Reverse the Federal Deficit without Taxation— PRIVATE TAXATION MUST GO !!!

Every one of the facts stated here are verifiable from multiple sources and are NOT disputed. The only policy question that is relevant is WHETHER WE PUT PEOPLE OR BIG BUSINESS FIRST in our priorities. The rest is obvious. HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES:

1. HEALTHCARE: (AT LEAST $1 TRILLION IN DIRECT AND HIDDEN FAT IN THE SYSTEM). The U.S. health care system is a wealth transfer scheme, which takes money from the pockets of ordinary citizens and puts it in the hands of a few people who do nothing to earn it. This is a PRIVATE TAX that only exists because the government has interfered on behalf of big business starting with Keiser Permanente.

          a. We spend, on average anywhere from 5 to 40 times what other countries spend on drugs for two reasons (1) we are prescribed too many drugs and (2) we pay much higher prices from the same companies that sell the same drugs in other countries.

Instead of the money going through the government to the insurers, pharmaceutical companies and medical service providers, the government mandates the money go directly to these cartels.

These companies have applied a substantial portion of their excess profits towards placement of “news stories”, advertisements and other propaganda that have convinced most Americans that the U.S. health care system, while faulty, is still better than other countries. THIS IS A LIE. Check it out using any statistic you like.

  • THE U.S. SPENDS 15.4% OF ITS GDP on heath care plus capital expenditures for equipment and buildings which brings it to around 18.5%. The amount of money spent is therefore $2,400,000,000 ($2.4 trillion dollars).
  • U.S. patients take 65% more medication than any other country on earth because only our system allows access and payment for INTERVENTION and allows nothing for for PREVENTION and MAINTENANCE. Most of these medications eventually increase the risk of death and/or other diseases. The Food and Drug Administration is staffed by and funded by Pharmaceutical company employees (either past, present or future). Access to PREVENTATIVE protocols is denied by the FDA, insurance company and the propaganda disseminated by the medical industrial cartel.
  • Not only is there sufficient funding already in the system to provide health care to every man, woman and child, along with social services that would reduce living stress and increase productivity, hope and innovation in the U.S. economy, there is actually about $400 billion dollars left over to contribute to other social programs (education, police, fire) that would make it possible for every man, woman and child at any age to be educated and trained to be competitive in the global economy. 
  • NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD SPENDS MORE THAN 11% OF ITS GDP ON HEALTHCARE. 
  • ALMOST EVERY OTHER WESTERN COUNTRY (INCLUDING THOSE WITH NATIONAL UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE) HAS MORE PHYSICIANS AND MORE HOSPITAL BEDS PER PATIENT THAN THE U.S.
  • THE DEATH RATE, INFANT MORTALITY RATE, “UNNECESSARY” DEATH RATE, AND EVEN HEIGHT IS WORSE IN THE U.S. THAN, ON AVERAGE, 40 OTHER MODERN WESTERN COUNTRIES. (we have lost three years of longevity in the last 50 years and we have lost one inch of height).
  • NO OTHER COUNTRY ALLOWS PRIVATE INSURANCE AS THE MIDDLE MAN BECAUSE INSURANCE AND MANAGED HEALTHCARE PLANS ADD NO VALUE.
  • EVERY OTHER COUNTRY EMPHASIZES PREVENTATIVE HEALTHCARE AND GIVES BONUSES TO HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS WHO IMPROVE THE HEALTH OF THEIR PATIENTS.
  • The only rational conclusion is that by deleting private insurance as the middle man in providing access to a public need (like education, police, public libraries and fire) and enabling a single payer to negotiate reasonable prices, the problem, and the deficit caused by healthcare spending would be eliminated. 

2. CREDIT AND DEBT: The U.S. credit and monetary system is a wealth transfer scheme, which takes money from the pockets of ordinary citizens and puts it in the hands of a few people who do nothing to earn it. This is a PRIVATE TAX that only exists because the government has interfered on behalf of big business starting with the credit card associations and companies that provide network access to credit imposing interest rates that have been known and understood for centuries to result in permanent debt.

It was once called USURY. Now it is called liquidity. The laws that made it illegal to charge rates of 35% on credit cards and 400% on payday advances were changed. So now it is still a crime under natural law but not under our legislative system. It’s government backed and therefore it is a PRIVATE TAX.

  • Government spending, government subsidies to big business, and government laws allowing big business, large unregulated, to charge exorbitant interest rates has resulted in unprecedented consumer and government debt — Federal, State, local and individual — requiring SOMEBODY (either us or our children, grandchildren and great children) to pay interest amounting currently to more than $3 trillion dollars per year plus the loss of social services and safety nets that have existed for more than 50 years. 
  • All of this debt has been funded by issuing U.S. currency equivalents that are now held in foreign investment vehicles, foreign exchange reserve accounts in central banks concentrated in the hands of China, South Korea and other countries whose commitment to the sovereignty and nationals security of the United States is best questionable.
  • At least $1 trillion of interest, fees and costs associated with excess interest and/or excess debt could be eliminated from the expenditures of U.S. spenders, producing substantial capital for improvements to infrastructure, jobs, increased revenues from income taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes,etc., without raising the rate of taxation on any of these sources of revenue.
  • The Mortgage Meltdown could be stopped by a commitment to keep people in their homes, preventing abandonment of homes that are not maintained. This would stop an ever-decreasing spiral of housing prices caused by REO homes coming onto the market at rates that demand could not possibly meet, reinstate the balance sheet of lenders and thus improve their capital position, and reinstate the balance sheet of investors who were tricked into buying junk securities which, with a little help and cooperation from business, government and people could be converted into ratable securities. 
  • Devaluation of the dollar and inflation caused by devaluation would be slowed, stopped or even reversed if the U..> showed its resolve to responsible economic policies and responsible monetary management and responsible regulation of “securitization” which is merely a unregulated method of increasing monetary supply despite declining demand for the U.S. dollar.
  • Reducing the debt service BY LAW to sustainable levels that would enable debtors to eliminate their debt. Banning advertisements that encourage consumers to buy goods and services they don’t need, or could wait to buy through savings, would convert a debt economy to a solid foundation of  savings economy. like many other countries in the world.
3. OIL, COAL and GAS: The average American family spends more than $800 per month in direct costs on fuel related services and probably another $600 per month in indirect costs associated with delivery and production. This is apart from Federal, State and local spending related to various social services and maintaining government facilities. In other words, we can safely say that at $15,000 per year comes out of the pocket of each taxpayer. This means we are spending $1.5 trillion in fuel costs plus the cost of vacation and business travel and sundry other matters.   OF THIS AMOUNT,WINDFALL PROFITS TO OIL COMPANIES AND OTHER MIDDLE MEN AMOUNTED LAST YEAR TO APPROXIMATELY $700 BILLION.
  • THAT OF COURSE IS JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG. BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD THE TECHNOLOGY FOR 40 YEARS TO CONVERT TO ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF ENERGY THAT ARE RENEWABLE AND LESS EXPENSIVE, AND WOULD NOT REQUIRE US TO MAINTAIN A FOREIGN MOLICY THAT MEDDLES IN THE AFFAIRS OF OTEHR COUNTRIES AND THUS LEADS TO PERIODIC WARS.
  • THE REAL SHAME ON US IS THAT MORE THAN 2 MILLION JOBS COULD HAVE BEEN CREATED IN PRODUCING AN MODERN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE POWER GRID AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS. TESE HIGH PAYING JOBS WOULD AND COULD INCREASE THE WEALTH OF THE MIDDLE CALSS, INCREASE TAX REVENUES WITHOUT RAISING RATES, AND RESTORE U.S. LEADERSHIP IN INNOVATION AND RESEARCH. 
  1. If the Clinton years showed us anything, it was that by encouraging entrepreneurship, which produces 80% of our jobs the entire country is lifted. 
  2. Another thing Clinton proved is that by increasing the number of people in social services (police, fire etc) we increase employment, tax revenues and economic activity.
  3. The other thing Clinton proved unwittingly is that treaties like NAFTA are inherently unworkable because they are used by big business to side-step the advances in product safety, worker safety and benefits that America spent the better part of 100 years inventing and maintaining. 
  4. Thus we end up subsidizing slavery in other countries, and reducing the quality of products and services to American citizens. 
The money is already there in the “budget” when you include the PRIVATE TAXATION items. There are many more examples. If we can stop tripping over our ideological divides, the graft paid by big business and elect people who start with the premise “first do no harm”, the country could be thriving again. 

 

 

The New York Times

Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

April 27, 2008

3 Candidates With 3 Financial Plans, but One Deficit

The Republican and Democratic presidential candidates differ strikingly in their approaches to taxes and spending, but their fiscal plans have at least one thing in common: each could significantly swell the budget deficit and increase the national debt by trillions of dollars, according to tax and budget experts.

The reasons reflect the ideological leanings of the candidates, with Senator John McCain proposing tax cuts that go beyond President Bush’s and the Democrats advocating programs costing hundreds of billions of dollars. But for fiscal experts concerned with the deficit, both approaches are worrisome.

With the national debt soaring to $9.1 trillion from $5.6 trillion at the start of 2001, in part because of the Iraq war and Mr. Bush’s tax cuts, a crucial question about the candidates to succeed him is “whether they are helping to fill the hole or make it deeper,” said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan organization that advocates deficit reduction. “With the proposals they have on the table, it looks to me like all three would make it deeper.”

Representatives of all three campaigns disputed such assessments, questioning the accounting methods analysts used to calculate the growing debt and saying they could enact their plans without making matters worse.

Mr. McCain’s plan would appear to result in the biggest jump in the deficit, independent analyses based on Congressional Budget Office figures suggest. A calculation done by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington found that his tax and budget plans, if enacted as proposed, would add at least $5.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

Fiscal monitors say it is harder to compute the effect of the Democratic candidates’ measures because they are more intricate. They estimate that, even taking into account that there are some differences between the proposals by Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, the impact of either on the deficit would be less than one-third that of the McCain plan.

The centerpiece of Mr. McCain’s economic plan is a series of tax cuts that would largely benefit corporations and the wealthy. He is calling for cutting corporate taxes by $100 billion a year. Eliminating the alternative minimum tax, which was created to apply to wealthy taxpayers but now also affects some in the middle class, would reduce revenues by $60 billion annually. He also would double the exemption that can be claimed for dependents, which would cost the government $65 billion.

“High tax rates are driving many businesses and jobs overseas — and, of course, our foreign competitors wouldn’t mind if we kept it that way,” Mr. McCain said, laying out his economic plan this month in Pittsburgh. “We’re going to get rid of that drag on growth and job creation.”

On the expenditure side, Mr. McCain has called not only for continuing an open-ended deployment of troops in Iraq, but also for spending $15 billion annually to expand the Army and the Marine Corps and to improve health care for veterans, among other programs.

Mr. McCain’s advisers have said the new tax cuts would be paid for by eliminating earmarks and making large spending cuts, but they have not identified specifics. And they have spoken vaguely about making entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare less costly for the government. Mr. McCain’s chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said the campaign had simply presented its vision of what the tax code should look like and noted that some of the proposals would be phased in.

“I think what they ought to do is remember that the proposals are going to engender economic growth, which is the best thing you can do for near-term budget improvement,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin said, adding that Mr. McCain believed spending restraint was possible.

That vision for the tax code includes making permanent the Bush tax cuts, set to expire in 2010, which Mr. McCain once opposed in part because they were not accompanied by sufficient spending cuts.

“I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthiest Americans,” Mr. McCain said in 2004. “I would clearly support not extending these tax cuts in order to help address the deficit.”

In 2001 and 2003, Mr. Bush pushed through Congress tax cuts totaling nearly $2 trillion. The first set lowered income and estate taxes, and the second focused mostly on capital gains and dividends.

The McCain campaign does not figure the costs of extending the tax cuts into its deficit projections, although the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it would cost an extra $2.2 trillion over the next decade.

When Mr. McCain outlined his tax cut plan, he backed away from his pledge to balance the budget during his first term, but said that he would do so by the end of his second term. And in an interview last Sunday on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” on ABC, Mr. McCain said he would push ahead with his tax cuts even if Congress did not approve his spending cuts.

Some conservative economists say that increased deficits in the short run are an acceptable tradeoff for tax cuts that they say will promote economic growth in the long run. And many liberal economists say that some of the Democratic spending proposals, like addressing the affordability of health care or improving education, are long-overdue investments that pay off handsomely even if they entail more red ink.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have acknowledged that their various new programs would be costly but have outlined how to pay for them. But some fiscal monitors say they may be relying on overly rosy projections of how much savings their proposals would actually yield.

Mrs. Clinton has calculated that her universal health care plan would cost about $110 billion a year, while Mr. Obama’s somewhat more modest proposal would cost up to $65 billion annually, his advisers say. Both candidates have also talked of new government incentives and investment to encourage the development of alternative sources of energy, which would cost about $15 billion a year.

The Democratic candidates have suggested that they could finance these and other programs by allowing parts of the Bush tax cuts to expire. That, however, ignores projections of the Congressional Budget Office, which has already assigned those savings to deficit reduction.

In other words, unlike Mr. McCain, both Democrats say they would revoke the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. “At a time of war and economic hardship, the last thing we need is a permanent tax cut for Americans who don’t need them and weren’t even asking for them,” Mr. Obama said.

But they would retain those reductions meant to benefit poor and “middle-class” families, which they defined as the 97 percent or so of the population that lives on less than $250,000 a year, and they would count the estimated $50 billion generated by higher taxes on the wealthy as new revenue.

“Remember, you can only use this money once,” said Mr. Bixby of the Concord Coalition, “and with all the Bush tax cuts scheduled to expire, that money is already scheduled to come into the Treasury. But on the campaign trail, this has become a source of new spending.”

Mrs. Clinton’s aides have been perhaps the most specific in explaining how they would offset the costs of their proposals, and her campaign speaks of moving toward balanced budgets. “We’re not going into debt for the war in Iraq and tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans,” Mrs. Clinton has said, “but instead we are taking care of the needs of our people at home.”

Regarding gas taxes, Mr. McCain has proposed a one-time “tax holiday” for the summer. Mrs. Clinton also calls for suspending it in a new advertisement in Indiana, while Mr. Obama says that is a “bad idea” but opposes any increase in the tax.

On the spending side, Mr. Obama has argued that ending the Iraq war is one way to pay for some of the new programs, including creating a national infrastructure investment bank and increasing the foreign aid budget. But such savings, which Mrs. Clinton does not count on, would not immediately make their way into the Treasury, and some experts say it is not clear whether they would be sufficient to finance all the programs Mr. Obama has enumerated.

Mr. Obama has talked of spending that money on a variety of initiatives whose costs amount to about one-third of the war’s estimated annual cost of $150 billion. “It is clear that there ought to be some distinction between a candidate who says a withdrawal should start immediately and a candidate who says let’s maintain the war at the highest level,” said Austan Goolsbee, Mr. Obama’s senior economic adviser.

The fiscal outlook has been made even murkier by the explicit “no new taxes for the middle class” pledge that both Democratic candidates made at their debate in Philadelphia this month, exempting taxpayers making $250,000 a year or less from new levies.

Hearing such a promise “makes you very sad,” said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center. “First of all, we don’t have enough revenue coming in to pay our bills.” In addition, he said, the notion that all the revenue that would be lost in a middle-class tax freeze can be made up by higher taxes on the wealthy “is not tenable.”

8 Responses

  1. […] PEOPLE OR BIG BUSINESS FIRST in our priorities. The rest is obvious. HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES: 1. HEhttp://livinglies.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/reverse-the-federal-deficit-without-taxation-private-taxa…Stairways, City Hall partner in art Erie Times-NewsIt seems that Erie Mayor Joe Sinnott has an eye […]

  2. […] Reverse the Federal Deficit without Taxation— PRIVATE TAXATION … The laws that made it illegal to charge rates of 35% on credit cards and 400% on payday advances were changed. So now it is still a crime under natural law but not under our legislative system. It’s government backed and therefore it is … […]

  3. […] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThe Mortgage Meltdown could be stopped by a commitment to keep people in their homes, preventing abandonment of homes that are not maintained. This would stop an ever-decreasing spiral of housing prices caused by REO homes coming onto … […]

  4. […] livinglies is a wealth of unprecedented information. The last post on Reverse the Federal Deficit without Taxationâ […]

  5. […] iamMetaluna wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptshowed its resolve to responsible economic policies and responsible monetary management and responsible regulation of “securitization” which is merely a unregulated method of increasing monetary supply despite declining demand for the … […]

  6. […] Reverse the Federal Deficit without Taxation- PRIVATE TAXATION MUST GO !!! Every one of the facts stated here are verifiable from multiple sources and are NOT disputed. The on […]

  7. […] Werner Absenger wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptEvery one of the facts stated here are verifiable from multiple sources and are NOT disputed. The only policy question that is relevant is WHETHER WE PUT PEOPLE OR BIG BUSINESS FIRST in our priorities. The rest is obvious. HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES: 1. HEALTHCARE: (AT LEAST $1 TRILLION IN DIRECT AND HIDDEN FAT IN THE SYSTEM). The U.S. health care system is a wealth transfer scheme, which takes money from the pockets of ordinary citizens and puts it in the hands of a few people who do nothing to earn it. This is a PRIVATE TAX that only exists because the government has interfered on behalf of big business starting with Keiser Permanente.           a. We spend, on average anywhere from 5 to 40 times what other countries spend on drugs for two reasons (1) we are prescribed too many drugs and (2) we pay much higher prices […] […]

  8. […] Reverse the Federal Deficit without Taxation— PRIVATE TAXATION MUST GO !!! Every one of the facts stated here are verifiable from multiple sources and are NOT disputed. The only policy question that is relevant is WHETHER WE PUT PEOPLE OR BIG BUSINESS FIRST in our priorities. The rest is obvious. HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES: 1. HEALTHCARE: (AT LEAST $1 TRILLION IN DIRECT AND HIDDEN FAT IN THE SYSTEM). The U.S. health care system is a wealth transfer scheme, which takes money from the pockets of ordinary citizens and puts it in the hands of a few people who do nothing to […]

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: