Crises of Capitalism

[Conservative]

iliveonramen;1059992865]It's not entitlement and it's not jelousy. It's the idea that everyman isn't an island but a member of society that has benefited from those before you and should provide a benefit for those after you.

See, you just don't get it as people do help people and that was the intent of our Founders, not sending money to the govt. and having them redistribute it. When you give a dollar to someone in need they get a dollar's worth of benefit, not so when you send it to the govt as that dollar then is divided among all in that group the govt. deems necessary to support. Social welfare is a state, local, and charity responsibility not a Federal Responsibility. For the Feds it is all about access to the cash and thus control.

Because I couldn't on my own provide what's needed to ensure access to a great education, healthcare for the poor children, ensure the elderly aren't raped by insurance companies when seeking medical insurance in their old age. I don't have the means to provide that......no individual does. Which is why liberals use government as the means to provide those services.

No one alone can do that nor can a bureaucrat in D.C. Your state knows the problems, your local community even better, and then there is you and what you know. You buy what you are told that the elderly are being raped by insurance companies and expect the Federal Govt. to provide oversight. What does a D.C. bureaucrat know about a problem in your local community?

I do give to charity, and my charity organizations tend to be those that provide help to those that want to help themselves. Organizations that provide training for displaced unemployed and scholarship funds for those without the means to pay for college but have proven they have the abilities.

That is what you should do, give to local charities to handle local problems. That way you get benefit locally. If every community did that then there would be true help for those in need instead of a one size fits all Federal social engineering.

 

[Conservative]

Because those same individuals still expect their future social security and medicare payments, they still want to fund a massive military, they still expect virtually all the things they been receiving but don't want to pay as much in. They are essentially pushing on the tax burden to me....and those in the future.

I respect those that are consistent....such as they want much lower taxes but want to get rid of social security and medicare and turn the military into a true defensive force. I don't agree with them but at least they are rational and understand that it's a myth that you can do one (cut taxes drastically) while not doing the other.

If you even looked at the line items in the budget you would know that much of that so called govt. help is provided in state budgets thus duplicate expenses. That is what liberals don't seem to understand

 

[Conservative]

Alice in Liberal Land gives a good description of liberalism

Alice in Liberal Land | Thomas Sowell | Columnists | Washington Examiner

 

[coolwalker]

Goes in to all the theories on how the global economy went straight to the toilet...


I love this lecture i think its great. And had some great animations.
Rising productivity, lowering/stagnated wages add that with more profits (record profits). More profits are thrown into the banks. Banks have more to speculate and throw the money into their ponize, gambling, schemes.
How do we fix this? We need a **** in capital power to labor power. We need increase taxation on the rich to put money into public goods. Socialized health care, public goods, various public transportation.
We need a revival of the labor movement, that is strong that can force their demands.

You and your ilk are all that is wrong with our nation. Just using the word "pro" in front of something does not make you a good guy. What gives you the right to take anything from anyone? Where is that written that you can do that? Certainly not in our constitution. Why don't the rest of us just take what you have and give it to the Salvation Army. I'm sure you wouldn't mind since you are pro-everything.

 

[Boo Radley]

You and your ilk are all that is wrong with our nation. Just using the word "pro" in front of something does not make you a good guy. What gives you the right to take anything from anyone? Where is that written that you can do that? Certainly not in our constitution. Why don't the rest of us just take what you have and give it to the Salvation Army. I'm sure you wouldn't mind since you are pro-everything.

I'm not sure where you're getting any of that rant. Can you explain?

 

[coolwalker]

I'm not sure where you're getting any of that rant. Can you explain?

Look at his signature. It explains it all.

 

[Boo Radley]

Look at his signature. It explains it all.

OK. I looked at his signature. The only thing that seems to speak to what you said might be pro-socialist. But none of the others would. And certainly the topic here doesn't. So, you confused me.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Something that you want to ignore, Clinton took office with a 4.3 trillion dollar debt and left it at 5.7 trillion so I don't see a budget surplus nor is there any budget surplus when you take money from Intergovt. holdings and put it on budget in the unified budget process leaving intergovt. holdings with IOU's and a long term obligation debt

Maybe this will explain it better to you

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
Congressional Budget Office projects higher 2000 budget surplus - CNN
File:Budget Deficit 1971 to 2001.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

what proof do you need, if someone told you that they were going to take what you earn and give to someone else how hard would you work? You think that it is my role to fund what you need? If I wanted to fund you I would do it out of my choice not forced redistribution. True help begins at home and home means the local community not the bureaucracy in D.C.

What proof do you need!?
We currently have redistribution of wealth. In the 40-late 70's we had a way more extreme redistribution of wealth and guess what we grew! We still operated as a country! So what more proof do you need?

Forcing people to buy healthcare insurance is going to be ruled unconstitutional.

Hmm time will tell my amigo.

In addition Promote Domestic was the original intent of the Constitution not PROVIDE for domestic welfare. That responsibility lies with the state, local govt, and charites.

That does not explain how redistribution of wealth..
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"-Article 1 Section 8.
PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE AND GENERAL WELFARE.
Congress has the power to collect lay and collect taxes. Redistribution of wealth comes from the FIT and congress has the power to do with that such as providing for the general welfare as stated in Article 1 section 8.

What will raising the taxes on the rich generate for the govt?

So you dont have any proof that this has worked to get out of a situation like we are in now?

But to answer your question what will it generate? Uhhh REVENUE!

Tell me how any country can tax their way to prosperity. Do you believe economic growth stimulates govt. revenue?

Yes

What happens when you take money out of a paycheck?

It goes to the gov who is in a major debt.

Do they spend more or less?

Historically there is no coalition to tax rates and economic spending...

Do you think raising taxes on the rich are going to put 25 plus million unemployed/under employed Americans back to work?

Historically there is no coalition to tax rates and job rates...

When you have a 15 trillion dollar debt you cannot take in enough revenue to fund it so you grow your way out of it. Putting 25 million unemployed/under employed Americans back to work will help grow govt. revenue as will getting something from the 47% of income earning households that pay nothing in Federal Income taxes

Ok...
How do you put them back to work? I mean going off your whole shpeel you just said that tax rates have a lot to do with hiring and rich people spending money so tell me, why are taxes have/are been at historic lows for the past administration and was passed into this administration why are there no jobs? No spending? Where are they! Those 25 million American need job!

You call yourself a socialist and that isn't much different than today's liberal

:doh
I can tell you one big difference.
Liberals believe in capitalism.
Socialist believe in socialism..

So if you agree how does increasing the taxes on the rich change the amount in the budget?

Cut spending tax the rich=more revenue.

Yes, I know that but it appears to me that you don't know what other taxes fund, like payroll taxes(FICA) funds SS and Medicare, Gasoline excise taxes fund the roads and bridges, sales taxes and property taxes fund schools and police/fire

I realize that taxes fund lots of things... I just do not see how this is relevant to this conversation...

Why do you have to ignore the present and focus on the past.

You were the one that first brought up the past...

Mistakes were made in the past and mistakes will be made in the future.

Learn from mistakes....

We made a big mistake in 2008 by electing Obama to the WH and he lacks leadership and the ability to unite people. He is a community agitator

Good opinion...

Of course they fund a lot of projects for as I explained there are a lot of use taxes that people don't seem to understand. I gave you a few of those

ok
Still trying to figure out the relevance...

Yes, the Articles of Confederation was the outline for the Constitution with much of the Articles put into the Constitution.

No no it wasnt...

We don't need it and the govt. needs to quite addressing personal responsibility issues

Ill take that as a yes...

You should be scared, this country is going bankrupt because of liberalism just like Europe is going bankrupt because of socialism. Trot out the public schools, highways, and try to equate them to a personal responsibility issue? Wow, that is quite a stretch.

:doh

Whether or not it fails ignores the cost because in your world costs don't seem to matter.

So you are admitting that you just pulled that our of your ass?

Who pays those costs?

The people

Obamacare sets up private healthcare to fail and it will.

How!? Your forced to buy private insurance!

Private companies cannot compete against the Govt. There is no incentive to keep the private sector healthcare with Obamacare and businesses will drop the services, then what?

You do realize there is no public option...
So your whole companies cant compete with the gov is just idiotic...

What do you think those lawsuits cost, what about illegal immigration, how about what MA is facing now, the lack of doctors thus ER usuage skyrocking?

What?
That doesnt explain it at all...

It isn't the government's role to set salaries for private sector employees including doctors. You really don't understand how incentive works and how most motivated people operate

Wait so you want from saying to "they dont get paid anything in those countries"
Then i proved they do get paid damn good money
Now you are using your opinion again...

Yep, done ranting, now figure out what the taxes we pay actually fund or are supposed to fund

Your whole obsession were taxes go have ZERO relevance to this debate...




Whole thread: :lamo

 

[TheDemSocialist]

you and your ilk are all that is wrong with our nation. Just using the word "pro" in front of something does not make you a good guy. What gives you the right to take anything from anyone? Where is that written that you can do that? Certainly not in our constitution. Why don't the rest of us just take what you have and give it to the salvation army. i'm sure you wouldn't mind since you are pro-everything.

noooo......

 

[Conservative]

TheDemSocialist;1059993822]http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
Congressional Budget Office projects higher 2000 budget surplus - CNN
File:Budget Deficit 1971 to 2001.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What we have here is the inability to communicate. The Treasury Dept is the keeper of the books, we pay debt service on Treasury Data, and the Treasury Dept shows no surplus from the Clinton years, period. Why can't you understand that? Doesn't matter what some other site shows because what matters is what the taxpayers pay and every year debt service went up and every year there was a deficit

 

[joko104]

I don't see it as a crisis of capitalism, but a crisis of government corruption. Unfortunately that is 100% bipartisan.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

What we have here is the inability to communicate.

First off i would like to point out how you didnt even respond to my whole post.. Are you giving up?
Also do you know what a BUDGET surplus is?

The Treasury Dept is the keeper of the books, we pay debt service on Treasury Data, and the Treasury Dept shows no surplus from the Clinton years, period.

BUDGET surplus.
Are you saying Clinton did not have a budget surplus created at the end of his terms?

Why can't you understand that? Doesn't matter what some other site shows because what matters is what the taxpayers pay and every year debt service went up and every year there was a deficit

Why cant you understand a budget surplus..

And are you not going to reply to my whole post?
Oh yea: President Clinton announces another record budget surplus - CNN

 

[Conservative]

First off i would like to point out how you didnt even respond to my whole post.. Are you giving up?
Also do you know what a BUDGET surplus is?


BUDGET surplus.
Are you saying Clinton did not have a budget surplus created at the end of his terms?


Why cant you understand a budget surplus..

And are you not going to reply to my whole post?
Oh yea: President Clinton announces another record budget surplus - CNN

Don't write a book and I will respond.

Tell you what I am announcing today that I am the new Ambassador to Britain, does that make it accurate? why doesn't the Treasury Dept show a surplus?

That is like telling me that you have a surplus in your bank account and your bank reporting something different. Don't care if Clinton or anyone else claims there was a surplus, the taxpayer still paid debt service on the debt created by the Clinton deficits.

 

[Rhapsody1447]

First off i would like to point out how you didnt even respond to my whole post.. Are you giving up?
Also do you know what a BUDGET surplus is?


BUDGET surplus.
Are you saying Clinton did not have a budget surplus created at the end of his terms?


Why cant you understand a budget surplus..

And are you not going to reply to my whole post?
Oh yea: President Clinton announces another record budget surplus - CNN

Depends what you consider to be a surplus. Personally, I include intra-governmental debt in determining a surplus. Clinton had a primary budget surplus on tax revenue/spending in regards to public debt. However, the surplus was not enough to cover the balance in intra-governmental debt.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Don't write a book and I will respond.

In other words you just dont like to read?

Tell you what I am announcing today that I am the new Ambassador to Britain, does that make it accurate?

Well im pretty sure if the CBO confirms it that we indeed had a budget surplus im pretty sure there is some very strong evidence there..

why doesn't the Treasury Dept show a surplus?

I think you dont understand the difference between deficit and debt...

That is like telling me that you have a surplus in your bank account and your bank reporting something different. Don't care if Clinton or anyone else claims there was a surplus, the taxpayer still paid debt service on the debt created by the Clinton deficits.

Ok i guess you can just stay in denial...

 

[Conservative]

In other words you just dont like to read?


Well im pretty sure if the CBO confirms it that we indeed had a budget surplus im pretty sure there is some very strong evidence there..


I think you dont understand the difference between deficit and debt...



Ok i guess you can just stay in denial...

Well there you have it, the CBO says it therefore it must be right. Forget what the checkbook and bank says, right?

Doesn't look to me like you understand the difference between public debt and total debt nor budget deficit vs total deficit. You see, public debt includes intergovt. holdings which you seem to want to ignore. Maybe you will ignore collecting your SS when you retire.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Well there you have it, the CBO says it therefore it must be right.

You mean like your constant claims on the amount of money per job in Obamas stimulus package?

You are as transparent as vodka.

 

[Conservative]

You mean like your constant claims on the amount of money per job in Obamas stimulus package?

You are as transparent as vodka.

Baiting is what liberals always do, I never said it, articles posted said it and I quoted the articles. Google it and find out what you find out.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Well there you have it, the CBO says it therefore it must be right. Forget what the checkbook and bank says, right?

See the basic thing here Conservative is that you do not understand what a budget surplus is. It is not the same as debt. You also dont seem to understand what debt and deficit is. I believe that you believe that the debt and deficit are the same thing.

A budget surplus is a situation in which income exceeds expenditures. A balanced budget occurs when spending equals income.

Doesn't look to me like you understand the difference between public debt and total debt nor budget deficit vs total deficit. You see, public debt includes intergovt. holdings which you seem to want to ignore. Maybe you will ignore collecting your SS when you retire.

See above..

http://web.archive.org/web/20070101033553/http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

So also what you are saying is that the CBO is evolved in this conspiracy to make Clinton look good right?

 

[Conservative]

See the basic thing here Conservative is that you do not understand what a budget surplus is. It is not the same as debt. You also dont seem to understand what debt and deficit is. I believe that you believe that the debt and deficit are the same thing.

A budget surplus is a situation in which income exceeds expenditures. A balanced budget occurs when spending equals income.




See above..

http://web.archive.org/web/20070101033553/http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

So also what you are saying is that the CBO is evolved in this conspiracy to make Clinton look good right?

No, apparently you don't understand what makes up the debt, deficits(budget deficits and intergovt. holding deficits).

CBO is hardly accurate, they put out projections based upon the assumptions they are given. Do some research on the accuracy of the CBO. If the assumptions are wrong the projections are wrong. The only data that matters is the U.S. Treasury Data.

 

[Rhapsody1447]

This is the rebuttal to the budget surplus under Clinton:

Factcheck.org and the Clinton Surplus

There are two kinds of Federal debt: public debt, and intra-governmental debt. Public debt is money owed to the public, ie people who bought US Treasury bonds: regular people, companies, foreign governments, etc. Intra-governmental debt is money owed to the government. This seems to make no sense, but it actually does.

The US government takes in money through normal means like income taxes, and this money goes into the general fund, but they also take in money through secondary means, such as Social Security taxes. These other taxes do not go into the general fund, but instead go into trust funds and are entirely separate. For social security, if more money comes in through the Social Security tax than goes out through Social Security payments, they are required by law to purchase US Treasury bonds with the excess money. So now the Treasury Department owes money to the Social Security Trust Fund (This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing: there is no sense in letting money sit around losing value to inflation). This debt is called intra-governmental debt.

When Factcheck states that there was a surplus, they are looking at only the public debt and are not including the intra-governmental debt. Looked at this way, yes, there was a surplus. So much money was coming in through Social Security taxes (and used to buy Treasury bonds) that the general fund exceeded the budget by several hundred billion.

Is this a valid way to view the matter? After all, the money the government owes itself shouldn't count, right? Well, yes, it should. The social security money was already earmarked for future social security payments, and the Social Security Trust Fund will want to get its money back when it comes time to make more payments. So yes, this is real debt and I can't think of any reason to exclude it.

It should be noted that even without the Social Security money the deficit did go down most years and came within $18 billion of being a completely balanced budget (down from $430 billion under Bush Sr). The expenditures most years increased only modestly as compared with Bush Sr and especially George W Bush. So for this Clinton and Congress during that time period should be commended. However, I see no way to call a $18 billion deficit a "surplus".

 

[Conservative]

This is the rebuttal to the budget surplus under Clinton:

Factcheck.org and the Clinton Surplus

There are two kinds of Federal debt: public debt, and intra-governmental debt. Public debt is money owed to the public, ie people who bought US Treasury bonds: regular people, companies, foreign governments, etc. Intra-governmental debt is money owed to the government. This seems to make no sense, but it actually does.

The US government takes in money through normal means like income taxes, and this money goes into the general fund, but they also take in money through secondary means, such as Social Security taxes. These other taxes do not go into the general fund, but instead go into trust funds and are entirely separate. For social security, if more money comes in through the Social Security tax than goes out through Social Security payments, they are required by law to purchase US Treasury bonds with the excess money. So now the Treasury Department owes money to the Social Security Trust Fund (This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing: there is no sense in letting money sit around losing value to inflation). This debt is called intra-governmental debt.

When Factcheck states that there was a surplus, they are looking at only the public debt and are not including the intra-governmental debt. Looked at this way, yes, there was a surplus. So much money was coming in through Social Security taxes (and used to buy Treasury bonds) that the general fund exceeded the budget by several hundred billion.

Is this a valid way to view the matter? After all, the money the government owes itself shouldn't count, right? Well, yes, it should. The social security money was already earmarked for future social security payments, and the Social Security Trust Fund will want to get its money back when it comes time to make more payments. So yes, this is real debt and I can't think of any reason to exclude it.

It should be noted that even without the Social Security money the deficit did go down most years and came within $18 billion of being a completely balanced budget (down from $430 billion under Bush Sr). The expenditures most years increased only modestly as compared with Bush Sr and especially George W Bush. So for this Clinton and Congress during that time period should be commended. However, I see no way to call a $18 billion deficit a "surplus".

Thank you very much, doubt that many of the liberals here will buy this information even though factual. Most really just buy what they are told and never verify the accuracy of the rhetoric. It is always easier to kick the can down the road by our politicians.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

No, apparently you don't understand what makes up the debt, deficits(budget deficits and intergovt. holding deficits).

What makes up the debt, deficit? LACK OF MONEY.
:doh

CBO is hardly accurate, they put out projections based upon the assumptions they are given. Do some research on the accuracy of the CBO. If the assumptions are wrong the projections are wrong. The only data that matters is the U.S. Treasury Data.

:lamo
So its not accurate because you dont say its accurate?

Lets try to explain this another way. The president along with congress makes a budget. When you have more money coming in that exceeds the expenditures for that particular budget.. Not meaning that you are out of debt.. But you did not spend over that budget and you have more money coming in for that budget...


By the way im still waiting on your response for the rest of that post.. But apparently you dont like to read.. .

 

[Conservative]

TheDemSocialist;1060004222]What makes up the debt, deficit? LACK OF MONEY.
:doh

No deficits are added to the debt each and every year and deficits are made up of public debt and intergovt. holdings. Post 171 explains it quite well

So its not accurate because you dont say its accurate?

No, it is not accurate based upon history and the role of the CBO

Lets try to explain this another way. The president along with congress makes a budget. When you have more money coming in that exceeds the expenditures for that particular budget.. Not meaning that you are out of debt.. But you did not spend over that budget and you have more money coming in for that budget...

No, that means you have a surplus, not that you are out of debt. No budget surplus is going to pay off the 15.1 trillion dollar debt

By the way im still waiting on your response for the rest of that post.. But apparently you dont like to read.. .

You are going to have a long wait. I have about a half dozen liberals here attacking me, you are going to have to get in line.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

No deficits are added to the debt each and every year and deficits are made up of public debt and intergovt. holdings. Post 171 explains it quite well

No duh the deficit is added to the debt each year. But this is not a response to what i said... You just pretty much brought up a whole nother point..

No, it is not accurate based upon history and the role of the CBO

Teach me then.....

No, that means you have a surplus, not that you are out of debt. No budget surplus is going to pay off the 15.1 trillion dollar debt

:doh
Your hopeless...

You are going to have a long wait. I have about a half dozen liberals here attacking me, you are going to have to get in line.

When you say attacking does that mean you are loosing a debate?