On Thursday 14 August 2008, Phil Thayer wrote:

Based on this information then we can safely say that we are living in a communistic country. The basic principle of communism is:

"To bring about happiness and prosperity for all, the distinctions between the rich and poor of society must be eliminated."

Where is the proof for this statement?

On Thursday 14 August 2008, Phil Thayer wrote:

...

On Thursday 14 August 2008, Phil Thayer wrote:

...

Based on this information then we can safely say that we are living in a communistic country. The basic principle of communism is:

"To bring about happiness and prosperity for all, the distinctions between the rich and poor of society must be eliminated."

Where is the proof for this statement?

Well, when people say we should increase taxes and give more money to the lower income, what do you call that?

I couldn't care less what it's called. What is the proof that prosperity and happiness depends on elimination of the difference between rich and poor?

I don't get all the dates. 1789 is French Revolution, 1917 is Fall of Czarist Russia, is 476 the fall of Rome? 1949 Korea and 1959 Vietnam or China Revolution?

Brian Kelsay

-----Original Message----- From: lowell

Can't happen? 476. 1789. 1917. 1949. 1959.

On Thursday 14 August 2008, Jeffrey Watts wrote:

476 is indeed the fall of Rome and the beginning of the Dark Ages.

You mean the good Middle Ages.

--- On Thu, 8/14/08, lowell lowell@kc.rr.com wrote:

Phil Thayer wrote:

...

If I work harder and make more money it should be up to me how I use my money. If I am a responsible citizen I will use my extra money to help others. Or I may invest my money in businesses to expand the economy that would help others. Or I could simply spend more time drinking in strip clubs and spread my money around that way. :) But it is my money and it should be my choice how it is spent. Not the governments choice to try and force me to distribute it to the lower income groups.

The state should not exist. You should dig your own well. (Be careful where you put your outhouse.)

Better hope your neighbor upstream isn't using his end of the stream running through your property as *his* outhouse...

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Jim Herrmann kclug@itdepends.com wrote:

What has busted the budget is an illegal war entered into using known lies by an administration that should be tried in the Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Eliminate the war spending, which is borrowed from China, and you eliminate about half of the deficit. Eliminate another 20%

Total spending on the war is 1% of GDP: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/07/AR2007050701... Costs as a percentage of GDP in other wars: http://money.cnn.com/2003/02/05/commentary/column_hays/hays/index.htm

It's tying the first Gulf War as one of the cheapest as a percent of GDP. Where's your proof?

of a military budget that is larger than all the rest of the world combined, and we have a balanced budget. Unfortunately, the next president, Obama, has been doing a bunch of sabre rattling about Afghanistan. That won't be cheap. So, I don't hold out much hope for that 20% reduction I'm talking about, but at least he'll get us out of Iraq soon.

The defense budget is 4% GDP. Cutting it by 20% would bring it to 3.2%, that's still above the pre-war levels. GDP is on the rise, up 1.9% from .9% in the previous quarter: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

Plus, Obama's campaign is running Linux severs! :-) Mandatory Linux content.

Plus, Jon, the economics you are espousing is supply side, aka trickle down, aka voodoo economics. That's been proven, twice now, that it doesn't work. Raising the taxes on the people who have more money than anyone needs does not hurt the macro economy. Cutting taxes on the wealthy just let's them be richer. It doesn't generate more GDP. Putting more of the rich people's money in the hands of the poor and middle class generate GDP, and thus jobs. Supply side economics is about to die, at least for awhile, thank goodness. The second gilded age is about to come to an end.

Peace, Jim

Taxing the actions that help grow the GDP (captial gains, and income to investors, who are typically the wealthier classs) removes money from the pool used for investing. Investing is what drives business and allows the GDP to rise. How does taking money from investors and giving it to spenders generate GDP, when the spenders merely consume? If demand rises and supply does not, prices rise - but not wealth or value. The link above points out that Gross domestic Purchases are down .5%, but the GDP grew more. That's not what you say happens. The rich got a tax cut (and so did the poor!) and GDP went up. Supply side. GD Spending went down, even though the tax burden on the poor was lower - meaning the had more money to spend, along with the tax rebates. Demand side. Care to find facts for your side of the point?

You guys seem to argue that the rich get money and just sit on it. When the rich have money they put it to work earning interest in investments. Talk to any wealthy person about their investments vs the cash on hand. Nearly all of their money is being invested somewhere and almost NONE of it is sitting around doing nothing. Even money put in the bank is being invested, even by the bank itself. Cheer about the death of supply-side economics if you want, but you haven't proven anything.

Jon.

--- On Wed, 8/13/08, Jim Herrmann kclug@itdepends.com wrote:

Plus, Jon, the economics you are espousing is supply side, aka trickle down, aka voodoo economics. That's been proven, twice now, that it doesn't work. Raising the taxes on the people who have more money than anyone needs does not hurt the macro economy. Cutting taxes on the wealthy just let's them be richer. It doesn't generate more GDP. Putting more of the rich people's money in the hands of the poor and middle class generate GDP, and thus jobs.

Exactly. A poor person given another 1% of a $10,000 income as EITC will likely immediately have to spend that $100 in the local economy, boosting GDP and trickling up through the economy.

A rich person making $300,000 a year and given a 1% tax cut, will put the $3,000 where it earns the most investment, and if that is in a German factory or a Chinese labor camp, then so be it, and the money leaves the U.S. Economy, possibly never to return.

If the GOP's "supply side", "trickle-down" tax cuts were working so well and the economy was so fantastic, why did anyone in government think the Extra Tax Rebate Program (essentially an extra EITC, but for the middle class too) was necessary? Handing out more money *directly* to the poor, without filtering it through the rich first? Isn't that against everything a supply-sider stands for?

If Bush thought the tax cuts would work, he would have vetoed the Extra Tax Rebate.

Supply side economics is about to die, at least for awhile, thank goodness. The second gilded age is about to come to an end.

On 8/13/08 10:56 PM, "Jim Herrmann" kclug@itdepends.com wrote:

What has busted the budget is an illegal war entered into using known lies by an administration that should be tried in the Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Eliminate the war spending, which is borrowed from China, and you eliminate about half of the deficit. Eliminate another 20% of a military budget that is larger than all the rest of the world combined, and we have a balanced budget. Unfortunately, the next president, Obama, has been doing a bunch of sabre rattling about Afghanistan. That won't be cheap. So, I don't hold out much hope for that 20% reduction I'm talking about, but at least he'll get us out of Iraq soon.

Naturally, Medicare and Social Security wouldn't have anything to do with the deficit, right? Why make hard decisions when you can sit comfortably in the armchair and blame everything on a nasty little war?

Plus, Obama's campaign is running Linux severs! :-) Mandatory Linux content.

Plus, Jon, the economics you are espousing is supply side, aka trickle down, aka voodoo economics. That's been proven, twice now, that it doesn't work. Raising the taxes on the people who have more money than anyone needs does not hurt the macro economy. Cutting taxes on the wealthy just let's them be richer. It doesn't generate more GDP. Putting more of the rich people's money in the hands of the poor and middle class generate GDP, and thus jobs. Supply side economics is about to die, at least for awhile, thank goodness. The second gilded age is about to come to an end.

I would laugh if it weren't apparent you weren't serious. Cutting taxes doesn't generate GDP? Huh?

GNP (Gross NATIONAL product) is the dollar value of all goods and services purchased in the national economy. It includes buying cereal, buying cars, and interest payments. Whether a wealthy person buys a BMW, or invests the money in a mutual fund, he or she is contributing to GNP. The only way he or she does not contribute to GDP is if he or she buries the money in the backyard.

A dollar is a dollar, no matter who spends it, as long as it gets spent somewhere. For example, if a wealthy person puts his money in a savings account, that money is immediately loaned out by the banking institution. That loan generates interest -- and hence, contributes to GNP. The loan itself will be used for some economic purpose -- no one borrows money just to bury it in the backyard -- and it will also contribute to GNP.

It is just ignorant to believe that just because someone has more money than you do, they must not be contributing to the economy. Heck, even dying contributes to the GNP (someone has to pay for the funeral).

Matthew Copple

On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Matthew Copple mcopple@kcopensource.org wrote:

On 8/13/08 10:56 PM, "Jim Herrmann" kclug@itdepends.com wrote:

...

What has busted the budget is an illegal war entered into using known lies by an administration that should be tried in the Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Eliminate the war spending, which is borrowed from China, and you eliminate about half of the deficit. Eliminate another 20% of a military budget that is larger than all the rest of the world combined, and we have a balanced budget. Unfortunately, the next president, Obama, has been doing a bunch of sabre rattling about Afghanistan. That won't be cheap. So, I don't hold out much hope for that 20% reduction I'm talking about, but at least he'll get us out of Iraq soon.

Naturally, Medicare and Social Security wouldn't have anything to do with the deficit, right? Why make hard decisions when you can sit comfortably in the armchair and blame everything on a nasty little war?

I think both of you are inaccurate, but both of these inaccuracies work to mask the real size of the budget deficit. First, it is my understanding that the war spending isn't part of the budgetary process, in-so-much as the WH numbers and its budget projection never include it, it just gets ignored. I don't think any of the appropriations bills consider it. I guess because the WH doesn't ask for it as part of their budget request, congress isn't going to fund it as part of the ongoing budget. It is always an "emergency" spending measure paired with a resolution to raise the debt ceiling. When budget short fall estimates come out, the WH will not have war spending included and the press is left to report the WH numbers Then they may or may not qualify what has been left out.

Rhetorically inferring that social security is a contributing factor to the budget deficit is just blatantly wrong. (Maybe I misunderstood. Were you trying to use satire to infer the opposite?) Social security pulls in much more money from payroll taxes than what is paid out in benefits. This SS surplus is figured into the budget deficit numbers, without it the budget deficit would look much worse. This surplus has been in effect at least since the large payroll tax increases of 1983. President Bush as a candidate and early in his first term stated that he would balance the budget without using the SS surplus. The projections are for this surplus to continue until late in the next decade at which point the promised benefits per month will outstrip the taxes collected per month. Some are referring to this as a crisis point and must not be allowed to happen. The implication is that excess payroll taxes will be used for upwards of 35 years to pay for items that should have been financed primarily with income taxes. Once this positive cash flow is gone and SS has to call in its IOUs many of our elected officials won't want to ask income tax payers to fund their spending, and they certainly don't want to ask them to pay back the monies borrowed from SS. Without any changes to the system SS will still have enough IOU's to run just fine well into the mid 2040's (date from memory, I didn't check this).

Note, I didn't bring up Medicare because I don't know its funding mechanism.

-Rod

--- On Thu, 8/14/08, Matthew Copple mcopple@kcopensource.org wrote:

On 8/13/08 10:56 PM, "Jim Herrmann" kclug@itdepends.com wrote:

...

What has busted the budget is an illegal war entered into using known lies by an administration that should be tried in the Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Eliminate the war spending, which is borrowed from China, and you eliminate about half of the deficit. Eliminate another 20% of a military budget that is larger than all the rest of the world combined, and we have a balanced budget. Unfortunately, the next president, Obama, has been doing a bunch of sabre rattling about Afghanistan. That won't be cheap. So, I don't hold out much hope for that 20% reduction I'm talking about, but at least he'll get us out of Iraq soon.

Naturally, Medicare and Social Security wouldn't have anything to do with the deficit, right? Why make hard decisions when you can sit comfortably in the armchair and blame everything on a nasty little war?

Actually military spending, mostly thanks to the "nasty little war" currently accounts for 48% of the budget, whereas Social Security and Medicare *combined* only account for about 34%.

Military spending will have to come down more than 25% to make Social Security and Medicare the bigger threat to the deficit and the national debt.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi62.html

...

Plus, Jon, the economics you are espousing is supply side, aka trickle down, aka voodoo economics. That's been proven, twice now, that it doesn't work. Raising the taxes on the people who have more money than anyone needs does not hurt the macro economy. Cutting taxes on the wealthy just let's them be richer. It doesn't generate more GDP. Putting more of the rich people's money in the hands of the poor and middle class generate GDP, and thus jobs.

I would laugh if it weren't apparent you weren't serious. Cutting taxes doesn't generate GDP? Huh?

GNP (Gross NATIONAL product) is the dollar value of all goods and services purchased in the national economy.

Yes, all purchases made *in the national economy*.

Thats the important part.

It includes buying cereal, buying cars, and interest payments. Whether a wealthy person buys a BMW, or invests the money in a mutual fund, he or she is contributing to GNP.

And thats where your reasoning falls down, because investments by the wealthy **aren't necessarily within the national economy of the U.S.A.** As you yourself have shown with your point that wealthy people sometimes purchase *German* cars (BMWs).

The only way he or she does not contribute to GDP is if he or she buries the money in the backyard.

Or in a foreign investment fund, or when s/he buys a foreign import, such as the foreign-made supercars (such as a BMW) or the foreign-made yachts or the foreign-made personal jets.

A dollar is a dollar, no matter who spends it, as long as it gets spent somewhere.

If it converts into another currency to be invested outside the U.S., outside the U.S. national economy, it increases GDP, just not U.S. GDP.

For example, if a wealthy person puts his money in a savings account, that money is immediately loaned out by the banking institution. That loan generates interest -- and hence, contributes to GNP.

Yes, it contributes to the GDP of the country *in which the bank resides*. If that bank is a German bank, the loans go to Germans, not U.S. citizens, improving the GDP of Germany.

It is just ignorant to believe that just because someone has more money than you do, they must not be contributing to the economy.

Actually it is *naive* to think that rich U.S. citizens invest *all* their money in U.S.-based products, banks and funds. Their investments go where they will produce more money, and if that investment is in Germany, or in China, or in Japan, the money goes outside the U.S.A.

Whereas it isn't ignorant to think that lower income folks spend *all* their money on the local economy, both their purchases and their investments. Even the imported products they purchase are purchased through a U.S.-based business (frequently Wal-Mart).

Hand a rich person an extra $1,000 and that money frequently leaves the U.S.A. (and thus does not generate any *U.S.* GDP) to (for example) go to Europe where the Euro is trading higher than the dollar. Hand a poor person $1,000 and they'll spend it all right here in the U.S.A., increasing *U.S.* GDP.

Heck, even dying contributes to the GNP (someone has to pay for the funeral).

Possibly true, though poor people have no choice other than to be buried in the U.S.A., whereas wealthy people can, for example, have their ashes scattered in the Amazon rainforest. Meaning, quite simply, that in death, as in life, poor people are more likely than rich people to use their money to increase U.S. GDP.

On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:

To be honest I'm not really interested in talking to you much more. You come across as bigoted (though certainly not as obviously as Mr Sissel), and you don't seem to understand the meaning of "irony". You can declare victory or something, and claim you've "won" if you like. Congrats! :)

And by the way, things go both ways. It's clear you drink your own flavor of Kool-Aid.

Jeffrey.

You can declare me the victor if you wish, but it's an empty victory. You have provided absolutely no data or facts for your side of the debates. I have, repeatedly. That in effect makes me the de-facto victor in any debate situation. I provided facts that back up what I said, and NO ONE who opposed me put up anything but "we think otherwise" statements. That tells me you have no real proof and are arguing an emotional position, not a logical one. The victory of logic (with proof) over emotion (with no proof) is still victory, but it is empty.

At least I can tell where my Kool-Aide comes from and decide if it's still worth drinking. ;)

Jon.