|
Post by lc on Feb 2, 2006 16:19:23 GMT -6
(Partial Restoration of Deleted Post)
"So the Budget deficit is on track to reach 8.18 trillion by March and more than likely Congress will quietly authorize an increase in the deficit limits.
Another day of organized crime.
Will the US ever repay its deficits?
Will the US default?
The stock answer had been that we would merely repay the deficit with inflated dollars at some point. This used to appear kind of maybe possible, but consider a few points:
1)We are currently spending more than any government in history, obliterating the old world records for deficit spending, and we have pretty much nothing to show for the deficit spending.
The excess capital pumped into the economy (the basis for the trickle down recovery) would ordinarily be reserved for world war or as a means to recovery from a depression...and yet our economy is still flat. Even tho we are living on a giant credit bubble with a negative savings rate and riding the coat tails of an unprecedented real estate appreciation windfall. The economy is being triple dipped in recovery steroids and yet it is still flat....
2) we are already in the 5th year of a profound new era of inflation, but we aren't using the currency to pay down the deficit.
3) All of the conditions that are supposed to be feeding the economy today, the stimulus triple scoop, are all gonna be reversed if we actually applied all that capital to our debt rather than recirculating it back into the economy....
If we embarked on a 100 year plan to pay down the deficit, we would probably need to apply $300 billion/year toward the task (feel free to hone that number down).
That is $300 billion that would not only not be stimulating our economy, but having the opposite effect, being robbed from it...
4) every day the cost of servicing the debt grows another billion dollars and will consume our entire federal budget by approx 2050 if we "stay the course"."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 10, 2006 16:24:17 GMT -6
My suggestions would start with repealing the tax cuts on the top 2%. That should bring in an extra $50-60 billion per year. (I may be wrong on the exact numbers. Feel free to correct them if anyone has more accurate numbers.) I would immediately repeal the Transportation/Highway Bill (I'm not sure of the exact name). That would reduce annual spending by another $47 billion. I would repeal the Pharmaceutical Welfare Bill (mistakenly called the Medicare Prescription Bill). Based on a 10-year cost estimate of $700 billion, that would eliminate another $70 billion per year of pure Corporate Welfare. I would suspend research and development spending on all weapons systems that won't help in fighting wars such as that in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other "terrorist" related wars. I would cut NASA spending by at least 50%, which would save another $8 billion/year. I would tell every defense contractor that, as of right now, they will be paid only 90% of what they were originally promised for all current and future contracts.
I would increase the minimum wage to at least $7.50/hour, thus increasing aggregate American wage income and the aggregate tax base. (Not to mention improving the economy or the wellbeing of millions of Americans.)
I would also eliminate, from all "free" trade scams (agreements) such as NAFTA, any tariff exclusions for companies that have any U.S. ownership. Of course, this would essentially eliminate exclusions for most trading partners, since most have U.S. ownership.
There are many more Corporate giveaways out there that should also be eliminated. And such elimination would decrease our budget deficit even further.
These are my "suggestions." Of course, the chances of their implementation is less than that of my being the 1st astronaut to land on Pluto. Much less.
unlawflcombatnt
|
|
|
Post by lc on Feb 10, 2006 22:25:58 GMT -6
n
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 11, 2006 17:10:29 GMT -6
So the Budget deficit is on track to reach 8.18 trillion by March and more than likely Congress will quietly authorize an increase in the deficit limits. Another day of organized crime. Will the US ever repay its deficits? Will the US default? The stock answer had been that we would merely repay the deficit with inflated dollars at some point. This used to appear kind of maybe possible, but consider a few points: 1)We are currently spending more than any government in history, obliterating the old world records for deficit spending, and we have pretty much nothing to show for the deficit spending. The excess capital pumped into the economy (the basis for the trickle down recovery) would ordinarily be reserved for world war or as a means to recovery from a depression...and yet our economy is still flat. Even tho we are living on a giant credit bubble with a negative savings rate and riding the coat tails of an unprecedented real estate appreciation windfall. The economy is being triple dipped in recovery steroids and yet it is still flat. You can guess what my response to the last paragraph is. The money being pumped into the economy from the top (as potential capital) is not being spent on capital goods investment, because there is insufficient consumer demand to provide adequate returns on such investment. Even a half-way smart corporate executive won't make capital goods purchases unless he expects returns on the investment. And consumer spending is what provides the returns. Real wage income is declining. Unless borrowed money can fill the gap left by declining wages, consumer spending won't increase, and there'll be little return on new investment. There'll be insufficient consumer income to purchase the production facilitated by capital investment. In other words, the extra capital created by high-end tax cuts is not doing any good. Had tax-cuts been targeted to help the consumption part of the equation, which is being increased exclusively by increased borrowing, the economy truly would be doing much better. Of course, the average consumer doesn't have a Washington lobbyist. And the average consumer can only contribute a trickle to an election campaign. So the tax cuts go to those with the most economic clout, not to where they would do the most good. If we reversed the tax cuts on the top 2%, we could use that money to help pay down the debt. Since that money is going to no good use (as far as I can tell), it won't hurt the economy any. In fact, it would reduce excess capital and reduce the flow of this excess capital into foreign countries to exploit cheap foreign labor, and drive American wages down. In my opinion, elimination of those high end tax cuts would actually "grow" our economy. It would result in less foreign investment, and increase American wages as a result. It would reduce inflation, making real wages higher. Both of these wage increasing effects would increase consumer spending and demand for production. This would further increase the demand for workers to provide that production, resulting in still further increases in hiring and wages. Though I accept the validity of cutting taxes to increase aggregate spending, the tax cuts must be targeted at the right group to accomplish this. Unfortunately, they've been targeted at the biggest campaign contributors, irrespective of any overall effects on the economy. Obviously we can't put $300 billion/year towards our debt without sinking our economy. But we definitely could put a lot of the wasteful Corporate Welfare money into paying down the debt. I would start with the Pharmaceutical Welfare Bill (Medicare Prescription Drug Bill.) The overwhelming majority of that money will go into Pharm company profits. That money is not financing any research, other than how to obtain more government handouts, more market control and price fixing, more inappropriate television advertising, more patent extensions, and more "approved" uses for old drugs. (Of interest here is that some very profitable drugs, such as Lipitor, are not even made in the United States. Lipitor is made in Ireland, to take advantage of the lower corporate tax rate. Lipitor production involves no American jobs and does nothing for our economy. And so much for "foreign" drugs not being "safe.") If we "stay the course" it's going to take us right off a cliff. But not before the Bush Corporatocracy runs off with most of the money.
|
|
|
Post by lc on Feb 28, 2006 21:51:21 GMT -6
(Partial Restoration of Deleted Post)
"Unlawful and I have had a private dialog about budget and deficit reduction measures that is probably worthy of posting on the forum.
Lets start a list of agreed and controversial measures. take them one at a time, discuss them as necesary and rank them as proposals and agreed items.
1) taxes on foreign investment income. For discussion I propose this be high as in 75%.
The incentive for investment abroad and in offshore subsidiaries is too great. A proposal that curbs both would be benefitial, any more effective recommendations?"
|
|
|
Post by lc on Mar 14, 2006 22:19:20 GMT -6
n
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Mar 15, 2006 7:15:06 GMT -6
Back to the min. wage: we don't need it. We need border security. Stopping the inflow of illegal aliens will slow the bleeding of our lower and middle classes. Some people are just realizing that Buschco has no regard for Homeland Security, thanks to the ports deal. Meanwhile, our borders remain wide open to terrorists, criminals, and poor illiterates who send $20 Billion a year back to Mexico while depressing US wages. The Dems better get on the right side of border security, or suffer defeat again this year. GB
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 15, 2006 16:07:28 GMT -6
Graybeard,
I completely agree with you about illegal immigration. The addition of 5-10 million illegal workers to our 150 million participating labor force drives everyone's wages down.
It does this in 2 separate ways. It directly puts downward pressure on wages by increasing the supply of workers competing for the current 143 million available jobs.
In addition, as a result of driving average wages down, it decreases aggregate worker-consumer income, resulting in less spendable wealth for consumer purchases. This reduces consumer spending and the consumer production demand it creates. Decreased consumer production demand reduces the demand for workers to provide that production. The result is an even further reduction in wages and employment.
Some wrongly argue that the increased population from immigration increases consumer demand. That's absolutely wrong. Aggregate consumer demand is not increased by increasing the number of consumers. It's increased by increasing the total, aggregate spending power of consumers as a whole. A reduction in average wages reduces aggregate consumer income. Consumer demand has nothing to do with the number of consumers, and everything to do with the aggregate spending power of those consumers. As a result, the increased supply of workers for a fixed number of jobs causes a reduction in aggregate worker-consumer wages.
As a result, the influx of illegal workers reduces aggregate consumer production demand, because it reduces the aggregate consumer income available to purchase production.
Demand is not created by consumer "wants." It's created by consumers who have the financial ability to fulfill those "wants."
unlawflcombatnt
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 15, 2006 16:34:51 GMT -6
Unlawful and I have had a private dialog about budget and deficit reduction measures that is probably worthy of posting on the forum. Lets start a list of agreed and controversial measures. take them one at a time, discuss them as necesary and rank them as proposals and agreed items. 1) taxes on foreign investment income. For discussion I propose this be high as in 75%. The incentive for investment abroad and in offshore subsidiaries is too great. A proposal that curbs both would be benefitial, any more effective recommendations? LC, I missed this letter before. I completely agree with your taxation suggestion on foreign investment. And I wouldn't hesitate to increase it above 75% if this is not sufficient. In all honesty, I have no sympathy whatsoever for rich investors who can't find a place to invest in the United States. Maybe these "unfortunate" investors should lobby to for measures that would increase U.S. investment opportunities (i.e., anything that would increase consumer income, as opposed to increasing investment capital, which is the only thing they lobby for at present.) Maybe the "poor baby" investors could lobby to reduce imports, in order to increase domestic production demand, thereby creating more domestic investment opportunities. Maybe they could spend more of their efforts on increasing consumer income and demand, instead of new ways to profiteer from exploiting the cheap, semi-slave labor of foreign countries. unlawflcombatnt
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 15, 2006 16:57:46 GMT -6
LC,
Whatever happened to the Republican mantra of "starve the beast"? I guess it only applies to those who truly are starving, not the extensive Corporate Welfare policies that comprise the biggest component of the current "beast."
We can reduce Medicare reimbursements to doctors by 4% for the year. But heaven forbid we'd cut anything from the $700 billion Pharmaceutical Welfare Scam (mistakenly referred to as the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill.) How would slimy Pharmaceutical company CEO's maintain their 7 and 8 figure incomes without this bill. They might experience real hardships, like having to sell one of their million dollar homes, or not take one of their million dollar vacations, or even worse, sell one of their $60,000 SUVs. This would just be unbearable.
Obviously it's much more humane to eliminate something of "dubious" value, like school lunch programs. After all, kids don't really need to eat lunch, do they? They just need to "suck it up," because that money is being put to far better use by giving tax breaks to millionaires. They're the "truly" needy ones. We need to have compassion for them. Their sacrifices truly are "unbearable."
unlawflcombatnt
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Mar 16, 2006 7:43:37 GMT -6
Back to min. wage: CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" last night reported that Oregon has the second highest minimum wage in the country, and prosperity has increased as a result, contrary to the cry of the corporate fat cats. They should have the transcript at LouDobbs.com. Get a tivo and record Lou.
Oregon also has fewer illegals than we here in Calif, especially, although they have always had some migrants working the crops. I'll bet illegals are now all doing the summer crop jobs I had as a teenager in Oregon. I was paid above min. wage when working hourly in the pear packing plants.
Is it only a coincidence that Oregon is a blue state? I don't think so. GB
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 18, 2006 13:35:18 GMT -6
Back to min. wage: CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" last night reported that Oregon has the second highest minimum wage in the country, and prosperity has increased as a result, contrary to the cry of the corporate fat cats. They should have the transcript at LouDobbs.com. Get a tivo and record Lou. Graybeard, I saw part of that LouDobbs segment. I'd really like to get hold of the transcript. If you know where it can be found, can you post a link here? The minimum wage report was a shocker to some people (though not to me.) This is a point well described in economist Ravi Batra's book, Greenspan's Fraud. Dr. Batra shows that every time minimum wages increased, GDP increased as well. In other words, it helped the economy when it was raised. It's always been my contention that if American workers were paid higher wages, the entire country would do better, including Corporate America. Americans would have more money to spend, and more of that spending would be financed through wages, not borrowing. It would increase consumer spending and production demand, as well as increasing the sales necessary to increase investment return. More production demand would increase investment opportunities. This would cause more of our currently excessive investment capital to go toward true capital goods investment, instead of non-productive financial instruments such as stocks and bonds.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 18, 2006 17:22:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Mar 18, 2006 19:51:22 GMT -6
Back to min. wage: CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" last night reported that Oregon has the second highest minimum wage in the country, and prosperity has increased as a result, contrary to the cry of the corporate fat cats. They should have the transcript at LouDobbs.com. Get a tivo and record Lou. Graybeard, I saw part of that LouDobbs segment. I'd really like to get hold of the transcript. If you know where it can be found, can you post a link here? Here's the text: DOBBS: Big business groups in this country such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and, of course, the Business Roundtable, they've consistently argued against helping working men and women in this country by raising the minimum wage, they say it will harm the economy and lead to the loss of small business jobs in particular. New research suggests just the opposite. Christine Romans has the report from New York. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Make the minimum wage of $5.15 an hour and you're making only $10,000 a year. Hardly enough to make ends meet. It's why all but three states are at least considering raising wages above the federal minimum, despite opposition from business groups. Oregon now has the second highest minimum wage in the country and reports job growth doubled the rest of the nation. DAN GARDNER, OREGON LABOR COMMISSIONER: They always predict the gloom and doom, but it really just hasn't borne out in the figures across Oregon. I think that increasing the minimum wage helps Oregon. It doesn't hurt it. ROMANS: That trend is bearing out nationwide. According to new research from the Fiscal Policy Institute, since 1998, states with a higher minimum wage had better jobs growth than states paying only the minimum wage. In small retail businesses in those higher-wage states, jobs growth was double the rest of the country. JAMES PARROTT, FISCAL POLICY INSTITUTE: You raise a worker's wage, they're more likely to stay on the job. And they bring more experience to that. So the productivity of the business may go up. ROMANS: And, he says, recruitment and training costs go down. And workers spend those higher wages almost entirely in other local businesses, creating more jobs. But business is united against raising the minimum wage. ROBERT GREEN, NATIONAL RETAIL FEDERATION: It does create significant pressures on a small business, small retailer with profit margins of 2 percent, 3 percent. It becomes very challenging to try to maintain the number of workers that you're currently employing just because the costs change. ROMANS: With health care and energy squeezing profits, higher wages, they say, are a burden, particularly for small companies. (END VIDEOTAPE) ROMANS: But this new research challenges that conventional wisdom. And more states are doing what the federal government won't. A bill raising the minimum wage in Michigan is heading to the governor's desk. Michigan, Lou, would be the 19th state now to raise the minimum wage. DOBBS: Christine, thank you very much. Christine Romans from New York. Reminding us of what Henry Ford said when he began his business and that big long assembly line paying $5 an hour, far beyond the prevailing wage, saying he wanted his employees to be able to buy the products they make. (GB comment: In 1913, Henry Ford raised his factory wage to $5 for an 8 hour DAY, in place of the national wage of $2.38 for a 10 hour day. As production went up, the price for a new Ford (Model T) went down to as low as $295 by 1923.) Interesting concept. That brings us to our poll tonight. Are you surprised to find that paying Americans decent wages actually improves rather than hurts the economy? Here's the link: transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/15/ldt.01.htmlGB
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 18, 2006 22:32:47 GMT -6
Graybeard,
I can't make the link work. Is there another way to get to it?
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 18, 2006 22:54:20 GMT -6
I found the transcripts for the minimum wage article. I used the following link: edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/15/ldt.01.htmlThis is the entire transcript for the 3/15/06 show. The part on minimum wage appears about half way down the transcript page.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Mar 19, 2006 1:20:32 GMT -6
Sorry for the detour. Guess I failed to put in a return between the link and my initials. GB
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Aug 26, 2006 16:15:09 GMT -6
I just wanted to call attention to the new "Federal Budget Simulator" program I posted. It not only shows the current deficit, but the individual items that are contributing to it. It also allows the reader to make certain changes, to reduce the deficit. Apparently I grossly underestimated the contribution to our deficit from Bush's reverse Robin Hood tax cuts. The tax cuts on the top 1% alone are estimated to cost us $117 billion/year. This is very interesting information, and I'd strongly suggest everyone check it out. I've never been able to find all of these numbers before in an understandable form. Here's a link to the simulator on this forum: unlawflcombatnt.proboards84.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1156207718The direct links are at: www.nathannewman.org/nbs/www.nathannewman.org/nbs/longbudget06.html
|
|