Folks, this is a real depression, protect your assets
wis...@yahoo.com
cash, safe investments. Safe deposit box or treasuries. Safe CD's at a
safe bank. Protect your capital so it doesn't drop in value.
Depressions result in long deflationary period. Just check Japan out,
over decade of declining asset values. Cash was the only thing that
held value and relatively increased compared to real estate, stocks,
bonds, etc.
During the 1930's, my mother saw the average guy trying to pick
bottoms, in 1930, 1931, 1932 ......1939, all lost. Market didn't show
a gain until 1954. The only people who made out were people in cash.
Real estate, stocks, bonds dropped 90% or more in value. Ten years
from now if you have exactly what you have today, you will be the new
rich. The masses will be penniless, homeless and hungry. It is the
1930's all over again. Obama will be playing the modern day Herbert
Hoover, raise taxes on the rich and business and socialism.
ted
'nam vet.
wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
what would you suggest to Obama?
He seems to be open to suggestions. Positive ones.
OK?
--
When the Power of Love,replaces the Love of Power.
that's Evolution.
Dave
"'nam vet." <george...@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:georgewkspam-8D4F...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
I would tell him to balance the budget, no matter what it takes. And to
decrease taxes by at least 50% per year, over the next few years.
Failure to do those two things will prolong the depression. DOING those two
things might shorten it. But failing to do those two things will definitely
prolong the depression.
Oh, and before some idiot screams "but it's only a recession", keep in mind
that the actual unemployment rate right now is 16-17%, which is one STRONG
indicator of a depression. So why is the "official" unemployment rate
around 7%? Because that figure no longer counts discouraged workers...but
discouraged workers are no less unemployed. In other words, if we were
measuring unemployment in the 1970s, the figure would be about 17% right
now. But as the formula has been fudged since then, the official figures
for unemployment are very misleading. We are in a depression, a bad
ne. -Dave
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> >
> > what would you suggest to Obama?
> I would tell him to balance the budget, no matter what it takes.
That was Hoover's strategy.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
phil scott
a crucial difference between then and now Ted, is that cash was backed
by gold and silver then...
today the cash is pure hot air, backed by zip...and 8 trillion more of
it issued in the last month.
so cash will go south also.
gold and silver wont though... expecially junk silver coins...
idnetifiable, small amounts of value each..superb money.
Phil Scott
phil scott
> "'nam vet." <georgewks...@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
>
> news:georgewkspam-8D4F...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <ihtcj4tf7d9sttl0ffgrg3n2jvl7vbg...@4ax.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
thats accurate... we are a the front end of an inevitable nasty
depression...and the cure IS to cut govt by at least 70% (which would
balance the budget)
Phil scott
phil scott
not a valid comparison.. many things different... totally bogus
currency now for instance, and vast bloat in
govt now relative to then.
the cuts now would be govt 70% to balance the budget.
govt bloat has killed the US...govt produces nothing, it runs taxes up
on producers, who then become non compeitive in world markets.
Phil scott
presidentbyamendment
They are creating TRILLIONS in funny-money. If e.g. China doesn't
lend it, they have to PRINT it. Screw cash.
RH
clams_casino
>
>
>I would tell him to balance the budget, no matter what it takes. And to
>decrease taxes by at least 50% per year, over the next few years.
>
>
>
The current federal expenditures are about $2.7T of which about half
goes to pay current and past (pensions, medical, etc) military.
Are you suggesting the government simply print $1.35T more dollars each
year? Borrow another $1.35T each year from China? Do away with the
entire military?
Or cut all federal programs (military, social security, road
construction, education, etc) by 50%?
Rod Speed
> Some advice from someone who lived and profitted during one.
But who doesnt have a clue about the basics.
> Stay in cash, safe investments. Safe deposit box or treasuries.
> Safe CD's at a safe bank.
Doesnt need to be a safe bank anymore with the FDIC guarantee.
> Protect your capital so it doesn't drop in value.
Easier said than done.
> Depressions result in long deflationary period. Just check Japan out, over
> decade of declining asset values. Cash was the only thing that held value
Wrong again. It declined in value due to inflation.
> and relatively increased compared to real estate, stocks, bonds, etc.
Wrong again with some bonds, particularly outside that country.
> During the 1930's, my mother saw the average guy trying
> to pick bottoms, in 1930, 1931, 1932 ......1939, all lost.
> Market didn't show a gain until 1954.
Thats a lie.
> The only people who made out were people in cash.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> Real estate, stocks, bonds dropped 90% or more in value.
Another pig ignorant lie, particularly with real estate.
> Ten years from now if you have exactly what you have today, you will be the new rich.
Another pig ignorant lie, particularly if it turns out to be just a recession.
> The masses will be penniless, homeless and hungry.
Wrong, as always. We have decent welfare systems now, fool.
> It is the 1930's all over again.
Wrong, as always. The detail is completely different even if it does turn out to be another great depression.
> Obama will be playing the modern day Herbert Hoover, raise taxes on the rich and business and socialism.
So stupid that it cant even manage to work out that it was FDR that did the socialism.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> not a valid comparison.. many things different... totally bogus
> currency now for instance, and vast bloat in
> govt now relative to then.
Given those factors, how will a massive cutback in goverment spending spur
GDP?
> the cuts now would be govt 70% to balance the budget.
How will a 70% cut in Federal expenditure spur GDP?
> govt bloat has killed the US...govt produces nothing, it runs taxes up
> on producers, who then become non compeitive in world markets.
Balancing the budget could include tax increases. How would that help?
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> thats accurate... we are a the front end of an inevitable nasty
> depression...and the cure IS to cut govt by at least 70% (which would
> balance the budget)
How would cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs and slashing procurement
boost GDP?
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> a crucial difference between then and now Ted, is that cash was backed
> by gold and silver then...
> today the cash is pure hot air, backed by zip...and 8 trillion more of
> it issued in the last month.
So how will cuting federal spending boost GDP?
Dave
<EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:gh6rg6$oqh$3...@reader1.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism phil scott <ph...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
> > a crucial difference between then and now Ted, is that cash was backed
> > by gold and silver then...
> > today the cash is pure hot air, backed by zip...and 8 trillion more of
> > it issued in the last month.
>
> So how will cuting federal spending boost GDP?
>
It won't, unless there is corresponding tax cuts. -Dave
Dave
<EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:gh6re7$oqh$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism phil scott <ph...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
> > thats accurate... we are a the front end of an inevitable nasty
> > depression...and the cure IS to cut govt by at least 70% (which would
> > balance the budget)
>
> How would cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs and slashing procurement
> boost GDP?
>
It wouldn't, without corresponding tax cuts. But with corresponding tax
cuts, there will be more money available to private companies to use to grow
their businesses.
Or put another way...government, as an employer, is VERY inefficient. The
same money in non-government business use will create more jobs. -Dave
Dave
not a valid comparison.. many things different... totally bogus
currency now for instance, and vast bloat in
govt now relative to then.
the cuts now would be govt 70% to balance the budget.
govt bloat has killed the US...govt produces nothing, it runs taxes up
on producers, who then become non compeitive in world markets.
Phil scott
YES!!! Someone gets it. -Dave
Dave
<EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:gh6rbf$oqh$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism phil scott <ph...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
> > not a valid comparison.. many things different... totally bogus
> > currency now for instance, and vast bloat in
> > govt now relative to then.
>
> Given those factors, how will a massive cutback in goverment spending spur
> GDP?
It won't, without corresponding tax cuts.
>
>
> > the cuts now would be govt 70% to balance the budget.
>
> How will a 70% cut in Federal expenditure spur GDP?
If you have corresponding tax cuts, money will be available to private
companies to grow their businesses, which will spur GDP. -Dave
>
> > govt bloat has killed the US...govt produces nothing, it runs taxes up
> > on producers, who then become non compeitive in world markets.
>
> Balancing the budget could include tax increases. How would that help?
I could balance the U.S. budget easily, with drastic tax CUTS. You need to
look back to Henry Ford in the days of the assemby line just getting
started. Ford is in trouble now, but back in the day, Ford was VERY
competitive, as Ford had a volume advantage. That is, make the cars
cheaper, sell more of them, and earn record profits doing so. The same
strategy works for the U.S. government. If you CUT taxes, GDP will rise.
When GDP rises, tax income increases also, even though the tax rate (by
percentage) is lower.
Obama's strategy to rebuild infrastructure will help a little in the short
term and hurt a lot in the long term. If you want to spur the economy to
get it out of this depression and KEEP it out of this depression, you
drastically cut all government programs and lower taxes. If you do that
(and this is counter-intuitive to some) tax revenue to the U.S. government
will actually INCREASE over time.
The goal is to make the U.S. business friendly with low operating costs
(most specifically including low taxes). If you can do that, the economy
makes positive gains and tax revenue increases dramatically. -Dave
clams_casino
>
>govt bloat has killed the US...govt produces nothing, it runs taxes up
>on producers, who then become non compeitive in world markets.
>
>
>Phil scott
>
>
Most who hate paying income taxes tend to be in favor of GW's war.
Considering about half the federal budget goes to the military, do you
believe the military "produces nothing"?
Dave
"clams_casino" <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
news:WxAZk.9648$yB5....@newsfe21.iad...
Ummmmm.... YES!
Consider for a moment, there is no GOOD way out of the mess we are in. No
matter what we do, if we want the economy to turn around, it's going to
HURT. So what is the best long-term strategy to keep the country viable and
stop the bleeding as quick as possible?
Government (all programs) need to be cut DRAMATICALLY. Taxes (all taxes)
need to be cut DRAMATICALLY. Failure to do this will keep the country in
depression, indefinitely.
The simplest thing we could do which would go a LONG WAY toward balancing
the budget is to immediately STOP acting like the world police force. If
two countries want to destroy each other, LET THEM. Keep our military on
U.S. soil. Keep them strong, but keep them HOME. Be strong enough that
nobody even thinks about fucking with us, but we need to keep our troops OUT
of foreign countries.
Just look at the money we've thrown at Iraq. If we'd have minded our own
business, that money would have paid for the current and PROPOSED "bailout"
measures, a thousand times over!!!! And still have plenty left over to
shore up Social Security, STRENGTHEN the military, rebuild all the roads,
improve public education, etc.
But the fact is, we can not afford business as usual. We have to make
drastic cuts. We only have about 138,000,000 taxpayers. We can't afford to
spend trillions of dollars a year. Realistically, we need a national yearly
budget of about 1/4 Trillion dollars or less. For a country with about 300
million people, that means we can't afford much government, we need a really
REALLY small government. -Dave
Dan
Ah, yes, the George Bush economic growth plan on steroids. History has
been ever so kind to that one...
Didn't anyone ever talk to you about "stop digging?"
Dan
Dan
Interesting opinion, but nothing more.
Dan
Dan
> If you CUT taxes, GDP will rise.
> When GDP rises, tax income increases also, even though the tax rate (by
> percentage) is lower.
Ah, yes, Voodoo economics. THAT works well... [NOT]
> Obama's strategy to rebuild infrastructure will help a little in the short
> term and hurt a lot in the long term.
actually, it will help enormously in the long run.
> If you want to spur the economy to
> get it out of this depression and KEEP it out of this depression, you
> drastically cut all government programs and lower taxes.
Any EVIDENCE that might work?
> If you do that
> (and this is counter-intuitive to some) tax revenue to the U.S. government
> will actually INCREASE over time.
Any EVIDENCE that might happen (and PLEASE do not embarrass yourself by
citing "the Reagan years.")?
> The goal is to make the U.S. business friendly with low operating costs
> (most specifically including low taxes). If you can do that, the economy
> makes positive gains and tax revenue increases dramatically. -Dave
Faith-based economics. No thanks.
Dan
Dan
> So stupid that it cant even manage to work out that it was FDR that did the socialism.
What industries did FDR nationalize?
Dan
Dave
> >> How would cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs and slashing
procurement
> >> boost GDP?
> >>
> >
> > It wouldn't, without corresponding tax cuts. But with corresponding tax
> > cuts, there will be more money available to private companies to use to
grow
> > their businesses.
> >
> > Or put another way...government, as an employer, is VERY inefficient.
The
> > same money in non-government business use will create more jobs. -Dave
>
> Ah, yes, the George Bush economic growth plan on steroids. History has
> been ever so kind to that one...
>
> Didn't anyone ever talk to you about "stop digging?"
>
> Dan
Dan - I take it you believe our government can more efficiently create jobs
by raising taxes and forcing employers out of the country? Do tell...-Dave
Dave
>
> Most who hate paying income taxes tend to be in favor of GW's war.
Huh??? Without GW's war, income taxes could be dramatically cut.
>
> Considering about half the federal budget goes to the military, do you
> believe the military "produces nothing"?
Well by definition the military produces nothing. Unless you advocate that
we increase arms exports. Even then, it's not the military producing more,
it is arms manufacturers producing more. -Dave
Dave
> >
> > the cuts now would be govt 70% to balance the budget.
> >
> > govt bloat has killed the US...govt produces nothing, it runs taxes up
> > on producers, who then become non compeitive in world markets.
> >
> >
> > Phil scott
>
> Interesting opinion, but nothing more.
>
> Dan
Dan - With high taxes, producers have two choices.
1) Be less competitive, leading to lower profits, or operating at a loss
2) Move to a location with lower operating expenses, most specifically to
include lower taxes.
This is basic economics that only a moron would TRY to dispute.
The "interesting opinion" you speak of is RIGHT ON. -Dave
Jeff
If you want to stimulate the economy quickly through government
spending, among the best ways to do it are expanding food stamp and
unemployment benefits.
However, I believe that spending on the crumbling national
infrastructure would address two problems at once.
Jeff
Jeffrey Turner
> On Dec 3, 9:50 am, EskWI...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>> In misc.survivalism Dave <now...@noway2.not> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> what would you suggest to Obama?
>>> I would tell him to balance the budget, no matter what it takes.
>> That was Hoover's strategy.
>>
>> --
>> The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
>> certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
>> -- Bertrand Russel
>
> not a valid comparison.. many things different... totally bogus
> currency now for instance,
You think so? Fine, just send me yours.
> and vast bloat in
> govt now relative to then.
>
> the cuts now would be govt 70% to balance the budget.
>
> govt bloat has killed the US...govt produces nothing, it runs taxes up
> on producers, who then become non compeitive in world markets.
Which explains why Somalia, which has almost nothing in the way of
gov't, is the wealthiest nation on earth. Why don't you move there?
--Jeff
--
I learned that ... the most grinding
poverty is a trifling evil compared
with the inequality of classes.
--William Morris
Jeff
Ostensibly, the U.S. federal tax code requires corporations to pay 35
percent of their profits in income taxes.
But of the 275 Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from
2001 to 2003 and for which adequate information to draw conclusions is
publicly available, only a small proportion paid federal income taxes
anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. The vast majority paid
considerably less.
In fact, in 2002 and 2003, the average effective tax rate for all of
these 275 companies was less than half the statutory 35 percent rate.
Over the 2001-2003 period, effective tax rates ranged from a low of
-59.6 percent for Pepco Holdings to a high of 34.5 percent for CVS.
Over the three-year period, the average effective rate for all 275
companies dropped by a fifth, from 21.4 percent in 2001 to 17.2 percent
in 2002-2003.
The statistics are startling:
* Eighty-two of the 275 companies, almost a third of the total,
paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2001
to 2003. In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned
$102 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $35.6 billion
in income taxes as the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to
require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they
received outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury, totaling
$12.6 billion. These companies' "negative tax rates" meant that they
made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years.
* Twenty-eight corporations enjoyed negative federal income tax
rates over the entire 2001-2003 period. These companies, whose pretax
U.S. profits totaled $44.9 billion over the three years, included, among
others: Pepco Holdings (-59.6 percent tax rate), Prudential Financial
(-46.2 percent), ITT Industries (-22.3 percent), Boeing (-18.8 percent),
Unisys (-16.0 percent), Fluor (-9.2 percent) and CSX (-7.5 percent), the
company previously headed by current Secretary of the Treasury John Snow.
* In 2003 alone, 46 companies paid zero or less in federal income
taxes. These 46 companies told their shareholders they earned U.S.
pretax profits in 2003 of $42.6 billion, yet they received tax rebates
totaling $5.4 billion. Almost as many companies, 42, paid no tax in
2002, reporting $43.5 billion in pretax profits, yet receiving $4.9
billion in tax rebates. From 2001 to 2003, the number of no-tax
companies jumped from 33 to 46, an increase of 40 percent.
* In 2001, the Treasury paid corporations $40 billion in tax
refunds, a third more than the 1998-2000 average.
* Then in 2002 and 2003, after the law was changed to expand tax
subsidies and make it easier for corporations to carry back excess tax
breaks to earlier years, corporate tax refunds skyrocketed to an average
of $63 billion a year - more than double the 1998-2000 average.
Corporations are now paying the lowest levels of taxes in the post-World
War II era. In fiscal 2002 and 2003, federal corporate incomes taxes
dropped to their lowest sustained level as a share of the economy since
World War II. Only a single year during the early Reagan administration
was lower.
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan fully abandoned his earlier policy of
showering tax breaks on corporations. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 closed
tens of billions of dollars in corporate loopholes, so that by 1988, the
overall effective corporate tax rate for large corporations was up to
26.5 percent. That improvement occurred even though the statutory
corporate tax rate was cut from 46 percent to 34 percent as part of the
1986 reforms.
In the 1990s, however, many corporations began to find ways around the
1986 reforms, abetted by tax-shelter schemes devised by major accounting
firms.
Effective corporate tax rates then plummeted, thanks to Bush
administration-backed tax breaks passed in 2002 and 2003, continued
corporate offshore tax-sheltering, and the refusal of the Congress and
White House to crack down on even the most abusive inherited corporate
tax-sheltering activities.
Corporate taxes paid for more than a quarter of federal outlays in the
1950s and a fifth in the 1960s. They began to decline during the Nixon
administration, yet even by the second half of the 1990s, corporate
taxes still covered 11 percent of the cost of federal programs. But in
fiscal years 2002 and 2003, corporate taxes paid for a mere 6 percent of
federal expenses.
Billions and billions
Over the 2001-2003 period, the 275 Fortune 500 companies that were
profitable each year and for which adequate information is publicly
available earned almost $1.1 trillion in pretax profits in the United
States. Had all of those profits been reported to the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) and taxed at the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate,
then the 275 companies would have paid $370 billion in income taxes over
the three years. But instead, the companies reported only about half of
their profits - $557 billion - to the IRS. Instead of a 35 percent tax
rate, the companies as a group paid a three-year effective tax rate of
only 18.4 percent.
In 2002 and 2003, the 275 companies sheltered more than half of their
profits from tax. They told their shareholders they earned $739 billion
in those two years, but they paid taxes on less than half of that, only
$363 billion.
Loopholes and other tax subsidies cut taxes for the 275 companies by
$43.4 billion in 2001, $60.8 billion in 2002 and $71.0 billion in 2003,
for a total of $175.2 billion in tax breaks over the three years.
Half of the total tax-break dollars over the three years - $87.1 billion
- went to just 25 companies, each with more than a billion-and-a-half
dollars in tax breaks.
General Electric topped the list of corporate tax break recipients, with
$9.5 billion in tax breaks over the three years.
Industrial divide
Effective tax rates varied widely by industry. Over the 2001-2003
period, industry effective tax rates for the 275 corporations ranged
from a low of 1.6 percent to a high of 27.7 percent.
In 2003, the range of industry tax rates was even greater, ranging from
a low of -30.0 percent (a negative rate) up to a high of 27.9 percent.
* Aerospace and defense companies enjoyed the lowest effective tax
rate over the three years, paying only 1.6 percent of their profits in
federal income taxes. This industry's taxes declined sharply over the
three years, falling to -30.0 percent of profits in 2003.
* Other very low-tax industries, paying less than half the
statutory 35 percent tax rate over the entire 2001-2003 period,
included: transportation (4.3 percent), industrial and farm equipment
(6.2 percent), telecommunications (7.5 percent), electronics and
electrical equipment (10.8 percent), petroleum and pipelines (13.3
percent), miscellaneous services (14.4 percent), gas and electric
utilities (14.4 percent), computers, office equipment, software and data
(16.0 percent), and metals & metal products (17.4 percent).
* Not a single industry paid an effective tax rate of more than 29
percent, either for the entire three-year period or in any given year.
Within industries, effective tax rates also varied widely. For example,
over the three-year period, average tax rates on oil companies ranged
from 3.0 percent for Devon Energy up to 31.4 percent on Marathon Oil.
Among aerospace and defense companies, three-year effective tax rates
ranged from a low of -18.8 percent for Boeing up to a high of 25.0
percent for General Dynamics."
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php
Jeff
clams_casino
>>Most who hate paying income taxes tend to be in favor of GW's war.
>>
>>
>
>Huh??? Without GW's war, income taxes could be dramatically cut.
>
>
Fully agree, but you are one of the few who wants to cut taxes AND are
against GW's war. You are a rarity.
>
>
>>Considering about half the federal budget goes to the military, do you
>>believe the military "produces nothing"?
>>
>>
>
>Well by definition the military produces nothing. Unless you advocate that
>we increase arms exports. Even then, it's not the military producing more,
>it is arms manufacturers producing more. -Dave
>
>
>
>
The military produces a service - safety.
Do you also believe teachers, police & fireman produce nothing?
How about the workers at retail stores, insurance companies, banks,
health care, entertainment, etc?
Jeffrey Turner
Keep repeating your mantra. It won't make what you're saying any less
of a religious faith. You won't find any examples in reality, though.
Dave
> > Obama's strategy to rebuild infrastructure will help a little in the
short
> > term and hurt a lot in the long term.
>
> actually, it will help enormously in the long run.
Really? Ok, Obama's plan boils down to, raise taxes and use those taxes to
employ people building roads and bridges, etc. It's a pyramid scheme
though. You can't tax unemployed people to increase employment. In the
long run, the only significant employment growth will be in infrastructure
improvement jobs which DO NOT contribute significantly to tax income to the
government. More money going out, less coming in. A strategy for
guaranteed economic disaster in other words.
On a side note, where are we going to get all the workers to build roads and
bridges? The only people really qualified to do that type of work are
1) Already employed doing that type of work
2) Not "technically" allowed to do that type of work, or any other work in
the U.S. (read: illegal aliens)
3) Both 1 and 2
You think all these unemployed financial sector (not to pick on the
financial sector, just tossing them out as an example) workers are going to
jump at the chance to build roads and bridges? If so, are we going to
increase taxes further to train them to do that type of
work?????????????????????? I'm lucky enough to be employed, and not
under-employed. But if I needed a job, I could probably build roads and
bridges. But I'd need significant and (I'm sure) expensive training first,
to do that type of work. That's what I'm talking about. This re-build the
infrastructure with increased taxes to create jobs strategy is just plain
bizarre, and will not work.
>
> > If you want to spur the economy to
> > get it out of this depression and KEEP it out of this depression, you
> > drastically cut all government programs and lower taxes.
>
> Any EVIDENCE that might work?
Economics 101. Businesses will locate wherever operating costs are low,
including lower taxes. You can't drastically lower taxes (which is what is
necessary to spur economic growth) without drastically cutting all
government programs.
>
> > If you do that
> > (and this is counter-intuitive to some) tax revenue to the U.S.
government
> > will actually INCREASE over time.
>
> Any EVIDENCE that might happen (and PLEASE do not embarrass yourself by
> citing "the Reagan years.")?
Obama's strategy will lead to many employers leaving the country. How do
YOU figure this will increase tax revenue? Keeping current employers in the
U.S. and attracting new ones to the U.S. will increase tax revenue. That is
self-evident to anybody with half a brain.
>
> > The goal is to make the U.S. business friendly with low operating costs
> > (most specifically including low taxes). If you can do that, the
economy
> > makes positive gains and tax revenue increases dramatically. -Dave
>
> Faith-based economics. No thanks.
You'd rather the country remain in depression mode indefinitely? No
hanks. -Dave
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> If you want to stimulate the economy quickly through government
> spending, among the best ways to do it are expanding food stamp and
> unemployment benefits.
Interesting ideas.
I'd be inclined to support R&D, along with infrastructure spending to
get long term benefits. Increase student aid?
> Howver, I believe that spending on the crumbling national
rastructure would address two problems at once.
Yes.
Dennis
<PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>Dave wrote:
>
>>>Most who hate paying income taxes tend to be in favor of GW's war.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Huh??? Without GW's war, income taxes could be dramatically cut.
>>
>>
>
>
>Fully agree, but you are one of the few who wants to cut taxes AND are
>against GW's war. You are a rarity.
Not rare at all. In fact, there is a whole political party with those
ideas among its central platform:
Dennis (evil)
--
What the government gives, it must first take.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Really? Ok, Obama's plan boils down to, raise taxes and use those taxes to
> employ people building roads and bridges, etc. It's a pyramid scheme
> though. You can't tax unemployed people to increase employment. In the
> long run, the only significant employment growth will be in infrastructure
> improvement jobs which DO NOT contribute significantly to tax income to the
> government.
Why won't improved infrasructure make our businesses more efficient?
Better access to ports, better rail service, better access to roads and
electricity and other necessary inputs?
ISTM that wigthout infrastructure, businesses are less efficient.
> Economics 101. Businesses will locate wherever operating costs are low,
> including lower taxes.
Why do you discount the effect of good infrastructure?
Dave
> >>Most who hate paying income taxes tend to be in favor of GW's war.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Huh??? Without GW's war, income taxes could be dramatically cut.
> >
> >
>
>
> Fully agree, but you are one of the few who wants to cut taxes AND are
> against GW's war. You are a rarity.
>
I'm a Conservative Republican, not to be confused with MOST Republicans who
call themselves conservative while being NEITHER Republican NOR
Conservative. If most Republicans held the same views I do, the Republicans
would have won all elections this time around in a landslide. McCain lost
because his liberal views scared the shit out of people like me (he
alienated the Center Right). Obama is no worse (which is not a reflection
on Obama, at all) which is why Obama won.
I honestly believe we need someone like Sarah Palin, I hope she runs for
PRESIDENT in 2012.
> >Well by definition the military produces nothing. Unless you advocate
that
> >we increase arms exports. Even then, it's not the military producing
more,
> >it is arms manufacturers producing more. -Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> The military produces a service - safety.
And a service-based economy can not remain viable in the long run, unless it
is also an economy with significant manufacturing income. Think about the
word service. It implies that you are doing work of some kind for someone,
that you are performing a function of some kind, without producing anything.
If everyone is performing services, where is the money coming from to
finance all these services? Somewhere along the line, someone has to SELL
something (that you can touch) and sell a shitload of that (whatever) to
provide the seed money to keep the service workers employed.
>
> Do you also believe teachers, police & fireman produce nothing?
Ummm... YES!!!! And that's not a bad thing. Teachers, Police and Fire
personnel are also service workers. I'd argue that they are NECESSARY
service workers. Problem is, without manufacturing to keep the economy
healthy, how are we (as a society) going to continue to pay for these
necessary services? Again, if everybody is a service worker, the economy
will eventually collapse, as it is a kind of pyramid scheme. You can't have
EVERYBODY trying to sell nothing but services to everybody else. There has
to be income from something OTHER than services (such as manufacturing) to
keep the money flowing.
>
> How about the workers at retail stores, insurance companies, banks,
> health care, entertainment, etc?
Same as I wrote about teachers, police and firemen. Except that we can
argue about how each of these individuals are "necessary" or not, and to
what degree. These service workers do not survive in the long run without a
manufacturing based economy to inject the money to keep the services
running. -Dave
Jeff
> "'nam vet." <george...@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
> news:georgewkspam-8D4F...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> In article <ihtcj4tf7d9sttl0f...@4ax.com>,
>> wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> Some advice from someone who lived and profitted during one. Stay in
>>> cash, safe investments. Safe deposit box or treasuries. Safe CD's at a
>>> safe bank. Protect your capital so it doesn't drop in value.
>>> Depressions result in long deflationary period. Just check Japan out,
>>> over decade of declining asset values. Cash was the only thing that
>>> held value and relatively increased compared to real estate, stocks,
>>> bonds, etc.
>>>
>>> During the 1930's, my mother saw the average guy trying to pick
>>> bottoms, in 1930, 1931, 1932 ......1939, all lost. Market didn't show
>>> a gain until 1954. The only people who made out were people in cash.
>>> Real estate, stocks, bonds dropped 90% or more in value. Ten years
>>> from now if you have exactly what you have today, you will be the new
>>> rich. The masses will be penniless, homeless and hungry. It is the
>>> 1930's all over again. Obama will be playing the modern day Herbert
>>> Hoover, raise taxes on the rich and business and socialism.
>>>
>>> ted
>> what would you suggest to Obama?
>> OK?
>> --
>
> I would tell him to balance the budget,
The time to have balanced the budget was when times were good.
no matter what it takes. And to
> decrease taxes by at least 50% per year, over the next few years.
When has that ever worked?
This whole mess was created by cheap money blowing up the credit and
real estate bubbles.
Throwing more money into the supply is a complete waste. The problem
is demand has fallen. You can not stimulate demand by giving rich people
more money they will just create another bubble or sit on it.
Jeff
>
> Failure to do those two things will prolong the depression. DOING those two
> things might shorten it. But failing to do those two things will definitely
> prolong the depression.
>
> Oh, and before some idiot screams "but it's only a recession", keep in mind
> that the actual unemployment rate right now is 16-17%, which is one STRONG
> indicator of a depression. So why is the "official" unemployment rate
> around 7%? Because that figure no longer counts discouraged workers...but
> discouraged workers are no less unemployed. In other words, if we were
> measuring unemployment in the 1970s, the figure would be about 17% right
> now. But as the formula has been fudged since then, the official figures
> for unemployment are very misleading. We are in a depression, a bad
> ne. -Dave
>
>
Dave
> infrastructure would address two problems at once.
>
> Jeff
In the short term, you are absolutely RIGHT. But do do that, we have to
increase taxes. So let's look ahead a few years or a few decades...
While we're all happily employed (yeah right) building roads and bridges,
our tax rates are sky-high, and employers (private employers) are leaving
the country in droves.
After all the roads and bridges, etc. are fixed? Now what do we do. Taxes
are sky high, all real employers have skipped the country, and we are all
unemployed.
Great plan, eh? -Dave
Dave
> >
> >Fully agree, but you are one of the few who wants to cut taxes AND are
> >against GW's war. You are a rarity.
>
> Not rare at all. In fact, there is a whole political party with those
> ideas among its central platform:
>
> http://www.lp.org
>
Oh yeah, the libertarians. I have actually voted for some libertarian
candidates from time to time, but only because they were more "republican"
than the so-called republican candidate that they were running against. The
only reason the libertarians get any votes is that the Republicans are
acting too much like Democrats. The libertarians are like Republicans on
steroids, but at least they are somewhat republican. -Dave
Dave
<EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:gh751q$a2r$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism Dave <now...@noway2.not> wrote:
>
> > Really? Ok, Obama's plan boils down to, raise taxes and use those taxes
to
> > employ people building roads and bridges, etc. It's a pyramid scheme
> > though. You can't tax unemployed people to increase employment. In the
> > long run, the only significant employment growth will be in
infrastructure
> > improvement jobs which DO NOT contribute significantly to tax income to
the
> > government.
>
> Why won't improved infrasructure make our businesses more efficient?
> Better access to ports, better rail service, better access to roads and
> electricity and other necessary inputs?
>
> ISTM that wigthout infrastructure, businesses are less efficient.
Holy SHIT! You want the 3 or 4 remaining employers in the U.S. to be more
efficient? How do you figure that is going to help?
Ok, that was a sarcastic exaggeration of course. But what you fail to
consider is, while we are raising taxes to improve infrastructure, we are
ALSO giving employers strong incentives to CUT production and/or move
production out of the country. No doubt whatever employers who are stupid
enough to REMAIN here will enjoy the infrastructure improvements. But will
it matter when we are all unemployed? Not a damned bit.
>
>
> > Economics 101. Businesses will locate wherever operating costs are low,
> > including lower taxes.
>
> Why do you discount the effect of good infrastructure?
>
Because there won't be many employers left in the country to use it? Like,
DUH! -Dave
Dave
>
> The time to have balanced the budget was when times were good.
Dude, you have a two-income family with a balanced family budget. Times are
good. Now the husband (one of the income earners) gets laid off. Is it now
less important to balance the budget? HELL NO!!! It is now more important
than ever to balance the budget. If you keep spending money based on your
previous income, you are going to dig yourself into a hole so deep that you
will have trouble getting out of it even if the husband finds gainful
employment later.
>
> no matter what it takes. And to
> > decrease taxes by at least 50% per year, over the next few years.
>
> When has that ever worked?
>
A more important question is, do you think it's a good idea to keep taxes at
current level or even increase taxes, to drive employers out of the
ountry? -Dave
Jeff
>> However, I believe that spending on the crumbling national
>> infrastructure would address two problems at once.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> In the short term, you are absolutely RIGHT. But do do that, we have to
> increase taxes. So let's look ahead a few years or a few decades...
Deficit spending seems to be adequate to fund the Wall Street bailout,
the war, etc.
> While we're all happily employed (yeah right) building roads and bridges,
> our tax rates are sky-high, and employers (private employers) are leaving
> the country in droves.
False premises. Infrastructure is more that roads and bridges. It is
telecoms, energy generation and transmission, pollution control, high
speed rail, and many other things, too. Meanwhile, (real) corporate
taxes are lower than ever, and corporations are reaping the advantages
of improved and more efficient infrastructure, as well as a growing economy.
Jeff
Dave
> the war, etc.
>
> telecoms, energy generation and transmission, pollution control, high
> speed rail, and many other things, too. Meanwhile, (real) corporate
> taxes are lower than ever, and corporations are reaping the advantages
> of improved and more efficient infrastructure, as well as a growing
economy.
>
> Jeff
Y'know Jeff, the best way I could describe a liberal like you is a phrase I
heard on the radio recently:
Liberals treat the country like OJ treats his ex-wives.
How true.
You speak of deficit spending like it's a good thing. And you think
improving infrastructure while at the same time chasing employers out of the
country will somehow help.
Hint: Depression does not mean that the economy is growing. -Dave
Jeff
>> Deficit spending seems to be adequate to fund the Wall Street bailout,
>> the war, etc.
>>
>> False premises. Infrastructure is more that roads and bridges. It is
>> telecoms, energy generation and transmission, pollution control, high
>> speed rail, and many other things, too. Meanwhile, (real) corporate
>> taxes are lower than ever, and corporations are reaping the advantages
>> of improved and more efficient infrastructure, as well as a growing
> economy.
>> Jeff
>
> Y'know Jeff, the best way I could describe a liberal like you is a phrase I
> heard on the radio recently:
>
> Liberals treat the country like OJ treats his ex-wives.
Insults are no substitute for reasoned argument, which appear to have
run out of at this point.
> How true.
>
> You speak of deficit spending like it's a good thing. And you think
> improving infrastructure while at the same time chasing employers out of the
> country will somehow help.
A balanced budget offers certain possible advantages, but it is no
guarantee of economic health or prosperity. Money could be redirected
from the Wall Street bailout and the war to rebuilding infrastructure,
without a net increase in the admittedly already huge deficit.
I see you have partaken of the Right wing/ Corporatist Kool Aid, and
believe that Corporate taxes must be slashed or even eliminated, or they
will all leave the country. However, this is unproven, and sounds very
much like a blackmailer's threat.
> Hint: Depression does not mean that the economy is growing. -Dave
Hint: The economy always does better under Democrat stewardship. It is
Republican policies that seem to lead to economic chaos.
Jeff
Dan
Funny, I never mentioned either of those options. But look at what
Bush's tax cuts have wrought.
Now, about that job creation efficiency of the private market... How's
that one working out?
Dan
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> While we're all happily employed (yeah right) building roads and bridges,
> our tax rates are sky-high, and employers (private employers) are leaving
> the country in droves.
Nothing need be so black and white.
Dan
>>> the cuts now would be govt 70% to balance the budget.
>>>
>>> govt bloat has killed the US...govt produces nothing, it runs taxes up
>>> on producers, who then become non compeitive in world markets.
>>>
>>>
>>> Phil scott
>> Interesting opinion, but nothing more.
>>
>> Dan
>
> Dan - With high taxes, producers have two choices.
> 1) Be less competitive, leading to lower profits, or operating at a loss
> 2) Move to a location with lower operating expenses, most specifically to
> include lower taxes.
3) Invest in their businesses, instead of extracting from their
businesses. Note that extracting from the business rather than creating
jobs and growing the business is a direct consequence of lower taxes.
4) Find ways around the tax code (very popular these days). We can
either reward these people for antisocial behavior (lower taxes) or
shore up the loopholes and encourage the ones who cannot perform to
leave. We can, however, put limitations on our market for such
antisocial behavior...
You see, without even breaking a sweat I can find TWO additional
possible actions. With a modicum of thought, many more possibilities
can be found. You are intellectually lazy - you jump at the idea that
fits your puny world view and expect others to agree that your
limitations are universal. All of us out here are not so lazy, much to
your chagrin.
> This is basic economics that only a moron would TRY to dispute.
Been there, done that, got the Depression. YOUR lack of knowledge,
understanding, and creativity is not a limitation on US.
> The "interesting opinion" you speak of is RIGHT ON. -Dave
Still just an opinion lacking is supporting facts.
And, by the way, mindlessly repeating your Mantra over and over does not
bolster your position any (though it might be an effective way of
emptying your mind [!] preparatory for meditation).
Take some time off. Quit assuming WE are the morons...
Dan
Dan
Yeah, that is something that has been neglected (by politicians of BOTH
Parties) for far too long, and is consequently much more expensive to
fix than it would have been to maintain.
Dan
John R. Carroll
"Dan" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eqGZk.7640$v37....@newsfe01.iad...
Well let's see.
85 million new jobs plus 30 million new jobs sounds prety good to me.
'Course they are in China and India.
"Mission Accomplished"!
Heck of a job dumbya!
I wonder if Bush plans to change his last name to Hoover?
JC
Dan
Dave, do us all a favor and beat the rush to the exits. Send us a post
card.
Dan
Jeffrey Turner
>>> I would tell him to balance the budget,
>> The time to have balanced the budget was when times were good.
>
> Dude, you have a two-income family with a balanced family budget. Times are
> good. Now the husband (one of the income earners) gets laid off. Is it now
> less important to balance the budget? HELL NO!!! It is now more important
> than ever to balance the budget. If you keep spending money based on your
> previous income, you are going to dig yourself into a hole so deep that you
> will have trouble getting out of it even if the husband finds gainful
> employment later.
The federal government isn't your family. Not even close. Your
simplistic notions don't model macroeconomics. Things get worse instead
of better if the federal government shuts down spending in a recession.
>> no matter what it takes. And to
>>> decrease taxes by at least 50% per year, over the next few years.
>> When has that ever worked?
>
> A more important question is, do you think it's a good idea to keep taxes at
> current level or even increase taxes, to drive employers out of the
> ountry? -Dave
Employers aren't leaving, and haven't left, the country because of high
taxes. That's nonsense. Since you can't give an example of when your
policy has ever worked, we'll have to conclude that it's a bad idea.
Sue
Please!! I am already overworked.
Sue who has job security
Jeff
Republicans are a one trick pony and that lame pony is Supply Side
Economics.
The sales pitch being that if businesses had more money (from another
big tax cut) they would hire more people. This of course ignores the
obvious, that nobody is hiring because demand is falling. Not that
"Voodoo Economics" has ever worked at any time. Not so oddly, the only
sure result of Republican economics is some kind of bank failure. Reagan
had the S&L crisis.
The stock method of Republicans dealing with that has not changed
since Hoover, shovel money to their friends in banking.
Jeff
>
> --Jeff
>
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> So stupid that it cant even manage to work out that it was FDR that did the socialism.
> What industries did FDR nationalize?
Socialism is about a hell of a lot more than JUST nationalizing industrys.
Just what do you claim social security is ?
Curly Surmudgeon
> In misc.survivalism phil scott <ph...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
>> thats accurate... we are a the front end of an inevitable nasty
>> depression...and the cure IS to cut govt by at least 70% (which would
>> balance the budget)
>
> How would cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs and slashing procurement
> boost GDP?
It would halt the bleeding.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Republican, Suffering Builds Character
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
> In misc.survivalism phil scott <ph...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
>> a crucial difference between then and now Ted, is that cash was backed
>> by gold and silver then...
>> today the cash is pure hot air, backed by zip...and 8 trillion more of
>> it issued in the last month.
>
> So how will cuting federal spending boost GDP?
Straw man argument. Where do you see his claim that cutting federal
spending would boost GDP?
Clam Bake
<jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>Dave wrote:
>> <EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:gh6rg6$oqh$3...@reader1.panix.com...
>>> In misc.survivalism phil scott <ph...@philscott.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> a crucial difference between then and now Ted, is that cash was backed
>>>> by gold and silver then...
>>>> today the cash is pure hot air, backed by zip...and 8 trillion more of
>>>> it issued in the last month.
>>> So how will cuting federal spending boost GDP?
>>
>> It won't, unless there is corresponding tax cuts. -Dave
>
>Keep repeating your mantra. It won't make what you're saying any less
>of a religious faith. You won't find any examples in reality, though.
>
>--Jeff
So what's your solution? Raise taxes? On who and how much? Since
you like "reality" so much, give us some examples of where raising
taxes and feeding the government beast is better for the economy than
providing tax incentives for private companies to create jobs.
You leftists are all the same one trick pony. Your only solution to
anything is to raise taxes(on other people than yourselves of
course!). I guess you think government is a better steward of our
money than we are. Your slavish devotion to government bureaucracy
and its vast legions of incompetent backoffice paper pushers is just
plain bizarre.
clams_casino
>
>
>Really? Ok, Obama's plan boils down to, raise taxes and use those taxes to
>employ people building roads and bridges, etc. It's a pyramid scheme
>though.
>
Hmm - Clinton raised taxes and the economy soared.
GW cut taxes through borrowed money and the economy tanked.
clams_casino
>
>
>Holy SHIT! You want the 3 or 4 remaining employers in the U.S. to be more
>efficient? How do you figure that is going to help?
>
>
>
Any explanation why Honda, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, Hyundai, Nissan etc
and now Volkswagen built production plants in the US?
clams_casino
>
>I honestly believe we need someone like Sarah Palin, I hope she runs for
>PRESIDENT in 2012.
>
>
>
>
Now I'm really confused. You condemn taxes, yet you support Palin
who's sole means to govern is by taxing oil company profits and
redistributing the bounty as welfare checks to all AK residents.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Ok, that was a sarcastic exaggeration of course. But what you fail to
> consider is, while we are raising taxes to improve infrastructure, we are
> ALSO giving employers strong incentives to CUT production and/or move
> production out of the country.
Not if the infrastructure improvemets are done wisely, so that they are
worth more than what they cost. It's obvious that we shouldn't waste
money where it will do little good. But you seem to think that congested,
unusable highways and inadequete ports are irrelevant to a business's
decision on where to locate.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Considering about half the federal budget goes to the military, do you
> believe the military "produces nothing"?
It depends on how you define nothing. If you think of the military as a
jobs creation program, we'd be just as well off if all those folks spent
their time digging holes and then filling them back in. To take it to a
further extreme, if they bombed American cities, we could employ folks to
rebuild them too.
IOW, the military is a necessary evil. From a purely economic standpoint,
it is pure waste. It produces no economic activity that grows the
economy, because all the production ends up being destroyed in war.
Think of it this way - every time we use a million-dollar "smart bomb", we
could have instead endowed a research position at a university, or built a
school, or immunized kids against disease, or improved our electric grid,
or whatever. We could have spent the money on something that produces
dividends, instead of making a crater.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Or put another way...government, as an employer, is VERY inefficient. The
> same money in non-government business use will create more jobs. -Dave
True, but trivial. There are things that the government is in a unique
position to accomplish. Goernment make-work programs are not a good idea.
Government expenditures to improve business conditions are an investment
we should all be making.
I have in mind:
Pure Reseach
Education
Infrastructure
The Arts
All of these things will make businesses want to locate here. We will
NEVER be the lowest cost place to do business. Not unless we want a huge
army of uemployed folks who will work for less than starving
third-worlders. And most folks think that competing to be the cheapest is
a poor strategy, while competing to be the best is viable.
We need the best educated, most productive workforce if we are to compete
with starving third worlders. We need to to produce the most innovative,
best-made products in the world, and we need to have the ability to export
those products.
And without proper infrastructure, we cannot accomplish that. It dies
little good to have an army of starving workers, for example, if the
products cannot be transported and the electric grid is unreliable and
raw materials and building materials cannot be obtained.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Government (all programs) need to be cut DRAMATICALLY. Taxes (all taxes)
> need to be cut DRAMATICALLY. Failure to do this will keep the country in
> depression, indefinitely.
You ignore the fact that taxes are currently lower than they were during
significant expansions.
> The simplest thing we could do which would go a LONG WAY toward balancing
> the budget is to immediately STOP acting like the world police force. If
> two countries want to destroy each other, LET THEM. Keep our military on
> U.S. soil. Keep them strong, but keep them HOME. Be strong enough that
> nobody even thinks about fucking with us, but we need to keep our troops OUT
> of foreign countries.
We need to defend our customers and to defend our suppliers of raw
materials. You are somewhat correct, but your simplistic back and white
thinking causs you to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
> Just look at the money we've thrown at Iraq. If we'd have minded our own
> business, that money would have paid for the current and PROPOSED "bailout"
> measures, a thousand times over!!!! And still have plenty left over to
> shore up Social Security, STRENGTHEN the military, rebuild all the roads,
> improve public education, etc.
That is but one example. On that one, you are correct.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> The time to have balanced the budget was when times were good.
Bingo. Indeed, we should have been running a surplus when times were
good, or instead, we shuould have been investing in education
and infrastructure. Instead, we bought expensive military equipment which
was then destroyed. We would have accomplished the same thing by building
huge structures and then burning them down.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Dude, you have a two-income family with a balanced family budget. Times are
> good. Now the husband (one of the income earners) gets laid off. Is it now
> less important to balance the budget? HELL NO!!! It is now more important
> than ever to balance the budget. If you keep spending money based on your
> previous income, you are going to dig yourself into a hole so deep that you
> will have trouble getting out of it even if the husband finds gainful
> employment later.
Maybe instead the husband should get a loan and go back to school, or
maybe buy a car so he can go on job interviews, or maybe move to a better
area, or maybe make some other kind of investment in the future.
One size does not fit all. Never did, never will.
> A more important question is, do you think it's a good idea to keep taxes at
> current level or even increase taxes, to drive employers out of the
> ountry? -Dave
During periods of higher business taxation, like the Eisenhower years,
business flourished.
If you only look at taxes, you miss zillions of other factors.
curly'q
> In misc.survivalism Jeff <nos...@nothanks.org> wrote:
>
>> If you want to stimulate the economy quickly through government
>> unemployment benefits.
>
> Interesting ideas.
>
> I'd be inclined to support R&D, along with infrastructure spending to
> get long term benefits. Increase student aid?
>
>
>> Howver, I believe that spending on the crumbling national
>
>
How about constructing an entire, from the ground up, magnificent world
class university campus and support community, worthy of being called
'The University of the United States of America'..... 80K students all
of whom get a free education if qualified by way of competitive exam,
and who continue to be qualified for the entire term of their studies.
You screw up, you're out, period. Follow that by a commitment of 2 years
of public service to get a feel for the real world...and as a little
payback.
That's my kind of socialism. :-)
What would be the ROI on that?
LA
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> So what's your solution? Raise taxes?
That depends on many factors. Most folks think that deficit spending
during recessions and paying down debts during expanisons is a good idea.
But the decisions depend on the current levels of taxation (and a zillion
other factors) both here and in other economies.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:51:18 +0000, EskWIRED wrote:
> > In misc.survivalism phil scott <ph...@philscott.net> wrote:
> >
> >> a crucial difference between then and now Ted, is that cash was backed
> >> by gold and silver then...
> >> today the cash is pure hot air, backed by zip...and 8 trillion more of
> >> it issued in the last month.
> >
> > So how will cuting federal spending boost GDP?
> Straw man argument. Where do you see his claim that cutting federal
> spending would boost GDP?
He said that a balanced budget is the current answer. I was responding to
the implication that cutting taxes and laying off gov't workiers was the
manner in which one could balance the federal budget.
I pointed out that Hoover tried it.
His response was that we were on the gold standard at that time. I asked
how that made a difference.
Try to keep up.
WBY...@ireland.com
>
>"'nam vet." <george...@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
>news:georgewkspam-8D4F...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> In article <ihtcj4tf7d9sttl0f...@4ax.com>,
>> wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > Some advice from someone who lived and profitted during one. Stay in
>> > cash, safe investments. Safe deposit box or treasuries. Safe CD's at a
>> > safe bank. Protect your capital so it doesn't drop in value.
>> > Depressions result in long deflationary period. Just check Japan out,
>> > over decade of declining asset values. Cash was the only thing that
>> > held value and relatively increased compared to real estate, stocks,
>> > bonds, etc.
>> >
>> > During the 1930's, my mother saw the average guy trying to pick
>> > bottoms, in 1930, 1931, 1932 ......1939, all lost. Market didn't show
>> > a gain until 1954. The only people who made out were people in cash.
>> > Real estate, stocks, bonds dropped 90% or more in value. Ten years
>> > from now if you have exactly what you have today, you will be the new
>> > rich. The masses will be penniless, homeless and hungry. It is the
>> > 1930's all over again. Obama will be playing the modern day Herbert
>> > Hoover, raise taxes on the rich and business and socialism.
>> >
>> > ted
>>
>> what would you suggest to Obama?
>> He seems to be open to suggestions. Positive ones.
>> OK?
>> --
>
>I would tell him to balance the budget, no matter what it takes. And to
>decrease taxes by at least 50% per year, over the next few years.
>
>Failure to do those two things will prolong the depression. DOING those two
>things might shorten it. But failing to do those two things will definitely
>prolong the depression.
>
>Oh, and before some idiot screams "but it's only a recession", keep in mind
>that the actual unemployment rate right now is 16-17%, which is one STRONG
>indicator of a depression. So why is the "official" unemployment rate
>around 7%? Because that figure no longer counts discouraged workers...but
>discouraged workers are no less unemployed. In other words, if we were
>measuring unemployment in the 1970s, the figure would be about 17% right
>now. But as the formula has been fudged since then, the official figures
>for unemployment are very misleading. We are in a depression, a bad
>ne. -Dave
Thank you Hoobert Heever. It worked so well the first time. Cut taxes
and balance the budget during a Depression? Would you like to tell us
how that would work? The tax base has gone to hell for the near
future. One other comment - your numbers for the "real" unemployed
might just be on the low side.
WB Yeats
Jeffrey Turner
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:59:35 -0500, Jeffrey Turner
> <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>> Dave wrote:
>>> <EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gh6rg6$oqh$3...@reader1.panix.com...
>>>> In misc.survivalism phil scott <ph...@philscott.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> a crucial difference between then and now Ted, is that cash was backed
>>>>> by gold and silver then...
>>>>> today the cash is pure hot air, backed by zip...and 8 trillion more of
>>>>> it issued in the last month.
>>>> So how will cuting federal spending boost GDP?
>>> It won't, unless there is corresponding tax cuts. -Dave
>> Keep repeating your mantra. It won't make what you're saying any less
>> of a religious faith. You won't find any examples in reality, though.
>
I wouldn't raise taxes right now. We need some deficit spending - on
useful things. Spending drives job creation, not corporate cash on
hand.
Curly Surmudgeon
> In misc.survivalism Curly Surmudgeon <curlysu...@live.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:51:18 +0000, EskWIRED wrote:
>
>> > In misc.survivalism phil scott <ph...@philscott.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> a crucial difference between then and now Ted, is that cash was
>> >> backed by gold and silver then...
>> >> today the cash is pure hot air, backed by zip...and 8 trillion more
>> >> of it issued in the last month.
>> >
>> > So how will cuting federal spending boost GDP?
>
>> Straw man argument. Where do you see his claim that cutting federal
>> spending would boost GDP?
>
> He said that a balanced budget is the current answer. I was responding to
> the implication that cutting taxes and laying off gov't workiers was the
> manner in which one could balance the federal budget.
>
> I pointed out that Hoover tried it.
>
> His response was that we were on the gold standard at that time. I asked
> how that made a difference.
>
> Try to keep up.
Where did he say what you claim? If he did then why did you snip it? The
claimed dialog does not exist in your posting nor is there any such
implication.
Dan
> Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>> So stupid that it cant even manage to work out that it was FDR that did the socialism.
>
>> What industries did FDR nationalize?
>
> Socialism is about a hell of a lot more than JUST nationalizing industrys.
No, it is not.
> Just what do you claim social security is ?
Social security is a social insurance plan, so that the society is not
stuck all on its own either taking care of indigent old people or
burying them in droves. It may be a lot of things, good and/or bad, but
it is NOT Socialism...
Dan
Jeff
> In misc.survivalism Clam Bake <mmm...@spam.org> wrote:
>
>> So what's your solution? Raise taxes?
>
> That depends on many factors. Most folks think that deficit spending
> during recessions and paying down debts during expanisons is a good idea.
Which is why we are so screwed now. During what relatively good times
we had W only thought of driving up debt.
Classically you would lower taxes on the lowest income brackets as
that money is likely to go immediately into the economy. Money to the
rich has little effect and is largely to blame for the current bubbles
as they are the result of the wealthy trying to make even more money
with the cheap or free money they had. Much of the wealthy's money
flowed into those investment banks that have now collapsed and spread so
much sorrow through the rest of the economy.
Obama will do what Clinton did to fix the ills left by Reagan and the
first Bush. He'll spend to fix the problems, in Clinton's case to pay
off the S&L debacle and then he will pay down the debt. You can not do
the reverse. If we didn't have such an ideological moron as president we
wouldn't be in such a big hole. Like all those tax cuts that fueled the
Credit bubble and exploded the deficit. It's not like you couldn't see
this coming, but all W had was wishful thinking. Still does.
Jeff
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> How about constructing an entire, from the ground up, magnificent world
> class university campus and support community, worthy of being called
> 'The University of the United States of America'..... 80K students all
> of whom get a free education if qualified by way of competitive exam,
> and who continue to be qualified for the entire term of their studies.
> You screw up, you're out, period. Follow that by a commitment of 2 years
> of public service to get a feel for the real world...and as a little
> payback.
> That's my kind of socialism. :-)
> What would be the ROI on that?
That's an interestng idea. My guess is that the ROI would be huge.
Has the idea been tried anywhere?
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> > In misc.survivalism Clam Bake <mmm...@spam.org> wrote:
> >
> >> So what's your solution? Raise taxes?
> >
> > That depends on many factors. Most folks think that deficit spending
> > during recessions and paying down debts during expanisons is a good idea.
> Which is why we are so screwed now. During what relatively good times
> we had W only thought of driving up debt.
He took his lessons from Reagan. These neocons who want to expand
government have left us in a huge jam. Reagan ran unprecedented deficits
during an economic expansion, and we still are feelig the effects.
And Bush was just as bad, or worse. We have the biggest, baddest FedGov
we have ever had, and the worst part of it is that they do so little to
help the average person.
> Classically you would lower taxes on the lowest income brackets as
> that money is likely to go immediately into the economy. Money to the
> rich has little effect and is largely to blame for the current bubbles
> as they are the result of the wealthy trying to make even more money
> with the cheap or free money they had. Much of the wealthy's money
> flowed into those investment banks that have now collapsed and spread so
> much sorrow through the rest of the economy.
That is an interesting idea about the relative merits of tax breaks for
different socioeconomic groups. I've not though about that before.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Where did he say what you claim?
Up above. Or maybe it was another poster.
> If he did then why did you snip it?
Nettiquette.
The
> claimed dialog does not exist in your posting nor is there any such
> implication.
OK.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Rod Speed wrote:
> > Socialism is about a hell of a lot more than JUST nationalizing industrys.
> No, it is not.
It depends if you use words to mean what they mean, or if you use them
like NeoCons do.
For example, they claim that advocacy of a progressive income tax is
socialist, making that good ole Republican Rough Rider, Teddy Roosevelt, a
socialist. And they say that the Earned Income Credit is a Socialist
Policy, ignoring that it was signed into law by that Goddamned Pinko
Commie-Lover Ronald Reagan.
High marginal tax rates are practically the trademark of socialism, so
they say, making the era of the 1950's the high water mark of our
complicity with those Evil Marxist Bastards.
Words mean anything that they want them to mean.
Curly Surmudgeon
> In misc.survivalism Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>> EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>> > In misc.survivalism Clam Bake <mmm...@spam.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> So what's your solution? Raise taxes?
>> >
>> > That depends on many factors. Most folks think that deficit spending
>> > during recessions and paying down debts during expanisons is a good
>> > idea.
>
>
>> Which is why we are so screwed now. During what relatively good times
>> we had W only thought of driving up debt.
>
> He took his lessons from Reagan. These neocons who want to expand
> government have left us in a huge jam. Reagan ran unprecedented deficits
> during an economic expansion, and we still are feelig the effects.
>
> And Bush was just as bad, or worse. We have the biggest, baddest FedGov
> we have ever had, and the worst part of it is that they do so little to
> help the average person.
Bush is/was worse by an order of magnitude than Reagan. Under Reagan the
turmoil of ending Vietnam was wrung out of the economy (that Carter
inherited) by rebuilding an offensive force military but Reagan kept the
infrastructure and society functioning. Under Bush all sectors except oil
and the military/industrial complex were ignored.
We are seeing only the tip of the iceberg now, the future is so bleak that
only a massive shift to socialism can halt the decline. I hate these
radical swings from one extreme to the other for it only sets the stage
for the next swing.
>> Classically you would lower taxes on the lowest income brackets as
>> that money is likely to go immediately into the economy. Money to the
>> rich has little effect and is largely to blame for the current bubbles
>> as they are the result of the wealthy trying to make even more money
>> with the cheap or free money they had. Much of the wealthy's money
>> flowed into those investment banks that have now collapsed and spread so
>> much sorrow through the rest of the economy.
>
> That is an interesting idea about the relative merits of tax breaks for
> different socioeconomic groups. I've not though about that before.
There are valid arguments on both sides but the underlying principle is
more federal power in either case. One justifies the other. We are
seeing the evolution of that dichotomy.
Curly Surmudgeon
> In misc.survivalism curly'q <ma...@gug.com> wrote:
>
>> How about constructing an entire, from the ground up, magnificent world
>> class university campus and support community, worthy of being called
>> 'The University of the United States of America'..... 80K students all
>> of whom get a free education if qualified by way of competitive exam,
>> and who continue to be qualified for the entire term of their studies.
>> You screw up, you're out, period. Follow that by a commitment of 2 years
>> of public service to get a feel for the real world...and as a little
>> payback.
>
>> That's my kind of socialism. :-)
>
>> What would be the ROI on that?
>
> That's an interestng idea. My guess is that the ROI would be huge.
>
> Has the idea been tried anywhere?
Yes, in Costa Rica when Oscar Arias abolished the standing army and moved
the money to education however the opposition has CIA funding and is
constantly under fire by the same people pushing Chicago School economics
in the United States.
Read widely and carefully for the same lies, disinformation, and innuendo
are being used as taught by Karl Rove.
Dave
> Republican policies that seem to lead to economic chaos.
>
> Jeff
OMG, you could not possibly be more wrong. You are exactly 180 degrees
removed from reality. Congratulations. I think? -Dave
Dave
jobs
> > by raising taxes and forcing employers out of the country? Do
tell...-Dave
>
> Funny, I never mentioned either of those options. But look at what
> Bush's tax cuts have wrought.
17% unemployment that is miscounted (ahem) as 7%. You can blame that on
Bush in your own fantasy world. But imagine where we would be without the
tax cuts. It may be hard for a liberal to imagine, but things would be even
worse!!!
>
> Now, about that job creation efficiency of the private market... How's
> that one working out?
>
> Dan
Not very good, since the government has been trying to run all the private
companies, and thus running them all into the ground. -Dave
Dave
<EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:gh7cbj$9q3$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism Dave <now...@noway2.not> wrote:
>
bridges,
> > our tax rates are sky-high, and employers (private employers) are
leaving
> > the country in droves.
>
> Nothing need be so black and white.
Well let's hope not. But nobody with a brain imagines that higher taxes and
unskilled workers building roads and bridges is going to increase
non-government employment. -Dave
Dave
"> Dave, do us all a favor and beat the rush to the exits. Send us a post
> card.
>
> Dan
OK, I'll write "how you enjoying your marxist paradise now, morons?"
:) -Dave
Dave
> The federal government isn't your family. Not even close. Your
> simplistic notions don't model macroeconomics. Things get worse instead
> of better if the federal government shuts down spending in a recession.
>
If you think there is a GOOD way out of this mess without raising taxes, I'm
all ears. -Dave
Dave
>
> I wouldn't raise taxes right now. We need some deficit spending - on
> useful things. Spending drives job creation, not corporate cash on
> hand.
>
> --Jeff
>
With a budget imbalance of trillions, how do you propose increasing spending
without increasing taxes? Just print more money?
Sheesh, and people accuse me of being stupid. -Dave
Dave
"clams_casino" <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
news:4WPZk.4616$qp2....@newsfe25.iad...
> Dave wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Holy SHIT! You want the 3 or 4 remaining employers in the U.S. to be
more
> >efficient? How do you figure that is going to help?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Any explanation why Honda, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, Hyundai, Nissan etc
> and now Volkswagen built production plants in the US?
Do you have any idea how much it costs to ship those vehicles in from
thousands of miles away? Building the plants here allowed all those foreign
badges to become even more competitive. NOTE though, before you answer...
the wages paid in those foreign owned U.S. auto plants is about half what
similar workers at GM, Chrysler and Ford earn. If the wages were much
higher, those plants would leave the U.S. again. -Dave
Dave
> >
> Now I'm really confused. You condemn taxes, yet you support Palin
> who's sole means to govern is by taxing oil company profits and
> redistributing the bounty as welfare checks to all AK residents.
>
Yes, you are confused. AK has a unique arrangement with the oil companies.
It started probably before Sarah was even born. But I'd have to
double-check that, to confirm that Sarah wasn't born yet. -Dave
Dave
<EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:gh8me3$t76$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism Dave <now...@noway2.not> wrote:
>
> > consider is, while we are raising taxes to improve infrastructure, we
are
> > ALSO giving employers strong incentives to CUT production and/or move
> > production out of the country.
>
> Not if the infrastructure improvemets are done wisely, so that they are
> worth more than what they cost. It's obvious that we shouldn't waste
> money where it will do little good. But you seem to think that congested,
> unusable highways and inadequete ports are irrelevant to a business's
> decision on where to locate.
And you over-estimate the impact of improving them, as far as employment
goes. -Dave
Dave
> >I would tell him to balance the budget, no matter what it takes. And to
> >decrease taxes by at least 50% per year, over the next few years.
> >
> >Failure to do those two things will prolong the depression. DOING those
two
> >things might shorten it. But failing to do those two things will
definitely
> >prolong the depression.
> >
> >Oh, and before some idiot screams "but it's only a recession", keep in
mind
> >that the actual unemployment rate right now is 16-17%, which is one
STRONG
> >indicator of a depression. So why is the "official" unemployment rate
> >around 7%? Because that figure no longer counts discouraged
workers...but
> >discouraged workers are no less unemployed. In other words, if we were
> >measuring unemployment in the 1970s, the figure would be about 17% right
> >now. But as the formula has been fudged since then, the official figures
> >for unemployment are very misleading. We are in a depression, a bad
> >ne. -Dave
>
> Thank you Hoobert Heever. It worked so well the first time. Cut taxes
> and balance the budget during a Depression? Would you like to tell us
> how that would work?
Well trillions in business bailouts, using money borrowed from China is
definitely a step in the wrong direction.
> The tax base has gone to hell for the near
> future
So let's increase spending and increase taxes. That will be soooooooo
helpful, I'm sure.
> One other comment - your numbers for the "real" unemployed
> might just be on the low side.
>
> WB Yeats%
Ya think? My best guess is close to 25% and rising quickly. But People who
know better than me tag the number at about 17% unemployed in the U.S. right
now. -Dave
Jeff
Stormin Mormon
funds to bail out depositors. And supposing they do try to bail out
depositors. That just takes more of YOUR money by taxes. I don't trust FDIC
any more than I trust the government to have a "surplus".
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6po7miF...@mid.individual.net...
wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Safe CD's at a safe bank.
Doesnt need to be a safe bank anymore with the FDIC guarantee.
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
<EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:gh6rbf$oqh$1...@reader1.panix.com...
In misc.survivalism phil scott <ph...@philscott.net> wrote:
> not a valid comparison.. many things different... totally bogus
> currency now for instance, and vast bloat in
> govt now relative to then.
Given those factors, how will a massive cutback in goverment spending spur
GDP?
Leaf
> In article <ihtcj4tf7d9sttl0f...@4ax.com>,
> wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Some advice from someone who lived and profitted during one. Stay in
>> cash, safe investments. Safe deposit box or treasuries. Safe CD's at a
>> safe bank. Protect your capital so it doesn't drop in value.
>> Depressions result in long deflationary period. Just check Japan out,
>> over decade of declining asset values. Cash was the only thing that
>> held value and relatively increased compared to real estate, stocks,
>> bonds, etc.
>>
>> During the 1930's, my mother saw the average guy trying to pick
>> bottoms, in 1930, 1931, 1932 ......1939, all lost. Market didn't show
>> a gain until 1954. The only people who made out were people in cash.
>> Real estate, stocks, bonds dropped 90% or more in value. Ten years
>> from now if you have exactly what you have today, you will be the new
>> rich. The masses will be penniless, homeless and hungry. It is the
>> 1930's all over again. Obama will be playing the modern day Herbert
>> Hoover, raise taxes on the rich and business and socialism.
>>
>> ted
>
> what would you suggest to Obama?
> He seems to be open to suggestions. Positive ones.
> OK?
Get the Lobbyists and their Employers out of government.
Public financing of political campaigns.
Enforcement of the immigration Reform and control Act of 1986. Jailing
Employers of Illegal Aliens.
Stop all Immigration, at least for the duration of the Recession.
Get rid of the illegal Fed Reserve.
Get the State Department out of the business of representing foreign
interest and the export of America's economy.
Get rid of "Free Trade" treaties. See line one.
Expedite the building of nuclear power plants and solve storage or
elimination of nuclear waste.
Enforce and expand anti Monopoly Laws.
Bring back Glass-Steagall Act. Put Banks back into banking and out of
gambling and manipulation of the economy.
Eliminate the illegal Mandatory Binding Arbitration provisions of contracts
Return equity, in contracts. Eliminate unilateral contracts by Big
Business especially Credit Cards.
Return control, of States rights to govern and protect its
Citizens/Consumers. Get rid of the Department of Education. Let the
States run their own business.
Stop snooping on Americans.
Eliminate the illegal obtaining and storage of Citizens lives by Credit
Bureaus and other Businesses.
Government of the People, by the People, for the People not Corporations
and Wall Street.
Eliminate the "individual" right of a corporation. A Corporation is just
a Company, chartered to be theoretically a person. It is not a person
and we the People never intended the Constitution to be reinterpreted
for such a thing.
Rod Speed
>>> Safe CD's at a safe bank.
>> Doesnt need to be a safe bank anymore with the FDIC guarantee.
> The US Government is solidly in debt.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist fellas ?
> I hope you don't think they have the funds to bail out depositors.
They'll just go into debt more if they need to, just like they have with the bailouts.
> And supposing they do try to bail out depositors.
> That just takes more of YOUR money by taxes.
Irrelevant to whether you need to use a safe bank.
> I don't trust FDIC any more than I trust the government to have a "surplus".
You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
What you might or might not trust in spades.
Jeff
The first bit is self evident among the poorest as they will
generally spend everything they can. I'd never really thought about
until Bill Clinton talked about this after the second round of tax cuts.
His point being that if you want a tax cut to stimulate the economy it
should be one that works to that purpose. He also said that these should
be temporary and you should in effect, put away for a rainy day.
The last bit is directly related to the low cost of money that
leveraged bets on the economy. Money for the rich was cheap with the
FED having driven down the cost. Not much of that money went into
producing anything, instead it went into such things as the Derivatives
Market and credit default swaps. In essence betting with cheaply
borrowed money that something would happen. The derivative market is
supposed to act like insurance on a position but instead it took on a
life of it's own. The estimated size of the Derivatives Market is 10
times the value of the Stock Market. Credit Default Swaps are what took
down AIG.
Now, lets look at the all the extra money that flowed to the wealthy
after W's tax cuts. I'll bet damn little of that went towards anything
concrete, instead it went into bets in Derivatives and Mortgage markets
such as CDOs.
I'm no expert on this, but since so much of this is under cover, and
rich people tend to take as many as possible down with them, look for
another emerging catastrophe.
Jeff
>
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> So stupid that it cant even manage to work out that it was FDR that did the socialism.
>>> What industries did FDR nationalize?
>> Socialism is about a hell of a lot more than JUST nationalizing industrys.
> No, it is not.
Fraid so.
>> Just what do you claim social security is ?
> Social security is a social insurance plan,
No it isnt. And neither is medicare and medicaid either.
> so that the society is not stuck all on its own either taking care of indigent old people or burying them in droves.
Wrong again. Its actually something that most are entitled to if they work long enough.
> It may be a lot of things, good and/or bad, but it is NOT Socialism...
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
And just what do you claim the TVA was anyway ?
strabo
> In misc.survivalism Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>>> Socialism is about a hell of a lot more than JUST nationalizing industrys.
>
>> No, it is not.
>
> It depends if you use words to mean what they mean, or if you use them
> like NeoCons do.
>
> For example, they claim that advocacy of a progressive income tax is
> socialist, making that good ole Republican Rough Rider, Teddy Roosevelt, a
> socialist. And they say that the Earned Income Credit is a Socialist
> Policy, ignoring that it was signed into law by that Goddamned Pinko
> Commie-Lover Ronald Reagan.
>
> High marginal tax rates are practically the trademark of socialism, so
> they say, making the era of the 1950's the high water mark of our
> complicity with those Evil Marxist Bastards.
>
> Words mean anything that they want them to mean.
>
The meanings of some words, like 'liberal' and 'conservative' for
example, are easily changed due to the ambiguous nature of the words.
Others, like 'socialism' and 'fascism', will always retain their
essential elements.
Why is that?
Socialism is a descriptive term as well as an ideological methodology.
The former minimizes distortion of the words meaning.
If an act is socialistic in function, it doesn't matter what political
party is associated with the act. Taxes of any kind are socialistic
because taxes, by design or not, steer or influence the behavior and
attitudes of society. Rather than leaving individuals and their society
free, government dictates such as taxes, directly intervene and
*socialize* or change society. This is a degree of socialism.
After the SCOTUS struck down the income tax in 1895 as unconstitutional,
both parties stayed away from further attempts. Even still, individuals
such as Teddy Roosevelt went against Republican policy and promoted the
idea to Congress. This in part resulted in the income tax amendment of
1913.
The US is a socialistic nation galloping towards the ideology of central
command and control.
Once this optimal level is attained, oppression will rapidly increase
fostering a physical revolution and overthrow of government.
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
clams_casino
Hmm - for start, the stock market has historically resulted in over
twice the returns under Democrat vs. Republican presidents.
Then of course, there's the general economy which has also historically
done much better under Democratic control.
About the only gains under Republican leadership has been excessive debt
/ borrowing.
Dave, you really need to get with it. You are totally out of touch
with reality.
Or are you simply a troll?