1ºSocialism caused this problem and only capitalism can fix it. Money problems are caused by the central bank policies—a socialist/communist institution. Marx’s communist manifesto has a central bank as a top priority.
Some higher taxes will be required to avoid default no matter what. A nation can’t borrow without a way to fund it ie you can’t cut taxes or increase spending unless you have an alternative source of money. America wasn’t supposed to be 30 trillion debt until 2030 and it is already there. They will have to reform entitlements ie social security/Medicare, raise taxes and retirement ages, or cut government spending. Probably all three. Ultimately the only recourse will be a 30% wealth tax on the top 1 or 10% paid over a decade or so. Those gains came from government largesse to Wall St firms ie tax payer money, to the big banks to speculate on the stock market so it’s just a return of the people’s money to use practically. The federal reserve artificially keeps inflation at 2% per annum when America needs deflation to make it competitive. Economies are like eco-systems that go through seasonal cycles. There is no such thing as a company being “too big to fail” when even modern empires collapse but eventually get back up. Main Street ie the average American isn’t affected by a crash of a few big monopoly banks. Military spending and domestic spying take almost half the tax dollars so they should be reduced. People will always find new occupations especially in the modern age so no need to lament so-called job losses or even artificial intelligence taking jobs. The latter will drastically cut prices as labor is the biggest cost for any business almost. Carriage makers thought the auto industry would put everyone out of work too in the early 20th century.
Entitlements like social security need reform since the way it’s structured people today with temp jobs or in the gig economy will get their most productive years counted and be paid on that basis and SS is “indexed” so recipients get exponentially paid for work they didn’t do ie they didn’t earn. Politicians in the 1970s and 80s indexed wages to get votes not considering the cost to future generations (maybe they were expecting The Rapture). Social security was made when people had shorter lifespans and steady factory work with guaranteed hefty salaries. Artificial inflation of 2% (fed reserve policy) off-shored those jobs and currency manipulation keeps them there. Same with Medicare, whose costs are due to control of congress by big hospital chains, big pharma, all sorts of medical-establishment lobby money that keep costs high as they are the beneficiaries of government largess. That’s why doctors don’t tell you the cost and it often seems absurdly high compared to other nations. It’s the same with mandated insurance for large companies for employees—it simply raises the costs for everyone else. A free market solution is the only practical one. Government interference always favors one group over another usually for the worst in the long run. Amy government benefits should be paid in cash directly to the recipient (not the doctors).
The same mechanism works in education where colleges with billion-dollar trusts keep raising prices since the government is obliged to pay—an artificial guaranteed customer. On a free market schools would charge a lot less. That principle works all the way down to kindergarten. The military-police complex appropriated over half the annual budget at near one trillion dollars. It could be at least a quarter of that.
2ºRose Fulleylove so what you’re saying is an opinion piece by a right wing think tank funded by conservative donors,(including Donors to the institute included the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, Microsoft, General Motors, Comcast, Reynolds American, Philip Morris, Amgen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly, liquor companies, and an anonymous donor who had given $13 million over the past five years.) wrote an article claiming that tax cuts for them were beneficial for all. Sounds like the oil industry telling us climate change isn’t real.
Here is a link to an article refuting Haskins point by point. I’m sure you will read it since you are clearly unbiased, look at both sides of an argument and examine all the context around opinion pieces from highly conservative and corporate funded think tanks.
https://gen.medium.com/th...ts-bc0567aba890
3ºDianne Haspelt
Biden pulled America out of the Trump outhouse. America was in the hands of an utter con-man, just look at the imminent criminal cases that will sink Trump permanently, look at all the people around Trump that are in prison (or did time)for carrying out their conspiracies against America and other crimes, look at the over a million American Covid-19 deaths thanks to Trump’s misinformation not to mention the lost trillions of dollars, and then look at the number of Americans Trump turned into extremist zombies that attacked the Capitol in FBI custody, and those still roaming free threaten the safety and security of Americans every day?
Oh but wait, you blame Biden for the global price of eggs
4ºZacharia Wood You misunderstood the Book of Life is in Heaven and there your name can be erased if you keep on living in sin because sin is shut out of Heaven and if you die in your sin you won't be able to enter into Heaven or stay there for forever and the only other place to go to then is hell do you realize how you cannot take risks with your soul that can never die you'll either be alive in Heaven for forever or in the Lake of Fire forever, forever has no end to it think about that...
5ºJeff Johnson thanks Jeff for sharing the exact same article as mentioned above in different publications and an equally biased article from another equally corporate funded organisation and lobby group ATR. Now before calling me names let’s assume I read the original article sighted that made the same claims. Then let’s assume I did something you didn’t. I dug a little deeper and started reading and analysing the context around the numbers and claims. I’m not sure what you mean by real research. Do you mean read more articles that say the same thing with the same biases? Or do you mean dig deeper. So I did what I can only assume is research and I dug deeper. I looked at who wrote the articles(research) I looked at who funded the articles(research) I looked at the claims the article was making(research) then I went and saw what the context around the claims were(research) and then I found articles that challenged those claims(research) and who funded them and then I weighed them against each other and decided one to be more credible than the other. Being such a brilliant researcher as yourself maybe providing me your research methodology would be helpful.
6ºRobert Montez let's start with covid is just a flu, I'm worth 10b, the army didn't have a raise for 10 years, but try these The most telling lie: It didn’t rain on his inauguration
Trump began his presidency by lying about the weather. or this Trump tweeted in 2019 that Alabama was one of the states at greater risk from Hurricane Dorian than had been initially forecast. The federal weather office in Birmingham then tweeted that, actually, Alabama would be unaffected by the storm.
Not great, but fixable fast with a simple White House correction. Trump, however, is so congenitally unwilling to admit error that he embarked on an increasingly farcical campaign to prove that his incorrect Alabama tweet was actually correct, eventually showcasing a hurricane map that was crudely altered with a Sharpie. or this The ugliest smear lie: Rep. Ilhan Omar supports al Qaeda
At a White House event in 2019, Trump grossly distorted a 2013 quote from Rep. Ilhan Omar to try to get his supporters to believe that the Minnesota Democrat had expressed support for the terrorist group al Qaeda.
Trump went on to deliver additional bigoted attacks against Omar in the following months. But it’s hard to imagine a more vile lie for the President to tell about a Muslim official – who had already been getting death threats – than a smear that makes her sound pro-terrorist.
7ºIRS data proves Trump tax cuts helped working class more than rich
Author says data disputes demagoguery Democrats used to fight law unsuccessfully and is a warning sign for current Democrat legislation seeking to raise taxes. An op-ed published this weekend in The Hill newspaper declared that new IRS data shows that former President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cut law benefited working- and middle-class Americans more than the rich. "Income data published by the IRS clearly show that on average all income brackets benefited substantially from the Republicans’ tax reform law, with the biggest beneficiaries being working and middle-income filers, not the top 1 percent, as so many Democrats have argued," wrote the author Justin Haskins, director of the Socialism Research Center at The Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank.
Haskins said his analysis of the IRS data found that taxpayers earning:
* between $15,000 and $50,000 saw tax savings of 16 percent to 26 percent in 2018, the first year after the law and the only for which full IRS data is available.
* between $50,000 to $100,000 averaged tax savings of 15 percent to 17 percent,.
* between $100,000 to $500,000 saw personal income taxes cut by 11 percent to 13 percent.
* $500,000 or more received an average tax cut above 9 percent, with the average savings for those over $1 million being less than 6 percent.
"The fact is, Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law did exactly what was promised: It lowered taxes for all income groups, provided the greatest benefits for middle-income households, and spurred economic growth that helped reduce poverty and improve prosperity," Haskins wrote..