United States Heading towards a Depression?

No. I am NOT talking about TERROR. I'm talking about economic warfare.

No worries. I can be a 1st class jerk too when I set my mind to it.

 

Hell even America has fought that type of war.

In the Philippines - General Pershing was having numerous problems with Muslim insurgents (terrorists, rebells, whatever you want to call them). They caught 50 of them in an operation - executed 49 of them with bullets dipped in pigs blood - put them in a mass grave with slaughter pigs pieces and buried them - the last one they let go - they didn't have a "muslim" incident in the Philippines for years afterwards - why? Because they understood they enemy and were ruthless in execution of the goal - namely Muslims believe that the pig is a filthy animal - and to be buried with one would make you unclean and unfit for paradise -

What would I do with these suicide bombers - I would scrap up whatever remains and throw it into a piggery - then I'd grab their whole family (in the middle east that means wives, sons, cousins, everyone) and shoot them and put their remains in the piggery as well -

Disgusting, yes, brutal, yes, inhumane - yes - would it work - you bet your ass it would - you would only need to do this once or twice and their would be no more suicide bombers - most suicide bombers kill themselves out of poverty - by martyrdom they bring honor and money into their family - hence why their families put a post in the local paper advertising their wonderful martyr in the family - they wouldn't do that if it meant death for them all.

Not a Christian response - but hell I wouldn't go to war with them in the first place - unless you were totally deadly serious about it.

 

Oh ECONOMIC WARFARE - silly me - ask the Rothschild's about it - they seem to be the masters of the game.

 

I don't want to get offtopic in this thread to talk about war. We've got plenty of threads on Britain, WWII, terror etc.

But you're dead wrong about suicide bombers. It's not poverty. It's occupation.

 

The British were smart enough to give up their colonies after WWII because they understood the change in the world and the nature of irregular warfare. You don't think they gave India independence because of Gandhi peaceful resistance, do you?
Independent of all excuses, USA has failed in it's occupation of a small country.

 

The U.S. defeated the greatest military power in the world to win its freedom. After the declaration of Independence was signed and the U.S. army assembled, the British were basically occupiers. We won our freedom not because we had superior forces but because we were in our homeland and strongly believed in what we were fighting for. The same is true for the people of Iraq, if they really want to live in a country ruled by strict religious laws that denies people the freedom and dignity that most of the modern world enjoys, then there is nothing any army, no matter how strong, will be able to do about it.

 

It's very simplistic to believe that should the US give up its military, its economic problems will be solved. The US trade deficit to the tune of $750 billion a year, dependence on foreign oil and the Fed printing dollars to prop up the housing bubble are causing the decline in the dollar and US economy.

 

This is a totally neutral question Bogart. Do you understand how government debt is monetized?

The reason I ask, is that our foreign and "secret" off book expenditures are killing us. Keeping troops in over 100 countries, puts money into those economies, not ours.

But big spending and the monetization of debt are the truly big ones. The trade deficit is a product of our inflationary economy, and the housing bubble was as well.

If we use Guerilla logic, we can trace most of our imbalances and problems to inflation. Which Guerilla thinks is caused dangerously reckless monetary policy.

So the real question is, why has our monetary policy been so recklessly loose? What has it been enabling?

Guerilla thinks it is empire. And all empires eventually go bankrupt.

 

Since the end of the cold war and reduction of Soviet and US Navies, piracy has become a growing problem. The Somolian Coast and Malacca Strait are unsafe for commercial navigation.

The US budget is full of waste and giveaways. A balanced budget is what is required to balance guns and butter.

 

Of course, because there is intentional FED policy to inflate, and then there is wanton government spending, which forces inflation through the monetization of debt.

Most people can't imagine it, but we're already broke, just no one has called our loans yet. When they do, it's going to be ugly.

 

Worst of all, the vast majority of that debt is actually owed to the American population, either through bonds or entitlement promises (think of the $50 trillion the gov. has promised to 'boomers for social security that those 'boomers did "pay for" at 13% their whole career)

Inflation is the effect of the government defaulting on its loans as they continue to accrue... CPI is calculated at what, 2.4% so retirees are getting a negative return on social security investments they were forced into.

 

We will never get out of debt with the current monetary system. Money is debt and debt is money.

 

I don't think people truly understand what this means. They say silly things like, "Oh, it's owed to ourselves", like we can forgive it or something.

Sad reality is that the only way to forgive it is to give up our entitlements, which means the money put into things like SS were squandered.

That's actually debt we owe to ourselves, and have to WORK to PAY OFF if we want to maintain the status quo.

 

How very optimistic.

 

It may not be optimistic, but technically, it is correct. This system is not sustainable, and any significant correction will require monetary reform.

 

A reduction on two fronts will not only increase revenues, but will insure that debt and interest debt is paid down.

1. Decrease Taxes
2. Decrease Spending

A reduction in taxes needs to take place on three fronts.

1. Elimination of death/inheritance tax
2. Elimination of Corporate Income Tax
3. Reduction in tax rate on individuals

Penalizing people for acquiring wealth only to take that wealth and redistribute it gains nothing. Those that keep wealth tend to invest it in areas that generate a perpetual increased tax base.

The elimination of corp taxes should be done with the stipulation that the revenues normally collected be vested in to health care and 401k/profit sharing. By shifting these revenues directly back to the people who work for the corporation, you will see an increased taxable revenue base from the people employed and receiving increased taxable income/benefits. Take that money from the corp, you take it directly from the workers in the form of layoffs and reduced benefits.

Reducing the tax rate on individuals spurs economic growth, consumer spending, and increased tax base at the state and local levels through taxable/sales tax, etc. revenues. No government in history has ever taxed its way to prosperity. In fact, since the Bush tax cuts, tax revenues have increased every year.

Couple this increased revenue with a 50% reduction in the nearly 60%+ in social spending and use that to pay down debt. Realistically, reversing over spending while increasing revenue = a positive reduction in debt, assuming the increased revenue is invested in paying down that debt.

The solution is simple, and two fold. Reduce spending, increase revenue.

 

That's all well and good Mia, but are you saying we should cut off benefits for the old and the poor so we can carry on the war on terror and the billions in defense spending that goes nowhere?

What happened to all of the money those people paid into SS? Sounds to me like you're advocating ripping them off. Which (1) is wrong, and (2) is not politically feasible. No one will receive a mandate from the people that will screw them over.

Is martial law part of your plan to cut social spending from those that are dependent on it?

You may think cutting 60% of government spending is SIMPLE, but I don't think many others would describe that quite so optimistically.

Btw, I have already debunked the Bush tax cuts. The increased revenue is from the monetization of government deficit spending. The government pumps funny money into the system, then taxes it back to itself and calls that a revenue increase.

I do agree on lower taxes, but the Bush cuts were not the ones that spurred the economic growth. That was the loose monetary policy.

 

Ah assumptions... 99.9% of all social spending are typically earmarks furthering social agendas outside the scope of SS and other social spending. I said nothing about touching SS.. Assumptions.

You'd be surprised how much waste is bottled up in that 60%. It has nothing to do with the war... which, by comparison, is a drop in the bucket in terms of cost.

Gee, again, assumptions.. Why on earth you keep lobbing SS into the conversation is beyond me. You really believe that 100% of that 60% of social spending is SS? Eek... Assumptions.

Teach a man to fish, the entitlements go away.... I've not said anything about SS, only you have.

I don't think it is simple. I know it is simple.

It is a fact that more tax revenues were collected with the tax cuts than were not. How you can debunk the factual accounting of the US Treasury Dept which documented this fact is beyond all comprehension.

There were a combination of spurred growth, both the direct result of both lower taxes and what you describe.

However, had you read my post and my two point plan you would recognize that spending needs to be decreased as well. Without a reduction in spending, no amount of increased revenue will ever be enough to overcome both debt and interest debt, let alone increased growth.

The solution is so simple...

 

Mia, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Although I do wish you would list specifically what is being cut and how much it saves in that 60%.

I stand by what a few of us have been saying in this thread. Lower taxes and less spending cannot fix a bad monetary system. Reform is a must for any meaningful change.