The comments that this goes back 40 years or more (actually to the 1960's under Johnson when we first started borrowing $1 for each $1 of GDP), are correct. The democrats held Congress for 44 year since the sixties and the republicans 12 and both have destroyed America. We saw under Clinton, a 1993 tax increase and the peak and collapse of job growth rates in every sector of both durable and non-durable manufacturing. We saw a tax cut and a bubble that ramped tax collection up by billions.
Tax type.............................year.....Amount in billion........percent chg
Indidvidual........................1994.............$543........................
Indidvidual........................1995.............$590........................+8.7
Indidvidual........................1996.............$656........................+11.2
Indidvidual........................1997.............$737.......................+12.3%
Indidvidual........................1998.............$828.......................+12.4% (peaks)
Indidvidual........................1999.............$879........................+6.1% (hint of what is coming)
Indidvidual........................2000............$1,004......................+14.2% (bubble peak)
Indidvidual........................2001............$994............................-1% (bubble collapse)
2004 increase
2008 decrease
Corporation........................1994............$140........................
Corporation........................1995............$157........................+10%
Corporation........................1996............$171........................+8.9% (growth rate slowing just as is mfg job growth)
Corporation........................1997............$182........................+4% (growth rate slowing just as is mfg job growth)
Corporation........................1998............$188........................+3.2% (growth rate slowing just as is mfg job growth)
Corporation........................1999............$184........................-2% (growth rate slowing just as is mfg job growth)
Corporation........................2000............$207........................+12.5% (bubble peaks and we get a massive influx of profits)
Corporation........................2001............$151........................-27% (bubble bursts and we collapse tax revenues)
2004 increase
2008 decrease
Unemployment Ins.............1994...........28..............................
Unemployment Ins.............1995...........29................................+3.1% (reflects higher employment)
Unemployment Ins.............1996...........28,6..............................-1% (fewer workers paying in)
Unemployment Ins.............1997...........28.2..............................-1.2% (fewer workers paying in)
Unemployment Ins.............1998...........27.5..............................-2.5%(fewer workers paying in)
Unemployment Ins.............1999...........26.5...............................-3.7% (fewer workers paying in)
Unemployment Ins.............2000...........27.6................................+4.4% (bubble peaks and there is a lot of short lived hiring)
Unemployment Ins.............2001...........27.8................................+.6% (bubble bursts and we start laying off and rate shrinks again)
2003 increase (we start to see more paying in)
2007 decrease (we see the layoffs hitting this payment)
The FUTA tax rate is 6.2% of taxable wages. The taxable wage base is the first $7,000 paid in wages to each employee during a calendar year. Employers who pay the state unemployment tax, on a timely basis, will receive an offset credit of up to 5.4% regardless of the rate of tax they pay the state. Therefore, the net FUTA tax rate is generally 0.8% (6.2% - 5.4%), for a maximum FUTA tax of $56.00 per employee, per year (.008 X $7,000. = $56.00).
Look at the deficits under Clinton (increases in national debt not budget spin where off budget spending isn't counted)
Here are the increases under Clinton
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
1/21/1993... Nat. Debt ....$4,174,218,594,232.91
1/21/1994... Nat. Debt ....$4,503,707,505,503.35
debt increase $329,488,911,270.44 ( increases )
1/20/1995... Nat. Debt ....$4,796,537,934,595.60
debt increase $292,830,429,092.25 (decreases)
1/22/1996... Nat. Debt ....$4,988,050,606,130.79
debt increase $191,512,671,535.19 (decreases)
1/21/1997... Nat. Debt ....$5,310,267,076,516.85
debt increase $322,216,470,386.06 ( increases )
1/21/1998... Nat. Debt ....$5,501,520,207,927.51
debt increase $191,253,131,410.66 (decreases)
1/21/1999... Nat. Debt ....$5,600,287,708,585.56
debt increase $98,767,500,658.05 (decreases)
1/21/2000... Nat. Debt ....$5,711,817,746,476.20
debt increase $111,530,037,890.64 ( increases )
1/21/2001... Nat. Debt ....$5,728,195,796,181.57
debt increase $16,378,049,705.37 (decreases to only this much of an increase at the peak of the bubble)
At this point, the bubble bursts and we start back up as we spend to stay out of a depression the Tech Bubble would have created without the spending.
Bush tax revenues increase each year as we come out of the recession that were aided by a tax cut and housing bubble as was Clinton.
Jan-05 1.9 trillion
Jan-06 2.1 trillion
Jan-07 2.3 trillion
Jan-08 2.5 trillion
Neither President, of course, actually did much as Congress controls spending and tax rates. A president can ask for things but, Congress has to pass the legislation he signs. Presidents have very little to do with the condition of the nation. It is Congress that has the most power.
Now, for the 40 straight years that the democrats held Congress (six years they didn't hold the Senate as GOP had 53 Senators) they passed bad policy after bad policy where they spent out of recessions instead of letting them play out and cleanse the system of what was bad. They also passed social spending programs that would bankrupt the nation, not because they passed the programs but how they funded them. The systems of funding were unsustainable. Take social security which President FDR wanted to be personal accounts with annuities that workers could leave the remaining money in them to heirs. They instead funded it in a way that was totally irresponsible causing 11 short falls and 22 tax increases to try and keep it funded and now it is negative cash flow again and getting worse as wages fall and unemployment is high, causing fewer payroll tax revenues needed for funding.
Had the GOP been in control for those 40 years, you would have got the same thing because the people who advise both parties would have told them the same things they told the democrats. We have based our policies on flawed economic, monetary and tax theory for almost 100 years. It isn't the parties as much as the advice they get from the CFR, Trilateral Commission, IMF, World Bank, etc. that has caused both parties to destroy the nation. We elect politicians, not economists or businessmen that understand what it takes to have a healthy economy. They, in turn, appoint the non-partisan people from those organizations to the cabinet and as advisers. Both parties use the same source for their advisers.
While the two parties have different agendas, they base what they pass on the advice of those same organizations whether it is how to fund a war or a social program or what tax policy is or isn't going to work because the goal is to get both parties to centralize power. It is easier to control one government than 50 state governments. So, no matter what the policy a party wants they are not given good advice that actually helps the people or the nation survive in the long term. They believe debt and inflation will let the nation grow at above normal rates. This chart on the diminishing return on debt from the 60's on, shows how no matter which party is in control of Congress, they have made things worse and now this Congress has gone negative where we now lose money on each dollar we borrow.
http://www.leap2020.eu/photo/2028982-2806916.jpg?v=1271440965
==================
That is from this article that has this interesting tidbit from the international think tank that advises several nations.
quote
Winter 2010 will, equally, be the stage for another destabilised event in the United States: the first major elections since the beginning of the crisis (17) when millions of Americans will probably express their feelings that they have had a « belly-full » of a continuing crisis (18), which doesn’t affect Washington and Wall Street (19), and which creates US public debt which is now counter-productive: a borrowed Dollar now causes a loss of 40 cents (see chart below).
http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-44-is-available-Global-systemic-crisis-USA-UK-The-explosive-duo-of-the-second-half-of-2010-Summer-2010-The-Bank_a4531.html
=================
One reason that the ranks of independents keep growing and are now the largest voting block is the growing awareness of how bad both parties are, yet, you still only have two choices and both are using the same advisers.
That is why that chart or this comment is not a slam on either party as much as a slam on who they get their advice from. Getting the advice from only organizations created by the international banking cartel is the same as asking a fox to guard the chickens.
Also, the FED, not Congress had most of the impact on the economy and it wasn't good. They created more boom/bust cycles that have decreased stability and instability drives business, jobs and investment dollars out of the U.S. more than any other thing. What business can plan or know what to expect when policies change with every election. You need decades of stable policy if you want companies to trust a government not to make things worse
Monday, April 2, 2012
The goal has always been, regardless of which party is in power, to get them to use their policies to centralize power in Washington
Neither party caused the bubbles. That was caused by easy money policies from the private corporation called the Federal Reserve. Without the easy money, the policies of BOTH parties would not have created any bubble. This is 97 years of flawed economic and monetary theories being used by both parties to base policies on. Even good policies that were legislated to solve real needs, were disasters as far as the health of the nation goes.
While Congress (The House Ways and Means Committee) are the spending source, Presidents can veto the bills. Most of the time, there will not be enough support to overturn those vetoes. While Presidents can't cause the damage, they certainly can limit the damage. Presidents can beg, threaten and coerce the House to spend or pass legislation the President wants, but he can't force them to pass it.
During the 40 straight years the House and spending was controlled by Democrats and the 12 straight years the Republicans had control and now another 4 years of Democratic control, we gained no ground. Instead, every decade, we lost ground because they based their policies, good and bad, on flawed economic and monetary theories.
The goal has always been, regardless of which party is in power, to get them to use their policies to centralize power in Washington. The international banking cartel could care less whether the policies help or hurt the nation and people as long as power gets centralized where a crisis like this destroys the economy, dollar and our standard of living. Their belief is that destruction will cause us to willingly accept their goal of a global financial system and monetary system they control.
Everybody in America is part of a special interest group of some type and expects Washington to cater to them even if it is at the expense of other special interest groups. No wonder Independents are the largest voting block in America now. More and more people are fed up with both parties and their shortsightedness that has destroyed the nation over the last 80 years
While Congress (The House Ways and Means Committee) are the spending source, Presidents can veto the bills. Most of the time, there will not be enough support to overturn those vetoes. While Presidents can't cause the damage, they certainly can limit the damage. Presidents can beg, threaten and coerce the House to spend or pass legislation the President wants, but he can't force them to pass it.
During the 40 straight years the House and spending was controlled by Democrats and the 12 straight years the Republicans had control and now another 4 years of Democratic control, we gained no ground. Instead, every decade, we lost ground because they based their policies, good and bad, on flawed economic and monetary theories.
The goal has always been, regardless of which party is in power, to get them to use their policies to centralize power in Washington. The international banking cartel could care less whether the policies help or hurt the nation and people as long as power gets centralized where a crisis like this destroys the economy, dollar and our standard of living. Their belief is that destruction will cause us to willingly accept their goal of a global financial system and monetary system they control.
Everybody in America is part of a special interest group of some type and expects Washington to cater to them even if it is at the expense of other special interest groups. No wonder Independents are the largest voting block in America now. More and more people are fed up with both parties and their shortsightedness that has destroyed the nation over the last 80 years
Hysteria over the national debt
You may view me as one of the hysterical, however my fear is not the debt itself, it is the fear of the debt. This fear, when used by politicians, can be like a tsunami, small waves gathering all at once to swamp a nation unprepared and uneducated on the issue of the debt itself.
I fear the politicians will use the debt to pass laws that will harm my twins, unwarented taxes, unjustified kneejerk reactive laws to "turn things around" in the blink of an eye, or the signing of a presidential order.
Imagine a Tea-Party President, swept into power using Presidential powers to bypass Congress and using his/her popularity to "turn things around"
The debt is a tool for the power hungry, but increasing entitlement programs is what I fear the most, and what could diminish opportunities for my kids, based on less free enterprise and more government meddling in free markets, as healthcare used to be.
The most important examples of entitlement programs at the federal level in the United States would include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, most Veterans' Administration programs, federal employee (a quickly growing population) and military retirement plans, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and agricultural price support programs, and now the new Healthcare program.
These programs grow the debt for my kids, not for me, and that debt I foresee will be a problem for them
I fear the politicians will use the debt to pass laws that will harm my twins, unwarented taxes, unjustified kneejerk reactive laws to "turn things around" in the blink of an eye, or the signing of a presidential order.
Imagine a Tea-Party President, swept into power using Presidential powers to bypass Congress and using his/her popularity to "turn things around"
The debt is a tool for the power hungry, but increasing entitlement programs is what I fear the most, and what could diminish opportunities for my kids, based on less free enterprise and more government meddling in free markets, as healthcare used to be.
The most important examples of entitlement programs at the federal level in the United States would include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, most Veterans' Administration programs, federal employee (a quickly growing population) and military retirement plans, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and agricultural price support programs, and now the new Healthcare program.
These programs grow the debt for my kids, not for me, and that debt I foresee will be a problem for them
From the moment he stepped into office, Obama has used his power to redistribute capital and bring corporate America under state control
The Obama Record: GOP White House contenders think the president is taking the country down the path to "European socialism." They're wrong. It could be something much more radical.
Eight years ago, virtually out of nowhere, Barack Obama burst onto the national political scene. Few knew this young politician from Chicago, who was trained as a community organizer and civil-rights lawyer.
Fewer still knew of his carefully calculated plans for using the democratic process to gain power and bring about "social change" on a large scale.
But gain it he did. And now — after his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and his 2008 presidential triumph — we've had a chance to see how that "change" looks. Obama has unleashed a juggernaut of legislation and regulations on industry that rival the New Deal in scope.
From the moment he stepped into office, Obama has used his power to redistribute capital and bring corporate America under state control. Among other things, he has:
Forced all large banks, including healthy ones, to take federal bailout money while forcing them to pass stress tests before they can get out from under state control.
Forced banks to renegotiate private mortgage contracts to forgive principal payments for customers while ordering the banks to liberalize their lending practices and even open branches in blighted and unprofitable areas outside their service area.
Signed sweeping regulations that give the state new authority to control the entire financial sector — from banks to hedge funds to insurance companies to even car dealers.
(The Dodd-Frank Act gives Obama unprecedented powers to monitor and redirect the capital flow of all financial firms, as well as adjust their capital requirements and even shut them down and restructure them.)
Renegotiated the terms of Detroit creditor contracts so autoworkers get preferential treatment at the expense of shareholders while preserving the high union cost structure that bankrupted GM and Chrysler.
("I owe those unions," Obama has said. "When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I got into politics to fight for these folks.")
Centralized control of the health care industry through 2,730 pages of new mandates that bring insurance companies and drugmakers under the supervision of the state and force the wealthy to subsidize the uninsured at a starting cost of $1.6 trillion.
Transferred an additional $1 trillion in private taxpayer wealth to welfare programs and public works projects, which have increased dependency on the state to record levels
http://news.investors.com/article/606265/201203301828/obama-echoes-communist-manifesto-in-blueprint-for-change.htm
From:
louman
Eight years ago, virtually out of nowhere, Barack Obama burst onto the national political scene. Few knew this young politician from Chicago, who was trained as a community organizer and civil-rights lawyer.
Fewer still knew of his carefully calculated plans for using the democratic process to gain power and bring about "social change" on a large scale.
But gain it he did. And now — after his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and his 2008 presidential triumph — we've had a chance to see how that "change" looks. Obama has unleashed a juggernaut of legislation and regulations on industry that rival the New Deal in scope.
From the moment he stepped into office, Obama has used his power to redistribute capital and bring corporate America under state control. Among other things, he has:
Forced all large banks, including healthy ones, to take federal bailout money while forcing them to pass stress tests before they can get out from under state control.
Forced banks to renegotiate private mortgage contracts to forgive principal payments for customers while ordering the banks to liberalize their lending practices and even open branches in blighted and unprofitable areas outside their service area.
Signed sweeping regulations that give the state new authority to control the entire financial sector — from banks to hedge funds to insurance companies to even car dealers.
(The Dodd-Frank Act gives Obama unprecedented powers to monitor and redirect the capital flow of all financial firms, as well as adjust their capital requirements and even shut them down and restructure them.)
Renegotiated the terms of Detroit creditor contracts so autoworkers get preferential treatment at the expense of shareholders while preserving the high union cost structure that bankrupted GM and Chrysler.
("I owe those unions," Obama has said. "When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I got into politics to fight for these folks.")
Centralized control of the health care industry through 2,730 pages of new mandates that bring insurance companies and drugmakers under the supervision of the state and force the wealthy to subsidize the uninsured at a starting cost of $1.6 trillion.
Transferred an additional $1 trillion in private taxpayer wealth to welfare programs and public works projects, which have increased dependency on the state to record levels
http://news.investors.com/article/606265/201203301828/obama-echoes-communist-manifesto-in-blueprint-for-change.htm
From:
louman
Parents are the primary source of the priority that has to be placed on education
"The biggest problem are parents that don't create the education priority needed for their children. The same school can turn out several very well taught students and then at the same time, a large percentage that can't read and write well enough to even get in the military. Why?
The parents are so wrapped up in their debt, lifestyle, and trying to create an image to others of success that they don't have time for their kids.
They think of school as a place to "put their children" so they are cared for. They think that their kid sitting in front of a gameboy for hours is good because they are out of the parents hair. They don't try to find out how well their children are actually progressing in school. They, instead, want to blame the school, years later, when they find their kid is poorly educated.
Parents are the primary source of the priority that has to be place on education. That is why you see children from some cultures that stress education, doing much better than others."
JanPaul
The parents are so wrapped up in their debt, lifestyle, and trying to create an image to others of success that they don't have time for their kids.
They think of school as a place to "put their children" so they are cared for. They think that their kid sitting in front of a gameboy for hours is good because they are out of the parents hair. They don't try to find out how well their children are actually progressing in school. They, instead, want to blame the school, years later, when they find their kid is poorly educated.
Parents are the primary source of the priority that has to be place on education. That is why you see children from some cultures that stress education, doing much better than others."
JanPaulMonday 4/2/2012 comments
As our normal posting site continues to suffer from "editing" by bloggers not respectful of freedom of speech, feel free to copy comments that you may wish not to be deleted here on this daily entry area.
Just copy your comment and paste it into the comments area on this blog
Just copy your comment and paste it into the comments area on this blog
Sunday, April 1, 2012
the world population will stabilize and possibly even begin to decrease at around 10 Billion.
This United Nations report suggests that decreasing fertility rates around the world (The result of modernization, education, and economic evolution) will intersect with global rising population statistics and eventually offset them. It suggests that the world population will stabilize and possibly even begin to decrease at around 10 Billion.
The report is fairly long-winded and I didn't read the whole thing, but I think that there is a fair case to be made for the free market's ability to handle a population crisis. Perhaps, before the time earth's population reaches an unsustainable level, the "third world" will have emerged as a productive and educated new order. Perhaps capitalism, if allowed to work, will keep the potential crisis from becoming a crisis.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf
Imagine a world where 75% of the land currently used for agriculture is reforested due to advanced hydroponics and new forms of industrial farming; skyscrapers growing plants inside them and new processes allowing crops which once would have required a season to mature being accelerated; our cities becoming bigger and greener, and our countrysides sparser; where the food supply is greater and cheaper, and where well-run corporations drive down unemployment, educate their employees, and lower the cost of goods and services. Imagine a world with a population twice that of present day which exerts 50% of the environmental footprint upon our earth. It is possible. That is why now, more than before - not less - we should look to capitalism by investing in new ways to make the world better. Perhaps by the year 2100 we will be colonizing a newly discovered inhabitable planet in outer space. Who knows? Sure, it's far out; but then again, five centuries ago we believed the world was flat
The report is fairly long-winded and I didn't read the whole thing, but I think that there is a fair case to be made for the free market's ability to handle a population crisis. Perhaps, before the time earth's population reaches an unsustainable level, the "third world" will have emerged as a productive and educated new order. Perhaps capitalism, if allowed to work, will keep the potential crisis from becoming a crisis.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf
Imagine a world where 75% of the land currently used for agriculture is reforested due to advanced hydroponics and new forms of industrial farming; skyscrapers growing plants inside them and new processes allowing crops which once would have required a season to mature being accelerated; our cities becoming bigger and greener, and our countrysides sparser; where the food supply is greater and cheaper, and where well-run corporations drive down unemployment, educate their employees, and lower the cost of goods and services. Imagine a world with a population twice that of present day which exerts 50% of the environmental footprint upon our earth. It is possible. That is why now, more than before - not less - we should look to capitalism by investing in new ways to make the world better. Perhaps by the year 2100 we will be colonizing a newly discovered inhabitable planet in outer space. Who knows? Sure, it's far out; but then again, five centuries ago we believed the world was flat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)