Regardless of who wins, USA bankruptcy looms.
Many people I talk to about politics are either “for” the Democrats or “for” the Republicans. They seem to think there is this inordinate difference between the two. Yes, well perhaps during the time of Barry Goldwater there was a difference. But now the differences are so few that it hardly matters. Frankly, I’m for neither. They have morphed into the same behemoth for more government. If Obama wins this coming election, well, things will continue on their downward slide. The deficits will continue because the underlying causes of the spending will not lessen. Alas, if Romney wins things will continue on their downward slide, and the deficits will continue for the same reasons. This is because while both men are “clear” that they are against the deficit spending and all for “fundamental changes” neither one will do anything to alter the reasons or methods for this spending, and will find endless new things on which to spend even more.
Meanwhile, the rhetoric of both parties is different – though the essential result of what they actually do is the same: ever more growing government and more deficits. The pattern has been clear for decades. Now it’s blaming the other side for the Deficits. Oh yes, the big old bad Bush Deficits got us into this mess, yes. Meanwhile, the bigger bad Obama Deficits are required to get us out of Bush’s deficits. Yes, well, Bush of course had to have deficits to get us out of the mess caused by Clinton’s deficits (Yes, there they were, invisible to the naked eye because of moving Social Security expenses off the budget bottom line while keeping SS’s revenues on the budget bottom line is a great way to produce a “surplus.” Yes, well, want to buy a bridge? Really now, a little accounting gimmick does nothing to eliminate the actual numbers. The math is intractable and unchangeable. A billion spent is a billion spent, regardless if it’s on this year’s or next year’s “budget.” The billion is spent this year. What do I care what column it goes under?)
Meanwhile, I hear constantly about which side is “for or “against” something. For instance, it’s so glib and easy to say this party or the other is “for” this or “for that, or “against this,” “against that.” But really, now, who is anyone kidding? Yourselves, us, we the people, we kid ourselves, and that’s about it. And instead of finding common cause between so called “liberals” and so called “conservatives” average people are fighting themselves over which emperor will rule the nation. Of what do I care if the Hohenzollern or the Hohenstauffen rule? These two German families fought for the “emperor” title of the Holy Roman Empire’s (aka, German-speaking lands.) Did it make a difference to the serfs? To the shopkeeper in Dusselldorf? To anyone anywhere in the place that was neither holy, nor Roman, nor empire? Absolutely not. Well, put in either Democrat or Republican for the two families back 600 years ago, and well, there you go – to what difference does it make to us, we common folks, who rules? Nothing is going to change. Bankruptcy is a-coming.
Oh, they have different rhetoric, for sure. You know, Democrats are “for” the poor and “against” the rich. Yes, well, that rhetoric is bizarre because the D’s (oh, why bother to write out the whole name each time?) are supposedly against the rich, you know, to make the rich pay their fair share. Yes, well, I’m sure. However, there seems to be quite a few rich with the D’s who do not pay their fair share. Why, most of the D’s in Congress are millionaires in the 1%, and Warren Buffet, best buddy of Obama is #1 or #2 in riches in America. But D’s are “against” the 1%? Oh hypocrisy by pols, and blindness by citizens is quite the rage. (in any sense of the word.) Still, the D-rich are quite adept at making sure they don’t pay their fair share. They certainly could donate all the money they wish to their favorite causes and do something instead of sitting on it all. The millionaires in Hollywood are for Obama (well, most of the vocal ones.) too – few of them have any charitable efforts going, those that exist are miniscule. None have not taken all their myriad of deductions to reduce their tax bill. None of these rich against the rich has given money to pay down the deficits they say they care so much about.
Millionaire union leaders are for Obama and the D’s too, and take money from the union members to give to politicians who make sure the union-rich stay on top. One could put quite a list together of Rich for D’s. Ah, and the D’s are “for” the poor – only not a one of their policies has ever made any poor person rich, which shows, perhaps, they don’t like riches at all, ahem. If the D’s policies had a chance of working surely they would have worked by now. If 40 or 50 years of effort achieve nothing well, then, I’m fairly certain your policies don’t work.
And of course, the Republicans are “for” the Rich, and “against” the poor. This is because the R’s don’t feel guilty about being rich, perhaps, while the D’s apparently do. Though no rich D ever returned to the poverty from which they came, and certainly none that inherited their wealth have any intention of ever getting rid of it, so their guilt is a bit tenuously held. And of course, R’s want the poor to get rich, which seems to not to occur to D’s. But this is somehow bad, according to the D’s. Why this should be so is simple: if the poor got rich they might not vote for Democrats, who being the Hohenzollerns have no intention of letting the Hohenstauffen rule. However, in this, the R’s have a lousy message. Instead of talking about “getting people off welfare,” they should, if they were serious about their intentions, talk about “make poor people rich!” They don’t say this, so I wonder about their intentions. Though it does come out sounding like “We don’t care about the poor.” Which isn’t true and it is. For they care mostly about themselves in power, those wily Hohenstauffen.
When the R’s have ever had a shred of control they don’t seem to put into place any new laws, or get rid of old laws, which maintains the poverty. While the D’s love to keep the same laws and policies, too, because it appears to be some Holy Writ that these are the one and only very best things mankind can come up with to “solve” the problem of the poor. Then for appearances they tinker around the edges and move Clause Two of the current law to Section 10 of the “reform bill” – yes, well, moving and renaming the provisions of the old act within the new act doesn’t actually make a shred of difference. Why most people are blind to this I don’t know. You know, let’s “reform” the tax code, but keep the taxes collected the same. Not exactly rearranging the deck chairs, but damn close.
Of course, many R’s are up in arms about “Welfare for the poor.” While the D’s are up in arms about “Welfare for the Rich” – so long as it’s not their rich of course. One side’s rich are fine, the others are evil incarnate, apparently. Meanwhile, welfare for the rich and poor continue unchanged, unabated and are accelerating. Indeed, under Obama’s failed policies (only, because all these programs existed before he came into office, they’re not his policies, they are the federal government’s policies, which are sacrosanct) – because the politicians for “A new beginning,” and for “Hope and Change,” and for “Looking to the future,” and all the other hoopla comments out of the mouths of politicians about the “changes” and “making a difference,” and “making Washington work,” and “a new America,” and endless more, are mush. These two parties have no intention of changing a damn thing. If they did, there would be proposals to do that. I have not seen the R’s or D’s put forth “End welfare for the Rich” or “End welfare for the poor” proposals, and certainly not any “End welfare for anyone” – why, that would actually lower the deficits, and let people keep their own money – the portion they get back for their “fair share,” and the portion that stays in Washington to monitor and control it all. No, instead it’s “the other side is at fault for the way things are.” Yes, always the other fellow’s faults, of course, while continue to do the same yourself. Hogwash. The minute the cameras are off these politicians go back to figuring out the best way to use their perks or create more, while backslapping and backscratching each other into communal bliss.
Meanwhile, I got to laugh when I hear any D person complain about the rich not paying their fair share in “income” taxes while the R person complains about the poor not paying their fair share in “income” taxes. And it’s rare (OK, never, but by a few, perhaps,) who realize that all taxes are on “income.” It’s just the point of levying that are different. Whether the tax on income is taken before one takes one’s income home or after one takes one’s income home is irrelevant. It’s not the moment in time when taxes are levied that matters, it’s the overall rate on a person’s “income.” If the rich are paying 33% of their income (I think that’s the “top” rate now – yeah, right after one slings the numbers at the confounded IRS code,) and 15% of their income in other taxes by different names – that’s still 50% of their income. Though if the poor pay 0% to 10% of their income in “income” taxes, but 40% to 50% of their income in sales, excise, use, telephone, electric, water, sewer, property, etc etc, taxes – they pay the same 50% of their income in taxes. The amounts are different. A man making $100,000 a year pays 50% or $50,000 in taxes somehow, somewhere to some government level, while a man making $10,000 a year pays 50% of his income in taxes too.
That taxes on the poor tend to go to the states, cities and counties, while the taxes on the rich tend to go to the feds is also immaterial. And that’s because after the states, cities and counties get done nickel and dime-ing the poor in their area, the poor are out 50% of their income. Then, because that’s true, the feds come along taking 50% of the income of the over $100,000 crowd and give it to the poor in a myriad of ways – all of which cost money to provide, collect the taxes, and monitor the mess, and thus 30% of the money on the way from the poor to the states, cities & counties to run the state-based federal programs (Medicaid, for instance,) is lost in the state capital. Just as 30% of the income taxes on the rich are lost to the IRS for collection of the taxes, and the bureaucracies which give away this money to “the poor welfare” and the “corporate welfare,” to make up the difference taken by the states, then well, this too is lost. And so for every $10 that goes to Washington, $3 to $4 never quite makes it back to the states or anyone in particular except the Washington DC metro area. Not for nothing are the 10 counties around DC now the richest in the land. At the rate it’s going it would appear that the DC counties will be at twice the average income as any other county anywhere else in the nation. Sort of like Versailles had an income quite larger than the rest of France.
Let’s do a simple example, to bring up this mishmash and show how common people are, in fact, rather much in league and not opponents: Peanut butter. Yes, lowly Jiffy and Peter Pan. The feds constrict the growing of peanuts, to help keep the price high. In only 154 counties, last I heard, is it “allowed” to grow peanuts for commercial sale – a family farmer wanting to grow peanuts outside of the “peanut growing allocation area” is just out of luck. For decades now this has been true. Both parties sustain this policy. Then the feds further subsidizes the price of peanuts to make sure the few family peanut farmers and the 80% of production in the hands of corporations, make enough money as decided by Washington is enough – this is the peanut price support. Now, it takes a lot of money to fund the constricting, for inspectors and monitors are needed, of course. Usually in an office in DC, certainly.
Then to collect the money from someone to give to the peanut growers to keep the price of peanuts high and them in wealth, the IRS is needed, and of course the Department of Agriculture to hand out the largesse. Of course the D’s want to rescue the family peanut farmer, as if their 10,000 bushels would feed the American public’s love for peanut butter for a day – but won’t enlarge the growing area. The corporations are meanwhile growing the peanuts for the rest of the year. So they need their money too, for it’s an entitlement, which has to be fair. And R’s are against this corporate welfare, as are the D’s. Ah, but there’s a difference. Somewhere.
Meanwhile, the poor and middle class who eat peanut butter pay more for their daily creamy or crunchy. Because they pay more than peanuts are actually worth if there were no constrictions on supply and no subsidies to save the farmers from going bankrupt (allegedly) that keeps the price high in a nation with an insatiable appetite for peanuts, therefore it’s reality that part of the price of peanut butter is given to bureaucrats to monitor the constrictions and largesse – ergo, part of the “price” is in fact, a “tax.” Ah, but it’s not called a tax. It’s just hidden in the price. Of course, then big corporations are guilty of keeping the price high! Yah, right.
And so now, because the poor and ever growing numbers of the middle class can’t quite afford peanut butter it’s necessary to give them money to afford it – food stamps or free peanut butter, or at this point a “peanut butter purchase deduction” on Schedule P-10 of the IRS code. Where does this money come from? Why, from “corporate” taxes. Yes, well, taxing corporations say, 10 cents on the pound of peanuts to give poor folks 10 cents extra to buy a pound of peanuts means the corporation will raise the price of peanuts 10 cents to cover the tax. This is the fundamental of corporation taxation that most people just don’t get – every dime a corporation is taxed comes from the price of the things it sells.
Raise corporation taxes by 50% and the price of everything sold will go up. And so, the tax is paid not “by” the corporation, but by the common people, who are now so thrilled that corporations are being squeezed for more taxes. Yah, right. Rubes and dupes, no? The poor peanut eater doesn’t realize he’s paying a tax on peanuts regardless of whether he pays it in income at the point of earning, or income at the point of spending, or somewhere in between. Again, it’s irrelevant at where in the cycle of life the tax is collected – the poor and rich alike pay to keep this merry-go-round going.
Will Obama or Romney change this? Absolutely not. Will Congress make a change in the peanut cycle. Absolutely not. So the price of peanuts will stay high, the poor will get their peanut subsidy to pay for the peanut subsidy to the rich, and the peanut rich will pay their taxes to fund the peanut poor pay for their peanuts. All this in the name of helping the people and helping the poor and screwing the rich. Yes, and who benefits the most? Why, the D’s and R’s who have created the charade. That neither party bothers to explain this simple fact is either stupidity or cupidity – and I’m not sure which anymore, or maybe a bit of both.
So all of my friends and compadres who are sure that Romney is the answer, you’re in for a shock when nothing changes but the numbering of the provisions, and the deficits continue at the Trillion Buck plus level. And for all my friends who are sure that Obama is the answer, you’re in for a shock when nothing changes but the but the $500 billion dollar deficits you didn’t like under Bush continue as the Trillion Buck plus deficits you have no problem with. Do I blame the common folks we are on either side – no I don’t. I blame the elites that have morphed into hohen-this and hohen-that. Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Who cares? Stop arguing with each other, and argue against the culprits – the cads you elect to office. In fact, stop electing them to office, or seeking some “new and improved” version of the elders in the parties who are dying off anyway.
- Posted in: Uncategorized