Ted Rall for June 15, 2009

Why not just go back to the old international currency? It’s called gold. Better yet, call it man hours, except CEOs like to think the hours of their lives are worth hundreds of peons. Call me a Communist, but nothing anyone does is worth a million a year. 100% tax on all income over $1million, paid not to the treasury, but on the national debt. If you don’t want to give that much to the Feds, pay your workers more & charge your customers less, to bring your income under the line. See how much that stimulates the economy. “Just trying to make a buck” isn’t capitalism, it’s counterfeiting Capitalism is value for value.

But Chuk, why pay taxes? Why not give the money to the people (as Ted says). Why tax? Why stimulate the government to create jobs (and at the same time, destroy the auto industry)? Why not let the people have more of the money they earn, and let them put it back into the banks and economy?

I guess I’m another one for prolonged detention …

Sigh. Right_On, it’s called “fiscal responsibility.” The Bush Republicans ran up an enormous debt on the national credit card and managed to destroy the economy that was intended to pay it off in a generation or two – doesn’t really matter to them, as they were counting on being out of office anyway. Obama’s approach is similar to FDR’s successful approach to the Depression (ignore the Fox news bloviators on this, the economists say it worked), in that he is putting us farther into debt in order to build wealth-producing infrastructure. Wars, for the record, are not wealth-producing. Nor is the military-industrial complex, save for a few select individuals, because it essentially concentrates wealth into inaccessible areas or destroys it – quite literally, since that’s what you do with military equipment, in battle. In fact, the “give the money back to the taxpayers” argument is doubly flawed, since there are many things that government does and does well that people are accustomed to getting, e.g., inspected meat, clean water, usable roads, traffic lights, garbage collection, drug restriction, police, fire, etc., which need to be paid for. The military is, by far, the single largest commitment of the budget, with all that implies.

Right said, Dredpiraterobts.

Here, have a few billion Monopoly Dollars! That should be enough to pay the rent till the end of the month.

As long as the Saudis are forced to accept payments for their oil in dollars, the greenback will always be worth -something-….

MUWAHAHAHAHAHA

Capitalism without regulation will always collapse. It’s just human nature. The Capitalist will charge as much as he can, and provide the smallest value to the consumer, to maximize his profits. And with so many monopolies, the consumer may have no choice but to pay what is demanded.

A friend took offense one time while bragging to me about his successful business, saying that 9 out of 10 businesses fail. I replied that this occurs because only 1 out of 10 people is ruthless enough to make a profit no matter what the cost to others.

“Perhaps you would like the water companies and butchers to hire their own inspectors much like the banks did with rating agencies. Do you like adulterated water and green steaks?”

I live in Cleveland, so I guess the answer is “yes.”

In all seriousness, I understand that there needs to be SOME government. But this is ridiculous. There won’t be an isdustry left that some Czar doesn’t control.

great cartoon here. exposes the audacity of the times, gets the reader thinking, usual dose of whacko humor in the last panel.

8/10

Right_On: When you hand out a tax cut, people might spend it on stuff made overseas, or they might not spend it at all. A government-directed stimulus is more efficient and more effective. With someone in charge, you can make sure the money gets spent, and that it stays in the U.S.A.

Copper, that you should apologize to the group for saying something that poor.

The “Buy USA” clause was pulled out of the stimulus bill, remember?

And so what if the people “might” spend it on products that are made overseas? They might actually spend it reducing debt (helping the banks gain money, instead of taking TARP), or paying their mortgage (another means of preventing Govt intervention to bail out the foreclosures), or investing in stock (making the market rise, increasing the depleted 401Ks and keeping other companies from failing).

Or they may buy that Samsung TV, not made here.

But they buy it from Best Buy, headquartered in MN.

Please.

I f@#&ing amazes me that when Regan initiated government spending into the private sector and rebuilt our economy, that was no good. Now we have Obama spending government money on MORE GOVERNMENT, and that is ok.

Not for me!! I lost my job. But Biden is all about that 3 letter word, J-O-B-S.

Right_On: If you’re going to bring up Reagan, you should remember unemployment kept climbing for a year and four months after he got his tax cuts. Tax cuts would be even less effective these days, because taxes are so much lower than they were in the 1970s.

So what if people pay down debt or save their tax cut? That doesn’t do anything to stimulate the economy. Buying stocks is the same story - the money would go in the pockets of the people least likely to spend it. So what if they buy a TV? Best Buy will get the profit, but the bulk of the money has already gone to overseas manufacturers. As a job hunter, you want to see ALL of that money getting spent here. That’s what creates more jobs.

What amazes me is that Conservatives would rather have a program that doesn’t work because no one is minding the store, than “more government”.

Are you better of today then you were 6 months ago? How is that change working out for you kool aid drinkers?

Reagan’s tax cuts just managed to increase the gap between rich and poor – to the benefit of the rich, and not to the poor. Research on income indicates that the poor lost earning potential and the rich went way, way up. And Joyce, give it a break. I don’t expect miracles in six months. Bush did, in Iraq, and look where that got us. The lefties weren’t claiming Obama was the Messiah, it was right-wingers claiming we did. And also, I’m getting really tired of that “kool aid drinkers” insult, which I’ve seen both sides use. Anyone actually remember what that refers to? I do.

@Satipera:

I thought the US of A lost its economic independence once the Federal Reserve system was put into practice in 1913. A private bank that loans the money to the government for interest.

And when Nixon abolished the Gold Standard that was the final nail into the coffin.

This toon makes perfect sense. If the Dem congress had just paid off the first $100,000 dollars of every at risk mortgage …

There would have been far less foreclosures.

More families could have stayed in their houses.

More families could have refinanced, which would have given them smaller monthly payments, which would given them more spending money, which would have stimulated the economy.

Less foreclosures means more stable housing prices, which reduces the number of “toxic assets”.

Duh …

one word:

INFRASTRUCTURE

my beloved country is in desperate need for repair and we must stay competitive (nationally) with other countries. Think of Japan, China, Western Europe, …

give each of a check is good, but most ppl will just save it or use to pay of debts (not nec. bad) – think of the 1st stimulus checks that Bush mailed out.

I’m actually partial to parcelling out a lot of that stimulus money, though I have doubts it would stimulate our economy that much.

On the other hand, infrastructure is crucial, and there had better be substantial investment there if we are to move ahead at all.

An idea that was floated when the idea of bailing out banks and other personal line credit holders was to distribute the bailout money directly to the consumer but NOT just distribute checks. Pick a date in time so that only OLD credit was included. Bring your credit card statement to your creditor (BOA, CHASE, etc) and apply there to get THAT specific debt paid off. Keep tabs on how much was distributed to each bank or credit agency. If the running total does not exceed what you had planed then start on homes about to be foreclosed. Getting money into the ECONOMY instead of HOPING it gets into the economy is the key to stablizing things. The banks still get their investments back and government agencies already in existence would manage the programs (no additional czars required). Our political leaders already assumed the risk by agreeing to fund a recovery, How the money was SPENT is why our economy is still shaky. The stock market is NOT a valid yardstick to measure the overall economy since a large portion of the population is not part of it. All political comments before and after the bailout began stress that keeping small business afloat helps more people.

also, Obama’s stimulus was $787B, not $3T !

the VAST majority of our current fiscal woes were accumulated under George “Dubya” Bush

see: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/business/economy/20090610-leonhardt-graphic.html

re: fennec, you are right, so Obama has taken a balanced supply & demand-side approach

middle-class tax cuts + bank bailout job creation + credit/financial system overhaul

re:nomad2112

i don’t think those assets were so toxic after all… very few banks tried to offload them to the Treasury when they had the chance under the Geithner Plan.

Geither pulled a fast one on the banks by convincing them to raise their own securing capital to cover the assets’ decline. It did cost some political capital though…

Concerned_Human: Why do you hold gold in such high regard?