Study: Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan raises taxes on 84 percent of households

**ExLe** · 10-28-2011, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by LAM

there is a direct correlation between the loss of collective bargaining rights for the majority of US workers in the 80's with the loss of income increases that scaled right along with productivity, this is an economic fact.

the 1980 Monetary Control Act gave the FRB more powers over non-member banks and for banks to have no limit on interest rates in relation to what they were getting from the FRB (prime rate). years later in the 80's is when labor unions in the US were crushed and Americans in most metro areas started accruing substantial revolving debt once wages began to no longer scale with increases in productivity and/or inflation. public debt is how financial institutions get the capital they they gamble and invest with, they do not earn it themselves. you can trace the decline in the interest rates at the FRB in the 80's with the decline of collective bargaining rights and wages for most americans. from this you can see how not only the financial sector in the US took off by the DOW Index but by the growth of profits from large US corps. it is one of the main reasons why US corps are so profitable as compared to their counterparts in other wealthy industrialized countries and how the US financial sector came to be so large, along with the benefits of the dollar hegemony that US capital account holders received every-time a foreign nation purchased US dollars for use on the world market from the treasury. free capital to invest overseas in countries with high interest rates.

free markets are bullshit, the US financial system is bullshit and the stock market is bullshit, you can trace the times when the money supply is increased by the FRB with large gains in the stock market. this is why many of us have called shenanigans on this whole "capitalist system" in the US long ago.

the banks set up the working class in the late 90's and 2000's for another shellacking. home values are supposed to appreciate with real income growth, it is how housing remains affordable and how a healthy economy grows and creates lasting equity in that type of property. the banks new exactly what they were doing, they could care less about the working class. unemployment on wallstreet historically never really gets much higher than 4-5%.

most of the debt that the US is in was not spent on the people, it was debt that the fed gov was "buffering" from the loss of income from the working class since the 80's and the loss of tax progressivity and taxes on large US corps in the US since the 80's and subsidizing large firms in a variety of different ways.

other country's in the OECD are recovering much better from the global banking collapse much, much better than the US. the US not only taxes the least but it also spends the least amount of social protections so when there is an economic downturn so the working class in the US is always the hardest hit in the OECD as we are the least protected. many euro countries unemployment benefits on average are 9-12 months. they also suffer from far less recessions than the US due to higher levels of economic growth due to less inequality. I am not saying it's a good thing but it helps to keep people from failing into poverty which gets harder and harder to climb out of in the US with low wages, high inflation, ever increasing costs of food and energy and a ever shrinking job market. many that live in rural US think that all these problems are new while many of us that have always lived in the metro area have been experiencing this crap for decades. I worked for a firm once in the mid 90's that was bought and sold 4x in 3 years. do you know how fucking stressful that is? knowing that every-time there are workforce reductions and you could be next no matter how well you perform your job.

so to answer your question do I think unions are the answer, they are part of the answer. as the past 40 years of economic history has shown us that US corps will not do the right thing on their own, only what is required by law.

I can not tell you how many people I know with multiple college degrees, MBA's ,etc that can not find work. many have been unemployed for years.

I am glad see even Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown knows pension reform for State employees must be reformed for the good of the State...

These Cadillac plans can no longer be the status quo...

Gov. Brown's pension-reform plan: Painful but necessary | 89.3 KPCC

**IronAddict** · 10-29-2011, 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by ExLe

I am glad see even Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown knows pension reform for State employees must be reformed for the good of the State...

These Cadillac plans can no longer be the status quo...

Gov. Brown's pension-reform plan: Painful but necessary | 89.3 KPCC

This guy's a sell out, just like any other career politician.

Are you going to stand up with me?

**troubador** · 10-29-2011, 01:42 AM

Originally Posted by Thee_One

If all jobs are necessary, why pay some more than others?

Because they are more valuable. The person who designs an airplane will bring in more money to the company and is harder to replace than the guy on the assembly line turning a wrench. Who gives a fuck how hard someone works if they don't produce anything of value. Your postulate would undermine the entire purpose of money.

**LAM** · 10-29-2011, 02:27 AM

Originally Posted by ExLe

I am glad see even Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown knows pension reform for State employees must be reformed for the good of the State...

These Cadillac plans can no longer be the status quo...

Gov. Brown's pension-reform plan: Painful but necessary | 89.3 KPCC

7.5% return isn't going to happen today not with the FRB lending at 0%.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PRIME.txt

State pension funds across the country have fallen victim to low interest rates as well as years of mismanagement since the tech boom in the 90's and also from the banking collapse in 2007.

I never understood how those plans based on inflated incomes from overtime, etc. where ever allowed.

and how is it that the country with the highest GDP has so many money problems?

**irish_2003** · 10-29-2011, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by ExLe

I am glad see even Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown knows pension reform for State employees must be reformed for the good of the State...

These Cadillac plans can no longer be the status quo...

Gov. Brown's pension-reform plan: Painful but necessary | 89.3 KPCC

yep, this was big in Wisconsin news last week.....he's following in my gov's footsteps and doing something that some don't like (pelosi's broke 9th district), but needs to be done......i commend gov brown for following the format that scott walker is proving successful here

**oufinny** · 10-29-2011, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

3 years and counting...

Yep, all promises and no changes (could have been McCain and it would have beed the status quo of Bush). Legislation that is 1100 pages long passed with no review (healthcare law), a congress that did nothing when it had the chance to (whether it would have been good or not I don't know but it would have been nice to see a little less inaction), and bad investments into alternative energy not ready for the mainstream. Sounds a lot like what many of the Presidents have done in the last 30 years. I can't believe I am saying this but the Clinton years are looking pretty good compared to right now... wow I can't believe I typed that.

The good thing is we are leaving Iraq, maybe Afghanistan too but we are too hard headed to see the light there like the Soviets did.

**LAM** · 10-29-2011, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by oufinny

The good thing is we are leaving Iraq, maybe Afghanistan too but we are too hard headed to see the light there like the Soviets did.

the Soviets ran out of money just like the US but they did not have the ability to get into the kind of debt that the US could because of the dollar hegemony. since the end of WWII the US is the only major country that has been waring as historically it has always bankrupted nations. the US does not care about have an indebted population, as the people are not in control the lobbyists are.

**LAM** · 10-30-2011, 01:12 AM

Originally Posted by oufinny

I can't believe I am saying this but the Clinton years are looking pretty good compared to right now... wow I can't believe I typed that.

the Clinton years were the first in decades where there was real income growth for many due to the "markets". this is what people just don't understand the problem with job loss in the US has been going on for 3 decades and it has effected different industry's in different states at different times. since the BLS doesn't track jobs that were outsourced the unemployment numbers that they state are not even close to the actual representation, it is probably a good 20%, and the underemployed in the US are at about 20% as well.

when company's go multinational the jobs eventually go with them. the problem is that US multinationals still have a significant hold/market share in the US and there is no way to directly compete with them as they have all the benefits, political power, capital and credit. large firms have never been big job growth creators in recession recovery's, small firms with less than 100 employees are but with tight lending and credit standards not many could even qualify for a sizable loan to start-up. it's not like anyone was making money in the past decade and trillions in home wealth was lost, so there is no equity there to put up as collateral.

a report was released from the Senate the other week as large firms have been pushing for another tax holiday like in 2004. that tax holiday created no jobs as most of those monies were returned to shareholders for stock buy backs, exactly what the large firms promised they would not do.

the report also stated that because of the effect of foreign currency exchange it could boos the dollar making US exports more costly reducing the demand for US products.

mergers and acquisitions was up 12% in 2010 at almost 1T.

* things will be bleak in the US for many, many years (decades) until there is another "new thing" like the Internet, etc. where many people can benefit and increase the income. the US has far to many large firms in the various markets and in each market there is an oligopoly, where 4-5 large firms have almost 100% of the market share.

and on this note, I'm going to hit the bong because knowing all this shit is a bummer sometimes...

**irish_2003** · 10-30-2011, 10:15 AM

my only arguments during the clinton years that really turned me off to the liberal movement (i'd say i was more of an independent or conservative dem back then) was while active duty seeing so many defense spending cuts that military families were on food stamps while serving and our cost of living increase were no where near what they are now.....but also much of this so-called "growth" was people using credit for everything....well guess what....if it's not payed back, it's big problems.....and we started seeing that in the mid 2000's, when all those borrowed purchases started going bad......

i really respect the WWII Generation.....they overall had less, but what they had they OUTRIGHT OWNED....they saved for their purchases and didn't spend what they didn't have.....they most hardworking, patriotic, AND family-oriented generation there was that i've known......

**Gissurjon** · 10-30-2011, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by ExLe

hence... Obama

Community organizer...
Jr. Senator...
President...

He was at the right place at the right time with the full backing of the media...

At least Bush ran a State for 6 years...

You must think I'm a Obama supporter...

**Dark Geared God** · 10-30-2011, 05:04 PM

**troubador** · 10-30-2011, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by irish_2003

my only arguments during the clinton years that really turned me off to the liberal movement

The assault weapons ban was a terrible piece of legislation.

**irish_2003** · 10-30-2011, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by troubador

The assault weapons ban was a terrible piece of legislation.

agreed....it's not a ban on weapons potentially being dangerous to other americans, it's a ban on americans defending themselves against those who run america

**troubador** · 10-30-2011, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by irish_2003

agreed....it's not a ban on weapons potentially being dangerous to other americans, it's a ban on americans defending themselves against those who run america

and a ban on the shoulder thing that goes up

**irish_2003** · 10-30-2011, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by troubador

and a ban on the shoulder thing that goes up

the problem with that whole scenario is that people were warned of his depression and other psychological crap/meds, etc he had going on and they ignored it.....so the logical thing to do is ban something to transfer the attention away

Thread: Study: Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan raises taxes on 84 percent of households

Thread Tools

Display

Similar Threads

Herman Cain !!

Official unemployment rate? 9.4 percent. Total rate? 16.7 percent

Front Raises v.s. Lateral Raises

Spanking raises womens testosterone, study shows

Do incline dumbbell front raises target the traps better than standing front raises?

Posting Permissions