Palin's Book Being Sold "AT BELOW COST" Prices
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Palin's book on top at amazon
Next: Was Pitts right?
From: Howard Brazee on 1 Dec 2009 07:55 On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 05:13:27 GMT, assimilate(a)borg.org 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. That is reasonable to me, but looking around, I don't see that the level created by The New Deal was untenable. Obviously anything can be over-done, but it is not obvious we have reached a level which is untenable in the long run. We have lots of ways our politicians are spending our money at rates that don't make sense to me. Our debt scares me very much. But it has scared people every generation. Welfare is only a minority of our tax money, and there is zero evidence that it has resulted in the consequences you list. Now we haven't had a chance to see if similar consequences result from welfare to companies that are "too big to fail". Big companies whose CEOs don't have to fear failure scare me more. -- "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: Howard Brazee on 1 Dec 2009 07:56 On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 05:23:11 GMT, assimilate(a)borg.org 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? I said the evidence was weak. But it's all we have - the economy improved, it did not get worse. -- "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: Dinosaur_Sr on 1 Dec 2009 12:07 On Nov 30, 7:06 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:03:32 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr > > > > <frostback2...(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 May be better off, but not because of the New Deal, IMHO. Fact is the US economy recovered because after WWII is was the only major industrialized economy left standing. The New Deal never lead to any sort of economic recovery in any sense...and that's not to say the policies that caused the great depression were any better. As it is now, if you don't know that it's a fact that there is not enough wealth in the US to fund universal entitlements there really isn't much I can say to you. However, it is fair game to ask why struggling 30 year olds with 2 kids have to fork out $200.00 plus per month to support much wealthier seniors...not to mention why we can't give more to seniors in real distress. It is absolutely unjust, unfair and untenable economically.
From: Jack Hollis on 1 Dec 2009 22:00 On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:07:22 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: >However, it is fair game to ask why >struggling 30 year olds with 2 kids have to fork out $200.00 plus per >month to support much wealthier seniors...not to mention why we can't >give more to seniors in real distress. It is absolutely unjust, unfair >and untenable economically. Those seniors, rich or poor, have been paying into SS for their entire working lives and for Medicare since 1964. They deserve their benefits. I think that both SS and Medicare are bad programs, but they are not welfare.
From: Howard Brazee on 2 Dec 2009 07:52
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:00:12 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > >Those seniors, rich or poor, have been paying into SS for their entire >working lives and for Medicare since 1964. They deserve their >benefits. I think that both SS and Medicare are bad programs, but >they are not welfare. We have been taxed to pay for others. And others will be taxed to pay for us. I benefit (my wife, mother, mother-in-law, and nephew get social security - I'll hold off a while). But "welfare" is an emotion laden word - it's what those other guys get, the ones who maybe never paid taxes (at least in my mind). -- "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 |