Just another tricky day in America

[cjppjc]

Re: Just another tricky day in America

For what we definitely need, we all should be willing to pay higher taxes because there is no free lunch in this world.


The Obama bunch needs to be frank and honest with the country about the need for higher taxes. Obviously, the Democrats don't want to talk about higher taxes because that would give the Repukes another talking point in the next election.

It wouldn't work out well for Mr. Obama. As good as he is at selling himself, if he had a choice between an honest discussion, or sneaking in taxes. or just printing. The discussion comes third.

[medved]

Re: Just another tricky day in America

Socialism and bureaucracy are joined at the hip.

I think this is a belief, not necessarily a truth.

In my case it is both belief and personal experience. In the case of Mr. Hudson it is pure faith.
He, just like any other Western marxist from Marx to Krugman has one serious problem: he knows a lot about capitalism (and he is often right in his assessments), and nothing about socialism.

Here is one of his “gems” related to our discussion (see http://www.itulip.com/forums/showpos...59&postcount=1 ) : “Although Russia’s bureaucratic Stalinism got rid of the post-feudal free lunch of land rent, monopoly rent, interest and financial or property-price gains, its bureaucratic overhead overpowered the economy in the end. Russia fell.”

How did they get rid of “capitalist” monopoly rent? Simple, by creating socialist gov’t monopoly. So, in his view, gov’t monopoly is not a monopoly and does not abuse its monopoly status!!! This is BS, if you pardon my Russian. The gov’t abused it all the way, just like US gov’t abuses its power, only much more so. In terms of real rent socialist monopoly is much worse, than "capitalist" one. You pay some low nominal price, but the real value obtained is even lower. You could see it in any area of the economy: cheap apartments (with non-existent new supply), cheap food (with empty shelves in the store), cheap shoes that are impossible to wear etc. Wherever rudimentary “free” (sometimes, “black”) market existed, its prices (*real* prices) were much, much higher. Regarding property-price gains, it was even simpler, nobody had any property to speak of, therefore no gains.

The cure from the “capitalist cancer” in the economy was very simple – they killed the patient. You could observe the same problems all over the commie domain – from East Germany to China, they were not specific to Russia.

Clearly, Mr. Hudson is smoking something. He does not understand, how the *real* socialism functions, why it needs enormous bureaucracy, and why this bureaucracy never works.

According to this book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=G6j...age&q=&f=false

Total government employees by nation vs. work force (?):

France/Finland: 27%
Denmark: 39%
Sweden: 38%
United States: 22%
(US numbers including state, local, municipal, etc)

At least part of this discrepancy can be explained by the lack of nationalized health care.

Another portion can be explained from the US data being from 1996 - I think we can all safely agree that the US government has grown disproportionately since then if only due to DHS.

It would not surprise me in the least if the US now exceeds France.

To tell you the truth, I fail to see, how this part of your post relates to our discussion. What are you trying to say? That gov’t is much bigger, than it seems? I would agree with that. That in reality US gov’t is relatively bigger than French gov't? Possible. That defense-related part of the gov’t grew disproportionately? Yes, but it also shrank disproportionately in the early 90s. I don’t know, what you wanted to prove, but OTOH, I don’t see a lot of disagreement here.

Marx was right about the specter of communism, it did haunt Europe, and, actually, took it over. I don’t see, how the US could be different. Whether it lags or leads Europe in its advancement of socialist faith is insignificant.

[LargoWinch]

Re: Just another tricky day in America

...
It is very easy to waste tons of money and manpower to build these monsters (and some of them are useful and necessary), but they don’t prove anything.
...

Actually medved, I think I have the perfect Canadian example for our friend Starving Steve; behold the Montreal Olympic Stadium!

What a beauty!

How useful!

How low on costs!

Well over its original budget [initial projections in 1970 that the stadium would cost only C$134 million to construct], the stadium ended up costing $770 million to construct. By 2006, the final cost had risen to $1.47 billion when calculating in repairs, modifications and interest paid out. It took taxpayers 30 years to finally pay off the cost, leading to its nickname of "The Big Owe" (a play on "The Big O").
Source: Wiki

How so well built by the Quebec's socialist-minded government:

Although not completed in time for the 1976 Olympics, construction on finishing the tower recommenced in the 1980s. ..., a large chunk of the tower fell onto the playing field during another Expos game.^[7]

In 1987, an orange-coloured Kevlar retractable roof was installed, finally completing the stadium a decade late; however, soon after it was put into use it ripped on several occasions due to design flaw. In the months that followed, it was plagued by further rips and leaks during rain storms, bringing water down into the stadium.

On September 8 of that year, support beams snapped and caused a 55-long-ton (62 ST; 56 t) concrete slab to fall on to an exterior walkway. No one was injured, but the Expos had to move their final 13 home games of that season to the opponents' cities.

For the 1992 season, it was decided to keep the roof closed at all times. The Kevlar roof was removed in May 1998, making the stadium open-air for the 1998 season. Later in 1998, a $26 million opaque blue roof was installed which does not open.

In January 1999, a 350 m² (3,767 sq ft) portion of the roof collapsed, dumping ice and snow on workers that were setting up for the annual Montreal Auto Show.^[7] This led to the auto show leaving Olympic Stadium for good.

Source: Wiki

...but again: how b-e-a-u-t-i-f-u-l!


Who needs financial rewards from your hard work and risk-taking ventures when you can simply give it away to Quebec's government so that they can create such a magnificent ivory temple of nothing?

Since not everyone in the Belle Province lives in Montreal, I am sure that taxpayers from Sherbrooke or Quebec City just love it!. That is especially true for the smokers, since a special tobacco "sin" tax was created just to help pay for the thing.

Think about me a when you visit Montreal.

[WildspitzE]

Re: Just another tricky day in America

Think about me a when you visit Montreal.

Didn't know that Canada had a powerful Snorks lobby. I bet they won the design and construction bids, didn't they?



Hold on, need to adjust my tinfoil.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Just another tricky day in America

Just a side-bar ( which for the kids who may read this is when the judge in a court case stops the proceedings and meets with the lawyers for both sides off on the side of the courtroom ), what do you think of the new green police in Canada and the USA, maybe in other countries too?

The Capitol Regional District of Victoria, British Columbia stopped me from building a garage on my own property in a residential subdivison where garages were not restricted, and they did this in the name of preserving salmon habitat in a location 700 feet above sea level in a ditch where no fish ever swam before, and in a ditch with less water in it than a garden hose.... So, in the name of preserving salmon habitat, the prior contracts with the govn't ( the subdivision agreement ) were supposedly thrown-out.

I raise this side-bar because you speak of socialism vs. capitalism and the issue of the size of government. So what do you think of the new green police, i.e, govn't working to protect the environment and doing whatever it wants to do in the name of protecting the environment?

I did get my building permit to build my garage, but it took ten weeks of fighting with the Capitol Regional District. Something that should have taken five minutes and five dollars took ten weeks of fighting and $1500 of expense.

Is this where we are headed next, everywhere? Govn't gone crazy?

My grandparents, socialists from Poland, and my parents taught me that government was supposed to help people to survive. They taught me that govn't was my friend... But how in the name of salmon habitat did govn't help me to survive?

One carpenter who was unemployed and badly needed work during the winter in East Sooke, BC was left unemployed thanks to this outrageous arrogance by the CRD. He was left to draw unemployment insurance from the Govn't of BC.

Let's tell the story the way it happened. I'm a socialist, but let's tell the story the way it happened.

[LargoWinch]

Re: Just another tricky day in America

My grandparents, socialists from Poland, and my parents taught me that government was supposed to help people to survive. They taught me that govn't was my friend... But how in the name of salmon habitat did govn't help me to survive?

Starving Steve, it is never too late for an epiphany.

[c1ue]

Re: Just another tricky day in America

The cure from the “capitalist cancer” in the economy was very simple – they killed the patient. You could observe the same problems all over the commie domain – from East Germany to China, they were not specific to Russia.

You have your point of view, but I would note that you failed to mention Russia going from a distinctly bottom level 2nd rate power at the end of WW I to a world power in a generation - without having any type of specific monopoly on basic resources or rentier control over new trade routes.

Sure, Russia and China were both in relatively poor economic circumstances in the 80's and 90's - but again what is there is not as important as what was there before:

China was always extremely poor and backward. While China in 1984 was distinctly poor and backward - I'd argue that China in 1984 was relatively in better position than China in 1949, in 1940, in 1925, in 1917, etc etc.

Russia in turn had its problems - the heyday was absolutely in the 50s and 60s. But again, how much of these problems are due to socialism per se as opposed to:

a) Bureaucracy
b) Collectivization of farming
c) Burden of supporting the Soviet Union
d) Burden of competing with the US militarily

Similarly criticizing Dr. Hudson's views as being overly rosy on socialism is no different than criticizing your views on capitalism as being overly rosy. The situation in America is still relatively good after 60+ years of economic empire; time will tell if the present situation is a hiccup or a last hurrah.

To tell you the truth, I fail to see, how this part of your post relates to our discussion.

You made a comment that socialism and bureaucracy are joined at the hip.

It is not a huge leap to then use number of government employees as proxy for bureaucracy.

The point of the information is whether truly bureaucracy is a function of socialism or is a separate dynamic; the US having a very large number of government employees might suggest that bureaucracy is not itself a socialist function so much as a government power issue.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Re: Just another tricky day in America

What's so great about private health insurance?
The bloody battle in Congress over a 'public option' ignores the insurers' role in creating the nation's healthcare crisis and their efforts to throttle reform.
Michael Hiltzik

I think it's hilarious that anybody can think that because the private health insurance industry has problems, that necessarily means that a public health insurance system would actually be better!

We KNOW for a fact that costs for the Medicare system have been spiraling out of control for decades, at rates far higher than the inflation rate... We KNOW that government bureaucracy is without peer in corruption and inefficiency... and yet somehow, knowing all this, there are people that believe MORE government is the solution??!?!

How can the human race survive in the face of such monumental self-deception?

[flintlock]

Re: Just another tricky day in America

Well I'm not crazy about GOVERNMENT run health care, but in fairness I will add that one reason medicare is spiraling out of control is because it covers OLD PEOPLE. Old people use the most health care services. So of course runaway costs would show up there first and to a higher degree. Care to compare what health care cost to the individual would be without medicare?:eek::eek::eek: I guarantee we'd see a lot more people with walkers instead of that new hip.
Despite its problems I'd say medicare has saved money given the level of coverage it provides. Though it could be a lot better I'm sure.

[MarkL]

Re: Just another tricky day in America

How apropos that the defense of Socialism is by "Starving Steve." Socialism, ie taking from those that have and giving to those that don't, is the natural resource of the starving.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Just another tricky day in America

How apropos that the defense of Socialism is by "Starving Steve." Socialism, ie taking from those that have and giving to those that don't, is the natural resource of the starving.

First, welcome to i-tulip.

Dear Mark:

If I follow the logic of what you are saying, at least here in California, then we should shut-off the power-supply to the California Water Project and let Southern California die of thirst. I mean, why should anyone pay for the electric power to pump the water from Shasta Dam 500 miles south; then to pump it up 4000 feet over the Tejachipi Range and drop that water down into Southern California?

Maybe we can also throw-in the University of California system? Why should anyone be taxed by the State of California to pay for all of the glorious campuses of the UC system?

And then pay for the public schools? Why should anyone be taxed to pay for the education of the kids in public schools?

I guess we should continue-on with Reagan's glorious Proposition 13 passed by voters in California in 1978?

Oh, I remember Prop 13 quite well: A 57% cut in property taxes for everyone. I remember the slogans from Prop 13: "It's time to put the State on a diet." Another slogan from Reagan and Laffer: "The cut in property taxes would mean industry would move to California, and the state would grow its economy and pay for the cut in property taxes." Another slogan: "Deficits don't count." And another slogan from the Proposition 13: "Who cares; why do we need government?" And another slogan from Prop 13 in 1978: "Why give money to the State so that the State could continue pay it to 'the welfare queens'?"

Well, now it's 2009, and the State of California is bankrupt. But Prop. 13 continues, and the rich walk-off still paying 43% of the property taxes that they should be paying.

I use California as an example of why we do need some government, and why the whole Republican thinking ever since Ronald Reagan is disgraceful, short-sighted, selfish, and wrong.

Starving Steve

[LargoWinch]

Re: Just another tricky day in America

First, welcome to i-tulip.

Steve, the guy joined a year ago with 30+ posts. :confused:

[cjppjc]

Re: Just another tricky day in America

Steve, the guy joined a year ago with 30+ posts. :confused:

Lack of nutrition leads to poor eyesight.

[Raz]

Re: Just another tricky day in America

Maybe we can also throw-in the University of California system? Why should anyone be taxed by the State of California to pay for all of the glorious campuses of the UC system?

And then pay for the public schools? Why should anyone be taxed to pay for the education of the kids in public schools?

I guess we should continue-on with Reagan's glorious Proposition 13 passed by voters in California in 1978?

Oh, I remember Prop 13 quite well: A 57% cut in property taxes for everyone. I remember the slogans from Prop 13: "It's time to put the State on a diet." Another slogan from Reagan and Laffer: "The cut in property taxes would mean industry would move to California, and the state would grow its economy and pay for the cut in property taxes."

I use California as an example of why we do need some government, and why the whole Republican thinking ever since Ronald Reagan is disgraceful, short-sighted, selfish, and wrong.Starving Steve

Uh Steve, as much as you hate Ronald Reagan and would probably like to see his remains dug up and dumped into the Pacific, I think it was Howard Jarvis who organized and led Proposition 13. And didn't it pass overwhelmingly? And despite continuously rising taxes and regulation in California ever since, hasn't the California Legislature continued to spend more and more and more money on just about everything? Where is the responsibility of the governor and legislature to STOP ever rising spending at the expense of the suffering taxpayer? Does that responsibility not exist?:confused:

[MarkL]

Re: Just another tricky day in America

I've been an Eric & iTulip fan for many years and am happy to give him full credit for my portfolio increasing by roughly 40% over the last 24 months. I was aware of him, but didn't listen to him before the dot-com bomb and it cost me big time. This time I listened and starting buying banking puts a year before the crash and profited. He and I have spoken directly via email on a few issues as well.

Now to your facetious argument. Basically you are saying, because Proposition 13 didn't succeed in stopping our state government from overspending, we should repeal it so they can spend more still.

But... the problem is not insufficient taxes, the problem is inefficient and uncontrolled government. Prop 13 is stopping the situation from being worse still! You suffer from the delusion that government is productive. It is not. It makes nothing, is unproductive, and takes from those that are.

Proposition 13 was sponsored by both Jarvis and Gann and I attended and cheered at a number of rallies in Chico and Redding California at the time. My aunt and uncle were evicted from the house they'd lived in for 40 years because of skyrocketing property taxes prior to 13. This is one of the things that Prop 13 stopped. I was and continue to be a big fan.

Regarding property taxes. Let's say we repealed Prop 13 and property taxes jumped to, say 5%, such that every property owner had to pay the government the full value of their property every 20 years. Let me ask you. Does the property owner really own the property then? Or does the government own it, effectively on a 20 year lease agreement?

Remember, if you don't pay your property "taxes" the government simply takes the property away!

When a grandmother get kicked out of her home of many years because the property taxes have skyrocketed to an impossible percentage of her Social Security, is that right? Again, who really owns the property in that situation?

I love this state, but I'm considering moving to the Nevada side of South Lake Tahoe because of skyrocketing state income taxes. I can work from anywhere, and while I will miss being 30 minutes from the ocean, it will net me thousands per year. A number of my friends have made this decision as well. As this continues with both businesses and individuals, particularly during recessionary times, the state government will (and is) imploding. The solution is reduced government spending, reduced freebies for the non-working, and reduced government.

Yes, some government programs are necessary, and some work well. But our welfare state (both federal and state) is out of control. It's been said that in a pure democracy, the poor will always vote themselves the monies of the working. This is true and is happening in this state, and is the true cause of our bankruptcy. And it's what Prop 13 fought against.