Home | About | Donate

Entitlements are Bankrupting America. But the Rich Keep Taking Them


#1

Entitlements are Bankrupting America. But the Rich Keep Taking Them.

Paul Buchheit

Because of irresponsible reporting by conservative sources, many Americans have been led to believe that social programs are bankrupting our nation. The mainstream media fawningly concurs, with statements like this from USA Today: "The massive deficits...[and] chronic underfunding...are largely the result of Washington's habit of committing too much money to benefit programs." States are now beginning to attack imagined safety net abuses, such as the use of food stamp funds to pay for fortune tellers and pleasure cruises.


#2

Please name those billionaires and disclose their total wealth. How many billionaires are there in the US?; the world? Their total wealth? We need real names and numbers to begin the desparate correction that needs to take place.


#4

The issue is: Taxes on billionaires have been reduced to the point that they have enough spare dough to buy most politicians in the US and abroad. Those politicians lavish ever more corporate welfare programs on their owners.

Page 131 of the US General Accounting Office (GAO) report # GAO-11-696 confirms that by June 2011 US taxpayers (most of whom are victims of the 2008 meltdown) were on the hook for $16 trillion to bail out the banksters who CAUSED the 2008 meltdown. The politicians are killing all the New Deal programs in order to fund these bailouts and even bigger bail outs that will be required when the too-big-to-fail banks (that are now 40% larger than they were in 2008) cause the next melt down.


#5

Yes they in fact changed the laws regarding money a depositor keeps in a bank reclassifying it as part of the banks assets.

This will legally allow a Bank to sieze deposits so as to pay off investors. This was specifically implemented so as to help pay off all those fraudulent derivatives. The RICH investor class insist that they are always paid off first before anyone else.

The claim is made that unless rich investors paid off first , sources of investment will dry up.

THIS due to the mantra that "Private Individuals will control the means of production" which at the heart of capitalism and those banking agreements signed in 1974 wherein most countries surrendered their ability to issue currency to private banking concerns.

JP Morgan has recently indicated that it will not allow either precious metals or cash to be stored in safety deposit boxes. Chase Manhattan recently indicated new policies that forbid the payment of auto loans ,, credit cards and Mortgages with cash.

What they are trying to do is ensure all of your wealth in the way of cash/gold/silver and the like are stored as computer entries at the bank which given the changes above make it easier to steal.


#6

No-one needs a billion. Period.


#8

Screw off, corporate boilerplate shill. You want to take air out of Mr. Buchheit's sails. What a calling! To toss aspersions at the individual who EXPOSES what the 1% is doing, and has done to the prior economic balance. In it, a Middle Class was growing, able to educate its children, and with that education, checks on power were inevitable. Now, as so many are caught in a quagmire of day to day struggles as it's PROVEN (by the Piketty Study) that wealth went to the top... you look for a way to put holes into Buchheit's argument?

How do posters like you live with themselves?


#9

You two are obviously part of a planned script duo. Now you offer sympathy for the poor billionaire. Together, your tango is in place to distract readers from the data supplied by Mr. Buchheit and the FACT that Conservative "think" tanks--likely like the one picking up your Opinion Shaping tab--push this idea that it's those in need who put a drag on the economy when in reality, the cost-avoidances and tax perks and corporate subsidies that go to the 1% tower over the far more righteous expenditures.


#10

#11

There are many things to point out re: why obscene wealth is not good for a healthy, democratic society. But, for one, obscene wealth is being used by many (of the few) to control the government of the US. That alone is a major reason for real tax reform and reform of election laws.


#14

No one needs a billion dollars.

The excess of wealth in the hands of a few should be resdistributed. There no moral reason one person should be born to a life of wealth as one born to a life of poverty.

The differences in wealth between the rich and the poor are all ARTIFICIAL based upon laws that are intended to keep the wealthy rich and the poor in poverty. It a con visited on the people very much like the Kings and Nobles claiming to be of "better blood" and legitimate owners of their fiefs was a con.

"Confiscating peoples wealth" is a rather silly statement. It implies they somehow deserved or earned such wealth over and above some other. The greatest landowners in old Russia were the Czars and Princes of Noble blood . By what right did they claim to OWN all that land as the masses lived on the land as property?

Finally in spite what it says in your Ludwig Von Mises textbooks and that Libertarian twaddle as advanced by one Ayn Rand, there is no such thing as a "free exchange of goods" in a society that has such unequal wealth distribution and that embraces the concept of "Private Property".

Now go cut and paste some paragraphs from one of those books with your "theories on the free market and supply and demand" . None of them change the fact that what you promote is rubbish. What you promote is not how it must be due to some inviolate laws of nature, it is how things are based upon those in POWER wanting to protect their ill gotten gains from the people.


#15

Reply does not belong to this post. I'm moving it!


#16

My favorite billionaires are like the Walton family and the Queen of England who have never worked a day in their life and are simply rich because of the vagina that they came from.


#17

People should withdraw all assets from any and all of these big derivative trading banks. It's been clear since the law was changed at the end of last year that anybody who leaves assets in these institutions risks losing them. That's in addition to the moral issue of having assets in these banks in the first place, an issue raised by Occupy. Now it's also a matter of survival of the assets, not just morality.

This reply originally appeared linked to the wrong post. I've moved it here. (Hmmm, it seems the original reply was placed here as well. Sorry folks, but the new CD system is a bit confusing to me still. Anyway, this is placed correctly ...)


#20

I submit that when people are starving while billionaires sit atop a pile of money that is doing nothing but accumulating it is moral to confiscate.


#23

Keep that neoliberalism coming. I did forget that they probably do attend a Board meeting once per quarter.


#24

Another thing the rich do is "stock market manipulation". A great deal of money is made this way. Of course nothing "useful" is produced, but the rich obtain billions of dollars doing this sort of thing.


#25

Of course it's more complex. I don't advocate giving everybody a mansion for doing nothing, but I do believe every person is entitled to decent shelter, food, water, health care, work, education, freedom from oppression, and all the other things listed in the UN's Declaration of Human Rights.


#27

Sorry, but I worked with them, on Wall Street. The risk here is that the derivatives are issued against bank assets as collateral, and that collateral can be seized by derivative holders in event of bankruptcy. The derivative holders are first in line to collect, and can clean out the bank, leaving nothing for other creditors of the bank in such a case. That includes depositors, who are unsecured creditors. Then the FDIC is on the hook to replace deposits, and these big banks are far too large for the FDIC to cover currently.

Take your trolling elsewhere!


#30

More rubbish spewed by "Thevoiceof reason". The United States of America is not and has never been a "free society" . Thomas jefferson OWNED slaves. The First Inhabitants of the lands were slaughtered and had their lands confiscated. Several millions are in prisons even as millions more live in poverty labroing at a macdonalds for minimum wage.

The Native Americans did not VOLUNTEER to give up their lands. They were taken at gunpoint. The entire southwest of the United States was taken at gunpoint.

Get of this voluntarism RUBBISH. People do not volunteer to sleep under bridges nor do they volunteer to go hungry.

People do not "volunteer" to move from rich and fertile lands they have lived on for thousands of years so as to go and live on a plot of land in the desert that seen as a wasteland. They do not "volunteer" to work in factories that fall down on their heads. They do not "volunteer" to work in coalmines that kill them. They do not "volunteer" to clean anothers toilet. They do not "volunteer" to live near open pit mines where uranium ore extracted.

You and your "voluntarism" and 'fair exchange of goods in a free market" is nothing but LIES. Yours is not the voice of reason. It is idiocy. It slavery advanced as "freedom". Any person who is able to reason recognizes the system for what it is and no one on these boards is buying your tripe.


#31

I was referring to the money not doing anything, not the billionaires...