Quantitative easing (i.e. debasing the currency) isn't exactly a transfer of money from the poor to the rich, it's a transfer of wealth from savers to borrowers. It is, however, true that the rich are more aware of this and better able to take advantage of it.

Modern day, right wing Republicanism is fueled by religion, religion that has told it's practitioners that they are being persecuted and they are the ones to save them. Calvinism, Rousas John Rushdoony, Christian Reconstructionism and an honest belief that they are in the end times, and are actively pursuing the end times...
An intersting article showing just how messed up modern day Tea Party politics is, Ted Cruz’s Father Preaches That His Son Is An “Anointed King” Who Will Bring The “End Time Transfer Of Wealth”

The church leaders, Fox News and everyone else has them all messed up to such a degree that they ignore the fact Jesus said it was impossible for a rich man to enter heaven, that they have their rewards here on Earth; that they ware to help the needy and the poor; that they are to be stewards of the Earth; blessed are the peacmakers; to heal the sick; to pray in secret, not make a big show of it as many Republican leaders do; that only God knows the appointed time of Jesus' return... and that word appointed means something... it doesn't matter if all the signs are here, if it isn't that appointed time, then it isn't time. I've heard the argument made that things like climate change doesn't matter as God is returning soon anyhow... it doesn't even enter their minds that perhaps God's appointed time is 52,584 CE/AD, to them it has to be ending soon... The election of Obama proved it to them that we are in the end times (I've heard that too, or pray for the world to end soon)... this is the fatalism that is running rampant in the minds of those who are voting for the Tea Party right wing nut cases. They are denied special privileges, they claim they are being persecuted. They truly see themselves being in the end of days and they are doing all they can to self fulfill the prophesies (even if they don't realize they are doing so, though many do know)... even if it became undeniable tomorrow that not only was climate change real, but it was man made, they would just point to the Bible and find some prophesy that the Earth would be polluted in the end of days. They hear on Fox News and Rush and in the church, people they trust saying "if you really think about it...", "anybody with half a mind could clearly see..." or "if you think critically about it..." and then tell them what to think, so that they think they have logic on their side as well as God.

As VoodooV pointed out, they are willing to sacrifice their own plans and ideas if it is adopted by those they see as the opposition in order to continue their persecution complex and continue to sabotage things.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If Cain is such a non-threat, why is this regime's loyal media trying so desperately to sink him (while actively covering up Obama's many gaffes as well as the regime's failures of the last 3 years)?
Which just goes to show...something...about conservatives in the US. It hurts my head to try to figure out what.
Success, jobs, prosperity, national pride. Yeah, they'll remain distant memories as long as socialists are in power.

>> ^TheFreak:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Wow, this obviously proves Cain is not up to the job.
It took 3 (now almost 4) years of failure and the left still doesn't know Obama isn't up to the job.

And yet Herman Cain, the man aspiring to be President who is uninformed about Medicare issues...the man who wants to be leader of the free world who fears China may develop nuclear capabilities...the man who's strongest held beliefs, he has "no facts to support"....THAT man, is still rising in the GOP presidential polls.
Which just goes to show...something...about conservatives in the US. It hurts my head to try to figure out what.



because success, jobs, prosperity, and national pride did so well under a recent Republican President?
lol

now don't get me wrong, I realize alot of American's have national pride... its just too bad what they have pride in just doesn't jive with reality...

"We're #1" is only applicable to 3 things in regards to America...

military spending, national debt, and rate of transfer of wealth from poor/middle class to the rich

go unfettered capitalism!!!

Debt Political Theater Diverts Attention While Americans’ Wealth is Stolen

Kucinich:

We have to realize what this country's economy has become. Our monetary policy, through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, privatized the money supply, gathers the wealth, puts it in the hands of the few while the Federal Reserve can create money out of nothing, give it to banks to park at the Fed while our small businesses are starving for capital.

Mark my words -- Wall Street cashes in whether we have a default or not. And the same type of thinking that created billions in bailouts for Wall Street and more than $1 trillion in giveaways by the Federal Reserve today leaves 26 million Americans either underemployed or unemployed. And nine out of ten Americans over the age of 65 are facing cuts in their Social Security in order to pay for a debt which grew from tax cuts for the rich and for endless wars.

There is a massive transfer of wealth from the American people to the hands of a few and it's going on right now as America’s eyes are misdirected to the political theater of these histrionic debt negotiations, threats to shut down the government, and willingness to make the most Americans pay dearly for debts they did not create.

These are symptoms of a government which has lost its way, and they are a challenge to the legitimacy of the two-party system.

Yogi you really know how to let that Liberal love shine.


I thought I was kinda falling in love with your photo. That tight hot yellow sweater and all. But now I don't know.

Who is taking from the bottom 90%.? Could you explain?



>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bobknight33:
I agree that corporations are not paying any taxes and that is a damn shame.
>> ^Ryjkyj:


That's Not just "A Damn Shame" that's everything. That's taking the money from the Bottom 90% of America and transporting that wealth to the Top 1%. How is it that we don't understand that yet? The government is meant to be big because the Corporations want it to transfer the wealth from the poor to the rich. And any suggestion that we should keep some of that wealth we're destroying the country.
No mother fucker, you and your ignorance of basic economics of our current system is ruining this country. You're fighting for the top 1% who don't give a FUCK about you and your life. Fucking join the correct side of this fight or you will continue being bitter and stupid the rest of your pathetic life.

>> ^bobknight33:

I agree that corporations are not paying any taxes and that is a damn shame.
>> ^Ryjkyj:



That's Not just "A Damn Shame" that's everything. That's taking the money from the Bottom 90% of America and transporting that wealth to the Top 1%. How is it that we don't understand that yet? The government is meant to be big because the Corporations want it to transfer the wealth from the poor to the rich. And any suggestion that we should keep some of that wealth we're destroying the country.

No mother fucker, you and your ignorance of basic economics of our current system is ruining this country. You're fighting for the top 1% who don't give a FUCK about you and your life. Fucking join the correct side of this fight or you will continue being bitter and stupid the rest of your pathetic life.

Green was a white boy, born into a white-boy world; finding jobs was easy for him, like a square peg finding square holes.

Blue was a round peg, and had trouble fitting into the square-hole world.

Red is the embodiment of the putrid imagination of Green.

Consider the fact that Green has lots of money to spare: big surprise, since Green is living in a world that caters to him...only a fuckup could be Green in a Green world and not make money.

Yes, let's remember that there is no reason to threaten Green's life just because Blue is starving to death. The two are totally unrelated.

Oh, yes, let's create a "program" to help people like Blue, because we all know that in the USA it is the poor and the weak who control our government.

Aggressive acts...redistribution...never would occur if the blues were organized. Unionized. Had they formed "Guilds." Because there are at least two factors to capitalism: those who have capital, and those who don't (labor).

Transfer of wealth? Working for minimum wage while somebody else makes enough to live on Malibu Beach, that's not a transfer of wealth to start with?

"The main problem with this system is the unrepresented blues and greens that object to the will of the masses." You're joking, right?

"The reason we do not have a democracy is to prevent the whim of the majority from dictating peoples lives." Oh, that's a riot. Yeah, that's why. Has nothing to do with GE, Lockheed, Boeing, KBR, and certain families that I dare not mention for fear of reprisal.

Wake the fuck up, Blankie.

Stop being a boy crying about the nickels you lost from your pocket.

Wake the fuck up, man.

I can't even watch the rest of this shit. You will know in about 20 years just how valuable you are.

Who is anti-science? There IS no science at all within the politically motivated argument that human C02 must be reduced to 'prevent' climate change. That isn't an anti science statement. That is a pro-science statement. It just happens to be pro-science AGAINST the baloney that is the man-made global warming position.

Lots of scientists agree that the climate is changing. But there is no consensus that humans (A) changed the climate or (B) could possibly stop climate change. There certainly is ZERO scientific consensus that the best way to deal with climate change is massive transfers of wealth from private citizens and companies to governments.

winston , no there has not been a period since we have been able to measure it , or in ANY historical sample that has carbon ppm as high as it is now . That's in 400,000 years.

Go back further. This is one of the key problems with the many flawed "global warming" models that people are trying to pass off as science. Why only look 400,000 years back? If you are going to do a comprehensive analysis then you have to look at the entire record. Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic... In the past, atmosphereic C02 levels have been as high as 4,000+ PPM. TEN TIMES the current measley 380 PPM. When you look at the whole record, our current C02 levels are at a very low point.

Now - the way global warming alarmists discuss C02 you would think that at 10X the C02 levels our planet would be a wasteland of acidified oceans, baking deserts, and inhospitable wastes. Pht. Those periods of time were points where earth had far greater variety in plant and animal life and far more of earth's surface could sustain life. So why are global warming alarmists so all-fired paranoid about the relatively tiny increase from the LOW point of 280 PPM to a miniscule 390 PPM?

The only thing that is political in this movement is that studied observation may lead the way to better governance

The carbon taxes they want to impose would amount to one of the largest (if not THE largest) transfers of wealth to government in all of human history. Literally trillions of unaccountable dollars will be pouring into world governments all supposedly to 'fix' global warming. And you are trying to say that this isn't political? This is a cash grab, and they are getting useful idiots to play along by making the scientific community their little dancing monkeys in a game of modern-day patronage. When you follow the money trail, all these so-called 'climate studies' are bought and paid for by governments who winnow the results to get the scary headlines they need to spook the slow-witted and gullible into happily giving up their freedoms.

And government doesn't have to do squat except rake in the free money. They can't influence C02 levels any more than they can stop the sun, but they'll take your trillions of dollars - thanks. It is simple matter of Return on Investment. Is there ANY possibility that trillions of dollars going into government will in any way move the dial? There is no evidence that it will do a blessed thing. Therefore, why should we give up trillions to accomplish nothing except make paranoid people feel better about themselves? If you want to feel better about yourself then just go plant a tree and keep out of everyone's wallet.

>> ^NetRunner:
But it doesn't mean that the damage done to Native Americans ended when the people who perpetrated genocide died. It doesn't mean that there isn't an obligation for the culture that descended from the one that perpetrated the wrongdoing has no moral imperative to attempt to make some sort of effort to make restitution to the descendants of the culture that was so savaged.
Maybe if there was never a transfer of wealth or the benefits thereof from parent to child, your idea would make sense. In that scenario, the slate truly would be wiped clean when one generation gives way to the next. That's not how things work, though.


You're effectively saying you should be responsible for your father's actions. If he murdered someone, should you also be held accountable for his crime? No. I'm sure the murder victim's family still feel the damage of that incident, even if your father passed away directly after it.

One man cannot be held accountable for another man's wrongdoings. It's insanity to propose otherwise.

The transfer of wealth (or rather the inheritance of an estate) is an interesting conundrum. I think the money (or portion of the estate) directly owed a victim should be paid before an estate can be inherited. That's the current system for money owed to a bank or any loans. Let's say your father owed money to a bank. Would it be fair for the bank to go out of business and the owner of that bank open an entirely new bank and still lay claim to the loans of your father from the previous bank? I don't believe so.

There were great atrocities done to minorities in this country. All done by dead men to dead men. Those directly affected are dead. There's no one to be held accountable. And certainly the entire nation shouldn't have to pay for the crimes of men generations ago.

>> ^blankfist:
NetRunner had nothing to do with his party's racist founder, so it wouldn't be fair to blame NetRunner, right?
In order to make amends the people directly victimized and the people directly responsible for victimizing them would need to be held accountable. But, they're all dead.


It's true, I had nothing to do with Jefferson's orders to remove many of the Native Americans in the Louisiana Purchase, or his owning slaves, or any of that stuff.

But it doesn't mean that the damage done to Native Americans ended when the people who perpetrated genocide died. It doesn't mean that there isn't an obligation for the culture that descended from the one that perpetrated the wrongdoing has no moral imperative to attempt to make some sort of effort to make restitution to the descendants of the culture that was so savaged.

Maybe if there was never a transfer of wealth or the benefits thereof from parent to child, your idea would make sense. In that scenario, the slate truly would be wiped clean when one generation gives way to the next. That's not how things work, though.

Damage like that tends to stick. It can last for generations, especially if racial discrimination places limits on your opportunities across a long span of time.

Let's remember that Obama is Kissinger's boy, who has made it clear that the US must intercede in some fashion: "we may conclude that we must work for regime change in Iran from the outside".

http://www.videosift.com/video/Brzezinski-discusses-intelligent-manipulation-in-Iran

Note that both Brzezinski and Kissinger are members of the Trilateral Commision and the CFR, both operated by the ruling class on this planet
and bent on enslavement of all. Obama, like Bush and his recent predicessors, are owned by those who look at us like farm animals.

Just recently, Obama has proposed turning over MORE power to the Federal Reserve, Which is neither federal nor reserved.
The Fed, who illegally controls our money supply (this is contitutionally Congress' job) will now have total control over bank policies.

This will make future, orchastrated financial collapses, designed for the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy, even easier.
Truth is, in fact, stranger than fiction. How sad.

I hope all of you who dropped to your knees for Obama when he uttered "change" and "yes we can" eventually wake up.

I know we've been over this before. But I'm still trying to help you. I keep showing up your nonsense argument for what it is:

Myth: Taxes are theft.

Fact: Taxes are payments for the public goods and services you consume.

Summary

Taxes are part of an agreement that voters make with government, a contract in which citizens agree to exchange their money for the government's goods and services. To consume these goods and services without paying for them is itself theft, and is rightly punished as breach of contract. Some may object that they have not agreed to the contract, but if so, then they must not consume the government's goods and services. Furthermore, contract by majority rule is better than by minority rule, one-person rule or anarchy (which results in kill-or-be-killed). Opponents of taxation under democracy are therefore challenged to find an improvement on democracy.


Argument

Many conservatives and libertarians make the following populist argument:

"If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will come to your house, arrest you, and seize your property."

The implication here is that you are being extorted to pay taxes, and this theft amounts to a violation of your rights. Although the events described are technically correct -- you should expect such a response from any crime you commit -- the implication that the government is aggressing against you is false, and not a little demagogic.

Taxes are part of a social contract, an agreement between voters and government to exchange money for the government's goods and services. Even libertarians agree that breach of contract legitimates a police response. So the real question is not whether a crime should be met with "men with guns," but whether or not the social contract is valid, especially to those who don't agree with it or devote their allegiance to it.

Liberals have two lines of argument against those who reject the idea of the social contract. The first is that if they reject it, they should not consume the government's goods and services. How they can avoid this when the very dollar bills that the economy runs on are printed by the government is a good question. Try to imagine participating in the economy without using public roads, publicly funded communication infrastructure, publicly educated employees, publicly funded electricity, water, gas, and other utilities, publicly funded information, technology, research and development -- it's absolutely impossible. The only way to avoid public goods and services is to move out of the country entirely, or at least become such a hermit, living off the fruits of your own labor, that you reduce your consumption of public goods and services to as little as possible. Although these alternatives may seem unpalatable, they are the only consistent ones in a person who truly wishes to reject the social contract. Any consumption of public goods, no matter how begrudgingly, is implicit agreement of the social contract, just as any consumption of food in a restaurant is implicit agreement to pay the bill.

Many conservatives and libertarians concede the logic of this argument, but point out that taxes do not go exclusively to public goods and services. They also go for welfare payments to the poor who are allegedly doing nothing and getting a free ride from the system. That, they claim, is theft.

But this argument fails too. Welfare is a form of social insurance. In the private sector we freely accept the validity of life and property insurance. Obviously, the same validity goes for social insurance like unemployment and welfare. The tax money that goes to social insurance buys each one of us a private good: namely, the comfort of being protected in times of adversity. And it buys us a public good as well (although tax critics are loathe to admit this). If workers were allowed to unnecessarily starve or die in otherwise temporary setbacks, then our economy would be frequently disrupted. Social insurance allows workers to tide over the rough times, and this establishes a smooth-running economy that benefits us all.

We should also note that the program most popularly known as "welfare" -- Aid to Families with Dependent Children -- takes up less than 1 percent of the combined federal and state budgets. (1) That tax critics would raise such a big stink over such a paltry sum begs an explanation. Their typical response to this is to expand the definition of welfare. But suppose we include all programs that involve one-way transfers of wealth with no expectation of immediate repayment or return services. According to the Library of Congress, in 1992 such expenditures at the federal, state and local level came to $289.9 billion, or 12 percent of their combined budgets of $2,487 billion. (2) It still seems incredible that such fiery anti-tax rhetoric is reserved for 12 percent of a person's taxes. But keep in mind that this 12 percent includes such popular middle class programs as Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, pensions for needy veterans, etc. Voters have ultimately agreed that these programs provide not just social insurance, but social investment. Certainly our society benefits by enabling more young people to attend college. Some may dispute the need for such social insurance and investment, but the majority of voters have (ultimately) agreed to put it in our social contract.

And this brings us to the second line of liberal argument: the best form of social contract is majority rule. It's not perfect, but its better than minority rule and still better than one-person rule. Government by unanimous consent is impractical, since it almost never happens, and society by anarchy results in "kill or be killed." So what do libertarians and conservatives propose in democracy's stead?

Of course, nearly all democracies have constraints on majority rule, designed to protect the rights of individuals and minorities. In the U.S., these are embodied in our constitution. But to be legitimate, a constitution must be a document of the people; hence it must be approved by the majority. (In the U.S., a supermajority.) And the constitution of the United States clearly allows taxation. Article I, Section 8, states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

And the 16th Amendment states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

But should the constitution allow taxation? If conservatives and libertarians feel that it should not, then it is up to them to describe a constitutional or political system that would work better than majority rule. Do they prefer minority rule? Or dictator rule? The only alternative to these historical atrocities is self-rule -- but again, that's anarchy, kill-or-be-killed.

Of course, some may wish to keep the current political structure, and simply convince the majority of voters to pass an anti-tax amendment. But if they do, then they are legitimizing the social contract… which hardly puts them in a position to call taxation "theft."

Understanding the above points allows you to see through common anti-tax arguments. Here is a real example taken from the Internet:

The "How Many Men?" Argument (1)

Suppose that one man takes your car from you at gunpoint. Is this right or wrong? Most people would say that the man who does this is a thief who is violating your property rights.

Okay, now let's suppose that it's a gang of FIVE men that forcibly takes your car from you. Still wrong? Still stealing? Yup.

Now suppose that it's ten men that stop you at gunpoint, and before anything else they take a vote. You vote against them taking your car, but the ten of them vote for it and you are outvoted, ten to one. They take the car. Still stealing?

Let's add specialization of labor. Suppose it's twenty men and one acts as negotiator for the group, one takes the vote, one oversees the vote, two hold the guns, one drives. Does that make it okay? Is it still stealing?

Suppose it's one hundred men and after forcibly taking your car they give you back a bicycle. That is, they do something nice for you. Is it still stealing?

Suppose the gang is two hundred strong and they not only give you back a bicycle but they buy a bicycle for a poor person as well. Is it still wrong? Is it still stealing?

How about if the gang has a thousand people? ten thousand? A million?

How big does this gang have to be before it becomes okay for them to vote to forcibly take your property away without your consent? When, exactly, does the immorality of theft become the alleged morality of taxation?


This argument is based on a faulty premise of ownership. Suppose the gang of ten men had helped you buy the car, pitching in with a loan that covered 29 percent of the sticker price (which is about the percentage of the GDP devoted in the United States to taxes). And suppose they simply wanted return payment. By not returning the favor, it is you who become the thief. If you want a car that is 100 percent yours, simply pay the full price of one. Of course, by accepting the loan from the gang of ten men, you were able to buy a better car than you could afford in the first place…

Arguments like "taxation is theft" are extremely egoistic. It's the equivalent of saying "Everything I make is by my own effort" -- a patently false statement in an interdependent, specialized economy where the free market is supported by public goods and services. People who make arguments like this are big on taking these goods but short on seeing why they need to pay for them. It doesn't matter that they believe these public services should be privatized -- the point is that the government is nonetheless producing them, and they need to be paid for. It doesn't matter that any given individual doesn't agree with how the government is spending their money -- many people don't agree with how corporations pollute the environment, but they still pay for their merchandise. It doesn't matter that any given individual thinks some government programs are wasteful and inefficient -- so are many private bureaucracies, but their goods still demand payment. If tax opponents argue that a person doesn't have to patronize a company he disagrees with, then liberals can argue that a person doesn't have to vote for a public official he disagrees with.

Ultimately, any argument against paying taxes should be compared to its private sector equivalent, and the fallacy will become evident.

Return to Overview

Endnotes:

1. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, "Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY 1990-92," Report 93-832 EPW, and earlier reports; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Government Finances, series GF, No. 5, 1992.

2. Ibid.

I don't really like giving my views on these topics -- everyone is so biased by ideologies that it's almost impossible to sift through attacks and just bullshit.

Over the past six months I've spent many late nights trying to figure out what is happening to the US, and how it's going to affect my life in Australia. Our government seems to be following suit (create money, bail out failing industries, announce huge budget deficits).

Isn't it time to ask the question - is it worth 'stimulating' an economy that seems to be fundamentally flawed?

We, in western countries, have lived in probably the most leveraged state in history. Not just banks, the entire society. We used this leverage to purchase and consume goods made abroad, and to fund a service sector economy that is crashing now.

Now all this money that can't be paid back has to be written off. It can't be paid back. The leverage that existed because of this capital is gone.

Paulson and Bernanke pulled off a deft maneuver with the original TARP package.

There would have been a complete collapse of the American economy if they didn't act. The elephant in the room is simple though - what actually is the American economy?

It's a consumer and service sector based economy. Very little real goods are actually produced. The US has run a trade deficit since 1975.

There isn't a viable economy to stimulate. Even the automotive industry, considered the pinnacle of American manufacturing, burns cash at rates that render it unable to compete in a global market.

I've only read 200 pages of the act so far, and it seems like (excluding the TARP packages) it is the biggest transference of wealth from taxpayers to whomever the government decides in all time. It's a quick fix that will keep the government in power thanks in part to keeping a lot of people employed... by the government. A new social contract will emerge as written by Rahm Emanuel in his book "The Plan".

The whole saga has shown the world -- or at least myself, just what I suspected about America all along. The 'values' that they proudly proselytize to the world don't mean a god damn thing when a real test shows up.

Sadly, the next two years will probably sound the death knell for capitalism in my life time.

Cliffs:

a) America's economy is fake and nothing can 'save' it, it needs to be reinvented
b) America is bankrupt and will eventually default on it's debt to the rest of the world
c) Primarily, the manipulation of the Fractional Reserve Banking system caused the problem

Thoughts?

PS. I apologize if this is a little all over the place, I'm writing it between meetings at work.

An interesting comment was made by the last episode of Boston Legal in which James Spader and William Shatner got married.

William's Character (Denny Crane) is rich and joins into marriage with his best friend. He has Alzheimer's Disease and wants to transfer his wealth over to Alan Shore (James Spader's Character) and doesn't want the government taking their share in the way of taxes.

Now I couldn't care less what two other people do with their personal lives, and I hate giving money to the government too, in fact I though it was a great idea, but, This could be a HUGE deterrent for the government to allow same sex marriages.

-Just putting it out there...

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008/12/boston-legal--1.html
Someone needs to put up some clips from the final show!