their sustenance, for free, have to pay tax on the value of the benefit? After all, we ALL should pay something.
  
  Please, answer the question.

  Here's a better idea. Just eliminate all welfare entirely and replace it with the Federal Government operating as an employer of last resort.
• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;1582069 wrote:If Obama said that, he might actually have some hope for becoming a decent President. Unfortunately he thinks the Federal Government is "broke" like every other delusional soul out there even though that is impossible.

  
  We should not even keep score with receipts/outlays; just print as much money as everyone wants; we're all winners.
• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;1582070 wrote:Here's a better idea. Just eliminate all welfare entirely and replace it with the Federal Government operating as an employer of last resort.

  
  Here's the truth: under obama the federal government has effectively become the 'employer' of first resort. That is generally what happens when you offer jobs, i.e. free benefits, in return for zero production.
  
  Change we can believe in ...
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;1582074 wrote:We should not even keep score with receipts/outlays; just print as much money as everyone wants; we're all winners.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;1582076 wrote:Here's the truth: under obama the federal government has effectively become the 'employer' of first resort. That is generally what happens when you offer jobs in return for zero production.
  
  Change we can believe in ...

  Your entire universe is made up.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  ^^^The Big Bump is the temporary employees for the Census.
• isadore

  QuakerOats;1582064 wrote:It is a simple question: should those who receive free benefits > food, shelter, utilities < have to pay some amount of tax on those free benefits? Everyone else has to pay taxes on wages or imputed income, why shouldn't those who receive all of their sustenance, for free, have to pay tax on the value of the benefit? After all, we ALL should pay something.
  
  Please, answer the question.

  Now that seems like an unbelievable cruel idea to take part of the minimal amounts of money given to those in need. They are Americans of very limited means.
  Gosh you believe everyone should pay something. I don't
  I also believe these folks should not have to pay.
  Military Disability Retirement Pay received as a pension, annuity or similar allowance for personal injury or sickness resulting from active service in the armed forces should not be included in taxable income if any of the following conditions apply:
  

  1. You were entitled to receive a disability payment before September 25, 1975;
  2. You were a member of the military (active or reserves) or were under a binding written commitment to become a member on September 24, 1975;
  3. You receive disability payments for a combat-related injury. This is a personal injury or sickness that:
     • Resulted directly from armed conflict,
     • Took place while you were engaged in extra-hazardous service,
     • Took place under conditions simulating, including training exercises such as maneuvers, or
     • Was caused by an instrumentality of war.
       
       
       http://myarmybenefits.us.army.mil/Home/Benefit_Library/Federal_Benefits_Page/Federal_Taxes_on_Veterans_Disability_or_Military_Retirement_Pensions.html?serv=147

  But Ebenezer obviously you do.
• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;1582084 wrote:Your entire universe is made up.
  
  
  
  
  ^^^The Big Bump is the temporary employees for the Census.

  
  
  I guess you missed it; we're not talking about actual employees; we are talking about pseudo employees ...... all those receiving living sustenance, tax free, courtesy of the producers. Whew ....... get in the game.
• QuakerOats

  isadore;1582091 wrote:Now that seems like an unbelievable cruel idea to take part of the minimal amounts of money given to those in need. They are Americans of very limited means.
  Gosh you believe everyone should pay something.

  
  Most workers, even those at the bottom of the ladder, pay something. So why should the janitor, the waitress, the mechanic, the bus driver etc.. all have to pay something, but not the freeloaders who in many cases are earning, on an imputed income basis, far more than all of the above who are busting their ass to make ends meet. If you get free housing, free food, free utilities, you better damn well pay something.
  
  
  [And no, we are not talking about military personnel >> they EARN everything they get; quit trying to spin the debate just because you don't have the truth on your side].
• isadore

  QuakerOats;1582099 wrote:Most workers, even those at the bottom of the ladder, pay something. So why should the janitor, the waitress, the mechanic, the bus driver etc.. all have to pay something, but not the freeloaders who in many cases are earning, on an imputed income basis, far more than all of the above who are busting their ass to make ends meet. If you get free housing, free food, free utilities, you better damn well pay something.
  
  
  [And no, we are not talking about military personnel >> they EARN everything they get; quit trying to spin the debate just because you don't have the truth on your side].

  You and the truth do not have an acquaintance.
  You write this

  QuakerOats wrote:Relying on the 1% to pay for everyone else's laziness is a mighty dangerous game

  But when you got called on it
  Then you wrote this

  QuakerOats wrote:I did not say everyone but the 1% are lazy

  You wrote this
  
  

  QuakerOats wrote:After all, we ALL should pay something.

  
  You emphasized ALL, you capitalized it.
  Then you got called on it

  QuakerOats wrote:we are not talking about military personnel

  Ebenezer
  AS most of us know those working folks at the bottom end of the pay scale, receive benefits. Gosh its only way many of the folks the McDonalds and Walmart can get by.
  Some of the workers are receiving earned income credit.
  None of them should be taxed.
  Nor should any veterans benefits.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1581985 wrote:The U.S. Dollar will never cease to be the reserve currency so long as we run persistent annual trade deficits buying up the wealth of the world with U.S. dollars.

  This is simply moronic. Who says such a thing? I doubt even Krugman.
  
  You do realize that like 90% of treasury issues are being bought buy the fed currently? Where did all that global demand for the dollar go?
• gut

  Manhattan Buckeye;1581988 wrote:
  Do you want to be any of those countries? Japan is a catastrophe social-wise, UK is getting there and Australia has held its head above water by completely halting any immigration.

  
  Australia, and Canada for that matter, have really been rescued by the global resources boom. And the US has benefited a little as well, but of course we are too good not to wage a war on coal and oil.
• gut

  QuakerOats;1582074 wrote:We should not even keep score with receipts/outlays; just print as much money as everyone wants; we're all winners.

  This would be funny, if Boatshoes didn't actually believe it. In his world, the high inflation of the 70's/80's never happened and never will. The rest of the world will just keep paying us to buy their products, because deadbeat customers NEVER get cut-off.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1582111 wrote:This is simply moronic. Who says such a thing? I doubt even Krugman.
  
  You do realize that like 90% of treasury issues are being bought buy the fed currently? Where did all that global demand for the dollar go?

  The Fed buys them after the fact and that is part of why your fear of U.S. treasury securities is so moronic. The FED can effectively delete treasuries whenever it wants. And, there is always demand for U.S. treasuries because they are the safest savings accounts in the world and it allows people to remove their dollars from banks that can fail and put them into Savings Accounts that never can.
  
  It is a simple fact. The Chinese and the Japanese will send us all of their real output and we pay them with dollars. They've got to put those dollars somewhere. They can either put them in U.S. Treasuries which are always the safest place to park U.S. dollars or they can buy condos in Florida or go to Disney Land. Either way we win.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1582159 wrote:The Fed buys them after the fact and that is part of why your fear of U.S. treasury securities is so moronic. .

  No, it's your assumption that inflation is permanently dead (even temporarily is highly doutbful, as many see inflation in asset prices, which is excluded from CPI).
  
  And, no, the fed doesn't just "delete" treasuries. What you are referring to is monetizing the debt, something that is wildly unpopular and not something advocated for those who believe in stable and strong currencies. It is far, far from the trivial and benign issue you make it out to be.
  
  You also miss the most obvious point - the fed is having to buy a bunch of issues precisely BECAUSE Japan and China are not "scooping them up" as you claim. It's as if the span of your experience and knowledge is trapped permanently in 90's thinking.
  
  Something to keep in mind about your hero Krugman - he advocated creating a housing bubble to stimulate recovery from the internet bubble. And in your world, asset bubbles don't happen because you're trapped in the last century.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1582113 wrote:This would be funny, if Boatshoes didn't actually believe it. In his world, the high inflation of the 70's/80's never happened and never will. The rest of the world will just keep paying us to buy their products, because deadbeat customers NEVER get cut-off.

  No, I've never said that the high inflation of the 70's did not happen but that it was not a demand-pull inflation created deficits or the FED creating too many dollars to chase too few goods and therein lies the difference and we've already had this conversation not that you're interested in rational discussion. Hope this helps.
  
  There is zero correlation between Deficits and Inflation alone.
  
  
  
  If The Federal Reserve is doing its job, it can always prevent demand-pull inflation.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1582166 wrote:No, I've never said that the high inflation of the 70's did not happen but that it was not a demand-pull inflation created deficits or the FED creating too many dollars to chase too few goods and therein lies the difference and we've already had this conversation not that you're interested in rational discussion.

  Yeah, we've had this conversation but you didn't learn anything. You have a simplistic, at best, grasp of inflation factors and how it occurs. You also are fixated on the concept of inflation as measured purely by CPI, when asset bubbles have caused the last two recessions in the US.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1582166 wrote:
  If The Federal Reserve is doing its job, it can always prevent demand-pull inflation.

  
  LMAO, and there's the money quote. How is the fed at preventing asset bubbles? You are also demonstrating extraordinary faith that the Fed is becoming more independent, as opposed to less independent.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1582164 wrote:No, it's your assumption that inflation is permanently dead (even temporarily is highly doutbful, as many see inflation in asset prices, which is excluded from CPI).
  
  And, no, the fed doesn't just "delete" treasuries. What you are referring to is monetizing the debt, something that is wildly unpopular and not something advocated for those who believe in stable and strong currencies. It is far, far from the trivial and benign issue you make it out to be.
  
  You also miss the most obvious point - the fed is having to buy a bunch of issues precisely BECAUSE Japan and China are not "scooping them up" as you claim. It's as if the span of your experience and knowledge is trapped permanently in 90's thinking.
  
  Something to keep in mind about your hero Krugman - he advocated creating a housing bubble to stimulate recovery from the internet bubble. And in your world, asset bubbles don't happen because you're trapped in the last century.

  LOL Krugman is not my "hero" by the way. I'm a proponent of Post-Keynesian economics and have been recently intrigued by Market Monetarism...Krugman is New Keynesian who only advocates the use of expansionary fiscal policy at the zero bound. He is a deficit hawk when interest rates are above zero.
  
  But for what it's worth, the canard that Krugman actually advocated a housing bubble as you and every other right winger implies is nonsense. This is the article it is from:
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html
  

  If the story of the current U.S. economy were made into a movie, it would look something like ''55 Days at Peking.'' A ragtag group of ordinary people -- America's consumers -- is besieged by a rampaging horde, the forces of recession. To everyone's surprise, they have held their ground.But they can't hold out forever. Will the rescue force -- resurgent business investment -- get there in time?
  The screenplay for that kind of movie always ratchets up the tension. The besieged citadel fends off assault after assault, but again and again rescue is delayed. And so it has played out in practice. Consumers kept spending as the Internet bubble collapsed; they kept spending despite terrorist attacks. Taking advantage of low interest rates, they refinanced their houses and took the proceeds to the shopping malls.
  But predictions of an imminent recovery in business investment keep turning out to be premature. Most businesses are in no hurry to go on another spending spree. And those that might have started to invest again have been deterred by sliding stock prices, widening bond spreads and revelations about corporate scandal.
  
  Will the rescuers arrive in the nick of time? Not necessarily. This movie may not be ''55 Days at Peking'' after all. It may be ''A Bridge Too Far.''
  A few months ago the vast majority of business economists mocked concerns about a ''double dip,'' a second leg to the downturn. But there were a few dogged iconoclasts out there, most notably Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley. As I've repeatedly said in this column, the arguments of the double-dippers made a lot of sense. And their story now looks more plausible than ever.
  The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
  Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.
  On the surface, the sharp drop in the economy's growth, from 5 percent in the first quarter to 1 percent in the second, is disheartening. Under the surface, it's quite a lot worse. Even in the first quarter, investment and consumer spending were sluggish; most of the growth came as businesses stopped running down their inventories. In the second quarter, inventories were the whole story: final demand actually fell. And lately straws in the wind that often give advance warning of changes in official statistics, like mall traffic, have been blowing the wrong way.
  Despite the bad news, most commentators, like Mr. Greenspan, remain optimistic. Should you be reassured?
  Bear in mind that business forecasters are under enormous pressure to be cheerleaders: ''I must confess to being amazed at the venom my double dip call still elicits,'' Mr. Roach wrote yesterday at cbsmarketwatch.com. We should never forget that Wall Street basically represents the sell side.
  Bear in mind also that government officials have a stake in accentuating the positive. The administration needs a recovery because, with deficits exploding, the only way it can justify that tax cut is by pretending that it was just what the economy needed. Mr. Greenspan needs one to avoid awkward questions about his own role in creating the stock market bubble.
  But wishful thinking aside, I just don't understand the grounds for optimism. Who, exactly, is about to start spending a lot more? At this point it's a lot easier to tell a story about how the recovery will stall than about how it will speed up. And while I like movies with happy endings as much as the next guy, a movie isn't realistic unless the story line makes sense.

  So your assertion that Krugman actually called for the FED to create a housing bubble is grouned in ignorance. My guess is that you're repeating it from an Op-Ed you read in the Wall Street Journal. It is obvious that he is being sarcastic and is quoting the guy from PIMCO and goes on to castigate Greenspan for the stock bubble later on.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1582168 wrote:LMAO, and there's the money quote. How is the fed at preventing asset bubbles? You are also demonstrating extraordinary faith that the Fed is becoming more independent, as opposed to less independent.

  Asset Price inflation is not a demand-pull inflation. Like I have said in other posts. Growing the economy through asset prices is not the best option. Would be much more prudent to simply cut taxes but in the face of an ignorant Congress the FED has to use alternative channels of monetary policy in order to meet its targets.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1582167 wrote:Yeah, we've had this conversation but you didn't learn anything. You have a simplistic, at best, grasp of inflation factors and how it occurs. You also are fixated on the concept of inflation as measured purely by CPI, when asset bubbles have caused the last two recessions in the US.

  It is simple. That is not inflation. Countries with large trade deficits like the United States can avoid asset bubbles by running adequate national deficits to provide enough currency to the domestic economy to offset demand leakages that will allow nGDP to stay on trend without having to use alternative channels of monetary policy that you always complain about.
  
  If you don't want asset bubbles...the choice is very simple...just cut taxes.
  
  But if you don't want to run adequate deficits we cannot expect the Federal Reserve not to try do whatever it can to meet its legal mandates.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1582164 wrote:And, no, the fed doesn't just "delete" treasuries. What you are referring to is monetizing the debt, something that is wildly unpopular and not something advocated for those who believe in stable and strong currencies. It is far, far from the trivial and benign issue you make it out to be.

  Yes, the FED is effectively deleting treasuries while retaining the power to, in effect, issue securities in the future if need be to contract the money supply. Whatever interest the FED earns on its treasury holdings it just returns it to the Treasury. It is the same economic effect as if they were deleted and the FED had the power to issue its own securities in the event it wanted to sell them back to the open market.
  
  And I think Former Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Frank N. Newman has it right:
  

  In any case, the treasury can always raise money by issuing securities. The bond vigilantes really have it backwards. There is always more demand for treasuries than can be allocated from a limited supply of new issues in each auction; the winners in the auctions get to place their funds in the safest most liquid form of instrument there is for US dollars; the losers are stuck keeping some of their funds in banks, with bank risk.

• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;1582098 wrote:I guess you missed it; we're not talking about actual employees; we are talking about pseudo employees ...... all those receiving living sustenance, tax free, courtesy of the producers. Whew ....... get in the game.

  Like I said...just eliminate the welfare state and offer paid work to anyone willing and able to be productive. Pay them to do the same type of work an E-1 Boatswain's Mate does on a ship but in their local community.
  
  According to you:
  

  [And no, we are not talking about military personnel >> they EARN everything they get; quit trying to spin the debate just because you don't have the truth on your side].

  I take it that includes Boatswain's Mates. I was a Boatswain's Mate. Most of us stare out into the sea all day long. Surely we can find work that creates just as much national wealth here in our local communities for these alleged moochers you despise so much to do.
  
  Job's like "Boatswain's Mate" are basically mini job guarantees anyway. Let's just extend that type of socially valuable work beyond just the Navy.
  
  
  No more alleged moochers living off the Public Purse without providing socially valuable work in return, no more welfare state and no more incessant complaining from QuakerOats. Everybody wins.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  BoatShoes;1582070 wrote:Here's a better idea. Just eliminate all welfare entirely and replace it with the Federal Government operating as an employer of last resort.

  And the money comes from where? China?
  
  edit - it is a good thing I am attracted to Asian women, they are going to own us under Boatshoes and the current administration policies. I will be happy to be a sex slave.