In the midst of the terrible Trump tax bill moving through Congress, Ralph invites Sarah Anderson who directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies to discuss the massive tax loopholes huge companies like Amazon get that allow them to pay far less in taxes than ordinary working people.
I haven’t commented on the last several programs because there’s been so much excellent information in them. So, I’ll pick one issue from the News part of the program, and that is the ongoing genocide in Gaza and Israel’s increasing militarism in the West Bank. It seems that in the US, it’s been heroic student protesters, who have been penalized for their protest and who have remained steadfast in raising their voices against this horror and seem to be the last ones standing.
My people: If enough of us collectively resist the urge to impulse-buy for two weeks, Amazon will have no choice but to change. As long as we keep feeding the beast with our purchases, the race to the bottom will only intensify, while intensifying income inequality. Let’s do more than talk.
If there were Jews in Gaza , Ben would still probably let them die ,, it's what some people do regardless of who's in the exterimnation camps begging for their freedom . It happened 39 so why not now ? Jews arrived by ship in New York City .but they were not welcome,,, .sure we believe in peace in our time ..sure the Pope means well ,, Trump : the war will be over on day one,,, it's "catcher in the rye" ,, are they not all a bunch of phonies ? .. good luck America have a great day my friends
Another great show & group of panelists. I appreciated the dovetail from hearing from Sarah Anderson, after listening to Erica Payne from Patriotic Millionaires. It would be great to hear from both again in light of this budget bill changes to tax brackets.
The AI data centers, their enormous dirty footprint on our environment, plus the state's subsidies, will these budget cuts change those subsidies?
Sarah Anderson hit the nail on the head in the discussion of the disconnect between citizens and Congress when she said you need to do a show on campaign financing as both the Dems and Republicans are controlled by big money.
Maybe more than one show.
Ralph said the tax issues could hurt the Republicans in 26 and Steve asked how politicians could campaign on the tax issues.
It won't matter if it hurts Republicans in 26 or if politicians win campaigns based on the tax issues as long as their campaigns are financed by big money.
Please acknowledge the connection and do some shows about campaign financing because big money corrupting our political process is the major obstacle to solving the vast majority of issues destroying our democracy, country and the world.
And please include a segment on citizens demanding small donor candidates and enforcing that demand with our votes that could yield major progress in 4-6 years instead of only offering legislative proposals such as public financing or constitutional amendments that are as likely to passed in the next fifty years by big money legislators as during the last fifty years we have heard that song and dance.
The problem of big money corrupting our political process has to be solved before legislation to solve the problem can be passed.
This statement by Sarah Anderson, and the general assumptions of Anderson’s thesis, are farcical:
“...taxing the rich is key to having a healthy economy and a healthy democracy, because without that, we will not have the funds we need to make the proper investments in our education system, our health system.”
This statement is entirely false and does not represent how government spending works at the national level. It would be accurate on the state and local level, and therefore Greg Le Roy’s commentary is accurate and helpful. However, in the context of national spending, Anderson is being led by retrograde macroeconomic theory.
As we heard from Erica Payne in both her original interview and especially in her follow-up interview earlier this month on the RNRH, the monetarist ‘pay for’ narratives espoused here by Anderson are wrong and are making it more difficult to achieve progressive goals. The US federal government has all the ability to fund progressive reforms in the health system or in any other area which is under the purview of the federal government. Increased tax revenue is not needed to achieve this as tax ‘revenue’ is just canceled money.
This is not to say that Anderson’s goals of increasing tax compliance are unnecessary, but we must understand why it is necessary and where these goals fit in the hierarchy of fiscal policy needs. Increasing tax compliance is not necessary for funding anything at the national level, but increasing tax compliance enhances capitalism in the ways that the public generally supports capitalism. That is to say that the public supports the capitalist system because the public believes that capitalism enhances competition, drives innovation, generates opportunities for labor, and lowers prices for consumers. However, we know that only regulated capitalism can achieve these goals. Entirely liberal capitalism seeks monopolistic control over the market which limits all the positives the public expects from their economic system.
If Amazon, for example, is allowed to hide their wealth when emerging smaller firms cannot hide their wealth, it provides for a less competitive market environment which hurts labor, increases prices for consumers and other businesses, and it stunts innovation. These narratives will appeal to mainstream right- and left-wing groups much more so than fairy tales about tax revenues being necessary when the public knows that if the government wants to spend, such as spending on promoting genocide in the Middle East, government will ensure that the spending will occur without much questioning about fiscal rectitude.
Anderson brings up the topic of tax havens. When evaluating some of the biggest western tax havens, it should become obvious that there isn’t a correlation between corporate tax collection and income equality. Ireland and especially the Netherlands are two of the biggest corporate tax havens, but yet both countries have some of the lowest Gini coefficients. This is to say that they have some of the lowest income inequality in the world. I’m not suggesting that the Netherlands has relatively low income inequality because they are a corporate tax haven. Rather, I’m arguing that the two points have little to do with one another. The Netherlands has low income inequality because they have social policies, ones mostly implemented in the prior to the neoliberal era when there was a strong labor movement in the county, and social spending which prioritizes labor rights and safety nets much more so than we have in the US or in other European countries with higher Gini coefficients, even if they have higher corporate tax rates.
I’m willing to label Anderson’s narratives as being dangerous, pro-right-wing ideology. For one, it isn’t at all based on empirical macroeconomic theory. Second, pushing the ‘pay for’ narrative gives citizens an excuse to be lax in demanding much needed progressive reforms in healthcare, education, the environment, and so forth. If we listen to Anderson, we cannot possibly achieve these progressive reforms because the tax system has not been reformed. Well, that’s entirely false. We can achieve these much needed progressive reforms and we cannot afford to be lax about it or construct barriers which do not need to exist.
I sincerely hope that the RNRH staff, and Mr. Nader especially, will use the revelations contained within Erica Payne’s rebuttal as a starting point to advance everyone’s macroeconomic, and thus civic, engagement and education. As it is, this episode, at least Anderson’s contributions to it, has helped regress the progressive cause as compared to where things stood after the Erica Payne rebuttal episode.
We do not have a new wealth tax in Washington State. It was not supported by the governor or the state legislature. There was a capital gains tax on amounts over $250,000 that went into effect in 2023.
Interesting to compare Hollywood's false idol(s) with The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Clearly it was Trump's Truth Social that allowed him to pull back the curtain, even though many times Trump also relies on smoke and mirrors.
These problems started with Barack "pen and phone" Obama replacing the will of the public with the whims of the Bar Association. US Senator Scott and Congresswoman Luna, both from Florida, recently received evidence of egregious violations of civil rights that occurred in Pinellas County FL during March 2013.
Why so long for them to get the story? Because it was suppressed by legacy media unless a lawyer would profit by "fighting for the man's rights." The man refused to allow an attorney to be involved. Was this man a minority? No, he's white man, a veteran and a respected professional. The secret societies--which most people call the deep state--were exposed by this former NSA Naval officer. Citizen Obama's Reign of Terror was exposed at the core, because it was the deep state that gave him the presidency. Zionists such as Jake Tapper would not have reported the case if Jake knew about it, but Tapper didn't.
However, US Senator Scott was the governor of Florida during March 2013, and the governor was required to be informed of the fake extradition order. Governor Scott was ex-Navy and would not have signed the order. The deep state throws people in prison until they get faked confessions or "time-served", and traditionally it was innocent minority men who were thrown in prison until they pled guilty to something they never did. This vet was subsequently thrown in prison in Pennsylvania for 3 years, even though PA had never alleged a crime that could have occurred in the state.
If the vet had been a black man, Obama would have objected, but Obama wanted to remain in power, even after his terms were done, by creating a legacy government. This vet almost died, but the PA judge who needed a fake plea bargain could not break the former Naval officer. The judge was a senior principal in the nation's most powerful secret society. Now Scott and Luna have the story, and because Trump is in office it will finally come to light. Obama is the reason criminals like Biden took office, and the reason that Harris avoided the rigors of the Democratic primary, which she could not hope to win.
Therefore, Trump is correct to restrict the ability for any judge to impose contempt of court. Judges are to be seen and not heard, and SCOTUS has no real power, as SCOTUS was reminded after Chisholm v Georgia (1793).
For 15 years, the media has been controlled by the Bar association. Any frivolous story is printed, such as Lively v Baldoni, with lawyers lying on both sides. Only if a lawyer is involved can civil rights violations make the legacy media, or even new media outlets such as Megyn Kelly, Matt Taibbi, or Tucker Carlson. Yet it is the lack of rights that defines an oligarchy.
🎤 PODCASTERS & JOURNALISTS — Are you looking for a guest who can speak to both the science and the lived experience of kratom? I’d love to join you for a thoughtful, evidence-based conversation.
I bring:
11+ years of personal experience as a chronic pain patient who went from using a walker to full-time childcare
A front-row seat at national kratom research symposiums
Connections with leading researchers and healthcare professionals
A deep understanding of the science, policy, and misconceptions surrounding kratom
Let’s bust myths, share stories, and talk about what’s really happening in the kratom space. If you’re looking for a guest who blends credibility, compassion, and real-world insight—let’s connect! 🎤
From our March 23rd 2024 program: "Under the guise of safety, the [American Kratom Association] have tricked legislatures— and now they're trying to do it on the federal level—into making a product that is dangerous, deadly, and has absolutely no proven medicinal purpose, de facto legal."
I haven’t commented on the last several programs because there’s been so much excellent information in them. So, I’ll pick one issue from the News part of the program, and that is the ongoing genocide in Gaza and Israel’s increasing militarism in the West Bank. It seems that in the US, it’s been heroic student protesters, who have been penalized for their protest and who have remained steadfast in raising their voices against this horror and seem to be the last ones standing.
My people: If enough of us collectively resist the urge to impulse-buy for two weeks, Amazon will have no choice but to change. As long as we keep feeding the beast with our purchases, the race to the bottom will only intensify, while intensifying income inequality. Let’s do more than talk.
If there were Jews in Gaza , Ben would still probably let them die ,, it's what some people do regardless of who's in the exterimnation camps begging for their freedom . It happened 39 so why not now ? Jews arrived by ship in New York City .but they were not welcome,,, .sure we believe in peace in our time ..sure the Pope means well ,, Trump : the war will be over on day one,,, it's "catcher in the rye" ,, are they not all a bunch of phonies ? .. good luck America have a great day my friends
Another great show & group of panelists. I appreciated the dovetail from hearing from Sarah Anderson, after listening to Erica Payne from Patriotic Millionaires. It would be great to hear from both again in light of this budget bill changes to tax brackets.
The AI data centers, their enormous dirty footprint on our environment, plus the state's subsidies, will these budget cuts change those subsidies?
Thanks you.
Watch "STOP IT" Big Picture with James Patrick located on YT
Watch "The Great Taking" documentary located on YT
Bring on Catherine Austin Fits
Big Beautiful BS
Sarah Anderson hit the nail on the head in the discussion of the disconnect between citizens and Congress when she said you need to do a show on campaign financing as both the Dems and Republicans are controlled by big money.
Maybe more than one show.
Ralph said the tax issues could hurt the Republicans in 26 and Steve asked how politicians could campaign on the tax issues.
It won't matter if it hurts Republicans in 26 or if politicians win campaigns based on the tax issues as long as their campaigns are financed by big money.
Please acknowledge the connection and do some shows about campaign financing because big money corrupting our political process is the major obstacle to solving the vast majority of issues destroying our democracy, country and the world.
And please include a segment on citizens demanding small donor candidates and enforcing that demand with our votes that could yield major progress in 4-6 years instead of only offering legislative proposals such as public financing or constitutional amendments that are as likely to passed in the next fifty years by big money legislators as during the last fifty years we have heard that song and dance.
The problem of big money corrupting our political process has to be solved before legislation to solve the problem can be passed.
This statement by Sarah Anderson, and the general assumptions of Anderson’s thesis, are farcical:
“...taxing the rich is key to having a healthy economy and a healthy democracy, because without that, we will not have the funds we need to make the proper investments in our education system, our health system.”
This statement is entirely false and does not represent how government spending works at the national level. It would be accurate on the state and local level, and therefore Greg Le Roy’s commentary is accurate and helpful. However, in the context of national spending, Anderson is being led by retrograde macroeconomic theory.
As we heard from Erica Payne in both her original interview and especially in her follow-up interview earlier this month on the RNRH, the monetarist ‘pay for’ narratives espoused here by Anderson are wrong and are making it more difficult to achieve progressive goals. The US federal government has all the ability to fund progressive reforms in the health system or in any other area which is under the purview of the federal government. Increased tax revenue is not needed to achieve this as tax ‘revenue’ is just canceled money.
This is not to say that Anderson’s goals of increasing tax compliance are unnecessary, but we must understand why it is necessary and where these goals fit in the hierarchy of fiscal policy needs. Increasing tax compliance is not necessary for funding anything at the national level, but increasing tax compliance enhances capitalism in the ways that the public generally supports capitalism. That is to say that the public supports the capitalist system because the public believes that capitalism enhances competition, drives innovation, generates opportunities for labor, and lowers prices for consumers. However, we know that only regulated capitalism can achieve these goals. Entirely liberal capitalism seeks monopolistic control over the market which limits all the positives the public expects from their economic system.
If Amazon, for example, is allowed to hide their wealth when emerging smaller firms cannot hide their wealth, it provides for a less competitive market environment which hurts labor, increases prices for consumers and other businesses, and it stunts innovation. These narratives will appeal to mainstream right- and left-wing groups much more so than fairy tales about tax revenues being necessary when the public knows that if the government wants to spend, such as spending on promoting genocide in the Middle East, government will ensure that the spending will occur without much questioning about fiscal rectitude.
Anderson brings up the topic of tax havens. When evaluating some of the biggest western tax havens, it should become obvious that there isn’t a correlation between corporate tax collection and income equality. Ireland and especially the Netherlands are two of the biggest corporate tax havens, but yet both countries have some of the lowest Gini coefficients. This is to say that they have some of the lowest income inequality in the world. I’m not suggesting that the Netherlands has relatively low income inequality because they are a corporate tax haven. Rather, I’m arguing that the two points have little to do with one another. The Netherlands has low income inequality because they have social policies, ones mostly implemented in the prior to the neoliberal era when there was a strong labor movement in the county, and social spending which prioritizes labor rights and safety nets much more so than we have in the US or in other European countries with higher Gini coefficients, even if they have higher corporate tax rates.
I’m willing to label Anderson’s narratives as being dangerous, pro-right-wing ideology. For one, it isn’t at all based on empirical macroeconomic theory. Second, pushing the ‘pay for’ narrative gives citizens an excuse to be lax in demanding much needed progressive reforms in healthcare, education, the environment, and so forth. If we listen to Anderson, we cannot possibly achieve these progressive reforms because the tax system has not been reformed. Well, that’s entirely false. We can achieve these much needed progressive reforms and we cannot afford to be lax about it or construct barriers which do not need to exist.
I sincerely hope that the RNRH staff, and Mr. Nader especially, will use the revelations contained within Erica Payne’s rebuttal as a starting point to advance everyone’s macroeconomic, and thus civic, engagement and education. As it is, this episode, at least Anderson’s contributions to it, has helped regress the progressive cause as compared to where things stood after the Erica Payne rebuttal episode.
We do not have a new wealth tax in Washington State. It was not supported by the governor or the state legislature. There was a capital gains tax on amounts over $250,000 that went into effect in 2023.
Interesting to compare Hollywood's false idol(s) with The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Clearly it was Trump's Truth Social that allowed him to pull back the curtain, even though many times Trump also relies on smoke and mirrors.
These problems started with Barack "pen and phone" Obama replacing the will of the public with the whims of the Bar Association. US Senator Scott and Congresswoman Luna, both from Florida, recently received evidence of egregious violations of civil rights that occurred in Pinellas County FL during March 2013.
Why so long for them to get the story? Because it was suppressed by legacy media unless a lawyer would profit by "fighting for the man's rights." The man refused to allow an attorney to be involved. Was this man a minority? No, he's white man, a veteran and a respected professional. The secret societies--which most people call the deep state--were exposed by this former NSA Naval officer. Citizen Obama's Reign of Terror was exposed at the core, because it was the deep state that gave him the presidency. Zionists such as Jake Tapper would not have reported the case if Jake knew about it, but Tapper didn't.
However, US Senator Scott was the governor of Florida during March 2013, and the governor was required to be informed of the fake extradition order. Governor Scott was ex-Navy and would not have signed the order. The deep state throws people in prison until they get faked confessions or "time-served", and traditionally it was innocent minority men who were thrown in prison until they pled guilty to something they never did. This vet was subsequently thrown in prison in Pennsylvania for 3 years, even though PA had never alleged a crime that could have occurred in the state.
If the vet had been a black man, Obama would have objected, but Obama wanted to remain in power, even after his terms were done, by creating a legacy government. This vet almost died, but the PA judge who needed a fake plea bargain could not break the former Naval officer. The judge was a senior principal in the nation's most powerful secret society. Now Scott and Luna have the story, and because Trump is in office it will finally come to light. Obama is the reason criminals like Biden took office, and the reason that Harris avoided the rigors of the Democratic primary, which she could not hope to win.
Therefore, Trump is correct to restrict the ability for any judge to impose contempt of court. Judges are to be seen and not heard, and SCOTUS has no real power, as SCOTUS was reminded after Chisholm v Georgia (1793).
For 15 years, the media has been controlled by the Bar association. Any frivolous story is printed, such as Lively v Baldoni, with lawyers lying on both sides. Only if a lawyer is involved can civil rights violations make the legacy media, or even new media outlets such as Megyn Kelly, Matt Taibbi, or Tucker Carlson. Yet it is the lack of rights that defines an oligarchy.
🎤 PODCASTERS & JOURNALISTS — Are you looking for a guest who can speak to both the science and the lived experience of kratom? I’d love to join you for a thoughtful, evidence-based conversation.
I bring:
11+ years of personal experience as a chronic pain patient who went from using a walker to full-time childcare
A front-row seat at national kratom research symposiums
Connections with leading researchers and healthcare professionals
A deep understanding of the science, policy, and misconceptions surrounding kratom
Let’s bust myths, share stories, and talk about what’s really happening in the kratom space. If you’re looking for a guest who blends credibility, compassion, and real-world insight—let’s connect! 🎤
From our March 23rd 2024 program: "Under the guise of safety, the [American Kratom Association] have tricked legislatures— and now they're trying to do it on the federal level—into making a product that is dangerous, deadly, and has absolutely no proven medicinal purpose, de facto legal."
Matt Wetherington