Obama Administration endorses

suga-shane posted a bulletin Wed Jul 22 22:49:29 -0700 2009 15 comments
Icon_24
41pc
suga-shane (endorses) Wed Jul 22 22:49:29 -0700 2009

We are just setting ourselves up for another burst bubble if we do not reconcile our tax rates. There were ZERO economic meltdowns, ZERO collapses, ZERO depressions while our top marginal tax rate was between 70% and 90%. Yet, at every point in American history where the top tax rate was cut significantly there has soon followed a major economic calamity. These include the 1st Great Depression (which followed the slashing of top rates in the 20s, leading to a short-lived bubble which quickly burst) and our current Great Big Depression (we’ve now had 3 decades of taxes for the richest being cut and 3 decades of continual wall street tom-foolery and continued hardship felt by the rest of working Americans). Reversing Bushie’s tax cut is a start, but nothing significant will result unless we reconcile the tax rate back to what it was during the most prosperous time in recent American history, where we actually had a middle class.

Icon_24
2pc
jward52 (endorses) Tue Dec 01 05:03:12 -0800 2009
kudos — You are close to correct in the open Earning’s amounts. – But what does the word “Earning’s” mean?! – Not my opinion, but the facts are that approx. – .3 of 1% – earn, profit(?), own, and/or control, or manipulate over 35% of Everything. It appears that these .3 of the top 1% are quite powerful, and want to stay that way. – And as for Taxes, – these ‘Filthy $Rich’ 1 out of 400 Americans, – mostly thru loop-holes & tax manipulations, pay very little – compared to the % of Income that the average American Citizen tries to Live on. – Some will disagree, but this is not my opinion, but simply the Truth (facts). – jward52
Icon_24
18pc
H. Evers (opposes) Wed Dec 02 11:12:28 -0800 2009
Interesting words fact, truth. People throw them around all the time. My information came from the IRS through the National Tax Foundation. http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html

I would be interested in seeing “the Truth (Facts)”. Do they come without pejorative statements or are the insulting remarks required to “know your truth”?

Cheers!

H. Evers

jward52 posted a bulletin Tue Dec 01 04:47:36 -0800 2009 1 comment
Icon_24
2pc
jward52 (endorses) Tue Dec 01 04:47:36 -0800 2009
Under Clinton,- America was moving out of national DEBT. What-ever Bush / Congress did then and after,- changed this and so much more. Under Clinton, the U.S. would be DEBT Free by 2012. So then what happened under Bush? – Take a look, and add it up. The facts are evident. Bush supported and protected the very $wealthy top 3%, and the corporate-elitists, and the military/industrial dealers, – and the Wall-Street / top-BANK Derivative Scheme. If Clinton had a 3rd term,- then most likely the U.S. would Not be $13-Trillion in DEBT,- would Not be in Iraq,- and would Not be at a jobless rate of over 11+%. There seems to be a tiny link from Bush taking office,- to DEBT, WAR, ECONOMIC CRISIS, JOB-LOSS, DEVALUED-$DOLLAR, POVERTY+, and DEATH/DESTRUCTION!? – This “DEBTTHING MAY BE A REAL PROBLEM. Maybe We should eliminate/erase Debt all together. After all, none of this $Debt or $Interest is coming my way,- nor to anyone I personally know.(?) Most of this DEBT seems to being going UP-UP-&-AWAY! The Globalist Banksters support & promote (usury-funny-money)-DEBT, WAR, & POVERTY;- and Globalization of $Jobs/$Profits! – So why do WE-the-People go on allowing the Globalist Banksters to manage & manipulate Our $Money Supply here in Our Constitutional REPUBLIC?! – Just one observance:- no where in Our CONSTITUTION does it say ‘we-the-banksters’, or ‘we-the-corporations’, - nor ‘we-the-congress’!! - jward52
H. Evers posted a bulletin Tue Oct 27 13:00:51 -0700 2009 1 comment
Icon_24
18pc
H. Evers (opposes) Tue Oct 27 13:00:52 -0700 2009

Tax refugees staging escape from New York © NY Post 27 Oct 2009

New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers — and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows. More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country.

The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City — meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out. “The Empire State is being drained of an invaluable resource — people,” the report said.

What’s worse is that the families fleeing New York are being replaced by lower-income newcomers, who consequently pay less in taxes. Overall, the ex-New Yorkers earn about 13 percent more than those who moved into the state, the study found.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/tax_refugees_staging_escape_from_qb4pItQ71UXIc0i6cd3UpK

Yep you overtax tax those wealthy people and guess what…They move! Now guess what happens to the middle class and poor in NYC…Their taxes go up and services go down. Yo, all you progressive Democrats out there what do you think will happen when the taxes for the new health care and Cap with tax and the surcharge tax, and the wind fall profit tax all kick in. My oh My just wait and see what unemployment looks like then.

Maybe just maybe this socialism/fascism/progressivism Change thing wasn’t such a good idea???

Cheers!

H. Evers

mikempp posted a bulletin Thu Oct 15 11:26:09 -0700 2009 14 comments
Icon_24
0pc
mikempp (endorses) Thu Oct 15 11:26:09 -0700 2009

explain why so many of the sports figures with huge amonut of income become us citizens? the reason is they pay less taxes than anyplace else on earth. sad fact is we have to pay taxes, now granted we have huge amounts of waste, but the rich need to pay their share.

Icon_24
11pc
Okie (opposes) Sat Oct 17 08:20:53 -0700 2009

What men do and have done to our country is inevitable (Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil- Ecclesiastes Chapter 8) , even the founders knew eventually we would deteriorate into a tyranny; read Jefferson. Surely it would be a surprise to some of them that we have lasted as long as it has.

Before critical mass is reached resulting in a complete fascist take over or all out civil war, a complete undoing of what the hands of men have done to our republic must be done. A complete reboot of our constitution (al) form of government is required. Of coarse this will likely not happen considering the heart of men when given such power.

It doesn’t have to be like a complete erasing of our rich American history, that’s what many have been successful at doing already. It can be Amendment #28 that annuls 200 years of constitutional tampering and federal case law. Most of the major social amendments like the 13th are already an established part of our culture so there will be no threat to anybody’s civil liberties.

Will there be difficulties, of coarse there will be. I expect that many of the old amendments could be re-established if it was found to be absolutely necessary.

Just look at what is happening to the dollar; it’s all but gone. Our leaders know what to do but they keep avoiding doing it, they keep trying to push back the inevitable in an attempt to save face and line their own pockets; the heart of man thing again.

Just start over. We have all came to a point in life where we just needed to take a step back and reassess our direction. This is what we need to do on a national level or we can just kiss it all goodbye baby.

Icon_24
18pc
H. Evers (opposes) Sat Oct 17 09:54:20 -0700 2009

Look Mike you have several things confused. Let talk about just who will be taxed under when the tax cuts are repealed. If you look at the stats on the web site posted you will see that the top 1% pay better than 40% of all taxes. You may have missed the other fact that goes along with this. Let me highlight it here.

“To be in the top 1% all you have to earn is $410,000. Please note that the majority os the so called super wealthy 1% are small business owners and their adjusted gross income is really their business income.”

Business income produced by their small companies. NOTE: Small business in this country employs the MAJORITY of people who work and pay taxes in this country. So what you are really doing when you raise the tax is destroying small business, increasing unemployment (now at over 10% Nationally), and extending the EMERGENCY so that Mr. Rom Emanuel and President can continue to increase the power and control of our lives exercised by the central government. This is the government that caused the problem in the first place.

You want fairness? Ok then; why is it Fair for bottom 48% of the country to pay no taxes at all?

Cheers

H. Evers

H. Evers posted a bulletin Wed Sep 30 07:00:41 -0700 2009 1 comment
Icon_24
18pc
H. Evers (opposes) Wed Sep 30 07:00:41 -0700 2009

California is going in the tank with debt just like this country under the Obama administration’s plan to tax the wealthy out of existence. California is way ahead of President Obama having successfully driven away many of the achievers who create wealth. Taxing the tar out of the productive in society will do that. But it seems as though things have gotten so desperate, that someone in California has actually admitted that their tax system is driving away the wealthy and therefore decreasing tax revenues.

“Sacramento, Calif. (AP) – A state commission is expected to submit a report Tuesday to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers that recommends bold changes to California’s tax system. But it’s being met by political skepticism before the ink dries.

The Commission on the 21st Century Economy is expected to recommend repealing the sales and corporate taxes, flattening the income tax rate and taxing businesses in a way that has never been tried on a wide scale in the United States.

A draft copy of the report obtained by The Associated Press showed the commission will recommend that the cash-strapped state change its personal income tax structure to reduce the burden on the wealthy. It also recommends replacing the state sales and corporate taxes with a new business levy that taxes net receipts, in an attempt to tax the value of all goods and services businesses produce in the state. “Improvements to the tax system, if made, can be an important factor in how quickly and strongly the state rebounds and grows,” the report states."

Now do not hold your breath that California has finally discovered reality. Like many who post here Californians believe that you can get something for nothing and that the workers not the entrepreneur that produces the wealth necessary to support government. It is interesting; however, to see that in spite of the disaster confronting them “progressive” politicians stick to their core value of government first.

Cheers!

H. Evers

H. Evers posted a bulletin Fri Sep 25 06:53:02 -0700 2009 1 comment
Icon_24
18pc
H. Evers (opposes) Fri Sep 25 06:53:03 -0700 2009

A Study by the Congressional Research Service reveals Obama will spend more on welfare of all types in the next year than Bush spent on the entire Iraq War,

The Congressional Research Service tells us that the total cost of the Iraq war under President Bush was $622 billion. Do you have any clue how much Obama is going to spend on welfare, treating America’s parasite infestation, in just 2010 alone? Care to guess? Well … let’s try $888 billion. Yup, you got it. That’s about $260 billion more than the cost of the entire Iraq war under Bush. And what will we get for that money? An entrenched welfare class, that’s what. Our parasite problem will become even worse. Frankly, we got a lot more bang for the buck out of the war in Iraq.
Remember the next time you vote; elections have consequences!
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=54400

Cheers!

H. Evers

H. Evers posted a bulletin Tue Aug 04 08:54:39 -0700 2009 5 comments
Icon_24
18pc
H. Evers (opposes) Tue Aug 04 08:54:39 -0700 2009

A little reality check on who pays the bills for all the largess of the Federal Government.

The IRS notes that the top 1% of taxpayers officially paid 40.4% of total federal income taxes. This is the highest percentage in modern history. Compare that number to twenty years prior (1987) when the top 1% of taxpayers paid 24.8% of income taxes. These high-achievers actually earned about 22.8% of total adjusted gross income and paid 40.4% of total federal income taxes. Hmmm, something may just be out of balance here. By the way to be in the top 1% all you have to earn is $410,000. Most, of the 1% are small business owners and their adjusted gross income is really their business income.

The share of taxes paid by the top 1% of taxpayers now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95% of taxpayers. Again, the top 1% paid 40.4% of incomes taxes while the bottom 95% paid 39.4% of the income tax burden. That means that the top 1% of taxpayers (which is just 1.4 million people) paid a larger share of the income tax burden than the bottom 95% of taxpayers (which is comprised of 134 million people). This means that the evil rich are carrying the load for us all.

Now the demagogues on this site and other places will continue to promote the idea that all of the vote-buying social welfare programs can easily be funded with additional taxes on the rich. Where do they stop? When the top 1% is paying about 80% of all income taxes? One more point from the IRS as if this was not enough. The IRS presented data on the super rich, the top 0.1% of tax earners. We are talking about the top 10% of the top 1% of earners. About 141,000 taxpayers fit into this group. Those 141,000 people account for 12% of the adjusted gross income earned but they pay 20% of all federal income taxes.

So now you have reality distort it as you will. Preach hate against the over achievers who earn more than you. Demand that THY pay “their share”. However, just understand that in reality it is you who are not paying your fair share.

Cheers!

H. Evers

Icon_24
3pc
TylerFromNE (endorses) Fri Aug 28 22:23:04 -0700 2009

“Your statement: ‘crowding-out effect: the incomes of those at the top have crowded out those at the bottom’ is economically incorrect it assumes that capitol is static when the opposite is the truth.”

It assumes nothing of the sort. Economic growth comes from, and in the long run can only come from, increases in the productive powers of labor. This can be done through a number of means: qualitative and/or quantitative increases in the stock of physically productive capital; scientific progress, and the discovery and technical implementation of new physical principles; the development of more and better public infrastructure, which translates into the production of physical savings and the lowering of economic overhead throughout the economy; an increase in the skill level of the workforce; and so on.

But I never said or implied that the capital stock is static – although, if you believe the oft-parroted myth that “government can’t create wealth,” you are tacitly making such a claim. What I will say, which is backed up by objective fact, is that inequality in the distribution of wealth and the supply of capital goods and other means of production have little to do with each other, and may in fact have an inverse relationship. The Democratic Republic of the Congo has the world’s highest degree of economic inequality, and is among the world’s least capitalized economies. France is the world’s most capital-intensive economy, and they have a very low degree of economic inequality as well as a very progressive tax structure. Back home here, the total supply of productive capital in the US economy has been decreasing steadily for decades, while economic inequality has been increasing. So, the whole notion that a greater degree of economic inequality means a greater capital stock is totally false. Indeed, the opposite seems to be the case.

It seems that the problem here is that you conflate the hoarding of paper assets by a small elite with the formation and accumulation of productive capital. Or, put another way, that the more wealth the rich acquire, the more actually productive capital there is in the economy. This is clearly not the case – there is no guarantee that the increase in the volume of savings possessed by the rich is not merely the result of a transfer from the working and middle classes. But hey, economic inequality in the US today is at levels unseen since feudal times, so that must mean the economy is booming, right? Err… not so much.

“When capital is generated the total pool of available capital increases and there for that is more for everyone.”

That is by no means assured. First of all, let’s be clear: financial capital is not the same thing as productive capital. The notion that “what’s good for Wall Street is good for main street” has been utterly obliterated by the experience of the last decade or so.

Now, even assuming you mean productive capital, perhaps the rich merely consume the increased productive surplus themselves? Or maybe new capital goods are created/purchased by a firm not with the intention of increasing production? For example, in the 1990’s, the Gillette corporation built new factories in Europe, but not to substantially increase their manufacturing output. Instead, they let it sit mostly idle, so as to apply downward pressure on wages at their US plants – in case the US workers decided that they deserved a share of the firm’s rising profits since they produced them, management could merely shift production to their European facilities, so as to keep their domestic markets supplied. In other words, the sole purpose of this investment was not to increase sales/production, only to use the slack production capacity as a bludgeon with which to beat their labor force.

Many, many similar examples exist. The point is that unless there’s some mechanism to ensure that workers share in the increased economic surplus they’ve produced, firms often find that it’s more profitable (in the short term of course; in the long run, it’s untenable) to drive down wages (which merely creates more accounting profits), rather than increase aggregate production (from which most benefit). In short, your claim is only true if industry is already operating at full capacity; however, since WWII, US industry has only operated at an average of about 70% of capacity. Right now, it’s even lower – barely over 50%.

“Now I grant you that this is only true in a Capitalist economy operating a free market.”

Ah yes, the “free market.” If only one existed, we’d have the capitalist utopia you imagine. Of course, in the real world, you find that collusion (e.g., price and wage fixing, and other forms of anti-competitive practice) amongst large enterprises is the norm, and “free market” competition is a very rare exception – if it exists at all. In practice (and I am well aware that Friedmanites and Hayekians have a very difficult time distinguishing between fantasy and reality), instead of “free market competition,” you find cartels, monopolies, oligopolies, monopsonies, oligopsonies, and on and on.

“In a socialist economy the capital is static mandated by the government.”

What on earth are you talking about?? To my knowledge, there is not a single “socialist” economy in the world which has a zero-growth policy. The Soviet Union was THE “truly socialist” economy. In 1917, there was virtually no industry in the country. By 1941, they were turning out tanks, planes, rifles, and all sorts of munitions in the millions. Now, sorry if I seem harsh, but you can’t make absolutely false, totally absurd statements like that and expect to be taken seriously.

As to how socialist economies actually work, we must first realize that “socialism” is an extremely nebulous term; these days, all it really means is that production should be organized to benefit the whole society, not just a small elite. As a practical matter, we can conceptually divide socialist economies into two different types: on the one hand, you have those of the command-and-control sort, such as that which existed in the USSR, where the state owns almost all capital, and makes all or nearly all decisions concerning production. On the other hand, you have those approximating the Dirigisme model used (very successfully, I might add) in post-WWII France, and emulated in many other countries. Under the Dirigisme model, the state has a strong directive role in production and usually owns some of the strategically important large industries; however, small and medium-sized enterprises operate as in a capitalist system. It’s actually debatable as to whether or not this model is truly “socialist,” as the highest form of capital organization remains the equities markets, but that’s just arguing semantics. Likewise, there is never a hard-and-fast distinction in practice – the Social Market Economy of Germany is mostly privatized, but heavily regulated and unionized, and the labor unions hold seats on the boards of most major companies; the Soviets, on the other hand, set the standard for a centrally planned economy, but even under Stalin, private enterprise never disappeared entirely (though it was only about 1% of the economy for most of the Union’s history). Other variants exist, but these are the two primary models of teh socializms.

So, under the Soviet model, basic production guidelines were put forward by the Politburo in a series of 5-year plans; these included outlines of major investment projects, preliminary targets for the production of basic commodities, and general economic strategy. After approval and revision by the Communist Party’s Central Committee, the plan was sent to government ministries for further review, revision and elaboration. Next, the economic plan went to Gosplan, the Soviet planning agency. Gosplan would gather data on enterprise inventories, and ensure input commodities were provided for the planned outputs for each sector of the economy. The plan was then broken down further for individual regions, economic ministries, enterprises, and so forth. During this process, there were various reviews and bargaining procedures. The individual enterprises – which weren’t all that different from capitalist companies – of course were responsible for doing the actual production.

However, totally contrary to your assertion, the Soviet Economy was always oriented around (and nearly always achieved, until the late 70’s) high growth through the development of heavy industry and large infrastructure projects. This approach was quite successful for a long time: by the 1970’s, the Soviet economy was the 2nd largest in the world; destitution, starvation, and unemployment (all rampant pre-1917) had become virtually non-existent; industrial and infrastructure development were closing in on Western standards; and living standards had risen many-fold since the revolution.

However, due primarily to inept and short-sighted leadership, the USSR ran into three major problems beginning in the 1970’s: first, while the defense and related sectors remained top-notch until the end, for a variety of reasons, it became increasingly difficult (in no small part due to official state ideology) to transfer scientific and productive improvements from the defense sector to the civilian economy; this led to continued growth in the defense sector, but much slower growth in civilian production. Second, due to the high oil prices during this time, the USSR was flush with foreign exchange earnings. This induced the intelligentsia to stop making adequate investments in infrastructure and industrial production, instead relying on forex subsidies to enterprises to encourage growth. When oil tanked in the 1980’s, these subsidies became unsustainable, their balance of payments deficit exploded, so to maintain output, the leadership was forced to go deeply into debt. Third, the debacle in Afghanistan wreaked havoc on the already stagnating economy, necessitated even more foreign borrowing, and began a process of physical breakdown of the economy. Gorbachev of came to power in the 1980’s, but rather than rebuild the physical economy, he engaged in draconian austerity policies (which only aggravated the ongoing physical breakdown) and dismantled parts of the planning apparatus, which did not result in an increased role of market forces, but merely led to chaos, rampant shortages of goods, and shortly thereafter, the collapse of the USSR.

As for the “Euro-Socialists,” as you call them, you don’t know what you’re talking about here either. The general philosophy of European economic policy is that the state provides some direction for private production, as well provision of an array of high-quality social services, while the private sector does most of the heavy lifting. Basically, they’re just not as dogmatic about economic policy over there; if the state can do something best, then the policy is for the state to do it, if the private sector can do it better, then it tends to be a private-sector activity. To go back to France again, which provides a typical example (and because I’ve lived there) the state owns majority stakes in the railroad system (SNCF), the power grid (EDF), gas infrastructure (GDF), the national airline (Air France), the state nuclear plant manufacturer (Areva), and the mail service (La Poste). However, these are not structured as government agencies, but rather as société anonymes (S.A.‘s, public corporations). Most of these companies have a minority of their stock listed on public exchanges. The state also has minority stakes in many other large companies, mostly in the aerospace and defense, oil & gas production, banking, transport, and telecom sectors. However, these companies aren’t as vertically integrated as their US counterparts; a much greater share of production occurs in fully private small- and medium-sized enterprises. All of the shops, cafes, and restaurants are privately-run small businesses. Agriculture is almost all family farms.

Health care is sort of complicated: one of 3 state insurance funds pays for 70-95% of necessary procedures, and most people have what they call “top-up” private insurance for the balance. General practitioners are almost exclusively private practitioners, as are lower percentage of specialists; I’d say a little over half of the hospitals are publicly owned and managed. All-in-all, the French health care system routinely scores as the best in the world, and I concur completely with that assessment. I’d much rather be sick there than over here – not least because I know I won’t have to file for bankruptcy if I require some expensive treatment.

If you ask me, I think their Dirigisme approach works extremely well, and it’s really impressive what they’ve accomplished. I mean, this is a country with no energy resources other than a bit of uranium, and they’re one of the world’s largest energy exporters. You can take a high-speed train and get from Paris to the Med in just a few hours. There’s almost no poverty, and despite some racial/ethnic/religious tensions, crime is a small fraction of what it is here. They only work 35 hours a week, but they’re the most productive workforce in the world, and they make a good bit more than Americans for the same work. So yeah, it’s just great, all of it – the schools, the culture, the food, the wine, the women, the language, the 6 weeks of guaranteed vacation – it all kicks the hell out of what we’ve got here on the American economic plantation. Well, except for all of that god-awful accordion music, but hey, no place is perfect. In fact, I’m highly considering moving back in a few months. Especially considering that the fake American consumer economy is collapsing, whilst France and Germany which, according to free-market fanatics and laissez-faire Talibanis, have “socialist” economies (e.g., economies based on scientific and technological development, social solidarity, the production of useful things, and taking care of the needs of the population. This stands in stark contrast to the American economy, which is now solidly based on real estate and financial derivatives speculation, nickel-and-diming your fellow citizens to death, worldwide banking ponzi schemes, the wanton slaughter of poor brown people around the globe, and the shoveling of ever-greater quantities of GMO franken-foods down the pie-hole of the brain-dead, morbidly obese American consumer like some duck on a Foie Gras farm.) are already in recovery.

“This causes their economies to stagnate to the degree the collectivist tendencies of socialism are enforced.”

Seeing as how you’ve already embarrassed yourself enough by spouting your warmed-over, incessantly debunked Reagan-era talking points, I don’t think this even requires a response.

“I recommend you read “Cowboy Capitalism: European Myths, American Reality” By Olaf Gersemann”

I’ve heard of it – more neo-liberal garbage about how the Europeans should abandon common sense, common decency, civil society, and social solidarity, and instead adopt the American credo of the last few decades: “GIMME IT, IT’S MINE! GIMME GIMME! I DON’T OWE ANYONE ANYTHING, I’M A SELF-MADE MAN!!! GIMME MORE! I WANT IT NOW!!! WHAT, YOU DON’T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE?! WHO CARES, YOU LAZY CANCER KID?! I don’t care if you’re 9 years old and have leukemia, PULL YOURSELF UP BY YOUR BOOTSTRAPS AND GO GET A JOB WITH BENEFITS ALREADY! SCREW YOU KID, I PAY ENOUGH TAXES ALREADY! IT’S MINE! IT’S ALL MINE! GIMME GIMME GIMME!!! MORE MORE MORE!!!”

Yeah, real great that’s worked out for us. Me, I think I’m going to move back across the pond. I’m sure your free-market slogans and laissez-faire dogmas will be a great comfort as the phony American economy descends into neo-feudalism and Zimbabwean living standards. Oh wait – you’ll just go back to wallowing in willful ignorance and your trusty old anti-politics. Yes, just blame everything on that evil gubmint! It’s all the gubmint’s fault!

Icon_24
18pc
H. Evers (opposes) Mon Aug 31 08:06:18 -0700 2009

YOU _“It assumes nothing of the sort.”
ME: Please re read what you posted, “The rich pay such a relatively large percentage of aggregate tax revenue because the incomes of those nearer the bottom of the ladder have been destroyed by the free trade swindle…”. The growth of capital (and conversely its reduction) benefits all members of the society. It is a simplification but true to say that if the rich get richer in a Free Market so do I. Conversely if the rich become impoverished then so do I. Opportunity comes from Capital. Capital is generated by the market place not by Government. Government can advantage itself using the market place but it cannot successfully supplant a free market with a Government operated fraud.

YOU_ “That is by no means assured. First of all, let’s be clear: financial capital is not the same thing as productive capital.
ME_ Although I appreciate your intellectual capacity I am unwilling to accept your thesis on your unsubstantiated statements. This is especially true when you consider some of the outright misrepresentations you have made in other issues. Could you provide some proof (historical world be best) that what you are saying has some basis in reality? Also money like labor is a commodity that seeks its own good, its own level of value return. All Capital is productive because “what’s good for Wall Street is good for Main Street” is true. The median income in the USA in 2007 dollars for 1990 was $29,000. In 2007 that had grown to $49,000. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h03AR.html

YOU – “To my knowledge, there is not a single “socialist” economy in the world which has a zero-growth policy.”
“but even under Stalin, private enterprise never disappeared entirely (though it was only about 1% of the economy for most of the Union’s history). Other variants exist, but these are the two primary models of teh socializms.”
ME: Your Knowledge is, as I have suggested other where, faulty. The Soviet economy was in decline prior to WWII and after the boost that patriotism coupled to the threat of national annihilation by Germany had passed the basic destructive tendencies in all Collectivist societies acted to bring about the destruction of Soviet Russia. Try reading the attached. http://www.geocities.com/rusekon/#USSR

YOU_ In France: “There’s almost no poverty, and despite some racial/ethnic/religious tensions, crime is a small fraction of what it is here.”
“They only work 35 hours a week,”
ME: 6.2% of the French population is impoverished vs. 12% in the USA; however, the standards of what constitutes “poverty” in France and the USA are nowhere near compatible. Perhaps the best reflection of just what the relative economic situation of the poor in either country is the relative purchasing power of the individual combined with the GDP. In this analysis the USA is 4th behind Luxemburg, Iceland and Norway. France is 21st. Some racial/ethnic/religious tensions? What a joke! There are neighborhoods in Paris and other French cities where the police do not go and where Sharia is followed. http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/1639 Unemployment even in the best of times runs at 9.3% on average in France. And this is long term unemployment. In order to maintain their almost 10% unemployment it is necessary to have a 35 hour work week and “feather bedding” in France is a national scandal. Citizens pay for their “Free” treatment through monthly taxes taken directly out of their paychecks and annual income tax returns. Since the tax system is “Progressive” the more you earn the more you pay. The cost of this system is 11% of the French DGP (16% for the USA), but the hidden secret is that the entire system fail if it were not for the private insurance and individuals that accounts for 24% of all costs. So the actual cost of the French system is around 16% of their GDP or equal to the USA and climbing. http://www.nationmaster.com/country/fr-france

YOU _ “I’ve heard of it – more neo-liberal garbage about how the Europeans should abandon common sense…”
ME_ Typical, no logic, no reasonable response but invective. Read the book then use something other than yelling

YOU _ “Me, I think I’m going to move back across the pond…”
ME _ Ah yes? Any time soon?

Cheers!

H. Evers

H. Evers posted a bulletin Wed Jun 17 08:32:42 -0700 2009 5 comments
Icon_24
18pc
H. Evers (opposes) Wed Jun 17 08:32:46 -0700 2009

I believe that it is pretty obvious that the efforts of the democrat socialist party to transform this country into a socialist/fascist state are having an adverse effect on the economy. Supporters of this socialist/fascist will object that the economic problems were caused by the previous administration and to some degree they would be correct. However, I ask you why has the present administration and congress continued to pursue the same failed policies while aggressively assaulting the creators of wealth in this country and taking over its industry?

Never has the government run a company successfully, Look a Fanny and Freddy! Heck look at the TVA if you want to see a long term failure. This president and this congress have incurred more debt than all other congresses put together and this is the first year I cannot wait to see what is next. Around the world the media (media that has not sold its soul to this administration) marvels at our slide to a fascist state. It’s time for those of you who wanted Change to finally realize what kind of change you are getting.
See you at a tea party
Cheers

H. Evers

Icon_24
3pc
TylerFromNE (endorses) Fri Aug 28 12:22:30 -0700 2009

“The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism for that matter) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property.”

Not private property entirely, just capital. Even the Soviet Union had personal property rights.

“Under fascism, people retain the pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal.”

No, under fascism, real government – an organization formed by and for the general public to advance the general welfare – doesn’t actually exist; it is merely a subsidiary of private corporations. So it’s private capital that makes such decisions. The trend in unregulated or loosely-regulated capitalism is towards consolidation and cartelization; however, once this reaches a point in which a few oligopolies dominate every industry, these cartels cannot expand any further, the ruling oligarchs take over the state and turn to cuts in wages and production to restore profitability. This is the essence of fascism: it is the end game of laissez-faire capitalism IN PRACTICE (though I realize not according to free-market dogma).

“Under both systems, sacrifice is invoked as a magic, omnipotent solution in any crisis”

You don’t know what you’re talking about; stop copying talking points verbatim off of the Mises Institute website. In fact, it is under laissez-faire capitalism that sacrifice is demanded by those least able to provide it. We’re seeing this now all over the world: the people are constantly told that they must sacrifice their wages, living standards, pensions, social services, etc, all in the name of “competitiveness” – that great ideological fetish of the well-to-do.

“The socialist-communist axis keeps promising to achieve abundance, material comfort and security for its victims, in some indeterminate future”

While I don’t consider myself a socialist, it is simply false to say that socialist societies have not delivered on those promises. As more than 50% of their economies are in the public sector, you’d probably call the Nordic countries “socialist” – although maybe you won’t, as they have some of the highest standards of living in the world. The Soviet Union also experienced tremendous economic success up until the 1980’s; in 1917, the Russian Empire was a backwards, feudalistic, largely undeveloped land mass with a tiny aristocracy and the rest of the population living in abject poverty. Not 30 years later, the USSR was an economic, military, and political superpower. So the whole notion that socialism necessarily “creates poverty” is a demonstrable falsehood.

“Bottom line they are both totalitarian, collectivist systems”

I’m sure you think most, if not all of Europe is “socialist.” Is France a totalitarian state? How about Finland? And Germany? I’ve spent considerable time in all of these countries, and I can say without hesitation that they’re freer than the USA. Any hierarchical society can become totalitarian if the ruled don’t hold the rulers accountable and keep them in check. However, laissez-faire capitalism is necessarily a totalitarian system, intrinsically and by definition – it demands total subservience of the population to the twin idols of “the market” and “competition.” If you don’t like it, well tough shit, because you have no other alternative. That is the essence of totalitarianism.

“Try Capitalism.”

Your conception of “pure” capitalism has never existed and will never exist. It is a pipe dream and a marketing slogan, nothing more.

Icon_24
18pc
H. Evers (opposes) Fri Aug 28 13:33:33 -0700 2009

And your references for these interesting “facts” are…..

My references are Das Capital and the Communist Manifesto by Marx, the Fascist Manifesto of the British Union of Fascists, 1934 First Printing of the New Edition of April 1934. And Benito Mussolini, "Foundations and Doctrine of Fascism
Cheers

H. Evers

Wardo posted a bulletin Thu Aug 13 17:10:34 -0700 2009 1 comment
Icon_24
20pc
Wardo (opposes) Thu Aug 13 17:10:34 -0700 2009

This point is deceitful because it was Reagan’s intention to lower the top marginal rate to 28%. He inherited a top marginal rate of 70% (which President Kennedy had lowered from the 90% top marginal rate that he had inherited)

H. Evers posted a bulletin Mon Aug 03 14:04:24 -0700 2009 1 comment
Icon_24
18pc
H. Evers (opposes) Mon Aug 03 14:04:24 -0700 2009

BOHICA: President Obama’s Treasury Secretary announces that “we will do what we must to reduce deficits”. Yep everything but reduce spending! So you middle class Obama voters for change that thought you would not have to pay for it get ready cause this is going to hurt you more than it is President Obama.

Ah yes “Change” for the heck of it!

Cheers

H. Evers

White House 2 is a multi-partisan network of 10535 citizens imagining how the White House might work if it was run completely democratically by thousands of people over the internet. It's free and all U.S. citizens can join.

We're setting priorities, collaborating on policy, and creating a massive database of 2867 talking points covering all sides of every important issue facing our country. Watch the video intro.

Getting involved is easy and fun. Just join and start setting your priorities, like a todo list. The more people who endorse a priority, the higher it rises in the charts. The more people who join the network, the more clout we will have with the President and the media.