"Application is simple. If the total return from a fixed portfolio of financial asset classes outperforms the rate of wage/salary growth after 2000, as it did for the 20 years before 2000, then the conservative era will be continuing on after 2000 and my prediction was wrong."

How sure are you that you have the right means by which to accurately measure this asset/wage comparison performance?

As an aside, does the current GM strike over healthcare costs add into your wage computations? Is this strike a real 4T event?

"Application is simple. If the total return from a fixed portfolio of financial asset classes outperforms the rate of wage/salary growth after 2000, as it did for the 20 years before 2000, then the conservative era will be continuing on after 2000 and my prediction was wrong."

How sure are you that you have the right means by which to accurately measure this asset/wage comparison performance?

As an aside, does the current GM strike over healthcare costs add into your wage computations? Is this strike a real 4T event?

Stonewall wrote:

"Might we see a Democrat in 2004 run on balancing the budget so grossly exploded by the current Republican administration? If so, history will be repeating very neatly."

http://deanforamerica.com/


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...litics_dean_dc

Stonewall wrote:

"Might we see a Democrat in 2004 run on balancing the budget so grossly exploded by the current Republican administration? If so, history will be repeating very neatly."

http://deanforamerica.com/


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...litics_dean_dc

Wisconsin governor Jim Doyle has a radical idea: cut state spending by $2 billion. Let's see if the Republican-led Legislature will go along.

Wisconsin governor Jim Doyle has a radical idea: cut state spending by $2 billion. Let's see if the Republican-led Legislature will go along.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Keep in mind, there is a reason why Reagan admirers like Patton and Saari despise conservatives, today.

Hate the sin, love the sinner as I was taught in ages gone by...even dining with CP hacks when that group was still thought of as most Utopian and most Progressive in some circles.

As to the love of the "new" by todays CINO's in the matter and manner of the "arts"...it is a tale of the very un-Conservative dislike of tradition; a very PC (progressive-conservative) stance. I think it a Zone thing rather than a generational one...the folks at the Weekly Standard still want to be well thought of at Mr. Walter Duranty's publication. HTH

So I'm a commie, now! :wink:



Wasn't Reagan, like the folks at the Weekly Standard, a former liberal New Dealer, too?

I forget, Mr. Lamb, when was it that we last broke bread at table; I don't seem to recall when last we dined.

Was Mr. Reagan a son of, or a former Communist of the Trotskyite persuasion? I seem to have forgotten that as well.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Keep in mind, there is a reason why Reagan admirers like Patton and Saari despise conservatives, today.

Hate the sin, love the sinner as I was taught in ages gone by...even dining with CP hacks when that group was still thought of as most Utopian and most Progressive in some circles.

As to the love of the "new" by todays CINO's in the matter and manner of the "arts"...it is a tale of the very un-Conservative dislike of tradition; a very PC (progressive-conservative) stance. I think it a Zone thing rather than a generational one...the folks at the Weekly Standard still want to be well thought of at Mr. Walter Duranty's publication. HTH

So I'm a commie, now! :wink:



Wasn't Reagan, like the folks at the Weekly Standard, a former liberal New Dealer, too?

I forget, Mr. Lamb, when was it that we last broke bread at table; I don't seem to recall when last we dined.

Was Mr. Reagan a son of, or a former Communist of the Trotskyite persuasion? I seem to have forgotten that as well.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Mr. Lamb I do not despise conservatives (they are so rare) today;

Where is Meece?! Why aren't conservatives on the Endangered Species List? If a suckerfish can be on that thing, so can a conservative.

No, I don't think so. There needs to at least a LITTLE redeeming social value.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Mr. Lamb I do not despise conservatives (they are so rare) today;

Where is Meece?! Why aren't conservatives on the Endangered Species List? If a suckerfish can be on that thing, so can a conservative.

No, I don't think so. There needs to at least a LITTLE redeeming social value.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

So I'm a commie, now! :wink: Wasn't Reagan, like the folks at the Weekly Standard, a former liberal New Dealer, too?

I forget, Mr. Lamb, when was it that we last broke bread at table; I don't seem to recall when last we dined.
Was Mr. Reagan a son of, or a former Communist of the Trotskyite persuasion? I seem to have forgotten that as well.

As to the former, huh? As to the latter, Reagan was the son of a drunk, of whom little Dutch would routinely peel off the lawn in early morning hours. Is there much of a difference between Reagan Sr., and a Communist of the Trotskyite persuasion, former or otherwise? Pehaps Brian Rush can answer that. :wink:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

So I'm a commie, now! :wink: Wasn't Reagan, like the folks at the Weekly Standard, a former liberal New Dealer, too?

I forget, Mr. Lamb, when was it that we last broke bread at table; I don't seem to recall when last we dined.
Was Mr. Reagan a son of, or a former Communist of the Trotskyite persuasion? I seem to have forgotten that as well.

As to the former, huh? As to the latter, Reagan was the son of a drunk, of whom little Dutch would routinely peel off the lawn in early morning hours. Is there much of a difference between Reagan Sr., and a Communist of the Trotskyite persuasion, former or otherwise? Pehaps Brian Rush can answer that. :wink:

Why is Shrub so hot to attack Iraq? Follow the money. Ever since World War II the United States has increasingly fulfilled the role abandoned by the British as the World's Policeman (Policeman might be too strong a word, more like the World's Security Cop). Of course Security Cops have to be paid somehow. The World repays us by holding our paper. We print up fabulous amounts of absolutely worthless dollars, bonds and stock certificates and the world buys them up allowing us to maintain our livestyle. When Osama bin Hid'n walloped the Twin Towers that threw our competence as Security Cop in to question. So Bush2 has to do something to restore world confidence in our abilities and keep the dollar pumped up. Saddam has to go! (All that Iraqi oil is just a little bonus.)

Why is Shrub so hot to attack Iraq? Follow the money. Ever since World War II the United States has increasingly fulfilled the role abandoned by the British as the World's Policeman (Policeman might be too strong a word, more like the World's Security Cop). Of course Security Cops have to be paid somehow. The World repays us by holding our paper. We print up fabulous amounts of absolutely worthless dollars, bonds and stock certificates and the world buys them up allowing us to maintain our livestyle. When Osama bin Hid'n walloped the Twin Towers that threw our competence as Security Cop in to question. So Bush2 has to do something to restore world confidence in our abilities and keep the dollar pumped up. Saddam has to go! (All that Iraqi oil is just a little bonus.)

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

"Application is simple. If the total return from a fixed portfolio of financial asset classes outperforms the rate of wage/salary growth after 2000, as it did for the 20 years before 2000, then the conservative era will be continuing on after 2000 and my prediction was wrong."

How sure are you that you have the right means by which to accurately measure this asset/wage comparison performance?

As an aside, does the current GM strike over healthcare costs add into your wage computations? Is this strike a real 4T event?

I doubt the strike would have any discernable impact on nationwide wage growth. Besides, the thing that really varies (and which largely defines the cycle) are the financial returns.

I am not sure what you mean by "right means". The cycle is defined in terms of the calculations I do. I'll simply continue the same sort of caluclations in the future that I used to find the cycle in the first place and see what comes up. This way I'll be applying the same definition.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

"Application is simple. If the total return from a fixed portfolio of financial asset classes outperforms the rate of wage/salary growth after 2000, as it did for the 20 years before 2000, then the conservative era will be continuing on after 2000 and my prediction was wrong."

How sure are you that you have the right means by which to accurately measure this asset/wage comparison performance?

As an aside, does the current GM strike over healthcare costs add into your wage computations? Is this strike a real 4T event?

I doubt the strike would have any discernable impact on nationwide wage growth. Besides, the thing that really varies (and which largely defines the cycle) are the financial returns.

I am not sure what you mean by "right means". The cycle is defined in terms of the calculations I do. I'll simply continue the same sort of caluclations in the future that I used to find the cycle in the first place and see what comes up. This way I'll be applying the same definition.

This was definitely forseeable, although still newsworthy (the other shoe dropping is the story waiting to happen). I had a similar reaction last summer. As I was waiting in line at the US-Canada border to return home, I saw a trailer containing a CART racecar. On the back was an MCI/WorldCom logo. I thought "that sponsorship isn't going to last long!" I later ran into someone from that racing team at a local restaurant (I live less than 5 miles away from Michigan International Speedway, which hosts 5 NASCAR and 1 CART races a summer, so I see lots of race crowds and racing teams in the area). I saw the Worldcom sponsorship patch on his team jacket, laughed, repeated the observation I made above. He responded in good humor and said "hey, we've got the sponsorship for the rest of the season. We're not worried." He went on to say that Worldcom was big enough to survive and that they'd be sponsoring racing teams as soon as they could.

Standard Fair Use disclaimers apply.

WorldCom Cancels Aid Contracts to Groups


JACKSON, Miss. (AP) -- Bankrupt telecommunications giant WorldCom has canceled contracts that provide revenue to 100 charitable and trade groups, court records show.

The arrangements are called endorsement contracts. The Jackson-based company negotiated a discounted phone service rate with the groups and then marketed that rate to the groups' members. Every time a customer signed up for the discounted service, the group received a commission.

Worldcom announced its intention to cancel the contracts in a filing earlier this month with U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York.

"These were marketing arrangements, and as times change, so must these kinds of agreements," said WorldCom spokeswoman Julie Moore.

Worldcom will maintain the discounted rates but cancel the commissions, said Julie McNeese, vice president of subsidiary diversified services for the Mississippi Hospital Association.

McNeese and Buddy Edens, president of Mississippi Associated Builders and Contractors, both said the contracts don't generate much income for their groups.

This was definitely forseeable, although still newsworthy (the other shoe dropping is the story waiting to happen). I had a similar reaction last summer. As I was waiting in line at the US-Canada border to return home, I saw a trailer containing a CART racecar. On the back was an MCI/WorldCom logo. I thought "that sponsorship isn't going to last long!" I later ran into someone from that racing team at a local restaurant (I live less than 5 miles away from Michigan International Speedway, which hosts 5 NASCAR and 1 CART races a summer, so I see lots of race crowds and racing teams in the area). I saw the Worldcom sponsorship patch on his team jacket, laughed, repeated the observation I made above. He responded in good humor and said "hey, we've got the sponsorship for the rest of the season. We're not worried." He went on to say that Worldcom was big enough to survive and that they'd be sponsoring racing teams as soon as they could.

Standard Fair Use disclaimers apply.

WorldCom Cancels Aid Contracts to Groups


JACKSON, Miss. (AP) -- Bankrupt telecommunications giant WorldCom has canceled contracts that provide revenue to 100 charitable and trade groups, court records show.

The arrangements are called endorsement contracts. The Jackson-based company negotiated a discounted phone service rate with the groups and then marketed that rate to the groups' members. Every time a customer signed up for the discounted service, the group received a commission.

Worldcom announced its intention to cancel the contracts in a filing earlier this month with U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York.

"These were marketing arrangements, and as times change, so must these kinds of agreements," said WorldCom spokeswoman Julie Moore.

Worldcom will maintain the discounted rates but cancel the commissions, said Julie McNeese, vice president of subsidiary diversified services for the Mississippi Hospital Association.

McNeese and Buddy Edens, president of Mississippi Associated Builders and Contractors, both said the contracts don't generate much income for their groups.

Digging Deeper Into Debt



By Rabbi David Eidensohn



The United States government is in serious financial trouble, according to Treasury statistics reported by the Associated Press on May 20, 2002. What is amazing is that the news has just floated away, and is not being trumpeted by the media. This itself is highly suspicious, but we will get to that. Meanwhile, the facts, dug up from the Treasury report and the Associated Press recording of that report, are:

Comparing the first seven months of this year, 2002, with last year, 2001, we see an enormous change. Government spending has risen by 8.7 percent, while total revenues are down by 10.9 percent.

What does this mean? If government spending is up by 8.7 percent while earnings are down by 10.9 percent, this means that we have a total decline from last year of 19.6 percent. In other words, the government is going backwards financially by about one fifth in only one year. If you or I would have a decline of one fifth in one year in our business or income, we would panic. The government simply states the facts, and prints more money.

If you or I had such a problem, we would balance our loss of income by cutting expenditures. Do you think the Federal government will do this? Ho, ho.

Therefore, the process that cut government's financial base by one fifth in one year is likely to continue. Nobody will call "halt."

Another fact released by the Treasury reported by the Associated Press is that the annual deficit for government spending this year is expected to be $100,000,000,000. That's right; one hundred billion dollars will be missing. Where will we get it? We will borrow. Consider what would happen if we pay on one hundred billion dollars only one percent interest. How much will that be? One percent of a hundred is one; so one percent of a hundred billion is one billion. This means, that we must pay, for one percent interest, one billion dollars, just for the new deficit! However, who will lend us a hundred billion dollars at a mere one percent interest? Surely, a higher interest rate is called for. This, again, is not for the Federal deficit, which is about six trillion dollars, only for the new annual deficit, of a "mere" hundred billion dollars.

Another statistic is that tax revenues from individuals and corporations were down about one fifth. We are obviously earning much less money, a fifth less. How then can we spend 8.7 percent more?

The biggest spending category was Social Security, which cannot be changed without violating government promises when it received Social Security monies from contributors. Therefore, 280.4 billion dollars cannot be touched. Health and Human Services Department Programs cost $266.3 billion. Already, states have rebelled at the cuts the Federal Government is making in Medicare and Medicaid, and in many states, old people are just hanging without help. There is nothing to cut there. Things are so bad with the poor and the elderly that a Federal court has just allowed the indigent to sue the states for Medicare and Medicaid. The states are staggering under their own burdens, and cannot help the elderly and the poor.

That leaves the military, with expenditures of $187.2 billion dollars. Shall we cut out the Navy or the Air Force? Or shall we surrender to terrorists? The final category is paying the interest on the public debt, which is a whopping $181.2 billion, only six billion dollars less than the entire military budget! Very soon, the debt payments will overcome the military budget. In other words, we could have a free military if we had no national debt. Paying interest on the national debt is the major problem, because the debt just grows by leaps and bounds. It is now about six trillion dollars (recently increased by 750 billion because the government was broke.) SIX TRILLION DOLLARS---It looks like this: $6,000,000,000,000!

Gone are the days when we could just scrape off some fat and maintain ourselves. Now, we are scraping off old people who have nobody to help them and who need very expensive medications. Some new medicines cost hundreds of dollars per week.

Speaking of old people, Alan Greenspan, on April 27, 2001, said that (we will soon translate it), "Were we fully accruing the benefit liabilities inferable from existing law, these retirement programs would currently be in deficit, and contingent liabilities amounting to about $10 trillion for social security alone would have been added to the current debt to the public. When the baby boom generation retires, and as the population subsequently ages further, these contingent liabilities will come due (our emphasis)..."

Translated, this means that America has about six trillion dollars in actual debt. It has potential debt of ten trillion dollars, to retirees. These old people are going to retire, meaning that our deficit will be about sixteen trillion dollars on a good day. When we realize that our deficits are exploding even without retirees, and the debt limit was very recently raised by 750 billion dollars, we realize that our debt may be incredible. What does it mean to owe six trillion plus ten trillion dollars? It means we must pay interest on sixteen trillion dollars, and every penny paid on interest in down the tube, lost, wasted.

Again, to sharpen Mr. Greenspan's warning about the incoming ten trillion dollar debt for retirees, recent statistics have shown that each year weakens the working base and expands the taking base for Social Security largesse. Americans are so harried with working and so worried about divorce, so afraid to have children or disinterested in them, that they cannot have large families, and therefore, the coming generations will be a small amount of people supporting a huge among of retirees. This is economically impossible. We are just sitting here waiting for the End, and nobody is really doing anything about it.

Our country now lives by borrowing money it has no way to repay. The national debt is not only increasing but ballooning, and with social security, stands to explode by ten trillion dollars as Mr. Greenspan avers. Let's be masochists and look at some more figures about our national economy.

The government tells us (www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm) that Interest expense for Fiscal year 2001 was $359 with nine zeros, which means, 369 billion dollars. The money paid was for interest on a debt of about six trillion dollars. If the debt increases with social security and the present rate of debt increases for general upkeep of the government, it is entirely likely that the national debt will be not six but eighteen trillion dollars in the near future. The debt will triple, and so will the interest, making the figure for annual interest not 359 billion dollars but over a trillion dollars. This, again, is just for the interest! If something is not done, these gloomy figures will be realized, and they are the trend.

Indeed, from 1988 to 1998, the annual cost of paying for the interest on the Federal Debt constantly rose to an incredible seventy percent, from 214 billion dollars in 1988 to 363 billion dollars in 1998. Then, for four years, when the economy was awash in money, an attempt was made to pay down the debt. For four years the debt dropped, so that it went from 363 billion dollars in 1998 to 359 billion dollars in 2001. This is a drop of only about four billion dollars out of over three hundred billion. That is all that was done at the best of times. This is not paying down the debt; it is a joke. Why are people not foaming at the mouth about this instead of all of the stupidities we read about every day?

The liberals are not talking about it because they realize it means the end of government programs and the entitlements they espouse. The rich Republicans are not talking about it because they are the ones destroying the economy by leaving America and making blood money off of the slaves in China and elsewhere. The family lobby is not talking about it because they don't like the word money, it doesn't rhyme with family. They don't know that money is what makes families run. I have been involved in family and divorce for several decades, and I know.

We need a "buy America" campaign, to revive the industries on our shores so badly undercut by the slaves in China, supported by global capitalism. If our economy is hemorrhaging, our strength is reduced. If we owe six trillion plus dollars and pay interest, those who lend us and own our bonds control our destiny. Anytime they call in their debts our country can stagger and even collapse, or declare bankruptcy. We will be slaves to global economics, just like the banana republics.

We cannot and will not cut that much, although, there is always some waste, like what they spend on the Gay Lobby to fight AIDS, which the Gay Lobby uses to spread AIDS. Our only hope is to reach deep into our inner and eternal strength, American manufacture and industry. I don't mean the virtual kinds that have no assets. I mean companies that manufacture lamps, so that I don't have to use one made in China because Viking doesn't sell any other kind. We have got to make it very expensive and even intolerable for an American company to leave our shores and to hire slaves and those who get paid with slave wages.

A company that goes global should only deal in our country by paying heavy taxes. We must "pierce the veil" and make sure that no funny fronts are evading our inspections. We must now, return to asset-based manufacturing, support American industry and workers, and stop pouring our money into a global system that will turn on us at the first opportunity and destroy us.

We must improve our school system, even if it means breaking the back of the teacher's lobby in order to bring the power of the Internet into modern schooling. If we don't, home schoolers will win all of the prizes. We must utilize the Internet and make other improvements to the health industry, so that doctors don't spend all of our money buying insurance for a ridiculous system that destroys them if they make some kind of a mistake. If a doctor suggests surgery, a panel of experts, perhaps on the Internet, should review the decision because we can send x-rays and all records over the web. When the panel agrees to the surgery, any suing will be very limited. By allowing International experts on the Internet to monitor what doctors do, the doctors won't be living in terror, and people will afford health insurance.

We have got to get away from dependence on oil, and to take energy free from nature, using wind, heat and the flow of water. We should develop our deserts to provide normal spaces for people to grow, instead of pouring buildings on top of other buildings where people live like rats. There is a lot we can do, but only when we know we have very little time to do it.

We have to stop the Gay Lobby, and stop AIDS and HIV. We must utterly eliminate all HIV Confidentialty Laws, because they are spreading HIV and AIDS at a time when each person getting sick will require a fortune for medical help.

If the liberals won't talk about our impending financial doom, and the rich Republicans won't, the family activists must rise up and demand that we preserve the future with prudent financial planning and innovations by technology. Break the back of the China, teachers and gay lobbies, and you are going to save our budget, our children, and everything else.

HOME





copyright ? by Rabbi David Eidensohn 1/4/02

Digging Deeper Into Debt



By Rabbi David Eidensohn



The United States government is in serious financial trouble, according to Treasury statistics reported by the Associated Press on May 20, 2002. What is amazing is that the news has just floated away, and is not being trumpeted by the media. This itself is highly suspicious, but we will get to that. Meanwhile, the facts, dug up from the Treasury report and the Associated Press recording of that report, are:

Comparing the first seven months of this year, 2002, with last year, 2001, we see an enormous change. Government spending has risen by 8.7 percent, while total revenues are down by 10.9 percent.

What does this mean? If government spending is up by 8.7 percent while earnings are down by 10.9 percent, this means that we have a total decline from last year of 19.6 percent. In other words, the government is going backwards financially by about one fifth in only one year. If you or I would have a decline of one fifth in one year in our business or income, we would panic. The government simply states the facts, and prints more money.

If you or I had such a problem, we would balance our loss of income by cutting expenditures. Do you think the Federal government will do this? Ho, ho.

Therefore, the process that cut government's financial base by one fifth in one year is likely to continue. Nobody will call "halt."

Another fact released by the Treasury reported by the Associated Press is that the annual deficit for government spending this year is expected to be $100,000,000,000. That's right; one hundred billion dollars will be missing. Where will we get it? We will borrow. Consider what would happen if we pay on one hundred billion dollars only one percent interest. How much will that be? One percent of a hundred is one; so one percent of a hundred billion is one billion. This means, that we must pay, for one percent interest, one billion dollars, just for the new deficit! However, who will lend us a hundred billion dollars at a mere one percent interest? Surely, a higher interest rate is called for. This, again, is not for the Federal deficit, which is about six trillion dollars, only for the new annual deficit, of a "mere" hundred billion dollars.

Another statistic is that tax revenues from individuals and corporations were down about one fifth. We are obviously earning much less money, a fifth less. How then can we spend 8.7 percent more?

The biggest spending category was Social Security, which cannot be changed without violating government promises when it received Social Security monies from contributors. Therefore, 280.4 billion dollars cannot be touched. Health and Human Services Department Programs cost $266.3 billion. Already, states have rebelled at the cuts the Federal Government is making in Medicare and Medicaid, and in many states, old people are just hanging without help. There is nothing to cut there. Things are so bad with the poor and the elderly that a Federal court has just allowed the indigent to sue the states for Medicare and Medicaid. The states are staggering under their own burdens, and cannot help the elderly and the poor.

That leaves the military, with expenditures of $187.2 billion dollars. Shall we cut out the Navy or the Air Force? Or shall we surrender to terrorists? The final category is paying the interest on the public debt, which is a whopping $181.2 billion, only six billion dollars less than the entire military budget! Very soon, the debt payments will overcome the military budget. In other words, we could have a free military if we had no national debt. Paying interest on the national debt is the major problem, because the debt just grows by leaps and bounds. It is now about six trillion dollars (recently increased by 750 billion because the government was broke.) SIX TRILLION DOLLARS---It looks like this: $6,000,000,000,000!

Gone are the days when we could just scrape off some fat and maintain ourselves. Now, we are scraping off old people who have nobody to help them and who need very expensive medications. Some new medicines cost hundreds of dollars per week.

Speaking of old people, Alan Greenspan, on April 27, 2001, said that (we will soon translate it), "Were we fully accruing the benefit liabilities inferable from existing law, these retirement programs would currently be in deficit, and contingent liabilities amounting to about $10 trillion for social security alone would have been added to the current debt to the public. When the baby boom generation retires, and as the population subsequently ages further, these contingent liabilities will come due (our emphasis)..."

Translated, this means that America has about six trillion dollars in actual debt. It has potential debt of ten trillion dollars, to retirees. These old people are going to retire, meaning that our deficit will be about sixteen trillion dollars on a good day. When we realize that our deficits are exploding even without retirees, and the debt limit was very recently raised by 750 billion dollars, we realize that our debt may be incredible. What does it mean to owe six trillion plus ten trillion dollars? It means we must pay interest on sixteen trillion dollars, and every penny paid on interest in down the tube, lost, wasted.

Again, to sharpen Mr. Greenspan's warning about the incoming ten trillion dollar debt for retirees, recent statistics have shown that each year weakens the working base and expands the taking base for Social Security largesse. Americans are so harried with working and so worried about divorce, so afraid to have children or disinterested in them, that they cannot have large families, and therefore, the coming generations will be a small amount of people supporting a huge among of retirees. This is economically impossible. We are just sitting here waiting for the End, and nobody is really doing anything about it.

Our country now lives by borrowing money it has no way to repay. The national debt is not only increasing but ballooning, and with social security, stands to explode by ten trillion dollars as Mr. Greenspan avers. Let's be masochists and look at some more figures about our national economy.

The government tells us (www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm) that Interest expense for Fiscal year 2001 was $359 with nine zeros, which means, 369 billion dollars. The money paid was for interest on a debt of about six trillion dollars. If the debt increases with social security and the present rate of debt increases for general upkeep of the government, it is entirely likely that the national debt will be not six but eighteen trillion dollars in the near future. The debt will triple, and so will the interest, making the figure for annual interest not 359 billion dollars but over a trillion dollars. This, again, is just for the interest! If something is not done, these gloomy figures will be realized, and they are the trend.

Indeed, from 1988 to 1998, the annual cost of paying for the interest on the Federal Debt constantly rose to an incredible seventy percent, from 214 billion dollars in 1988 to 363 billion dollars in 1998. Then, for four years, when the economy was awash in money, an attempt was made to pay down the debt. For four years the debt dropped, so that it went from 363 billion dollars in 1998 to 359 billion dollars in 2001. This is a drop of only about four billion dollars out of over three hundred billion. That is all that was done at the best of times. This is not paying down the debt; it is a joke. Why are people not foaming at the mouth about this instead of all of the stupidities we read about every day?

The liberals are not talking about it because they realize it means the end of government programs and the entitlements they espouse. The rich Republicans are not talking about it because they are the ones destroying the economy by leaving America and making blood money off of the slaves in China and elsewhere. The family lobby is not talking about it because they don't like the word money, it doesn't rhyme with family. They don't know that money is what makes families run. I have been involved in family and divorce for several decades, and I know.

We need a "buy America" campaign, to revive the industries on our shores so badly undercut by the slaves in China, supported by global capitalism. If our economy is hemorrhaging, our strength is reduced. If we owe six trillion plus dollars and pay interest, those who lend us and own our bonds control our destiny. Anytime they call in their debts our country can stagger and even collapse, or declare bankruptcy. We will be slaves to global economics, just like the banana republics.

We cannot and will not cut that much, although, there is always some waste, like what they spend on the Gay Lobby to fight AIDS, which the Gay Lobby uses to spread AIDS. Our only hope is to reach deep into our inner and eternal strength, American manufacture and industry. I don't mean the virtual kinds that have no assets. I mean companies that manufacture lamps, so that I don't have to use one made in China because Viking doesn't sell any other kind. We have got to make it very expensive and even intolerable for an American company to leave our shores and to hire slaves and those who get paid with slave wages.

A company that goes global should only deal in our country by paying heavy taxes. We must "pierce the veil" and make sure that no funny fronts are evading our inspections. We must now, return to asset-based manufacturing, support American industry and workers, and stop pouring our money into a global system that will turn on us at the first opportunity and destroy us.

We must improve our school system, even if it means breaking the back of the teacher's lobby in order to bring the power of the Internet into modern schooling. If we don't, home schoolers will win all of the prizes. We must utilize the Internet and make other improvements to the health industry, so that doctors don't spend all of our money buying insurance for a ridiculous system that destroys them if they make some kind of a mistake. If a doctor suggests surgery, a panel of experts, perhaps on the Internet, should review the decision because we can send x-rays and all records over the web. When the panel agrees to the surgery, any suing will be very limited. By allowing International experts on the Internet to monitor what doctors do, the doctors won't be living in terror, and people will afford health insurance.

We have got to get away from dependence on oil, and to take energy free from nature, using wind, heat and the flow of water. We should develop our deserts to provide normal spaces for people to grow, instead of pouring buildings on top of other buildings where people live like rats. There is a lot we can do, but only when we know we have very little time to do it.

We have to stop the Gay Lobby, and stop AIDS and HIV. We must utterly eliminate all HIV Confidentialty Laws, because they are spreading HIV and AIDS at a time when each person getting sick will require a fortune for medical help.

If the liberals won't talk about our impending financial doom, and the rich Republicans won't, the family activists must rise up and demand that we preserve the future with prudent financial planning and innovations by technology. Break the back of the China, teachers and gay lobbies, and you are going to save our budget, our children, and everything else.

HOME





copyright ? by Rabbi David Eidensohn 1/4/02

Standard Fair Use disclaimers apply.

Thursday, January 23, 2003

Number of stock-holding Americans reaches record high

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- Slightly more than half of U.S. households owned stock in 2001, compared with about a third only a decade earlier as the Wall Street boom of the 1990s pushed stock ownership to record levels.

The big rise in stock prices plus the longest economic expansion in history helped to boost family balance sheets, the Federal Reserve reported yesterday in the government's most extensive look at wealth in the country.

The typical family's net worth -- the difference between household assets and liabilities -- rose to $86,100 in 2001, a gain of 10.3 percent from 1998 after removing the effects of inflation.

Family incomes were up as well in 2001, with the median family, the midpoint for all families, earning $39,900, a gain of 9.6 percent from 1998.

In both the case of net worth and incomes, the richer did far better than those at the bottom of the income scale, a trend that has been under way for some time.

"We are richer than we used to be, but the gap between the rich and the poor appears to be growing," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York.

By net worth, the typical family in the bottom 20 percent of income distribution saw its worth rise by 25.4 percent to $7,900.

By contrast, the typical family in the highest 10 percent of income levels saw its net worth increase by 69.3 percent to $833,600.

The gains in household wealth and incomes were attributed to a variety of factors including the Wall Street boom of the 1990s.

Stock prices peaked in the spring of 2000 and since then investors have suffered three straight losing years on Wall Street, something that last happened at the end of the Great Depression in the 1930s.

The Fed survey was taken from May through December 2001, so it does not capture the high point for stock portfolios.

It would reflect fatter balance sheets for many investors than they now have.

The survey showed that the percentage of U.S. families with stock holdings hit 51.9 percent in 2001, the first time that more than half of households owned stocks, either directly or indirectly through their pension funds.

The percent of stock ownership was 48.9 percent of families during the last Fed survey in 1998 and 36.7 percent in 1992.

While the 1920s had a soaring market that crashed in 1929, economic historians have said that the number of families owning stock never topped 10 percent during that boom period.

Stock ownership is at a record level, but most people still participate indirectly through their 401(k) retirement accounts or other mutual funds.

The percent of families holding stock directly is 21.3 percent, and 52.2 percent of all families hold retirement accounts.

Between a rock and a hard place

01/27/03

David Crary
Associated Press


Cutting services and raising taxes. Firing civil servants, freeing inmates early, squeezing health care for poor families.

In almost every state, the options facing governors and lawmakers these days are grim.


From Our Advertiser





State governments that went on a spree of tax cuts and higher spending in the flush 1990s now find the bills are due. And with less money to spend, politicians must make difficult choices with implications far beyond the statehouse.

The pain will spread in the coming year, but hardship is already evident - for state workers laid off in Connecticut, for Medicaid patients deprived of services in Missouri and Oklahoma, for homeless families turned away from overflowing shelters in Massachusetts.

The decisions that legislators make in the weeks and months ahead will affect millions of Americans beyond state employees or poor people who depend on government for medical care.


Most will probably feel the impact: drivers forced to stand in longer lines to renew licenses, parents saddled with higher college tuition bills, smokers and drinkers paying more and more, museum-goers who find doors closing early - or permanently.

Already, some states have been forced to make one of the most painful cuts of all: to education.


Options are limited

As 24 new governors take office, their budget options are further limited because many states' cash reserves have been exhausted, and there are no more quick-fix financial gimmicks. Lawmakers must choose between tax increases or spending cuts - or both.

Even a quick turnaround in the economy would be too late to prevent the kind of budget-slashing states are considering.

The unique role of state governments leaves them caught in an economic vise. They provide a vast array of services, from roads, law enforcement and education to recreation, regulation and social services. Legions of state employees keep the machine working.

But government runs on money that comes from a healthy economy - taxes from workers' incomes, retail sales and business profits. The weak economy has left most states with a shortfall, lacking enough revenue to pay for salaries and programs.

According to the National Governors Association, states are short a total of $50 billion this fiscal year (ending June 30 in most states) and up to $70 billion next year - the worst financial crisis for the states at least since World War II. And every state except Vermont is required to balance its budget.

Ohio had to balance its budget twice last year after billion-dollar deficits opened up, and the state is now facing a third deficit, totaling $720 million, for the budget that ends this summer. Gov. Bob Taft and state leaders expect the next two-year budget to be tight as well, with some estimates of the deficit at $4 billion. Last week, Taft, who delivered a somber State of the State address, proposed new spending cuts, as well as taxes on cigarettes, alcohol and gasoline.

A handful of states are avoiding major difficulties. Wyoming and New Mexico are flush because of a natural-gas boom, while Vermont averted a shortfall by spending late-1990s surpluses on one-time projects rather than recurring programs.

Among the hard-hit states, California leads the pack, with a projected shortfall of $34.8 billion for an 18-month span of 2003-04.

To pay the bills, Gov. Gray Davis presented what he calls "one of the toughest budget plans ever" - proposing $8.3 billion in tax increases and $20.7 billion in budget cuts. School spending alone would be slashed more than $5 billion. Reasons for the crises vary from state to state - a drop in tourism hurt Florida and Hawaii; in New York, the Sept. 11 attacks caused widespread job losses.

Yet some pivotal factors apply almost everywhere. Lawmakers and governors eagerly - some critics would say recklessly - spent the surging state revenues of the late 1990s. Though some put money aside for the long-expected downturn at the boom's end, they were unprepared for the length and breadth of the financial beating.

Even as recession set in, the cost of Medicaid and other health programs continued to rise. Caught in a spiral of lower revenues and higher bills, more than 40 states are grappling with budget shortfalls.

If states were hoping for swift help from the federal government, President Bush's new tax-cutting plan was a disappointment. It offered no significant direct help to states.


Seeking money anywhere

So where do states go from here?

Long-term solutions may require changes to Medicaid, the taxpayer-financed health care system for low-income Americans, as well as steps to help states cope with tax revenues that boom and then bust. Already, virtually every state is cutting back Medicaid coverage.

Among other responses:

Many states have raised cigarette and alcohol taxes.

Some have sought early access to money they were awarded under the multiyear settlement with the tobacco industry.

Maryland's new governor, Robert Ehrlich, wants to bring slot machines into his state.

Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack hopes to start collecting sales taxes on Internet transactions.

In Oregon, voters are being asked to make a tough choice on their own: They will decide in a special election tomorrow whether to raise their state income taxes by 5 percent for three years.

If voters reject the increase, lawmakers could be forced to slice more than $300 million from state programs.

The tough times have politicians nationwide venturing off traditional partisan paths. Other Democratic governors besides Davis are contemplating deep cuts to social programs; two Republican governors, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho, jolted lawmakers of their own party by proposing sales tax increases.

Some governors have adamantly ruled out tax increases as a remedy; others see no way to avoid them. Huckabee, for example, said his proposed sales tax increase of five-eighths of a cent is necessary to pay for court-ordered changes in Arkansas' school financing formula.

Arizona lawmakers have attacked their budget crisis the other way - by cutting. They voted to eliminate more than 1,500 state jobs, while Nebraska has eliminated 300 state-funded jobs. The nation's only state anti-pornography czar lost her job because of budget-cutting in Utah.

Like California, other states are reluctantly looking at the millions they spend on schools.

Illinois lawmakers broke a string of financing increases for K-12 schools last year, while tuition is expected to rise at least 10 percent at Michigan's state colleges this fall. Alabama's education budget was cut two years ago and may suffer again because of declining tax revenues.


The neediest lose out

Teri Gisi, a sixth-grade teacher at Delraida Elementary School in Montgomery, Ala., worries that further cuts will worsen classroom crowding and weaken teacher training. "Already almost all of the teachers have to go into their own pockets to make up the loss for the supplies they need," she said.

Another unhappy option for lawmakers: reducing payments that help cover medical costs for the neediest.

With New York staring at a $12 billion hole, the state's nursing home operators fear they could see reductions in Medicaid reimbursement.

"It's a difficult year, and Medicaid is an easy target," said David Gentner, chief executive of Grace Manor, a 167-bed, not-for-profit Buffalo nursing home that relies on Medicaid for 95 percent of its budget.

In several states, prison construction projects have been postponed. Illinois' $143 million, maximum-security Thomson Correctional Center was completed months ago, with room for 2,200 inmates, but stands empty because the state can't afford to run it.

Kentucky prosecutors were enraged when Gov. Paul Patton ordered the early release of 567 inmates in December. Yet similar proposals for early releases, or for more lenient sentencing, are surfacing in other states.

"I would certainly rather let felons out of jails than take teachers out of classrooms," Patton said in a recent television interview.

Patton challenged lawmakers to choose among the unpalatable options for coming up with $509 million.




? 2003 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission

Headline, today at Drudge.com:


Budget Blowout: It Now Takes $2,230,000,000,000.00 To Run America; More Than $7000.00 Per Citizen!


Kinda funny, considering that:




Yeah, whaddah deal, huh? :wink:

Rich people don't pay income taxes. Think about it. What is a rich person? A rich person is someone who can set his own price and can pass his costs on to his customers. You can raise his taxes to the moon and he will simply pass them along as increases in the price of his product or service (ask Bill Gates about this). This solves the mystery of why so many rich people are Democrats. When the Democrats raise taxes the rich don't pay them anyway. The "rich" are basically just tax collectors for the State.

Who does pay the income tax? Mostly the Middle Class. Again think about it. If they raised your taxes by 10% would you be able to walk into your boss's office the next day and demand a raise to compensate? Maybe, and maybe he'd just laugh in your face. ALL COSTS (and I do mean ALL) devolve to the guy who can't pass them on. If you are a Middle Class wage slave (and SLAVE is the correct and most descriptive word) this means YOU!

I always laugh when I hear this old canard about "the top blah blah blah pays blah blah blah of the income tax". I've heard this from Limbaugh, Boortz, Liddy and numerous other radio hosts. I've even heard it from James Dale Davidson who is an economist and should know better!

The ONLY tax the rich pay is the Death Tax. The only time the IRS can catch up to the rich is when the estate tax is paid.

Originally Posted by Robert

Who does pay the income tax? Mostly the Middle Class. I always laugh when I hear this old canard about "the top blah blah blah pays blah blah blah of the income tax".

Uh, I think that "top fifty percent" is the "middle class," that is paying nearly all the income tax in this country. That "middle class" is pulling the wagon full of the "victims" of Marx's "class war" -- a war championed by the left/liberal Democratic Party.

Ya won already. Rejoice!

Now get ready to, again, destroy the wicked "middle class," just like Marx told ya to. :wink: