YouTube Video ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed. I think it's a very important video to watch. Our government is going to spend us into an economic crisis. What is your opinion to what David Walker said?...
| |||||||
 |
| Please Register to Post a Reply |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
05-03-2008, 04:44 PM
| #1 | |||||||
| 100% L.A. Livin'  Independent Los Angeles, CA 
| David Walker: "US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy."
I think it's a very important video to watch. Our government is going to spend us into an economic crisis. What is your opinion to what David Walker said? 
__________________ "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." -- Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence.  | |||||||
     | ||||||||
|
05-03-2008, 10:23 PM
| #2 | ||||
| Administrator  libertarian Oklahoma
| As long as the system allows the congress/senate to vote money out of one person's hand and into another we're going ot have this problem. They are only concerned about getting re elected and maintaining their power, NOT making the country a better place for all of us. | ||||
| |
|
05-03-2008, 11:42 PM
| #3 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| So far this video is inaccurate... Standards of living have gone up drastically in 3 years. People have to work more because taxes are ridiculous. Inflation > deflation this was proven during the great depression. The way we live the federal reserve has NO choice but to allow some inflation. Going to the gold standard is a joke. Since leaving the gold standard economic prosperity has gone up at a quicker rate. Gold stnadard has some substantial drawbacks and allows easy manipulation of currency valuation which can cause great turmoil on the world markets. Furthermore appreciating a currency can have devastating consequences in the real world as proven NUMEROUS times in the past...especially during the great depression. This video is full of flaws. | ||||
| |
|
05-04-2008, 12:05 AM
| #4 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
|  they just blamed the great depression on interest rates | ||||
| |
|
05-05-2008, 01:21 PM
| #5 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal  Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 It's not totally ridiculous, there is a school of thought that the Fed could have acted to prevent the depression but refused to do so operating under a sort of laisez faire policy. I don't think it's the predominant opinion but it's not ridiculous. 
| ||||
| |
|
05-05-2008, 01:23 PM
| #6 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 I agree with the rest of the stuff about gold standard but, people have to work more because of taxes? How do you figure?
| ||||
| |
|
05-05-2008, 02:05 PM
| #7 | ||||
| The Fed Must Go!  Anarcho-Capitalist
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 I have to clarify your thinking on the gold standard, depression, inflation/deflation as you observe it, before I reply to your statements, but before I do, I need to know your definitions of such.
First, what is your definition of inflation and deflation? Second, which gold standard are you referring to? Next, how was going to the gold standard "a joke?" What was inflation like from 1800 to 1932 under either gold standard? What happened in in 1933/34 that was the first sign of government intervention/collusion with the Fed? What did Nixon do in 1971 that changed everything? Answer those and I'll be happy to address your post. Fed Up
__________________ "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (1885) | ||||
| |
|
05-05-2008, 02:14 PM
| #8 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 No it is ridiculous, the fed should have acted and definately could have acted but they had NO clue how to react so they pretty much created a perfect storm. There is FAR more to the great depression than interest rates. In fact thats probably one of the smaller factors in the GD.
| ||||
| |
|
05-05-2008, 05:09 PM
| #9 | ||||
| Master Debator Election Moderator  Democrat Omaha, NE
| Their spending is what creates the need for ridiculous taxation. The thing is that the middle class is subject to the ridiculous taxation while the wealthy and the poor get off a lot easier. The poor get off because well, they don't have much income to tax. The rich aka upper 1% only pay about 18%-20% while in comparison the middle class pays around 30%. Then you have the whole 30% of 60,000 is most certainly a larger burden on a family, than 18% (or even 30% for that matter) of 10 million. | ||||
| |
|
05-05-2008, 10:41 PM
| #10 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by Fed Up Inflation/Deflation per great depression discussion is the appreciation or depreciation of a currency which results in substantial price changes.
Well take your pick fo the "gold standard" holding a monetary value to something like Gold, Silver, Diamonds or some other supposed "fixed" constant allows government to greatly influence the value of their currency more so than the current free floating currency. The Gold standard basically pegged the value of the dollar to an oz of gold. At various points in time the government had enough gold for all currency, at others they only had partial gold reserves. Inflation was rampant in the 1800s and early 1900s just like it is today. In fact the 1880s and 1890s and again after WWI to the great depression inflation was substantial. The fed intervened far before 1934, Id otn know what you're referring to on that point. In 1971 Nixon effectively ended the Gold Standard when he refused to pay out anymore gold. | ||||
| |
|
05-05-2008, 10:43 PM
| #11 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by DosEquis Thats not correct, I've posted the statistics NUMEROUS times, straight from teh BLS and IRS the top 1% pay more than anyone else. There are some who take deductions to the max or rig their incomes in such a way that they qualify for huge income tax deductions but IRS statistics show clearly that the top 1% pay more than anyone else. It was 26% I believe for the federal income tax average for the top 1%. There's a thread around here somewhere with the stats but it seems like thats what it was.
| ||||
| |
|
05-06-2008, 12:54 AM
| #12 | ||||
| The Fed Must Go! Anarcho-Capitalist
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 Inflation: increase in money supply
deflation: decrease in money supply I think we're on the same page here with price changes the result of said changes. The two types of gold standards are the pure gold standard (silver and gold) as the constitution madates per Article 1 section 8, and the type that we have been on from time to time, a quasi gold standard where fiat currency is aledgedly backed by gold reserves. Yes, there was inflation and deflation during the period of 1800-1932. Four were inflationary and three were deflationary. First, I should have used 1913 instead of 1932 in my question and I also should have worded the question differently. Sorry for any confusion. I didn't mean to discount the ups and downs of deflation/inflation as much to say that during this period of time, sans the Civil war, there is a history of long run price stability. This was researched by Roy Jastram in his book, "The Golden Constant" The English and American Experience, 1560-1976 utilizing the Wholesale Price Indicies of Warren and Pearson. On a side note, inflation was rampant during WWI yes, but only until 1920. Prices stabalized or decreased some during the "roaring 20's." In 1933, gold was confiscated to help bailout the Fed and the People were given paper dollars in return. In 1934, the government raised the price of gold from $20.67 an ounce to $35 an ounce, thus depreciating the dollars the People received by 60%. Since the Great Depression, we've had no deflation (decrease in the money supply) and today, unless you follow Shadow Government Statistics or the like you don't even know what the Fed's rate of increase in the Money Supply is (17.3% according to SGS). In 1971 Nixon took us off the gold standard completely by refusing to give France any gold in exchange for U.S. dollars thus closing the gold window, as you stated. I think we're on the same page....but if not, let me know where you might differ. I wanted to make sure our understandings were the same before moving on to your statement in that first post I addressed. Thanks for responding. Specifically in that first post you said;
Thanks... Fed Up | ||||
| |
|
05-06-2008, 03:00 PM
| #13 | ||||
| Master Debator Election Moderator Democrat Omaha, NE
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 Yeah, they pay more than anyone else in dollars and in percentage of total tax revenue. As a percentage of their income however, most of it is taxed at 15% because most of their income is capital gains.
Mr. Buffet posted his figures and I believe he was right around 18% if you rounded up. "Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation." | ||||
| |
|
05-06-2008, 03:05 PM
| #14 | ||||
| Master Debator Election Moderator Democrat Omaha, NE
| some other misc quotes from the article: Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, acknowledged in an interview yesterday that there were justified concerns about the huge profits generated by private equity firms and that he worried that income inequality was “poisoning democracy”. He also said that he would be voting for the Democrat candidate at the next election. Mr Blankfein is the highest-paid executive on Wall Street, earning $54 million last year. Mr Buffett, who runs the investment group Berkshire Hathaway and is widely regarded as the world’s most successful investor, said that he was a Democrat because Republicans are more likely to think: “I’m making $80 million a year – God must have intended me to have a lower tax rate.” Mr Buffett said that a Republican proposal to eliminate elements of inheritance tax, which raises about $30 billion a year from the assets of about 12,000 rich families, would broaden the disparity between rich and poor. He added that the Republicans would seek to recover lost revenue by increasing taxes for the less prosperous. He said: “You could take that $30 billion and give $1,000 to 30 million poor families. Or should you favour the 12,000 estates and make 30 million families pay an extra $1,000?” | ||||
| |
|
05-06-2008, 03:08 PM
| #15 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by DosEquis No that was as a percentage of their income its higher than anyone else...buffet is the one choosing ot take those deductions if he doesn't like them.
The top 1% have the highest percentage of their income taken in income taxes at 26% | ||||
| |
|
05-06-2008, 04:56 PM
| #16 | ||||
| Governments should fear their people  Paleolibertarian
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9
The whole idea of the Fed is anti-laissez faire so not sure how there can be a theory of how "laissez faire" they were. | ||||
| |
|
05-06-2008, 05:13 PM
| #17 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by lew leading up to the great depression they chose not to interfere by modifying rates, or doing anything with the money supply or extending credit to banks and such. Essentially everything we just saw the fed do a little while ago, the fed did NOT do in the time leading up to the depression. They sat back and let the market do what it was going to do.
| ||||
| |
|
05-06-2008, 05:18 PM
| #18 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 The key word is "income" which really means wages reported on your W-2. it doesn't include capital gains which are taxed at 15%.
| ||||
| |
