US Federal Fuel Tax Revenue Decline

[Americano]

Due primarily to decreased consumption related to US economic decline, US states are looking at 30% reductions in Federal Highway Fund allocations. According to what I've read reduced consumption has been motivated more by higher gasoline prices and tighter household budgets than increased fuel efficiency.

Most all states fund highway construction/maintenance with a combination of state fuel tax revenue and Federal Highway Fund allocations. As one might expect, state fuel tax revenues have fallen right along with federal fuel tax revenues.

For a motorized dependent country like the US, this situation will develop into a serious infrastructure disaster and increase unemployment. Those funds (federal and state) flow right down to counties and cities, so interstate highways aren't the only consideration.

What's the forum opinion; raise taxes to meet ongoing requirements further sqeezing consumer spending or live with what will rapidly become inconvenient and dangerous roadway surfaces?

[Michael]

Due primarily to decreased consumption related to US economic decline, US states are looking at 30% reductions in Federal Highway Fund allocations. According to what I've read reduced consumption has been motivated more by higher gasoline prices and tighter household budgets than increased fuel efficiency.

Most all states fund highway construction/maintenance with a combination of state fuel tax revenue and Federal Highway Fund allocations. As one might expect, state fuel tax revenues have fallen right along with federal fuel tax revenues.

For a motorized dependent country like the US, this situation will develop into a serious infrastructure disaster and increase unemployment. Those funds (federal and state) flow right down to counties and cities, so interstate highways aren't the only consideration.

What's the forum opinion; raise taxes to meet ongoing requirements further sqeezing consumer spending or live with what will rapidly become inconvenient and dangerous roadway surfaces?

I'm a big proponent of increasing the fuel tax (change it from a fixed amount to a percentage and let it ride) as this policy serves many goods.

1. It generates necessary state revenues.
2. It is easy/cheap to administer.
3. It is fair and equitable - the cost of which is spread widely across society.
4. It is a good way to encourage alternative energy usage and discourage excessive car usage (which is generally harmful to the environment and wasteful of energy).
5. Higher gasoline taxes would reduce the demand for endless urban sprawl.

[Americano]

That tax should have been converted from a fixed rate per gallon to a percentage of dollar volume when the US lost its oil independence. As you well know, the US oil lobby and its vast number of completely owned congressional members wouldn't dream of permitting any such restriction on consumption growth.

Back to the original question, how will the US face reality in this matter? Raise that tax (regardless of formula) and decrease consumer spending in other industries during economic decline or let its road system stagnate like the rest of the infrastructure?

[Michael]

That tax should have been converted from a fixed rate per gallon to a percentage of dollar volume when the US lost its oil independence. As you well know, the US oil lobby and its vast number of completely owned congressional members wouldn't dream of permitting any such restriction on consumption growth.

Back to the original question, how will the US face reality in this matter? Raise that tax (regardless of formula) and decrease consumer spending in other industries during economic decline or let its road system stagnate like the rest of the infrastructure?

There is a long history of connecting specific tax revenue sources to specific government expenses. This is most notable in the USA with the road infrastructure funded by the gas tax and the public education system funded by property taxes.

Although there is logical and rational consistency there, I don't see any good reason to make it so, particularly given other socio-cultural-economic factors at play (and the 'law of unintended consequences') so that the theoretical connection between gas taxes and road upkeep becomes tenuous in practice since gas taxes are only a very tiny fraction of the overall cost of personal and goods transportation, they have virtually no actual effect on the marketplace.

Here in Ontario we have broken the link between property taxes and public education - we fund public education from the general provincial tax revenue, with the province transferring funds to each municipality/county based on a per-student funding formula. This eliminates the 'unintended consequence' of rich neighborhoods always having good schools and poor neighborhoods always having shitty schools. Same game goes for roads and the general upkeep of public works.

As a result of this, our public schools and our road/bridges/sewer upkeep are basically funded by a diverse mixture of taxes on gas, cigarettes, alcohol, lotteries, sales taxes, income taxes, corporate taxes and customs duties that are shared across a very large geographic area (Province of Ontario).

Btw, local property taxes still pay directly for local fire, police, garbage collection, etc.

Bottom line is that the US has a political problem with taxes. The issue of failing roads/bridges is entirely a function of the politics of taxation in the US. There are other ways to fund road maintenance other than a penny gallon gas tax.

[Donkey]

There are other ways to fund road maintenance other than a penny gallon gas tax.

Exactly.

[Americano]

Let's make this a little easier - how will the decreased tax revenue be replaced in an era of overall declining tax revenue without additional reduction of consumer spending in other areas?

[Michael]

Let's make this a little easier - how will the decreased tax revenue be replaced in an era of overall declining tax revenue without additional reduction of consumer spending in other areas?

How about taxing someone other than average consumers then?

Your upper classes and corporations are woefully undertaxed (and both groups are flooded with extra cash these days).

[Donkey]

How about taxing someone other than average consumers then?

Your upper classes and corporations are woefully undertaxed (and both groups are flooded with extra cash these days).

If you increased my tax load by a percentage point, I don't think my spending would actually change all that much.

I see no reason that if you do the same for the ultra rich they will suddenly freeze spending out of spite.

[Americano]

In 2010 47% of US taxpayers paid no federal income tax. While taxing only the rich and corporations to specifically pay for highways might sound good to some, it is a political impossibility.

Theoretically dedicating a percentage increase of income tax to highway purposes means it goes into the general fund, that black hole where politicians cut deals with each other on spending to sate their lobbyist and campaign funding controllers. To be effective and egalitarian consumption taxes must be collected at the point of consumption and reserved for their specific purposes. Politicians can and will borrow against those trusts, but they offer the only method of accountability in a democratic government structure.

[Michael]

In 2010 47% of US taxpayers paid no federal income tax. While taxing only the rich and corporations to specifically pay for highways might sound good to some, it is a political impossibility.

Theoretically dedicating a percentage increase of income tax to highway purposes means it goes into the general fund, that black hole where politicians cut deals with each other on spending to sate their lobbyist and campaign funding controllers. To be effective and egalitarian consumption taxes must be collected at the point of consumption and reserved for their specific purposes. Politicians can and will borrow against those trusts, but they offer the only method of accountability in a democratic government structure.

So now you are just agreeing with my earlier point - the US has a political problem with taxes that has nothing to do with the actuality of road maintenance. Indeed, it is the political problem with taxes that is causing the problem with road maintenance.

[Donkey]

In 2010 47% of US taxpayers paid no federal income tax. While taxing only the rich and corporations to specifically pay for highways might sound good to some, it is a political impossibility.

Theoretically dedicating a percentage increase of income tax to highway purposes means it goes into the general fund, that black hole where politicians cut deals with each other on spending to sate their lobbyist and campaign funding controllers. To be effective and egalitarian consumption taxes must be collected at the point of consumption and reserved for their specific purposes. Politicians can and will borrow against those trusts, but they offer the only method of accountability in a democratic government structure.

Let's just be clear, that 47% pays plenty of taxes.

[Americano]

So now you are just agreeing with my earlier point - the US has a political problem with taxes that has nothing to do with the actuality of road maintenance. Indeed, it is the political problem with taxes that is causing the problem with road maintenance.

Of course. The simple and efficient solution of switching from a per-gallon tax to a tax on market cost simply isn't politically viable. As long as an illusion of adequate federal tax revenue to meet highway obligations is in place, the masses don't whimper. Politicians are telling them the well is running dry; in essence get ready for some really bad roads in constantly expanding urbanization.

No different than electrical grids, sewer/water systems in a majority of US cities. The infrastructure is crumbling and nothing is going to be done about it.

[Michael]

Of course. The simple and efficient solution of switching from a per-gallon tax to a tax on market cost simply isn't politically viable. As long as an illusion of adequate federal tax revenue to meet highway obligations is in place, the masses don't whimper. Politicians are telling them the well is running dry; in essence get ready for some really bad roads in constantly expanding urbanization.

No different than electrical grids, sewer/water systems in a majority of US cities. The infrastructure is crumbling and nothing is going to be done about it.

The principal reason that nothing is being done about the roads or electrical grid or other infrastructure is because US politicians have been lying for many years saying that the US can't afford to fix this stuff (but it can afford to give tax cuts to billionaires).

The US is one of the richest nations on earth, with one the lowest tax rates in the whole western world. That the US can't afford to fix roads and sewers is just a lie (that repeated often enough, becomes 'truthiness').

[Greendruid]

In 2010 47% of US taxpayers paid no federal income tax. While taxing only the rich and corporations to specifically pay for highways might sound good to some, it is a political impossibility.

That the US will continue to exist as it has for the last century is an actual impossibility. Political impossibilities will disintegrate as the masses swell to protest the inequities. New York looks like it's well on its way to the dry runs for the real thing.

[Michael]

In 2010 47% of US taxpayers paid no federal income tax. While taxing only the rich and corporations to specifically pay for highways might sound good to some, it is a political impossibility.

That the US will continue to exist as it has for the last century is an actual impossibility. Political impossibilities will disintegrate as the masses swell to protest the inequities. New York looks like it's well on its way to the dry runs for the real thing.

As Donkey pointed out, that bottom 47% pays a whole lot of taxes (mostly the gas tax, state sales taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, etc.). Secondly this same group pays a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the top 53% who pay federal income taxes generally do.

Secondly, if the US continues to squeeze the working and middle class for the profit of the wealthy elites (as they have been doing for 30 years now), that bottom 47% is going to contribute a whole lot less in taxes over time (if they have no extra money to spend, state sales taxes takes a big hit).

In other words, the spending of the poor generates big taxes. The spending of the rich, not so much. If one depends on the rich for revenues, and screws the poor to do it, the national economy suffers a net loss, since the rich are able to avoid taxes or spend their money outside the country.

[drgoodtrips]

As Donkey pointed out, that bottom 47% pays a whole lot of taxes (mostly the gas tax, state sales taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, etc.). Secondly this same group pays a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the top 53% who pay federal income taxes generally do.

Don't forget the lottery. Actual (not percentage) spending on the lottery correlates inversely with income all the way down. The poorest people buy the most lottery tickets.

[Michael]

Don't forget the lottery. Actual (not percentage) spending on the lottery correlates inversely with income all the way down. The poorest people buy the most lottery tickets.

I suspect that the taxes on liquor and cigarettes are also paid disproportionately by the poor. Certainly as a percentage of income.

[drgoodtrips]

I've heard a lot of the GOP candidates talk about how 50% or whatever of society doesn't pay income tax. Then they turn around and talk about how those people need to be paying something.

For the life of me, I can't figure out who this message appeals to. If you're rich, I guess that this is nominally good news in that it might be a substitute for taxing you, but the marginal tax rate and standard deduction of the working class is hardly of interest to you beyond that. If you're in that bottom half (which I imagine most tea partiers are), that message sucks. For most business interests, that message also sucks.

The only thing I can think is that this message appeals to people who think they pay income tax but actually don't. From experience, I know that these people exist, but I wonder how widespread the phenomenon of not understanding the difference between withholding and actual tax liability is.

And, is squeezing a few bucks out of the bottom 50% of earners really going to make any difference at all? Talk about shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic....

[Michael]

I've heard a lot of the GOP candidates talk about how 50% or whatever of society doesn't pay income tax. Then they turn around and talk about how those people need to be paying something.

For the life of me, I can't figure out who this message appeals to. If you're rich, I guess that this is nominally good news in that it might be a substitute for taxing you, but the marginal tax rate and standard deduction of the working class is hardly of interest to you beyond that. If you're in that bottom half (which I imagine most tea partiers are), that message sucks. For most business interests, that message also sucks.

The only thing I can think is that this message appeals to people who think they pay income tax but actually don't. From experience, I know that these people exist, but I wonder how widespread the phenomenon of not understanding the difference between withholding and actual tax liability is.

And, is squeezing a few bucks out of the bottom 50% of earners really going to make any difference at all? Talk about shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic....

Its hard to deny the conclusion that the US political elite class is out to destroy the USA. Regardless if it is their plan or intention, they are doing a damn good job of it. :shrug:

[Donkey]

I've heard a lot of the GOP candidates talk about how 50% or whatever of society doesn't pay income tax. Then they turn around and talk about how those people need to be paying something.

For the life of me, I can't figure out who this message appeals to. If you're rich, I guess that this is nominally good news in that it might be a substitute for taxing you, but the marginal tax rate and standard deduction of the working class is hardly of interest to you beyond that. If you're in that bottom half (which I imagine most tea partiers are), that message sucks. For most business interests, that message also sucks.

The only thing I can think is that this message appeals to people who think they pay income tax but actually don't. From experience, I know that these people exist, but I wonder how widespread the phenomenon of not understanding the difference between withholding and actual tax liability is.

And, is squeezing a few bucks out of the bottom 50% of earners really going to make any difference at all? Talk about shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic....
It's class warfare. :shrug:

[Americano]

As Donkey pointed out, that bottom 47% pays a whole lot of taxes (mostly the gas tax, state sales taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, etc.). Secondly this same group pays a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the top 53% who pay federal income taxes generally do.

Secondly, if the US continues to squeeze the working and middle class for the profit of the wealthy elites (as they have been doing for 30 years now), that bottom 47% is going to contribute a whole lot less in taxes over time (if they have no extra money to spend, state sales taxes takes a big hit).

In other words, the spending of the poor generates big taxes. The spending of the rich, not so much. If one depends on the rich for revenues, and screws the poor to do it, the national economy suffers a net loss, since the rich are able to avoid taxes or spend their money outside the country.

I don't foresee any significant tax code changes in the US near future. Regardless of which political party holds office control remains in the same hands. The masses in a service economy offer little opportunity for acceptable return on capital (other than periodically looting their equity based retirement programs), which presents them with an ongoing scenario of declining standard of living. Many city, county and state governments are already facing crisis mode due to rapidly declining tax revenues.

[Americano]

I've heard a lot of the GOP candidates talk about how 50% or whatever of society doesn't pay income tax. Then they turn around and talk about how those people need to be paying something.

For the life of me, I can't figure out who this message appeals to. If you're rich, I guess that this is nominally good news in that it might be a substitute for taxing you, but the marginal tax rate and standard deduction of the working class is hardly of interest to you beyond that. If you're in that bottom half (which I imagine most tea partiers are), that message sucks. For most business interests, that message also sucks.

The only thing I can think is that this message appeals to people who think they pay income tax but actually don't. From experience, I know that these people exist, but I wonder how widespread the phenomenon of not understanding the difference between withholding and actual tax liability is.

And, is squeezing a few bucks out of the bottom 50% of earners really going to make any difference at all? Talk about shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic....

Both major political parties spew rhetoric that appeals to partisans who don't have a clue regarding fiscal reality.

[Americano]

That the US will continue to exist as it has for the last century is an actual impossibility. Political impossibilities will disintegrate as the masses swell to protest the inequities. New York looks like it's well on its way to the dry runs for the real thing.

The reality of US post-ww2 global economic dominance disappearing is already in place. Using the Great Depression as a data point, US history says the masses will demonstrate their dissatisfaction to no avail. Standard of living for the US masses must decline until developing countries reach their maximum economic potential and global labor market value reaches a medium.

Some examples regarding New York?

[Greendruid]

The reality of US post-ww2 global economic dominance disappearing is already in place. Using the Great Depression as a data point, US history says the masses will demonstrate their dissatisfaction to no avail. Standard of living for the US masses must decline until developing countries reach their maximum economic potential and global labor market value reaches a medium.

Some examples regarding New York?

Surely you've been reading about the Occupy Wall Street protests? What I'm trying to say is that political impossibilities are a construct designed from a comfortable position of complete dominance. I don't believe that position is safe for long due to the very problems Michael has pointed out with squeezing the poor and low-middle income earners.

[Americano]

Surely you've been reading about the Occupy Wall Street protests? What I'm trying to say is that political impossibilities are a construct designed from a comfortable position of complete dominance. I don't believe that position is safe for long due to the very problems Michael has pointed out with squeezing the poor and low-middle income earners.

250,000 protestors in NYC against the Iraq invasion didn't change anything. It's doubtful that a few hundred youthful protestors (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204010604576597234026272432.html) will accomplish anything but providing overtime windfalls for NYC cops.

I consider unregulated credit default swaps (CDS) more of an immediate danger to general society than corporate dominance with tax inequities.

[Donkey]

It's not just "youthful" protesters, but I guess repeating that lie makes it easier to dismiss.

[Americano]

It's not just "youthful" protesters, but I guess repeating that lie makes it easier to dismiss.

I viewed several articles on the subject and with one exception of a bitter 40-year old who had lost job/home those participants who commented to the media were all mid-20s and below voicing the usual slogans. From web published images it looks like a young crowd.

Considering ME countries are constantly torn apart by hundreds of thousands of protestors of all ages being raked with machine gun fire a few hundred youthful Wall Street protestors is very easy to dismiss.

[Donkey]

I viewed several articles on the subject and with one exception of a bitter 40-year old who had lost job/home those participants who commented to the media were all mid-20s and below voicing the usual slogans. From web published images it looks like a young crowd.

Considering ME countries are constantly torn apart by hundreds of thousands of protestors of all ages being raked with machine gun fire a few hundred youthful Wall Street protestors is very easy to dismiss.

I didn't say you originated the lie.

[Michael]

It's not just "youthful" protesters, but I guess repeating that lie makes it easier to dismiss.

That's because the media can't accuse the protesters of the usual "dirty fucking hippies" label to dismiss them - on account of the fact that the "dirty fucking hippies" were the only ones who saw the Iraq War issue correctly and were proven right (rather like Vietnam - the DFH's were the only ones who had that issue right as well. The media doesn't dare draw reference to DFH's because that just draws a reference to their own part in peddling/pushing/propagating the Iraqi/Vietnam War lies.

So "youthful" is the new label the media will use to try to spin the issue in favor of status quo rule by the elite class (no matter how incompetent or evil their ruling policies might be - the barricades must be destroyed!).

[Americano]

That's because the media can't accuse the protesters of the usual "dirty fucking hippies" label to dismiss them - on account of the fact that the "dirty fucking hippies" were the only ones who saw the Iraq War issue correctly and were proven right (rather like Vietnam - the DFH's were the only ones who had that issue right as well. The media doesn't dare draw reference to DFH's because that just draws a reference to their own part in peddling/pushing/propagating the Iraqi/Vietnam War lies.

I was around during Vietnam and Iraq protests, major difference between the two being the draft. I was living in Palo Alto and then San Francisco from 1967 through 1973 and one could hop over to Berkley and view a protest against the Vietnam War almost any day. In The City it was mostly a weekend occurrence. With the exception of academia members and mothers of draft prone males, protestors were predominantly student age. Students in that era, and many members of academia, copied the 'hippie' appearance right down the line. To the establishment that appearance represented rebellion and was normally addressed with draconian measures.

By the time of the Iraq Invasion the establishment had learned its lesson from the Vietnam era and had the Patriot Act as an additional bludgeon. Permits were required for protest gatherings, liability insurance became an issue, permits included designated sites with LE control and protests became more of an event than anything else.

Perhaps the Wall Street protest is different, but I can't determine any difference in establishment response. Arrests are daily occurrences, LE control is absolute, no amplified sound is allowed by protestors and last but not least, LE has yet to enforce that final death of protests; ordinances outlawing impeding foot or vehicular traffic.

I did take the time to pull some images off the net, blow them up and adjust pixel count - same old protest crowd; primarily young with a sprinkling of probably bitter lost jobs middle-aged and a few greybeards.

So "youthful" is the new label the media will use to try to spin the issue in favor of status quo rule by the elite class (no matter how incompetent or evil their ruling policies might be - the barricades must be destroyed!).You're correct. To visit US history, it doesn't matter what age protestors happen to be or applied labels. Destitute ww1 military veterans who gathered in Washington DC to protest being denied their $60 bonuses were fired on by standing military. During the Great Depression (and prior economic downturns) LE was granted the power to use force in removing non-residents out of the city limits. The US establishment is structured to operate with full LE and military support. US protests are more about making the protestors feel good than creating change.

[Donkey]

Law enforcement brutality is empowered by little fascists on the sidelines either turning a blind eye or cheering them on.

[Donkey]

More disgruntled youth and greybeards. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2042680/Wall-Street-Protests-Continental-United-Airlines-pilots-fed-bosses.html)

[Michael]

Law enforcement brutality is empowered by little fascists on the sidelines either turning a blind eye or cheering them on.

That's part of it, but the predictability and continuous pattern of this type of police behavior suggests that the empowerment comes from the top as a matter of policy.

The proof can be found in the defense - the police will always cry "lone bad apple" if/when you catch them engaging in illegal brutality. Six months later, that "lone bad apple" gets a promotion. Rinse and repeat as necessary.

[Michael]

I did take the time to pull some images off the net, blow them up and adjust pixel count - same old protest crowd; primarily young with a sprinkling of probably bitter lost jobs middle-aged and a few greybeards.


Reality begs to differ...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/09/28/article-0-0E1D765400000578-497_634x422.jpg


... US protests are more about making the protestors feel good than creating change.

And the flipside: US LE anti-protest actions are all about making the legal and lawful protestors physically suffer for daring to have an opinion that isn't officially approved.

[Donkey]

That's part of it, but the predictability and continuous pattern of this type of police behavior suggests that the empowerment comes from the top as a matter of policy.

The proof can be found in the defense - the police will always cry "lone bad apple" if/when you catch them engaging in illegal brutality. Six months later, that "lone bad apple" gets a promotion. Rinse and repeat as necessary.

Yes, but that would be a lot more difficult without the cheerleaders.

[Donkey]

THe media are as corrupt as capitalism (https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/27-2#.ToObufk4Y1o.facebook)

[Michael]

THe media are as corrupt as capitalism (https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/27-2#.ToObufk4Y1o.facebook)

Capitalism isn't corrupt since it is an idea/principle/process.

Capitalists, like media companies and individuals certainly can be corrupt.

And as your link shows, US media companies are deeply corrupted. They are on the side of the stormtrooper cops and are working to shut down that growing protest. US media has always been on the side of big brother - that's their team.

[Americano]

Reality begs to differ...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/09/28/article-0-0E1D765400000578-497_634x422.jpg




And the flipside: US LE anti-protest actions are all about making the legal and lawful protestors physically suffer for daring to have an opinion that isn't officially approved.

That image is the pilots union using the Wall Street event to garner attention for their labor dispute. One thing about a country that maintains a military the size of that in the US is an abundance of qualified ex-military pilots. As older airlines succumb to inefficiency newer ones keep taking advantage of that eager labor pool, hiring them for less money.

I'm surprised every labor union in the US isn't joining in. Many of them have endangered pension plans due to their management trying to play the Wall Street game.

[Michael]

That image is the pilots union using the Wall Street event to garner attention for their labor dispute. One thing about a country that maintains a military the size of that in the US is an abundance of qualified ex-military pilots. As older airlines succumb to inefficiency newer ones keep taking advantage of that eager labor pool, hiring them for less money.

I'm surprised every labor union in the US isn't joining in. Many of them have endangered pension plans due to their management trying to play the Wall Street game.

That's all beside the point. The point here is that this Wall Street protest isn't just a bunch of kids or old hippies. That photo proves it.

Indeed, by your own argument, those are a bunch of ex-military officers in that picture.

[The Drunk Guy]

That's all beside the point. The point here is that this Wall Street protest isn't just a bunch of kids or old hippies. That photo proves it.

Indeed, by your own argument, those are a bunch of ex-military officers in that picture.

Michael, didn't you get the memo? Anyone who opposes Wall Street is a hippy/youngster scumbag.

I say linin' 'em up like that'll save ammo! Yee-haw!

[Americano]

That's all beside the point. The point here is that this Wall Street protest isn't just a bunch of kids or old hippies. That photo proves it.

Indeed, by your own argument, those are a bunch of ex-military officers in that picture.

Other than convenient media exposure, I don't understand how using a venue supposedly devoted to protesting Wall Street actions has anything to do with a labor union protesting for increased salary/benefits. Are the pilots blaming Wall Street for their demands not being met?

[The Drunk Guy]

Other than convenient media exposure, I don't understand how using a venue supposedly devoted to protesting Wall Street actions has anything to do with a labor union protesting for increased salary/benefits. Are the pilots blaming Wall Street for their demands not being met?

Poor Wall Street. Always getting picked on by the lower classes.

[Michael]

Other than convenient media exposure, I don't understand how using a venue supposedly devoted to protesting Wall Street actions has anything to do with a labor union protesting for increased salary/benefits. Are the pilots blaming Wall Street for their demands not being met?

Perhaps they are. :shrug:

Or they are perhaps blaming Wall Street for their poor economic plight as wage-slaves of corporate America? :shrug:

As for 'why', the game is called media exposure. That's how the political game is played in our contemporary world.

Ironically enough, I think airline pilots make for a perfect symbol for the oppressed middle class and the villany of Wall Street. Not too long ago, airline pilots were a highly paid middle class professional occupation. The average wage for pilots has dropped about 50% over the last 20 years. It is no longer a good paying job at all.

[Americano]

Michael, didn't you get the memo? Anyone who opposes Wall Street is a hippy/youngster scumbag.

I say linin' 'em up like that'll save ammo! Yee-haw!

Strange, my memo stated people who had made poor decisions regarding education, financial planning and use of credit were gathering to protest no one ever told them about 'Buyer Beware'. It was an amusing memo, even commenting on the masses blaming their elected government representatives for not protecting them from Fannie, Freddie, 401K fund managers, Wall Street Wolves or the Jolly Green Giant!

The memo ended with a plea for Americans to instill some realism into their lives during the ongoing empire decline to avoid further disappointment. Since looting has been well underway for several decades, that plea will likely be disregarded in favor of protest events controlled by the establishment.

[Michael]

Strange, my memo stated people who had made poor decisions regarding education, financial planning and use of credit were gathering to protest no one ever told them about 'Buyer Beware'. It was an amusing memo, even commenting on the masses blaming their elected government representatives for not protecting them from Fannie, Freddie, 401K fund managers, Wall Street Wolves or the Jolly Green Giant!
But I think the point that Fannie, Freddie, 401K fund managers and the Wall Street Wolves all got bailed out by the taxpayer with trillions in free money is relevant backstory here - not to mention their poor decisions regarding financial planning and use of credit.

The other 99% of the tribe apparently wants its share of the cake that it is paying for. If free money bailouts are good for Wall Street, then free money bailouts are good for everyone!

[Americano]

But I think the point that Fannie, Freddie, 401K fund managers and the Wall Street Wolves all got bailed out by the taxpayer with trillions in free money is relevant backstory here - not to mention their poor decisions regarding financial planning and use of credit.

The other 99% of the tribe apparently wants its share of the cake that it is paying for. If free money bailouts are good for Wall Street, then free money bailouts are good for everyone!

Rather idealistic and naive considering current US fiscal circumstances. Not unlike bank robbers hitting a bank that was just cleaned out by an earlier robbery.

[Donkey]

Rather idealistic and naive considering current US fiscal circumstances. Not unlike bank robbers hitting a bank that was just cleaned out by an earlier robbery.

Oh please. The bank has been empty for years and operates on credit. Apparently it only "runs out" of credit when it comes to 99% of its patrons.

[Donkey]

But I think the point that Fannie, Freddie, 401K fund managers and the Wall Street Wolves all got bailed out by the taxpayer with trillions in free money is relevant backstory here - not to mention their poor decisions regarding financial planning and use of credit.

The other 99% of the tribe apparently wants its share of the cake that it is paying for. If free money bailouts are good for Wall Street, then free money bailouts are good for everyone!
See, Michael, the difference between them and the "little people" is that they made poor decisions and financial planning with OTHER people's money.

[The Drunk Guy]

Strange, my memo stated people who had made poor decisions regarding education, financial planning and use of credit were gathering to protest no one ever told them about 'Buyer Beware'. It was an amusing memo, even commenting on the masses blaming their elected government representatives for not protecting them from Fannie, Freddie, 401K fund managers, Wall Street Wolves or the Jolly Green Giant!

The memo ended with a plea for Americans to instill some realism into their lives during the ongoing empire decline to avoid further disappointment. Since looting has been well underway for several decades, that plea will likely be disregarded in favor of protest events controlled by the establishment.

We can't all be the carrion followers of Wall Street.

[Americano]

Oh please. The bank has been empty for years and operates on credit. Apparently it only "runs out" of credit when it comes to 99% of its patrons.

Strange how a majority of that 99% responded to unlimited credit card offerings and the housing bubble when the credit gates were wide open. As defaults keep coming like an unstoppable force, most any loan officer would define that as an established pattern of poor judgement.

Oh, wait! The government was supposed to protect those fools from their own greed.

[Americano]

We can't all be the carrion followers of Wall Street.

That label casts a wide net. 401K plans are still the most popular form of worker retirement savings, normally subscribed to by any American with access to the program. Want to guess where those savings are invested?

[Michael]

Strange how a majority of that 99% responded to unlimited credit card offerings and the housing bubble when the credit gates were wide open. As defaults keep coming like an unstoppable force, most any loan officer would define that as an established pattern of poor judgement.

Oh, wait! The government was supposed to protect those fools from their own greed.

But the government did protect those fools from their own greed and incompetence with trillions in bailout money.

Fact is, the relationship between lender and borrower is asymetrical. The lender of credit is the professional expert, with all the tools, and the NEED to lend the money - and the one who charges a risk premium for the service. They also advertise, cajole and encourage everyone to consume these products - they need this or they go broke. The borrower is just the average consumer with zero control over external events. Ergo the majority of 'blame' for any subsequent bad loans is essentially the fault of the lender, not the borrower.

And the government bailed out all these lenders who engaged in unparalled levels of greed and incompetence. The average consumer was just trying to put a roof over their own heads and got screwed when the banking bubble burst.

Note: I'm sure there were some consumers who took out loans knowing (or not understanding) that they would be unable to pay them back, but these were a minority (and frauds or ignorant) and that just points at a double failure of the lender (who is supposed to professionally assess that risk and failed to do so).

[Americano]

But the government did protect those fools from their own greed and incompetence with trillions in bailout money.

Fact is, the relationship between lender and borrower is asymetrical. The lender of credit is the professional expert, with all the tools, and the NEED to lend the money - and the one who charges a risk premium for the service. They also advertise, cajole and encourage everyone to consume these products - they need this or they go broke. The borrower is just the average consumer with zero control over external events. Ergo the majority of 'blame' for any subsequent bad loans is essentially the fault of the lender, not the borrower.

And the government bailed out all these lenders who engaged in unparalled levels of greed and incompetence. The average consumer was just trying to put a roof over their own heads and got screwed when the banking bubble burst.

Note: I'm sure there were some consumers who took out loans knowing (or not understanding) that they would be unable to pay them back, but these were a minority (and frauds or ignorant) and that just points at a double failure of the lender (who is supposed to professionally assess that risk and failed to do so).

I'm certainly not excusing lenders and packagers for their criminal role in the housing bubble house of cards. To excuse consumers for their roles in ' just putting a roof over their heads' and getting creamed seems like forgiveness of equal greed. They were already neck deep in credit card debt and in most every instance participated with the intent of profiting from the expansion of credit and unsustainable home value escalation. Guilt was, as usual, spread among all participants.

[Donkey]

Strange how a majority of that 99% responded to unlimited credit card offerings and the housing bubble when the credit gates were wide open. As defaults keep coming like an unstoppable force, most any loan officer would define that as an established pattern of poor judgement.

Oh, wait! The government was supposed to protect those fools from their own greed.

The government should protect society from predatory sociopaths.

[Michael]

Rather idealistic and naive considering current US fiscal circumstances. Not unlike bank robbers hitting a bank that was just cleaned out by an earlier robbery.

I'm not being idealistic, I'm doing analysis of the situation.

The mass of American citizenry has some very good reasons to be pissed off at Wall Street and the government. These reasons don't have to be practical or realistic for them to be effective at generating political anger and/or backlash against a corrupted ruling elite.

Bottom line is that the US ruling elites are trying to have two sets of rules - one for themselves (bailouts whenever they fuckup) and another for everyone else (pain and punishment when the elites fuck up). That's not 'fair' and that's the political issue at hand here.

[The Drunk Guy]

I'm certainly not excusing lenders and packagers for their criminal role in the housing bubble house of cards. To excuse consumers for their roles in ' just putting a roof over their heads' and getting creamed seems like forgiveness of equal greed. They were already neck deep in credit card debt and in most every instance participated with the intent of profiting from the expansion of credit and unsustainable home value escalation. Guilt was, as usual, spread among all participants.
Ah, yes, those dummy consumers. Stupid them for believing the bank actually wanted to be legitimate with them. What a bunch of morons for believing their trusted bank was actually trustworthy!

But here's the difference between consumers and Wall Street.....consumers have paid the price. Consumers have lost jobs, not Wall Street. Consumers have lost their homes, not Wall Street. Consumers aren't getting millions in tax-payer-backed bonus, Wall Street is.

No, consumers do not have enough knowledge about credit and debt and investments. But no one told us that we needed a fucking degree in economics to learn all the facets of getting fucked by credit and debt and investments. Our education system taught us that corporations were bound to regulations and rules to protect consumers, not to expect to get dry-fucked every time you bought a loan product.

"But general decline!" you cry. General decline is all well and good, but when it is so obviously fueled and controlled by one group of people, it isn't 'general decline.' It's the purposeful and deliberate devouring of an entire nation's wealth by those who are already so rich they have nothing to worry about. It is evil in its purest form.

[The Drunk Guy]

That label casts a wide net. 401K plans are still the most popular form of worker retirement savings, normally subscribed to by any American with access to the program. Want to guess where those savings are invested?
You do realize that those people have no voting rights in the corporations receiving their investments?

[drgoodtrips]

Out of curiosity, what are we talking about when it comes to the borrowing/mortgage transaction that consumers shouldn't be expected to know? How an ARM works? An escrow account?

I'm not asking to make a rhetorical point -- I'd just like to understand, in terms of specifics, where the knowledge gap is in taking out a mortgage.

[The Drunk Guy]

Out of curiosity, what are we talking about when it comes to the borrowing/mortgage transaction that consumers shouldn't be expected to know? How an ARM works? An escrow account?

I'm not asking to make a rhetorical point -- I'd just like to understand, in terms of specifics, where the knowledge gap is in taking out a mortgage.
They should know, but they don't and the banks sure as fuck aren't going to educate them. The banks explain that an ARM will rarely adjust. The only people who are there to educate the consumers are non-profits that most folks don't know about, either.

I'm not saying banks should give courses over different types of loans, but it wouldn't hurt if they sent them to non-profits when they don't qualify for a FRM. But banks are out to make money and the easiest way to do that is the prey upon the uneducated masses. That's why they call it predatory lending.

The worst part is that, even if they do understand the dangers of an ARM, the banks clusterfuck the customer with subtle terms buried deep within the contracts meant to ensure the bank can fuck the customer with tiny infractions that the buyer would need a law degree to comprehend.

Also, I just want to note, I'm not just talking out of my ass. I worked as a housing counselor when I served in AmeriCorps. That's where I learned the only way I'm buying a house is when my credit is perfect and I have enough of a down-payment to ensure I get the best possible loan on the market. Anything less is a gamble with my family's future.

[drgoodtrips]

They should know, but they don't and the banks sure as fuck aren't going to educate them. The banks explain that an ARM will rarely adjust. The only people who are there to educate the consumers are non-profits that most folks don't know about, either.

I'm not saying banks should give courses over different types of loans, but it wouldn't hurt if they sent them to non-profits when they don't qualify for a FRM. But banks are out to make money and the easiest way to do that is the prey upon the uneducated masses. That's why they call it predatory lending.

The worst part is that, even if they do understand the dangers of an ARM, the banks clusterfuck the customer with subtle terms buried deep within the contracts meant to ensure the bank can fuck the customer with tiny infractions that the buyer would need a law degree to comprehend.

Also, I just want to note, I'm not just talking out of my ass. I worked as a housing counselor when I served in AmeriCorps. That's where I learned the only way I'm buying a house is when my credit is perfect and I have enough of a down-payment to ensure I get the best possible loan on the market. Anything less is a gamble with my family's future.

Thanks for the info -- that's interesting, especially given that you have experience on the other side of the aisle.

I guess for me, personally, it boils down less to the particulars of the situation involved and more understanding the meta-information of conflicts of interest. Specifically, if I go get some kind of loan product from a mortgage broker, independent or working at a bank, I understand the compensation structure is, in essence, that the broker is a salesman and the loan his product. Understanding that alone points me in the right direction. I may not know the hows and whys of an ARM (I do actually understand the gist of how this works enough to know that I have no interest in one, but I'm speaking hypothetically), but I do know that the person has a vested interest in me taking out a mortgage, and the bigger the better. So, I know that he has a motivation to "get creative" with the truth if it means that I'll buy the loan.

In situations like that, I ask for very specific information and a very specific understanding of how it works until I'm satisfied. I just did this with my refinancing, and began many emails and phone conversations with, "so, to recap and clarify my understanding, I'll pay X at Y date because of Z - yes or no, and if not, why not." But, that's not the only weapon in my arsenal. Knowing the interests of the party or parties involved, I also seek out someone with whom I have a favorable relationship and who has no vested interest in the sale to provide information and vet the info I get through from the prospective salesman (i.e. a friend that's a lawyer, a friend that's a former broker, etc).

But the most salient point is understanding the motivations of people with whom you do business. I think that too many people are happy to ignore the fact that very few people are really purely interested in helping them out of altruism, and that number goes down to zero when the 'helper' stands to make money from you doing something.

[Donkey]

Thanks for the info -- that's interesting, especially given that you have experience on the other side of the aisle.

I guess for me, personally, it boils down less to the particulars of the situation involved and more understanding the meta-information of conflicts of interest. Specifically, if I go get some kind of loan product from a mortgage broker, independent or working at a bank, I understand the compensation structure is, in essence, that the broker is a salesman and the loan his product. Understanding that alone points me in the right direction. I may not know the hows and whys of an ARM (I do actually understand the gist of how this works enough to know that I have no interest in one, but I'm speaking hypothetically), but I do know that the person has a vested interest in me taking out a mortgage, and the bigger the better. So, I know that he has a motivation to "get creative" with the truth if it means that I'll buy the loan.

In situations like that, I ask for very specific information and a very specific understanding of how it works until I'm satisfied. I just did this with my refinancing, and began many emails and phone conversations with, "so, to recap and clarify my understanding, I'll pay X at Y date because of Z - yes or no, and if not, why not." But, that's not the only weapon in my arsenal. Knowing the interests of the party or parties involved, I also seek out someone with whom I have a favorable relationship and who has no vested interest in the sale to provide information and vet the info I get through from the prospective salesman (i.e. a friend that's a lawyer, a friend that's a former broker, etc).

But the most salient point is understanding the motivations of people with whom you do business. I think that too many people are happy to ignore the fact that very few people are really purely interested in helping them out of altruism, and that number goes down to zero when the 'helper' stands to make money from you doing something.

I think you should probably take into consideration that you are almost certainly significantly more intelligent than the average person.

[The Drunk Guy]

I think you should probably take into consideration that you are almost certainly significantly more intelligent than the average person.

I also think most folks don't realize just how many people don't know that banking is a for-profit industry. They think of going to the bank along the same lines as going to the courthouse or the post office. All they can process is that they do financial things at the bank.

[drgoodtrips]

I think you should probably take into consideration that you are almost certainly significantly more intelligent than the average person.

Thanks. :)

But, I don't know that it has to be a matter of intelligence as much as skepticism versus credulity. You don't need to have a solid grasp of game theory or statistics to know that playing the lottery is a bad idea. It doesn't require and intense cognition to know that when people tell you that you may have already won a free car, you haven't won a free car.

I just view it in terms of having the discipline not to confuse hope/wish with reality. The fact that someone is telling you that you can afford a 4 bedroom new construction place doesn't mean that you can.

[drgoodtrips]

I also think most folks don't realize just how many people don't know that banking is a for-profit industry. They think of going to the bank along the same lines as going to the courthouse or the post office. All they can process is that they do financial things at the bank.

Well as long as investment banks keep "bank" in the title of what describes them, people might start wising up to that. :cool:

[Americano]

I'm not being idealistic, I'm doing analysis of the situation.

The mass of American citizenry has some very good reasons to be pissed off at Wall Street and the government. These reasons don't have to be practical or realistic for them to be effective at generating political anger and/or backlash against a corrupted ruling elite.

Bottom line is that the US ruling elites are trying to have two sets of rules - one for themselves (bailouts whenever they fuckup) and another for everyone else (pain and punishment when the elites fuck up). That's not 'fair' and that's the political issue at hand here.

When hasn't it been that way?

[Americano]

Out of curiosity, what are we talking about when it comes to the borrowing/mortgage transaction that consumers shouldn't be expected to know? How an ARM works? An escrow account?

I'm not asking to make a rhetorical point -- I'd just like to understand, in terms of specifics, where the knowledge gap is in taking out a mortgage.

I can't remember when it was enacted (never involved in consumer finance) but truth in lending legislation put the onus on consumers taking out any loan with the rider they sign stating full understanding of documentation terms and conditions. That's 'Beware the Buyer', which formerly served the same purpose until US common sense deteriorated to a point where the masses needed legislation to explain reality.

In reality I'd think average consumer interest and depth of understanding of a mortgage contract is limited to monthly payment amount and move-in date. About the only times the masses utilize legal or financial counsel is if they're in jail, divorcing or clearing debt with a BK.

What should a consumer know before entering into any legal agreement? I don't have an answer for that. Anyone entering a legal contract who doesn't understand all terms and conditions deserves whatever the end result happens to be.

[Americano]

You do realize that those people have no voting rights in the corporations receiving their investments?

Isn't that why it's defined as a fund? In the real world only majority stockholders have any influence on public corporation management and there are few of those. Almost sounds like the US definition of democracy when considering electoral votes are all that count.

[Americano]

Thanks. :)

But, I don't know that it has to be a matter of intelligence as much as skepticism versus credulity. You don't need to have a solid grasp of game theory or statistics to know that playing the lottery is a bad idea. It doesn't require and intense cognition to know that when people tell you that you may have already won a free car, you haven't won a free car.

I just view it in terms of having the discipline not to confuse hope/wish with reality. The fact that someone is telling you that you can afford a 4 bedroom new construction place doesn't mean that you can.

Recognizing and accepting reality while pursing your personal goals within existing and future societal structures will serve you well and offer beneficial opportunities.

[Michael]

Thanks. :)

But, I don't know that it has to be a matter of intelligence as much as skepticism versus credulity. You don't need to have a solid grasp of game theory or statistics to know that playing the lottery is a bad idea. It doesn't require and intense cognition to know that when people tell you that you may have already won a free car, you haven't won a free car.

I just view it in terms of having the discipline not to confuse hope/wish with reality. The fact that someone is telling you that you can afford a 4 bedroom new construction place doesn't mean that you can.

As was pointed out above, you probably do have 25-35% more IQ than the average bank loan customer and are a whole lot higher educated. The vast majority of people are not trained or educated to deal with this kind of stuff and thus get taken to the cleaners (or get defrauded) by the banks.

[Michael]

I can't remember when it was enacted (never involved in consumer finance) but truth in lending legislation put the onus on consumers taking out any loan with the rider they sign stating full understanding of documentation terms and conditions. That's 'Beware the Buyer', which formerly served the same purpose until US common sense deteriorated to a point where the masses needed legislation to explain reality.

In reality I'd think average consumer interest and depth of understanding of a mortgage contract is limited to monthly payment amount and move-in date. About the only times the masses utilize legal or financial counsel is if they're in jail, divorcing or clearing debt with a BK.

What should a consumer know before entering into any legal agreement? I don't have an answer for that. Anyone entering a legal contract who doesn't understand all terms and conditions deserves whatever the end result happens to be.

The US government itself is the biggest promoter of mortgages. The people are only doing what the government is encouraging them to do.

[Americano]

The US government itself is the biggest promoter of mortgages. The people are only doing what the government is encouraging them to do.

Yes, and it is still beating that dead horse. In my opinion government subsidies for home mortgage interest tax deductions and antiquated fuel tax structure (cheap gas) were the direct cause of destructive US urban sprawl. Nothing has changed.

[Michael]

Yes, and it is still beating that dead horse. In my opinion government subsidies for home mortgage interest tax deductions and antiquated fuel tax structure (cheap gas) were the direct cause of destructive US urban sprawl. Nothing has changed.

On this point we are in 100% agreement.

Having the government subsidizing home mortgages directly with tax deducted mortgage interest PLUS subsidizing the mortgage market through Fannie and Freddie (which is 'defacto' government backed mortgage 'insurance' guarentees for companies selling mortgages) is clear evidence of government subsidized suburban sprawl. You can't build a sustained economy on building houses! (same policy has failed in Ireland, Spain and USA)

Those hidden suburban housing subsidies have to end or the US is just going to play repeats on this housing boom/bust cycle that it has been riding for the last thirty years or so. Multiplied by energy price shocks as oil price rises, that roller coaster cycle could turn ugly.

[Americano]

I'm too lazy to undertake such a project and no longer closely follow US economic politics (past/present impact), but a listing of indirect and directly subsidized US industries would fill a lot of pages. I remember being exposed to US methodology for GDP value calculations and almost laughed myself silly.

When considering the foundations that supposedly support it and rapid depletion of natural resources, I've been surprised the country held together as long as it has.

[Michael]

I'm too lazy to undertake such a project and no longer closely follow US economic politics (past/present impact), but a listing of indirect and directly subsidized US industries would fill a lot of pages.

I'm quite aware of this. That's why I always find it hilarious the way so many Americans believe that the USA is a bastion of 'capitalism' and the 'free market'.

USA seems to have less actual capitalism and less free markets than most other western countries. The irony of that is priceless.

[Americano]

I'm quite aware of this. That's why I always find it hilarious the way so many Americans believe that the USA is a bastion of 'capitalism' and the 'free market'.

USA seems to have less actual capitalism and less free markets than most other western countries. The irony of that is priceless.

It is priceless. I still haven't decided which group of partisans is more clueless - those cursing the US brand of capitalism or the ones praising it. It becomes so obvious that neither flavor actually follows the money while spewing their ideological rants that hilarious is an apt description.

[Michael]

It is priceless. I still haven't decided which group of partisans is more clueless - those cursing the US brand of capitalism or the ones praising it. It becomes so obvious that neither flavor actually follows the money while spewing their ideological rants that hilarious is an apt description.

Yes, it is hard to tell which flavor of partisans is more clueless on this point.

Though, I think the ones praising the free market quality of American capitalism are by far the most delusional since they are usually praising anti-capitalism and unfree markets using words that would make George Orwell turn in his grave.

The ones cursing the US brand of capitalism are also deluded about the nature of capitalism, since what they are critiquing, usually isn't actually capitalism. But they do have a critique and the critique is theoretically valid, regardless if one is looking at fake American capitalism or the real deal.

Slight difference, but a notable one.

[Michael]

I just saw a link to this article and considered it highly relevant to this thread. :)

All states are "donees" when it comes to highways

by Angie Schmitt • October 13, 2011 3:01 pm

For quite some time, the country was divided into "donor" and "donee" states, each group either contributing more revenue than they received from the Federal-Aid Highway Program or vice versa.

But that is no longer the case, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office. Between 2005 and 2009 every state in the union received more Federal-Aid Highway dollars than it contributed through fuel taxes and other fees.

Source (http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/12392/all-states-are-donees-when-it-comes-to-highways/)

Bottom line here is 'proof' that building/maintaining highways in the USA costs more than present fuel tax revenue.