• Here is a link to the full explanation: https://rollitup.org/t/welcome-back-did-you-try-turning-it-off-and-on-again.1104810/

The Progressive Income Tax in U.S. History

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Yes leveraging the debt seems like a good idea, except if the bets are bad ones we stand to lose 100 times what we put in don't we? the plan for a infrastructure bank would only work in the perfect world, as is it will fail and the US Taxpayer will be on the hook for even more debt.

Borrowing money makes Bankers stronger and more influential, it doesn't matter who is doing the borrowing. We need to stop borrowing and digging the hole ever deeper.
 

mame

Well-Known Member
Yes leveraging the debt seems like a good idea, except if the bets are bad ones we stand to lose 100 times what we put in don't we? the plan for a infrastructure bank would only work in the perfect world, as is it will fail and the US Taxpayer will be on the hook for even more debt.

Borrowing money makes Bankers stronger and more influential, it doesn't matter who is doing the borrowing. We need to stop borrowing and digging the hole ever deeper.
Well, roads and bridges are pretty safe investments though dont you think? It's not like high speed rail, which could fail.. IDK I see the idea as a sign that lawmakers are getting desperate to get stimulus spending through without calling it "stimulus" more than anything but it'd create jobs in the short term and if it did end up solvent in the long term it could prove to be a model of public-private partnership. Worst case scenario the idea fails and costs more money than intended but either way you get the short term stimulus and whatever long term benefits gained by having a bridge at X location or repairing roads, which would eventually be done anyway.
 

DrFever

New Member
either way tax rates were much higher back then and the government could actually afford to do it's job well.

disposable income creates demand. the US became great b/c a LOT of people had disposable income.

tax cuts to the rich only ensure that more of that disposable income is concentrated in less and less hands..... it's not good for the economy and we have to change the policy if we want the economy to turn around.

not that complicated my man....
This brings us to the issue of collateral. We've borrowed so much money the lenders are getting nervous. Back during the Johnson administration Charles DeGaulle demanded the United States collateralize the loans owed to France in gold and started carting out the bullion from the treasury. This caused several other nations to demand the same and President Nixon had to slam the gold window closed or the treasury would have been emptied, since the United States was even then in debt for more money than the treasury could cover in gold. But Nixon had to collateralize that debt somehow, and he hit upon the plan of quietly setting aside huge tracts of American land with their mineral rights in reserve to cover the outstanding debts. But since the American people were already angered over the war in Vietnam, Nixon couldn't very well admit that he was apportioning off chunks of the United States to the holders of foreign debt. So, Nixon invented the Environmental Protection Agency and passed draconian environmental laws which served to grab land with vast natural resources away from the owners and lock it away, and even more, prove to the holders of the foreign debt that US citizens were not drilling. mining, or otherwise developing those resources. From that day to this, as the government sinks deeper into debt, the government grabs more and more land, declares it a wilderness or "roadless area" or "heritage river" or "wetlands" or any one of over a dozen other such obfuscated labels, but in the end the result is the same. We The People may not use the land, in many cases are not even allowed to enter the land. This is not about conservation, it is about collateral. YOUR land is being stolen by the government and used to secure loans the government really had no business taking out in the first place. Given that the government cannot get out of debt, and is collateralizing more and more land to avoid foreclosure, the day is not long off when the people of the United States will one day wake up and discover they are no longer citizens, but tenants. The following map shows the current extent of all lands grabbed by the government under the guise of environmentalism.


 

redivider

Well-Known Member
This brings us to the issue of collateral. We've borrowed so much money the lenders are getting nervous. Back during the Johnson administration Charles DeGaulle demanded the United States collateralize the loans owed to France in gold and started carting out the bullion from the treasury. This caused several other nations to demand the same and President Nixon had to slam the gold window closed or the treasury would have been emptied, since the United States was even then in debt for more money than the treasury could cover in gold. But Nixon had to collateralize that debt somehow, and he hit upon the plan of quietly setting aside huge tracts of American land with their mineral rights in reserve to cover the outstanding debts. But since the American people were already angered over the war in Vietnam, Nixon couldn't very well admit that he was apportioning off chunks of the United States to the holders of foreign debt. So, Nixon invented the Environmental Protection Agency and passed draconian environmental laws which served to grab land with vast natural resources away from the owners and lock it away, and even more, prove to the holders of the foreign debt that US citizens were not drilling. mining, or otherwise developing those resources. From that day to this, as the government sinks deeper into debt, the government grabs more and more land, declares it a wilderness or "roadless area" or "heritage river" or "wetlands" or any one of over a dozen other such obfuscated labels, but in the end the result is the same. We The People may not use the land, in many cases are not even allowed to enter the land. This is not about conservation, it is about collateral. YOUR land is being stolen by the government and used to secure loans the government really had no business taking out in the first place. Given that the government cannot get out of debt, and is collateralizing more and more land to avoid foreclosure, the day is not long off when the people of the United States will one day wake up and discover they are no longer citizens, but tenants. The following map shows the current extent of all lands grabbed by the government under the guise of environmentalism.


omg, you aren't really arguing that the government is collateralizing our debt with pieces of land expropriated by the EPA????


i thought the iowa letter signing was enough, but what the fuck is happenign to conservative political thinking????????????????????????????????? demanded that we aportion our natural resources as collateral??????

collateral only exists in private lending, government lending is backed up by something bigger. our constitution. our full faith and credit is held up by the same constitution conservatives claim to be defending.

collateral for public debt.... ithought i heard everything.... lol...
 

DrFever

New Member
omg, you aren't really arguing that the government is collateralizing our debt with pieces of land expropriated by the EPA????


i thought the iowa letter signing was enough, but what the fuck is happenign to conservative political thinking????????????????????????????????? demanded that we aportion our natural resources as collateral??????

collateral only exists in private lending, government lending is backed up by something bigger. our constitution. our full faith and credit is held up by the same constitution conservatives claim to be defending.

collateral for public debt.... ithought i heard everything.... lol...
During the 80s, as exports dropped, and jobs moved from manufacturing to lower paying "service sector" jobs, the US tax base declined. In order to keep the jobless rate from rising, a massive defense program called the Strategic Defense Initiative was cranked up, but since this program produced no exportable product, it produced no taxable sales revenues, and hence the money poured into the project accelerated the government decline into debt. Because manufacturing was on the decline, fewer start-up companies were approaching the lending institutions, so the government loosened up the rules (while increasing the insurable deposit limit) to allow "investments" in more high risk ventures, most of which turned out to be frauds, or worse, money laundering operations for drug criminals. This includes Whitewater, Flowerwood, and Castle Grande. Despite shifting the S&L loss primarily onto the taxpayers (to reassure foreign investors that the taxpayers still made America a safe place to park their surplus cash) the government plunged further into debt. In the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations, the United States went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor. Many of those nations which had enjoyed huge trade surpluses started loaning that profit back to the United States with the stipulation that we work on our manufacturing, clean up our infrastructure, raise taxes, in short, clean up our act, so that investment in America makes sense! However, we didn't quite do that.
 

DrFever

New Member
In short, the United States is in deep trouble. We have lost a huge amount of our manufacturing capacity, and those products we still make do not compete well on the world market, despite the steady devaluation of the dollar. In short we have vast debts to pay and little to pay them with. Like the foolish Farmer we have sold the machinery that allowed us to prosper, and we stand around shaking our investment portfolios back and forth in the hopes that the money inside will somehow grow all by itself. It won't. It never has. The very best that can be said is that money gets moved from one person to the other. Those nations and banks to whom we owe money have been very patient indeed with us. They know that our economies are so tightly entwined that what hurts America will hurt them. But sooner or later, possibly after a market crash, someone, in order to pay their own debts, will demand their loans to the United States be paid. Rather than get caught with "bad paper", there will be a run on the United States government. In addition to the government debt of $14 trillion, our businesses are home to trillions more in foreign investment, kept here by the promise that the American taxpayer will be made to cover all losses. But with our manufacturing in decline and our schools producing far more lawyers than anything else, it should be obvious to the prudent observer that the American taxpayer, even if so inclined, may not be able to cover the losses of their own government, let alone a foreign investor. That has to be making them nervous as well. This brings us to the "equities markets", most notably the stock market. Over the last several years a constant media harangue has assured us that the soaring numbers of the stock market are the sole measure of how good our economy is. But close examination of those high-priced stocks reveals that most are heavily over-valued; their price the result of market forces rather than underlying worth (earnings ability). Amazon.com, as one example, has had a terrific run-up of its stock price, even though the company itself has yet to show a profit. The government has admitted to using covert means to prevent a market downturn; to keep the stock prices at an artificially high and overvalued level, in order to wave those impressive numbers about as "proof" that everything is okay so that the taxpayers go back to work and pay more taxes. But in order to keep those stock prices up above their actual worth, demand must be maintained to keep the prices high. In other words, NEW investors must constantly be brought into the bottom of the pyramid to keep the prices of the stocks at the top from dropping. Hence the onslaught of commercials luring neophyte investors into the stock market via "online trading". Like any Ponzi scheme, the stock market will collapse when no more new buyers can be dragged in at the bottom. As the market starts to stutter, governments (most recently Britain) have moved to dump huge reserves of gold onto the world market to depress gold prices and deter investors from deserting the stock market for gold. Some years back I worked on the film version of "The Day The Bubble Burst", and in between playing a stock broker, I got to spend some time with the show's consultant, Mr. William Hupt, who had been on the trading floor in 1929 as it all fell apart. He still had, framed, that last strip of ticker tape that ushered in the Great Depression, and he shared some stories which have a bearing on what is going on today. The first story Bill shared is that there had been early indications of a dangerously over-valued market, running to deep on margin, and like the Plunge Protection Team, the largest investment houses, in particular the House of Morgan, attempted to reverse the early corrections by purchasing large blocks of stock in order to create market demand and drive the prices back up. It worked all but the last time. The second story Bill shared was that a friend of his, riding up to his office in September of 1929, overheard the elevator operator chatting about his own stock portfolio, and his investments. Something about that image of an elevator operator playing the market set off warning signals, and Bill's friend immediately liquidated his entire portfolio, just in time to miss the great crash. Many people, including the actor Charlie Chaplin, had recognized the "recruitment" of that segment of society that did NOT have risk capital as new investors as a desperate attempt to prop up an overvalued market, and got out in time to save their own personal fortunes.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Well, roads and bridges are pretty safe investments though dont you think? It's not like high speed rail, which could fail.. IDK I see the idea as a sign that lawmakers are getting desperate to get stimulus spending through without calling it "stimulus" more than anything but it'd create jobs in the short term and if it did end up solvent in the long term it could prove to be a model of public-private partnership. Worst case scenario the idea fails and costs more money than intended but either way you get the short term stimulus and whatever long term benefits gained by having a bridge at X location or repairing roads, which would eventually be done anyway.
A road to nowhere is a shitty investment IMO, so are bridges that are redundant and rarely used. Ones that are used and needed do make a good investment, but again you are relying on government to do the job, guaranteed failure by the track record they have lately.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
nodrama missed the part where we said how america's infrastructure is crumbling.

that's right. not too much time has to pass before we have a better chance of giving what the Army core of engineers considers a 'passing' grade to a bridge in Chile than you do in the US. that doesn't worry you??? it should.

i don't know what version of american history you are getting all of this from, but free-trade agreements led to trade deficits, de-regulated financial markets is leading to uncertainty, and the pro-rich, screw the poor policies of republicans (hiding behind a veil of social conservatism) can really be blamed for all our problems.

'trickle down economics'??? really??? in a capitalist system where everything operates in order to generate profits???? you have to be shitting me....
 

hazorazo

New Member
You want to return to the old policies? That means NO INCOME TAX!!! The country was founded on ZERO income Tax, and it worked that way for 140 years, which by the way is much longer than WITH the income tax. Sure sure, the government gets larger and more powerful the more taxes it receives, but I declare it is not the Government that makes this country great, but the people who occupy it.

Just to set a fact straight here, the USA has NEVER EVER EVER been the largest nation. Not once.
Looks like No Drama could not take the dare.....We became the greatest nation in the 1900's and a world power at the same time. Try and use that as an example.
 

hazorazo

New Member
They should get rid of income tax- they can charge a sales tax on all items that are not made in the U.S.A. at the point of sale
The rich would find ways of ordering products to get around it, and then the poor would be the only ones paying tax on EVERY DOLLAR THEY HAVE. The rich save their money, because they have excess. The poor would end up poorer. I find it hard to believe that you cannot do the math, so I will just assume that you care more about a few more dollars in the rich peoples' pockets than the future of your country.....kind of silly.
 

tomcatjones

Active Member
So, if one works his/her ass off to get a great education and/or learns a trade, and through this effort attains wealth, how on earth does that hold a poor person down? Would one of the Progressives in this forum please explain? Thanks.

well the higher education system through federal and private loans and the fact that all colleges are not about education first but money first. is really just indentured servitude and i was lied to all my life... btw. poli sci/ history teaching is the field i wanted to be in. and soc studies is one of the ones they cut first. i will be working to get out of the debt the majority of the next couple years - we start out in debt and they like to continue that trend
 

mame

Well-Known Member
A road to nowhere is a shitty investment IMO, so are bridges that are redundant and rarely used. Ones that are used and needed do make a good investment, but again you are relying on government to do the job, guaranteed failure by the track record they have lately.
That's true, we dont want to build shit that isn't going to be used. In P-town there is supposed to be a bridge set up to cross the portland-vancouver border to alleviate traffic on the most used bridge on the I-5... I'm 100% sure everyone and their grandma is going to want to use that new bridge, because the first one is always fucking packed. Also, in P-town there was The Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Program which not only created a fuckton of jobs (my dad had steady work on this job for quite a while haha) but it improved our system into one of the best(or so I hear). These are good investments IMO, the kinds of investments I'm sure every state in the U.S. could make without ever building a bridge to nowhere.
 
Top