It's the State of the Union address tonight.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, seems I'm the only one interested in this, but here's a decent article by a despicable guy from the Slate fray:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2077811/

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by quietman1920: Sky, you stopped short. "if there was a way to pay for all the programs that he wants to fund" This implies that we'll take in enought to cover basic services. We won't. What's wrong with keeping more of your own money? Well, for one thing, its NOT YOUR MONEY. It belongs in the paycheck of the cop who keeps people from robbing your house & the fireman who keeps it from burning down. PS- I Love that analogy of the fireman & nurse. It uses NYC fireman's pay with overtinme for 2001 and a NYC nurses salary with the same overtime in the same time period. While hiding behind the flag and 9-11, the Dirty Tricksters (who are more than likely are Paid to post here) carefully avoid mentioning all the work involved in the aftermath of the twin tower's collapse. (then again, if it can't be twisted into Republi-Nazi dogma, just discard it, right?) Now if you take those two people's salaries and compare them with the National Average (cost of living Might be a tad lower than Manhattan in places like Alabama, ya think?), then they are in the top 10% of the National Average of 2001. But they still are not in the top 1% that own 68% of all the businesses in America. As for the speech and his sincerity, a Blank Mind can say anything with convictions. As for Bush's Convictions, I expect they'll follow shortly once he's out of office. The speech itself is a throw-away...a nothing. It means nothing because there no longer are checks and balances: The Executive, The ruling Legislative, and The Majority Judiciary are ALL ONLY FROM ONE PARTY. (Sig Heil der Homeland Defense)

Interesting,
1st It is my money I make it not the Cop, He makes His own money for the job he does it's called a paycheck.
2nd Cost of living is TOTALLY irrelevant because U.S. citizens are taxed on the income they make not on where they live. (You bet the cost of living is cheaper in Alabama thats why I live in small town Alabama, and not a major city. But "Hale", "If'n" you want to pay more for stuff then I do Be My guest, It's no sweat off my rear-end)
3rd 1% own 68% of the businesses (Bulvine Feeces). 1% may own the busineeses make 68% of the total revenue generated by businesses. But there is "NowayinHale" that 1% own 68% of the total businesses in the U.S.A. There is a differance, even this "ole country boy" can tell there is a differance, "Shootfire" there are even different words with different meanings used, in the statements. But, perhaps in a city-fied edumacation they skipped over that part.
4th It was a fireman and a teacher, not a fireman and a nurse nor did I state which city they lived in, nor did I write how long they had been on the Job. I'll bet you that in most major cities a fireman with 7-10 years on the job is making in the upper $40k same for a teacher with the same amount of time. In "little Ole back woods" Northport, Alabama the starting saliary for a fireman is in the 30K range. And we be just dumb "poor country bumpkins", surely you "High Faluteing city folks" are paying your Firemen and Police more with that cost of living "do-mahitchie".

So what were you saying about throwing stuff away? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

(Edit) I missed the "Paid to post here" shot! No I do it Purely for the pleasure of watching the liberals Squrim

[ 01-29-2003, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by quietman1920: What's wrong with keeping more of your own money? Well, for one thing, its NOT YOUR MONEY.

WRONG! It is my money! I worked for it and I earned it! I have to say that your probably in the minority here. I saw tonight that people in that liberal bastion of Oregon even voted down a tax increase. Last time I looked this was not a socielist country, where the Government provides all the services. I also saw that 44 states out of 50 are running a deficit. Well when I run a deficit I either: A. Have to cut back on my spending. OR B. Borrow more money. I don't get to go to my boss and tell him he has to give me a raise. Neither should the Government. Last time I checked Government served us not the other way around.

[skywalker]

My budget will commit an additional 400 billion dollars over the next decade to reform and strengthen Medicare. Tonight I am proposing 1.2 billion dollars in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles. I propose a 450 million dollar initiative to bring mentors to more than a million disadvantaged junior high students and children of prisoners. Too many Americans in search of treatment cannot get it. So tonight I propose a new 600 million dollar program to help an additional 300,000 Americans receive treatment over the next three years. I ask the Congress to commit 15 billion dollars over the next five years, including nearly ten billion dollars in new money, to turn the tide against We have the terrorists on the run, and we are keeping them on the run. One by one, the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice.

Granted it is your money, but as shown in the quote above (from the SOTU) there are big plans for your money. The tax dollars don't get funneled into politicians pockets (not all of it anyway). Someone has to pay for this stuff. Does the average American really think that there is nothing given in return for taxes paid?

I guess it's better to pay less and place the burden of paying off our debt on future generations.

I don't understand why the States have to balance their budgets, by law, but the Federal Government does not.

And if people want to pay less taxes, they should be more than willing to cut all the excess programs in the budget. Of course, if the politicians do that, how would they get re-elected?

Mark

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by skywalker: quote: My budget will commit an additional 400 billion dollars over the next decade to reform and strengthen Medicare. Tonight I am proposing 1.2 billion dollars in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles. I propose a 450 million dollar initiative to bring mentors to more than a million disadvantaged junior high students and children of prisoners. Too many Americans in search of treatment cannot get it. So tonight I propose a new 600 million dollar program to help an additional 300,000 Americans receive treatment over the next three years. I ask the Congress to commit 15 billion dollars over the next five years, including nearly ten billion dollars in new money, to turn the tide against We have the terrorists on the run, and we are keeping them on the run. One by one, the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice.

Granted it is your money, but as shown in the quote above (from the SOTU) there are big plans for your money. The tax dollars don't get funneled into politicians pockets (not all of it anyway). Someone has to pay for this stuff. Does the average American really think that there is nothing given in return for taxes paid?

I guess it's better to pay less and place the burden of paying off our debt on future generations.

I don't understand why the States have to balance their budgets, by law, but the Federal Government does not.

And if people want to pay less taxes, they should be more than willing to cut all the excess programs in the budget. Of course, if the politicians do that, how would they get re-elected?

Mark[/QUOTE]Skywalker,
Nobody has said we get nothing in return for our tax dollars, most of us have said we're not wanting to pay more.

(For all no taxcutters)
But nobody on the other side has even tried to address the FACT that the liberal Dems are also proposing tax cuts, After years of telling us that it was the TAX increases signed into law in 1993 that got us out of the "Bush recession" (an oximoron if there ever was one, and please somebody check the figures and try to challenge me ) So where was I oh yeah, if tax increases were the great savior that got us out of the "Bush recession" then why aren't the liberal Dems pushing tax increases now? Well it's simple, yes that's right simple, there was no real recession in fact the USA economy grew faster in 1992 before the tax increases of 1993. 1994 we (the USA as a whole)were closer to a recession then in 1992. And in 1994 the Reps got a hold of the purse strings of the US government and slowed spending. Yeap thats right the House of Reps is where ALL budget (spending) bills MUST start (US Consitution) The reps held down the government spending which slowed the defeict growth and people "Felt" better (remember in the early 90's al the hubbub about the defeict) so they spent their money (more accuratly spent money they didn't have and went into debt) on what ever they wanted. And the spending of private individuals kept the economy from going in the Crapper. Now private individuals are spending less because their debt is starting to catch up with them. They can't spend more because they don't have more never did have it execpt on paper in their stock portfolio. They was counting their chickens 'foren they hatched. And the Dems know it that's why they are also proposing tax cuts or if you want to call it tax rebates (in either case the result is the same taxpayers get more of their money back). The Dems were either LYING to us then (1993) or they are LYING to us now! noway around it and I'm not giving ground on the facts, so if anyone wants to challenge these facts you better come loaded for bear. In the real world feelings don't mean squat, 2+2=4, it doesn't matter if you feel it =5, or 6, or4. It equals 4 no matter what you feel.

[ 01-30-2003, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[khazadman]

John, you left out a good arguement for tax cuts. Cutting taxes across the board will increase revenue from taxation. Revenue more than doubled as a result of Reagans tax cuts. Revenue also increased as a result of JFK's tax cuts.

[Timber Loftis]

Okay class, pay attention. I've actually time for a pretty detailed lesson today.

I think you guys need to go online and do a search for articles containing both the name "Franklin D. Roosevelt" and "John Maynard Keynes." Or just start here: http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Economists/keynes.html

The government needs to balance its budget in the long run. But, the immediate ebb and flow is part of the market's natural fluctuation. And, the government is part of the market.

Governments must tax and collect to do at least one thing: provide for externalities. Some things do not exist without a central body to gather our dollars and buy them - roads and military for example. IMO, this is ALL governments should tax for, but that's MO.

Keynes came along and convinced FDR that in times of economic depression, the gov. should increase spending to "kick start" the economy. FDR used this idea to make sweeping reforms that DID in fact pull us out of the Great Depression, which is a big reason why he got re-elected to more terms than any other President. Hitler used the same idea of public spending to pull Germany out of its depression, which was worse tha America's and lasted longer, and it made him so popular that he literally got away with murder in years to follow.

But, Keynes has a flip side: in times of economic prosperity, the government should tighten its belts and draw money back in to balance things out. In this way a country avoids the drastic market ebb and flow.

All that said, FDR screwed things up from the beginning, because he didn't put a time limitation on some programs, like AFDC, which continues to be a horrible waste of money to this day. Plus like most of us, once Congress started spending it didn't know how to stop.

Now, back to 1993. No president or congress has *ever* done what Keynes advised regarding the "flip side" of his economic model. During Clinton's reign, he and COngress did a LOT to decrease spending, and while I don't think they did enough (remember it was a time of prosperity, and should have tightened their belts), he is actually the first president in decades to have run the country "in the black" for at least a year or two.

Note, Clinton put limitations on long-term welfare receipt -- limitations Bush is now cutting back on (because the jobs just aren't there for people to get). Clinton's medical reform plans never put costs of medicare at $400 billion, but then we didn't know as much about it then.

Back on point. In times of recession, the gov. should spend but only VERY MODERATELY (remember, it's not a depression ). No president has spent moderately in years. Clinton did the best at slightly-worse-than-moderate spending, I would say.

But, I think the biggest dollar costs out of the programs Bush mentioned are:

1. tax cuts (and, yes, this does cost the gov. money): A perfect way to increase gov. spending in a moderate way in a recession, and one Bush feels has a positive market effect by increasing consumerism. I think the jury's still out on this, but I support it for now.

2. Medicare reform. This is fully 95% of the spending he proposed in his State of the Union. $400 billion?? We need to look at this more. If the increase is so gov't money can be invested in the stock market to support a program where seniors pay too much for drugs, it's crap. I think medicare reform comes with healthcare reform - and should fall on the shoulders of BigDrugCo and HMOs. A broken system I've preached about before that shackles and simultaneously bribes Doctors and, more importantly, their hospital administrators. This money is going to go down the toilet.

Okay, rant off [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img]

[edit]
PS: On the socialism note. It's no secret that at least one of the Clintons (Hilary) has very socialist tendancies - read "It Takes a Village" someday if you doubt this. But, there is a very minute difference in the modern day between a Representative Republic that taxes 20-30% (America - don't forget to add an average 10% to this for state taxes) and a socialist government that taxes about 45% (e.g. Norway). Now, the cultures of these countries are different, but I'm talking just in terms of a government tax & spending model here, so don't fly off the handle on me.

The real differenc can be found in Lester Thurow's (yes, that's now 2 Harvard Economists in one post, and Lester is now at MIT - TL is a geek) book on the model three modern market giants - North America, Pacific Rim, and EU. Thurow finds a very small distinction between what he terms "Socialistic Market Practice" and "Capitalistic Market Practice." North Am. has a more capitalistic practice in that it does not directly subsidize industry and business (it will make loans, I'll point out - like SBA), whereas the more "socialistic" practices do.

NOTE HOW small THIS DISTINCITON IS.

And, I'll even toss out an argument that socialistic economic practices are better. In the late 80s/ early 90s United Airlines and AirBus were fighting for control of the European market for air travel. UA had a 1% margin. The EU countries (UK) subsidized AirBus by 1% - flipping control of the market to AirBus. UA soon pulled out of the European air travel market, losing a huge amount of business. Now UA is bankrupt. Nuff said.

One more example. When L. Iaccoca convinced congress to bail out Chrysler, he did it by pointing out it would cost 10X what he was asking the bust up the company and lose those jobs. He shrugged, knowing he was rich no matter what. Congress caved.

So, is there a real reason to bicker of socialism and capitalism these days. Not if you know the numbers.

[edit]
Drat - mean to insert Lester Thurow link: http://www.lthurow.com

[ 01-30-2003, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[John D Harris]

Intresting TL,
But 1st off a tax cut DOES NOT cost any government money because its not the goverments money to begin with. The USA goverment does not come down to Northport, Alabama and pull a squeege for 8 hours then hand me the money. I pull the squeege or my employees pull the squeege and they get paid for what they do.
This how the economy works:
People exchange Y number of hours of their life for X number Dollars.
Then the people exchange X number of dollars for products and services they need want or desire. the people selling the products and services say their product or service is worth so much, the consumer either buys or not. If they people get X+ dollars then they can exchange that for more products and services. Now there are a couple of real life smaller factors:
1)Fiscal disipline- not spending more then you can pay for!
2)Psycological (SP?)- If people feel they have the money they'll spend themselves into greater and greater debt. Does anybody remember what the great economic wizard Mr. Greenspan was saying in the middle-late 90's about a stock market bubble? People thunked they had more money then they had, once a month they got a statement form thier stock broker that said they had XX dollars in their stock portfolio so they thunked they had money. Well, here is the cold hard fact, ALL they had was a piece of paper that said IF they sold all of their stocks on the day the paper was processed they would get XX dollars for their stocks. They never had the money. That is why with the US economy GROWING at about 2-3%, people are whinning about the economy being bad. "Hale" I don't know about them but, where I come from growth is growth!

A couple of days after the great stock market crash of '87 Sam Walton, then the worlds richest man, was interviewed by one of the talking heads. Sam Walton was asked how he felt to have lost several billion dallors in a couple hours. Sam's reply "It was all on paper I never had it to begin with" as he got into his 1970 something pick-up truck then drove to work! Old Sam had it right He never had the money he had pieces of paper telling him he was worth this much money and that was ALL.

As for the captilist vs. socialist agruement nothing personal but HA HA HA HA
The example you sited was of one small incident. How does the estemed Economist(got a bunch of letter behind his name and spent a "poop load" of money to get those letters) explain the fact that this capitalist market has produced more advances in every field then all the other systems. The USA capitalists have created more, invented more, and produced more! "Hale" our much meligned health care is the finest in the world! Bar None!! If any doubts me then please explain why world rulers, and those that can afford to go ANYWHERE in the world come to the little ole US of A. Why aren't they going to England, Canada, or Frane? More advances in health care have come out of this country then anywhere else in the world. The USA has the largest most powerful economy in the world no one even comes close! We even have States that economies are greater then the VAST majority of countries in the rest of the world. Just some facts to thunk about.

[Timber Loftis]

Boy, John D., way to resurrect a post.

Look, I thunked, and you're missing some things I said:

1. If we go with your theory that the money is not the government's so it can't be called a "cost," then we subvert ALL taxes ever. I'll say that if you are taking this position, that's fine, but you just lost the army, the roads, and the police protection we all enjoy.

The point is simple: if the gov't took in X% of the people's income last year, and takes in less than X% this year it *is* a cost in that some services must end or the gov't must borrow money.

2. Mr. Greenspan, who is without a doubt a great man, let himself get caught up in that bubble a bit as well. But, if you believe in his pre-cognition, beware the "home market" bubble he's been mentioning for 6 months.

3. The capitalist vs. socialist argument is simple: there is no distinction. It's not a comparrison of the USA and other countries. It's a simple note that "If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...."

The systems are without a doubt quite similar. I don't care whether you call the USA "capitalism" and Norway [edit]"socialist"[edit] the only real difference is in the *amount* by which the government mixes its money with the private sector. Call the economic system what you will, but there's no real difference.

If you cite public health care, I'll point out that that's just one of several services. I can dream up lots of government money programs our gov't dishes out that those countries don't. This is a difference without a distinction.

[ 01-31-2003, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by John D Harris: 1st It is my money I make it not the Cop, He makes His own money for the job he does it's called a paycheck.

Okay, I'm pulling this from your earlier post to pick on it, but I'll note that all the stuff I'm not quoting was pretty on-point.

But, here's a basic flaw in your statement above: if YOU don't pay taxes, the cop doesn't GET a paycheck. The government has decided that it is in YOUR interest to have police protect you from harm, and seizes some of your money to do that.

If the government did not do that, we would be left only to the protection we could afford ourselves. Or, we'd all be paying private security companies "protection money" for their "services." So, do you suggest we live that way? These "goods" that are socially beneficial are called "externalities" of the market - the free market doesn't tend to produce them on its own.

[ 01-31-2003, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]