Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Financial Crisis - Page 47







Post#1151 at 01-07-2005 09:48 PM by NickSmoliga [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 391]
---
01-07-2005, 09:48 PM #1151
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
391

European Economy Limping into 2005

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/...ss/euecon.html

The engines of Europe limp into '05

By Carter Dougherty International Herald Tribune
Wednesday, January 5, 2005

FRANKFURT The two largest economies in the euro zone are hobbling into the new year, with Germany confronting rising unemployment and France grappling with anemic growth. In both countries, new measures designed to bolster employment and spending kicked in on Jan. 1, but the immediate prospects for sustained, job-creating expansions remain bleak, according to economists.

Fiscal stimulus, or public spending, is the traditional method that governments use to galvanize growth. But it remains largely off-limits because France and Germany are near or over the budget deficit limit in the European Union's Stability and Growth Pact, which lays down rules for the 25-nation bloc. Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg's prime minister and the current chairman of the rotating EU presidency, will shepherd revisions to the pact in the coming months.

President Jacques Chirac of France argued on Tuesday that the pact, though useful for encouraging fiscal discipline, "should not aggravate the situation of a country in recession or in a period of weak growth," Agence France-Presse reported. The French national statistics office announced Tuesday that the economy came to a standstill in the fourth quarter of last year, and predicted that the year 2004 would show a slight expansion of 2.2 percent, not enough to dent unemployment that stands at 9.9 percent. Also on Tuesday, the German government reported that the number of people looking for work in December rose for the 11th consecutive month, to 4.5 million, putting the overall unemployment rate at 10.8 percent.

The strong euro, which crept upward to a new high around $1.36 in holiday trading, also lurks over European exports as a potential spoiler for 2005, economists said. The Berlin-based German Institute for Economic Research, one of the country's six main economic research groups, on Tuesday projected that German gross domestic product would expand 2 percent this year, but it cited the strong currency as a wild card that could chip away at growth by making European exports less competitive.

Facing long-term economic difficulties, the government of Chancellor Gerhard Schr?der has pushed social reforms despite fierce political resistance. With the arrival of the new year, job-seeking Germans now find themselves at the center of the country's biggest-ever effort to restructure unemployment benefits, a program that will initially increase the ranks of the unemployed, economists said. The Hartz IV reform - named after Peter Hartz, the Volkswagen executive who designed them - will now count as unemployed some able-bodied welfare recipients who previously received their benefits through a separate government program. The new rules also cut benefits for the long-term unemployed.

This statistical change, according to economists, could increase the number of unemployed above the psychologically important mark of five million early in the year. Wolfgang Clement, Germany's economics minister, on Monday stressed that this change did not mean more people would be losing jobs but conceded that the statistics would soon tell a grimmer story. "Everyone in the government will constantly be repeating this year that the numbers are changing purely for statistical reasons," said Annemarieke Christian, an economist with Morgan Stanley in London. The number of unemployed is then likely to decline back to its current levels over the course of the year as Germans go into state-run work programs, economists said. But 2005 will herald little creation of new full-time jobs as a result of weak growth. "The reforms are so far boosting only a specific type of employment, but this is not the root of the problem," Christian said.

Unlike their German neighbors, French officials have embraced a mixed bag of measures that are aimed at increasing economic growth, but they have resisted entreaties from business leaders that the government revisit the 35-hour work week, a centerpiece of French labor law. On Tuesday, Chirac announced a plan to steer ?2 billion, or $2.7 billion, from planned public asset sales, such as Electricit? de France, into a program under which the government will match private investments into research and development. Solar energy, low-pollution vehicles and pharmaceuticals were among the sectors that Chirac singled out as possible targets for greater research. Chirac also announced a 5 percent increase in the minimum wage, to take effect on July 1, and said his government is studying the possibility of tax breaks for long-term stock investors.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the former finance minister, negotiated price reductions, which went into effect on Oct. 1, with major retailers in a bid to add to overall demand. Last month, Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin announced a package of measures, including price cuts, that took effect on Jan. 1. "It's dirigiste, but France has been successful in stimulating short-term demand," said Lorenzo Codogno, a European economist with Bank of America in London.







Post#1152 at 01-09-2005 03:42 PM by Tom Mazanec [at NE Ohio 1958 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,511]
---
01-09-2005, 03:42 PM #1152
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
NE Ohio 1958
Posts
1,511








Post#1153 at 01-11-2005 06:06 PM by Tom Mazanec [at NE Ohio 1958 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,511]
---
01-11-2005, 06:06 PM #1153
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
NE Ohio 1958
Posts
1,511

http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/...07topnews.html

This guy does not like Greenspan!







Post#1154 at 01-12-2005 04:58 AM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-12-2005, 04:58 AM #1154
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec
http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/01/07/cx_da_0107topnews.html

This guy does not like Greenspan!
There's more of that going around.

Well, we have Buffet, Pimco's Gross, and now Morgan-Stanley's Roach pulling Jeremiads. Anyone else?
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#1155 at 01-14-2005 09:55 AM by antichrist [at I'm in the Big City now, boy! joined Sep 2003 #posts 1,655]
---
01-14-2005, 09:55 AM #1155
Join Date
Sep 2003
Location
I'm in the Big City now, boy!
Posts
1,655

From the "Rude Awakening:"



See, and the cheerleaders almost had me convinced things weren't so bad.

Now, even if these people intend to put this equity into investments, the idea is shaky. But how much of it is just going to get spent? How many people have that kind of discipline?







Post#1156 at 01-14-2005 11:21 AM by Croakmore [at The hazardous reefs of Silentium joined Nov 2001 #posts 2,426]
---
01-14-2005, 11:21 AM #1156
Join Date
Nov 2001
Location
The hazardous reefs of Silentium
Posts
2,426

Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
From the "Rude Awakening:"



See, and the cheerleaders almost had me convinced things weren't so bad.

Now, even if these people intend to put this equity into investments, the idea is shaky. But how much of it is just going to get spent? How many people have that kind of discipline?
Shocking!







Post#1157 at 01-14-2005 11:33 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
01-14-2005, 11:33 AM #1157
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Equity

Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)

Now, even if these people intend to put this equity into investments, the idea is shaky. But how much of it is just going to get spent? How many people have that kind of discipline?
I know of quite a few who are "investing" in "education" (by which they mean either credentialing or job training") for themselves or their spawn with home equity loans.

Is this money just spent or is it an investment like a new Lexus that provides reliable transport or a trip to a warm spot on the beach during the drear days of winter that restores one's soul?


As to discipline, I think the federal government gives example to its employers by investing in a sorts of odd things (pills for Gramps or rainforests in Iowa) with Celestial borrowings. Should we not heed the advice of our servants and follow their methods by borrowing on the hopes that something will turn up? :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:







Post#1158 at 01-15-2005 10:20 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
01-15-2005, 10:20 AM #1158
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Lowering our orders by being here now

America
is a debtor nation because of the mindset of its common people.
This mindset is increasingly present-oriented. It is therefore lower
class. The American middle class is steadily becoming lower class,
despite its present level of wealth.


There
can be debt that is future-oriented. Debt used to buy tools or education
is future-oriented, upper-class debt. But debt incurred to purchase
depreciating assets is a mark of personal capital consumption: lower
class. If, at the margin, the individual?s budget is in the red,
year after year, then he is consuming his seed corn. Because of
budgetary restraints, this consumption may be marginal annually,
but it is nonetheless part of a pattern of behavior. This pattern
of behavior is present-oriented and anti-economic growth. Multiplied
across a nation, it becomes the indicator of future impoverishment.



...I
think the habit of thrift is so far removed from the thinking of
baby boomers that it?s not worth considering as a macroeconomic
factor. Why not? Because the boomers have so little time to prepare
for their looming retirement. The slogan, "It?s never to late
to begin," is true. But the unstated assumption ? "You can
still live comfortably in retirement if you start saving now" ? is
poppycock. Thirty years gone by cannot be recovered in a decade of thrift.
There is no way for high rates of thrift to make up for
three decades of "Me Decade" investing by the generation
that reached adulthood in the 1970s. They did not change in the
1980s.


...The
Me Decade?s cohorts have always believed that, with respect to their
retirement years, something will turn up, that the government will
provide the good life, that deficits don?t matter.
VKS

To Save the Dollar, Save a Dollar







Post#1159 at 01-16-2005 12:54 AM by Milo [at The Lands Beyond joined Aug 2004 #posts 926]
---
01-16-2005, 12:54 AM #1159
Join Date
Aug 2004
Location
The Lands Beyond
Posts
926

Re: Lowering our orders by being here now

Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
America
is a debtor nation because of the mindset of its common people.
This mindset is increasingly present-oriented. It is therefore lower
class. The American middle class is steadily becoming lower class,
despite its present level of wealth.


There
can be debt that is future-oriented. Debt used to buy tools or education
is future-oriented, upper-class debt. But debt incurred to purchase
depreciating assets is a mark of personal capital consumption: lower
class. If, at the margin, the individual?s budget is in the red,
year after year, then he is consuming his seed corn. Because of
budgetary restraints, this consumption may be marginal annually,
but it is nonetheless part of a pattern of behavior. This pattern
of behavior is present-oriented and anti-economic growth. Multiplied
across a nation, it becomes the indicator of future impoverishment.



...I
think the habit of thrift is so far removed from the thinking of
baby boomers that it?s not worth considering as a macroeconomic
factor. Why not? Because the boomers have so little time to prepare
for their looming retirement. The slogan, "It?s never to late
to begin," is true. But the unstated assumption ? "You can
still live comfortably in retirement if you start saving now" ? is
poppycock. Thirty years gone by cannot be recovered in a decade of thrift.
There is no way for high rates of thrift to make up for
three decades of "Me Decade" investing by the generation
that reached adulthood in the 1970s. They did not change in the
1980s.


...The
Me Decade?s cohorts have always believed that, with respect to their
retirement years, something will turn up, that the government will
provide the good life, that deficits don?t matter.
VKS

To Save the Dollar, Save a Dollar
Well, the solution to the coming fiscal and economic apocalypse is clear: endentured servitude for generation x. Give us a closet or tool shed to sleep in, and a weekly supply of weed, and you'll find we make excellent slaves.







Post#1160 at 01-17-2005 11:09 PM by NickSmoliga [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 391]
---
01-17-2005, 11:09 PM #1160
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
391

Consider 1933 versus 1953

kenof98112 wrote:

Well, the solution to the coming fiscal and economic apocalypse is clear: indentured servitude for generation x. Give us a closet or tool shed to sleep in, and a weekly supply of weed, and you'll find we make excellent slaves.
Pessimism is rampant on any forum dominated by a socialist viewpoint. That viewpoint assumes a zero-sum game, and discounts any possibility of significant growth in per-person wealth. That discounting comes from the plan to take as much as possible of other people?s wealth, so as to redistribute it to non-workers. That's how slavery comes into the picture.

Weed smokers make poor slaves; their minds deteriorate over time, as does an alcoholic's mind. My own plan would be to make them drug-free, free men, then tax everything they buy at about 5%. My guess is that it would generate more net government revenue, at least for a low-cost, cheap government that maintained a stable system of laws and respected private property.

A high tax rate (&/or slavery) kills hope for the future, and without hope people become present-oriented. Drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc., bought on credit, is the ultimate orientation to the present, the ultimate rejection of the future.







Post#1161 at 01-17-2005 11:50 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-17-2005, 11:50 PM #1161
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Re: Consider 1933 versus 1953

Quote Originally Posted by NickSmoliga
kenof98112 wrote:

Well, the solution to the coming fiscal and economic apocalypse is clear: indentured servitude for generation x. Give us a closet or tool shed to sleep in, and a weekly supply of weed, and you'll find we make excellent slaves.
Pessimism is rampant on any forum dominated by a socialist viewpoint. That viewpoint assumes a zero-sum game, and discounts any possibility of significant growth in per-person wealth. That discounting comes from the plan to take as much as possible of other people?s wealth, so as to redistribute it to non-workers. That's how slavery comes into the picture.

Weed smokers make poor slaves; their minds deteriorate over time, as does an alcoholic's mind. My own plan would be to make them drug-free, free men, then tax everything they buy at about 5%. My guess is that it would generate more net government revenue, at least for a low-cost, cheap government that maintained a stable system of laws and respected private property.

A high tax rate (&/or slavery) kills hope for the future, and without hope people become present-oriented. Drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc., bought on credit, is the ultimate orientation to the present, the ultimate rejection of the future.
In all the history of the world, do you have just one example of the cloud-cuckoo-land you describe as your ideal? If so, where is it now, being so dynamic and efficient and all.

The fact is, no such place exists, has ever existed and is likely ever to exist - hence cloud cuckoo land must remain just that. Here in the real world, we believe in things that are and can be. If you wish to call that pessimism - fine. We'll see who's right soon enough.

I doubt your fantasy will be able to overcome the basic laws of mathematics, though.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#1162 at 01-18-2005 03:34 AM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-18-2005, 03:34 AM #1162
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: Consider 1933 versus 1953

Quote Originally Posted by NickSmoliga

kenof98112 wrote:

Well, the solution to the coming fiscal and economic apocalypse is clear: indentured servitude for generation x. Give us a closet or tool shed to sleep in, and a weekly supply of weed, and you'll find we make excellent slaves.
Pessimism is rampant on any forum dominated by a socialist viewpoint. That viewpoint assumes a zero-sum game, and discounts any possibility of significant growth in per-person wealth. That discounting comes from the plan to take as much as possible of other people?s wealth, so as to redistribute it to non-workers. That's how slavery comes into the picture.
Arrogance seems to be rampant when people drink Kool-Aid and keep a closed mind.

Only someone who thinks that "anti-Bush" automatically means "liberal or socialist" would make such a statement. Why is it that so many pro-Bush posters automatically make that jump?: SteveM55, Chris 68, Joe Grawwhathisface, Nick Smoliga, Marc Lame, and at least 3 others whose names I can't remember.

Why is any and all deviation from the party line condemned in this way? Sounds to me like doubt and insecurity.

Sure, there are a bunch of liberals here, though I'm not sure about how many outright socialists. But there are also a good number of libertarians (radical and conservative) and others. I for one am a right-of-center communitarian (who hates Bush).

I must however agree with your critique of the Left. The way I see it, the Left would kill the Goose that lays the Golden Eggs to get at the eggs. The problem is, well, you kill the goose. The Right, left to it's own devices, will work the goose so hard that it dies. So the problem there is, well, you also kill the goose.

So yes, the Left (hard Left at least) cannot get past the zero sum game. But the hard Right can't get past the need to keep humans in the picture (and when they do emphasize that it seems to often be in a premodern, mythological mode).

What we need is to save ourselves from both the Left and the Right.

Quote Originally Posted by NickSmoliga
A high tax rate (&/or slavery) kills hope for the future, and without hope people become present-oriented. Drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc., bought on credit, is the ultimate orientation to the present, the ultimate rejection of the future.
If you bothered to read the Common Dreams stuff posted by some "liberals" here a few days ago, you would've seen cogent articles about how Bush is screwing the future to benefit the present. But, then again, perhaps you'd rather drink Kool-Aid, call everyone "socialists" and pooh pooh the whole board. Sad.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#1163 at 01-18-2005 11:02 AM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
01-18-2005, 11:02 AM #1163
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Re: Consider 1933 versus 1953

Quote Originally Posted by NickSmoliga
Pessimism is rampant on any forum dominated by a socialist viewpoint.
How many forums are dominated by a socialistic viewpoint? Three? :wink:
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#1164 at 01-18-2005 11:08 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-18-2005, 11:08 AM #1164
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Re: Consider 1933 versus 1953

Quote Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster
Quote Originally Posted by NickSmoliga
Pessimism is rampant on any forum dominated by a socialist viewpoint.
How many forums are dominated by a socialistic viewpoint? Three? :wink:
Watch out Jenny. You may very well be one of the Alpha Marxists.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#1165 at 01-18-2005 01:37 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-18-2005, 01:37 PM #1165
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: Consider 1933 versus 1953

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon
Quote Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster
Quote Originally Posted by NickSmoliga
Pessimism is rampant on any forum dominated by a socialist viewpoint.
How many forums are dominated by a socialistic viewpoint? Three? :wink:
Watch out Jenny. You may very well be one of the Alpha Marxists.
Oh, I'm sure she's already tagged and watchlisted.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#1166 at 01-18-2005 02:25 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
01-18-2005, 02:25 PM #1166
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Re: Consider 1933 versus 1953

Quote Originally Posted by NickSmoliga
Pessimism is rampant on any forum dominated by a socialist viewpoint.
I wouldn't know. :P

I'm a realistic capitalist who recognizes some need for regulation of the system.

That viewpoint assumes a zero-sum game, and discounts any possibility of significant growth in per-person wealth. That discounting comes from the plan to take as much as possible of other people?s wealth, so as to redistribute it to non-workers. That's how slavery comes into the picture.
That's not even vaguely similar to the Marxism I was taught in college. :P :lol:







Post#1167 at 01-18-2005 06:08 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-18-2005, 06:08 PM #1167
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Re: Consider 1933 versus 1953

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Quote Originally Posted by NickSmoliga
Pessimism is rampant on any forum dominated by a socialist viewpoint.
I wouldn't know. :P ...
Perhaps he's thinking that Sabinus Titus Invectus Maximus has sunk into an undless funk just from associalting with all of us. :shock: :P
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#1168 at 01-18-2005 06:13 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-18-2005, 06:13 PM #1168
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: Consider 1933 versus 1953

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon
Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Quote Originally Posted by NickSmoliga
Pessimism is rampant on any forum dominated by a socialist viewpoint.
I wouldn't know. :P ...
Perhaps he's thinking that Sabinus Titus Invectus Maximus has sunk into an undless funk just from associalting with all of us. :shock: :P
But we keep trying to talk Titus OUT of his funk!!!
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#1169 at 01-18-2005 07:22 PM by NickSmoliga [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 391]
---
01-18-2005, 07:22 PM #1169
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
391

Libertarian Party & Liberatarian Spokesman

Libertarian Party web site:

http://www.lp.org/issues/cut-taxes.html

Why An Income Tax?

Before 1913, federal income taxes were rare and short-lived. America became the most prosperous nation on earth. The U.S. Government did not try to police the world or play "nanny" to everyone from cradle to grave. People took responsibility for themselves, their families, and their communities. That is how the founders of America thought it should be. And it worked. It can again!
A Liberatarian Spokesman?s view: http://boortz.com/more/demsecrets.html

THE DEMOCRATS' (SECRET) PLAN FOR AMERICA
The Democrats have begun their campaign to frighten voters before the fall elections. It's nothing but a replay of past elections, the only difference being that they seem to be starting the scare tactics a bit early this year. I guess you can't blame them. Nothing else has worked. The tried to hand the Florida election problems on Bush. No go. Then it was the economy, and that didn't work either. They gave a stab at the "Bush is stupid" routine, but Americans aren't buying it. Enron looked worse for Clinton than it did for Republicans, so the Social Democrats had to give up on that one too. So, it's time to go back to Democratic roots. Try to scare the beejezus out of older voters. It's worked in the past -- so it will surely work this time.

The ploy is simple. Convince wrinkled citizens that the evil Republicans want to take away their Social Security. It's an old trick, tried and true. ..

Remove a majority of voters from responsibility for income taxes This is the biggie ? and they've made no attempt to hide their goals here. The Democrats have been working on this plan for decades --- with no small amount of help from the cowardly Republicans. The idea is simple. Using "refundable" tax credits and deductions and such ideas as the fraudulent Earned Income Tax Credit the Democrats are working to shift the entire burden for the payment of federal income taxes onto a minority of US taxpayers. Right now the top 50 percent of taxpayers pay almost 96 percent of the taxes. The Democrats are close to their goal. When the majority of voters have no federal income tax liability it will be almost impossible to pass any meaningful tax cuts ? and further tax increases will be a piece of cake, especially if the taxes only affect those to be considered to be rich. Through this ploy the Democrats plan to create a defeat-proof socialist congress.

Shift Social Security and Medicare Taxes to the "Rich"

Payroll taxes, as you know, are basically Social Security and Medicare taxes. The Democrats have almost achieved their goal of shielding the so-called "poor" from any income tax liability at all. But --- the poor saps still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. Democrats conveniently ignore the fact that these same people will get full Social Security and Medicare benefits when they reach the magic age ... and those benefits must never be touched! It's OK, though, to excuse these people from the responsibility of actually having to pay the premiums for these insurance and retirement benefits. So ..... the next element of the Democrats' Secret Plan! ?Medicare taxes lost by excluding the first $15,000 in income. In reality the Democrats would have to raise the salary cap by about $19,000. They would just round it off to $20,000.

So, there you go. Shifting the burden for the cost of Social Security and Medicare for low income earners onto high income earners. The Democratic way.

Massive increase in Social Security taxes As we've said, Social Security is a mainstay when it comes to Democrat vote-buying. Social Security was, is and always will be nothing more than a giant income redistribution scheme designed to create dependency on government and loyalty to the program's protectors in congress. The more money you pour into Social Security benefits, the more the wizened class loves you, depends on you and will be dedicated to keeping you in office. The Democrats need massive new funding sources to pay expanded Social Security benefits --- but they must get that money without raising Social Security taxes on the middle and lower income groups. The solution? The Democrats have a "secret plan" to expand the wage base for Social Security taxes. Right now you only pay these taxes on the first $88,000 or so of income. Give the Democrats the power and watch that wage base jump to $100,000, $200,000 and beyond. The eventual Democrat Party goal is to have people pay Social Security taxes on every penny they earn ... no matter how much that is. ..

Socialized Medicine

They already tried this with Hillary Care. It failed. Democrats aren't discouraged by failure. They just try and try again until they finally get you to swallow the poison pill. There are two basic reasons the Democrats are working so hard for complete government control of this huge segment of our economy. One, of course, is power. Health care comprises about 15% of our national economy. If the government can seize control of this large a segment of our economy a giant step toward a socialist economy will have been achieved. The second reason is control. Think about it. If you control a person's access to healthcare ... you effectively control that person?.

Democrats live in quaking fear of free market competition. This was one of the reasons they worked so hard to defeat Bush's economic stimulus plan. There was a provision in that plan that would allow laid-off workers to go out into the marketplace to find health insurance. They would then be allowed a tax credit to cover the cost of that health insurance premium. ?

Tax your pension funds

This idea first received serious consideration in the early Clintonista years. As soon as the Republicans took control of the Congress the idea disappeared. Right now it's being "secretly" incubated by Democrats to be hatched when they regain control. ?

The "secret" plan? A one-time 15% tax on the outstanding balance of all private pension and 401K retirement plans. This money would be paid into the general fund of the federal government and used to fund various social programs for low and middle-income earners.

Is this a dangerous plan for Democrats? Not really. The plan would take money chiefly from those who earn enough money to actually pay income taxes and contribute to pension plans. These people do not make up the core of Democratic voters.

Tax your pension contributions also

After the Democrats levy their 15% tax on the outstanding balance of all pension and 401K plans, they intend to follow up with a tax on all future contributions to these plans. The theory is that "rich" people shouldn't be allowed to contribute that money to these plans tax free when "poor" people don't have that opportunity.

The Magic of Imputed Income

Imputed? What does "imputed" mean?

One definition is to "credit." So, by imputed income, we mean that you are credited with income you didn't necessarily earn?.

So --- here is the idea that the Clinton Administration was tossing around prior to the voter revolution of 1994. They were going to impute ? credit ? extra income to people who own their own homes. This was going to be done for two reasons. First, to push more people into the higher income brackets where Clinton tax increases could reach them. Second, to increase the amount of taxes actually collected from these people. Here's how Clinton's imputed income scheme was going to work:

Let's say you own a home worth $250,000. Your payments on that home are about $2,000 a month. The government uses census data (there is a reason they ask all of those extra questions) to figure out what a $250,000 home in your neighborhood would rent for. Let's say it would rent for $3000 a month. This means that you could rent your home for $1000 a month more than your payments. ?

So ... here is this element of the Democrats' secret plan for you and your bank account. When you fill out your tax return you will have to consult certain tables and government data to determine what a home like yours would rent for in your neighborhood. Using the example above, your home would rent for $3000. You're paying $2000 a month to your mortgage company. You will be instructed to take the difference ($1000 a month) and multiply it by 12. This gives you $12,000. That's your imputed income. Add that to your other earnings to come up with your taxable income. That adds up to more than $4,500 in additional income taxes if you're in the top tax bracket. Hey, it's only fair ... you being rich and all?.

Economically Targeted Investments -- controlling your pension fund investments.

Here we are, right back at your pension funds and 401K funds again. Again --- there is so much money in these funds, trillions of dollars, that the Democrats just can't leave them alone. ?Here's the deal. ? The Democrats plan to change the rules on pension and 401K accounts. Instead of just investing these funds in stocks and bonds, fund managers will be required by the government to invest these funds in certain investments dictated by government -- by Democrats. In this way the governments can fund some of their spending schemes, but without using government funds. The Democrats will simply pass laws requiring fund managers to invest in corporations building low income housing; or companies who are hiring workers off welfare roles. Other "allowed" investments will be in such things as environmental protection, waste recycling and other causes popular with the left. ?


All of this will mean that the Democrats can claim credit for spending on some of their favorite programs without going to the taxpayers. ?

Force employers to pay for "family leave."

Right now the Family Leave Act requires employers to give employees about 12 weeks of unpaid "family leave" to take care of certain family events and emergencies, such as having a baby, illness, death or some other situation. The key here is that the family leave is unpaid. The Democrats want employers to continue to pay the employees while they take their extended vacation. The Democrats "secret" plan is to begin with a law requiring payment of about one-half of the employee's salary. This will give Democratic candidates the opportunity to campaign in future years on the basis of increasing the percentage paid to those on family leave. ?Democrats have a "secret plan" to impose confiscatory taxes on any Americans who try to move their wealth or their business interests out of this country.

Government paid childcare for majority of voters

The absolute last thing a Democrat would ever do would be to suggest to anyone that they shouldn't have a baby they can't afford to raise? They have also been working to raise taxes to the point that it is difficult beyond reason to raise a child on the income of one working parent. Thus ... the necessity of child care. If the government steps in and provides the funds for that child care then, to that extent, the parents become just that much more dependent on government ... and Democrats.

Government control of all childhood education (indoctrination) ? Government schools? Government schools will promote what? Government! Thus, Democrats see a clear need to keep as many children in government education programs as possible.

Repealing the Second Amendment

Haven't you ever thought it a bit odd that leftists and Democrats are generally opposed to the concept of the private ownership of firearms, while conservatives and libertarians favor the idea? Well, there's a reason. Those who value and celebrate the worth of the individual and of individual freedom generally believe that the individual should be permitted to own and bear arms. Those who put the power of government over and above the power of the individual would just as soon see the individual unarmed. Armed individuals are, of course, a threat to tyranny.

Destroy talk radio

Democrats aren't fond of talk radio. They know that Rush Limbaugh played a huge role in the voter revolution of 1994. ?You should be aware that at a recent meeting of the Democratic Party of Oregon a resolution was adopted to use the power of government and the "fairness doctrine" to reign in those horrible right wing talk show hosts.
Only a minority of posters here seem to espouse many of the Libertarian views listed above.







Post#1170 at 01-18-2005 08:17 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-18-2005, 08:17 PM #1170
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: Libertarian Party & Liberatarian Spokesman

Quote Originally Posted by NickSmoliga
Libertarian Party web site:

http://www.lp.org/issues/cut-taxes.html

Why An Income Tax? . . .
Only a minority of posters here seem to espouse many of the Libertarian views listed above.
There are several, and then some who merely empathize with the libertarian side. I would guess that Justin 77 leads the way on this board in that kind of Libertarianism. Seadog comes across to me as a type of Christian Libertarian (whatever that might be). Witchiepoo, though she shuns labels, seems to have a strong libertarian streak, as do several others.

What's your point on this?

About your tax issue, are there any Red States that have no state income tax? IIRC Nevada might be one, but they suck in money from other states via gambling that I'm sure the government takes advantage of. Are there any others? I'm serious because I don't know. I would be curious to see how eliminating the income tax has worked in the past.

As for it not existing prior to 1914, I would definitely take up arms against you and yours if you wanted to take this nation back to the state of affairs before the Progressive Era reforms kicked in. You'd be forcing me into the Blue/Democrat collumn in that case.

If you want to live in third world country with few government services and a GINI ratio over 0.5, I'm sure there are lots of places for you to go to.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#1171 at 01-18-2005 10:10 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-18-2005, 10:10 PM #1171
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Re: Libertarian Party & Liberatarian Spokesman

Quote Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons
Quote Originally Posted by NickSmoliga
Libertarian Party web site:

http://www.lp.org/issues/cut-taxes.html

Why An Income Tax? . . .
Only a minority of posters here seem to espouse many of the Libertarian views listed above.
There are several, and then some who merely empathize with the libertarian side. I would guess that Justin 77 leads the way on this board in that kind of Libertarianism. Seadog comes across to me as a type of Christian Libertarian (whatever that might be). Witchiepoo, though she shuns labels, seems to have a strong libertarian streak, as do several others.

What's your point on this?

About your tax issue, are there any Red States that have no state income tax? IIRC Nevada might be one, but they suck in money from other states via gambling that I'm sure the government takes advantage of. Are there any others? I'm serious because I don't know. I would be curious to see how eliminating the income tax has worked in the past.
Most of the states with little or no income tax have a tax export policy. Florida is great example. Fuel taxes are high, but the tourists pay a huge chunk of them. Toll roads are, likewise, used heavily by out-of-staters.
Quote Originally Posted by ... then PG
As for it not existing prior to 1914, I would definitely take up arms against you and yours if you wanted to take this nation back to the state of affairs before the Progressive Era reforms kicked in. You'd be forcing me into the Blue/Democrat collumn in that case.

If you want to live in third world country with few government services and a GINI ratio over 0.5, I'm sure there are lots of places for you to go to.
I couldn't agree more, which brings me an odd point. We often agree, but claim dramatically different political philosophies. We need to work through that some time.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#1172 at 01-18-2005 10:21 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
01-18-2005, 10:21 PM #1172
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Could someone give me a good layperson's definition for the GINI ratio? I googled it and didn't get much that was helpful.







Post#1173 at 01-18-2005 11:06 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-18-2005, 11:06 PM #1173
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Could someone give me a good layperson's definition for the GINI ratio? I googled it and didn't get much that was helpful.
Well,
I'm probably a bad choice for the task. Either Mike Alexander or Sean use this concept all the time. Nonetheless, I'll try.

First, start with the technical explanation. If you go the site and review the section on measuring income inequaltiy, the GINI formula is there.

To understand the significance, look at the graph. There is a diagonal line that represents exactly equal distributin of income, though that's not intuitive. The line shows cumulative results, hence 0% of the poulation has 0% of the income 50 % has 50% and so on, up to 100%.

The lower, curved line represents the actual results. Here the lower paid have a lower percentage of income than their representative percentage of the population. For example, the bottom 40% have only 20% of the income. The top 20% have 60%, which is the 100% shown, minus the results for the bottom 80% (60%).

The rest is merely a method of taking that data and aggregating them into a single number. The formula is given, so I'll avoid doing that twice, but note what happens if the curve drops all the way to the bottom, only rising at the very end (since 100% of the income has to go somewhere). You get the ratio of 1, since B is now zero. If the ideal and actual lines were identical, the ratio woud be zero because A is zero.

I'll avoid discussing why the use of integration generates a single, valid value from the disbursed data in the graph. That you'll have to take on faith, or get a better instructor. Suffice it to say that integration is exactly what the term implies:l the data are integrated into a mathmatically valid single number.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#1174 at 01-20-2005 11:07 PM by NickSmoliga [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 391]
---
01-20-2005, 11:07 PM #1174
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
391

Taxes, Economic Well-Being, & Colors

Discusses tax policy & its effects on economic well-being:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=9356

Seven red states without an income tax:

Tennessee; Florida; Texas; Alaska; Nevada; South Dakota; Wyoming

For details, see:

http://www.compassweb.com/cob/kiplin...f_taxes_2.html







Post#1175 at 01-21-2005 11:27 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-21-2005, 11:27 AM #1175
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Re: Taxes, Economic Well-Being, & Colors

Quote Originally Posted by NickSmoliga
Discusses tax policy & its effects on economic well-being:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=9356

Seven red states without an income tax:

Tennessee; Florida; Texas; Alaska; Nevada; South Dakota; Wyoming

For details, see:

http://www.compassweb.com/cob/kiplin...f_taxes_2.html
Here's another view of the taxes states pay ... or avoid. Using your list, you have two general classes of states: the highly 'Federal tax' subsidized and the 'tax the tourist' states. Only Texas does neither, by cutting benefits to the bone. Of course, business-friendly Texas is subsidized by big business, but that's a discussion for another time.

FIrst, the Fedrally susidized. Some of the Federal handout recipients are states with extremely healthy economies. Using the ratio of Federal dollars spent in the state to each dollar of Federal tax paid, here are the welfare recipients:
Tennessee: Spending of 1.29 times taxes paid
Alaska: 1.89
South Dakota: 1.49
Wyoming: 1.13

Florida and Texas broke even. Nevada was a net payor at .70. Of course, both Florida and Nevada get their money from other states, but at least they provide a little entertainment in return.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
-----------------------------------------