Christian Democrats in the United States
Domestic Issues - Jobs and Taxes We demand a living wage for all workers in America and object to attempts to establish a flat tax because of the comparative value of one dollar to one's total capital. We insist on closing tax loopholes for the wealthiest people and corporations, and support tax incentives for corporate programs with substantial public benefit. America must find a way to increase manufacturing exports since service jobs add less to the economy in the long term. We support a shorter, smarter work-week for all Americans. Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
6:53 PM
Free enterprise and free will did not cause this problem. In fact, more of the opposite: an entrenched corporate management culture has strangled the great horses of our productivity in barbed chains from which they bleed the labor and ingenuity of the common American. If colossal failure should result in corporatist fascism, they think they will do well, having cashed out a lot of paper money into gold, guns and loyalty. If colossal failure should result in real socialism, they'll be the first to play the opposite card to try to be the next "horseman."
Ben Bernanke should be fired. The depreciating process of "socialism for the wealthy" should be ended, credit should become expensive for bad bets, and dysfunctional companies in America should be allowed to fail.
These robber barons would like you to believe that would mean socialism, that if they can't raid the coffers of G.M. and G.E. anymore, then the entire concept of America and a free way of life is at risk. Bollocks.
To recover, besides public works projects of greater vision, like the Northwest Aqueduct or sea-floating algae farms to produce fuel and increase fish stocks, the U.S. would provide massive increases in funding to American citizens through the Small Business Administration to enable everyday citizens to restructure corporate America from the ground up.
We believe in ourselves and what we can do when we work together, even if a lot of us see things different ways, even if some of us ain't too bright, we all know that if everyone were empowered to help each other in America, we'd hardly have any problems at all, and we could get onto those pie shops in the sky.
Instead, we hold ourselves captive, by believing, often only subconsciously, that either one is a Master or a Slave, that the flow of money somehow determines and quantizes psychological dominance, and that somehow that dominance equates with happiness.
As a result, we can never realize that better life, and we go on borrowing to support our habit. Ben Bernanke is like a heroin dealer, whispering in our ear to buy just one more hit, or like a man in a nice suit in a casino who whispers the suggestion to bet it all, and you forget he lent you your starting bet.
Fire Bernanke. Send the fat cats and con-brokers packing. It has to be done eventually, so we should get through that painful process before we fritter away more borrowed money.
Senate should fire Bernanke
This Thursday, the Senate will probably rubber-stamp Ben Bernanke's tenure as the Man Who Sold The World for another year, the last of perhaps a few years that a failed set of companies can be kept on life support.Free enterprise and free will did not cause this problem. In fact, more of the opposite: an entrenched corporate management culture has strangled the great horses of our productivity in barbed chains from which they bleed the labor and ingenuity of the common American. If colossal failure should result in corporatist fascism, they think they will do well, having cashed out a lot of paper money into gold, guns and loyalty. If colossal failure should result in real socialism, they'll be the first to play the opposite card to try to be the next "horseman."
Ben Bernanke should be fired. The depreciating process of "socialism for the wealthy" should be ended, credit should become expensive for bad bets, and dysfunctional companies in America should be allowed to fail.
These robber barons would like you to believe that would mean socialism, that if they can't raid the coffers of G.M. and G.E. anymore, then the entire concept of America and a free way of life is at risk. Bollocks.
To recover, besides public works projects of greater vision, like the Northwest Aqueduct or sea-floating algae farms to produce fuel and increase fish stocks, the U.S. would provide massive increases in funding to American citizens through the Small Business Administration to enable everyday citizens to restructure corporate America from the ground up.
We believe in ourselves and what we can do when we work together, even if a lot of us see things different ways, even if some of us ain't too bright, we all know that if everyone were empowered to help each other in America, we'd hardly have any problems at all, and we could get onto those pie shops in the sky.
Instead, we hold ourselves captive, by believing, often only subconsciously, that either one is a Master or a Slave, that the flow of money somehow determines and quantizes psychological dominance, and that somehow that dominance equates with happiness.
As a result, we can never realize that better life, and we go on borrowing to support our habit. Ben Bernanke is like a heroin dealer, whispering in our ear to buy just one more hit, or like a man in a nice suit in a casino who whispers the suggestion to bet it all, and you forget he lent you your starting bet.
Fire Bernanke. Send the fat cats and con-brokers packing. It has to be done eventually, so we should get through that painful process before we fritter away more borrowed money.
> detail, links and comments >>
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
12:23 PM
Though all human beings have the capacity to lead themselves to freedom, given the situation with two wars and a lot of new immigrants from those regions who are day laborers by trade, the risk of them bringing their battle tactics with them is real.
Basic background checks of laborers are great, if they're not working under the table. If security is our priority, immigration reform is the only way to bring all our citizens on board, so they don't face liability from HS or IRS, or reprisal from laborers, when they open up their books and register.
For additional security, use of stimulus funds should enable small business. We can kill two birds with one stone. Large organizations with monolithic tiered management are a good place to hide, with layers of trust relationships to manipulate. If we spend smaller amounts of money in more places, we can use independent contractors to cross-check other contractors' work. The more independent citizens we can involve in cross-checking our security, the safer we will be.
The implementation of roadside bomb networks in the United States is entirely possible by only a few terrorist cells working independently, without communication to any central authority. All they have to do is plug in a cell-phone triggered bomb in a box on the street with access to electricity to keep it charged. They could keep their numbers and trigger them on the target day with a personal computer and phone modem. With extra batteries or more sophisticated radio triggers, they could be buried underneath a paving patch of asphalt, and no one would ever know.
Just as it is up to us to take action and save ourselves from a plane hijacking, so it is also up to us to keep those real, deluded souls out there from hijacking our entire "infrastructure" using the inexpensive, improvised tactics that have killed so many of our brothers and sisters in Iraq and Afghanistan.
roadside bombs in stimulus construction?
How have we ensured that stimulus money to "rebuild the infrastructure" does not do so in an unsafe way?Though all human beings have the capacity to lead themselves to freedom, given the situation with two wars and a lot of new immigrants from those regions who are day laborers by trade, the risk of them bringing their battle tactics with them is real.
Basic background checks of laborers are great, if they're not working under the table. If security is our priority, immigration reform is the only way to bring all our citizens on board, so they don't face liability from HS or IRS, or reprisal from laborers, when they open up their books and register.
For additional security, use of stimulus funds should enable small business. We can kill two birds with one stone. Large organizations with monolithic tiered management are a good place to hide, with layers of trust relationships to manipulate. If we spend smaller amounts of money in more places, we can use independent contractors to cross-check other contractors' work. The more independent citizens we can involve in cross-checking our security, the safer we will be.
The implementation of roadside bomb networks in the United States is entirely possible by only a few terrorist cells working independently, without communication to any central authority. All they have to do is plug in a cell-phone triggered bomb in a box on the street with access to electricity to keep it charged. They could keep their numbers and trigger them on the target day with a personal computer and phone modem. With extra batteries or more sophisticated radio triggers, they could be buried underneath a paving patch of asphalt, and no one would ever know.
Just as it is up to us to take action and save ourselves from a plane hijacking, so it is also up to us to keep those real, deluded souls out there from hijacking our entire "infrastructure" using the inexpensive, improvised tactics that have killed so many of our brothers and sisters in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> detail, links and comments >>
Sunday, February 22, 2009
11:27 AM
This is simply unacceptable. We cannot continue to borrow money indefinitely.
President Clinton was able to turn the deficit spending of the 80's in reverse, ended up with a yearly budget surplus, and started paying off our national debt. Yet his administration was still able to provide for social services, social security and defense. Was that magic? No, it was personal courage, the courage to stand up and tell people that they've got to quit screwing around or we're going to sink the ship.
Remember, the number of $500,000,000,000 is only the budget deficit, the amount that the government goes into the red each year. The total debt owed by the nation will be greater than TEN TRILLION DOLLARS by the end of Obama's first term, by the look of it. That number means around $33,000 owed by every citizen of the USA.
I didn't sign on for $33,000 in personal debt! I have enough trouble paying of my credit cards and student loans as it is!
The mentality — shared equally by Democrats and Republicans alike — will destroy our country.
Is that what it will take for you to realize we need a fundamentally new approach? Is that what it will take for you to get off your sorry butt and be courageous and speak out and vote against both parties for their traitorous financial lunacy?
we cannot continue to borrow indefinitely
Obama announced he plans to "slash" the budget deficit in half by the end of his first term, borrowing only $500+ billion per year to continue government spending.This is simply unacceptable. We cannot continue to borrow money indefinitely.
President Clinton was able to turn the deficit spending of the 80's in reverse, ended up with a yearly budget surplus, and started paying off our national debt. Yet his administration was still able to provide for social services, social security and defense. Was that magic? No, it was personal courage, the courage to stand up and tell people that they've got to quit screwing around or we're going to sink the ship.
Remember, the number of $500,000,000,000 is only the budget deficit, the amount that the government goes into the red each year. The total debt owed by the nation will be greater than TEN TRILLION DOLLARS by the end of Obama's first term, by the look of it. That number means around $33,000 owed by every citizen of the USA.
I didn't sign on for $33,000 in personal debt! I have enough trouble paying of my credit cards and student loans as it is!
The mentality — shared equally by Democrats and Republicans alike — will destroy our country.
Is that what it will take for you to realize we need a fundamentally new approach? Is that what it will take for you to get off your sorry butt and be courageous and speak out and vote against both parties for their traitorous financial lunacy?
> detail, links and comments >>
Saturday, December 13, 2008
10:44 AM
EARLIER POST:
The UAW is now crying foul at the Republicans who blocked the passage of the auto industry bailout in the Senate.
While forming unions for collective bargaining is core to the fundamental right of all citizens to freely associate, speak and do business together, the GOP senators do have a point, and it's suicidal for the unions to ignore it.
The math simply doesn't add up. Where is the money supposed to come from? You can't just print money or the whole economy gets out of control and inflation skyrockets, which would crack all of our industries across the board. If Congress is supposed to borrow money from China to lend to our auto industry to keep them afloat, the industry has got to start making money.
Who does the UAW seem to expect to pay for it, eventually? The taxpayers. If the auto industry does not turn a profit, then taxpayers would have to foot the bill. But if the taxpayers are out of work because the auto industry and other industries did not turn a profit, then no one will be able to pay that money back. It's a recipe for disaster.
Profit margin is simply revenue minus cost. If costs are higher than revenue, it's a loss. Asking the hundreds of millions of taxpayers, and our children, and our grandchildren to cover future losses to keep two million people employed is selfish and deluded.
Let's be clear - the fundamental problem with the American auto industry is they produce over-priced, crappy vehicles. Like the Cadillac SUV for $60,000. Who the hell has $60,000 to spend on a car? Very few people - they borrow the money on financing plans. So the shiny truck is used to sell Americans into debt slavery like the Dutch conned native Americans into selling Manhattan for some shiny beads and trinkets. And it's really just a Chevy Yukon with leather seats and some extra chrome. It's hard not to laugh at the purchasers of these gas-guzzling monstrosities - idiots, every last one.
That said, labor costs are still part of the cost equation. In troubled times when we all have to tighten our belts and put our noses to the grindstone just to get by, the auto workers are going to have to pitch in.
What we should do, if the UAW wants to take responsibility for an auto industry that works, is to encourage union ownership of the plants where they work. A concession in exchange for wage cuts could be greater employee ownership of the companies. This would enable the members of the UAW to buy up the debt incurred by the corporations as compensation from their lowered wages. This would give workers a greater incentive to perform, because their wage bonuses or would be dividends directly linked to the performance of the company. In addition, it would enable workers to cross the gap between labor and management which prevents innovation from percolating up from the bottom, from the workers who know best how to increase their efficiency and thus their profit and personal gain.
unions, auto industry and economic viability
NOTE from a later date: Fundamentally, it doesn't make sense to bail out auto makers when pretty much everyone already has a car. Who are they going to sell their over-priced, gas-guzzling cars to? It seems like money down the drain.EARLIER POST:
The UAW is now crying foul at the Republicans who blocked the passage of the auto industry bailout in the Senate.
While forming unions for collective bargaining is core to the fundamental right of all citizens to freely associate, speak and do business together, the GOP senators do have a point, and it's suicidal for the unions to ignore it.
The math simply doesn't add up. Where is the money supposed to come from? You can't just print money or the whole economy gets out of control and inflation skyrockets, which would crack all of our industries across the board. If Congress is supposed to borrow money from China to lend to our auto industry to keep them afloat, the industry has got to start making money.
Who does the UAW seem to expect to pay for it, eventually? The taxpayers. If the auto industry does not turn a profit, then taxpayers would have to foot the bill. But if the taxpayers are out of work because the auto industry and other industries did not turn a profit, then no one will be able to pay that money back. It's a recipe for disaster.
Profit margin is simply revenue minus cost. If costs are higher than revenue, it's a loss. Asking the hundreds of millions of taxpayers, and our children, and our grandchildren to cover future losses to keep two million people employed is selfish and deluded.
Let's be clear - the fundamental problem with the American auto industry is they produce over-priced, crappy vehicles. Like the Cadillac SUV for $60,000. Who the hell has $60,000 to spend on a car? Very few people - they borrow the money on financing plans. So the shiny truck is used to sell Americans into debt slavery like the Dutch conned native Americans into selling Manhattan for some shiny beads and trinkets. And it's really just a Chevy Yukon with leather seats and some extra chrome. It's hard not to laugh at the purchasers of these gas-guzzling monstrosities - idiots, every last one.
That said, labor costs are still part of the cost equation. In troubled times when we all have to tighten our belts and put our noses to the grindstone just to get by, the auto workers are going to have to pitch in.
What we should do, if the UAW wants to take responsibility for an auto industry that works, is to encourage union ownership of the plants where they work. A concession in exchange for wage cuts could be greater employee ownership of the companies. This would enable the members of the UAW to buy up the debt incurred by the corporations as compensation from their lowered wages. This would give workers a greater incentive to perform, because their wage bonuses or would be dividends directly linked to the performance of the company. In addition, it would enable workers to cross the gap between labor and management which prevents innovation from percolating up from the bottom, from the workers who know best how to increase their efficiency and thus their profit and personal gain.
> detail, links and comments >>
Thursday, November 20, 2008
7:48 AM
Examine with detail the statistics that are presented in the news. Often, instead of a simple presentation of a company's (or country's) profit or loss, financial analysts focus on the "growth" of a company's business in terms of a growth of revenue (regardless of expenditure.) Sometimes, this year's growth is measured as a percentage of last year's growth, last year's growth is measured as a percentage of the year before, etc. For any sane business, that line should be fairly flat, which would indicate that the business was growing its revenue at a successful rate each year. But because we are trained to see upward-moving lines as a measure of success, we think that because a company "grew" more or less this year than it did last year that they are somehow better or worse off. But even "negative growth" in the context of these relative growth graphs still might indicate that a company has increased its revenue.
If a company is expected to always have positive growth relative to the previous year, that leads to an expectation of rapid and extreme exponential growth of revenue. This is impossible, and leads to borrowing decisions that cause companies to go bankrupt, instead of focusing on their long-term stability and viability for the well being of their employees and investors.
It's a propaganda trick that has been accepted by the media but is used to attack the foundations of our economy, and must be rejected by the investor public.
growth versus viability
Always measuring companies' success in terms of increase in growth relative to the previous year leads one to expect an exponential curve in actual growth over the company's lifespan. This is impossible.Examine with detail the statistics that are presented in the news. Often, instead of a simple presentation of a company's (or country's) profit or loss, financial analysts focus on the "growth" of a company's business in terms of a growth of revenue (regardless of expenditure.) Sometimes, this year's growth is measured as a percentage of last year's growth, last year's growth is measured as a percentage of the year before, etc. For any sane business, that line should be fairly flat, which would indicate that the business was growing its revenue at a successful rate each year. But because we are trained to see upward-moving lines as a measure of success, we think that because a company "grew" more or less this year than it did last year that they are somehow better or worse off. But even "negative growth" in the context of these relative growth graphs still might indicate that a company has increased its revenue.
If a company is expected to always have positive growth relative to the previous year, that leads to an expectation of rapid and extreme exponential growth of revenue. This is impossible, and leads to borrowing decisions that cause companies to go bankrupt, instead of focusing on their long-term stability and viability for the well being of their employees and investors.
It's a propaganda trick that has been accepted by the media but is used to attack the foundations of our economy, and must be rejected by the investor public.
> detail, links and comments >>
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
12:41 AM
Is this all a manifestation of the cultural attitude of Wall Street that the bank always needs to screw the customer in every way it can?
What would happen if the firms holding these bad debts fail? Other firms would buy up those defaulted mortgages for pennies on the dollar. What Congress needs to make sure of is that the new lender shares some of this good fortune with the mortgage holder. It seems like interest rates on mortgages would go down if the original lenders failed. If Congress does buy up the assets, they should insist on a good deal so that everyday people can get a good deal.
Credit would be harder to get in the future, but so what, maybe that would be good for us. The unrestrained spending of the 1920's started when credit was invented, and really it was the unrestrained marketing of credit that led to the depression of the 1930's.
It seems to me that companies that cannot manage to pay their salaries without borrowing huge amounts of money are in a precarious position anyway. Companies need to make money. Otherwise they should not be in business.
It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to hold up businesses with unequal salary schemes as a form of welfare, supporting non-productive jobs and egregious salaries. If we're going to be paying for welfare and state-supported jobs, cut out the middle man and do it directly, like in the 1930's. That would save money.
Another thing that bugs me is the Republicans in the house insisting on tax cuts accompanying the spending bill. We're already borrowing from foreign countries and investors to pay for the bailout in the first place. And they want to increase our interest costs EVEN MORE for the long-term future by telling us we don't have to pay for it now. It is a strategy for completely bankrupting the United States.
I thought Republicans thought they were patriots or something, that they wanted "small government." I seriously doubt that if they thought about it, they would want "no government." It's ridiculous. It doesn't add up. It's treason by stupidity.
bailout skepticism - maybe it is not needed, maybe it is bad
Fears about the market sent the market down. But only a few percentage points. And then it came up again the next day. So are we really concerned about a panic?Is this all a manifestation of the cultural attitude of Wall Street that the bank always needs to screw the customer in every way it can?
What would happen if the firms holding these bad debts fail? Other firms would buy up those defaulted mortgages for pennies on the dollar. What Congress needs to make sure of is that the new lender shares some of this good fortune with the mortgage holder. It seems like interest rates on mortgages would go down if the original lenders failed. If Congress does buy up the assets, they should insist on a good deal so that everyday people can get a good deal.
Credit would be harder to get in the future, but so what, maybe that would be good for us. The unrestrained spending of the 1920's started when credit was invented, and really it was the unrestrained marketing of credit that led to the depression of the 1930's.
It seems to me that companies that cannot manage to pay their salaries without borrowing huge amounts of money are in a precarious position anyway. Companies need to make money. Otherwise they should not be in business.
It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to hold up businesses with unequal salary schemes as a form of welfare, supporting non-productive jobs and egregious salaries. If we're going to be paying for welfare and state-supported jobs, cut out the middle man and do it directly, like in the 1930's. That would save money.
Another thing that bugs me is the Republicans in the house insisting on tax cuts accompanying the spending bill. We're already borrowing from foreign countries and investors to pay for the bailout in the first place. And they want to increase our interest costs EVEN MORE for the long-term future by telling us we don't have to pay for it now. It is a strategy for completely bankrupting the United States.
I thought Republicans thought they were patriots or something, that they wanted "small government." I seriously doubt that if they thought about it, they would want "no government." It's ridiculous. It doesn't add up. It's treason by stupidity.
> detail, links and comments >>
Thursday, September 25, 2008
1:00 PM
The Wall St. Bail-out is a Sell-out. It is a fire sale of American mortgages to foreign investors. Bush begged for your money for his friends but his policies were to blame. Don't let them cash out just before it all goes down hill.
protest the bailout
Access http://truemajority.wiredforchange.com to find a protest in your area.The Wall St. Bail-out is a Sell-out. It is a fire sale of American mortgages to foreign investors. Bush begged for your money for his friends but his policies were to blame. Don't let them cash out just before it all goes down hill.
> detail, links and comments >>
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
2:52 AM
Excuse me?
Are you starting to wonder why "your pal" George W. Bush would push this kind of legislation? Because he hates you and wants your money, maybe?
Why not give $700 billion to forgive all debts to the Small Business Administration, and use the rest to pay teachers and build high-tech factories and distributed green energy systems to give us jobs and help us regain an export surplus. We might have to cut up our credit cards, but that would do far more good than letting failed laissez-faire economics continue.
Besides, where does this $700 billion come from? You think the government has those assets? No, we're borrowing it from China through T-bills. You think the Dragon's going to forgive your mortgages when the U.S. goes bankrupt and has to turn over these "assets" i.e. your house to foreign countries to cover the maturing bills?
Traitors in our midst. Traitors running the show. Traitors taking your money, sinking the ship, and selling us out.
stop the blank check robbery
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Excuse me?
Are you starting to wonder why "your pal" George W. Bush would push this kind of legislation? Because he hates you and wants your money, maybe?
Why not give $700 billion to forgive all debts to the Small Business Administration, and use the rest to pay teachers and build high-tech factories and distributed green energy systems to give us jobs and help us regain an export surplus. We might have to cut up our credit cards, but that would do far more good than letting failed laissez-faire economics continue.
Besides, where does this $700 billion come from? You think the government has those assets? No, we're borrowing it from China through T-bills. You think the Dragon's going to forgive your mortgages when the U.S. goes bankrupt and has to turn over these "assets" i.e. your house to foreign countries to cover the maturing bills?
Traitors in our midst. Traitors running the show. Traitors taking your money, sinking the ship, and selling us out.
> detail, links and comments >>
Sunday, September 21, 2008
10:19 PM
The New Deal was a plan to put everyday people back to work and put money in their pockets, not in the hands of the rich fat cats who sank the economy in the first place by their frivolous spending and poor oversight of investments in the roaring 20's.
Instead of giving $700 billion to the American people to pay back their debts, which would truly make our economy "fundamentally strong," they're bailing out the banks, and executives will take huge pay bonuses as the money flows around. Rewards for their stupidity.
Meanwhile, the taxpayers are going to go deeper into debt, because in addition to the money they already owe, now they'll be slaves to pay off this $700 billion, which we don't have, which we are borrowing from China, primarily. You think they're going to forgive your late mortgage payments?
NEWS FLASH: The Republicans who de-regulated investment banks and encouraged reckless laissez-faire economics are now stealing more of your money to give to their friends who stole and wasted your money in the first place. LIES, LIES and more LIES! WAKE UP, YOU DUMB PEOPLE!
They make it sound like this will make the government money. But these are bad debts primarily from loans given to people who could not afford to pay them back, because we don't have enough jobs, because the Republicans have put policies in place that favor multi-national corporations who ship solid manufacturing jobs overseas and leave us with nothing to do but borrow. So where is the money going to come from to pay the government back?
Meanwhile, as the bills sold to pay for this bailout and the existing $8 trillion debt mature, we'll have to borrow more, which will increase the amount we owe. Just like if you borrowed too much and got trapped in a high-interest credit card with a big balance, it gets harder and harder to make the minimum payments, and even if you do, the balance goes up from the interest.
So, how is the government going to get people working again, how are we going to get solid jobs and regain an export surplus, so that we make enough to pay down the principal?
There is no talk about the jobs or taxes that will be required to pay this debt back from Bush or McCain or the Republicans because THEY DO NOT CARE. They're rich. McCain's got money from his wife. They've got theirs, so screw you.
WAKE UP. We may have to buy up the banks right now to keep the whole economy from falling apart, but if we don't address the issue of jobs for Americans, we won't be able to pay back this money as a country, and America will go bankrupt.
McCain says, "no C.E.O. of any corporation or business that is bailed out by us, that is rescued by American tax dollars, should receive any more than the highest paid person in the federal government." How much does the highest paid person in the federal government make? The schedules are a little tough to read but it looks like $191,300/year for the senior executive service level. A lot more than me!
Since they want to make us slaves to pay back the interest on this bailout, I say, don't pay the C.E.O.'s a dime. Chain them to their desks and give them bread and water until they figure out how to get America back to work, making money and paying off the debt like we did under Bill Clinton.
McCain says he'll only balance the budget by restraining our spending - but he wants to spend $700 billion buying up failed banks! That just makes him look like a hypocrite. It's true that we should spend wisely and restrain spending to balance the budget. But what spending do you think the Republicans are going to restrain? Spending on the military budget which puts money in the hands of his lobbyist staff, or spending on healthcare, jobs and welfare for Americans in poverty? You can damn well bet he'll restrain spending on you, but won't withhold a dime from the corporate monsters who got us into this mess in the first place.
bail out Americans, not investment banks
"The biggest bailout since the Great Depression."The New Deal was a plan to put everyday people back to work and put money in their pockets, not in the hands of the rich fat cats who sank the economy in the first place by their frivolous spending and poor oversight of investments in the roaring 20's.
Instead of giving $700 billion to the American people to pay back their debts, which would truly make our economy "fundamentally strong," they're bailing out the banks, and executives will take huge pay bonuses as the money flows around. Rewards for their stupidity.
Meanwhile, the taxpayers are going to go deeper into debt, because in addition to the money they already owe, now they'll be slaves to pay off this $700 billion, which we don't have, which we are borrowing from China, primarily. You think they're going to forgive your late mortgage payments?
NEWS FLASH: The Republicans who de-regulated investment banks and encouraged reckless laissez-faire economics are now stealing more of your money to give to their friends who stole and wasted your money in the first place. LIES, LIES and more LIES! WAKE UP, YOU DUMB PEOPLE!
They make it sound like this will make the government money. But these are bad debts primarily from loans given to people who could not afford to pay them back, because we don't have enough jobs, because the Republicans have put policies in place that favor multi-national corporations who ship solid manufacturing jobs overseas and leave us with nothing to do but borrow. So where is the money going to come from to pay the government back?
Meanwhile, as the bills sold to pay for this bailout and the existing $8 trillion debt mature, we'll have to borrow more, which will increase the amount we owe. Just like if you borrowed too much and got trapped in a high-interest credit card with a big balance, it gets harder and harder to make the minimum payments, and even if you do, the balance goes up from the interest.
So, how is the government going to get people working again, how are we going to get solid jobs and regain an export surplus, so that we make enough to pay down the principal?
There is no talk about the jobs or taxes that will be required to pay this debt back from Bush or McCain or the Republicans because THEY DO NOT CARE. They're rich. McCain's got money from his wife. They've got theirs, so screw you.
WAKE UP. We may have to buy up the banks right now to keep the whole economy from falling apart, but if we don't address the issue of jobs for Americans, we won't be able to pay back this money as a country, and America will go bankrupt.
McCain says, "no C.E.O. of any corporation or business that is bailed out by us, that is rescued by American tax dollars, should receive any more than the highest paid person in the federal government." How much does the highest paid person in the federal government make? The schedules are a little tough to read but it looks like $191,300/year for the senior executive service level. A lot more than me!
Since they want to make us slaves to pay back the interest on this bailout, I say, don't pay the C.E.O.'s a dime. Chain them to their desks and give them bread and water until they figure out how to get America back to work, making money and paying off the debt like we did under Bill Clinton.
McCain says he'll only balance the budget by restraining our spending - but he wants to spend $700 billion buying up failed banks! That just makes him look like a hypocrite. It's true that we should spend wisely and restrain spending to balance the budget. But what spending do you think the Republicans are going to restrain? Spending on the military budget which puts money in the hands of his lobbyist staff, or spending on healthcare, jobs and welfare for Americans in poverty? You can damn well bet he'll restrain spending on you, but won't withhold a dime from the corporate monsters who got us into this mess in the first place.
> detail, links and comments >>
Monday, September 15, 2008
10:40 AM
This is one of the companies that George W. Bush wanted to handle our social security funds, because he argued that it would get better returns.
What kind of a return would this have been? Do they think we're that stupid?
George W. Bush wanted to give YOUR money to HIS friends on Wall Street.
Wake up and smell the corruption. Neo-conservatism is a lie. Republican financial policy is a lie. They do not care about America. They do not care about you.
They want to screw you over any way they can, to get all they can right now, with no thought of financial security for the future.
It's difficult to admit that you have been fooled on many levels. This reminds me of my Mom, who switched from her accountant to a major investment firm at 67 years old. The 22-year old "executive vice president" convinced her that her family had no business helping her with her finances, and she put all of her retirement into money market accounts in secret, and lost several hundred thousand dollars. Then when we begged her to put the money into more stable funds, she went BACK to the SAME PEOPLE and they convinced her to put the money in an annuity fund, which is still losing, and probably lost a lot today. Sorry Mom, truth hurts.
ATTENTION OLD PEOPLE: Investment firms are trying to swindle you. Their lobbyists have bought the White House. Please, for the love of God, keep your retirement money in stable, insured savings accounts, so we poor kids don't have to be slaves for the rest of our lives to take care of you! Or, if you are going to give it away, give it to the poor. Don't give it to these snakes and schmucks.
Lehman Brothers failure and Social Security SECURITY
The U.S. stock markets are flailing today as the 158-year veteran investment firm Lehman Brothers folds up and sinks.This is one of the companies that George W. Bush wanted to handle our social security funds, because he argued that it would get better returns.
What kind of a return would this have been? Do they think we're that stupid?
George W. Bush wanted to give YOUR money to HIS friends on Wall Street.
Wake up and smell the corruption. Neo-conservatism is a lie. Republican financial policy is a lie. They do not care about America. They do not care about you.
They want to screw you over any way they can, to get all they can right now, with no thought of financial security for the future.
It's difficult to admit that you have been fooled on many levels. This reminds me of my Mom, who switched from her accountant to a major investment firm at 67 years old. The 22-year old "executive vice president" convinced her that her family had no business helping her with her finances, and she put all of her retirement into money market accounts in secret, and lost several hundred thousand dollars. Then when we begged her to put the money into more stable funds, she went BACK to the SAME PEOPLE and they convinced her to put the money in an annuity fund, which is still losing, and probably lost a lot today. Sorry Mom, truth hurts.
ATTENTION OLD PEOPLE: Investment firms are trying to swindle you. Their lobbyists have bought the White House. Please, for the love of God, keep your retirement money in stable, insured savings accounts, so we poor kids don't have to be slaves for the rest of our lives to take care of you! Or, if you are going to give it away, give it to the poor. Don't give it to these snakes and schmucks.
> detail, links and comments >>
Saturday, September 13, 2008
9:47 PM
Huh?
The fact is, under Bill Clinton this country made money, decreased unemployment, paid for its programs without borrowing, wound up with a budget surplus and made payments on the federal debt.
No Republican president in the last 40 years can make that claim.
Huh? You still take the Republican claims of fiscal responsibility seriously? It's a crock of lies.
This was the guy who promised but failed to pass "campaign finance reform," and now is taking huge donations from big business lobbyists, selling out his allegiance to them, not to the American People who may vote for him.
McCain's financial bogosity
McCain said recently that the problem was, for the last eight years, the Republicans have been financially "acting like Democrats," and that's why they lost control over Congress.Huh?
The fact is, under Bill Clinton this country made money, decreased unemployment, paid for its programs without borrowing, wound up with a budget surplus and made payments on the federal debt.
No Republican president in the last 40 years can make that claim.
Huh? You still take the Republican claims of fiscal responsibility seriously? It's a crock of lies.
This was the guy who promised but failed to pass "campaign finance reform," and now is taking huge donations from big business lobbyists, selling out his allegiance to them, not to the American People who may vote for him.
> detail, links and comments >>
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
10:56 AM
Debt slavery is the pimp's trick of making a girl feel like she can earn her freedom, when the interest and fees keep her in the red, a working girl forever.
Lady Liberty ain't no slave, and no one here shall be made a slave.
We should consider replacing the light of her torch with an upheld sword, paneled in glass and lit up inside.
work ethic or work psychosis?
Who has time to participate in democracy working 50 or more hours a week to support kids, or caught in the endless trap of debt slavery? That's exactly what people want.Debt slavery is the pimp's trick of making a girl feel like she can earn her freedom, when the interest and fees keep her in the red, a working girl forever.
Lady Liberty ain't no slave, and no one here shall be made a slave.
We should consider replacing the light of her torch with an upheld sword, paneled in glass and lit up inside.
> detail, links and comments >>
Friday, May 11, 2007
9:44 PM
The construction work employs a lot of people, but always at the expense of a small group of disenfranchised who become cast out, in a sense economically untouchable. New condos were unrealistic for most people, and rent went out of sight. (Man, and the Padres got this great "deal" where cable couldn't televise games unless the stadium sold out, so the city always picked up the tab for all the extra seats so we could see the games on T.V.)
In Los Angeles only about the top 12% of the income bracket is qualified to buy real estate. But all the surrounding cities have gone way up, and then traffic from distant cities multiplies the time people spend in cars. The distances are too great to make trains convenient unless you get lucky, besides which, the earth there is full of methane pockets, and the land is already too expensive to buy back for a large surface train system. And let me tell you, getting across L.A. on the bus takes a whole long time, even though it is the best bus system in the country.
A fully free competition model for real estate with an ever-growing land value is not feasible without greatly raising the minimum wage or subsidized housing, because there isn't anywhere to live for working people who drive the trucks and cook the food and clean up afterward. In California at any rate, it seems like the housing cost has gone so far beyond the minimum wage that no one stuck at that wage can get out. The system makes an eddy, a whirlpool at the bottom level that greatly increases the obstacles set in the way of getting out.
People of conscience ought to ask themselves if together we can provide people a way out when we refresh our urban centers with redevelopment construction. The success of our economy does not depend on working a small group of people to death, and we shouldn't punish people more who were trying to get their lives back together and get into houses.
redevelopment and gentrification
In San Diego the new stadium in the 1990's was used to redevelop one of the worst neighborhoods downtown, but the few poor people who had managed to get themselves an apartment down there were pushed right back onto the streets as the new projects went in... the new door was slammed in the face of anyone who had been trying to do right.The construction work employs a lot of people, but always at the expense of a small group of disenfranchised who become cast out, in a sense economically untouchable. New condos were unrealistic for most people, and rent went out of sight. (Man, and the Padres got this great "deal" where cable couldn't televise games unless the stadium sold out, so the city always picked up the tab for all the extra seats so we could see the games on T.V.)
In Los Angeles only about the top 12% of the income bracket is qualified to buy real estate. But all the surrounding cities have gone way up, and then traffic from distant cities multiplies the time people spend in cars. The distances are too great to make trains convenient unless you get lucky, besides which, the earth there is full of methane pockets, and the land is already too expensive to buy back for a large surface train system. And let me tell you, getting across L.A. on the bus takes a whole long time, even though it is the best bus system in the country.
A fully free competition model for real estate with an ever-growing land value is not feasible without greatly raising the minimum wage or subsidized housing, because there isn't anywhere to live for working people who drive the trucks and cook the food and clean up afterward. In California at any rate, it seems like the housing cost has gone so far beyond the minimum wage that no one stuck at that wage can get out. The system makes an eddy, a whirlpool at the bottom level that greatly increases the obstacles set in the way of getting out.
People of conscience ought to ask themselves if together we can provide people a way out when we refresh our urban centers with redevelopment construction. The success of our economy does not depend on working a small group of people to death, and we shouldn't punish people more who were trying to get their lives back together and get into houses.
> detail, links and comments >>
Monday, May 7, 2007
12:55 PM
I remember taking out the leftovers from the weekly catered lunches at an office I worked at in downtown L.A. There was this guy who looked like they'd thrown him out of a hospital, he had a patient bracelet on still, and his medical exam gown, which he had pissed all over.
But if we make them afraid of justice because in their cycle of despair they have picked up an alcohol or drug habit, or they are mentally ill, then they will avoid justice, and they will be pushed further in. Some cities have begun to experiment with providing a certain percentage of free housing. Overall, it costs the community less than it does to send the cops and the paramedics when they go over the edge. It is easier to bring people back to a point where they want to help themselves. And there are jobs generated by construction or redevelopment projects.
homelessness and jobs
When I lived in Los Angeles, where the county has a homeless population of over 80,000 people, there was also a lot of trash. One way to reach homeless populations is to offer them employment picking up trash. Even if they stand around doing nothing, it's better than if we left them out in the cold.I remember taking out the leftovers from the weekly catered lunches at an office I worked at in downtown L.A. There was this guy who looked like they'd thrown him out of a hospital, he had a patient bracelet on still, and his medical exam gown, which he had pissed all over.
But if we make them afraid of justice because in their cycle of despair they have picked up an alcohol or drug habit, or they are mentally ill, then they will avoid justice, and they will be pushed further in. Some cities have begun to experiment with providing a certain percentage of free housing. Overall, it costs the community less than it does to send the cops and the paramedics when they go over the edge. It is easier to bring people back to a point where they want to help themselves. And there are jobs generated by construction or redevelopment projects.
> detail, links and comments >>
10:10 AM
In Internet stuff, for example, only a few open-source developers who got enough money on the first round are able to work for free to move technology ahead. Anyone who has to work for money is doomed to repeating old hack cycles that go nowhere. The "conservative" approach at work. Bah.
We can envision a world where all human knowledge is available free at the touch of a button. In fact, that's basically what we have, but there are still a bunch of uncreative idiots trying to sell it to you.
We can envision a world in which little cart robots grow food and give it away. Why don't we build that? At some point, just as with intellectual property, it becomes less of a hassle just to give stuff away.
The mistake of Marx, Lenin etc. was to envision a utopia and then think you could get there by force. Maybe someone had a nice idea once, but it all goes wrong if you don't respect the spirit of truth.
Capitalism was the only way to develop the technologies to uplift the world. But capitalism sees a need to keep a chokehold on oil, for example, to keep its inequities afloat, instead of releasing the world to fusion. (Micro-scale fusion is a really good idea, but it still wouldn't be quite "cold," would it. It's said the shadow government is at least 70% ahead of the public sector as we approach the 2012 transistor squeeze.) Capitalism has an incentive to hold people back as much as it does to develop new technologies. It has a stronger incentive to hold back technologies that would destroy its system of incentives.
The thing is, the transition has to be voluntary. It can never be achieved by force. "Sell all you have and give the money to the poor."
You'd be surprised what the poor can do with it. There are always a lot of smart poor people out there, people who want to improve themselves and contribute to the lives of others.
b.s. jobs vs. real jobs
The thing that gets to smart people who are experienced with all these computer fango-dango doo-dads is, they are supposed to save work, but instead, everyone new to them uses them to create more work. Then all of work becomes mind games and personality wars. It's a big lie and I'm tired of it.In Internet stuff, for example, only a few open-source developers who got enough money on the first round are able to work for free to move technology ahead. Anyone who has to work for money is doomed to repeating old hack cycles that go nowhere. The "conservative" approach at work. Bah.
We can envision a world where all human knowledge is available free at the touch of a button. In fact, that's basically what we have, but there are still a bunch of uncreative idiots trying to sell it to you.
We can envision a world in which little cart robots grow food and give it away. Why don't we build that? At some point, just as with intellectual property, it becomes less of a hassle just to give stuff away.
The mistake of Marx, Lenin etc. was to envision a utopia and then think you could get there by force. Maybe someone had a nice idea once, but it all goes wrong if you don't respect the spirit of truth.
Capitalism was the only way to develop the technologies to uplift the world. But capitalism sees a need to keep a chokehold on oil, for example, to keep its inequities afloat, instead of releasing the world to fusion. (Micro-scale fusion is a really good idea, but it still wouldn't be quite "cold," would it. It's said the shadow government is at least 70% ahead of the public sector as we approach the 2012 transistor squeeze.) Capitalism has an incentive to hold people back as much as it does to develop new technologies. It has a stronger incentive to hold back technologies that would destroy its system of incentives.
The thing is, the transition has to be voluntary. It can never be achieved by force. "Sell all you have and give the money to the poor."
You'd be surprised what the poor can do with it. There are always a lot of smart poor people out there, people who want to improve themselves and contribute to the lives of others.
> detail, links and comments >>
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
6:05 PM
Jobs
stay tuned> detail, links and comments >>
Archives May 2007 / September 2008 / October 2008 / November 2008 / December 2008 / February 2009 / September 2009 / January 2010 /