NO APPLE CRITICISM ALLOWED!!
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Kurt Ullman on 19 Jul 2010 16:27 In article <znu-C03E14.15064519072010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > > Money that our grandchildren will be paying back to cover that debt. > > If it weren't for the wars Bush started, his tax cuts, and the economic > downturn and necessary bailout measures (which began under Bush), the > budget would be pretty close to being balanced: > > http://www.offthechartsblog.org/whose-deficit-is-it-anyway/ Real light on the citations. If you look at the Bush tax cuts (or the Reagan tax cuts or the Kennedy tax cuts-- I find it interesting that few seem to think the JFK cuts were a bad thing) you will see that the receipts went down the first year, but then went back up. And they were accelerating for about the next 5 years at a year-over-year basis. (Find the statistical abstract of the US online and do the math yourself if interested). If you look at the scoring of the Joint Comittee on Taxation, they expected receipts to fall every year for the first five (and even the first was less than they predicted). So, the tax cuts actually increased revenue (definitely over what the JCT stated and arguably over what they would have been otherwise). (Easily available through Thomas.gov) I would also like to point out that Congress had their hands in this, too. The War funding bills (because GW wanted his money he had to give others theirs) turned into Christmas trees with up to 33% of the money in the "war funding" bills going to domestic earmarks. Also most of the nasty things the Dems are now saying contributed to the great recession, they agreed to. Glass-Steagal repeal, for instance, occurred under Clinton and passed both Houses by big majorities (the final conference committee report passing it to the President was by voice vote in the Senate). Same with most of the other acts they are pointing to (although obviously that was the main one under Clinton). As an aside, my research into this has actually served to increase my respect for Barney Frank. Over most of these bills, he has consistently voted against them, unlike Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid. So I can at least listen to his thoughts on the subject with being taken aback by the hypocrisy. But I digress. Anyway, as with most disasters this one has many Fathers (and Mothers for that matter). From multiple Congresses with multiple parties in control who passed bills that they later regretted and tried to forget their votes, to greedy bankers, to greedy homeowners who signed for loans they knew were bogus, to Greenspan for all those years of easy money, to Bush for selling his soul to the Congress to get this war money passesd, etc. etc. Actually I think Big Al pretty much summed this whole thing up quite nicely: , "They [financial crises] are all different, but they have one fundamental source," he said. "That is the unquenchable capability of human beings when confronted with long periods of prosperity to presume that it will continue." -- I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator and name it after the IRS. Robert Bakker, paleontologist
From: Kurt Ullman on 19 Jul 2010 16:31 In article <znu-92C80B.16154619072010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > > Redistribution barely exists in the US. There certainly isn't nearly > enough of it to offset the market's inherent propensity to make the rich > richer faster than everyone else, which is precisely why they've been > _getting_ richer faster than everyone else over the last three decades. So you are basically saying that those who you feel have too much should be relieved of it. Some one can be too successful and you can't stomach that? > > You can argue all you like about how "fair" this might be, but if it > goes on for long enough the obvious consequence is oligarchy. We're > already pretty far down that road. -- I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator and name it after the IRS. Robert Bakker, paleontologist
From: ZnU on 19 Jul 2010 16:36 In article <xpGdnSITWtkgM9nRnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <znu-3FC419.14572319072010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, > ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > > > In article <GqWdnZQlkbdR0NnRnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, > > Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <znu-DC44BA.01464019072010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, > > > ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > "Socialism" is not a particularly specific term. There are some > > > > European countries in which policies that could be described as > > > > "socialist" have worked quite well. > > > > > > Yeah like France and Greece. Works up to a time when the country and > > > the economy is growing, but when things finally start the other way, > > > the excrement hits the air circulating device. > > > > Reduced tax revenue in times of economic downturn is hardly specific > > to "socialist" countries. > > No, this is related to demographics, definitely exacerbated by the > econ downturn. The downturn sped things up a little, but the same > outcome was inevitable. > > > > > They are already running into what we will be seeing in a few years, > > > when there are too few workers supporting too many on government > > > programs. > > > > The retired population is growing relative to the labor force. This will > > inevitably result in workers having to give up more to support retirees. > > If you think you've found some way around this, you've merely succeeded > > in obfuscating the problem sufficiently to confuse yourself. > > In 1950, there were 0.14 retirees per worker. By 1995, this > had risen to 0.22 retirees per worker. Over the next 40 years this > increase continues unabated, reaching 0.29 retirees per worker in 2020, > and 0.39 retirees per worker in 2040. This constitutes a 75% increases > in the retiree ratio relative to 1995. How are the workers going to give > up enough. A couple of centuries of accelerating productivity increases: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3c/Real_gdp_per_capita.png All that new technology we invent every year doesn't just result in neater gadgets. > Also, why should they give up so much to support retirees. What is the alternative? > Between SS, Medicare, and some of the details of the health plan (such > as minimizing the difference in premium between high cost oldsters and > less cost youngsters) you will a massive shift of wealth from younger > generations to the older one. Yes, as a consequence of a massive shift in _population_ from younger generations to older. How else would you expect it to work? -- "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
From: ZnU on 19 Jul 2010 16:56 In article <f6idnbzsn4raKNnRnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <znu-C03E14.15064519072010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, > ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Money that our grandchildren will be paying back to cover that debt. > > > > If it weren't for the wars Bush started, his tax cuts, and the economic > > downturn and necessary bailout measures (which began under Bush), the > > budget would be pretty close to being balanced: > > > > http://www.offthechartsblog.org/whose-deficit-is-it-anyway/ > Real light on the citations. > If you look at the Bush tax cuts (or the Reagan tax cuts or the Kennedy > tax cuts-- I find it interesting that few seem to think the JFK cuts > were a bad thing) you will see that the receipts went down the first > year, but then went back up. This is, once again, _highly_ misleading. The economy grows. Thus, after tax cuts, government revenue eventually recovers. This is not really in dispute. The issue is whether it ends up higher than it _would have otherwise been_. In this case... not so much. See: http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/07/13/ezra-klein-is-dismayed-that-some-pe ople-think-the-bush-tax-cuts-raised-revenue/ And the situation is actually even a bit worse than that, because a fair bit of the economic growth that allowed revenues to recover (even at the lower rate) was a consequence of unsustainable economic policy (the housing bubble, over-leveraging by investment banks, and of course deficit spending by the government itself). [snip] > Also most of the nasty things the Dems are now saying contributed > to the great recession, they agreed to. Glass-Steagal repeal, for > instance, occurred under Clinton and passed both Houses by big > majorities (the final conference committee report passing it to the > President was by voice vote in the Senate). Same with most of the other > acts they are pointing to (although obviously that was the main one > under Clinton). The fact that the Democrats have in some instances bought into right-wing deregulation fantasies hardly undermines my argument that they are, in fact, fantasies. In fact, both parties supporting this sort of thing rather supports my argument that increasing wealth concentration is taking us down the road to oligarchy. [snip] -- "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
From: ZnU on 19 Jul 2010 17:01
In article <CZOdnV8D8sybK9nRnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <znu-92C80B.16154619072010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, > ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Redistribution barely exists in the US. There certainly isn't nearly > > enough of it to offset the market's inherent propensity to make the rich > > richer faster than everyone else, which is precisely why they've been > > _getting_ richer faster than everyone else over the last three decades. > > So you are basically saying that those who you feel have too much > should be relieved of it. Some one can be too successful and you can't > stomach that? Leaving aside for a moment the political consequences of wealth concentration that I addressed in the next paragraph, the unstated assumption behind your question is that the market allocates income in a way that is inherently fair, so any deviations from that allocation are necessary unfair. That is not an assumption that I share. Or that I have ever seen an argument in favor of that wasn't essentially circular. > > You can argue all you like about how "fair" this might be, but if it > > goes on for long enough the obvious consequence is oligarchy. We're > > already pretty far down that road. -- "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes |