my platform as presidential candidate - what's yours?
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Monday, June 3, 2024 14:50
VIEWED: 27072
PAGE 11 of 27
Income Inequality Grew Faster Under Obama, According To One Measure
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/income-inequality-obama_n_3853183?gucco
unter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAH6iQINCg1vUiDaaRZmrOGoEdacptr-UoOakdVFN0PSAQH0ZpLXUJ5fIqUtYv5nLw7eZ2ZlS_8qsYkzTz0DvLm7Vrr9X40UaR-NtXRJciLDep9-tHcGD_tAlqc2njHVfhgLqJukiHrIuAQkisxpPh_jCJ8-yBHocAgJm2F0ucuFb
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I found this, which I hope helps:
Quote:One thing I didn't find regarding national debt was whether or not money borrowed (which is in the definition of national debt) = money owed. Because that money is borrowed with interest due. So even if, in any one year, you take in more money than you spend, all that money you still owe is accumulating an interest charge. If you accumulate the interest charge faster than you're paying it down, you can still increase your debt even if you have no deficit.
https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-national-debt-1146136
While many in the United States confuse the terms national debt and national deficit (including our very own politicians and U.S. government officials), in reality, they are distinct concepts.
The federal or national deficit refers to the difference between the government's receipts, or revenues the government takes in, and its outlays, or the money it spends. This difference between receipts and outlays can either be positive, indicating that the government took in more than it spent (at which point the difference would be labeled a surplus rather than a deficit) or negative, which reveals a deficit. The national deficit is officially calculated at the end of the fiscal year. When outlays outnumber revenues in value, the government must borrow money to make up the difference. One of the ways the government borrows money to fund the deficit is by issuing Treasury securities and savings bonds.
The national debt, on the other hand, refers to the value of those Treasury securities issued. In a sense, one way to consider these two distinct, but related terms is to view the national debt as accumulated national deficits. The national debt exists as a result of those national deficits.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Well, the chart is national debt, not federal deficit.
I thought the same thing at first, but I think JSF is right here.
Shouldn't there be at least a few years where the national debt decreased since we'd been told there were a few years of a surplus under Clinton, or are my wires crossed?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Quote:I was going to post about the same as what 6ix posted, but now you have posted about the same thing.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I found this, which I hope helps:Quote:One thing I didn't find regarding national debt was whether or not money borrowed (which is in the definition of national debt) = money owed. Because that money is borrowed with interest due. So even if, in any one year, you take in more money than you spend, all that money you still owe is accumulating an interest charge. If you accumulate the interest charge faster than you're paying it down, you can still increase your debt even if you have no deficit.
https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-national-debt-1146136
While many in the United States confuse the terms national debt and national deficit (including our very own politicians and U.S. government officials), in reality, they are distinct concepts.
The federal or national deficit refers to the difference between the government's receipts, or revenues the government takes in, and its outlays, or the money it spends. This difference between receipts and outlays can either be positive, indicating that the government took in more than it spent (at which point the difference would be labeled a surplus rather than a deficit) or negative, which reveals a deficit. The national deficit is officially calculated at the end of the fiscal year. When outlays outnumber revenues in value, the government must borrow money to make up the difference. One of the ways the government borrows money to fund the deficit is by issuing Treasury securities and savings bonds.
The national debt, on the other hand, refers to the value of those Treasury securities issued. In a sense, one way to consider these two distinct, but related terms is to view the national debt as accumulated national deficits. The national debt exists as a result of those national deficits.
If there were several years of SURPLUS, the DEBT would have not INCREASED, it would have DECREASED.
DEFICIT defines an INCREASE in the DEBT. SURPLUS defines a DECREASE in the DEBT.
Unlike Libtard Maths, a DEFICIT cannot DECREASE the DEBT, and a SURPLUS cannot INCREASE the DEBT.
I don't see where that chart shows several years of DECREASED DEBT under Slick Willie.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
One thing I didn't find regarding national debt was whether or not money borrowed (which is in the definition of national debt) = money owed. Because that money is borrowed with interest due. So even if, in any one year, you take in more money than you spend, all that money you still owe is accumulating an interest charge. If you accumulate the interest charge faster than you're paying it down, you can still increase your debt even if you have no deficit.
Oh Jeez...
I didn't even think of that.
Well... If that doesn't paint a depressing picture.
If a few years of surplus (gained by selling out our children's future to China and other international interests) back in the 90's still lead to the deficit growing because of interest rates, what does that say about our situation right now after 8 years of GWB, 8 years of Obama and 2 years of Trump?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So JO, I skimmed through your platform, here are a few comments
It's pretty long. I'm a fast reader, and all I could do is try to capture the major points. I'm sure I missed quite a few! Is there any way to condense, maybe put some in bullet form?
It focuses on the wealth gap, the role of money etc almost to the exclusion of evening else (except gun control). Again, I only skimmed, I may have missed a few things but, how do you feel about our military budget? The environment? Relations with Russia and China? Free trade? Healthcare and insurance companies? Or public, corporate, and personal debt? Social relations, diversity, equality, free speech, political correctness, and internet neutrality? Infrastructure?
Your solution to the wealth gap and declining living standards of the typical American, even as the rich get obscenely wealthier, seems to rely on government stepping in and redistributing that root of all evil, money. But I'm not sure that really solves the problem. For example, you seem to have landed on a guaranteed basic income as the answer, but if you already accept that businesses hate handing out more money for the same amount of work (higher minimum wage), what makes you think they would go along with handing out more money for nothing?
And if you're really capable of forcing that thru, why not aim for something better?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So here is an example of what I was posting about:
You say, for example, that businesses are automating. But they aren't automating to make life easier ... no siree ... they're automating to reduce wages, to keep more money for themselves. That's what a capitalist does. You do a straight-line projection to the day when everyone will be automated out of a job, and then - recognizing the difficulty that people would face buying those goods and that capitalists would face selling them- you assume that the best solution would be to have the government wrench money from the capitalist (or print it) to distribute it "for free" to everyone. But yanno, capitalists, being capitalists, would rather keep their money and if they can't accumulate it by producing and selling goods, then they'll stop producing goods and simply accumulate money by owning and renting out things already in existence: Homes, water, electricity etc. They couldn't give a fig about how easy it is for you to survive, as long as they can keep squeezing something out of you.
What you don't seem to realize is that automation isn't necessary and inevitable, and it isn't even good for people or for the economy. People need to feel in charge of their future. They need to feel confident that they can ensure their future by being a necessary part in creating it, not some dingleberry on the ass end of a government handout (or a "redundant" part of capitalist production).
Expecting the government to give you money "for free" makes you dependent on the government, and it also allows local production to collapse, which makes the local and national economy dependent on production abroad. If you actually have the power to grab money from the wealthy, it would be far better to use that power to increase production and jobs by simply mandating that necessary production and maintenance - agriculture, energy conservation, home retrofitting, environmental restoration, education, infrastructure, steel, aluminum, fabric and clothing, electronics, etc be done at home, with skilled labor. Maybe encourage cooperatives where every worker IS a part-owner.
And why not? The drive towards automation only comes from a drive towards maximum profit. If you're able to think a future where you can corral that profit, go all the way and think of something REALLY new: Put yourself in charge. Give yourself the power.
So stop thinking in FDR terms, and start thinking like someone who is directing their fate.
*****
Same thing with foreign policy, banking, the environment etc. Put yourself in charge. Think like a person who is directing the future, not like someone who's demanding a handout from TPTB. YOUR future doesn't have to look like "more of the same". Maybe it can't be achieved right away, but you can certainly imagine it, right?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So JO. since you have some spare time, any thoughts about my comments on your platform?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You seem to be ignoring the conclusion uv the story - therez no stopping the end uv human labor. The wealthy and the jiant corporationz wont be going overseaz to find cheap workerz anymore, they will simply purchase droidz. Any lawz requiring human labor will chase them overseaz, but only to set up production with their droidz.
Then a second staje happenz- peepl buying their own droidz to do all the chorez, so bu bi to maidz, house cleanerz, baby sitterz, rooferz, mekanics, repairmen, etc.
Droidz will be the most popular big tikit product.
The problem iz then how to get money into everybodyz handz to spend on that production. Duz everybody bekum a shareholder and liv off their dividendz? Do the goverments uv the world tax production & pay everybody hoo iznt rich or a share holder?
Probably both.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So JO, I skimmed through your platform, here are a few comments
It's pretty long. I'm a fast reader, and all I could do is try to capture the major points. I'm sure I missed quite a few! Is there any way to condense, maybe put some in bullet form?
Its in pajez on the site. I thot youd been there before.
Quote:
how do you feel about our military budget? The environment? Relations with Russia and China? Free trade? Healthcare and insurance companies? Or public, corporate, and personal debt? Social relations, diversity, equality, free speech, political correctness, and internet neutrality? Infrastructure?
I don't hav solid opinionz on everything, but obviously will need to develop them for many more subjects.
I have no idea how much time I will hav for more pajez. Dependz how the house situation panz out.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I guess that in order for me to be convinced, you'll have to fill in the gaps.
Quote:Not ignoring. Just not accepting, because you've jumped from a premise all the way to the end without going thru any of the intermediate steps of presenting the how and why in order to convince anyone of your conclusion
You seem to be ignoring the conclusion uv the story - therez no stopping the end uv human labor.
Quote:So, you see the drive towards automation as an EXTRINSIC process? Pushed on people by profit-seeking transnationals?
The wealthy and the jiant corporationz wont be going overseaz to find cheap workerz anymore, they will simply purchase droidz. Any lawz requiring human labor will chase them overseaz, but only to set up production with their droidz.
Quote:HOW do we get to this "second stage"? If people all over the world (in yoyur scenario) are driven out of jobs and can't afford a place to stay or medical care or even food, HOW are they going to afford a droid?
Then a second staje happenz- peepl buying their own droidz to do all the chorez, so bu bi to maidz, house cleanerz, baby sitterz, rooferz, mekanics, repairmen, etc.
Also, does this mean that you see automation as an INTRINSIC drive instead of (or perhaps in addition to) the profit=seeking extrinsic one? In other words, what basic human motivation would propel people to having droids in the first place?
Quote:More than housing and food and medical care and transportation? How do people fit this into their budget?
Droidz will be the most popular big tikit product.
Quote:Yes indeed, how?
The problem iz then how to get money into everybodyz handz to spend on that production.
Quote:There would have to be a worldwide revolution for that to happen. And,as I said, if you're going to posit a revolution, why not posit better goals instead of aping the vision of the capitalist?
Duz everybody bekum a shareholder and liv off their dividendz? Do the goverments uv the world tax production & pay everybody hoo iznt rich or a share holder?[/quote
Aside from the sheer disruption of "the end of work" creating a giant worldwide unemployment and poverty crisis (one worse than today's, of course) I see a few potential giant speedbumps on the path towards your envisioned future.
The first is a general resource problem, and the second is an energy crunch. How do you envision this "droids for everyone" will come about in a future where there will be ecological catastrophe on a massive scale?
I'm just going to add my observations about "droids for everyone" doing our work: I think humans have an evolutionary drive towards "less work, more reward". The individuals who managed to get more food and more shelter while expending less energy were able to raise more children. It's alongside the drive towards fatty, sugary, salty foods ... protohumans who directed their food-gathering to fish and marrow and starchy tubers as opposed to ... say, grass ... liver longer and had more children.
However, just because we have a drive towards certain things doesn't mean that we're adpated to an environment where these things are freely available. Living a virtual life leads to people getting stupider and sadderm aswell as fatter and sicker.
Also, the drive towards "less work more reward" is counterveiled by the drive towards activity and learning, expressed mostly by young animals (including young children)as they play. A childsitting in front of a boob tube or entranced by a screen is an unhealthy lifestyle ... all you need to do is compare it to kittens and puppies to see the difference. Are droids going to do our learning and playing for us, too?
If people were to decide on the basis of their own SELF INTEREST what to do next ... not on the basis of what they've seen in commercials and in stories, and not from a position of being stressed out and sleep-deprived and associating "work" with b
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME