Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-05-2010, 07:07 AM   #1
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Redistribution a necessity.. ;)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03reich.html?pagewanted=1&src=me
QuoteQuote:
Policies that generate more widely shared prosperity lead to stronger and more sustainable economic growth — and that’s good for everyone. The rich are better off with a smaller percentage of a fast-growing economy than a larger share of an economy that’s barely moving. That’s the Labor Day lesson we learned decades ago; until we remember it again, we’ll be stuck in the Great Recession.
Just some food for thought articles:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-02-Austerity02_CV_N.htm?csp=obnetwork
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-09-03-editorial03_ST1_N.htm

09-05-2010, 07:34 AM   #2
Veteran Member
gokenin's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: lowell,ma
Posts: 1,899
"What else could be done to raise wages and thereby spur the economy? We might consider, for example, extending the earned income tax credit all the way up through the middle class, and paying for it with a tax on carbon. Or exempting the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes and paying for it with a payroll tax on incomes over $250,000"

only problem with that is would the credit be more than the increase that the family would face by the tax on carbon? doesnt make sense to say we are going to give you a credit but we are taking it away by charging you more on something else does it?

Early childhood education should be more widely available, paid for by a small 0.5 percent fee on all financial transactions. Public universities should be free; in return, graduates would then be required to pay back 10 percent of their first 10 years of full-time income.

What makes up the financial transactions? you know many people have become so used to using plastic for everything people no longer carry cash these days even for small transactions like buying a soda. Will every such transaction be taxed ? You know that the banks will see this as another fee that will have to be passed on the the users so again you are being taxed by the government and you will be charged by the institution as well more than likely. Second unless this is implemented by law to be used for education specifically it will go into the general fund and you know what that means waste. Our excise tax is supposed to pay for maintance of our roads and bridges but instead it gets put in the general funds and our roads and bridges are falling down.

I agree the system is broken and it needs to be fixed but giving the government more taxes without control over how it gets used is not always a good thing to do is all I am saying.
09-05-2010, 08:14 AM   #3
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by gokenin Quote
"What else could be done to raise wages and thereby spur the economy? We might consider, for example, extending the earned income tax credit all the way up through the middle class, and paying for it with a tax on carbon. Or exempting the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes and paying for it with a payroll tax on incomes over $250,000"

only problem with that is would the credit be more than the increase that the family would face by the tax on carbon? doesn't make sense to say we are going to give you a credit but we are taking it away by charging you more on something else does it?

Early childhood education should be more widely available, paid for by a small 0.5 percent fee on all financial transactions. Public universities should be free; in return, graduates would then be required to pay back 10 percent of their first 10 years of full-time income.

What makes up the financial transactions? you know many people have become so used to using plastic for everything people no longer carry cash these days even for small transactions like buying a soda. Will every such transaction be taxed ? You know that the banks will see this as another fee that will have to be passed on the the users so again you are being taxed by the government and you will be charged by the institution as well more than likely. Second unless this is implemented by law to be used for education specifically it will go into the general fund and you know what that means waste. Our excise tax is supposed to pay for maintance of our roads and bridges but instead it gets put in the general funds and our roads and bridges are falling down.

I agree the system is broken and it needs to be fixed but giving the government more taxes without control over how it gets used is not always a good thing to do is all I am saying.
Like trillion dollar wars????
Cash is obsolete and not worth the paper it's printed and and it costs money to print/mint...... More useless spending.
I just have issues w/ "false spending" and where we probably diverge the most. Keeping your population healthy is goal ONE... Fixing things for a few at the expense of the many is also never particularly good. Who the few are is debatable.
What bothers me the most is we have decades of broken systems yet people expect them fixed instantly, and will not even attempt something different, and the fear mongers sell "gloom and doom" at every corner....
EVERYTHING won't work as expected and most things don't work right away... yet suddenly we give nothing a chance and want to go back to the "old smoke and mirrors" way.......
There are many new changes I don't like but cannot possibly see the "other options" as doing anything but propping up the busted system. Therefore I am more flexible......
FEAR is our greatest enemy and one side seems to sell nothing but, while the other side sells fear and hope.... since hope alone seems to be not very popular at the moment....... sad.
IF I remember correctly Calif. used to give 2 years free to all residents.
BUT College educations are not really needed to push paper at your insurance co. nor slop burgers at mcdonalds.... which is what the past has lead us to sadly........
in the past the US was the leader in materials technology.. we made "new stuff" ie Teflon, the optical coatings in your Pentax lenses ect..... and we sold them overseas for other countries to capitalize on. SAD actually and some of what the "green revolution" wants to capitalize on. Unfortunately wants the base research is done we sell the "stuff" to the other countries to ACTUALLY make money on...
This is not the peoples fault, but business AND gov. And it is less the govs fault because we are told they should "but out" of business..
Socialism is bad, capitalism is bad, the only working hypothesis is a socialist/capitalist state of equilibrium, which is what we really are.......... unfotunately in my eyes, the capitalistic part has increased to the "good old days" of the early industrial revolution which caused both leaps in prosperity and leaps in pain for the "small people".. neither can be ignored....
Slipping farther down that slope (which is what some are selling) is abhorrent to me since I would like to believe we CAN evolve but I am getting a bit pessimistic that it will be the US leading the way with the outdated attitudes I see daily......
just a rant.
Health SHOULD be the gov's responsibility.
Roads and bridges SHOULD be the gov's responsibility.
A military SHOULD be the gov's responsibility.
Health SHOULD be the gov's responsibility.
Pensions and retirement HAVE TO BE gov's responsibility since the "capitalists" have destroyed any real ability to 1)supply it 2)create an enviromet that we could "save it" ourselves. Anyone remember the 3 prong approach to retirement that was sold for decades?
1)business pensions 2)gov. 3)personal savings... NOBODY ever really expected to able to be able to do it all "on their own" as much as people are selling "personal responsibility" it NEVER worked and currently is the biggest crock anyone is trying to sell AND when we need the stimulus most we are asking people to "spend less". Self defeating for most.
And the newest "buzzword" SS as Ponzi scheme...... 1/2 of our economy is a Ponzi scheme... INSURANCE is a Pnozi scheme. Who pays for million dollar payouts??? Certainly not the policy owner. OTHERS pay for it and to keep the scheme going you take in more "clients" and weed the bad risks out......... At the same time the top collects all the money....... How's that for a modified Ponzi scheme....
Capitalism is a Ponzi scheme, collect money from people, give them something of "lesser value" , increase your base by using the profits to "advertise" to get more "customers" to buy things of lesser value.......
At least that is one way to look at it.....

Last edited by jeffkrol; 09-05-2010 at 08:45 AM.
09-05-2010, 09:23 AM - 1 Like   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 773
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
.................. This is not the peoples fault, but business AND gov. And it is less the govs fault because we are told they should "but out" of business..
Socialism is bad, capitalism is bad, the only working hypothesis is a socialist/capitalist state of equilibrium, which is what we really are.......... unfotunately in my eyes, the capitalistic part has increased to the "good old days" of the early industrial revolution which caused both leaps in prosperity and leaps in pain for the "small people".. neither can be ignored....
Slipping farther down that slope (which is what some are selling) is abhorrent to me since I would like to believe we CAN evolve but I am getting a bit pessimistic that it will be the US leading the way with the outdated attitudes I see daily......
just a rant.
Health SHOULD be the gov's responsibility.
Roads and bridges SHOULD be the gov's responsibility.
A military SHOULD be the gov's responsibility.
Health SHOULD be the gov's responsibility.
Pensions and retirement HAVE TO BE gov's responsibility since the "capitalists" have destroyed any real ability to 1)supply it 2)create an enviromet that we could "save it" ourselves. Anyone remember the 3 prong approach to retirement that was sold for decades?
1)business pensions 2)gov. 3)personal savings... NOBODY ever really expected to able to be able to do it all "on their own" as much as people are selling "personal responsibility" it NEVER worked and currently is the biggest crock anyone is trying to sell AND when we need the stimulus most we are asking people to "spend less". Self defeating for most.
And the newest "buzzword" SS as Ponzi scheme...... 1/2 of our economy is a Ponzi scheme... INSURANCE is a Pnozi scheme. Who pays for million dollar payouts??? Certainly not the policy owner. OTHERS pay for it and to keep the scheme going you take in more "clients" and weed the bad risks out......... At the same time the top collects all the money....... How's that for a modified Ponzi scheme....
Capitalism is a Ponzi scheme, collect money from people, give them something of "lesser value" , increase your base by using the profits to "advertise" to get more "customers" to buy things of lesser value.......
At least that is one way to look at it.....
jeffkrol - a lot of truth in what you say. One of the biggest (but not by any means the only!) obstacles to political change is a tired political vocabulary which evokes a 'gut reaction' response whenever certain words are used such as "socialism" and "capitalism" are used.

Use of these red flag words reduces all discussions to extremist slogans and intelligent discussion ceases. The words are used as curse words to condemn the opponent to political hell - and effectively so! Look what they have done to Obama.

Now his opponents are trying to dig him deeper into the ground by using the M (Muslim) word!

Political rhetoric and winning the political battles by insults and denigrations works and very effectively so. In such a climate how can any meaningful change happen?

09-05-2010, 09:24 AM   #5
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,072
Unfortunately, the 'capitalists' won the freedom and support from the government, many times over, to move their manufacturing elsewhere, to move their low-tier workers elsewhere, to outsource clerical work. This all in the interest of the one true value, Return on Equity.

'Capitalists' see the problem in health care costs, and as always, avoid the problem by offshoring or giving it to the government - local, state, federal. 'Capitalists' saw the problem of pensions, and palmed it off to the government and to the employee, while underfunding what pensions remain.

These same 'capitalists' are against taxation to redistribute wealth - for this hits their one value, ROI, and the concentration of capital and earnings. Yet, they have, through their own behavior, hollowed out the American economy, so an old fashioned, capitalist, redistribution through increasing wages to the mass of workers - the creation and feeding of a mass market - is less possible now than in the past. What is the 'capitalist' solution - Globalization!! To this 'capitalist' way of thinking, whether the US remains viable, or its citizens retain their standard of living, is a meaningless concern. As long as there's a stable financial market and the ability for the plutocracy to insulate itself, collecting their personal wealth globally, everything's ok. As long as they can find someone - currently the USA - to put military power behind the status quo, that's all they need.

The business of America may be business, but the business of business -global business- isn't America.
09-05-2010, 12:43 PM   #7
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,072
Thanks for the link - that's what I saw also in the Citibank economic models, social security bounced around a bit but remained relatively flat... health care costs on the other hand looked to accelerate, for the baby boom retirement

09-05-2010, 01:25 PM   #8
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
That's a bit ironic because I actually wrote to my illustrious Senator Mr. Kohl, on how maybe they should re-think the retirement age and "extensions" by examining not making the age longer but shorter and basically flushing the labor pool... retired is not unemployed....
The answer...... boring but what the heck:
7/15/2010
QuoteQuote:
Dear Jeff:



Thank you for writing to me about the Social Security system. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.



As you know, as Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, on May 18, 2010 I released a report which presents numerous ideas for improving the solvency of the Social Security system. These policy options were proposed in an effort to jump-start the debate on how we can effectively and responsibly ensure that Social Security will continue to be a cornerstone of an individual's retirement. It is also important to note that the policy options presented in the report are not necessarily endorsed by my self or any other member of the committee. In fact, there are certain proposals provided that certain members actively oppose. However it was important to bring numerous ideas forward to facilitate an open and wide ranging debate. In addition it is also important to know some information on the current state of the Social Security system.



According to the Social Security Administration, the current balance of the Social Security Trust Fund as of December 2009 is a surplus of $2.5 trillion. These funds, which are backed with the full faith and credit of the United States Treasury, were accumulated to provide for the retirement security of the baby-boom generation. The Federal government has made a commitment to these workers. There has been talk that with fewer tax dollars coming into the fund due to the economy, combined with many people claiming benefits at an earlier retirement age, that in 2010 the fund will begin to pay out more money than it is receiving. However, this simply means that Social Security would begin to utilize its $2.5 trillion surplus. If economic growth returns to expected levels next year, Social Security will continue to build its surplus until 2016.



In the past, Congress has reviewed, and at times revised, the Social Security program in order to ensure that Social Security remains strong, solvent, and deserving of retirees' trust. Even if no changes are made to the current system, the Social Security Trust Fund is projected to pay full benefits until the year 2037. After year 2037, the Trust Fund will be able to pay 75% of an individual's current benefit. However as the report presents, there are many revenue generating options that can be undertaken to help ensure the long-term solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. Given that almost 77 million individuals of the Baby Boomer generation will soon be reaching retirement, I believe that we must be open-minded to all reform proposals. As our population continues to grow older, we must work to ensure their financial security. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to keep Social Security strong and responsive to the needs of the program's current and future beneficiaries.



In addition it is important to note that, in 1983, amendments to the Social Security Act required federal employees first hired after 1983 to participate in Social Security. Additionally, all members of Congress are required to participate in Social Security as of January 1, 1984, regardless of when they first entered Congress.



As we continue to work on the issue of Social Security we must remember that unfortunately, there are no easy answers to this issue, however, I am pleased that this issue is being debated. Be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind as Social Security continues to be addressed in the near future.



Again, thank you for contacting me. I appreciate knowing your thoughts on this issue.




Sincerely,


Herb Kohl
United States Senator

Last edited by jeffkrol; 09-05-2010 at 01:31 PM.
09-05-2010, 01:35 PM   #9
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oz
Posts: 408
So according to the article the rich are just given money? We therefor need an economic socialist/communist redistribution because rich only hoard the money? We never again see it? Like a blackhole. I get it finally! I now get my liberal award package?
09-05-2010, 01:44 PM   #10
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by troglodyte Quote
So according to the article the rich are just given money? We therefor need an economic socialist/communist redistribution because rich only hoard the money? We never again see it? Like a blackhole. I get it finally! I now get my liberal award package?
Why does everyone go to extremes..... The rich generally contribute a small PERCENTAGE of their income to commerce.. thus why they are rich.. hording money waiting for the lean times which usually come sometime after they die.....
only to pass it on to their spoiled offspring who gamble it away in Monte Carlo thus again not supporting America.....
and yes you pretty much have the gist of it.....
Sorry my best attempt at humor today
I suspect you subscribe to this "gloom and doom" school of thought where once the "wheels" of socialism start turning were ALL "doomed".....
Inequality of Wealth and Incomes - - Mises Institute
Of course to follow Mises we should be free to sell anything to anyone.......
The unintended consequences of Iranian trade sanctions - CSMonitor.com
Gets a bit sticky for some....... Of course wants the "pure capitalism" wheels start turning were ALL "doomed".

I do like the quotes........
QuoteQuote:
Famous Quotes

"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final total catastrophe of the currency involved."

"If they do not plan new aggressions, they are not in need of arms."

"It is perfectly legitimate to assume that the races are different in their cognitive abilities and in their willpower and accordingly are unequally suited for the task of setting up societies, and that the better races are characterized in particular by their special ability to strengthen social bonds."

"The masses do not think. This is precisely the reason why they follow those who do think. The intellectual leadership of mankind is a position held by the very few who are able to think."

"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."

(to Ayn Rand) "You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises
http://mises.org/pdf/nse.pdf
QuoteQuote:
Marxism sees the coming of socialism as an inescapable
necessity. Even if one were willing to grant the correctness of this
opinion, one still would by no means be bound to embrace
socialism. It may be that despite everything we cannot escape
socialism, yet whoever considers it an evil must not wish it onward
for that reason and seek to hasten its arrival; on the contrary, he
would have the moral duty to do everything to postpone it as long
as possible. No person can escape death; yet the recognition of
this necessity certainly does not force us to bring about death as
quickly as possible. Marxists would have to become socialists just
as little as we must become suicides if they were convinced that
socialism would be bound to bring about no improvement but
rather a worsening of our social conditions Socialists and liberals agree in seeing the ultimate goal of
economic policy as attainment of a state of society assuring the
greatest happiness for the greatest number. Welfare for all, the
greatest possible welfare for the greatest possible number—that is
the goal of both liberalism and of socialism, even though this may
now and then be not only misunderstood but even disputed. Both
reject all ascetic ideals that want to restrain people to frugality and
preach renunciation and flight from life; both strive for social
wealth. Only over the way of reaching this ultimate goal of
economic policy do their views disagree. An economic order
resting on private ownership of the means of production and
according the greatest possible scope to the activity and free
initiative of the individual assures to the liberal the attainment of
the goal aspired to. The socialist, on the other hand, seeks to attain
it by socialization of the means of production.

The older socialism and communism strove for equality of
property and of income distribution. Inequality was said to be
unjust; it contradicted divine laws and had to be abolished. To that
liberals reply that fettering the free activity of the individual would
harm the general interest. In the socialist society the distinction
between rich and poor would fall away; no one would any longer
possess more than another, but every individual would be poorer
than even the poorest today, since the communistic system would
work to impede production and progress. It may indeed be true
that the liberal economic order permits great differences in income,
but that in no way involves exploitation of the poor by richer
people. What the rich have they have not taken away from the
poor; their surplus could not be more or less redistributed to the
poor in the socialist society, since in that society it would not be
produced at all. The surplus produced in the liberal economic
order beyond what could also be produced by a communistic
economic order is not even entirely distributed to the possessors; a
part of it even accrues to the propertyless, so that everyone, even
maintained by a radical free-trader, Jeremy Bentham. Bentham
also carried on his famous struggle against usury laws, for
example, not out of concern for the interests of the moneylenders
but out of concern for the interests of all.5 The point of departure of
all liberalism lies in the thesis of the harmony of rightly understood
interests of individuals, of classes, and of peoples. It rejects the
basic idea of Mercantilism that the advantage of the one is the
disadvantage of the other. That is a principle that may hold true
for war and plunder; for economics and trade it does not hold.
Therefore liberalism sees no basis for opposition between classes;
therefore it is pacifist in relations between peoples. Not because it
considers itself called upon to represent the special interests of the
possessing classes does it advocate maintenance of private
ownership of the means of production, but rather because it sees
the economic order resting on private ownership as the system of
production and distribution that assures the best and highest
material satisfaction for all sections of the people. And just as it
calls for free trade at home not out of regard for particular classes
but out of regard for the welfare of all, so it demands free trade in
international relations not for the sake of foreigners but for the
sake of one's own people.
Interventionist economic policy takes another standpoint. It
sees irreconcilable antagonisms in relations among states.
Marxism, however, has proclaimed the doctrine of class struggle;
on the irreconcilable opposition of classes it erects its doctrine and
its tactics.
Maybe now you know the difference between a LIBERAL and a SOCIALIST.

Last edited by jeffkrol; 09-05-2010 at 02:22 PM.
09-05-2010, 07:20 PM   #11
Veteran Member
gokenin's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: lowell,ma
Posts: 1,899
another Robert Reich tidbit of wisdom

Paradoxically, that long-term deficit will only worsen if government fails to boost demand in the short term by spending more. Slower growth over the next five to 10 years would mean an even larger long-term deficit as a percent of the overall economy.

Fortunately, this is the perfect time for the government to borrow to boost demand and thereby restore growth. The yield on 10-year Treasury bills is at rock bottom. Bond markets are evidently more worried about recession than inflation, as they should be. Inadequate demand is the problem. And government has to be part of the solution.


is there ever going to be an end in sight ?

Opposing view on another stimulus package: Stoke the economy - USATODAY.com
09-05-2010, 10:20 PM   #12
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by gokenin Quote
Paradoxically, that long-term deficit will only worsen if government fails to boost demand in the short term by spending more. Slower growth over the next five to 10 years would mean an even larger long-term deficit as a percent of the overall economy.

Fortunately, this is the perfect time for the government to borrow to boost demand and thereby restore growth. The yield on 10-year Treasury bills is at rock bottom. Bond markets are evidently more worried about recession than inflation, as they should be. Inadequate demand is the problem. And government has to be part of the solution.


is there ever going to be an end in sight ?

Opposing view on another stimulus package: Stoke the economy - USATODAY.com
Only if you make me president........

Last edited by jeffkrol; 09-05-2010 at 10:30 PM.
09-05-2010, 10:27 PM   #13
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 499
What a bunch of crap!

I don't work 80 hour weeks so somebody who can barely work a full time job can have what I EARN. I worked my butt off to get where I am. If others want it also, it is theirs to EARN too...
09-05-2010, 10:31 PM   #14
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by opiet70 Quote
What a bunch of crap!

I don't work 80 hour weeks so somebody who can barely work a full time job can have what I EARN. I worked my butt off to get where I am. If others want it also, it is theirs to EARN too...
Blah blah blah.. you know a very wealthy man once said if you can't do it in 40 hours your doing it wrong......
09-05-2010, 11:13 PM - 1 Like   #15
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oz
Posts: 408
Jeffkrol,
Not true. I don't know opiet's situation, but my hat's off to him. I know it's old but you should read EAspouse. Sometimes circumstances are beyond control. A salary might be more stable but also no overtime.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
economy
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:42 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top