The Tax protest - April 15

[escapee]

Similar to the crash of 1929. The US got out of that too, and why?

Great Depression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The previous great depression did not end until people got sickened killing each other in world war 2 (with allied victory). There are many reasons to believe the current depression will be worse and longer compared to the previous 1. And we certain do not need another (nuclear) world war 3 to help fixing the current depression. Refer below for more details.



Great Depression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Irving Fisher argued that the predominant factor leading to the Great Depression was overindebtedness and deflation. Fisher tied loose credit to over-indebtedness, which fueled speculation and asset bubbles.[27] He then outlined 9 factors interacting with one another under conditions of debt and deflation to create the mechanics of boom to bust. The chain of events proceeded as follows:

1. Debt liquidation and distress selling
2. Contraction of the money supply as bank loans are paid off
3. A fall in the level of asset prices
4. A still greater fall in the net worths of business, precipitating bankruptcies
5. A fall in profits
6. A reduction in output, in trade and in employment.
7. Pessimism and loss of confidence
8. Hoarding of money
9. A fall in nominal interest rates and a rise in deflation adjusted interest rates.[27]

During the Crash of 1929 preceding the Great Depression, margin requirements were only 10%.[28] Brokerage firms, in other words, would lend $9 for every $1 an investor had deposited. When the market fell, brokers called in these loans, which could not be paid back. Banks began to fail as debtors defaulted on debt and depositors attempted to withdraw their deposits en masse, triggering multiple bank runs. Government guarantees and Federal Reserve banking regulations to prevent such panics were ineffective or not used. Bank failures led to the loss of billions of dollars in assets.[29] Outstanding debts became heavier, because prices and incomes fell by 20–50% but the debts remained at the same dollar amount. After the panic of 1929, and during the first 10 months of 1930, 744 US banks failed. (In all, 9,000 banks failed during the 1930s). By April 1933, around $7 billion in deposits had been frozen in failed banks or those left unlicensed after the March Bank Holiday.[30]

Bank failures snowballed as desperate bankers called in loans which the borrowers did not have time or money to repay. With future profits looking poor, capital investment and construction slowed or completely ceased. In the face of bad loans and worsening future prospects, the surviving banks became even more conservative in their lending.[29] Banks built up their capital reserves and made fewer loans, which intensified deflationary pressures. A vicious cycle developed and the downward spiral accelerated.

The liquidation of debt could not keep up with the fall of prices which it caused. The mass effect of the stampede to liquidate increased the value of each dollar owed, relative to the value of declining asset holdings. The very effort of individuals to lessen their burden of debt effectively increased it. Paradoxically, the more the debtors paid, the more they owed.[27] This self-aggravating process turned a 1930 recession into a 1933 great depression.

Macroeconomists including Ben Bernanke, the current chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, have revived the debt-deflation view of the Great Depression originated by Fisher.[31][32]

[Brutha]

Contraction of the money supply as bank loans are paid off [...] Macroeconomists including Ben Bernanke, the current chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, have revived the debt-deflation view of the Great Depression originated by Fisher.[31][32]

Yes, at the moment certainly nobody can complain that the Fed allows the money supply to be contracted

I'd rephrase that as: the economy is based on trust. Right or wrong, until the crisis broke out, the system was working not too bad (unless, as an individual, you indebted yourself too much). I'm pretty confident that somehow, one day, we'll wake up and notice the economy is picking up again. Similar to the crash of 1929. The US got out of that too, and why?

No, it's not similar to 1929. In 1929 the economy wasn't as deregulated and globalized as it is now.

Additionally the numbers also show that the economy gets worse a lot faster than it did in 1929: Adventure of Strategy: "A Tale of Two Depressions"

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Asmoday

That's not true -- can you back that up please? Whose accounts? Do you know how purchasing power is computed?

The only reason I ask all that is because, for you to consider that statement even remotely credible, you have to have no idea of what's behind purchasing power.

Our purchasing power has declined in the past two years, but not by much, certainly not to FOUR CENTS AGAINST A 1913 DOLLAR, most of it driven by oil price-gouging.

It seems incredible, doesn't it? But go to the Fed's Minneapolis page, and go look for yourself. The calculator is on the right. One 2008 dollar buys five cents of 1913 money. Heck, it only buys 80 year 2000 cents!

The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

However, I'm open to discussions on how different ways of computing purchasing power can come up with different results.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Angela Leeds

I'm describing a system that was put in place precisely for its manipulatability to the benefit of the bankers. I'm not talking "money" on the level of LoA or public confidence.

Thank God for that. LoA is pretty much the only thing we useless eaters have to our advantage.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Brutha

...
No, it's not similar to 1929. In 1929 the economy wasn't as deregulated and globalized as it is now.

...

I didn't make myself clear. The 1929 crisis we survived. We will survive this crisis too and regain confidence in a (modified) system. Until the next economic crisis.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by escapee

TEA PARTY ? What about bankers' party ? ( IE: dumping bankers to the swimming pool )

As long as you keep in mind that most in the banking industry are just minions. The question of the day is, what tiny minority is benefiting from the industry? Who's the Man Behind the Curtain, so to speak (although I haven't explored it, supposedly The Wizard of Oz was really about banking, not just a children's book).

One of my favorite bloggers, The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker, wrote a funny post about this called, "Fight Club":

"Speaking of people being full of ****, please don’t fall for the tired old Marxist “kill the bourgoisie” line of thinking this time, the way so many betrayed huddled masses fell before. Look at the big picture: The politicians had guns to their heads, while the bank employees and the corporatist stooges only work there. They pull a paycheck like you and me. They are not to blame for this mess. Their roles have been heavily compartmentalized and most of them didn’t even see the big picture until it was too late.

Rather, this plan to take down America was hatched above their pay grades by The Overclass, people so rich that you’ve never heard of them."

"(Don’t fall for the media driven “revolution” against the financial elites. It will set up a false us v.s. them dichotomy between people who are fundamentally on the same side.)"

"Think of it this way:

If he draws a paycheck or a salary, he’s not of the Overclass.

If he’s in the media, he’s not the guy you want to lynch.

Unless the media is naming the (anonymous for a reason) owners of the central banks, i.e., the Federal Reserve and their major shareholders, or their European equivalents, it’s not naming the Real Enemy."

[liamona]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

I beg to differ with this one. People nowadays are more healthy and wealthy than 100, 200, 1000 years ago. We live longer, haver more luxury, more access to information, better technology, the list is endless.

Yes, we certainly have a lot more goodies.

If the masses want better things for themselves, they have to work for it, same as 'the rich and the powerful elite'. And no, I am not a member of that elite. I wish .

That's true, but I think we can only "work" on it on the spiritual realm. In practical terms, it appears that everything is stacked against the masses making very much money.

This whole masses versus elite issue reeks of separation and victimness. Does not work for me.

Spiritually, I agree with you. This is where I have trouble: on the one hand, I read about a lot of negative "facts," but on the other hand, in my personal life there's been so many miracles and wonderful coincidences.

This is the reason why I try to cut down on reading negative information, however "true" it may be. I don't always succeed though.

And there may be an elite that's against me, but I try not to give "it" very much of my energy (especially negative feelings like anger or fear).

[escapee]

"Think of it this way:

If he draws a paycheck or a salary, he’s not of the Overclass.

If he’s in the media, he’s not the guy you want to lynch.

HA, Madoff was all over the media for his ponzi scheme.

My opinion is, the so-called overclass needs a bunch of loyal fraudsters/elite front men (AKA puppets) who share the same "elitist/criminal values" as them to perpetuate and propagate the pain and misery to the unsuspecting masses ( who had their life saving in fraudulent investment) . So they are not just some innocent ordinary people drawing a paycheck and million dollars bonus/commission from controlled loan fraud. These front men knew very well how the credit system works and took full advantage of it to earn big bucks.

And how marxist or socialist it is to prosecute financial criminals ? Ah come on, Don't we prosecute people who commit fraud ?

Below are more proofs that Madoff ponzi scheme = kid soccer game

U.S. Banking Collapse Driven By "fraud", Tim Geithner Covering Up Bank Insolvency | Antemedius

Stephen C. Webster writing at RawStory Friday reported on an explosive interview on PBS' Bill Moyers Journal of William K. Black, professor of economics and law with the University of Missouri, in which Black alleges that American banks and credit agencies conspired to create a system in which so-called "liars loans" could receive AAA ratings and zero oversight, amounting to a massive "fraud" at the epicenter of US finance.

In the interview Black "equated the entire US financial system to a giant "ponzi scheme" and charged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, like Secretary Henry Paulson before him, of "covering up" the "truth".

YouTube - William Black on Alex Jones Tv 1/5:Former Federal Regulator Tells All !!

[escapee]

The left calls them "right-wing hackery." Uh, no.

The Tea Parties are America's way of saying "stop the looting and start prosecuting."

YouTube - The Tea Parties: What's Really Going On

[JesterOfOrange]

The tax protests and "tea parties" are hogwash. Spend a few months researching economics and you will learn how bad things really are. The collective debt in the United States and in the UK are multigenerational. Sure income tax should be abolished, but its getting to the point where even income is a scarcity. The people have been robbed of their wealth, or tricked into eternal debt.

People like Rick Santelli and Glenn Beck who support these things are not supporting anything fruitful. Someone should persuade anyone effected negativly by the economic crises to become rightfully pissed and revolt against the oligarchs.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by liamona

...
And there may be an elite that's against me, but I try not to give "it" very much of my energy (especially negative feelings like anger or fear).

Exactly! I personally don't believe in an elite 'holding down the masses'. So even if there is one, I'm not interested as I don't feel limited by them. Indeed, I don't give energy to it. Incidentally, I watched part of the Zeitgeist movie today. Interesting, well put together, but I don't feel it impacts my life, even if everything in it is true.

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by liamona

Thank God for that. LoA is pretty much the only thing we useless eaters have to our advantage.

"useless eaters"... LOL

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

Exactly! I personally don't believe in an elite 'holding down the masses'. So even if there is one, I'm not interested as I don't feel limited by them. Indeed, I don't give energy to it. Incidentally, I watched part of the Zeitgeist movie today. Interesting, well put together, but I don't feel it impacts my life, even if everything in it is true.

Do you vote?

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Angela Leeds

Do you vote?

Yes, always. Why do you ask?

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

Yes, always. Why do you ask?

Well, if you are voting for an organized elite that is actually endeavoring to hold down the masses -- and actively implementing structures designed to do just that -- then you are most definitely giving energy to it, even if not looking upon it or recognizing it feels like not giving energy to it.

I was just curious because if you said that you didn't give energy to it AND you also don't vote or participate in continuing the sham, then that's a rare alignment that few people can claim.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by escapee

My opinion is, the so-called overclass needs a bunch of loyal fraudsters/elite front men (AKA puppets) who share the same "elitist/criminal values" as them to perpetuate and propagate the pain and misery to the unsuspecting masses ( who had their life saving in fraudulent investment) . So they are not just some innocent ordinary people drawing a paycheck and million dollars bonus/commission from controlled loan fraud.

I agree that they are culpable, but they aren't the cause of the problem.

Ah come on, Don't we prosecute people who commit fraud ?

It will be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.

Below are more proofs that Madoff ponzi scheme = kid soccer game

U.S. Banking Collapse Driven By "fraud", Tim Geithner Covering Up Bank Insolvency | Antemedius

Karl Denninger calls it "The Bezzle," which is "the lie" that is always present in business, but is now overwhelming everything to the point of collapse.

That is why demands to get the market "back to normal" sometimes seems suspiciously like demands to go back to lying and cheating "business as usual" practices.

I wish that we could go beyond that to something better, whatever that is.

This morning I was out cutting herbs, because I have insane amounts of them growing. I cut back a Jasmine plant a few months ago, and now it's quite a bush, when I thought it would die.

When I observe nature like this, it's really hard to believe in scarcity. Scarcity appears man-made when I'm in my garden.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by liamona

Really? Then why is it that nowadays both parents have to work outside the home to have a normal lifestyle, when just in the 50s and early 60s Dad's income could support the whole family pretty comfortably?

And most families are NOT living fancy lifestyles with their two incomes, but just trying to pay the basic bills. I admit I'm talking from a white middle-class perspective, but I have poorer relatives who aren't making it on two or three incomes, and resort to welfare.

The difference is in what people consider a "normal" lifestyle. While multi-family homes may not be living "fancy" lifestyles, they are certainly living better than the average single income family of the 50s and 60s. Families today have bigger homes, more cars, more appliances, more entertainment services (tv, internet, cell phones, etc), eat out more often, along with many of other things that require the additional income to sustain. It is entirely possible to live comfortably on a single income, it is just a matter of priority.

[Asmoday]

Originally Posted by liamona

It seems incredible, doesn't it? But go to the Fed's Minneapolis page, and go look for yourself. The calculator is on the right. One 2008 dollar buys five cents of 1913 money. Heck, it only buys 80 year 2000 cents!

The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

However, I'm open to discussions on how different ways of computing purchasing power can come up with different results.

Aaaahh. I followed the link and I see what you're looking at -- that's a CPI (consumer price index) calculator. It tells you about inflation -- but inflation and purchasing power, while related, are not the same thing, at all. What that is telling you is that something that cost 5 cents in 1913 costs 1.00 today, or conversely something that cost 1.00 today would cost 5 cents in 1913.

But that doesn't tell you anything about purchasing power, by itself.

To see why the two aren't necessarily related, lets freeze-frame everything. Then, lets say prices go up 10% (inflation), but lets also say your wages go up by 10%. In that case, your purchasing power remains unchanged -- you can still buy the same amount of stuff.

To get at purchasing power, you actually have to first adjust average wages in 1913 to average wages in 2009 -- then see how much stuff you can buy. And, you have to decide what all the stuff is "worth", what we call a market basket. OR, you can go the other way, and pretend only the goods available in 1913 are around in 2009, adjust backwards, and see how much stuff you can buy, adjusting wages the other way, to 1913 wages. Trust me, either way you go, we buy a lot more stuff on average wages today than we did in 1913.

But, don't get me wrong -- you are right, its a question of scale. These past two years are the first time our purchasing power has decreased, outside of the great depression. Mainly, its energy (oil) and food (because of oil price increases), and downward pressure on wages. BUT, it hasn't slipped that much. Keep in mind, this is all on average, individual stories may vary, and unemployment is factored out (effective purchasing power zero).

I agree with where everyone is coming from -- the financial sector needs major reforms, but they won't happen, because people aren't really educated about Economics and Finance.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Angela Leeds

Well, if you are voting for an organized elite that is actually endeavoring to hold down the masses -- and actively implementing structures designed to do just that -- then you are most definitely giving energy to it, even if not looking upon it or recognizing it feels like not giving energy to it.

I was just curious because if you said that you didn't give energy to it AND you also don't vote or participate in continuing the sham, then that's a rare alignment that few people can claim.

OK I see where you're coming from. I usually don't vote FOR someone, but more AGAINST others I don't like to see in power. I'm not a US citizen, but I would vote Democratic most of the time. Not that they are very good, but most of the time they are less bad in my opinion.

Doesn't take much energy . Doesn't have much of an impact either, but it makes me feel good.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

The difference is in what people consider a "normal" lifestyle. While multi-family homes may not be living "fancy" lifestyles, they are certainly living better than the average single income family of the 50s and 60s. Families today have bigger homes, more cars, more appliances, more entertainment services (tv, internet, cell phones, etc), eat out more often, along with many of other things that require the additional income to sustain. It is entirely possible to live comfortably on a single income, it is just a matter of priority.

I can see why you think this, and some people probably have overdone it by maxing out their credit.

A good book about this is The Two Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke, co-written by law professor Elizabeth Warren (who recently chaired the Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the implementation of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act last year).

According to her research, the majority of family income is eaten up by the purchase of an "average" home in an area with a good school district (we know what a disaster that's been lately), health insurance, a second car to get Mom to work, child care, and taxes. She was interviewed by Mother Jones about her book:

MJ.com: Even so, there still seems to be this perception that families are only going bankrupt because they're splurging on frivolities.

AT: [Laughs] Yes, there's this great myth out there that we call the "Over-consumption Myth," which goes: If you earn a decent income, and you're in trouble financially, it must be because you're blowing all your money at the Gap, and TGIF. The myth is so powerful, it almost seems like heresy to question it. But when we actually looked into the data on what real families actually spend, it's just not true. An average family of four actually spends less on clothing than their parents did a generation ago, adjusted for inflation. That includes all the Tommy Hilfiger sweatshirts and all the Nike sneakers. How does this work? Well we forget all the things we don't spend money on anymore -- how many kids have leather shoes for Sunday school anymore? How many people dress up in wool suits for work everyday?

The point is that families today are spending their money no more foolishly than their parents did. And yet they're five times more likely to go bankrupt, and three times more likely to lose their homes. Families are going broke on the basics --housing, health insurance, and education. These are the kind of bills that you can't just trim around the edges in the event of a downturn.

I can tell you as someone who loves vintage clothing, there is a vast difference in the quality of clothes made in the 50s and 60s and the sweatshop crap you get from Wall Mart now. The "average" 100% cotton or wool dress from that time would probably cost hundreds of dollars to make now (especially if you got it made in the States, which almost everything was back then).

I don't know if you're a parent or not, but even the quality of children's shoes has gone done just in the last five years. It's virtually impossible to find shoes, even dress shoes, that don't have a velcro strap. Let me tell you, active children wearing shoes held together with velcro straps destroy them quite quickly.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by escapee

Quote:
The left calls them "right-wing hackery." Uh, no.

The Tea Parties are America's way of saying "stop the looting and start prosecuting."

YouTube - The Tea Parties: What's Really Going On

I just realized why that sounded familiar—that's a quote from Karl Denninger's YouTube video posting about Tea Parties.

Although I agree with a lot of what he said, I think that the "left" is partially right about the Tea Parties being "right-wing hackery."

Unfortunately, nowadays any sort of grassroots movement, whether on the right or the left, can be co-opted by organizations with their own agendas (those serving the Man Behind the Curtain), and this is no different:

"Six weeks ago, two of us (Mark Ames and Yasha Levine) published an investigation[/URL] exposing the nascent “Tea Party” protest movement for what it really is: a carefully planned AstroTurf (or “fake grassroots”) lobby campaign hatched and orchestrated by the conservative advocacy organization FreedomWorks. Within days, pieces of the scam had crumbled, exposing a small group of right-wing think tanks and shady nonprofits at its core."

See: "Exposing The Rightwing PR Machine: Is CNBC’s Rick Santelli Sucking Koch?" (LOL) and "How FreedomWorks Gave The Teabaggers A Dirty Sanchez."

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

OK I see where you're coming from. I usually don't vote FOR someone, but more AGAINST others I don't like to see in power. I'm not a US citizen, but I would vote Democratic most of the time. Not that they are very good, but most of the time they are less bad in my opinion.

I used to do the same -- I understand.

Doesn't take much energy . Doesn't have much of an impact either, but it makes me feel good.

Yep. A trip to the voting booth generally gives a pleasant feeling of virtue for most people.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Asmoday

I agree with where everyone is coming from -- the financial sector needs major reforms, but they won't happen, because people aren't really educated about Economics and Finance.

Yes, but it seems like people are at least trying to get an education (at least those I "see" online and making comments on economics blogs). I'd like to be educated, but it has been quite challenging!

Thanks for your explanation of CPI versus purchasing power.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by liamona

I can see why you think this, and some people probably have overdone it by maxing out their credit.

A good book about this is The Two Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke, co-written by law professor Elizabeth Warren (who recently chaired the Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the implementation of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act last year).

According to her research, the majority of family income is eaten up by the purchase of an "average" home in an area with a good school district (we know what a disaster that's been lately), health insurance, a second car to get Mom to work, child care, and taxes. She was interviewed by Mother Jones about her book:

MJ.com: Even so, there still seems to be this perception that families are only going bankrupt because they're splurging on frivolities.

AT: [Laughs] Yes, there's this great myth out there that we call the "Over-consumption Myth," which goes: If you earn a decent income, and you're in trouble financially, it must be because you're blowing all your money at the Gap, and TGIF. The myth is so powerful, it almost seems like heresy to question it. But when we actually looked into the data on what real families actually spend, it's just not true. An average family of four actually spends less on clothing than their parents did a generation ago, adjusted for inflation. That includes all the Tommy Hilfiger sweatshirts and all the Nike sneakers. How does this work? Well we forget all the things we don't spend money on anymore -- how many kids have leather shoes for Sunday school anymore? How many people dress up in wool suits for work everyday?

The point is that families today are spending their money no more foolishly than their parents did. And yet they're five times more likely to go bankrupt, and three times more likely to lose their homes. Families are going broke on the basics --housing, health insurance, and education. These are the kind of bills that you can't just trim around the edges in the event of a downturn.

I can tell you as someone who loves vintage clothing, there is a vast difference in the quality of clothes made in the 50s and 60s and the sweatshop crap you get from Wall Mart now. The "average" 100% cotton or wool dress from that time would probably cost hundreds of dollars to make now (especially if you got it made in the States, which almost everything was back then).

I don't know if you're a parent or not, but even the quality of children's shoes has gone done just in the last five years. It's virtually impossible to find shoes, even dress shoes, that don't have a velcro strap. Let me tell you, active children wearing shoes held together with velcro straps destroy them quite quickly.

I think this illustrates my point. The research you quoted states that the majority of family income is eaten up by the purchase of an "average" home, health insurance, a second car, child care and taxes.

Most families in the 50s and 60s only had a single car and did not have to pay for child care. So two of the expenses listed are directly related to having a two income family. It is very possible to avoid both of those expenses in a single income home.

The average home of today is bigger and more expensive than in the 50s and 60s. As a society, we have created a demand for bigger, and therefore more expensive homes. The same is true with cars. These things are expensive because we allow them to be. If people suddenly decided they were not willing to pay more than $20k for a car, it would not take long for prices to adjust themselves to what the consumers demanded.

I completely agree with you regarding the lack of quality of many of today's goods. I think this is a major problem. People would rather buy cheap, low quality goods than pay more for quality items. Again, this is something that consumers have created the demand for. If people were to start demanding high quality items, then eventually the quality of goods in the markektplace would improve.

I think that too many people feel like victims and believe they are trapped in a situation where they must have two incomes to survive. I try to put out the word that that simply is not true. Think about how much money a family could save if they were to live a lifestyle more like the single income families of the 50s and 60s.

Think about how much it costs to have a bigger house than is really required, a second (and sometimes third) car, cable/satellite, high-speed internet, and cell phone. Most people could live in a smaller, simpler home and save $500 or more per month. Only having one car could save most people $300 or more. Not having cable/satellite, high-speed internet and a cell phone could save another $200 or more. Just by looking at those things, it is easy to show that most families have more than $1000 in extra expenses. Add to this the extra cost of child-care, clothing, dining out, etc required by a spouse who works and its easy to see how those costs add up quickly.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with wanting a bigger house, extra car, cable, internet and cell phone access. I am only trying to point out that if a family wants to be a single-income family it is entirely possible. Most families choose to be a two-income family so they can have these "extra" things. That means that those families can choose to simplify their lifestyle and material requirements and survive on a single-income if they really want to.

My wife and I have no kids, but were still a two income family for a number of years. Two years ago, however we decided that the extra money that gave us was not worth the things that we were giving up for the dual incomes. We have been a single income family since then. We are working towards decreasing our financial requirements even further, so that eventually we need only a single part-time income to survive.

When we had a dual-income household we actually had less money than we do now. We were both working long hours to support a lifestyle that did not particularly make us happy. We were slaves to our materialism. I wish that more people would realize that often they are simply making the choice for both partners to work so they can have more stuff, most of which isn't necessary and often does not really make them happy.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Angela Leeds

I used to do the same -- I understand.

I am curious what you do now? If this goes off topic too much, feel free to PM me.

Yep. A trip to the voting booth generally gives a pleasant feeling of virtue for most people.

Yes, plus it stops my conscience from nagging. A big plus!

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

I am curious what you do now? If this goes off topic too much, feel free to PM me.

I can give a brief answer that won't hijack too much.

I no longer see the two-party system as real; I see that they are funded & managed by the same king-makers, so whoever wins, "they" win. It's just a divide-and-conquer sham I do wish people would wise up to.

In addition, the voting system has been corrupted, especially with the change to electronic voting. It's now so easy to manipulate. Without protected voting, what say do the people really have?

So, for the moment, I don't vote because it's more active in my view to consciously not participate in a ruse than to not see it for what it is. Those that don't understand this perspective tend to see it as apathy, but I'm far from apathetic. Lack of courage to see what's what is, in my view, far more apathetic.

If Ron Paul had been on the ballot however, I would've dropped my name into the hat...as meaningless as it would have been.

I think we should go back to paper. Or pebbles.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by Angela Leeds

So, for the moment, I don't vote because it's more active in my view to consciously not participate in a ruse than to not see it for what it is. Those that don't understand this perspective tend to see it as apathy, but I'm far from apathetic. Lack of courage to see what's what is, in my view, far more apathetic.

I'm glad to see that someone else feels this way. I use to think that the only way to change the system was to vote. Now, however, I'm starting to think that by voting for the candidates that are selected for us to chose from we are just supporting the system. Unless we start getting candidates who are truly chosen by the people, I'm thinking that the only way to change the system is to refuse to participate. Of course that only works if enough people take the same approach, and I don't see mainstream society embracing this logic anytime soon.

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

Unless we start getting candidates who are truly chosen by the people, I'm thinking that the only way to change the system is to refuse to participate. Of course that only works if enough people take the same approach, and I don't see mainstream society embracing this logic anytime soon.

I do wonder how this will all shift. And that thought brings us directly back on topic -- "taxation without representation". How will the people truly get their voice & power back?

To my mind, it all starts with first recognizing that they don't have it to begin with. Can't ask for something you don't realize you don't have, heh. So... I guess we're headed for some massive disillusionment, otherwise the problem will never get corrected.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

I am not saying there is anything wrong with wanting a bigger house, extra car, cable, internet and cell phone access. I am only trying to point out that if a family wants to be a single-income family it is entirely possible.

ITA—I've been a stay-at-home mother myself, but the problem is that most people, even before they get pregnant, already have the belief that they can't have a family without dual incomes. They go along with whatever's out there, instead of trying to find information that will help them to have the kind of family life THEY want.

When we had a dual-income household we actually had less money than we do now. We were both working long hours to support a lifestyle that did not particularly make us happy. We were slaves to our materialism.

Yep, btdt myself! I spend far less money now that I no longer work outside the home. Also, I now realize that I used to go shopping as a way of relieving the stress from working. Now I mostly can't stand to go shopping, especially at malls *cringe*.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Angela Leeds

I do wonder how this will all shift. And that thought brings us directly back on topic -- "taxation without representation". How will the people truly get their voice & power back?

Catherine Austin Fitts has some good suggestions:

Our Next Brainstorm: Let’s Bail OUT OF Wall Street at The Catherine Austin Fitts Blog

Vote with your feet and our money in your personal banking affairs. Take all the money you control out of big money-center, tapeworm banks and financial institutions and put it in local credit unions, thrift institutions, savings banks and state chartered banks.

Look for more ways to use your investments to increase self-sufficiency for you, your family and your community. Look into the requirements for self-directed IRAs, which will allow you to invest in such things as precious metals, commodities, real estate, local small businesses and offshore investments that are not publicly traded or otherwise on the usual lists available to small investors.

Support state legislative efforts to amend state securities and tax laws to facilitate investing in loans and equity in community businesses by middle-class investors. <snip> Why is it easy for people of moderate means to lose money in the lottery, but almost impossible to invest in each other’s businesses? (The answer is Wall Street does not want us to be able to invest in each other – they want us to go through them.)

Use your influence to urge institutions and governments you deal with to vote with their feet and the money they control. Urge others to do the same. Make a list of these institutions and governmental and quasi-governmental units and write letters, go to meetings and otherwise get involved in the processes by which they make decisions about where they deposit and invest their cash.

Another thing to keep in mind is that big pools of money like huge charities or charitable pools (e.g., United Way, Red Cross, etc.) and college endowments (e.g., Harvard, with its $30 billion endowment) are usually controlled by members of the tapeworm. This money generally is deposited and invested in the tapeworm. Boards of directors of these institutions are loaded with the good ole boys who may be put in their places to bolster the prestige of their employers and garner social acceptance for institutions whose activities you and I might not approve of (e.g., consider the motives of Archer Daniels Midland in sponsoring public television shows). Reconsider your options so that you invest in causes where you know your contributions are not used this way.

Spend money locally and reduce dependence on big box stores. Make a list of family expenditures over the last year and categorize them in terms of whether they are local or “tapeworm” oriented and whether they are discretionary or non-discretionary.

When you make out your Christmas list or school shopping list, see how many items you can identify that can be purchased through non-tapeworm sources. Of course, while you’re at it, remember that you’ll get a “two-fer” in heaven, or more bang for your buck, if your spending decisions favor goods that are produced (a) in this country or at least a country that supports fair labor standards, (b) using green technologies or packaged in recyclable materials, (c) by companies whose employment policies, community contributions, garbage, trash and toxic waste disposition policies, business dealings, production methods and other policies are “net energy plus” and have a positive return on investment to the community.

Educate yourself and your children about what you really need to know in the future. Urge local public and private schools, community colleges, technical schools and sources of adult education (e.g., community centers, churches and retirement homes and centers) to adopt curricula to teach both children and adults about:

(a) Community self sufficiency and community organizing.
(b) Economics and how the money REALLY works,
(c) What the US Constitution stands for and civic values,
(d) How to fix things: cars, washing machines, plumbing systems, etc. and
(e) The history of our currency (the Federal Reserve, fiat currency, abandoning the gold standard, etc.), NAFTA, the Great Depression and American stock market crashes, financial scandals and crises and what were the causes and solutions.
(10) Start a local solar energy panel franchise, geothermal drilling company or other green business. Retire from your tapeworm job or take the opportunity after a job loss or cut-back to get off the tapeworm job grid. Do business with people you know you can trust. Contribute to a positive return on investment in your community.