Here is just one example from last week’s news. Washington Post:

Despite the sluggish economy, the nation’s major health insurers have prospered in large part by expanding their role in government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, according to a study released Thursday.

The share of large insurers’ revenues contributed by their Medicare and Medicaid business has jumped from 36 to 42 percent over the past three years. And the report by Bloomberg Government, a research division of Bloomberg LP, suggests that insurers will further increase their reliance on federal dollars with full implementation of the health-care law in 2014 — when Medicaid will expand to cover an eventual 16 million additional low-income Americans and the federal government will begin subsidizing private-insurance policies for an estimated 19 million more.

The insurers have become zombified. They no longer do honest work for honest reward. Instead, they lobby for more federal spending on health. They tweak the nation’s laws and its public health programmess to make sure they get the grease. They are insiders now…

But no sector has more zombies in it than the ‘national security’ industry. Dwight Eisenhower warned the nation in 1961 to watch out for the ‘military-industrial complex.’ He might have saved his breath. The zombies had already taken over. The US was already spending more on ‘defence’ than the net income of all American corporations put together.

“In the years since,” writes Todd Purdum in Vanity Fair, “the trend has warped virtually every aspect of national life, with consequences that are quite radical in their cumulative effect on the economy, on the vast machinery of official secrecy, on the country’s sense of itself, and on the very nature of national government in Washington. And yet the degree to which America has changed is noticed by almost no one – not in any visceral way. The transformation has ten hold too gradually and over too long a period. Almost no one alive today has a mature, firsthand memory of a country that used to be very different…”

Benito Mussolini was a socialist poet. But when he got into power he, like Barack Obama years later, discovered that it was not a good idea to oppose the military. Instead, he put on a silly uniform himself… and attacked Abyssinia!

Dear Readers may have noticed too. Between Obama’s military policies and those of George W. Bush, there is not a dime’s worth of real difference. Why? Because a zombie military is almost impossible to cut down to size. It has already corrupted the political process. Now, the zombies cannot be stopped… or controlled.

A bankrupt government can cut almost anything else. But not its military. National security industry insiders glide easily into the seats left by politicians who try to stop them. Ex-generals counsel wimpy Congressmen. Flies and flakes buzz around the trillion-dollar ‘defence’ honey pot.

Military spending rose about 70% during the George W. Bush years. Today, the US spends 43 cents of every dollar of military spending anywhere in the world. And now, with the hysteria of “terrorism” and a “nuclear Iran,” who will oppose it?

Many of America’s biggest manufacturers are weapons producers – Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northop-Grumman, L3 and KBR. The jump in employment numbers was largely the result of government hiring. We have seen a figure over 40% for the portion of domestic manufacturing devoted to the zombie defence industry. Among the most profitable businesses in the country are surely the 2,000 corporations getting money for counter-terrorism, homeland security, military intelligence and other boondoggles.

In Washington itself, 33 new building complexes have been put up since 2001 whose occupants are somehow involved in top-secret activities.

Yes, dear reader, the armed zombies pretend to protect the ‘land of the free’. But they are its biggest enemies. In 2011, they put through a new defence spending bill… which removed Americans’ ancient habeas corpus rights. The Commander in Chief also asserted, and exercised, the right to kill anyone, anywhere… on his own say-so. And both the president and Congress continued to spend money they didn’t have on cockamamie boondoggles even though it is obvious that the nation is going broke.

It is only a matter of time now. The US Empire will be stabbed in the back by its own protectors.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

On the question of semantics, I find it odd that people are reticent to explain how another is meant to interpret their words, seems to me that this is a recipe for confusion.

I don't see it as confusion but the refusal as a way to advance as many straw man arguments as possible, or a way to generate large volumes of hot air and ill will feelings where there was no difference to begin with. Like a Rusty Lintball or a Keith Oldbadman.

Speaking of Oldbadman, he used to do the sports segment on the local TV station; he was just at his Peter Principal level reading the scores, so reading political scores is a natural transition for him.

---

meaning 1: a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government

Thus we are all politicians to some degree rendering the term useless. Clearly the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is a political appointment, though if the term "politician" it to be useful epithet, I'd say it's a bit more open to debate whether any particular incumbent of that office is a politician to the same extent as, say, the Secretary of State. To put it another way, is the recipient of a political appointment an ex-officio member of the political class?

On the question of semantics, I find it odd that people are reticent to explain how another is meant to interpret their words, seems to me that this is a recipe for confusion.

... is the recipient of a political appointment an ex-officio member of the political class?

Well, I wouldn't use the term 'political class', but... Yes. The holders of appointed office are just as much politicians as the holders of elective office are. You answered the question yourself when you said 'political appointment'.

The president, state governor, city mayor, corporate chairman, whoever... that holds elective office are politicians. They appointment department heads that (usually) share their views... For political reasons... The appointees are politicians too, since they serve a political purpose, not a functional purpose in the organization.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Are we trying to come to a mutual agreement on the definition of "politician" here or are we discussing why the US is going bankrupt?

Warning: Use before the expiration date

That one is easy to answer. Government spending is too high. Government taxation is too high. Budget deficits exist.

Question is answered.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Are we trying to come to a mutual agreement on the definition of "politician" here or are we discussing why the US is going bankrupt?

Warning: Use before the expiration date

That one is easy to answer. Government spending is too high. Government taxation is too high. Budget deficits exist.

Question is answered.

Wrong Taxation is and has been far to low. We have been at war for damn near 10 years but have yet to have 1 tax increase to actually pay for either one. I'll repeat a Democratic whipping point. Wars are paid for by taxes not but handing out huge tax breaks to the wealthy. Let's all agree that maybe somewhere a welfare mom is getting over on about $10-$20K a year. Let's now focus on Billionaires are paying taxes at or lower than what I now pay. It's simply nonsense. Right wingnuts insist that tax breaks to the wealthy creates jobs.

Reagan tried it and found he had to raise taxes 17 times to make up for the deficits he ran. The Bush handouts to the wealthy have been going on for nearly 10 years and we are still not seeing that job growth. Should we wait another 10? is that the break even point on these handouts? Please let us in on this super secret job creation that occurs when wealthy people have more money. From what I've seen its smoke and mirrors. It takes a few peons like you to spout the tired party line to give it a shadow of legitimacy. Sadly, the difference between me and you is you still believe you're getting a tax break and are being ripped off and are unable to do anything about it. I know I'm being ripped off.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Half right anyway -- government spending does need to be reined in. Entitlements for the wealthy need to be reined in as well. Heck, I think turfing the Bushcuts entirely might not be that bad an idea -- and given the way the TeaPublicans are playing in Congress, I hope that we see enough return-fire hardball from the Democrats over the coming year to use that option.

That one is easy to answer. Government spending is too high. Government taxation is too high. Budget deficits exist.

Question is answered.

Are we trying to come to a mutual agreement on the definition of "politician" here or are we discussing why the US is going bankrupt?

No, we are discussing is the USA at present bankrupt.

There is a side discussion going on about persons who only are able to spout talking points but don't even believe the talking points they spout as they are unable to form a coherent argument and must resort to trickery in their replies.

Is the national debit so large and the political gamesmanship so much that it is impossible to prevent collapse?

---

Let's now focus on Billionaires are paying taxes at or lower than what I now pay.

So I'm your billionaire. I decide to retire. My income drops to ZERO. How much income tax do I have to pay on my poverty level income? Hey, how about I do one lecture for the year and take a $5,000 speakers fee. Guess what ... I now qualify for Earned Income Tax Credit - welfare! Isn't Amerika Great! They don't have a tax on wealth, just a tax on income!

Get a basic fact burned into your brain, income tax is on income, not on wealth. If you think there should be an ad valorem tax, then argue for it.

That one is easy to answer. Government spending is too high. Government taxation is too high. Budget deficits exist.

Got some bad math there. You seem to have 1 + 1 = 0. You should realize that is 1 - 1 = 0. Solve for tax and you get Budget deficits + spending = amount tax revenue needs go up.

It's better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

---

[quote]Let's now focus on Billionaires are paying taxes at or lower than what I now pay.

So I'm your billionaire. I decide to retire. My income drops to ZERO.

clearly you are the fool that continues to spew the ignorance that your corporate overlords insist is the true even when reality is staring you in the face you still see the matrix neo

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

[quote]Let's now focus on Billionaires are paying taxes at or lower than what I now pay.

So I'm your billionaire. I decide to retire. My income drops to ZERO.

clearly you are the fool that continues to spew the ignorance that your corporate overlords insist is the true even when reality is staring you in the face you still see the matrix neo

I'm so sorry you don't understand the difference between income and an asset. As long as you don't you won't be able to offer any real debate.

---

But Gary (and I know you know this), if you are a retired billionaire, your assets will include a LOT of liquid assets including income generating assets (dividends, interest, bond yields and the like).

I'd suggest you are being a bit disingenuous here with that 'billionaire - income drops to zero' line.

I'm so sorry you don't understand the difference between income and an asset. As long as you don't you won't be able to offer any real debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Annuity

Swiss annuities are not subject to US Internal Revenue Service tax reporting requirements

Not to mention a eccentric one putting everything into gold and silver bars to hedge against the coming bankruptcy of the USA.

But you are right, he will still get his social security check, and that is taxable income.

But Gary (and I know you know this), if you are a retired billionaire, your assets will include a LOT of liquid assets including income generating assets (dividends, interest, bond yields and the like).

I'd suggest you are being a bit disingenuous here with that 'billionaire - income drops to zero' line.

I'm so sorry you don't understand the difference between income and an asset. As long as you don't you won't be able to offer any real debate.

---

OK -- fair point, and one which demonstrates a method for retired millionaires and
billionaires to facilitate the bankrupting of the US.

Swiss annuities are not subject to US Internal Revenue Service tax reporting requirements

Not to mention a eccentric one putting everything into gold and silver bars to hedge against the coming bankruptcy of the USA.

But you are right, he will still get his social security check, and that is taxable income.

OK -- fair point, and one which demonstrates a method for retired millionaires and billionaires to facilitate the bankrupting of the US.

You did notice that it isn't just for the rich, any life insurance annuity is convertible, even a tiny one.

Swiss annuities are not subject to the one percent excise tax commonly imposed on purchases of foreign life insurance or annuity policies due to the double tax treaty signed by the U.S. and Switzerland in 1998.

A big thank you to the President in 1998. Who was that again?

---

Again, fair point, I'd note that while TeaPublicans readily lambast Democrats for socialist tax policies, in fact over the past 30 years (or more), the tax policies enacted by Democrats have been far closer to classic Republican tax policies than socialist.

Most of my conversations regarding politics with people from other developed countries (Europe, NZ, Australia) find that our two parties (and not only in terms of tax policies) would equate to center/right (Democrats), and right wing (TeaPublicans). That is one of the reasons we have the deficits we do. The Democrats, when in power (and these days that would include 60 Senate seats), dare not deal with true revenue increases as they know that the American polity simply doesn't buy into the Heinlein acronym of TINSTAAFL. And so to the extent bills get passed, we see increased entitlements and decreased taxes -- and that has mostly happened with either party (the cut tax and spend a lot tendency was expressed fully in 2001 to 2009 as well -- remind me, who was the president then?).

As I noted before -- current Federal tax burden (including, I believe Social Security) is at the lowest levels since 1950. That is certainly no way to balance a budget. I get truly exercised when I hear (or here read) folks lamenting how 'punitive' taxes are in the US. I guess I'd note, that for the poor and middle class, subject to the Social Security piece of taxes from dollar one, it might well seem that we are subject to a high tax burden. For those who complain about that, I'd give them the Romney answer -- make more money, your tax burden will be reduced and if you don't make more money, it is your fault.

[quote]Swiss annuities are not subject to the one percent excise tax commonly imposed on purchases of foreign life insurance or annuity policies due to the double tax treaty signed by the U.S. and Switzerland in 1998.

A big thank you to the President in 1998. Who was that again?

As I noted before -- current Federal tax burden (including, I believe Social Security) is at the lowest levels since 1950.

Remind me who is president when the last Social Security tax cut was enacted?

All the rest is simply we haven't met the assumptions on tax revenue because when the OMB and CBO made the assumptions they didn't know that we were going to have a depression.

---

All the rest is simply we haven't met the assumptions on tax revenue because when the OMB and CBO made the assumptions they didn't know that we were going to have a depression.

No, and they don't realise too that there's still about another 4 years of
this depression still to run.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Agreed, but then again, if we weren't in a depression (or at least a deep *employment* recession), we'd not be as seriously in debt as we are. We'd have a lot more revenues, we'd not have allocated a trillion dollars plus for 'stimulus' and we'd not be having this discussion. <smile>. Tell me again, who was president when this depression/recession was launched?

All the rest is simply we haven't met the assumptions on tax revenue because when the OMB and CBO made the assumptions they didn't know that we were going to have a depression.