Minnesota continues to be embarrassed every day by nitwits like Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann, both of whom think that raising the debt ceiling is unnecessary—only pay certain bills, only pay the interest, they say. Our state has been the butt of many jokes, but so far this one is the worst. Even John Boehner, a lunatic monster, knows that the debt ceiling must be raised. We’re not talking about spending more—we’re talking about paying for what we already owe.
And why does the debt ceiling have to be routinely raised? Because a monetary-based economy is destined to fail from the day that it is conceived. Money equals debt—that is how it is created. Our entire way of life amounts to nothing more than a complicated game of Monopoly—and when you get right down to it, our money is worth the same as the stuff manufactured by Hasbro.
The federal government creates (borrows) money, which in turn is charged interest—and that interest does not exist; it really is more of a symbolic idea. There is not enough money in circulation right now to pay off all of the debt in the United States, and you can forget about the interest. Print more money? That makes the problem worse—that is how the problem started.
But so what? I was talking about the Minnesota Twins, T-Paw and Bachmann, neither of whom can even grasp simple mathematics let alone complicated budget issues. I’m no economist, but I at least understand that as long as we live in a monetary-based economy, we have to pay our bills.
As a Minnesotan, one of my senators is Al Franken, the former comedian and star of Saturday Night Live … which might sound embarrassing until you consider that a lot of ex-Hollywood types have successfully delved into politics. Franken is actually pretty good at his job—I signed his petition to end DOMA and even had a chance to meet one of his representatives yesterday during a National Night Out party. She apologized that the senator could not be there, himself; he has been busy in Washington. He supports raising taxes on the wealthy—and like President Obama, he would personally be affected by these tax reforms.
The Tea Party nuts are behind Michele Bachmann one-hundred percent, because she is just a little bit loonier than Tim Pawlenty. Former Minnesota GOP chair Ron Carey had this to say about the ex-governor of Minnesota: “He doesn’t want to throw the Tea Party support to Bachmann by default, but yet he doesn’t want to be so strident that he can’t build a coalition. He walks a fine line.”
A fine line between what? Lunacy and desperation? The Tea Party represents a fanatical fringe element in this country—the kind of daffy extremists who no one would pay any attention to, except they’re so positively unhinged that it’s hard to look away.
Rather than try to go over the particulars of the debt ceiling here, I direct your attention to Debt Showdown Q&A, an article in the Star Tribune that does a pretty good job of making sense of this looming crisis. And if you think I’m kidding, read the article—there’s some scary stuff in there.
And that’s enough to think about tonight, isn’t it? I leave you with this: an excerpt from one of the Zeitgeist films, explaining why money = debt = slavery. So far, Peter Joseph has turned out more than seven hours of this stuff, but here are ten minutes that are critical. If you’re interested in the rest, the films are available on YouTube and through this site. I recommend them—they will change the way you look at the world.
I’m sorry, but your position doesn’t make any sense. You state money=debt=slavery, yet you bash the people who want to reduce our debt and keep us free. Progressives are rallying around the Democrats to increase our debt, and our taxes. Yet who are they in agreement with? The middle class? The average American? No – they are in lockstep with the bankers and Wall Street, who also wish to see America spend itself into oblivion. You might, as a Progressive ask yourself why this is the case, and whether you might be on the wrong side.
My position is that a monetary-based economy is destined to fail and that the very idea of money has outlived its usefulness. Of course, switching to a resource-based economy is no easy task and is not likely to happen in our lifetime … so, we are stuck with the system in place for the time being. With that being said, I’m afraid your comments are erroneous. No one is advocating increasing our debt–only the debt ceiling, which is our ability to pay what we already owe. Republicans and Democrats both agree that we need to balance the budget; the difference is how we accomplish that. Democrats (and 80% of the American people) favor spending cuts and increased revenue, while the Republicans want only the cuts. The increased revenue that I mention consists of ending tax cuts, loopholes, and shelters for people and corporations making more than $250,000 per year. The vast majority of Americans would not be affected by these tax reforms at all … and the people who are have enough money that it hardly matters. All we want is for everyone–the rich and the poor–to share in the burden of balancing our budget. As for bankers and Wall Street … well … who do you think the Republicans represent? The reason that anyone still takes the Republicans seriously at all has to do with a good chunk of the population being misinformed or plain uninformed. One does not need to watch political spin programs to make an informed decision–just read the papers, watch the speeches, and know your facts.
First of all, do you have any evidence to believe that Democrats actually want to balance the budget? They are talking about it now – but the senate has not even passed a budget in over 800 days – even though by law they are required to do so!
Secondly the “gang of six plan” proposes eliminating or reducing the mortgage interest deduction, charitable deductions, and 401k deductions – this will hit the middle class squarely.
You say that you want everyone to share in the burden, but did you know that almost 50% of the population pays no income tax at all? Do you really believe that people should use the roads, the bridges, the fire department and not have to pay anything? Then be able to turn around and vote to tax the other half MORE? That the top ten percent pay 70% of all income taxes? Plus – if we took every dollar – all of it – of those who earn over 250k, it would only total 1.5 trillion dollars, barely enough to pay the deficit for one year, let alone make any payment on the debt.
Maybe you are the one is is misinformed or uninformed, and just don’t know it?
Well … shit. The top ten percent control 93% of this nation’s wealth, so if they’re paying 70% of the income taxes, it seems to me that they’re getting a deal. The reason that almost 50% of the population does not pay income taxes is because they don’t have any money. 80% or more of this country is scraping by, going without things they need, and relying on government programs. Most of the jobs out there pay only minimum wage or slightly better–try supporting a family on that. As for the Senate, they can’t pass anything with the Republicans holding the government hostage on every issue. As for the Gang of Six, remember that is a bi-partisan group–and reducing the deficit affects everyone, while the tax reforms affect only the rich. Ever since wealthy individuals and large corporations have been enjoying tax breaks, profits and CEOs’ salaries have soared while the number of jobs have gone down and wages have remained stagnant. If we’re going to cut spending, then we should increase revenue as well. I have worked in the security industry since 1998; in thirteen years, the starting and average wages have not gone up, while inflation and cost of living has. Everyone I know works multiple jobs and they still can’t pay their bills. Why not send the rest of us a postcard from FantasyLand?
ay yi yi – and when did it become the governments job to provide for people? That is basically a marxist position, and like all else in Progressivism it sounds great in theory, but is a disaster in practice.
Talk about fantasy land.
“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
— Benjamin Franklin
The main point is – do you think it is government’s role to be our nanny, tell us what to eat and drink, where to work, save our money for us, and tell us wvn what to think? Or do you believe government’s role is to keep people from imposing on one anothers rights through law – applied equally – and that everyone who participate’s in benefits (i.e. roads) should be responsible to provide for it, in however small an amount? Bottom line – are we free adults or dependent children?
If you knew anything about me, you would know that I am a Libertarian–so no, I do not believe that it is the government’s job to babysit us. Government is there to provide essential services–of the people, for the people, by the people. The trouble is, the Republicans would like to see our government run like a business–a giant corporation, if you will. The bottom 90% of people in this country own 73.4% of the debt, have only 12.2% of total investment assets, and enjoy only 19% of the wealth. Only 34.7% of Americans make more than $65,000; only 1.5% make more than $250,000. Are you really telling me that you belong to this elite few? The reason that 37 million Americans are on food stamps is because employers refuse to pay their employees fair wages and the government is doing nothing about it. Our minimum wage is a joke–it isn’t enough for a high school kid’s pocket money, yet that is what a lot of people make. The CEO of McDonald’s took home over $17 million in 2009 while the average employee made about $7.50 per hour. I know a lot of people who have completed college and are heavily in debt; of course there are no jobs, so they are forced to work at Target for $8.50 an hour. Do you know how many men and women are working in the security industry in Minnesota for $10.00 per hour? I’m talking about men and women who have college degrees and are licensed to be peace officers … but shit, when you have 1,300 applicants for one position … well … you do the math. And what’s wrong with Socialism? It beats the hell out of Capitalism.
Don’t you think it’s imposing on people’s rights to not pay them fair wages, or offer them benefits and safe, healthy work places? That’s what CEO’s and Hedgefund managers have been doing the last 20 years because of deregulation on Wall Street and using unethical business practices. The people’s whose taxes need to be raised are the extremely wealthy, people who have family wealth. When you are born into wealth, you have all the opportunities you need at your feet. People born into low income or poverty only have the option of debt for an education, and not even a very good one at that. The average CEO is paying themselves 344 times what their average employee makes, while in the 80′s, it was just 40 times their employees. I would say that the lower income citizens are just demanding the government step in and keep them from imposing on worker’s rights through law, like the Tax Law. By the way, the average ‘top 1 percenter’ is paying an effective income tax rate in the low 20′s, (not what they actually are supposed to pay) which is historically low.
“what’s wrong with Socialism? It beats the hell out of Capitalism.”
While working in my garden this afternoon I came up with an example that even a liberal can understand.
I won’t even go in to all the effort it took to first create our garden, it’s at the top of a slope, so all the materials including the dirt and compost had to be hauled in buckets by hand.
I work in my garden several times a wekk, pruning, watering, weeding – I get bug bites and sunburn at times. But I put in that effort to get fresh garden produce – like tomatoes. My neighbors have the same amount of sun and yard, the same OPPORTUNITY to grow tomatoes that I do, but choose not to. Now if I have to give away 40% of my tomatoes, it may still be worth my time, and being a hard worker, I’ll just do a little more to produce a little extra. Maybe I’ll have so many extra that I’ll decide to sell some to my neighbors. I’ll have a little extra money and they’ll have fresh, organic tomatoes for less than the price at the store. With the extra money, I take a vacation in the summer, and pay to stay in a cabin on the lake, as well as eat out a night or two.
Maybe I have so much extra work, I hire the neighbors daughter to help me. She uses the money she earns to buy an Ipad. So now I have extra money, the neighbors get tomatoes, the girl gets a job, and other businesses have customers. This is the virtuous cycle of Capitalism. It’s basically individuals trading their what they have (including their labor) in exchange for what they want in a way that benefits each party.
Now lets say that the government mandates that i give away 60 or 70% of the tomatoes I grow. To the neighbors who didn’t want to grow their own, they just wanted to get mine for free. How likely do you think it is that I will still continue to expend all that effort to reap very little reward? So I growing tomatoes, now all the neighbors have to buy them from the store, which costs more and besides they’d have to drive, using gas – my neighbors daughter can’t find a job in this economy, and the Ipad store and the Lakefront cottage owner no longer have us as customers. When enough people stop producing and having extra money, those businesses close down as well. This is the vicious cycle that is socialism. It has played out repeatedly throughout history, and it is playing out in our country today.
No system is perfect–Socialism or Capitalism–but if the former is a dismal failure, then so is the latter. My peers and I work very hard indeed, and we don’t have shit to show for it–just more work. It takes money to make money, otherwise you’re stuck (like 65% of the American people), making less than $65,000 per year … and when you retire, you have nothing to depend on but Social Security and government welfare because you couldn’t afford to save–and they want to take that away from us, too. If you’re not born rich in this country, you’re pretty much fucked, aren’t you? There are exceptions, of course, but they are rare indeed. It’s a very old story: the rich get richer and poor stay poor. I work multiple jobs to support my family and yet I’m wearing shoes with holes in them. I’m sick of people like you telling me that I have opportunities and I should just work harder. There’s only so many hours in a day, you dunce. If you’re rich and have a nice little garden … well … fine. Go play in it and pay your goddamned taxes. Now stop wasting my time with your anecdotes and idiotic arguments. You have your own blog–go tend to that.
You’re just a whiner who doesn’t have the sense to know how lucky you are to live in this country. Go try to make a life for yourself in Zimbabwe.
I know that Americans have it better than many people in a lot of other countries; I also know that America is not necessarily “the greatest nation on Earth.” But then again, maybe it is. You see, I don’t know, because I have only ever been to one other country (and yes, America is better). I’m the kind of person who makes informed decisions based on logic and fact; since I have no first-hand knowledge of other countries, it would be fairly illogical for me to blindly presume that they are either better or worse than this one.
But so what? My real beef is not against politicians or Republicans or even Tea Party supporters; I’m more concerned with the Grifters and the bankers and the money men who perpetuate this wholly unfair system–a system that even they know is destined to collapse. I really don’t care to go into all of the details here–for that, refer to today’s column, which I still have to write. As for whining, I’m actively seeking a solution to this mess–and if I complain along the way … well … who can blame me? I don’t have all of the answers, but I’m at least intelligent enough to realize that I’m being conned; furthermore, I am trying to educate myself and others as to the specifics of that so we can do something about it.
I don’t mean to discourage you from leaving your comments–this is, after all, an open forum–but I do think that your time could be better spent concentrating on your own efforts. Generally speaking, I do not waste my time arguing with people who I know do not agree with me and never will–at least not on their sites. But what the hell? You and I obviously share fundamentally different opinions … just know that calling me a “whiner” or telling me to get a fifth job is not going to change mine.
(By the way: I mentioned Holland not too long ago, and it’s looking better and better.)