Palin's Book Being Sold "AT BELOW COST" Prices
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Palin's book on top at amazon
Next: Was Pitts right?
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 30 Nov 2009 11:03 On Nov 29, 12:53 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:43:22 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr > > <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > >We all see these things a bit differently, and right now I am highly > >biased by reading a lot US history right now (there are shortcuts I > >suppose, but the system wants me to learn US history to become a US > >citizen, and I am a history buff anyways...). It seems to me > >contemporary Dems are pursing New Deal type policies. It also seems to > >me that the mainstream GOP, the likes of Steele, Bohner, Mc Connel and > >the like pursue the idea that the business elite knows best how to run > >things. > >JMHO, but both concepts are waaay out of touch with modern reality. > >The New Deal failed badly; even the derived Great Society has failed > >miserably and the reason we need health care reform is that universal > >health care for retirees as proposed by the Great Society legislation > >is absolutely untenable financially. > > It could be. Trouble is, we don't really have good examples to > compare the New Deal with alternatives. > > >The New Deal was brought on by > >the fact that the business elite cannot in fact run things very well. > > And currently my banker son-in-law who did not make any of those bad > loans is stuck with loads of new regulations and costs designed by > politicians who believe they have a mandate "to do something". But > they can't mandate the business elite to be responsible and competent. > > We can't ignore that we are spending our kids money on mistakes made > by the business elite. They screwed up, and we are going to pay. > > My best wish here is that we stopped rewarding size. Maybe even tax > size more. We don't want businesses that are "too big to fail". The > big strength in our economy is small business. Encourage small > businesses and let them fail if they screw up. Discourage Big > Business, and make them pay a "too big to fail" tax. > > -- > "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, > than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace > to the legislature, and not to the executive department." > > - James Madison Here's one of the major problems with the New Deal. Universality is absolutely untenable. As time passes, the amount of wealth it will take to give seniors universal social security and universal medicare will come to be more than the total wealth generated by taxpayers. that is the issue the current government is trying to resolve. Universal programs also hurt the poor greatly. With respect to just medicare, consider that poor working people, and I'm talking about people with low incomes who *WORK*, not deadbeats who play the system...say someone with a family income of 32,500 $US. They get hit up for $150. to $200. per month in taxes to support a program that benefits seniors. Consider also that the wealth of the US is becoming more and more concentrated in seniors. Relatively poor working people are subsidizing the lifestyles of relatively rich seniors. Totally unjust! Now also consider that a senior with say 2 million is assets and $250K annual income gets a subsidy. A senior with nothing gets a subsidy...all in the name of universality! Why not punt universality and have a means test for the subsidy, and say set $250K annual income of more and/or $2 million in assets or more and you get no subsidy...and maybe give more to those with nothing...and maybe give poor *WORKING* people a break on the taxes? The Dems will never go for this though, because universality is a holy grail to them...despite the absolute fact is hurts poor *WORKING* people and poor seniors. Just one way New Deal economics is out of touch with reality.
From: Howard Brazee on 30 Nov 2009 20:06 On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:03:32 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: >Here's one of the major problems with the New Deal. Universality is >absolutely untenable. As time passes, the amount of wealth it will >take to give seniors universal social security and universal medicare >will come to be more than the total wealth generated by taxpayers. >that is the issue the current government is trying to resolve. > >Universal programs also hurt the poor greatly. With respect to just >medicare, consider that poor working people, and I'm talking about >people with low incomes who *WORK*, not deadbeats who play the >system...say someone with a family income of 32,500 $US. They get hit >up for $150. to $200. per month in taxes to support a program that >benefits seniors. Consider also that the wealth of the US is becoming >more and more concentrated in seniors. Relatively poor working people >are subsidizing the lifestyles of relatively rich seniors. Totally >unjust! > >Now also consider that a senior with say 2 million is assets and $250K >annual income gets a subsidy. A senior with nothing gets a >subsidy...all in the name of universality! Why not punt universality >and have a means test for the subsidy, and say set $250K annual income >of more and/or $2 million in assets or more and you get no >subsidy...and maybe give more to those with nothing...and maybe give >poor *WORKING* people a break on the taxes? The Dems will never go for >this though, because universality is a holy grail to them...despite >the absolute fact is hurts poor *WORKING* people and poor seniors. > >Just one way New Deal economics is out of touch with reality. You don't like it because it's unjust, which is a pretty subjective measure, and you say it can't work. But for whatever reason, Americans, rich, poor, and middle class are better off now than they were before the New Deal was created. So the weak evidence that we have is more on the side that it did work than it didn't. Unfortunately I don't see any way to get better evidence. And without evidence, we are talking beliefs, not facts. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: BAR on 30 Nov 2009 20:27 In article <lpq8h5dql475j1t20r50u9nrevbpbug7d5(a)4ax.com>, howard(a)brazee.net says... > You don't like it because it's unjust, which is a pretty subjective > measure, and you say it can't work. But for whatever reason, > Americans, rich, poor, and middle class are better off now than they > were before the New Deal was created. Think of how much richer we all would have been if we were able to take that 6.XX% and invest it ourselves. I haven't worked for a company with a defined benefit retirement plan since 1986. Back then I was getting an amount equal to 5% of my salary placed into the company retirement plan. > So the weak evidence that we have is more on the side that it did work > than it didn't. Unfortunately I don't see any way to get better > evidence. The new deal turned millions of people into slugs dependent upon the government for their welfare rather than being self sufficient. > And without evidence, we are talking beliefs, not facts. Sucking at the government teat is not something I wish upon anyone.
From: assimilate on 1 Dec 2009 00:13 On 30-Nov-2009, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: > >Just one way New Deal economics is out of touch with reality. > > You don't like it because it's unjust, which is a pretty subjective > measure, and you say it can't work. But for whatever reason, > Americans, rich, poor, and middle class are better off now than they > were before the New Deal was created. Not just because it is unjust, not even primarily, but rather it is economically untenable. -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 1 Dec 2009 00:23
On 30-Nov-2009, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: > So the weak evidence that we have is more on the side that it did work > than it didn't. Unfortunately I don't see any way to get better > evidence. It worked? What worked? How? You think SS was the only varible of the post WWII economy? -- bill-o |