Author Topic: Political warfare  (Read 4317 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5275
  • Darwins +603/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #116 on: November 28, 2013, 02:42:25 AM »
I still can't see how me making more money than my neighbor to the left hurts him or how my neighbor to the right making more money than me hurts me.
It doesn't.  Provided that you aren't making your money by preying on your neighbor to the left, or your neighbor to the right isn't making his money by preying on you.

That's what a lot of businesses do.  They siphon away as much money from their workers' productivity as they can get away with in order to pass it up to the top echelon management.  Some of that is understandable, but it's long since passed into the realm of highway robbery.  Worse, the robbers are then able to take that money and use it to influence government policy to benefit themselves.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3628
  • Darwins +125/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #117 on: November 28, 2013, 02:47:09 AM »
In point of fact, businesses ultimately hurt themselves by this kind of conduct.  When you offer rock-bottom wages, you get rock-bottom employees for the most part.

If you follow a Keynesian model it hurts them twice since the employees have less discretionary income to spend as well.  No customers: no business.





I have walked...but currently choose the cheapest. At this moment I don't get the analogy. I think I might sort of get it but am not sure how it applies to wages.

Didn't you just ask why people can't negotiate their wages?  Why can't you negotiate the price you pay for gas?

Again, this is a real line of questions.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2462
  • Darwins +131/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #118 on: November 28, 2013, 11:58:31 AM »
I assume most regular members of this forum vote Democrat (or something similar for those living in other countries) So on this forum I see many comments complaining about politicians on the "right".

I do not vote for just Democrats. I also vote for Republicans, independents and even Libertarians a few times.

In the recent city elections I voted to re-elect our Republican mayor (he seems to be doing fine with the city and I saw no reason to change it). In fact, in the last 3 elections, I have voted for a Republicans for mayor. Our last mayor who was a Democrat is a bit whacko and wrong for the job. Not only did I vote against her, I helped to campaign against her. I had even campaigned FOR a Democrat during the primaries even though I couldn't vote for her since I was a registered Republican at the time. The 4th election back -- when I was still a registered Republican -- I voted for the Republican primary challenger against the Republican mayor who was seeking re-election. The primary challenger was a known drunk and kook. Why did I vote for him? Our existing mayor had turned into a bit of an asshole and said stupid shit in the national press (this was Sept 11 time period) about Islamic sand people or something like it. I didn't care what he had accomplished, somebody with that attitude was not going to represent me - he had already served 2 terms and he didn't need a 3rd. In the primaries, the challenger got 585 votes and the incumbent got 1,758. I knew the incumbent would win, but my vote was a protest vote and I was not alone. He ended up losing in the general election to the whacky Democrat, which came to be her one and only term as mayor. Voters wised up on their second chance.

In the same recent city elections, I voted for one Republican and 4 Democrats for our board of aldermen. The other 4 Republicans made it clear that they wanted to dismantle various city functions or outsource them and I don't care to have it. The Republican mayor won re-election, my Republican choice for alderman lost, but another Republican won. Of the Democrats I voted for, 3 won. The ratio on the board is 4 Democrats and 1 Republican.

Our county commissioners are a miserable lot of Tea Party Republicans. I didn't vote for a single one. The president of the commission is a smarmy, perfectly-coiffed asshole whose father is a Democrat who used to be mayor (3 times) and is now a state senator. Their Sunday family dinners ought to be interesting. The others on the commission also want to dismantle nearly every county government function and outsource it to private companies. That is beyond dumb. The only reason that these idiots won office is because there are a greater number of people in our county (agricultural and/or wealthy big-land owners) than in our main city, so the tilt was to Tea Party types. The Tea Party types will not win a city election -- ever.

State-wide, I have voted for Democrats for governor/lieutenant governor for the past 2 elections and likely will again next election because nobody who is a sane Republican has come forth. As for my state representatives I have voted for a mix of Ds and Rs over the years. Our state senator was an extremely conservative Republican idiot who I never voted for -- he finally lost because the locals finally wised up. He was a Cuban immigrant who constantly railed against immigrants. He would never win election any further up the chain because he would have to win immigrant votes, and in Maryland if you diss immigrants you will never win (Maryland is very diverse). For governor, I voted for William Donald Schaeffer (D) twice (back in the 1980s). The Republicans running for governor in Maryland have had too many whacky ideas. I did vote for Ellen Sauerbrey (R) over Parris Glendenning (D) the first time he ran for governor. Neither choice was outstanding. The second time Glendenning (R) ran, I think Sauerbrey (R) ran again and I voted for the libertarian candidate but I forget his name (I don't think he was a Libertarian but some other party that was like libertarians), only because I thought none of the candidates were great and we need to express our desire for a 3rd party option. Also, when he came to one our street festivals he seemed very personable and willing to listen. Glendenning won. Our last Republican governor (Ehrlich) was the first Republican elected as governor in Maryland since Spiro Agnew won the governor's race in 1966. Ehrlich engaged in the typical stupid Republican crap and was defeated by O'Malley, who I have voted for twice. Not outstanding, but decent.

For national representation, 25 years ago our US Representative was a Democrat who was doing fine, and I voted to re-elect her (I was a Republican back then). However, she lost to Roscoe Bartlett (R) who I have always viewed as a half-wit. I had dealings with Roscoe that confirmed that he is a half-wit. He was in Congress for 24 years and I never voted for him a single time. Anybody but Roscoe. Due to the reconfiguration of legislative districts, which I will call out as gerrymandering, Bartlett was defeated and we now have a Democrat as our US Representative. Not complaining about my representative, but I must observe how we ended up with him. It's also possible Bartlett would have been defeated anyway, but whether a D or R ended up in office is largely due to gerrymandering.

I have always voted for the Democrats for Senate seats, mainly because the Republicans nominate whacky people. Ever heard of Alan Keyes? He's a black man who couldn't win in Maryland (lotsa black people here) because he was arrogant, caustic and had crappy ideas. Whenever somebody claims that blacks will always vote for blacks -- they're wrong. They figured out that Alan Keyes was not on their side. Mr Keyes was invited to run for senator of Illinois. He didn't win, not only for his bad ideas and caustic attitude but also because he was a carpetbagger.

My votes for President? Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama.

If a Republican comes along who acts sane, I might vote for him/her. I voted for Elizabeth Dole in the Republican primaries in 2000, but Republicans (in general) don't vote for women.

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13139
  • Darwins +357/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #119 on: November 28, 2013, 03:08:21 PM »
I would also like to add, and I've stated it before, I started voting mainly Republican and ever since the nuts have taken over, I've been voting less and less on their side. Last election I voted, I believe, for only two Republicans. I Also voted once for Jeb Bush for my state for Governor, Charlie Crist (when he was a Republican) for Governor and Senate (though he was running as an Independent at the time), and voted twice for the mayor of the former city I live in who is a Republican. My father was a Republican for almost 40 years, now he's a Democrat. His words, "I didn't change, they changed.". He was replying to me about how he remembered when Republicans weren't so fuckin' insane the way they are today, and how they didn't bend over and take it up the ass from the crazies in the minority (who still are the minority) of the party.

The country used to be, in general, moderate to the right now they are moderate to the left. You have the moderate/conservative[1] to thank for that; not the crazy ones like Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachmann, etc., no, the moderate/conservatives who allowed them to take control.

-Nam
 1. non-crazy
« Last Edit: November 28, 2013, 03:11:50 PM by Nam »
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #120 on: November 28, 2013, 04:00:53 PM »
I still can't see how me making more money than my neighbor to the left hurts him or how my neighbor to the right making more money than me hurts me.
It doesn't.  Provided that you aren't making your money by preying on your neighbor to the left, or your neighbor to the right isn't making his money by preying on you.

That's what a lot of businesses do.  They siphon away as much money from their workers' productivity as they can get away with in order to pass it up to the top echelon management.  Some of that is understandable, but it's long since passed into the realm of highway robbery.  Worse, the robbers are then able to take that money and use it to influence government policy to benefit themselves.

Yeah, were I king, I would make it that the best paid person in a company cannot make more than 49 times what the worst paid person in a company makes(adjusting to a per hour basis) So there's plenty of incentive to try harder and work your way up, but not so much as to enter the realm of wage slavery.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2462
  • Darwins +131/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #121 on: November 28, 2013, 04:22:13 PM »
Trickle down is the theory, what is the actual bill or policy or law or whatever that kicked in the theory back in the 70's? What was the piece of legislation voted on to bring about this change and what was in place before it?

I found a wiki article describing the theory but am not having much luck in getting specifics.

The Laffer Curve is the source, but the name wasn't sexy. They morphed the idea a little and re-christened it "Trickle Down Economics". The only part of the re-christened name that is correct is "down". The original name should be The Laugher Curve because that's really all it can generate: simplistic humor.

The Laffer Curve is a great topic for discussion when you are sitting around with a few intelligent people in a pub and having a beer or three (when discussing the Laffer Curve, three are better than two). However, the Laffer Curve cannot be measured, tested or implemented, but that doesn't stop people from claiming that it is true. There are only two points on the Laffer Curve that are valid: 0% and 100%. Everything in the middle is purely conjecture.

So, using this Laffer Curve theory, some people believe that if you reduce a tax rate from 25% to 20%, the people who have experienced a 5 point reduction in taxes will produce a lot more work, earn a higher income than before and thereby pay more taxes than before. For example, maybe someone who was at a 25% tax rate earning $35,000/year will suddenly be capable of producing $44,000 of income for their (newly) reduced tax bracket of 20%. If you do the math, 25% of 35,000 is $8,750 in taxes while 20% of $44,000 is $8,800 in taxes.[1] Since there is an extra $50 in taxes, the Laffer people say you are fully justified in reducing the tax rate.

However, it is entirely unjustified ...

Do you know somebody who has an income of $35,000/year who can suddenly raise their income $9,000/year just because of the reduced taxes? Seems to me that a salary is a salary is a salary. If you are making $35,000/year, you are working for someone else, and that employer is not suddenly going to see the light and give you a $9,000 raise in one year just because HIS taxes have also been lowered. Worse, a person earning $35,000/year is unlikely to earn a bonus anywhere near $9,000/year. There are very few people employed in occupations making $35,000/year in which a $9,000 bonus is a reality. But let us suppose for a moment that there are many people for whom this scenario is true ...

What the Laffer Curve completely ignores is that when higher levels of income are earned more services are consumed. So, you say, well duh! Isn't that the point? Yes, it is, but only on the surface. Just because someone is consuming more services doesn't mean that all of those services are by and for private enterprise. Government (all levels) spends about 30% of all dollars in the economy -- these are not just dollars for government programs like social welfare and the armed forces, but everything like salaries, supplies, real estate, fixtures, etc. Each time more private dollars are spent in the economy, so are more government dollars spent. As an example: remember that mythical friend you have that earns $35,000/year and is eligible for a $9,000 bonus? What is he going to do with his $9,000? Put it in the bank? Maybe some of it, but not all of it. If he is looking to buy a house he may be saving up for a down payment, but if he is ready to buy now that $9,000 not only put him over his goal, he will spend a few more bucks once he buys the house. Let's say that house is in a new development of 1,000 homes off Serendipity Boulevard (remember we are growing the economy Laffer-style) ... what do you need for 1,000 new homes? You need additional fire protection, police protection, housing inspectors, additional water sources and perhaps additional purification capacity, new zoning, new easements, additional boxes for delivery of mail (and the associated personnel that go with those boxes), schools, medical facilities, etc, etc, etc.

Do you think that your friend is going to get all that extra stuff because the government earned $50 extra?  Hell no!  If you do, then Serendipity Boulevard is located in Fantasyland USA. If the government did reduce his taxes 5 points, the government will have to create new taxes to compensate, like a water/sewer hookup fee of $5,000 instead of $3,000, or real estate taxes of $0.30 per $1000 instead of $0.26 per $1000, or a $2000 fee for the fire truck to show up at your house instead of the old $500 fee ... etc, etc, etc.

The Laffer Disciples think that if you reduce income taxes everything will trickle down from the people higher up the income ladder to those who are below it. What they fail to tell you is that those who are down the ladder are unlikely to gain any real income from this maneuver and they are still likely to consume more services than their tax reduction justified because now the government is operating at a loss. (Remember, inflation still occurs so dollars are devalued constantly.) Is the government just supposed to lay off employees because you saved a few bucks in taxes? Since government is the largest single consumer of goods and services, reducing the output of the government is going to reduce the input to your paycheck. This means that the economy will stagnate or shrink, or in the worst case scenario, your government will take out loans (incur debt) to help pay the expenses from the mythical taxes that were never collected. Meanwhile, the Laffer Disciples just invested another $100,000 in Apple this week.


 1. These examples are not intended to bear any relations to tax rates per thousand of income anywhere in the United States. They're just examples.
John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2462
  • Darwins +131/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #122 on: November 28, 2013, 05:03:06 PM »
Just also realized...don't know if this makes a difference but from 1947 up till 1979 in that chart is called the great prosperity. Everything is on the up and up. If my memory serves me...the "rich" were taxed at something close to 80 or 90% following the great depression and the war. Apparently the graph shows that allowing the "rich" people to keep more of their money hurts everybody else. I don't understand (in a broad sense) how that can be true.

The economy is a machine with a delicate balance. If you accumulate more money at the top, it will not be spent on goods and services. It will be invested, which has become a socially acceptable euphemism for gambled on stocks and bonds while not actually fostering anything important.

The economy is like growing crops, and the government is like the farmer. The farmer has to till the soil, plant seeds, fertilize, water, pray for good weather (heh), monitor growth, prevent pests from consuming the crops, harvest the crops, store the crops, go to market and sell the crops. The farmer has to plow under the soil in fall and wait through the winter until spring arrives and he can start everything again. If money is like rain and if (true) investments are like fertilizer, what happens when the farmer's crops get little rain and fertilization? The crops won't grow right, if at all, and the farmer will harvest less, sell less and earn less. What does a farmer do if he is told each year that there will be less and less rain available, and less and less fertilizer to spread? Likely, he stews about his shrinking crops and eventually decides to quit.

3. We should be able to keep the fruits of our labor.

That is a vague question. Are you saying that you should be able to keep 100% of the fruits of your labor? If you are then my answer is Hell no!.

Whatever the fruits of your labor are, you did not earn them alone. You had help along the way. Somebody fed you, clothed you, educated you, provided medical care, protected your house from burning down, made sure you had clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, made sure that when you shat in your pot the feces actually went somewhere, made sure that when you are old and infirm that you still had care and an income, made sure that if you had a dispute with a neighbor, a stranger or another business that you could seek justice in a court of law, provided you with communications, provided you with research for ever-advancing technology, made sure that you had a voice, a vote, in fair and honest elections ..... and for all that (and much, much more), no, you cannot keep 100% of what you make. You did not bear 100% of the risk of loss in whatever endeavour you chose, nor shall you keep 100% of your gains.

By virtue of government -- any government -- there has always been a social compact that those before you sacrificed for your benefit and you need to pay it forward to the next generation. It's called socialism. Truly, it is. We are not alone and should not be alone. I will not live in some feudal society where a few rich men have castles surrounded by moats and pay their mercenaries to murder their enemies all while the queen tells the peasants to eat cake. The Middle Ages was not a model for societal advancement.


E pluribus unum ... from many, one ... used to be the motto of the United States until 1956 when Congress decided it should be In God We Trust ... hmmm ... not from many, one; not out of many, one ... but just .... oh dear ... in god we trust. We must put all of our faith in god, not ourselves. We must come to rely on god, not ourselves. Everyone is on their own, separate and alone.

There are individuals in a society, but there is no societies in the individual.

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #123 on: November 28, 2013, 07:54:24 PM »
I wont be able to get deep into conversation tonight. I have read all the new comments and am getting a better idea of what is going on. Thank you.

I will clarify one thing real quick because a couple of people have asked.

3. We should be able to keep the fruits of our labor.

That is a vague question. Are you saying that you should be able to keep 100% of the fruits of your labor? If you are then my answer is Hell no!.

No. I don't think we should keep 100%. My primary concern or question for that statement is specifically the income tax. There are taxes and service fees for all the other social programs and government services already built into the system from the local level on up.

I just found this paper concerning income tax and the 16th Amendment. Is it worth digging further into?

Labor thought it was going to level the playing field with an income tax which would tax only the accumulated wealth of the nation. The purpose of the Income Tax Amendment (the 16th Amendment) was to bring tax relief to wage-earners. That was the plan, but the income tax has not worked out this way. This is evidenced by the fact that today large corporations, family trusts and foundations pay little or no tax while the middle class is drowning in taxation. Nothing has changed. The reality was in 1909 the very rich, with help of Republican Senator Aldrich of Rhode Island, gave in to the pressure to approve an income tax amendment to the Constitution. But the Republicans did so in such a way that the entire income tax issue could later be manipulated to protect the wealth which was supposed to be taxed. First they added wages to the mix while at the same time exempted them out. Incrementally they inflated our money while lowering the exemption amount. By WWII almost everyone was paying an income tax on their wages and salaries. It was never intended to be this way.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2013, 07:56:37 PM by Mr. Blackwell »
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12562
  • Darwins +304/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #124 on: November 28, 2013, 09:06:37 PM »
Who is the "they" who supposedly deliberately inflated all our money?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #125 on: November 28, 2013, 09:42:33 PM »
The way that paragraph is written it seems that "they" are the Republicans but I guess the federal reserve controls the rate of inflation.
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12562
  • Darwins +304/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #126 on: November 29, 2013, 01:07:29 AM »
That was my thought reading it too; taking it as it's written, it sounds like they're saying that there's a long-standing Republican conspiracy to inflate our currency.  :o
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #127 on: November 29, 2013, 06:11:18 AM »
That was my thought reading it too; taking it as it's written, it sounds like they're saying that there's a long-standing Republican conspiracy to inflate our currency.  :o

Which is incorrect. However, I am inclined to think that there has been a long term strategy to reduce inflation adjusted wages...that the Republican have been either willing partners or unwitting pawns in more than Democrats. A clear example is the perfect system to reduce wages is to keep the legal immigration low, but illegal immigration poorly enforced. This creates a large labor pool that can be ill used and paid less than minimum wage. Furthermore, the more unwanted births you have, that further increases labor pools in general...putting downward pressure on wages. Poor education, tax structure that encourage outsource, voting down minimum wage increases, deregulation, detoothing Unions...it all points towards some very powerful people are working towards that goal.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2462
  • Darwins +131/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #128 on: November 29, 2013, 07:48:44 AM »
No. I don't think we should keep 100%. My primary concern or question for that statement is specifically the income tax. There are taxes and service fees for all the other social programs and government services already built into the system from the local level on up.

I just found this paper concerning income tax and the 16th Amendment. Is it worth digging further into?
...

Maybe you should dig further.

Quote
The purpose of the Income Tax Amendment (the 16th Amendment) was to bring tax relief to wage-earners.

Incorrect. The purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to allow the federal government to levy taxes other than tariffs and excise taxes, and to apportion the taxes collected without respect to the the populations of the states. Tariffs are taxes on imported goods and excise taxes are somewhat like a sales tax to the producer of goods instead of the buyer of goods. Before the Sixteenth Amendment, these taxes were considered indirect property taxes which must be returned to the locale where the taxes were levied (one reason the federal government is not in the business of taxing real property, like your house, and why the federal government does not collect sales taxes). The economy of the United States was growing rapidly and we were exporting more goods than we were importing which caused a strain on the federal budget since the government was not collecting sufficient taxes on imports to accomplish what it was required to do in the various states.

Before the Sixteenth Amendment, a state which imported very little was not collecting much in the way of taxes, and consequently, not providing much to its citizens, especially with respect to armed forces that they were required to provide to the federal army (among other services). For example, a state like Kentucky which imported very little, was not appropriated much back to its coffers due to its lack of imports. New York, however, was the major import location for most goods. Since the imposts were collected on goods in New York, the money went back to New York. With a situation like this, New York becomes a far richer state than Kentucky. The Sixteenth Amendment allowed the federal government to spend more income tax collections in Kentucky per capita than in New York per capita. You can consider this Robin Hood -- taking from the rich to give to the poor. In today's Republican vernacular, it is the redistribution of wealth. (Ironically, any tax is a redistribution of wealth. If we gave you back exactly the amount we taxed you, what would be the point?)

According to Wiki, Treasury Secretary AJ Dallas first offered the idea of a federal income tax during the war of 1812. Also, federal income taxes had been imposed at times before the Sixteenth Amendment to pay for specific events (wars). In contrast to the page you linked, the income tax was not a new idea suddenly floated by Republicans as a way to punish the middle class and enrich the already-wealthy.


Quote
The reality was in 1909 the very rich, with help of Republican Senator Aldrich of Rhode Island, gave in to the pressure to approve an income tax amendment to the Constitution. But the Republicans did so in such a way that the entire income tax issue could later be manipulated to protect the wealth which was supposed to be taxed.

Well, if the Republicans of the time structured the tax system in such a way as to protect wealth, they didn't do a very good job of it. The wealthy were traditionally taxed at far greater rates than they are today. That was true until the 1960s/1970s when Congress started to lower tax rates on the wealthy.

Additionally, any tax system can be manipulated. If you find a way to accomplish X, somebody else will find a way to accomplish Y.

Quote
First they added wages to the mix while at the same time exempted them out.

An income tax is imposed on wages, which are income. Without wages, there is no income tax. The author is either confused or being intentionally misleading.

Quote
Incrementally they inflated our money while lowering the exemption amount. By WWII almost everyone was paying an income tax on their wages and salaries. It was never intended to be this way.

The website you visited to capture all this is written and owned by someone with questionable comprehension skills. Vivien Kellems was a libertarian before Libertarianism was cool. She was also a denier of the power to tax incomes and attempted many times to evade the income tax. She was a bit of a kook. According to Wikipedia she also supported voter reforms and the equal rights amendment. She is the personification of the stopped clock -- even a stopped clock tells the right time twice each day.

The author of that article is "Phil Hart" for whom I cannot find info about him directly, but I see that he is also likes to masturbate about the thought of paying no income taxes because his literature is strewn about the internet on various other sites. I noticed that I could purchase a CD from Vivien Kellems but she died before the technology existed, which is even more kooky. When I follow the link I am taken to Devvy.com, which is run by Devvy Kidd, who is far more kookier than Vivien Kellems (but likely on par with her buddy Phil). I had never heard of Devvy Kidd, but I quickly note that she is a radical -- she even says that Ted Cruz is not a natural-born US citizen and that the government is going to force people into re-education camps. She's a black helicopter kind of gal.  Oh, and I see that she writes for World News Daily (WND) which immediately discredits her in just about every way imaginable.

I wonder if she paid the heirs of Vivien Kellem for the rights to use Vivien's name and likeness (Devvy is in control of VivienKellams.org).

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2462
  • Darwins +131/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #129 on: November 29, 2013, 08:11:30 AM »
Who is the "they" who supposedly deliberately inflated all our money?

The way that paragraph is written it seems that "they" are the Republicans but I guess the federal reserve controls the rate of inflation.

I am not sure who "they" are or what "inflated" means, but given the bent of the author's pen, and given the associated things written and/or advertised on the various sites where I find his literature, he is railing against the Federal Reserve Bank, and banking in general.

Phil and his brethren do not believe that you should be able to get a loan from a bank. They believe that you should only be able to get a loan from someone who can afford to do without the money until you pay them back (in other words, a very wealthy man). What would the world be like if each individual had to petition directly a very wealthy man to get a loan for anything. We might as well return to having a monarchy.

Anyway, these people do not like fractional reserve banking, but fractional reserve banking is exactly how banks make loans. Because a bank takes in $100, keeps $70 on reserve (in case you visit and ask to withdraw $20) and loans out the other $30 to people who are buying homes and cars, not only does the bank have only a fraction of your deposit on hand but the bank also multiplied the available money. The balance sheet shows that the bank owes you $100 but they also have assets of $30 (plus interest), which means that there is now $130+ floating in the economy, not $100. Money inflation.

General inflation is a different issue but has a loose correlation with money inflation. The Federal Reserve Bank has an ability to affect the general inflation rate by controlling the availability of money (either tightly or loosely). Sometimes when money is readily available, general inflation rapidly increases, but right now the money is looser because there is very little inflation (a quirk) and the loose money has been made available to encourage the expansion of the economy by encouraging the purchase of goods and services.

This is why Paul Krugman says that inflation is not a bad thing. Any student of economics knows that deflation is a very ugly situation that can make one pine for inflation as a fond memory of the good ole days.
John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline shnozzola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1976
  • Darwins +111/-2
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #130 on: November 29, 2013, 10:33:40 AM »
...... Poor education, tax structure that encourage outsource, voting down minimum wage increases, deregulation, detoothing Unions...it all points towards some very powerful people are working towards that goal.
Yes, especially poor education.  This push to privatize and keep wealthy children well educated, while public schools get less and less of what kids need - this ensures a successful top tier.  It almost works outside the election system if you can keep the middle class blind to what is going on.  Very insidious and harmful in the long run - and that pendulum will swing violently back when the masses see it.  It seems a bit conspiracy oriented, and very sad that the many that could fight and stop it don't.  Which goes along with the current republican push to prevent the masses from easy absentee voting or reduction of voting hours, with republicans realizing if such things as college students away from home were unable to vote, their election numbers get above 50%.
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5275
  • Darwins +603/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Political warfare
« Reply #131 on: November 29, 2013, 11:41:03 AM »
^^Indeed.  If it weren't for fractional reserve banking, there would be a lot less money available for just about anything.  It's one of the reasons this country is as rich as it is - because money is available to the average Joe for things that they couldn't realistically afford otherwise.  Without it, I can't think of any way to avoid economic stagnation - because when wealth is concentrated too heavily, there is much less overall demand, which hinders economic growth.

Let me put it this way.  A really rich man might buy a dozen TVs, or a dozen cars.  But if you were to, say, split the same amount of money up (say in a bank) and make it available to people who are not rich, each one of them will want a TV and a car.  If a thousand of them each buy a TV and a car, they heavily outweigh the amount of demand created by the rich man.  And best of all, they pay it off over time, so making money available to loan actually creates money that wasn't there before.  But it only works as long as money is made available to people without having to jump through too many hoops to get it.