stevendedalus stevendedalus

What does an old founding father know, anyway!

▼

What does an old founding father know, anyway!

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com/NewPost.asp?cmd=SHOWNEWPOSTFORM
from JoeUser Forums


“The earth belongs to each… generation during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence.” Thomas Jefferson, Letter from Paris, September 6, 1789





Obviously Jefferson’s thesis is sound but not entirely applicable to this era. We have come along way from an agrarian nation in which capital does not spiral too well — that is, if slavery is not counted. The industrialization evolved rapidly, culminating in the oligarchy of the Robber Barons that effectively dictated the nation’s economy driven by investments and therefore lending, not only to enterprising individuals but to governments here and abroad as well. By this systemic procedure, the oligarchy insured itself perpetuity.





Though the names have changed and Theodore Roosevelt busted the anti-trust schemers, very little has changed, except for a brief period during the post WW II days when the cost of capital was dramatically reduced by spiraling wages, and the determination of government to pay down the war debt. This was only possible when revenue exceeded spending, helped by the growing intake of social security far outweighing its outlay.





Alas, increasingly the cold war — together with its many hot spots — took its toll on the wealth of the nation. Today there is a new war on terrorism causing the national debt — let alone the tax cuts — to enter the stratosphere — this very day at $7,063,087,073,837.25, and climbing daily by $1.97 billion. This means that each of us individually is indebted to the tune of $24,081.02 [Google Search]. And the baby boomers are fast approaching social security years! — while the plutocrats are licking their chops and manipulating the economy so they get more bang for the buck out of a shaky future.





Perhaps it is time to take another look at Jefferson and his moral point that it is unfair to saddle our children and theirs with this profligate trend.
politics
15,083 views 37 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
When I was at the Library the other day, I picked up a pamphlet that caught my eye. It was called "Where do your taxes go?" According to this, if you had $1,500.00 deducted from your paycheck for the fiscal year 2004 and they went directly to expenses, it would be like this:
$393.00 military, $339.00 interest on national debt, $285.00 healthcare, $83 income security, $51 veterans' benefits, $48.00 education, $38.00 nutrition spending, $24.00 housing, $24.00 environmental protection, $6.00 job training, $210.00 everything else.
According to this pamphlet, the U.S. actually funds itself though,with loans from the International Monetary Fund.
Writing articles and giving opinions on them is more than bellyaching, it's getting and sharing ideas and information, seeing if there are solutions. And at times, bellyaching, because that's our right.
stevendedalus- thanks again for putting up this post.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

There is incredible efficiency in the Post Office--except when you go there to mail a package. Nevertheless, they handle all thebusiness junk mail too well. FDR never had anything against charities, the high tax bracket generated huge donations. I'm afraid your deep belief in the states and/or business handling money effectively is a dream--they're just as bad and less trustworthy. I don't know what else is left, perhaps outsourcing the government--China might do a better job, certainly cheaper. Yet I'm not against small businesses bidding with a prospectus where they could do better in certain areas of government. Amen

The post office is a bad example because it is one of the few government services that has private sector commercial competition.

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

Glad you asked. The federal government pent 328 billion dollars, give or take last year. That's quite a bit more than the deficit

The deficit this year is greater than $328 billion.  It's closer to $500 billion. Hence the "half trillion Bush deficit" you see Democrats running around shrieking about.

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

Jeb:

1) MedicAID is a welfare program.

2) Medicare and Social security are welfare programs for most Americans in the sense that they get back vastly more than they put into it.

Item 1 is incontestable. Item 2 we just don't agree with. I'm not going to argue based on your premise because we don't agree on the premise. The Federal budget is about 2 trillion dollars.

Defense, as you stated is $328 billion.  We have a $300 billion to $500 billion (Depending on who you talk to, I looked it up on google and the number seems to be all over the place for 2003).

Now, doing the math, $328 billion out of 2 trillion is about 16% of the budget. Given that even if we totally eliminated defense spending we would (at best) cancel the deficit or at worst have a $200 billion deficit still, clearly federal money is mostly going somewhere else. 

Therefore, if you want to balance the budget, you have to suck it in and cut the programs where this money is going to -- including defense but also including the social programs.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, but you still aren't answering my issue. The deductions for social security and medicare are not part of your income tax. So, they don't count in your little plan. Cutting social security and medicare would decrease what people pay to the government, but it wouldn't cut the income tax.

Cheers
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

Jeb: What question, then, are you attempting to ask?

My responses have been in response to the original article. The original article is about the debt. It has already been demonstrated that defense is not the primary cause of the deficit. Social programs are.  You already stated, incorrectly, that defense spending exceeds the deficit for 2003. So if you awnt to balance the budget, what would you do? I already pay hundreds of thousands in taxes. I'm doing my share. I don't want to pay more in taxes. I don't see very much benefit in exchange for those taxes.  I would prefer to have lower taxes so that I could hire more people. That would help the economy too.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
You admitted that the defense spending was within the realm of possibility for the deficit, but even if I am incorrect about that, I was pointing out that most social programs are not paid for by the percentage that you pay in income tax. You pay x% in income tax, then, also taken out of your paycheck is an amount for social security and medicare. If you can convince people that you want to increase the x% they pay in income tax in order to maintain the same level of income for the federal government after cutting out the social program deductions, even if you are reducing the total amount paid by an individual, then you are a more charismatic man then most.

Cheers
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
much of this conversation seems to ignore why the debt exists in the first place. it is a convenient method of avoiding the redistribution of a nations wealth (built with the countrys natural resources and labor) back to the citizens of the country through the progressive taxation tool. the double whammy is the government borrowing from the wealthiest who have avoided this taxation thus stuffing their pockets further with interest!

according to pbs:
- the thirteen thousand richest families in the united states have financial holdings equal to that of the poorest 20 million people!
- the average holdings of the richest ten percent is 10 million dollars while that of the poorest forty percent is fourteen hundred bucks!

as i have stated in other posts, it is compeletely understandable why a millionaire votes for the right. why a non-millionaire votes for the right is mostly to do with disinformation.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Jeb, see my other post which details exactly where the federal spending goes. It makes things much clearer. If you want to kill the deficit the entitlements are going to need steep cuts. Non-millionaire's vote for the right because they believe that peopel should have to make their own way in life. Most Americans don't sit around feeling envy for the mega rich. How does it hurt me that 13 families have vast assets. Who cares? I don't see the government having a right to confiscate their stuff. They did that in Soviet Russia, worked out great eh?
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
::massages forhead::

Brad, you apply a universal "income source" for the federal government, even when you break it down in your other post. Yes, to balance a budget programs must be cut, from every department to use a corporate phrase, but you also have to raise taxes, because there reaches a point, and the state of Oregon is reaching it, where there is no more fat to cut and there's still a deficit. You need to face the fact that social programs will never be eliminated. One of the most powerful voting blocks is seniors, and they will never vote to have their social security checks reduced. So, cut programs, sure, but raise taxes too.

Cheers
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
You don't have to cut social security to balance the budget. But you could pretty much everything else considerably and FREEZE spending increases across the board and wait for the revenue from taxes to catch up (tax revenues increase with the GDP). Since you think taxes are the answer, you must have some idea how much revenue was lost last year due to the tax cuts right?