[Sixstrings]

#1 U.S. banks repossessed a record total of 102,134 homes in September. That was the very first time that home repossessions in the United States have ever surpassed the 100,000 mark during one month.

#2 The price of gold hit another record high on Thursday as the U.S. dollar continues to get even weaker.

#3 Household spending for the middle fifth of all U.S. income earners was down 3.5% in 2009. That was the steepest one year decline since records began being kept back in 1984.

#4 The number of Americans enrolled in the food stamp program passed the 41 million mark for the first time ever during the month of June.

#5 The number of Americans enrolled in the food stamp program has set a new all-time record for 20 consecutive months.

#6 The Census Bureau says that 43.6 million Americans are now living in poverty and according to them that is the highest number of poor Americans that they have ever recorded in 51 years of record-keeping.

#7 According to the Associated Press, experts believe that in 2009 the U.S. poverty rate experienced the largest single year increase since the U.S. government began calculating poverty figures back in 1959.

#8 It is projected that the major financial firms on Wall Street will pay out an all-time record of $144 billion in compensation for 2010.

#9 In July, sales of new homes in the United States declined to the lowest level ever recorded.

#10 As of last March, U.S. banks had an inventory of 1.1 million foreclosed homes, which was a new all-time record and which was up 20 percent from one year earlier.

#11 The number of Americans working part-time jobs "for economic reasons" is now the highest it has been in at least five decades.

#12 Earlier in 2010, the average time needed to find a job had risen to a record 35.2 weeks.

#13 As millions of Americans struggled just to survive in this economy, the number of marriages fell to a record low in 2009.

#14 A record 50 million Americans are now on Medicaid, the U.S. government health care program designed principally to help the poor.

#15 Americans now owe more than $849 billion on student loans, which is a new all-time record.

#16 The U.S. government has accumulated a national debt that is rapidly approaching 14 trillion dollars. The U.S. national debt sets a new all-time record every single month with no end in sight.
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/16-new-records-that-the-american-economy-has-set-over-the-past-12-months-and-they-are-all-bad

Of course, "good" and "bad" depends on who you are and where your allegiance lies. If you're a cross-borders, globalist bankster who got a cut of that 144 billion in bonuses then this is all good news. The globalist bankster couldn't care less what happens to the US, they can live anywhere they want and deploy their capital anywhere in the world. There are no borders for them, only money to be made.

And, if your money's in gold then this is all good news (for now).

For everyone else though, and for this idea called "America," this is all bad news: the most poverty in 50 years, a collapsing US dollar, record food stamp dependence, almost a trillion dollars in student loan debt slavery, an imploded housing and construction industry, more offshoring, more globalism, fewer jobs, no end in sight.

[Tanada]

IMO the big problem is we have computerized and mechanized ourselves to the point where we do not need nearly so many workers as we have available, which in turn depresses wages to the point where no single income average person can support a spouse and the 2.3 kids needed for replacement level demographics.

150 years ago the excess work force would have starved to death and things would have come back into balance, but now we subsidize people instead. This is moral and proper, but does nothing to alleviate the over abundance of moderate skilled workers. I do think there are solutions to this, but not many people would like them. One solution would be for people on government assistance to have to live in a certain state. If you can't find a job then you can move to state X and be subsidized, but you have to live there to get the subsidy. The people who take the subsidy would be removed by choice from the work force and employment in the other 49 states would get much better. To really work state unemployment benefits would have to run out for real at 26 weeks so that the unemployed would have to choose after 6 months. Also you would not be required to live in the subsidy state forever, you can leave any time but lose your subsidy when you do. Of course you would have to end illegal immigration and enforce it ruthlessly so that the subsidy state doesn't just become a haven for illegal aliens and so that they do not compete for the moderate skill jobs in the other 49 states.

[Timo]

Tanada, your post surprises me. I usually agree with most of your comments, but not that one. Parts of it, yes, but not the solution. How can quarantining the unemployed in a certain state help anything on a national scale? This would seem to make life so miserable for millions of people that their very numbers would go down rather quickly, which i just can't see you (or anybody else) supporting. Maybe i read your post wrong, but the solution is MUCH more complex than anything acceptable to anybody. And i'm not advocating this, but i think Malthus had a good point in his curve. (I admit that i just put myself in a Catch 22 by saying that.)

[Plantagenet]

Industrial production just came in lower. That means more job losses.

US industrial production still dropping

Tanada has raised an important point.....we can't limp along forever losing more jobs month after month in this weak jobless "recovery."

[Ludi]

While at the same time our corporations destroy jobs and families with automation in the name of "competition." We are competing ourselves into the poor house. A fools game.

The best we can hope for is a jobless recovery.

The people who run corporations (remember, they are run by actual human beings, they don't run themselves, in spite of having more rights than humans) want to get rid of the minimum wage in the US so new super-low-wage jobs competitive with China can be brought back. This is also why they want to get rid of all environmental regulation including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. (see Tea Party Platform in the Americas forum)

That's the plan for bringing jobs back to the US.

[Sixstrings]

Since the thread has drifted into proposed solutions, I'll go ahead and list my ideas:

1. Targeted tariffs, designed to make it cost effective to produce goods here -- that means TV's, iPads, even plastic pumpkins. Tax the imports so much that it's cheaper to make them here. This would also include services, so that means sorry Punjab no more call centers for you we need those jobs here.

2. MUCH higher taxes on the rich. Something closer to the 90% top bracket we had for many decades (before the "Reagan revolution"). BUT.. I would also add generous tax breaks, up to 50% of their taxes. The catch here would be that the deductions would be for all expenditures that EMPLOY an American citizen. So if the rich want to drink French wine, they can't write that off. But if they drink Napa Valley, they get the tax break. If they hire an illegal immigrant nanny, no tax break. But if they hire a US citizen, then they can write it off.

If this tax structure were in place then someone like John Kerry, who bought a yacht from New Zealand, would have instead bought one form his own home state of Massachusetts since he could have written it off. Money put into commodities and financial investments would not get a tax cut, but money put towards HIRING American employees would.

The basic premise here is that there's nothing wrong with being rich when the money is spent HERE and actually EMPLOYS American citizens. When the rich spend their money offshore, or use it to inflate commodity bubbles, then that's a DRAIN on our society and should rightly be taxed 90%.

3. END ALL IMMIGRATION, legal and illegal. We don't have enough jobs for our own unemployed, much less millions more illegals and H1B visa immigrant imports. We need a labor shortage in this country and we need it NOW. The market cannot work in favor of the working class unless there's a labor shortage, so that wages can rise which will attract people to train for in demand fields.

After unemployment has reached normal levels for a few years, then we can cautiously start up immigration again, but shut it down the moment unemployment creeps up.

Immigrants who come in with an investor visa would be exempt -- as long as they start a business that EMPLOYS Americans. Also self-supporting retirees and foreigners who want a vacation home would be welcome. As long as a foreigner can support himself, then he's not a drain and that's OK.

4. Major tort reform. The Republicans have this one right. There are too many liabilities involved with running a business, and that has to change. Damages need to come in line with what the offending party can AFFORD without ruining them.

5. The technology is now in place for online university education. For companies like Phoenix University, this is a freaking GOLD MINE. They charge regular tuition but they have none of the overhead -- they don't have research fellows, no buildings, no utility bills, almost no expense at all. And their professors work cheap and have many students in each "class."

There's no reason why online education can't be free. The federal government should fund a national online university offering degrees in everything that can be taught online -- and it would all be free of charge to any US citizen.

The federal government should also take over vocational / technical schools and expand funding. This training should all be free too. If this were done, you'd end up with a workforce cross-trained and qualified for numerous fields of work. Admittedly, more educated people also means lower wages since the degree is no longer rare -- but this is happening anyway with everyone going to school, and if we had pro-American import tariffs and stopped immigration then we'd have a labor shortage and wages would still rise even with more people educated.

With the efficiencies enabled by the Internet, an education can and should be free of charge.

6. REAL STIMULUS.. spend a trillion dollars on real things that add something NEW to the economy that wasn't there before; things that build a framework that private business can use to create jobs. Just picking up existing bills for the states doesn't count as something new.

My idea would be a major space initiative -- you can't deny all the innovation that's trickled down from NASA over the years. As a country, we have to do big things again or we're dead in the water. We need a lunar base with industrial labs, and then work towards bases on some of the Jupiter and Saturn moons.

Another idea would be a nationwide high speed rail network -- the fastest, best tech we can do. This would allow workers to travel farther for work, and would revolutionize freight transport. That's the kind of stimulus you want, a game changer.

And there are all kind of other stimulus, with green energy, power grid upgrades, and the like. The green energy stuff is tricky, we need to stop the idiot things like using all our corn for gas. And if the government pays one red cent for a wind turbine, the damn thing should be made HERE and not China.

Well that's about it, those are 6 ideas that would turn things around for the better in this country. And none of them will never happen, because the American globalist financial elite like things fine just the way they are.

[Cloud9]

I know there were many, my self included, that thought we would evolve into the robot nation and all the undesirable labor would be done by the machines. Unless somebody pulls a rabbit out of a hat and introduces the new cheap energy that is not going to happen.

Higher oil prices will force us to return to more labor intensive forms of production. This will alleviate some of the labor problems. As we become more and more impoverished, this is going to become less and less a country for old men. The die off of us geezers, i.e. baby boomers is going to open up more slots for young people.

[IslandCrow]

4. Damages need to come in line with what the offending party can AFFORD without ruining them.

This is not quite in line with your proposal, but in Finland many of the smaller court fines (eg for speeding) are expressed not as a Euro sum, but as a number of days earnings (from the last tax year). There have been some spectacular fines of the rich for speeding

[dsula]

2. MUCH higher taxes on the rich.

Am I right in the assumption that "rich" means anybody making more than you do. And poor meaning anybody making equal or less than you do?

[Sixstrings]

2. MUCH higher taxes on the rich.

Am I right in the assumption that "rich" means anybody making more than you do. And poor meaning anybody making equal or less than you do?

In case anyone needs reminding, here's what people actually make in this country:


(data is form 2006, pre-crisis.. it would only be worse by now)

Identifying "the rich" isn't has hard a task as you suggest. They're that last bar to the right, the little one. Looks like the top 5%.

My proposal is just for a return to the 1963 tax structure -- that means a top bracket of 90%. In '63 that meant income of $400k plus. 1963 was a turbulent year, but that had more to do with hippies and war and protests and civil rights -- the rich, however, were not suffering terribly. Even with a 90% top bracket, we still had rich folks and they did just fine. I guess we had less billionaires, but did society really miss them? Did anyone in 1963 say "God this is terrible, we need more billionaires in this country"?

And really, my idea would only be half as bad on the rich as a 1963 tax structure -- there would be tax credits of around 30% so that would bring the top bracket down to 60%, double what it is today for the top 1%. To get the tax deductions, all the rich would have to do is spend their money on anything that employs American citizens. That means Napa Valley wine instead of French or Chilean. That means a yacht built in Massachusetts instead of abroad. That means a vacation mansion in the Hamptons or Palm Beach instead of Tuscany.

I don't see why that's such a bad idea; there's nothing wrong at all with being rich, SO LONG AS they consume luxuries that employ somebody here in this country. When the rich just inflate commodities, invest offshore, and otherwise spend their money overseas then that does us no good at all and the social contract between rich and poor has broken down.

The role of the rich in society has always been to allocate where resources go -- the problem we have now is that the rich are allocating it all out of this country and that's destroying the United States.

[dsula]

I don't see why that's such a bad idea.

Seems to be an accounting nightmare to me. Burocratic overhead is already gone wacko in this nation, we don't need more. Now I have to keep track where the wine comes from I drink?
You should also not forget that for the rich there's no border. It's easy just put up a "for sale" sign, pack up and leave. Then you won't have any tax income at all anymore.

I have a better idea. Instead of taxing the rich to death. Why don't we change policies to prevent super rich and super incomes in the first place? Like you can only own shares in one company? Any company cannot be bigger than $1B or so. Companies can't own other companies. And so on. Things to prevent big corporations but to promote small business.
And if you own a small business and are succesfull you're taxed at a reasonable rate, such that you don't feel ripped off by everybody else. If you make $1M from your small business that you built from scratch, you deserve it.

[Sixstrings]

Seems to be an accounting nightmare to me. Burocratic overhead is already gone wacko in this nation, we don't need more. Now I have to keep track where the wine comes from I drink?

Be happy you can afford good wine and brie and just save your receipts.

Actually the wine was a bad example, since every imported consumer good would already be covered by tariffs. The tax credits would be for what else you do with your money -- expenditures abroad would NOT be tax deductible, whereas money spent here would.

Money funneled into commodities, futures, and forex also wouldn't be tax deductible, but money invested in a business that employs Americans would. Real estate investments would count for the tax breaks, since that supports our domestic housing and construction industries.

As for stocks, investment in trans-national corporations would not get a tax break. Investment in 100% domestic companies would. I know all this sounds radical, but we did more than what I'm saying back in 1963 -- the top bracket was 90% without the big tax breaks I'm talking about.

About the bureaucratic nightmare.. remember, we're talking about just the top 5%. These folks already have accountants who do their taxes anyway.

You should also not forget that for the rich there's no border. It's easy just put up a "for sale" sign, pack up and leave. Then you won't have any tax income at all anymore.

That's what my proposals would be aimed toward reversing. The rest of the first world would follow America's lead anyway -- you really think the UK and France would pass up the chance to enact a 90% top bracket?

Maybe our rich would relocate to China (as many have already done); I say fine, if your country means that little to you then maybe your children should speak Mandarin as a first language.

I have a better idea. Instead of taxing the rich to death. Why don't we change policies to prevent super rich and super incomes in the first place? Like you can only own shares in one company? Any company cannot be bigger than $1B or so. Companies can't own other companies. And so on. Things to prevent big corporations but to promote small business.

Interesting idea, but while I'm for higher taxes I daresay your idea is outright anti-capitalist. I guess you could say I'm a nationalist and mercantilist and also for higher taxes, but none of those views are contrary to the fundamentals of capitalism. Your idea would screw with the fundamentals of capitalism, which wouldn't be good. Of course both our ideas are fantasyland and will never happen.

Traditionally, the only way to "prevent super rich and super incomes in the first place" is via high taxes. That's what we did in 1963, and because of it we didn't have all the robber barons back then that we do now. My idea is more moderate than that, allowing the rich to still live lavishly yet employ Americans while doing it so that everybody wins.

And if you own a small business and are succesfull you're taxed at a reasonable rate, such that you don't feel ripped off by everybody else. If you make $1M from your small business that you built from scratch, you deserve it.

You only deserve it if you're contributing to the society from which you came, and still live in. If your business does nothing but send money offshore, then you're a financial drain on your countrymen and may as well go ahead and move to China like Steve Wynn.

[Plantagenet]

in Finland many of the smaller court fines (eg for speeding) are expressed not as a Euro sum, but as a number of days earnings (from the last tax year). There have been some spectacular fines of the rich for speeding

Why stop there? Why not also make the rich pay more when they dine out, or pay higher ticket prices when they go to a movie? And then why not require the rich to sew a special patch on their clothes, like a big yellow star or something, so everyone can identify them when they are out on the streets.

I don't get all this hatred of the rich. Shouldn't our focus be on making education more available, and making the system more flexible so that everyone has a better chance at a good job and achieving a good middle class life...or even at getting rich?

[dsula]

And if you own a small business and are succesfull you're taxed at a reasonable rate, such that you don't feel ripped off by everybody else. If you make $1M from your small business that you built from scratch, you deserve it.

You only deserve it if you're contributing to the society which you came, and still live in. If you're business does nothing but send money offshore, then you're a financial drain on your countrymen.

No, if you show initiative and provide goods and services people are stupid enough to by and make a killing. Well, you deserve it (within the law of course). If you don't like the fact that plastic comes from china, stop buying it, or outlaw it. Don't tax the guy that is savy enough to use it to his advantage.
Money that is deserved comes from work. Money that is not deserved comes from inheritage, bribes, gifts, anti-competitive contracts and such. Limit corporations to a reasonable size, such that none is too powerful (ANTI TRUST LAW but much more stringent, as said no bigger than $1B or no more than 1000 employees). and all your problems are solved.

[Sixstrings]

And then why not require the rich to sew a special patch on their clothes, like a big yellow star or something, so everyone can identify them when they are out on the streets.

Plant, in case you haven't noticed the rich already wear "special clothes" and are easily identifiable. In fact, every socio-economic class wears the most expensive clothes they can afford just so that they can stand out and everyone will know where they are in the pecking order.

I get your point though.. I'm just for REDIRECTING the expenditures of the rich towards the domestic side so that the lower 95% can have jobs to go to. But I'm not for inequality before the law (oh wait we already have legal inequality since the rich can afford the best lawyers).

[dsula]

You only deserve it if you're contributing to the society from which you came, and still live in.

How much contribution to society is enough? 50% of profits not good enough for you? You want 90%. So if I make $150k year I should fork over $135k for society? leaving me with $15k? Is that fair?

[dsula]

Plant, in case you haven't noticed the rich already wear "special clothes" and are easily identifiable. In fact, every socio-economic class wears the most expensive clothes they can afford just so that they can stand out and everyone will know where they are in the pecking order.

What a bullsh**it is that. I live in a small town and we have a few successful business people in town providing employment for a couple of tens of town folks (all are in light manufacturing, or in other words the jobs this nation needs). Each one of them makes very good money. None of them dresses in velvet. Not the whole nation is as retarded as california, didn't you know?