Third Party & Independents Archives

Austerity: Just what we don't need, delivered by people who won't be harmed by it

We keep hearing about austerity measures being implemented in countries all over the world, desperately trying to reign in spending to combat enormous, out-of-control budget deficits and national debt.

Not only is America slithering dangerously toward a double-dip recession, but so is nearly all of Europe. Even Europe’s strongest core economies — Germany, France, and the Netherlands — are being pummeled with bad news and contracting in response.

So what do the leaders of these countries do? Cut! Slash! Impose radical austerity measures immediately!

But who do we see those austerity measures NOT being imposed upon? The people who are imposing them!

We have the members of Congress - who are paid an average of $186,375 per year plus a $491,000 benefits package - indignantly raging against "wasteful government spending" and demanding that assistance programs for America's poverty-stricken need to be slashed and gutted; they insist that pay and benefits for America's teachers, and firemen, and police officers, and paramedics, are all bloated and are nested at the very root of America's financial crisis.

Does any one of them have the integrity or sense of sacrifice they demand of others to step up and suggest that THEIR pay and benefits be cut? Don't be ridiculous ... how can we get "the best and brightest" into Congress unless they're grotesquely overpaid and excessively benefitted?

Think about the U.S. Congress right now from a performance/merit perspective. Can you honestly say that there's a single one of them who is rightfully EARNING their paycheck and those ludicrous perks and 14 weeks of paid vacation per year?

Yesterday, Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich (the GOP's own non-rebel-without-a-clue) raged against "Washington elitism" and how the influence of mega-wealth, extravagance, opulence and arrogance was literally at the heart of America's financial struggle.

The fact that Gingrich released that "rage" at a $25,000-per-plate fundraiser luncheon in the Grand Ball Room of the Heritage Foundation national headquarters, which just happens to be the largest and most well-funded lobbyist organization in the country ... well, the irony and hypocrisy seems - as usual - to be lost on the far right fan base.

We have Warren Buffet, arguably the wealthiest man in the world, saying flat-out that America needs to raise taxes on its wealthiest citizens. Does the rabid base of the far right-wing consider the source of that message? Do they stop to think, "Hmmmm ... this guy makes more in an hour than I'll make in my entire life. Maybe he knows more about economics than I do, or anyone I know does, or any of the campaign kewpie dolls kn ow"? No, they knee-jerk label him a "traitor" and "a stinking liberal" and wave their mis-spelled protest signs with demands that they're too stupid to realize will only hurt themselves.

Austerity, defined, means "a severe, drastic and hurtful practice or set of practices, reduced availability of luxuries and consumer goods, esp when brought about by government policy." Couple that with the idiotic American spin on austerity of "everything needs to be cut ... except *my* stuff," and you've got a mathematically perfect formula for disaster.

As any practicing economist who isn't paid by one lobby group or another will tell you; cutting public spending when they should be spending more to counteract the drastic slowing of private spending is the WRONG way to go.

The United States has been moving in the same bizarre direction as Germany, France and the Netherlands. Cutbacks by state and local governments have all but negated the federal government's original stimulus, and there isn't a soul in Washington or out on the campaign trail who is talking seriously about anything resembling a common-sense solution.

The pathetic, purely party-before-country debacle two weeks ago over increasing the debt limit has produced precisely the opposite effect: a Rube-Goldberg-like process for capping spending rather than increasing it, and a public that's being sold the Republican lie that less government spending means more jobs. The "job creators" have been given literally TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAX CUTS since 1982. And, thanks largely to the mass outsourcing of jobs courtesy of the dozens of loopholes in George W. Bush's "Jobs for America" program, America has LOST MORE THAN 28 MILLION JOBS.

Governments on both sides of the Atlantic are grossly in debt. But policy makers on both sides seem to have forgotten that economic growth is the most time-proven and effective solution.

Public debt has meaning only in relation to a nation's gross domestic product (GDP). When more people are working, more companies are profiting, and economies are expanding, revenues pour into national treasuries because people at ALL levels of that economy are CONTRIBUTING to that economy.

When economies stop growing or contract, the opposite occurs. Economies descend into vicious cycles of slower growth, lower tax revenues, spending cuts and austerity programs ... which lead to even slower growth. But politicians refuse to acknowledge that. Instead, they opt to shovel their partisan lies down their constituents throats and blindly ignore the facts that are right in front of them. Idiotic rhetoric has supplanted intelligent courses of action.

Oh, the "job creators" have created jobs, alright. They've just created them in China and Singapore and Malaysia, where workers get 20 cents a day and no benefits, and ... *gasp* ... ever-so-amazingly, corporate profits have resultingly skyrocketed to unprecedented record levels.

It's gotten so out-of-hand that the fate of entire global currency systems can be changed by a whisper. Remember the scare two weeks ago that France was going to teeter on bankruptcy and that French financial institutions were going to be boycotted and denied credit from Chinese financial institutions, and we saw the Dow plummet 560 points? *ALL* of that was because of rumors that started by people who had read a series of FICTION ARTICLES in an obscure French newsletter.

When growth is slowing so dramatically and unemployment is already high, monetary policy can't possibly do it alone. Spending cuts alone won't solve the problem. Raising taxes alone won't solve the problem. THe INTELLIGENT solution, as anyone who doesn't buy into the "my party is right and your party wants to destroy America" nonsense can tell you, MUST include a HEALTHY combination of BOTH.

Yes, government spending on many entitlements (EXCEPT for Social Security, which has contributed NOT ONE RED CENT to the debt) is bloated and ineffectual and corrupt. But so is the wealth-worshipping cut-taxes-and-hoard mentality of the corpocratic-pandering right-wing and their self-defeating retarded cousins in the TEA party.

Without an *expansionary* fiscal policy that initiates and promotes growth, low interest rates don't mean squat. What difference does a low interest rate make if nobody can get a loan?

Companies won't borrow in order to expand and hire more workers unless they have reasonable certainty that there will be customers to buy their products. Consumers won't borrow money to spend on goods and services unless they're reasonably confident they'll have jobs. And the current political mindset of "pretend that neither one of those factors is actually happening and instead focus on wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage" is about as stupid an approach as there can be.

I have a close friend who is probably the most pure capitalist I've ever known, and he's torn by his business aspirations and what he sees happening to his personal checkbook every month. Even he believes the band-aid practices and the endless stream of vapid campaign-slogan sound bites are going to steer America directly into what he calls, "the Zombie Apocalypse."

Austerity literally forces countries to destroy their own infrastructure - as well as their opportunities - from within. It's a snake eating itself.

And if America doesn't wake up VERY soon and FORCE it's government to SERVE America instead of themselves, that snake will quickly devour itself entirely, until there's literally nothing left ... for anyone.

Posted by Gary St. Lawrence at August 17, 2011 2:54 PM
Comments
Comment #327798

Gary writes; “What difference does a low interest rate make if nobody can get a loan?”

What difference does an entrepreneur find between the desire to open a new business and facing regulations and red tape that could take months or years, and a significant amount of start-up capital, before ever hiring a single employee?

The dem/lib answer is almost always more government spending. Abolishing useless and costly regulations cost the taxpayer nothing and could help greatly in creating new private jobs.

And, ever more business strangling regulations are in the pipe line. I am not talking about clean air and water regulations, but the myriad of others that serve no useful purpose.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2011 4:19 PM
Comment #327807

Don’t blow a gasket, Gary. When viewed in light of globalisation we are on schedule and everything is ok. It will take perhaps another 20-30 years to get the world harmonized, normalized where every nation is on the same footing and ready to play in the new world economy / new world order.

The whole thing could be made much easier if the middle class workers would just agree to $5-6/hr. But no, they will fight it tooth and nail so it’s going to take a while.

We’ve got a lot more foreigners to educate and immigrants to load the welfare system. If your county needs a dump truck a federal grant will be issued for one. Your tax dollars will/must be pilfered away through any means possible.

Relative to progress with globalisation I would say our rep’s have earned their pay, soft landing so far.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 17, 2011 6:04 PM
Comment #327809

Royal Flush,

It is not government regulations that are impeding business expansion. It is the lack of consumer demand. The private household sector had a major portion of its equity wiped out in the crash of 2008. It has not fully recovered. Our economy is a consumer economy fueled by debt. Without equity to support that debt, the economy contracts. Without government spending to fill that gap, the economy contracts further.

So, what’s the conservative answer to a contracting consumer demand and a recessionary economy? Rick Perry just accused Bernanke of treasonous actions due to the Fed’s quantitative easing program. Huh? Up until recently, monetary policy to increase the money supply was the preferred conservative approach to managing a recessionary economy. Bernanke is not some liberal. He is a disciple of Milton Friedman, the free market economist.

What is disturbing about conservatives today, is their nihilistic approach. They reject fiscal policy. They reject monetary policy. They have, in essence, a nothing policy about the economy.

Posted by: Rich at August 17, 2011 6:34 PM
Comment #327811


“I am not talking about clean air and water regulations,” If you are a Republican then yes, you are. The Republicans have consistently weakened clean water and air standards and pulled the teeth of regulatory agencies, preventing them from being affective.

Gary, you keep talking like that and the tea party will have to start claiming that their are lots of poor workers in their organization. They will present testimonials by minimum wage workers denouncing the government for giving them assistance. Single mothers denouncing the government for helping with child care so they can work, and for providing their children with health care.

If you are an associate of the tea party, who are you going to believe? Rupert Murdoch and his Minister of Propaganda Roger Ailes or traitors like Buffet and Soros?

Throughout history, any negative aspects associated with change have been foisted on the backs of those with the least power or rather those who exercise their political power the least. Why should now be any different?

If you are a Democratic politician who do you listen to, the people who rubber stamp your ticket at the entrance to the dance or the fellas that paid for your ticket?

The political proponent with the shortest lifespan was the compassionate conservative. He HAD to choose between the wealthy and the poor.

Can you encourage the poor to be more responsible and less destructive to themselves and others by constantly belittling them and blaming them for many of America’s problems?

We expect the poor working class the be the backbone of capitalism for the least amount, a grudgingly given least amount, a more than they are worth grudgingly given least amount of the benefits that are derived from capitalism. When economic hard times or economic change occurs, we expect, often without a thought, the poor bear to the brunt of any negative aspects.

Posted by: jlw at August 17, 2011 6:45 PM
Comment #327812

Rich writes; “It is not government regulations that are impeding business expansion.”

Sorry you know so little about starting a business or expanding one.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2011 7:46 PM
Comment #327816

“Sorry you know so little about starting a business or expanding one.”

Royal Flush,

According to the World Bank’s widely cited annual “Doing Business” report for 2011, the US is ranked only behind Canada among large population countries in ease of doing business. “A high ranking on the ease of doing business index means the regulatory environment is more conducive to the starting and operation of a local firm.” http://doingbusiness.org/rankings

That doesn’t mean that more couldn’t be done to simplify and streamline the regulatory requirements. However, in a relative sense, the regulatory burden in the US is less than the vast majority of large developed nations.

My point wasn’t that the regulatory burden was not an impediment to starting or maintaining a viable business. It was simply that it was not the major factor in the failure of businesses to expand or for new start ups. That factor is the absence of sufficient consumer demand. The gap between potential output and available demand is large. That is the factor that conservatives wish to sweep under the rug.

Posted by: Rich at August 17, 2011 8:26 PM
Comment #327817

Hard to understand why people aren’t signing up to support a 3rd party.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/most-americans-want-a-third-political-party

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147461/support-third-party-dips-majority-view.aspx

I think Ron Paul is the closest thing we have to a 3rd party candidate at the moment. There should be a full audit of the FED.


Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 17, 2011 8:55 PM
Comment #327830

Bravo! Once again, totally fantastic article Gary! I really couldn’t agree with you more.
Btw, the symbolist definition for the snake eating itself? It has an official name (in fact, you could actually use it as an alternative title for this piece): Ouroboros. The term didn’t originally start out with such horribly negative connotations — but I definitely think it has evolved in the modern day to describe what you’re talking about above.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 18, 2011 2:04 AM
Comment #327831


A week or so back, I mentioned that the unions in Ohio were handling the Republican assault on public employees differently than in Wisconsin, by using a repeal the legislation referendum on the Nov. ballot.

Gov. Kasich is now saying that although he is confident the referendum will fail, he is willing to negotiate the law with the unions if they call off the referendum.

Polls are suggesting that passage of the referendum to repeal the anti collective bargaining law has approximately a 20 point lead in the polls.

Posted by: jlw at August 18, 2011 2:15 AM
Comment #327834

jlw,
Yeah baby! Bit too late for “talks”, loser! Down with that anti-union, anti-social, anti-people POS, Kasich!
:^)

Posted by: Adrienne at August 18, 2011 3:05 AM
Comment #327842

For those demanding proof of the $491,000 annual perks and benefits package that all members of Congress receive …

Congress gets the following perks & benefits, 100% paid for by taxpayers:
* Health care benefits
* Vacation
* Premium retirement fund with hedge fund reinforcement
* Per Diem (at $272 per day) for every day Congress “does business”
* Annual 4% Cost of Living Increase
* All commute expenses to/from Washington
* Domestic Travel, Lodging & expenses
* Foreign Travel, Lodging & expenses
* Cell phone & Internet service
* Meals/Entertainm­ent & expenses
* 18-person staff allowance (up to $167,200 per)
* Wardrobe & maintenanc­e allowance
* Mail/franking, personaliz­ed stationery­, docs/pubs, including full personaliz­ed leather-bound judicial & encyclopae­dic reference library
* Legal representa­tion excluding felony criminal prosecutio­n
* Notary Public services
* Courier services

There’s a LOT more. Check for yourself if you’re still in doubt.

Congressional Perquisites

Full breakdown of Congressional pay, perquisites and benefits

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at August 18, 2011 11:12 AM
Comment #327848

More proof that the snake is eating itself:

Sen. Grassley: SEC may have covered up bank wrongdoings

Quote:

A US senator said Wednesday that the Securities and Exchange Commission may have destroyed thousands of documents related to probes into possible violations by major banks and hedge funds.

Senior Republican Senator Chuck Grassley said that “an agency whistle-blower” sent him a letter that described the SEC’s allegedly unlawful destruction of records related to more than 9,000 informal investigations.

The documents included cases arising from the 2008-2009 financial crisis, including Goldman Sachs, AIG, and the Bernard Madoff pyramid fund, according to the whistle-blower, Grassley said.


Posted by: Adrienne at August 18, 2011 12:31 PM
Comment #327849

Rich writes; “It is not government regulations that are impeding business expansion.”

On Jan. 18, Mr. Obama acknowledged the legitimacy of the private sector’s objections to the multibillion-dollar mandates pouring forth from the federal government’s regulatory agencies. “Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business—burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs.”

From the horses mouth Rich.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 18, 2011 12:45 PM
Comment #327858


When one considers the fact that wage stagnation and the growing disparity in wealth has been policy for three decades, it becomes painfully obvious that austerity has been a growing rather than a recent event. It is also undeniably obvious that policy decisions, during these last few decades, have led this country to where it is today. It is also obvious that while those policies were championed by one political party, they were sanctioned by the other.

Posted by: jlw at August 18, 2011 4:50 PM
Comment #327862

“anti-people POS, Kasich!”


we here in ohio like him that’s why we elected him. having re elected that 70s loser jerry “moobeam” brown leaves you very little room to talk. i remember what a loser he was in the 70s as governor. i’m glad i got out of that mess after 45 years. time to wink that turd into the pacific ocean.
you’de think at some point californians would wake up, and realize that electing these same tax and spend socialists isn’t working. go figure.

Posted by: dbs at August 18, 2011 5:31 PM
Comment #327863

jlw

we’ll just have to let that one play out. public employees unions can still bargain for pay and working conditions. all the reform really did was to get retirement benefit costs under control. they are required to contribute more to thier pensions. IMO gov’t employees should be prohibited from unionizing.


we have two year budget cycles here. kasichs is talking about eliminating the state income tax on the next one. i’ve got my fingers crossed. it would help lure business, and new residents.

Posted by: dbs at August 18, 2011 5:39 PM
Comment #327867


Dbs, Ohio’s problems couldn’t possibly be accounted for by the fact that Republicans have dominated Ohio politics for most of the last twenty years, could it?

No income tax? Must of found a bunch of more fees to raise.

We could charge a big fee for visiting state parks, keep down on the wear.

Posted by: jlw at August 18, 2011 6:52 PM
Comment #327872

Why should Congress be honest, responsible, accountable, and transparent when they are repeatedly rewarded for the opposite?

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress (who perpetuate these abuses) with perpetual re-election finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 18, 2011 10:00 PM
Comment #327875

As long as the government is FOR-SALE, it is rotten to the core.

Do we need all of this

That one thing is possibly the most important thing that needs to be fixed first.

Some sort of campaign finance is very badly needed, because today, 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more are made by a very tiny 0.3% of all 200 million eligible voters.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 18, 2011 10:09 PM
Comment #327884

Jobs jobs jobs jobs jobs.


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/foreign-students-walk-off-hershey-factory-job-protest-214310205.html

Posted by: j2t2 at August 19, 2011 9:40 AM
Comment #327889

“Jobs jobs jobs jobs jobs”

Yep, that’s around 400 job openings right there.

Posted by: kctim at August 19, 2011 10:45 AM
Comment #327892

I wonder how much we can cut from the state department budget when we eliminate the “foreign student worker” program. Programs like that should have an automatic suspension clause when unemployment is above 3% if they should exist at all.

I like the backpedaling by the different corporate entities involved. Hershey only puts there name on the product that someone else makes that contracts out the actual production of the product, what a joke. No wonder it costs so much to produce things in this country. Certainly not the wages they are paying the working students. I’m surprised they are not paid in scrip that can only be spent at the company store.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 19, 2011 12:28 PM
Comment #327920

So I take it that there must be hundreds or more bureaucrats in Washington thinking up regulations with the sole purpose of inhibiting companies from hiring people? Could it be that the reason why those regulations exist is because someone ABUSED the system at some point? Kind of like the banks and investment firms abusing mortgage backed securities? The same banks and investment firms who have paid no penalties, and for whom now the Republicans (and some Democrats) who have been bought and sold are fighting even minimal regulations to prevent the same thing from happening again?

Posted by: YellowDogDem at August 20, 2011 12:10 AM
Comment #327941

Here is your chocolate producing globalized corpocracy agribusiness at work.

http://www1.american.edu/ted/chocolate-slave.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8583000/8583499.stm

People could write their representative. Just kidding.

Could stop buying chocolates. Not likely.

Could follow d.a.n’s suggestion and stop re-electing incumbents 85-95% of the time.

I think we should vote incumbents from office every time. Also, think we need a new 3rd party such as the Republic Sentry Party, a party with a diff political attitude. The only way we could ever expect real campaign finance reform is thru a 3rd party.

I’m thinking Ron Paul talks more like a 3rd party guy than other candidate. I believe, if he were elected, he would broach real problems with the public. Granted, he wouldn’t be successful in their implementation but he would give bully pulpit to them.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 20, 2011 2:27 PM
Comment #327955

Roy, political parties draw their support from voting blocs comprised of voters aligned for their special interest(s). A third party will not change that. A third party will need constituents just as the existing two parties do.

Any constituents of a third party will have its special interest(s). To attract people to the third party will require catering or promoting those special interest(s) over others. We have that now.

A third party could only be successful if neither existing party was addressing special interests. That’s not happening. Both R’s and D’s are battling each other over catering to their special interests.

Can you describe the special interest, not being addressed now, that would attract enough voters to it to win elections?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 20, 2011 5:18 PM
Comment #327985

Royal Flush, it takes a few words, bare with me.

The special interest attraction for a 3rd party would be for people who have had it with the corpocracy and realize that we are ruled by corpocracy/oligarchy, that this is dangerous/grave for our Republic and that a 3rd party designed for the 21st century is the ONLY way to save the Republic/Constitution.

People must become frustrated to the point where they want to support a 3rd Party with a different political attitude.
You are correct, a Perot or some fair haired politician cannot create a super strong political party from the top. It must come from a grass roots effort.

The Party would have a mission/agenda to abolish corporate personhood and implement real campaign finance reform. A strong effort would be made to avoid divisive social issues until after the Primary mission was achieved.

The Party would be managed mostly by volunteers, mostly retiring boomers.

To shunt the money influence/special interest requires that the Party be established in some rules. These rules are subject to change UNTIL the Party is legally established. From that point changing a rule would require a 65% approval vote by the membership.

1. Members must sign on affirming their support for the agenda and rules set forth by the Republic Sentry Party.

2. Members will cast their votes relating to party business via the Internet on the party’s website(s).

3. To change, add, or delete a party rule requires a two-thirds approval, based on the total vote cast by the party membership.

4. If 20% percent of members submit a complaint against another member a vote to clear or terminate must be held. All complaints must be posted, in a cumulative manner, on the Party’s website within 8 hours of receipt. (This will be a pro-forma process).

5. Pursuant to Rule #4, a party member who holds an official Party position, or position of U.S. Senator, U.S. House of Representatives, Cabinet Head, Supreme Court Justice, Czar Appointee, Political Appointee, Ambassador, Vice President, and President, must enjoy an approval rating of two-thirds of the total votes cast by the national party membership. Otherwise, his/her party affiliation will be terminated with no further support for current or future political endeavors.

6. Pursuant to Rule #4, a party member elected to a State office must enjoy a two-thirds approval rating, based on the total votes cast by that States party membership. Otherwise, his/her party affiliation will be terminated with no further support for current or future political endeavors. Members serving in the position of U.S. Senator or U.S. House of Representatives are excluded, as these positions are included under rule #5 covering the federal or national sector of government.

Party membership would act as oversight authority for rule enforcement. Those holding elected/appointed positions noted in rule #5 and #6 Additionally, I would think that six or eight individuals within each state would be assigned the task of monitoring political activity for any potential offenses by Party members.

I’ve wrestled with the idea of limiting donations to $2000/person until REAL campaign finance reform can be implemented. But, we are fighting fire with fire so it seems to make no sense to limit donations from any sector until REAL campaign finance reform can be legislated into law. CFR would entail a private/public arrangement whereby all donations would be from the individual to a government entity such as the IRS for federal elections and some state entity for state elections. These or similar entities would be responsible for disbursing collected funds equally for incumbents and those seeking elected office.

Since the rules can’t be easily changed from the time of the founding of the party it is not likely that special interest would make a major effort at funding candidates. And, again, if a incumbent doesn’t pursue the party agenda they are subject to party rules and can be rejected from the Party. I see it as a workable thing, able to forever prevent the party from being co-opted by money.

Thanks for the inquiry Royal Flush and appreciate any advice/debate relative to the topic.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 20, 2011 8:01 PM
Comment #328016

Hey everyone,

I’ve been upgrading the software behind WatchBlog and I’m running into some technical issues. If you leave a comment and get an error message, please email me at editor@watchblog.com

If you are publishing a new article and also get an error message from the Movable Type software, please email me as well.

I’m trying to track down what’s causing the database table corruption and your help debugging (by sending me the error message info) will help.

Thanks.

Posted by: WatchBlog Publisher at August 21, 2011 2:01 PM
Comment #328028

Thanks Roy, you have given me something to ponder.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 21, 2011 5:34 PM
Comment #328054

Strike the following incomplete sentence from my last reply.

//Those holding elected/appointed positions noted in rule #5 and #6//

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 21, 2011 10:31 PM
Comment #328240
Gary St. Lawrence wrote: And if America doesn’t wake up VERY soon and FORCE it’s government to SERVE America instead of themselves, that snake will quickly devour itself entirely, until there’s literally nothing left … for anyone.
That is not far-fetched.

The problem with the U.S. is 30+ years of increasing greed, laziness, corruption, delusion, blind and misplaced loyalties, ignorance, arrogance, envy and jealousy disguised as demands for equality, irrational hatred and fear, etc.
HHMMMmmmmm … sounds familiar, eh?
It can all be summed up as too much selfishness, resulting in moral and fiscal bankruptcy.

Here is the result of 30+ years of too much moral and fiscal bankruptcy.
Nation-wide debt is $57 Trillion (which is 3.8 times larger than the $15.1 Trillion GDP as of year 2011; that is, $57T/$15.1T=3.8).

    Here are a few other statistics:
  • 2011 GDP: $15.1 Trillion
  • 2011 Total federal revenues (excluding borrowing): $2.174 Trillion
  • 2011 Total federal borrowing (deficit spending): $1.65 Trillion
  • 2011 Total federal national Debt: $14.5 Trillion
  • 2011 Total U.S. population: $ 312 Million
  • 2011 Total interest on the $14.5 Trillion federal National Debt: $413 Billion (about 19% of the $2.174 Trillion of annual revenues)
  • Current Rate of Inflation (official): 3.5%
  • Unofficial Current Rate of Inflation: 11.8%
  • Current Rate of Unemployment (official): 9.1%
  • Unofficial Current Rate of Unemployment (official): 22.6%
  • 2010 U.S. Currency Money Supply: about $0.9 Trillion (source: www.shadowstats.com/charts/monetary-base-money-supply)
  • 2010 U.S. M1 Supply: about $1.8 Trillion
  • 2010 U.S. M2 Supply: about $8.8 Trillion
  • The total $57 Trillion nation-wide is: 6.5 times the $8.8 Trillion M2 Money Supply
  • The total $1.623 Trillion of annual interest at 2.85% on $57 Trillion is: 18.4% of the M2 Money Supply
  • It would take 119 years to pay down $57 Trillion with a total finance charge of $144.3 Trillion

QUESTION: So, where will the money come from to merely pay the annual interest of over $1.623 Trillion per year (at only 2.85% which is probably lower than reality), when the Currency Money Supply=M0 is only about $1 Trillion ($0.723 Trillion less than all Currency), and the M1 Money Supply is only $2 Trillion, and the nation-wide debt of $57 Trillion in nation-wide debt is 6.5 times larger than the $9 Trillion M2 Money Supply (as of year 2011) ?

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 25, 2011 9:56 PM
Comment #328241

We don’t lack good ideas and solutions.
There are many good ideas and solutions.
Unfortunately, Congress is where good ideas and solutions go to die, and the majority of voters repeatedly reward FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, corrupt, incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 25, 2011 10:06 PM
Comment #328309

Good but worrisome numbers d.a.n. At 11.8% inflation my bonds are losing about 6% a year. The middle class and below are destined, by plan, to have less wealth in future years.

The Corpocracy decided they would merge up/conglomerate and head for foreign shores to take over the industrial world. Corporate officers have seen income rise some 450% since 1970 while the middle class rose 26%. And, the middle has been stagnant or falling for the last decade or so.

We can continue to represent the silent majority while the vocal minority leads up down the path of globalization or we can fight back. Won’t change the fact that your grand kids will be paying off our debt over their lifetime.

We can weaken the corpocracy by voting incumbents from office in large numbers. After a few election cycles of that the politicos would start turning their attention to the voters. But, IMO, for the long term we will to establish a 3rd party with a diff - - - where the membership enforces a few rules designed to prevent the party from being coopted by the money influence.

We will need to abolish corporate personhood and implement real campaign finance reform which I believe can only be done by a 3rd party designed for the 21st century.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 27, 2011 8:10 PM
Post a comment