'Red Scares'
in [Drive]
|
Prev: The Stupidity of Racism
Next: European Socialsm
From: Rich Piehl on 25 Jul 2010 09:40 On 7/24/2010 11:37 PM, Odo Ital wrote: >> >> Your notes are entertaining, but they won't change reality. >> > > Mr Piehl lives in his own reality, anway. I've use facts. You use ad hominem attacks. Go back to sleep.
From: Michael Coburn on 25 Jul 2010 10:48 On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 05:57:39 -0700, Larry G wrote: > On Jul 24, 2:37 pm, Rich Piehl > <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: >> On 7/24/2010 10:04 AM, Otto Yamamoto wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Rich Piehl wrote: >> >> On 7/23/2010 8:53 PM, Otto Yamamoto wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:00:43 -0500, Rich Piehl wrote: >> >> >>>> I think you like everything that Europe does so much, their power >> >>>> plants their governments, their cars, their rails, their transit >> >>>> system their socialistic governments (that some in this group have >> >>>> denied are socialistic) >> >> >> I'm not the one that called socialistic. Larry did. >> >> >> BTW, who is the sourcing on that. It's just a chart - I'm probably >> >> missing it but no data that I see. No explanation of how the chart >> >> was arrived at and by what/whose yardstick. >> >> >> But for proof about European socialism just google it. There's all >> >> kinds of sources from all over the world. Some right, some left. >> >> > Where are the majority Socialist Governments, then? I hate to break >> > this to ya, but Socism has been irrelevant for years. Just a buncha >> > impotent guilt-ridden yuppies. And you quake in fear. >> >> Because, as the European countries are finding out, eventually you run >> out of other people's money. And that's the direction we're heading in >> here. I'm not quaking in fear. But why go down that road when we know >> what awaits us at the end of it? > > running out of money from Socialism? How about running out of money like > we have? We can no more "run out of money" than the sea can go dry. We may end up devaluing the dollar by printing too much of the stuff, but that would show up as inflation a very long time before the dollar lost any significant value. And such a happening would cause an increase in interest rates to head off the problem. The increase in interest rates would not be the correct cure for the problem, but that is what would happen in the near term. The only _real_ cure for a failing currency is an increase in taxation and/or spending cuts. We do not currently have a problem with a failing currency. But we will have it if the Bush tax cuts are not allowed to expire. And we will also have it if we don't mind out trade deficit and get it fixed. > Ya'll don't have a clue what the problem is. Most of what is causing our > structural deficit is not "govt spending". It's entitlements - social > security and Medicare which are funded from FICA taxes not income taxes. Medicare is funded by the Medicare tax and in part by the income tax. Social Security is accounted as "off budget" and is funded entirely by FICA taxes. > You guys that say "cut taxes" to head off disaster would cut what kind > of taxes. FICA taxes? No. Republicans like to lie about everything in order to get tax cuts for the rich. They want a cut in income tax. And they will lie like pigs mixing in the entitlements. > Cutting the Income Tax which is what primary funds non-Medicare and > non-SS would do what? > > Do you think cutting the Dept of Education or the EPA is going to fix > the structural deficit that is due to SS and Medicare? But that is irrelevant. The Republicans want tax cuts for the rich. And any lie will do. > The only way to fix Medicare and SS is to either raise FICA taxes or cut > benefits, extend retirement age, etc or BOTH. YESSSSSSS!!!! But if there are income tax cuts for the middle class and balanced tax increases in the FICA and Medicare tax then we would have a clear picture that no one can lie about. And NONE of the politicians want that to happen. > Cutting income taxes and cutting other Govt will not touch the > structural deficit. The Republicans bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeve that cutting taxes on the rich makes them more able and willing to invest. And if that is true then there will be more jobs and more economic activity that will surely increase the revenue from FICA an Medicare taxes as well as income taxes. The only problem with this little dance is a square one where the amount of investment does not actually change for the better. Most of the investing is taking place in Asia and not in the US. And while cutting income taxes _MAY_ create jobs in the US, such cutting will also increase the debt. That was the outcome of the Reaganomics experiment and it will be the same result now, but for far less domestic investment. The rich currently have (and the banks currently have) great bundles of money with which to invest and they are not doing it. Adding more money in their accounts will change nothing but to INCREASE the control and power that they have over the economy as a whole. > European "socialism" is having the same issues - the costs of health > care have gone up faster than what they collect in taxes to pay for it. LIE! The Europeans have the same demographics problem that we have and the same over allocation of surplus to the rich. They are going down the God Almighty Euro road and they will end up all the worse for it. > The solution is the same. You either have to increase the taxes to pay > for it or you have to cut the benefits or both. The solution is to shift payments from military spending to domestic spending and to use import tariffs to keep jobs in this country. That is a plan that will work rather well. > The Conservatives have offered NOTHING to actually deal with the causes > of the structural deficit other than be opposed to stimulus and generic > "govt spending" - which won't deal with the real causes of the > structural deficit. It is that _MORE_ government spending _DOES_ increase wage tax revenue if the spending creates JOBS or increases WAGES. Income tax proceeds are also increased. That does not mean that the structural problem should be ignored. It does need to be fixed. > It's not socialism that's the issue. Both Europe and US have the same > basic problem and that is the costs of health care - in part because of > an aging demographic is rising... and our current taxing to pay for it > is not enough. That is a fact. > It has little to do with "socialism" which is just another idiotic > canard used by those who have a sound-bite mentality How very true. -- "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
From: Dave Head on 25 Jul 2010 11:09 On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 05:57:39 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 24, 2:37�pm, Rich Piehl ><rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: >> On 7/24/2010 10:04 AM, Otto Yamamoto wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Rich Piehl wrote: >> >> On 7/23/2010 8:53 PM, Otto Yamamoto wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:00:43 -0500, Rich Piehl wrote: >> >> >>>> I think you like everything that Europe does so much, their power plants >> >>>> their governments, their cars, their rails, their transit system their >> >>>> socialistic governments (that some in this group have denied are >> >>>> socialistic) >> >> >> I'm not the one that called socialistic. � Larry did. >> >> >> BTW, who is the sourcing on that. �It's just a chart - I'm probably >> >> missing it but no data that I see. �No explanation of how the chart was >> >> arrived at and by what/whose yardstick. >> >> >> But for proof about European socialism just google it. �There's all >> >> kinds of sources from all over the world. Some right, some left. >> >> > Where are the majority Socialist Governments, then? I hate to break >> > this to ya, but Socism has been irrelevant for years. Just a buncha >> > impotent guilt-ridden yuppies. And you quake in fear. >> >> Because, as the European countries are finding out, eventually you run >> out of other people's money. �And that's the direction we're heading in >> here. �I'm not quaking in fear. �But why go down that road when we know >> what awaits us at the end of it? > >running out of money from Socialism? How about running out of money >like we have? Yes we have. Look at a bar graph of the gov't spending that is doing it. 1 of them is the DoD, a function defined in the Constitution. The other 2 are social give-away programs, Social Security and Medicare. Obamacare will absoultely kill this country if we don't get it repealed, and we will live as the 3rd world people do. Its the spending... >Ya'll don't have a clue what the problem is. Most of what is causing >our structural deficit is not "govt spending". It's entitlements - >social security and Medicare which are funded from FICA taxes not >income taxes. Those are income taxes, and would go away with the repeal of the 13th Amendment. Not only that, they are HIGHLY REGRESSIVE income taxes, that take 7.65% out of the pay of even someone making $5K/yr, it doesn't matter how little you make, that 7.65% happens. It also take another 7.65% out of what the employer is supposed to cough up, which incentivizes him to find workers overseas. >You guys that say "cut taxes" to head off disaster would cut what kind >of taxes. FICA taxes? Yep. All the F'n income taxes have to go. Every last one of 'em - personal, corporate, Social Security, Medicare, capital gains, gift, self employment, alternative mimimum, estate, etc. - I always seem to forget a category, but if its a tax on income of any sort, it has to go. And they all need to be cut to zero. That's 0.0%. >Cutting the Income Tax which is what primary funds non-Medicare and >non-SS would do what? Nothing. We would get the same amount of money from a consumption tax. >Do you think cutting the Dept of Education or the EPA is going to fix >the structural deficit that is due to SS and Medicare? The Dept. of Education could really be dissolved. It is simply Federal gov't control of something that is local by nature. The SS needs to be phased out. Cutting it suddenly isn't possible without adversely affecting lots of people. You could means test, but that would adversely affect anyone that is not rich, and the rich are not numerous enough to make much of a dent. I'd create a continuously increasing retirement age if I were doing it, and force people to either use something like a 401K instrument and save enough to retire as soon as they want to, or not do that and retire at whatever increasing age that fits the year they were born. Eventually, people born today, for instance, would never get SS or Medicare, and would have to save for that. Only Medicade, that simply keeps people from dying, but you have to be bankrupt to use it, would be left. We could afford that. >The only way to fix Medicare and SS is to either raise FICA taxes or >cut benefits, extend retirement age, etc or BOTH. You got it. >Cutting income taxes and cutting other Govt will not touch the >structural deficit. Yes it will. If you cut the income taxes to zero, the economy will boom. 10 - 15 trillion American dollars that are sequestered overseas, hiding from the US income taxes, will come back, and be put to work building factories to make even more money for the people that own this money. Inadvertently,they're going to have to hire people to work in the factories. Those people the general American public, will experience a rise in income, and will buy things, more things like big screen TVs, bigger screen TVs, American cars which would be cheper due to the income taxes on their manufacture going away, and they would then be paying MORE overall taxes to the treasury than were being collected before. That is how the deficit dies, with prosperity. No other way is going to work, we have to achieve prosperity. >European "socialism" is having the same issues - the costs of health >care have gone up faster than what they collect in taxes to pay for >it. Yep, and they continue to ration it more stringently. That system is headed for a crash. >The solution is the same. You either have to increase the taxes to pay >for it or you have to cut the benefits or both. No, the other way is to grow the economy, make the general public more wealthy, and they will cut the deficit with their spending that the consumption taxes will send to Washington. Cutting the SS and Medicare is a goal, but we can make things better MUCH more quickly by bringing back prosperity, and the way to do that is to zero all the income taxes. >The Conservatives have offered NOTHING to actually deal with the >causes of the structural deficit other than be opposed to stimulus and >generic "govt spending" - which won't deal with the real causes of >the structural deficit. I just did, and I'm a conservative. >It's not socialism that's the issue. Yes it is. It is bankrupting the country. The boneheaded efforts to pay for it by taxing prosperity, which is what the income tax is, has resulted in less prosperity. Get rid of the income tax. It is this country's 2nd biggest mistake, right behind slavery. >Both Europe and US have the same >basic problem and that is the costs of health care - in part because >of an aging demographic is rising... and our current taxing to pay for >it is not enough. Well, it is not enough, and will get even worse in that respect if we don't get rid of the income taxes. >It has little to do with "socialism" which is just another idiotic >canard used by those who have a sound-bite mentality It has everything to do with socialism - that is over 2/3rds of our big expenses. Get rid of SS and Medicare, and you only have the DoD, which could be funded easily.
From: Larry G on 25 Jul 2010 11:24 On Jul 25, 11:09 am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 05:57:39 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > > > > > > <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Jul 24, 2:37 pm, Rich Piehl > ><rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > >> On 7/24/2010 10:04 AM, Otto Yamamoto wrote: > > >> > Rich Piehl wrote: > >> >> On 7/23/2010 8:53 PM, Otto Yamamoto wrote: > >> >>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:00:43 -0500, Rich Piehl wrote: > > >> >>>> I think you like everything that Europe does so much, their power plants > >> >>>> their governments, their cars, their rails, their transit system their > >> >>>> socialistic governments (that some in this group have denied are > >> >>>> socialistic) > > >> >> I'm not the one that called socialistic. Larry did. > > >> >> BTW, who is the sourcing on that. It's just a chart - I'm probably > >> >> missing it but no data that I see. No explanation of how the chart was > >> >> arrived at and by what/whose yardstick. > > >> >> But for proof about European socialism just google it. There's all > >> >> kinds of sources from all over the world. Some right, some left. > > >> > Where are the majority Socialist Governments, then? I hate to break > >> > this to ya, but Socism has been irrelevant for years. Just a buncha > >> > impotent guilt-ridden yuppies. And you quake in fear. > > >> Because, as the European countries are finding out, eventually you run > >> out of other people's money. And that's the direction we're heading in > >> here. I'm not quaking in fear. But why go down that road when we know > >> what awaits us at the end of it? > > >running out of money from Socialism? How about running out of money > >like we have? > > Yes we have. Look at a bar graph of the gov't spending that is doing > it. 1 of them is the DoD, a function defined in the Constitution. The > other 2 are social give-away programs, Social Security and Medicare. > Obamacare will absoultely kill this country if we don't get it > repealed, and we will live as the 3rd world people do. Its the > spending... > > >Ya'll don't have a clue what the problem is. Most of what is causing > >our structural deficit is not "govt spending". It's entitlements - > >social security and Medicare which are funded from FICA taxes not > >income taxes. > > Those are income taxes, and would go away with the repeal of the 13th > Amendment. Not only that, they are HIGHLY REGRESSIVE income taxes, > that take 7.65% out of the pay of even someone making $5K/yr, it > doesn't matter how little you make, that 7.65% happens. It also take > another 7.65% out of what the employer is supposed to cough up, which > incentivizes him to find workers overseas. > > >You guys that say "cut taxes" to head off disaster would cut what kind > >of taxes. FICA taxes? > > Yep. All the F'n income taxes have to go. Every last one of 'em - > personal, corporate, Social Security, Medicare, capital gains, gift, > self employment, alternative mimimum, estate, etc. - I always seem to > forget a category, but if its a tax on income of any sort, it has to > go. And they all need to be cut to zero. That's 0.0%. > > >Cutting the Income Tax which is what primary funds non-Medicare and > >non-SS would do what? > > Nothing. We would get the same amount of money from a consumption > tax. > > >Do you think cutting the Dept of Education or the EPA is going to fix > >the structural deficit that is due to SS and Medicare? > > The Dept. of Education could really be dissolved. It is simply > Federal gov't control of something that is local by nature. > > The SS needs to be phased out. Cutting it suddenly isn't possible > without adversely affecting lots of people. You could means test, but > that would adversely affect anyone that is not rich, and the rich are > not numerous enough to make much of a dent. > > I'd create a continuously increasing retirement age if I were doing > it, and force people to either use something like a 401K instrument > and save enough to retire as soon as they want to, or not do that and > retire at whatever increasing age that fits the year they were born. > Eventually, people born today, for instance, would never get SS or > Medicare, and would have to save for that. Only Medicade, that simply > keeps people from dying, but you have to be bankrupt to use it, would > be left. We could afford that. > > >The only way to fix Medicare and SS is to either raise FICA taxes or > >cut benefits, extend retirement age, etc or BOTH. > > You got it. > > >Cutting income taxes and cutting other Govt will not touch the > >structural deficit. > > Yes it will. > > If you cut the income taxes to zero, the economy will boom. 10 - 15 > trillion American dollars that are sequestered overseas, hiding from > the US income taxes, will come back, and be put to work building > factories to make even more money for the people that own this money. > Inadvertently,they're going to have to hire people to work in the > factories. Those people the general American public, will experience > a rise in income, and will buy things, more things like big screen > TVs, bigger screen TVs, American cars which would be cheper due to the > income taxes on their manufacture going away, and they would then be > paying MORE overall taxes to the treasury than were being collected > before. That is how the deficit dies, with prosperity. No other way > is going to work, we have to achieve prosperity. > > >European "socialism" is having the same issues - the costs of health > >care have gone up faster than what they collect in taxes to pay for > >it. > > Yep, and they continue to ration it more stringently. That system is > headed for a crash. > > >The solution is the same. You either have to increase the taxes to pay > >for it or you have to cut the benefits or both. > > No, the other way is to grow the economy, make the general public more > wealthy, and they will cut the deficit with their spending that the > consumption taxes will send to Washington. Cutting the SS and > Medicare is a goal, but we can make things better MUCH more quickly by > bringing back prosperity, and the way to do that is to zero all the > income taxes. > > >The Conservatives have offered NOTHING to actually deal with the > >causes of the structural deficit other than be opposed to stimulus and > >generic "govt spending" - which won't deal with the real causes of > >the structural deficit. > > I just did, and I'm a conservative. > > >It's not socialism that's the issue. > > Yes it is. It is bankrupting the country. The boneheaded efforts to > pay for it by taxing prosperity, which is what the income tax is, has > resulted in less prosperity. Get rid of the income tax. It is this > country's 2nd biggest mistake, right behind slavery. > > >Both Europe and US have the same > >basic problem and that is the costs of health care - in part because > >of an aging demographic is rising... and our current taxing to pay for > >it is not enough. > > Well, it is not enough, and will get even worse in that respect if we > don't get rid of the income taxes. > > >It has little to do with "socialism" which is just another idiotic > >canard used by those who have a sound-bite mentality > > It has everything to do with socialism - that is over 2/3rds of our > big expenses. Get rid of SS and Medicare, and you only have the DoD, > which could be funded easily. The vast majority of the structural deficit is due to entitlements that are primarily funded from FICA. that's a fact. Europeans have UHC and pay 1/2 as much for health care. that's a fact. you can argue about the military spending or the rest of the govt spending but even if you cut both of them to the bone - it would not fix the structural deficit. that's a fact. time to man up for the realities. the first step before you propose changes to the tax system is to man up to the current realities about the role of the entitlements in the deficit. You can replace the income tax with a VAT tax but if you don't address the Medicare and SS problems.. we'll still have the same problems. the bottom line is that we do not tax enough for the benefits we are paying out and it comprises close to 2/3 of the structural deficit. The trouble with the anti-govt rhetoric is that it's all over the map... lots of talk... but precious little in addressing the actual realities. Cutting the Ed, EPA, FDA, etc, etc, name the agencies you don't like.. cut them all .. get rid of them... and you're still going to have a huge structural deficit. thems the facts...
From: Larry G on 25 Jul 2010 11:28
On Jul 25, 11:09 am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 05:57:39 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > "The SS needs to be phased out. Cutting it suddenly isn't possible without adversely affecting lots of people. " Who is agreeing with you on this? Not the establishment Republicans. Not the Tea Party - the last POLL of them say 2/3 of them do not want to get rid of SS. so WHO do you think will champion this? Do you seriously think that the majority of people in this country are going to elect to Congress and the Presidency someone who says they will phase out SS? what is Your ... REALISTIC solution here? anyone can blather anti-govt rhetoric but where are the solutions? |