Why We Left The Gold Standard
Frank Galikanokus
Going off the gold standard gave the government new tools to steer the economy. If you're
not tied to gold, you can adjust the amount of money in the economy if you need to. You
can adjust interest rates.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/04/27/135604828/why-we-left-the-gold-standard
JAM
Some Guy
"Frank Galikanokus" <FrankGal...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4E2985C4...@nospam.net...
You can leap tall buildings in a single bound, change the course of mighty
rivers, bend steel in your bare hands and totally destroy the economy of the
United States!
Frank Galikanokus
I think this quote from the article makes more sense than you little quip.
"Almost all economists agree, the system we have today is better than the gold standard.
Not perfect, but much better."
What has laid this country low is republican deregulation in 1999 and 2000 and the Bush
tax cuts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm豊each烹liley_Act
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financial-services-act-of-1999.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2009/04/01/read-the-bill-the-commodity-futures-modernization-act/
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cfma.asp
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877331,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/economy/17gramm.html
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/01/28/wendy_gramm/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/09/15/599447/-The-Legacies-of-Phil-and-Wendy-Gramm
http://www.apfn.org/enron/gramm.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_(finance)
Or you could look it up for yourself.
JAM
Mike Benveniste
> Going off the gold standard gave the government new tools to steer the
> economy.
As far as I can tell, at no point in U.S. history did a
person holding a dollar denominated debt against the U.S.
have a legal right to be paid in a fixed amount of gold
per dollar.
So by that definition, the U.S. was never on a gold standard.
--
Mike Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
You don't have to sort of enhance reality. There is nothing
stranger than truth. -- Annie Leibovitz
Some Guy
"Mike Benveniste" <m...@murkyether.com> wrote in message
news:98uatb...@mid.individual.net...
> On 7/22/2011 10:14 AM, Frank Galikanokus wrote:
>
>> Going off the gold standard gave the government new tools to steer the
> > economy.
>
> As far as I can tell, at no point in U.S. history did a
> person holding a dollar denominated debt against the U.S.
> have a legal right to be paid in a fixed amount of gold
> per dollar.
>
> So by that definition, the U.S. was never on a gold standard.
Better recheck your history there, skippy.
Jud
wrote:
>
> What has laid this country low is republican deregulation in 1999 and 2000 and the Bush
> tax cuts.
>
Despite your perpetual liberal slant and Bush-bashing, the real
problem is runaway spending. Republicans and Democrats alike feel that
it's their job to spend our money, especially if it is beneficial to
their constituency, regardless of what it means to the country as a
whole. I would love to hear your take on the Carter administration
economic policies. Can't blame Bush for them! Oh, and can you also let
me know at what point in time the current administration will accept
responsibility for their own unpopular and failed policies?
How's that stimulus package working out for you?
Mike Benveniste
>> So by that definition, the U.S. was never on a gold standard.
> Better recheck your history there, skippy.
Oh, but I have. Name any date, and I'll demonstrate that the U.S.
government could either pay in paper or silver instead.
oly
I'll choose 1893 - please proceed with your demonstration.
oly
Jerry Dennis
As is said on Facebook, "LIKE."
The current Obama administration has also been dubbed "Carter's Second
Term." Now that I've fueled the political fire, I'm going to sit back
and watch the fight.
Jerry
I'm such an a$$hole.
Mike Benveniste
> I'll choose 1893 - please proceed with your demonstration.
Easy enough -- on April 15, 1893, John G. Carlisle recommended
suspension of redemption of notes for gold. The law of 1882 gave him
this power, and the Sherman Act of 1890 allowed redemption in either
gold or silver.
In his message asking for repeal of the 1890 Act, President Cleveland
noted on August 8th, 1893:
Unless Government bonds are to be constantly issued and sold to
replenish our exhausted gold, only to be again exhausted, it is
apparent that the operation of the silver-purchase law now in
force leads in the direction of the entire substitution of silver
for the gold in the Government Treasury, and that this must be
followed by the payment of all Government obligations in
depreciated silver.
So from these events, it's clear that the U.S. government felt it had
the legal right to redeem in silver.
oly
Perhaps the deal was that, de jure, the Treasury had that right,
especially with domestic entities and individuals persenting notes and
other securities; but, de facto, the Treasury had to pay everyone in
gold or lose face in the international markets. And as President
Cleveland noted, a kind of Gresham's Law was experienced, and silver
was the "Old Maid".
Gold was clearly what people wanted in 1893, not silver and not
paper. Maybe the Treasury could have paid out silver instead of gold,
but your quote only states that Treasury was receiving silver via a
silver mining subsidy law, not paying it out.
oly
Mike Benveniste
> Gold was clearly what people wanted in 1893, not silver and not
> paper. Maybe the Treasury could have paid out silver instead of gold,
> but your quote only states that Treasury was receiving silver via a
> silver mining subsidy law, not paying it out.
There's no "maybe" about it -- the _threat_ of the U.S. Government
paying out silver was a good part of what caused the Panic of 1893.
Had J.P. Morgan not lent the U.S. Government $65 million in gold, they
probably would have been forced to.
So we see that in 1893, a U.S. Government creditor could only rely on
faith in the government that they'd get paid in gold. They could not
rely on law. People might have _wanted_ gold, but that's not what
makes a gold standard.
There are two "tricks" to my original claim. One is found in the 1875
Resumption Act, which required redemption of notes "in coin." At the
time of passage that would have meant gold. But then as now,
politicians liked to promise now for later delivery, so the requirement
to redeem didn't take effect until January 1, 1879. However, by then
the Bland–Allison Act had already passed, so silver was once again
lawful coin.
The second is in the 1900 "Gold Standard Act," where the large print
giveth and section 3 taketh away. To quote that section, "That nothing
contained in this Act shall be construed to affect the legal-tender
quality as now provided by law of the silver dollar, or of any other
money coined or issued by the United States."
Some Guy
sophistry in debating what "is" is".
Until FDR's crime spree, the dollar was freely convertible to gold at a set
rate.
oly
Mike has a very technical legalistic point, but I think after 1879 or
so, the Treasury always paid in Gold. To do otherwise would have
impunged the credit of the United States. Mike needs to show us where
the treasury actually paid in silver, and that he cannot do.
De facto, the U.S.A. was on a Gold Standard from 1879 to 1933.
oly
Mike Benveniste
If you can't legally require the government to pay you in gold, it
ain't a gold standard in my book. There's no hair splitting involved;
either one has a legal right or one doesn't. If you're saying a
gold standard relies on the faith of the populace, I think we should
agree to disagree.
I won't disagree your categorization of FDR's actions either, but the
run on U.S. gold was well under way before he took office. Even if
Hoover had been reelected the gold standard could not have survived
intact. It had already fallen in England, and France's intervention
to keep the gold standard until 1936 proved to be a horrible mistake.
Nor is it true that "the dollar" was freely convertible to gold at a
set rate because of the different types of notes in circulation. The
U.S. Government never had an obligation to redeem U.S. Notes, Silver
Certificates, or silver dollars in gold, nor any obligation to redeem
Federal Reserve Notes in specie, nor any obligation to redeem National
Bank Notes at all.
Previously you asked me to recheck my history. If you think the
1873-1933 "gold standard" years were any sort of "golden age" of
fiscal and monetary stability and responsibility, I urge you to do
the same.
Frank Galikanokus
Yano, Carter was unfortunate to be president when the U.S. was making
the transition out of a war time economy and had to work through the
OPEC oil cartel's bumbling first steps.
You remember don't you. The government was subsidizing the development
of alternate energy sources. Wind, solar and renewable energy sources.
At the time the U.S. was the leader in these technologies.
Reagan put an end to all that. He stopped the subsides for alternate
energy, the companies doing the work were bought by investors in other
countries and now they are the leaders. Then Reagan raised taxes 5 times
and used military spending to create the largest deficit in U.S.
history up to that time.
And don't forget that Carter was just what so called conservatives
wanted a nice white southern conservative christian.
JAM
Frank Galikanokus
Actually, all reports have said that the stimulus helped, but not enough.
JAM
Bremick
Those hundreds of billions helped who and what?
Gary
>
> Those hundreds of billions helped who and what?-
The facts are clear, the stimulus has had a positive impact on our
economy. However, Obama's opposition through the drumbeat of Fox News
and hate-talk radio has put out enough lies and misinformation,
distrust and cynicism that the truth is completely distorted. Which is
why the numbers prove the stimulus worked but when you ask people if
it worked they BELIEVE that it did not.
Bremick
"Gary" <garydor...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:cca6b0f1-922c-4292...@o4g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
________________
I guess I believe we can't really know what would have happened to the
economy if it had been left to itself. Certainly we're not much better off
two years later. I saw some of the things the stimulus money reportedly
was being used for and I don't believe it helped me or anyone I happen to
know. And I didn't even watch FOX News.
Frank Galikanokus
Look around. In the cities and small towns I frequent streets and highways are being
repaired. New sewer and water systems are being installed. Stimulus money was partially
responsible for improvements where I work.
I'm sure I'm not the only one that has noticed this.
At least the money wasn't spent on killing tens of thousands of innocent people.
Democrats and republicans will spend all our money and then some. The difference is that
democrats spend the money on people, the republicans spend the money on killing people.
JAM
Rav
Agreed. Here in the Maryland city where I live, a major East-West Road
which was in terrible shape was repaired and repaved in the last two
years specifically with stimulus money, as evidenced by the "ARRA" signs
describing the work that were posted on the side of the road during that
time.
Bremick
Streets and highways had always been repaired along with other
infrastructure long before the stimulus arrived. How many out of work folks
are qualified to repair roads and sewers?
>
> I'm sure I'm not the only one that has noticed this.
>
> At least the money wasn't spent on killing tens of thousands of innocent
> people.
Care to document where stimulus money was used this way?
>
> Democrats and republicans will spend all our money and then some. The
> difference is that
> democrats spend the money on people, the republicans spend the money on
> killing people.
Have you ever seen war where people aren't killed? Ideally, all those
killed would be ememy combatants. I haven't seen stimulus money earmarked
for killing people (your agenda is showing), and "killing people" has
occurred during both Dem and Rep administrations. Both sides do keep
spending more and more money on "people bailouts" to the point where many
people become comfortable with it as an entitlement and become indignant
when govt realizes it may no longer be able to continue the freebies. What
ever happened to families providing support for each other? Out of work for
up to two years and still getting paid by the govt? Maybe time to relearn
a skill that someone needs.
Frank Galikanokus
I never said that stimulus money was used to kill people.
Social Security hasn't cost us a dime. Medicare is not the cause of our finical crisis.
Unemployment Insurance did not cause this crisis.
Twelve years of republican leadership is responsible for laying this country low.
This is the legislation that created to big to fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm�Leach�Bliley_Act
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financial-services-act-of-1999.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
The is the legislation that made credit default swaps legal and derivatives unregulated.
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2009/04/01/read-the-bill-the-commodity-futures-modernization-act/
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cfma.asp
Here is where the responsibility lies.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877331,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/economy/17gramm.html
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/01/28/wendy_gramm/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/09/15/599447/-The-Legacies-of-Phil-and-Wendy-Gramm
http://www.apfn.org/enron/gramm.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_(finance)
And, Bill Clinton signed this legislation into law.
We haven't yet discussed the effects of two ruinous wars, the Bush tax cuts and their
contribution to this mess.
More of the same is not the answer.
JAM
Some Guy
> Twelve years of republican leadership is responsible for laying this country
> low.
> JAM
Dubya was only POTUS for 8 years.
As I like to recall, he was left a budget surplus by the Clinton administration,
which he blew on 2 pointless wars and tax breaks for the ultra-rich.
Bremick
Considering your tone, I read your comment to suggest that at least
Democrats didn't use stimulus money to kill people, as if Republicans did.
Sorry if I read you wrong. One of the downsides of this type of
communication.
>
> Social Security hasn't cost us a dime. Medicare is not the cause of our
> finical crisis.
> Unemployment Insurance did not cause this crisis.
>
I agree with the first two, and that no one type of handout caused the
crisis by itself. One could simply say that Congress has caused it.
Frank Galikanokus
Yes, and the republicans controlled congress for four years prior the Bush's questionable
election.
JAM
Paul Ciszek
In article <j0sfs7$vue$1...@dont-email.me>, Bremick <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>when govt realizes it may no longer be able to continue the freebies. What
>ever happened to families providing support for each other? Out of work for
Kind of hard when the family members you might turn to for support are
out of work too.
>up to two years and still getting paid by the govt? Maybe time to relearn
>a skill that someone needs.
Are there skills that someone needs? Seriously, I think the problem is
that US businesses don't need American workers, only American consumers.
They want to have the latter without the former, but it doesn't work that
way. And the few places that are hiring only want to hire people who are
already employed, which does not reduce unemployment one iota.
--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."
Bremick
"Paul Ciszek" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:j0uffe$2s3$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> In article <j0sfs7$vue$1...@dont-email.me>, Bremick <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>when govt realizes it may no longer be able to continue the freebies.
>>What
>>ever happened to families providing support for each other? Out of work
>>for
>
> Kind of hard when the family members you might turn to for support are
> out of work too.
It was like that before Social Security and people learned to survive.
>
>>up to two years and still getting paid by the govt? Maybe time to
>>relearn
>>a skill that someone needs.
>
> Are there skills that someone needs? Seriously, I think the problem is
> that US businesses don't need American workers, only American consumers.
> They want to have the latter without the former, but it doesn't work that
> way. And the few places that are hiring only want to hire people who are
> already employed, which does not reduce unemployment one iota.
Good points. Also, many laid off or fired employees are too reluctant to
relocate or to learn new skills. Or to accept a lower paying job. Why
bother when they can make more money for the next two years on the dole?
All the while using the same infrastructure and services the rest of us are
paying taxes for to keep going.
Frank Galikanokus
>
> "Paul Ciszek" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:j0uffe$2s3$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> >
> > In article <j0sfs7$vue$1...@dont-email.me>, Bremick <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>when govt realizes it may no longer be able to continue the freebies.
> >>What
> >>ever happened to families providing support for each other? Out of work
> >>for
> >
> > Kind of hard when the family members you might turn to for support are
> > out of work too.
>
> It was like that before Social Security and people learned to survive.
And what was average life expectancy before Social Security?
>
> >
> >>up to two years and still getting paid by the govt? Maybe time to
> >>relearn
> >>a skill that someone needs.
> >
> > Are there skills that someone needs? Seriously, I think the problem is
> > that US businesses don't need American workers, only American consumers.
> > They want to have the latter without the former, but it doesn't work that
> > way. And the few places that are hiring only want to hire people who are
> > already employed, which does not reduce unemployment one iota.
>
> Good points. Also, many laid off or fired employees are too reluctant to
> relocate or to learn new skills. Or to accept a lower paying job. Why
> bother when they can make more money for the next two years on the dole?
Really? People are living well on Unemployment Insurance? Unemployment Insurance is
something that people pay into, it's not the dole.
> All the while using the same infrastructure and services the rest of us are
> paying taxes for to keep going.
It's called a free society where people come together for the common good.
Bremick
I never said people were "living well", although many are receiving over
$500 a week. That's $26,000 a year. I sure could manage to live on that,
considering the alternatives. People don't pay into it. It comes from
taxing employers, but guess who ends up funding the cost in the long run.
Once that 99 weeks runs out people then can qualify for other types of
federal assistance. It never ends.
>
>> All the while using the same infrastructure and services the rest of us
>> are
>> paying taxes for to keep going.
>
> It's called a free society where people come together for the common good.
You sound like someone from the flower child generation.
Some Guy
I don't know how things work by you but by me, Unemployment Insurance is a
standard paycheck deduction, so people do indeed "pay into" it (as do
employers).
To suggest that we stop Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other assistance
to the poor, disabled and elderly is the typical Tea Party social Darwinism
baloney.
STop giving tax breaks to billionaires, multinational corporations and end two
war, the budget will be just fine.
Let's stop being policeman of the world at the cost of trillions annually. The
Chinese are overtaking us because, for one thing, they aren't induclging in
military adventurism outside there immediate sphere of influence. You don't see
China sending troops to every banana republic or tribal war. You don't see China
sending trillions in aid to corrupt dictators. Wise up America, charity begins
at home!
Bremick
"Some Guy" <so...@guy.xxx> wrote in message
news:j0veb6$eti$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Never suggested that at all. Social Security requirements can be tweaked
easily to allow basic benefits to continue for many decades. Medicare and
Medicaid waste and fraud gets talked about but never attacked. I was forced
to enter Medicare when I turned 65, even though I still had my regular
health insurance which already covered most of my medical needs. I could
have easily forgone Medicare and saved the govt money, but I had no choice.
> STop giving tax breaks to billionaires, multinational corporations and end
> two war, the budget will be just fine.
Don't forget foreign aid, nuclear weapons, and earmarks.
> Let's stop being policeman of the world at the cost of trillions annually.
> The Chinese are overtaking us because, for one thing, they aren't
> induclging in military adventurism outside there immediate sphere of
> influence. You don't see China sending troops to every banana republic or
> tribal war. You don't see China sending trillions in aid to corrupt
> dictators. Wise up America, charity begins at home!
You may not SEE them sending aid, but don't believe they aren't. Hello N.
Korea, Burma, Venezuela. You DO see China quietly sending corporate types
to every second and third world country that has resources to tap and
developing relationships that will one day dwarf those of the US.
Some Guy
>
> You may not SEE them sending aid, but don't believe they aren't. Hello N.
> Korea, Burma, Venezuela. You DO see China quietly sending corporate types
The Chinese are sending business envoys which eventually net them trillions and
not sending invading troops which costs us at least a trillion dollars a year.
Every other country in the world plays the USA for a sucker and now our chickens
have come home to roost.
Bremick
"Some Guy" <so...@guy.xxx> wrote in message
China never sends invading troops. They aren't configured to do that like we
are. And why should they? They have no wide alliances. They can sit back
and watch. About like we will have to do eventually. I have no real
disagreement with what you're saying.
Jerry Dennis
> "Gary" <garydorman8...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Well, I, too, saw some things that the stimulus money was used for.
At $100,000 a pop, I don't know how I could have managed NOT knowing
that the road projects in my area were being paid for by my tax
dollars via the stimulus plan.
As a summary, I once heard... To foul things up takes a committee. To
really screw things up, get the Federal government involved.
Jerry
Frank Galikanokus
It's call your total compensation when you are employed. Look it up.
> Once that 99 weeks runs out people then can qualify for other types of
> federal assistance. It never ends.
Thank goodness for that! The alternative is people living, starving and
dying in the streets. Ya, lets take America back, back to the 18th
century!
>
> >
> >> All the while using the same infrastructure and services the rest of us
> >> are
> >> paying taxes for to keep going.
> >
> > It's called a free society where people come together for the common good.
>
> You sound like someone from the flower child generation.
What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RVDQgVxprE
JAM
Frank Galikanokus
The last number I read said that the U.S. spends almost six times what
China spends on their military and almost as much as the rest of the
world combined.
JAM
Frank Galikanokus
Um, I do believe that Healthcare reform was going to address this
problem, until it was gutted by the for profit insurance lobby.
Bremick
The one thing that it didn't address was how to control rising health care
costs-- the root cause of the issue. Than goodness for those insurance
companies. Are you against for-profit insurance companies? Companies that
might actually speak out against policies that would affect their bottom
line? At least THEY have some clout.
Bremick
Probably because China keeps 99% of its military within its borders, often
in order to keep its own people in line. Some say we should do the same,
without the latter.
Bremick
Don't have to go back more than a couple generations, when most extended
families took care of each other in hard times. Nobody died in the streets.
Nobody starved.
Lifestyle expectations weren't as high as they are today. Sacrifice was
expected. You want cradle to grave handholding? Move to a socialist
country like one of the ones protesting in Europe.
>> >> All the while using the same infrastructure and services the rest of
>> >> us
>> >> are
>> >> paying taxes for to keep going.
>> >
>> > It's called a free society where people come together for the common
>> > good.
>>
>> You sound like someone from the flower child generation.
>
> What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?
I never thought flower children were funny.
Jim
wrote:
>
> I think this quote from the article makes more sense than you little quip.
>
> "Almost all economists agree, the system we have today is better than the gold standard.
> Not perfect, but much better."
Which poll asked 'almost all economists' this question about the gold
standard? Which economists were polled and what was the selection
criteria?
Here's an example where President 0bama claimed that 'all economists
agree', and about 200 wrote him back and told him they didn't agree:
http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/alternate_version.html
> What has laid this country low is republican deregulation in 1999 and 2000 and the Bush
> tax cuts.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act
Gramm-Leach-Bliley was signed by Bill Clinton. It is clear that the
repeal of Glass-Steagall was not at fault for the economic meltdown of
2008-2009. The tactic of packaging mortgages into securities was
invented by GNMA (Government National Mortgage Association) in the
1970s.
And furthermore, it can easily be seen that allowing financial firms
to do both commercial and investment banking had nothing to do with
the problems. The securities firms that got into the most trouble
(Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch) had little or no
involvement in commercial banking. And the savings & loan/mortgage
companies that got into the most trouble (Washington Mutual,
Countrywide) had little or no involvement in investment banking.
Frank Galikanokus
Yes, for-profit insurance companies are at the root of the problem.
JAM
Frank Galikanokus
Ya, lets go back a couple of generations. Back to 1980 when Reagan and
the republicans began to dismantle the American dream for all but the
most fortunate of our citiaens.
Frank Galikanokus
This can only be seen with both of you eyes covered and your head in a
place where the sun don't shine.
JAM
Bremick
They're not the ones who cause doctor and hospital costs to keep rising, but
they do have to keep pace with their premiums. Or I suppose you feel they
should just keep premiums fixed.
Bremick
You know that's not what I was referring to, but sure get your political dig
in anyway. BTW, I did just fine under Reagan, as did most of the people I
know and worked with. The ones who waited for Reagan to provide an
"American Dream" for them might not feel the same.
Frank Galikanokus
No, they should be made obsolete.
JAM
"Roßert G. Schaffrath"
> I don't know how things work by you but by me, Unemployment Insurance is a
> standard paycheck deduction, so people do indeed "pay into" it (as do
> employers).
Same here in NY. I have a line item on my paycheck for unemployment
insurance and it is reported on my W-2 at the end of the year. Not all
states work that way. NY, NJ and PA off the top of my head have the
employee deduction. Of course that insurance is for the first six months.
Frank Galikanokus
Nothing was said about Reagan providing anything.
JAM
Bremick
Insurance companies? premiums? doctors? Apparently you have enough in
your mattress to cover any hospital stays.
Bremick
You brought him up and accused him of ruining the "Dream" for most citizens.
Some Guy
"Bremick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message news:j11pr9$p1n$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> You know that's not what I was referring to, but sure get your political dig
>>> in anyway. BTW, I did just fine under Reagan, as did most of the people I
>>> know and worked with. The ones who waited for Reagan to provide an
>>> "American Dream" for them might not feel the same.
>>
>> Nothing was said about Reagan providing anything.
>>
>> JAM
>
> You brought him up and accused him of ruining the "Dream" for most citizens.
I did fine during his administration too.
Nevertheless, in retrospect Reagan's policies really were "voodoo economics" and
ultimately bad for the US of A.
I didn't care for Clinton but one must admit that the economy was fine under his
administration and we had a budget surplus (which Dubya pissed away, giving it
all to his billionaire cronies).
Bremick
"Some Guy" <so...@guy.xxx> wrote in message
I've done okay under all of them. A little due to luck, a little by being
flexible and adapting. I expect some others may have done lousy under each
one.
Frank Galikanokus
Let me clear this up for you.
For profit healthcare insurance is disgraceful. I think that it is
immoral. Making a profit on another persons illness is not a good thing.
In the rest of the industrialized world, where we must compete for jobs,
they have already accepted that a healthy work force is necessary. Our
competitors have in place universal healthcare for their citizens. Their
employers are not saddled with the need to provide healthcare coverage
from a patchwork of insurance providers and coverage levels. Their
workers can easily move to new employment without the worry of loosing
coverage for themselves and their families. People do not have to
continue working past retirement age to provide coverage for a sick or
disabled spouse or child. You can retire early to care for and aging
parent without loosing your own coverage.
We have the most expensive healthcare system in the world but not the
best. Our competitors have improved the health of their citizens while
reducing cost.
http://mphdegree.org/2010/25-best-global-healthcare-rankings/
It's not un-American to take a good idea and use it to our advantage.
But don't worry, the upper crust like you and me, will always be able to
buy Cadillac healthcare insurance, or pay in cash, and use private
doctors and hospitals.
JAM
Frank Galikanokus
Making it unattainable is what I was getting at.
JAM
Frank Galikanokus
That's where a difference of opinion comes form.
I was laid off from a good job and had to start over again during the
Reagan recession. Another Reagan legacy - that's when the IRS started
taxing unemployment insurance payments.
It took me years to regain what I had lost in pay an savings.
JAM
Bremick
Sorta like farmers and grocers making a profit on another's hunger?
>
> In the rest of the industrialized world, where we must compete for jobs,
> they have already accepted that a healthy work force is necessary. Our
> competitors have in place universal healthcare for their citizens. Their
> employers are not saddled with the need to provide healthcare coverage
> from a patchwork of insurance providers and coverage levels. Their
> workers can easily move to new employment without the worry of loosing
> coverage for themselves and their families. People do not have to
> continue working past retirement age to provide coverage for a sick or
> disabled spouse or child. You can retire early to care for and aging
> parent without loosing your own coverage.
The rest of the socialized countries would surely welcome you. Along with
your tax payments. You've got a pet agenda that may be difficult to
overcome here.
>
> We have the most expensive healthcare system in the world but not the
> best. Our competitors have improved the health of their citizens while
> reducing cost.
>
> http://mphdegree.org/2010/25-best-global-healthcare-rankings/
>
> It's not un-American to take a good idea and use it to our advantage.
>
> But don't worry, the upper crust like you and me, will always be able to
> buy Cadillac healthcare insurance, or pay in cash, and use private
> doctors and hospitals.
Thank goodness for that option. Your use of the tired buzz-term "Cadillac
healthcare insurance" suggests too much TV watching. I presume you consider
all private health insurance plans to fall in that category. Hope you fare
well with cheap homeopathic care and paying out of pocket. I have
experienced socialized medicine in several other countries where, BTW, the
"upper crust" also has the option to use private doctors and hospitals. I
prefer our "backwards" option.
Bremick
Ahah! So that's the basis for your discontent. A personal setback that you
expand to generalize about what's wrong with this country. What if you had
been laid off during the Carter or Clinton administration?
Bremick
You're generalizing again, perhaps because it was difficult for you
personally. My observations have been different.
Some Guy
"Bremick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message news:j13lil$fo2$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Making it unattainable is what I was getting at.
>>
>> JAM
>
> You're generalizing again, perhaps because it was difficult for you
economy.
Sure, Reagan was doing it with smoke and mirrors and the bill finally came due
after he was out of office but it was a good ride while it lasted!
Bremick
"Some Guy" <so...@guy.xxx> wrote in message
That's one of the keys-- take advantage of the good times to put things away
for the bad.
Richard L. Hall
>
> "Frank Galikanokus" <FrankGal...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:4E331C37...@nospam.net...
>> Bremick wrote:
>>>
>>> "Paul Ciszek" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:j0uffe$2s3$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>>> to
>>> relocate or to learn new skills. Or to accept a lower paying job. Why
>>> bother when they can make more money for the next two years on the dole?
>>
>> Really? People are living well on Unemployment Insurance? Unemployment
>> Insurance is
>> something that people pay into, it's not the dole.
>
> I never said people were "living well", although many are receiving over
> $500 a week. That's $26,000 a year.
And who are they? The average unemployment payment in the country is about
$330/week. In Virginia, the MAXIMUM is about $355 or about $18500/year. So
if you were a worker in Virginia, making the average salary of $45000 or
about $865/week, you could expect to get $355 per week if you were laid
off. Most of the younger people I know with families, mortgages, and the
like, live paycheck to paycheck and a drop of $500 in their weekly income
would have a dramatic effect
> I sure could manage to live on that, considering the alternatives.
I could probably live on it too if I were a retired government worker with a
big pension and health insurance paid mostly by the government and no
mortgage, or wife and kids to support. But thats not the typical worker in
the United States.
> People don't pay into it. It comes from taxing employers,
Hey! you got something right!
>but guess who ends up funding the cost in the long run. Once that 99 weeks
>runs out people then can qualify for other types of federal assistance. It
>never ends.
>
>>
>>> All the while using the same infrastructure and services the rest of us
>>> are
>>> paying taxes for to keep going.
>>
>> It's called a free society where people come together for the common
>> good.
>
> You sound like someone from the flower child generation.
>
Or someone who read the U. S. Constitution. You know, like the Preamble
(caps are mine for emphasis) that goes
"WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, IN ORDER TO form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America."
Or Article I Section 8 that starts.
"Section. 8.
THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES, DUTIES, IMPOSTS AND
EXCISES, TO pay the Debts and PROVIDE FOR the common Defense and GENERAL
WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;"
Personally, I think these passages should be required reading along with the
rest of the document.
--
Richard
http://www.richlh.com
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is
no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
- John Kenneth Galbraith -
Frank Galikanokus
Wait, wait, did I hear one of yinz guys say you did well when taxes were
being raised and Reagan spent us into the largest deficit up until that
time?
JAM
Richard L. Hall
"Frank Galikanokus" <FrankGal...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4E331C37...@nospam.net...
> Bremick wrote:
>>
>> "Paul Ciszek" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:j0uffe$2s3$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>when govt realizes it may no longer be able to continue the freebies.
>> >>What
>> >>ever happened to families providing support for each other? Out of
>> >>work
>> >>for
>> >
>> > Kind of hard when the family members you might turn to for support are
>> > out of work too.
>>
>> It was like that before Social Security and people learned to survive.
>
> And what was average life expectancy before Social Security?
>
>>
>> >
>> >>up to two years and still getting paid by the govt? Maybe time to
>> >>relearn
>> >>a skill that someone needs.
>> >
>> > Are there skills that someone needs? Seriously, I think the problem is
>> > that US businesses don't need American workers, only American
>> > consumers.
>> > They want to have the latter without the former, but it doesn't work
>> > that
>> > way. And the few places that are hiring only want to hire people who
>> > are
>> > already employed, which does not reduce unemployment one iota.
>>
>> relocate or to learn new skills. Or to accept a lower paying job. Why
>> bother when they can make more money for the next two years on the dole?
>
> Really? People are living well on Unemployment Insurance?
About the only people who might live well on unemployment benefits are
single kids living with their parents who worked for a year or so at an
employer before getting laid off. Most states require that you worked for 4
of the previous 5 quarters before you are eligible for unemployment
benefits. Even then you'd get only half of what you made before as a
benefit. And you are required to be actively seeking a job. I can't
imagine a younger person with a family living high off the hog from it.
I've known many people who lost just about everything they had including
their houses and spent their pensions and savings because of prolonged
unemployment.
>Unemployment Insurance is
> something that people pay into, it's not the dole.
People don't pay for it, it is part of the "employment tax (about 11-12% of
wages)" that employers pay to the federal government. But, of course, that
eventually gets passed on to consumers.
>
>> All the while using the same infrastructure and services the rest of us
>> are
>> paying taxes for to keep going.
>
> It's called a free society where people come together for the common good.
And it is in the Constitution.
--
Richard
The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of
thinking we were at when we created them. (Albert Einstein)
Some Guy
news:j16nm2$qqu$1...@dont-email.me...
>>Unemployment Insurance is
>> something that people pay into, it's not the dole.
>
> People don't pay for it, it is part of the "employment tax (about 11-12% of
> wages)" that employers pay to the federal government. But, of course, that
> eventually gets passed on to consumers.
In NJ and NY (and many other states) workers pay into the unemployment insurance
fund and their payments are matched by their empolyer.
This is a state level tax, not Federal as you claim.
You really should be more circumspect in trumpeting your ignorance.
Richard L. Hall
"Some Guy" <so...@guy.xxx> wrote in message
to the employer paid federal tax. But I don't know of any state that is
exempt from the federal requirements.
From http://www.alllaw.com/articles/tax/article5.asp
"Payroll taxes are the state and federal taxes that you, as an employer, are
required to withhold and/or to pay on behalf of your employees. You are
required to withhold state and federal income taxes as well as social
security and Medicare taxes from your employees' wages. You are also
required to pay a matching amount of social security and Medicare taxes for
your employees and to pay State and Federal unemployment tax. ...
The employer also must pay State and Federal Unemployment Taxes (SUTA and
FUTA). The FUTA rate is 6.2 %, but you can take a credit of up to 5.4% for
SUTA taxes that you pay. If you are eligible for the maximum credit your
FUTA rate will be 0.8%. The wage base for FUTA is $7,000. You will stop
paying FUTA for each employee once his or her wages exceed $7,000 for the
year. You will need to check with your state about SUTA tax rates and the
wage base. Generally, your SUTA tax rate is based on the amount of
unemployment claims that are filed by employees that you have terminated.
When your business is new, your SUTA tax rate starts at the maximum and
declines if you build a history of few claims."
Some Guy
Your reply is a verbose non sequitur, designed not to illuminate but to
obfuscate.
You claimed employees do not pay for their unemployement benefits when they, in
fact, do.
Peter
Actually, the idea of creating securities out of debt was known in the
1920s and contributed to the crash of 1929. It was a relatively small
factor then, but was improved to better aid our susequent disaster in
2007.
Peter
...
> China never sends invading troops. They aren't configured to do that like we
> are. And why should they? They have no wide alliances. They can sit back
> and watch. About like we will have to do eventually. I have no real
> disagreement with what you're saying.
Actually, China used to be (and still is) an important competitor for
the US. Lately, they are facing competition from countries that work
even cheaper. They have indeed sent troops to guard colonies they
have set up. In some places in Africa, they have tried to force
locals to work under such severe conditions, that the local people
refused to work. The Chinese solved the problem by bringing in their
own citizens (slaves?).
The Chinese government doesn't bother about healthcare, unemployment
insurance or pensions.
Bremick
>
> "Bremick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:j0vaa8$82g$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "Frank Galikanokus" <FrankGal...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:4E331C37...@nospam.net...
>>> Bremick wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Paul Ciszek" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:j0uffe$2s3$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>>>> Good points. Also, many laid off or fired employees are too reluctant
>>>> to
>>>> relocate or to learn new skills. Or to accept a lower paying job. Why
>>>> bother when they can make more money for the next two years on the
>>>> dole?
>>>
>>> Really? People are living well on Unemployment Insurance? Unemployment
>>> Insurance is
>>> something that people pay into, it's not the dole.
>>
>> I never said people were "living well", although many are receiving over
>> $500 a week. That's $26,000 a year.
>
> And who are they? The average unemployment payment in the country is about
> $330/week. In Virginia, the MAXIMUM is about $355 or about $18500/year.
> So if you were a worker in Virginia, making the average salary of $45000
> or about $865/week, you could expect to get $355 per week if you were
> laid off. Most of the younger people I know with families, mortgages, and
> the like, live paycheck to paycheck and a drop of $500 in their weekly
> income would have a dramatic effect
According to this website, the majority of states provide average benefits
of $300-$500 dollars.
http://fileunemployment.org/unemployment-benefits-comparison-by-state
What's your cite? I live in VA and have no idea what our average is. In
contrast, most of the young families I know do NOT live paycheck to
paycheck. So we apparently are at a standoff.
>
>> I sure could manage to live on that, considering the alternatives.
>
> I could probably live on it too if I were a retired government worker with
> a big pension and health insurance paid mostly by the government and no
> mortgage, or wife and kids to support. But thats not the typical worker
> in the United States.
I'm talking about someone unemployed-- not a retired govt worker with a
pension. Is your bias showing? An unemployed person and family would HAVE
to live on $300-500 plus food stamps, etc. They would make do, as I said,
considering the alternatives, often up to 99 weeks.
>
>> People don't pay into it. It comes from taxing employers,
>
> Hey! you got something right!
Since it seems important to you, it looks to me like I may have trumped YOU.
>
>>but guess who ends up funding the cost in the long run. Once that 99 weeks
>>runs out people then can qualify for other types of federal assistance.
>>It never ends.
>>
>>>
>>>> All the while using the same infrastructure and services the rest of us
>>>> are
>>>> paying taxes for to keep going.
>>>
>>> It's called a free society where people come together for the common
>>> good.
>>
>> You sound like someone from the flower child generation.
>>
> Or someone who read the U. S. Constitution. You know, like the Preamble
> (caps are mine for emphasis) that goes
>
> "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, IN ORDER TO form a more perfect
> Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
> common defence, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the Blessings of
> Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
> Constitution for the United States of America."
>
> Or Article I Section 8 that starts.
>
> "Section. 8.
>
> THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES, DUTIES, IMPOSTS
> AND EXCISES, TO pay the Debts and PROVIDE FOR the common Defense and
> GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises
> shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
>
>
>
> Personally, I think these passages should be required reading along with
> the rest of the document.
My opinion still stands. Get off your pompous soapbox.