Third Party & Independents: Archives

David-

If only they had paid more attention prior to November, 2004.

I assume you mean here that Kerry would have made us into the Utopian States of America? Our current political system assures us that no one who gets into office will actually have the best interests of the public in mind. We may not have had exactly the same betrayals of public trust, rather different ones and just as onerous.

Other than that sentiment, right on. This administration has already proven itself to be filled with more than its share of disinformation and propaganda.

Meh. I’m not quite sure what’s new about this.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

But cynical divisive politics helped.

It is a glory how the party of compassionate conservatism has so maneuvered itself into a position of ‘Moral Superiority’ and now has the redneck voting for the plutocrat.

| pogo wrote:
| We have met the enemy and he is us.

That’s true.

However, there is an easy way to fix the problem.

The solution is Transparency and Accountability.

Governments that more transparency and accountability are
less corrupt and more efficient.

To obtain transparency and accountability,
we should vote all of the politicians out of office, until things start to improve, and some
rules are in place to create more transparency
and accountability (and less corruption, less
pork-barrel, and other abuses, etc.).

What could be easier ?

Get some normal people on the ballots
(i.e. not crooked elitists, lawyers,
politicians, and other such parasites).

The logic behind this is:

It is NOT as important who you vote into
office, as it is that they are accountable
after they’re elected.

____________________
The Social Security System could easily be
fixed, if the government simply quit spending
the annual surpluses paid into S.S.
Also, people should be very suspicious when the
government starts presenting more complicated
plans and schemes. Such over-complications are
usually just another way to steal from the
tax-payers. Unnecessary complication does not
help create more transparency and accountability.

The government has been stealing from the
Social Security System since it was started.

The only logical reason to support such a scheme
is to (1) continue to scam American taxpayers, and/or,
(2) bring about the complete failure of the
system, which may actually be the goal in
mind…to bring an end to the Social Security System.

Either way, it’s going to be painful, and
unavoidable…until the people eliminate the
greed and corruption in the government.

he won’t veto the largest deficit spending in history by Congress and he wants to continue cutting revenues.

???????????? The way you are measuring, it would probably be true the the economy grew in 2004 by the greatest amount in history. You should use percentage terms.

Reagan gets the award in modern terms, Rosevelt is number one for all time.

Craig

Roosevelt had World War II. What does your Bush have?

Aldous:

Roosevelt had World War II. What does your Bush have

My point is that the statistic was presented in a misleading way. There have been many deficits higher in percentage terms, and David knows that.

The unempoyment number of 5.4% is another one. A reader may think the way it was quoted above that unemployment is high right now. Actually it is near the average rate of the Clinton years.

Sometimes economics and politics get to close together, and it makes for channeled analysis. Democrats can do no wrong, Republicans can do no right.

Craig

Haha! Craig, you complain about misleading statistics, then throw out the “average” unemployment rate in the Golden Age of Clinton. Tell me, what’s the best rate under Bush, then compare it to the best rate under Clinton. What was the unemployment trend under Clinton - draw me a graph - then compare it to the trend under Bush.

Then you can hurridly change the subject to giving credit for the superior job climate in the Golden Age of Clinton to George H. W. “Read my lips” Bush.

Craig, even in linear terms, 2004’s economic gains were not record setting by any means. Of course, this is magnified if you look at it in “percentage” terms. But… Shhhh!

I just read a report from the Maimi Herald that Jeb Bush tried to defy the Court and kidnap Schiavo anyway. Does anyone know about this?

“Hours after a judge ordered that Terri Schiavo was not to be removed from her hospice, a team of state agents were en route to seize her and have her feeding tube reinserted — but they stopped short when local police told them they would enforce the judge’s order, The Herald has learned,” reports the Miami Herald.

“Agents of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement told police in Pinellas Park, the small town where Schiavo lies at Hospice Woodside, on Thursday that they were on the way to take her to a hospital to resume her feeding.

“For a brief period, local police, who have officers at the hospice to keep protesters out, prepared for what sources called “a showdown.”

“In the end, the squad from the FDLE and the Department of Children & Families backed down, apparently concerned about confronting local police outside the hospice,” all per the Miami Herald’s ground-breaking coverage.

AParker, No, that is not what I mean. I voted for Nader who ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility and putting and end to pork barrel spending. He would have been using the veto pen till the ink ran out.

There was a lot about Kerry’s plans that smacked of similarity to Bush’s on foreign policy and deficit spending. I am not at all convinced Kerry would have been a better choice. As you say, it just would have been slightly to very different kinds of problems. Though, the Democratic position of “pay as you go” legislation is looking better every month Bush is in office.

Craig said: “The way you are measuring, it would probably be true the the economy grew in 2004 by the greatest amount in history. You should use percentage terms”

The problem with percentage ratios is that they remove the human being element. It is a fact that because the US population is bigger than ever, that 5.4% unemployment rate represents many more human beings unable to get work who want than for any other period in history when the rate was the same.

People are what economics should be about. It is so easy for schmucks on Capital Hill and Whitehouse to forget that when they play and tout the percentages.

Here is the unemployment rates web site brought to you by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

David-

Somehow I don’t think the average American would ever pay enough attention to resist voting for one of the two major parties. By the time the error is obvious enough, I fear it will be too late. Hell, it might be too late before the next election.

With help from people like Puffy we can start our own political parties an dget our own nominees or these elections.

with help from people like Puffy we can start our own political parties and get our own nominees to run in these elections on platforms we support.

David:

I think your stronger arguements are about the future. In two years the first babyboomers will qualify for retirement. In 12 years over half will qualify. One arguement you should be making is that with with such a large group leaving the workforce over the next 20 years, the GDP growth rate is sure to fall. You have bee great at arguing that costs are going up, but also revenues very likely could be falling at the same time.

I truly am not worried about the budget deficit NOW, as long as it averages near 3%. (above in bad times, below in good times).

If I map out demographics for the next decade, our economy could look a lot like Japan’s. The problem is Europe looks worse!! That is were I see the rub. Instead of arguing over inflation, we likely could be arguing over disinflation.

If I can switch subjects to Social Security, immigration might be a very important part of any “real” solution. Importing young workers could be a very important tactic for our countries future.

Craig

If someone offered to sell you an insurance policy for the low low price of about 12.5% of your entire working life salary (45 - 50 years?) that provides a non-guaranteed benefit that will only be worth maybe $2,000 a month for an average of 7 years. Would you do it?

Keep in mind that if you drop dead at your retirement party, you get nothing. If your children are adults when you die, they get nothing. This benefit can be changed at any time. Retiremenet age can be increased at any time. The program can be abolised at any time.

Does this sound like a good deal?
Whatever its merits 70 years ago, it now just keeps people from accumulating wealth. It is a bad investment and should be abolished.
Also, what if I do not want to be a ward of the state when I am old?

Craig, I’m coming around to that idea about immigration. It’s a solution, and it would be interesting to see some debate on it.

Tflan, your analogy is full of holes.

First you pay 6.2% for SS, employer picks up other half.

Second SS is guaranteed by the best guarantee that can be found in the world today, the good faith and credit of the US Government. There has never in the history of the world been a better guarantee. It is Bush who is trying his damndest to violate that guarantee.

Third, SS is insurance. You word 10 years and become disabled or die, your children and spouse receive benefits. And if you become disabled and can’t work, you receive benefits. Save 6.2% of your salary for 10 years and it is plain to see, if something happened to you and you couldn’t work, your savings might last one year. Under SS benefits are paid till your children are 18 and your disability would be for life or until your disability no longer existed.

Keep in mind that if you drop dead the day before your retirement, you will have paid in so your nation does not become a street beggar nation like India. Also, like insurance, if what is covered don’t happen, you don’t get your insurance premiums back. And we all like having insurance so that is a bogus argument and a half.

Whatever its merits 70 years ago, it now just keeps people from accumulating wealth.

Dead Wrong! It was never designed to be a wealth building system. It was designed as an insurance policy against poverty for you in your old age and for your spouse and children should your earnings disappear through disability or death.

You want to accumulate wealth, put some money in a 401K or IRA on a regular basis and pray the markets don’t crash the day before you retire.

AP, immigration has huge costs too. One has to be careful that immigration to solve one problem does not generate even more. Immigration can lead to another demographic retirement bulge like we are about to face, only 40 to 50 years later. In addition, immigration as Bush proposes would lower quality of life and wages for working Americans. Finally, we have not worked out the ecological and environmental problems in sustaining 290 million people, do you really want on increase those pressures with a population of 350 million over the next couple decades?

Craig said: “One arguement you should be making is that with with such a large group leaving the workforce over the next 20 years, the GDP growth rate is sure to fall.”

I don’t follow that logic. Just because a person leaves the work force, does not mean they leave the consuming pool which maintains demand for products and services. I don’t see where retirement affects GDP. In fact, if we could increase wages and eliminate poverty and teach economics in our schools and encourage workers to save and live decently but within their means on those increased wages, GDP could actually grow during retirement booms of the future.

David:

The elementary school I attended has the date “1950” on it. You know why right? There were many schools built then because of so many baby boomer children. I was born in 1955, so I am right in the middle. (Baby boomers were born between 1945 and 1965).

So what is life like right now? I own SIX cars!!! Kids are leaving the nest, and I am sending them each with a car. I am shooting for 2 cars, and no college expenses!! Demographics show that my income should rise during this decade of my life. Rising income, less cars and college bills gone equals more savings. Just like there were more new elementary schools, I will buy less cars, and invest more money. Since my age bracket will be at the highest earning power and there are soooooo many of us doing it at the same time, consumerism should level off, (grow slower than the economy) and money moving into investments should take off. There should be a net increase in inflows into investments as we all try to get enough assets built to retire.

What happens when my age reaches 62-65? That is 2017-2020. The mass of baby boomers will be pulling money OUT of investments from IRA’s 401k’s etc. There will not be enough baby busters behind us to make up the diffence. The average national saving rate should slow. Old economies (made of of old people) don’t grow as fast as young economies with younger people. Check out Japan for instance. Or even Europe.

Gradually inch by inch we could see consumerism give way to investment, and then to disinflation. Debt could still rise, but much slower than the economy as a whole. It’s a relative shift.

I am not too sure what part of the country you are in, but go to a rural one where the kids have moved away, and it has a large retirement population, and see what life is like. Actually North Dakota may be our future!!! Some of the themes of those economies (North Dakota) could appear across America as you and I become geezers.

Back to the point you make very well. You add, increase cost (medicare, Social Security), budget deficit, AND slower GDP growth, and you have the perfect storm. We most definitely could go through something like Japan is now, if we do not import a whole lot of young people.

Craig

David:

There is a book ya ought to look at. At first it looks real cheezey. I was sorta embarrased to buy it. It’s by Howard Dent and it is called “the coming Bubble boom” or something like that.

He is predicting the dow at 40,000. I think he is smoking something. But his other two premises, I think have merit. One is demographics for the next 20 years or so, and the impact of so many people hitting their peak income, and peak saving years at the same time, to be followed by a sudden shut off in savings. Second the “S” curve that he discusses about technology.

Basically he is predicting a boom, and then a depression. If you take out the boom and depression and replace it with good times, and then bad times, I think I could go along with a watered down version of his thoughts. If you can find the book, I would be interested in your thoughts. Some of what he says gives strength to some of your arguments.

Craig

Eh, Cmurda, just out of curiosity, just what exactly would those platforms be? O_o?

Craig, thanks for the recommendation. I regret with finishing up this multi year project of building my own house, I have almost no time at all after family, work, and WB. In a few months when phase I is completed, I can carve out some leisurely reading time.

Appreciate it though.

David, you are blinded by your desire to spend my money. The fact that that half is picked up by the employer is irrelevant. It is still an employee cost. Under your simple logic, we could save social security by simply increasing the portion that employers pay.
Second, it is not guaranteed. Benefits can be, and have been, lowered. And, most people who want to keep the program admit that they will have to be lowered again (and increasing the retirement age is lowering the benefit). So, maybe it is guaranteed, but the only thing they guarantee is a bad return on investment.
Third, if we want to make sure that people who are disabled are not destitute, we can do it a lot cheaper than taking 12.5% from every paycheck every working adult gets over their entire working life. Plus, they have private insurance for that.
And still third, SS is not insurance. It is welfare. I wish it was insurance, then I could shop around for a better premium and a better return on investment.
The program keeps people from accumulating wealth. Do the math. Find a retirement calculator and figure out how much you are putting in and how much you MAY get back. If corporations were selling this “insurance” to poor people I’m sure you would call for a govt investigation.
The overwhelming majority of workers would be better off investing their money in the stock market. Now maybe you do not like the market, well then they would still be better off investing in government bonds. But the difference is, if you own the bonds, you keep the money when you die.
As to a 401k, I do contribute – I have to contribute because SS sucks. So, 12.5% to SS, and through my employer retirement and my private savings, I sock away another 20% for a grand total of 32.5% of my salary. I’d rather spend some of that today.
But I keep forgetting, liberals are pro-choice when it comes to gay marriage and abortions. Not when it comes to people spending their own money.
And again, I’d rather not be a ward of the state when I grow old.

David:

Well good luck on your house. That sounds like quite a project. Guess I will have to find someone else to argue with

all the best,

Craig

Craig, I am not leaving WB. I just don’t have time for additional reading at this point. My life would have a hole in it without keying in here at WB on a frequent basis. I live in the sticks, man, and WB is my neighborhood and community far more than the geographic area around me here in the Hill Country of Texas.