It's the economy stupid!

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Social Security was never meant to be a retirement program. It was a security net. In this non socialistic country we are suppose to plan our retirement and medical out of our earnings... We should not try to emulated Grand Brittania on the outflow side and not consider the inflow side.... the social cost in europe is staggering.

I really don't care what the intention of SS was. I was forced to contribute to the plan. I expect a benefit. To do otherwise is not only anti-socialist it's plain old fashioned robbery.

If you were the administrator of a retirement plan and after you investors contributed over their lifetime you told them they were not receiving their benefit what would happen to you?

Don't think an entire generation will stand for the government sanctioned robbery of their retirement no matter who is in power or what economic theory is in vogue.

*EDIT*
I forgot to add. I did plan my own retirement. See above. Being forced to participate in SS and Medicare made my planning that much harder. I could have contributed more. Therefore, I demand the retirement benifit as promised.

Who knows if you will be getting it though.

 

[LunarRay]

Quote
I really don't care what the intention of SS was. I was forced to contribute to the plan. I expect a benefit. To do otherwise is not only anti-socialist it's plain old fashioned robbery.
****************
I don't disagree with you. 15.3% to the limit is a sizable chunk of change. I suggested earlier that if the govt moved the funds assets (non existant) into Federal Debt bonds administered by Independent authority then you would truly own the debt you owe and upon retirement you sell em.

If you were the administrator of a retirement plan and after you investors contributed over their lifetime you told them they were not receiving their benefit what would happen to you?
****************

Probably spend the bonus I got on wild girls and wine then not worry about your losses till you found me..
As a Controller (accountant) I trust to the extent I can audit it.... I cant with any degree of confidence audit it therefor, I don't put my $ into it.



Don't think an entire generation will stand for the government sanctioned robbery of their retirement no matter who is in power or what economic theory is in vogue.

*EDIT*
I forgot to add. I did plan my own retirement. See above. Being forced to participate in SS and Medicare made my planning that much harder. I could have contributed more. Therefore, I demand the retirement benifit as promised.[/quote]
****************

Yes, again I see and agree. I profess a particular theory that is easily "flamed" by students and collegues alike... I, however, see this issue as one of .... The law makers are not focused on the problem long term... they, by and large, are short term thinkers.. keeps them in office.. the problem is fixable with a complete revamp of the revenue system and the law of budget balance mandate. Laffer's curve is right regarding tax but the model does not totaly address the issues in today's economics... we need to restore US mfg. and isolate a bit. NAFTA is not in our best interest. With stability comes preditability which begets confidence... which creates stability. What to do about the $you invested in SSA.. I guess in My revamp theory You'd get credit for reasonable return considering the beta.

 

[LunarRay]

As an off topic suggestion... Don't invest in Iraqi war bonds.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Social Security was never meant to be a retirement program. It was a security net. In this non socialistic country we are suppose to plan our retirement and medical out of our earnings... We should not try to emulated Grand Brittania on the outflow side and not consider the inflow side.... the social cost in europe is staggering.

I really don't care what the intention of SS was. I was forced to contribute to the plan. I expect a benefit. To do otherwise is not only anti-socialist it's plain old fashioned robbery.

If you were the administrator of a retirement plan and after you investors contributed over their lifetime you told them they were not receiving their benefit what would happen to you?

Don't think an entire generation will stand for the government sanctioned robbery of their retirement no matter who is in power or what economic theory is in vogue.

*EDIT*
I forgot to add. I did plan my own retirement. See above. Being forced to participate in SS and Medicare made my planning that much harder. I could have contributed more. Therefore, I demand the retirement benifit as promised.

Just curious, but what do you and your wife do for a living?

 

[LakAttack]

This is an amazing thread. One guy has tons of facts and figures to back up his argument, and the responses are "this is flamebait" and "you are a liberal tool." Thanks to BOBDN for providing some very thought provoking items.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: LakAttack
This is an amazing thread. One guy has tons of facts and figures to back up his argument, and the responses are "this is flamebait" and "you are a liberal tool." Thanks to BOBDN for providing some very thought provoking items.

Heh, you are a liberal tool too. He hasn't provided any facts, just democrat rhetoric.

 

[Infos]

Bush is a country bumpkin forced onto an international stage where
he's obviously out of his league and now americans are suffering because of this.

One thing this ridiculous assault on Iraq has showed me-

Hussein obviously has no weapons

of mass destruction......
or he'd have used them by now.

 

[LakAttack]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: LakAttack
This is an amazing thread. One guy has tons of facts and figures to back up his argument, and the responses are "this is flamebait" and "you are a liberal tool." Thanks to BOBDN for providing some very thought provoking items.

Heh, you are a liberal tool too. He hasn't provided any facts, just democrat rhetoric.

Facts provided:
2.5 million jobs lost in America since Bush took office
Recession since Q1, 2001
The latest economic data for March, 2003. Industrial output down. Jobs down. Spending down. Consumer confidence down. Durable goods orders down. Consumer debt up.
Market Value 2000.01 10940.50 - Market Value 2003.02 7891.08

Those look like facts to me. On the other hand, I haven't seen many facts from the other side of the argument. And yes, I am a liberal - just because Rush says its a dirty word doesn't make it true.

 

[BOBDN]

Just curious, but what do you and your wife do for a living?

I drove a tractor trailer for the past 30 years. As I said, for many of those years (apporximately 20) I worked 3 jobs, 7 days a week.
My wife has worked part time for the past 18 years.

I worked as I did so my wife could be at home while our children were growing up instead of raising "latch key" kids.

Regardless of what our government does or doesn't do to keep their word I know I did the right thing for my family.

 

[BOBDN]

Thanks Lak Attack. Contrary to popular belief (or the rhetoric of the conservative press) there are people who recognize the truth.

And we're still waiting for the facts to back up the BS some people are posting.

 

[Shade4ever]

I agree, that those people who've been forced to contribute to SS do deserve some compensation for what they've given. However, the SS/welfare/medicare/medicaid issue cannot, as far as I can tell, be truly dealt with, except by doing away with it. By using federal deficit increases and the money current contributors pay to pay those already on it, they've essentially ensured that when the system collapses (as it has to, unless we all eventually pay ALL our income in taxes), many people are going to be seriously affected, and that there is in no way, shape, or form enough money in the system to pay out what it has collected. I had not heard about the use of funds from the program to fuel other programs, but it's certainly not something I would put beyond our government, and it only compounds this problem. However, the fact remains that the system was not designed to last, and needs to be done away with, despite the unpopularity and financial injury it will cause, regardless of when it is done. I would very much like to see no one hurt by it, but I'd like to see working Americans not lose their potential for better returns and investment more.

On the subject of schools, while I realize that some reorganization would be necessary, from what I have seen I believe that privatization could be achieved with surprisingly little change.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: LakAttack

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: LakAttack
This is an amazing thread. One guy has tons of facts and figures to back up his argument, and the responses are "this is flamebait" and "you are a liberal tool." Thanks to BOBDN for providing some very thought provoking items.

Heh, you are a liberal tool too. He hasn't provided any facts, just democrat rhetoric.

Facts provided:
2.5 million jobs lost in America since Bush took office
Recession since Q1, 2001
The latest economic data for March, 2003. Industrial output down. Jobs down. Spending down. Consumer confidence down. Durable goods orders down. Consumer debt up.
Market Value 2000.01 10940.50 - Market Value 2003.02 7891.08

Those look like facts to me. On the other hand, I haven't seen many facts from the other side of the argument. And yes, I am a liberal - just because Rush says its a dirty word doesn't make it true.

Blind statistics. What were the 2.5 million jobs? How many has since replaced them? Does a recession really occur only within months of a new president? Does market value have anything to do with Greenspan's interest rate cuts perhaps?

edit: Doing a little research of my own - does look pretty bad. The real number is actually 1.5 million jobs, still pretty high though, but given it's that high why would you exagerate it. I'm wondering how many of those jobs lost was directly or indirectly the result of Sept. 11th. I know within months of 9-11, my firm dropped about a hundred employees because clients froze their budgets because of fear (our firm froze our tech budgets too). If the fall of the twin towers had that kind of impact on just my company which isn't even in New York or has NY clients, then it must have been pretty bad in NY City itself, the heart of our economy, and trickled throughout the U.S. And this was after a recession was declared, and then we've got Enron, etc. You liberals were already blaming this on bush within a few months, and he hadn't had any time to even make any policies that could affect the economy at all. 9-11 happened because Clinton let Osama go, it was found that the Clinton administration was invovled in Enron, not Bush, and for the Recession to be observed it would mean it was rolling before Bush stepped into Office, which means it would have been Clinton's fault (if we were to blame a President for this).

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: LakAttack
This is an amazing thread. One guy has tons of facts and figures to back up his argument, and the responses are "this is flamebait" and "you are a liberal tool." Thanks to BOBDN for providing some very thought provoking items.

Heh, you are a liberal tool too. He hasn't provided any facts, just democrat rhetoric.

Someone is to blame for the fiscal irrisponsibility that exists today. Or no one and it is simply that we labor under a very flawed system that no one dares to change... challenge or recognize.

 

[BOBDN]

Blind statistics. What were the 2.5 million jobs? How many has since replaced them? Does a recession really occur only within months of a new president? Does market value have anything to do with Greenspan's interest rate cuts perhaps?

You are on the verge of being ridiculous. Would you like me to list each of the 2.5 million jobs lost?

I'm sick of posting information and having it ignored. Read the info above or do your own investigation. Do a search on the jobless rate. Do a search on the number of jobs lost and replaced. Do a search on the recession, when it began, what the prevailing economic figures were prior to the recession, what the figures that led to the diagnosis of recession, what economists say about the policies that led to the recession.

"Does the market value have anything to do with Greenspan's interest rate cuts perhaps?"

The market value has plenty to do with the interest rate cuts Greenspan and the Fed made. The interest rate cuts were in response to the failing economy under Bush. They were made to help stimulate the economy. In other words, to help Bush. Bush is such an economic failure even 12 interest cuts in one year couldn't help his ludicrous economic policy work. Because his economic policy isn't based on improving the economy for the majority of Americans. His policies are in place to improve the economy for the major contributors to his campaign. Those 10% we continue to hear about who benefit from the treasury draining tax cuts that we will be forced to replace.

The only explanation I can come up with for the attitude of people like you on this forum is that you must be one of that 10%.

 

[LunarRay]

Quote

Facts provided:
2.5 million jobs lost in America since Bush took office
Recession since Q1, 2001
The latest economic data for March, 2003. Industrial output down. Jobs down. Spending down. Consumer confidence down. Durable goods orders down. Consumer debt up.
Market Value 2000.01 10940.50 - Market Value 2003.02 7891.08

***************

Of the above indicators the most controlling is Spending... it starts with confidence.... and the circle begins. Delta squared over delta squared... look at the slope of the spending curve. It seems to me to start a lower trajectory in 2001. I don't have the link nor do I yet know how to post it so you can jump to it.. sorry. In any event, It is only a theory.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Blind statistics. What were the 2.5 million jobs? How many has since replaced them? Does a recession really occur only within months of a new president? Does market value have anything to do with Greenspan's interest rate cuts perhaps?

You are on the verge of being ridiculous. Would you like me to list each of the 2.5 million jobs lost?

Perhaps the top 10 sectors of the 1.5 million lost jobs would be nice.

I'm sick of posting information and having it ignored. Read the info above or do your own investigation. Do a search on the jobless rate. Do a search on the number of jobs lost and replaced. Do a search on the recession, when it began, what the prevailing economic figures were prior to the recession, what the figures that led to the diagnosis of recession, what economists say about the policies that led to the recession.

"Does the market value have anything to do with Greenspan's interest rate cuts perhaps?"

The market value has plenty to do with the interest rate cuts Greenspan and the Fed made. The interest rate cuts were in response to the failing economy under Bush. They were made to help stimulate the economy. In other words, to help Bush. Bush is such an economic failure even 12 interest cuts in one year couldn't help his ludicrous economic policy work. Because his economic policy isn't based on improving the economy for the majority of Americans. His policies are in place to improve the economy for the major contributors to his campaign. Those 10% we continue to hear about who benefit from the treasury draining tax cuts that we will be forced to replace.

The only explanation I can come up with for the attitude of people like you on this forum is that you must be one of that 10%.

I wish!

Top 50% of all wage earners paid 96.09% of the federal income taxes in 2000.
Top 10% of all wage earners paid 67.3% of the federal income taxes in 2000.

The top 1% paid 10+ times as much as the entire bottom 50%.
The top 1% earns 20.81% of all income.

The top 10% earns 46.01% of all income.
The top 50% earns 87.01% of all income.

Who deserves a tax cut, if one were to get one? If the bottom 50% get a large tax cut, but the top 50% don't, how does that affect salary increases? If the top 50% remain taxed so heavily, how does that affect job growth within the U.S. versus foreign?

You give us pretty facts, but blaming Bush is just emotional waste. The President of the United States does not hold the U.S.A. economy in the pam of his hands. What do you think Bush should be doing to improve the economy? Give some examples of how you feel Clinton was able to make the economy such a success during his term, as you think he has.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Just curious, but what do you and your wife do for a living?

I drove a tractor trailer for the past 30 years. As I said, for many of those years (apporximately 20) I worked 3 jobs, 7 days a week.
My wife has worked part time for the past 18 years.

I worked as I did so my wife could be at home while our children were growing up instead of raising "latch key" kids.

Regardless of what our government does or doesn't do to keep their word I know I did the right thing for my family.

I'd say you did. But, I'm sure someone will say "what.... no nintendo"
We are the government, though. You and me and all the rest of us voters... wish we could get better choices and have all our votes count.

 

[dfi]

Honestly, I can't tell if this is a:

1) Let's talk about the economy thread.

2) Let's talk about how bad bush is for the economy thread.

3) Let's talk about how bush screwed up the economy, and continues to do so thread.

For one explanation of how the economy went from boom to bust, read Robert Brenner's "The Boom and the Bubble". In it he talks about a market based on speculation but no profits, too many willing investors, resulting in companies going under and suspect bookkeeping.

Taking a quick look at the Bureau of Economic Analysis' data, I looked at national income by income types. Everything seemed to be going up steadily, except corporate profits which seemed to start fluctuating in 1998. And if we look at percentage change of real GDP, we see that 1998-2000, net export had a large negative effect. Looking at the same table, at 2001 we see a huge drop off in gross private domestic investment, which if you'll notice, seems to move with private inventory. This is understandable, I think, if we look at the drop in personal consumption expenditure in 2001. But look at 2002; personal consumption expenditure bounces back to 1996 levels, but gross private domestic investment, while not in the negative, contributes very little to real GDP. So just from a casual glance, there are some hints that perhaps what we really need is more domestic investment. And who does a large percentage of the investment? I would guess the top 10%.

And just throwing this out there, arguably the conflict in Iraq could conceivably lead to a better economy, no? Gas prices are already going down, and hopefully the US will get a fat oil contract with Iraq. I'm sure the increased government spending is giving a bit of a jolt to weapon contractors, as well as to certain manufacturer of food. And the US is doing quite a bit of damage to Iraq right now. If US firms can beat out French firms to reconstruct their infrastructure, that's an untapped market with potential for growth. But of course someone has to be have the money to do all this; hopefully lower taxes and low interest rates will prompt the rich to invest their money.

I'm sure no one likes to hear that the rich are getting even more money. I'm just trying to help shed some light on the rationale behind a tax cut.

Oh, and I just want to add that the economy is cyclical; booms and recessions come and go. Who really knows why.

dfi

 

[LunarRay]

Quote
Top 50% of all wage earners paid 96.09% of the federal income taxes in 2000.
Top 10% of all wage earners paid 67.3% of the federal income taxes in 2000.


And here I thought the highest marginal tax rate was 39%
Assuming it was then the top 10% made an awfull lot of money... wish I was there too.
But, what could I do with a gazillion $? If the Corporations paid their CEO etc less they could afford pay the worker more and he'd pay more tax and we could reduce his tax... and break even on the deal.

 

[Parrotheader]

Just curious, but if Bush is responsible for this (or at the very least, responsible for NOT fixing things) then in your opinion what could ANY president (or government figure for that matter) do that would have been able to avert this downturn? Obviously I disagree with a lot of your perspective, but I'm willing to listen - especially since i have to get back to work and won't have time to reply.

Personally, I think a downturn was inevitable and rather obvious to anybody with a toehold on reality. We saw basically an entire new sector of the economy created virtually from scratch in the 90s creating a VAST new middle class workforce with massive capital investment (by people who were understandably not technologically sophisticated enough to understand the concepts/benefits, business models, and potential ROI . . . or lack therof) in new enterprises - dot coms, software companies, hardware and support, telcommunications, network infrastructure, etc. This new sector created a growing, but eventually partially self-devouring monster thanks to its own efficiency gobbling up billions in investment dollars while leading to jobs (and companies) which in many cases were unnecessarily created or simply were destined to only have a short life span (i.e., 100 people might be involved in the creation of a project that once established would be so efficient that only 5 people were needed to maintain it thereafter.) Obviuosly, that looks at JUST the tech side, but a domino effect would seem the only logical outcome as the money lost not only on the backend from investments in paper tigers, but also from the front end (i.e., in the initial funding of some of these tech areas they were naturally competing for funding from non-tech sectors at times.) I realize this is all broad scope approach type stuff, but I personally think there's not much any government figure can do short of riding these hard times out.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: HJD1
Quote

well i guess thats one way to get the growth rate of the working population to be higher than the rate paid out on social security... of course if we're buying only american made products then we'll lose to inflation most of our gains

****************

I assume you mean that the cost of American goods is inflated above the cost of foreign goods (for the same or similar item). If that be the case, the marginal cost would be reduced on an increase of volume as fixed costs are amoritzed over the larger production. Plus the increase in demand would attract more investment in manufacturing thus competition and with a healthy economy less unemployment more spending less govt debt lower interest rates and lower inflation. Cept for oil... go to hydrogen cell for vehicles.. more nuke production and solar...[/quote]

even really cheaply running capital is hard to cover the cost increase of labor when you're talking about $2 a day vs $15 an hour. chances are that if we protected domestic production then domestic production would get lazy and fat rather than more competitive. inflation++

We have gone from record budget surplus to record budget deficit.

increasing deficits are a common thing in a recession. took years to get a surplus under an expansion.

The only taxes they are against are the taxes that have them and their friends pay their fair share.

whats their "fair" share? fair is a completely subjective word. is paying a higher rate than everyone else "fair"? how bout the people that pay 0%, why don't they pay their "fair" share?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: HJD1
Quote
Top 50% of all wage earners paid 96.09% of the federal income taxes in 2000.
Top 10% of all wage earners paid 67.3% of the federal income taxes in 2000.


And here I thought the highest marginal tax rate was 39%
Assuming it was then the top 10% made an awfull lot of money... wish I was there too.
But, what could I do with a gazillion $? If the Corporations paid their CEO etc less they could afford pay the worker more and he'd pay more tax and we could reduce his tax... and break even on the deal.

If the CEO was paid half normal CEO salary, this would result in only a few dollars difference in each paycheck, and then after taxes would just be cents. The only way for this to even out is to take all of the income in the corporation, combine it and then divide it equally amongst every worker. But then we'd have a socialist corproation, nobody would want to be CEO because it would be more work for the same money, in fact very few people would want to be anything in upper management. Or perhaps everyone would want to be upper management, since they can make the decisions and delegate more work to everyone. Does sound like that kind of corporation would last long. The aspirations of people to push themselves harder to get to higher levels to get paid more to become managers and become CEO's, is what drives a corporation, drives the work force, drives the economy.

Something I learned in my firm when taking a Effective Personal Productivity class. Research shows that if you take all of the money in the United States, combine it and divide equally amongst everyone, in 7 years the statistics of who has what would return - maybe the people will be different but in 7 years everything would be the same again. And the only way to counter act that is to destroy capitalism in favor of a communism.

 

[Samwise]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Thanks Lak Attack. Contrary to popular belief (or the rhetoric of the conservative press) there are people who recognize the truth.

And we're still waiting for the facts to back up the BS some people are posting.

Conservative Press? What country are you living in?

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

If the CEO was paid half normal CEO salary, this would result in only a few dollars difference in each paycheck, and then after taxes would just be cents.

Congratulations. You have just graduated from the G.W. Bush School of Math.

 

[LakAttack]

Originally posted by: Samwise

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Thanks Lak Attack. Contrary to popular belief (or the rhetoric of the conservative press) there are people who recognize the truth.

And we're still waiting for the facts to back up the BS some people are posting.

Conservative Press? What country are you living in?

Using the word "Press" may be a stretch, but the media is becoming more and more conservative. First take FOX News, and you have 1/3 of the MAJOR cable news networks with a conservative slant (plus Fox Network is 1/4 of the major broadcast nets). Then you look at radio. Since the demise of "equal time," conservatives have taken over talk radio. They are not the "press" but many Americans choose to get their news from these sources. And they make no secret about their affiliations. And they are louder, face it. The "liberal" media may indeed have a slant, but they don't whine about how the conservatives are ruining the country a la people like Rush and O'Reilly. No one will admit that the media is now probably more "right" than "left" because then there wouldn't be the "liberal media" and "damn liberal hippies" to blame when the facts don't look good from their perspective.