Monday, December 3, 2012

Forget The Cliff, Real Problems Ahead


 Bob Livingston, in the following post, warns about the upcoming  real financial threats which are upcoming.  Judge for yourself, however, we  think he makes some very valid remarks.

Conservative Tom


The Fiscal Cliff Is A Mirage, But A Real Cliff Is Ahead

December 3, 2012 by  
The Fiscal Cliff Is A Mirage, But A Real Cliff Is Ahead
PHOTOS.COM
Don’t worry over the so-called fiscal cliff. It is just the latest in a long line of crises created by the elected sociopath class as another ploy to extract more wealth from the middle class and further advance its agenda.
The cliff you need to worry about is the one we are barreling toward regardless of how the fiscal cliff negotiations turn out. It’s the hyperinflation cliff. It’s dead ahead. It has become unavoidable. The Nation is in default.
The fiscal cliff is the term adopted to refer to the end of the misnamed George Bush tax cuts (which expire on Dec. 31) and sequestration ($1.2 trillion in cuts to social programs and defense spending that kick in on Jan. 1 barring a budget deal). It’s an unpalatable option to the political class because the political class hates cutting government — which reduces the power of the state — and uses a progressive tax rate to help reinforce the Hegelian dialectic.
President Barack Obama and his redistributionist minions have drawn a line in the sand over the misnamed George W. Bush tax cuts (because Obama extended them in 2010, we will rightly call them Obama tax cuts). Obama wants to end his own tax cuts on those making more than $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers). This, despite his statement in 2010: “You don’t raise taxes in a recession.”
The United States remains in the old or has entered into a new recession. As John Williams of Shadowstats.com writes here (subscription required): “[T]here has been no recovery in economic activity, since the economy plunged from 2006/2007 into mid-2009, just ongoing low-level stagnation. Reporting of retail sales, production and durable goods orders shows the economy turning down, once again, into what will become recognized as the second-dip of a double-dip recession, likely timed from third-quarter 2012. The reality remains that current economic woes are an ongoing part of protracted economic collapse, not the beginning of a new cycle.”
While the “official” phony-baloney government statistics show U.S. gross domestic product rising steadily since late 2009, real GDP growth remains stagnant, as it has since late 2009, and mirrors real unemployment, retail sales and housing starts.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has instituted QE3 to infinity. This will serve to prop up banks and the establishment, but it will hasten the demise of the dollar. (Watch the prices of gold and silver for confirmation.) It’s out-and-out theft from the American worker, saver and retiree.
QE3 and the unwillingness of the political class to make substantial and substantive cuts to government have prompted Williams to shorten his outer hyperinflation timeline from 2018 to 2014.
America is a warfare/welfare state. A full 20 percent ($718 billion) of the Federal budget in 2011 was spent on perpetual war, defense and security-related international activities. “This portion of the budget is untouchable,” according the neocon/warfare wing of both parties.
Another 21 percent ($769 billion) went to Medicare, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). An additional 13 percent ($466 billion) went to safety-net programs like SSI, food stamps, school meals, housing and childcare assistance, etc. “These are untouchable,” according to redistributionist class of both parties.
And 20 percent ($731 billion) paid for Social Security, which provided retirement benefits to 35.6 million workers and other benefits to another 19.8 million spouses and children of retired workers, spouses and children of deceased workers, disabled workers and their eligible dependents. Social Security is considered an entitlement program, but it should not be since it is supposedly funded by money confiscated from workers — who had no say in the matter — to fund their retirement. The program was long ago looted by the elites and is the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. “Social Security is sacrosanct and untouchable,” leadership of both parties lie to you as they confiscate the funds faster than they pour in.
Obama and his redistributionist minions play the class-warfare game to perfection, pitting the poor against the so-called rich in order to steal more from the middle class. Their big lie is that the “rich” pay a lower percentage of income in taxes than the poor or middle class. The politics of envy — nasty, vile and green wealth envy that causes some to wish ill will or disaster on others who have enjoyed more success and has turned to hatred in the hearts of many — is advancing us toward total totalitarianism and one world governance.
And now Republicans — supposedly the party of low taxes and smaller government — are joining the growing ranks of redistributionists and feeding the dialectic. (Of course, anyone who has paid attention knows better than to fall for the big Republican lie.)
According to Internal Revenue Service data, the highest average tax rates in America are paid by those making between $1.5 million and $2 million. Their tax rate is 25.1 percent. Tax rates then begin to fall on incomes greater than $2 million, as a greater percentage of income comes from capital gains and dividends. Still, those making more than $200 million pay an 18 percent tax rate on their adjusted gross income.
Those making $1 million to less than $1.5 million pay a 24.9 percent tax rate. Those making $500,000 to less than $1 million pay 24.1 percent, and those in the $200,000 to less than $500,000 range pay 19.6 percent. Tax rates below $200,000 break down as follows:
  • $100,000 to less than $200,000 incomes pay 12 percent.
  • $50,000 to less than $100,000 incomes pay 7.5 percent.
  • $30,000 to less than $50,000 incomes pay 4.8 percent.
  • Those making less than $30,000 paid no Federal taxes after deductions and credits.
Representative Tom Price (R-Ga.) says Obama’s plan to increase taxes on the rich will generate only enough revenue to fund the Federal government for eight days. What he doesn’t tell you is that income taxes don’t fund the government. They are simply a wealth redistribution/information gathering tool used by the government.
Price is one of the employees of the state who daily work to propagandize the masses on the idea that there is government debt and that money (sometimes called “revenue” to fool the people with doublespeak) to pay that debt must be confiscated from the masses. But there is no debt. Ask yourself this question: If you had a machine that would crank out an unlimited number of bills, would you have debt? Of course not. And that’s what government does.
Government debt is a world-class delusion. It is a tool used to justify theft and redistribution. And it has worked to perfection, pitting the have-nots against the haves, while the 1 percent (government workers and elected class) make out like the bandits they are. Meanwhile, many become ever more embittered over the idea that someone may have a greater pile of worthless green paper strips than they do.
It won’t be too much longer before people will be papering their walls with the green paper strips they’re so jealous of others for having. Study your history, and look to Weimar Germany as the example.
Workers were transporting wheelbarrows of cash to the store for bread, hoping to arrive before the prices changed. The price of coffee would triple between the time it was poured and the time it was consumed and the check arrived. Mothers prostituted themselves so their kids could be fed.
The next U.S. Great Depression is the cliff to be concerned with. Time is short. Store food (buying it now is also a hedge against inflation) and water, guns and ammunition, and personal hygiene items. Accumulate silver and gold. This Christmas, give silver as a gift that keeps giving — especially pre-1965 U.S. silver coins:
  • Dec. 1, 2000: silver $4.69/oz.; today: silver $34.28/oz.
  • Dec. 1, 2000: Dow Jones industrial average 14,053; today: DJIA 13,023.
Times will be especially difficult for the unprepared and those who depend upon the system for sustenance.

16 comments:

  1. Here is a graph that makes it ridiculously simple to understand…

    http://econographics.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/federal-government-spending-and-revenue-as-of-gdp-1950-2012/

    The solution is to get revenue and spending balanced at around 20% of GDP. That means raise taxes and cut spending.

    --David

    P.S. His guru predicts hyperinflation in 2014. I'll take that bet. We can expect some inflation as the economy recovers, but nothing like what these guys predict.

    ReplyDelete
  2. David, the problem is that Dems will NOT cut spending, they will promise it, but it is always 5-10 years out and it NEVER comes about. H.W. Bush bought that and it never occurred.

    I might agree with you that a balance is what works, but when one side does not negotiate honestly, it is hard to work a deal.

    If I was a Dem, I would change the entire discussion. Incomes above $1M- 50% tax from Dollar zero. $250 and above $35% from dollar zero. Everyone else 15% from dollar zero. Pain across the board. They never would accept that and it would drive the economy into the tank.

    As far as the hyperinflaction in 2014, I doubt it as I have been expecting inflation for the past 7 years and it has not come. (Of course, inflation will never get high again as they remove all inflationary number producers like food and energy!)

    ReplyDelete
  3. As you can see in the graph, the gap has started to close as the economy slowly recovers. I have been following the speeches from Obama and Boehner over their proposals to avoid the "fiscal cliff." As fiscal conservatives, you and I should be rooting for them to go over the cliff. We are going to get about $109 billion in spending cuts in 2013. Half of that will come from military (I love that, you hate it). We also get revenue increases from ending the Bush tax cuts. Congress will restore those cuts for the lower 98%, but we still get about $1 trillion in revenue over 10 years from the top 2%. The beauty of it is that this automatically happens so long as the Democrats and Republicans remain in gridlock under the BCA.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  4. We will go over the cliff. Here is what I think will happen. Dems will blame Repubs and present the following plan: top rate 35% on all income for those who earn more than 1 mill. 25% on all income for those earning over 250k and less than 1 mill. Keep the 2% cut on payroll taxes for all under 250k but increase to 5% for those over 250k.

    NO immediate cuts in spending, "until the crisis passes" and then "cuts to be determined by the President afterwards.
    This will pass over the Senate and House.

    ReplyDelete
  5. They will go over the cliff and then come back in January to restore the Bush tax cuts for everyone under 250k. Beyond that, I have no idea what these clowns might do.

    But I am interested in your reaction to having total gridlock and having the sequestration kick in. All the tax breaks expire and we get $109 billion in spending cuts in 2013. They say the economy would suffer, but it would do wonders for deficit reduction. As a fiscal conservative, how do you like that idea?


    --David

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gridlock is by definition not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I believe the Founders wanted there to be gridlock or at least a fairly serious amount of time to be spent on bills and legislative actions. Our government is not built for speed, therefore, some gridlock was built into the system.

    Sequestration was designed to be a "poison pill" forcing the legislators and President to come up with a solution, however, latest news have Obams saying that he will not move on anything without rate increases. No mention of cuts at all, only increases. Now that might be "food for their supporters" but if one really wants an agreement, you don't pull up the drawbridge and say we are not talking until you agree with us.

    At least the GOP has offered some rate increases along with cuts in some programs. Nothing from the President.

    It looks like we will go over the edge and the Prez will use his bully pulpit to hammer the repubs into increased rates without any cuts. Boehner will concede--he is a loser!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes, most of that is true. But you did not answer my question. I wanted to know whether you would like to see total gridlock, which would result in the sequestration kicking in? That would achieve deficit reduction much larger than any compromise they might come up with to avoid it. If deficit reduction is your top priority, then you should join me in hoping for the sequestration even though you don't like the military cuts (I don't like some of the other cuts!). So what's your answer on sequestration?

    ReplyDelete
  8. No, I do not like the poison pill and total gridlock is a mess and it will end up with bad decisions and probably an even worse mess.

    I want these a--holes to fix the problem! Get in a room, lock the door and don't let them out for food, bathroom or sleep until they reach an agreement. Otherwise, do as I said in my latest post--Demand they not get paid.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, that gets back to what you consider to be "the problem." The sequester would generate $5 TRILLION in deficit reduction. Neither the opening gambits from Obama and Boehner come anywhere close to that. So, I guess my next question for you is how many $$$ in deficit reduction would be satisfactory to you? You are never going to get a Democratic congress and president to put 10% of the cuts on defense and 90% on nonmilitary discretionary spending. What is more important to you: (1) balancing the budget or (2) getting it done only if by a formula that is comfortable with conservatives?

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  10. If you read my posting yesterday, I want some leadership from Congress and the President. Didn't we send them there to do the "People's Business." We also expect them to be stewards of the nation's finance, yet the Senate has not passed a budget in over three years, the President's submitted budgets have been turned down nearly 100% by both parties. We need some leadership and it should start with their own paychecks. However, missing in this whole fiasco we are facing, are statesmen/women who will do what is in the best interests of this country and let the chips fall where they might.

    As far as your choice, a) we cannot balance the budget unless we end the military and close all departments of the government permanently. Only then will balancing be possible. b) our government is too large, too overblown. We must cut out ALL unnecessary spending, not $5 trillion, maybe $30 trillion. We need to slim back down to the government of 1950, only then will this government be able to survive.

    Obviously, this will never occur. Our so called leaders will tinker around the edges, after we go over the cliff and put some bandaid on the problem. It will only solve the immediate issues and not the long term ones. None of my recommendations in the blog yesterday will be included as these leaders are self serving leeches on society and they are not better than a welfare queen with seventeen kids who earns $150,000 from benefits.

    This country is close to the end. all we are waiting for is the closing bell. I suspect it will be within ten years.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Read my posting "What Americans Should be Demanding" which was written yesterday. Forward that to your senators and representatives and the President.
    It won't make any difference but it will make me feel better.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tom, you are the most pessimistic person I know. I want to get you some historical perspective on this. This graph shows debt as percentage of GDP….

    http://www.supportingevidence.com/Government/fed_debt_as_percent_GDP_over_time.html

    First, note the big picture. It was above 120% by the end of WWII, and then steadily declined to under 40% by 1980. I will spare you my diatribe on how Reagan's fiscal mismanagement turned the curve the opposite direction. The important point for now is that economists estimate that a $4 trillion package of deficit reduction over the next 10 years would get the ratio down to 65% by 2022 (and on a declining trajectory). A big part of that is all we baby-boomers will be dying off, and that will save the government a lot of money when we are gone. Anyhow, getting back to historical perspective, take a look at how a 65% level compares to other periods. For example, you say you want to go back to 1950s level. Well, as you can see, it was in the 60% to 70% range then, and the economy and country were going quite well.

    Armed with this information, doesn't the $5 trillion sequestration look pretty good? As you love to say, we must take some pain to get the curve to start turning down again, and the sooner we start the better. Unfortunately, both parities will break their backs to escape the sequestration. My 2 cents.

    --David

    P.S. What is considered "necessary" spending depends on values, and so what works from a strictly financial standpoint may satisfy some folks but not others. This comes out when we decide WHAT to cut, not just how much to cut. For example, I would take far more out of military than you would, and you would take far more out of education, infrastructure, research, health care in order to get to the same level of spending as me.

    ReplyDelete
  13. No, I would not take it out of education, I would end the Education Department will take NO money out of education, rather it will free up states and local districts to control their education rather than being directed by Washington.

    I would cut lots out of benefit programs, cut the multiple training programs and consolidate them into one, cut police forces that each department like the EPA, Social Security etc have.

    And I would eliminate Congress' salaries, benefits, privileges until they reach a sustainable fiscal plan and pass a three year budget.

    I am proudly conservative and will continue to be that way for years!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. You are proving my point, Tom. When you say you would eliminate the Dept. of Education, that would eliminate…

    1.) Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies.
    2.) Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) State Grants.
    3.) Pell Grant program for college students.

    These 3 programs account for about 72% of the Dept. of Education budget. This federal aid to the states helps the states provide quality education for our kids, which we need to compete globally. You get the SAME amount of spending cuts by knocking $50 billion out of the damn defense budget, which is 13 times more spent on defense than the next 13 countries COMBINED. For me, this is a no-brainer when budget cutting, but it shows the difference between us. You and I are both fiscal conservatives, but that doesn't mean we would make the same spending cuts to get to the same level of spending.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  15. The problem with the first two "grants" is that the local schools are required to match the dollars and to meet requirements dictated by the government.

    We had much better education prior to 1950 when there was NO department of education. Anytime government dictates the rules, it makes rules that says all units of education must be the same regardless of the district, state. It would be the same if the government directed schools to have the same clothing for all students whether they live in Minot or Tampa. They have different needs.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yes, we fundamentally disagree on this. It is why you would cut these programs, and not military. For me, it is the reverse. My point is that we both, as fiscal conservatives, would like to have some cuts in the federal budget, but we are not always going to agree where to apply the knife. Research shows that these programs have helped close the achievement gap for kids in poor school districts. For me, that is reason enough to leave them in place and take the $50 billion out of the military budget. The Pentagon has even said they don't even need a lot of this expensive hardware Congress put in the budget. It is "pork barrel spending." When it comes to which would benefit society more, it's a no-brainer for me, but not for you.

    Anyway, that point was just a P.S. to my note. I am actually more interested in your reaction to main part of the note regarding the wonderful results (for a fiscal conservative) in getting the full $5 trillion in deficit reduction instead of the tinkering that Obama and Boehner will finally agree on. That graph shows you what it would accomplish in historical context.

    --David

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.