Today in the economy

I can get behind a lot of that. I am very concerned with the idea of cutting taxes with the national debt and a soon to be bankrupt social security and medicaire/medicaid. I don't pretend to be an economic expert but I don't understand how you lower taxes for anyone and dramatically increase spending to improve ones financial system. We obviously agree that our energy policy dictates a lot of our foreign policy. I just think you kind of get into a chicken before the egg scenario. I also see radical islam as something that is spreading out of the middle east. I am not so sure that simply removing ourselves from the region will totally alleviate the issue with islamic terrorists. I'm curious about your thoughts on health care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanChilds

On a different topic...Whats your opinion on a flat tax? Also use of income verus usage taxes (sales tax etc)?

---

I'd be delighted to see everybody pay the same level of tax. I'd prefer a slightly progressive tax where high earners pay a little more but a flat rate would be an outstanding improvement on the current situation and I'd settle for that. I''d like to see, say, hedge fund manager John Paulson pay the same rate of tax as, say, the median US household*.

The median US household (Joe 150 million out of 300 million in earnings) made about $50 000 last year, and what with social security, medicare, income tax, State taxes, sales taxes and all the other taxes pays almost 50% of his fifty thousand in tax.

Paulson made $3.7 billion in 2007 and will end up paying about 5% of it in taxes. He'll also be able to defer payment for up to 30 years so that 5% will earn enough in interest to pay for itself. If Paulson's rate was the same as the average American there'd be a significant increase in tax revenue and he'd still make enough money to get his groceries in.

I'm not really bothered how taxes are raised but i'd like to see everybody pay at least a roughly similar rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanChilds

I can get behind a lot of that. I am very concerned with the idea of cutting taxes with the national debt and a soon to be bankrupt social security and medicaire/medicaid. I don't pretend to be an economic expert but I don't understand how you lower taxes for anyone and dramatically increase spending to improve ones financial system. We obviously agree that our energy policy dictates a lot of our foreign policy. I just think you kind of get into a chicken before the egg scenario. I also see radical islam as something that is spreading out of the middle east. I am not so sure that simply removing ourselves from the region will totally alleviate the issue with islamic terrorists. I'm curious about your thoughts on health care?

---

Social security is the only government programme in profit. It has two trillion in the bank. It won't need an extra dollar in taxes until 2041 at the earliest and even then will only need a $20 a month increase by everybody. But everybody will be earning hundreds of dollars extra then anyway and SS will have gone up much less than other expenses. SS is the best, most effective social insurance programme in the world. Britian privatised its pensions in the 1980s, something that ended in disaster for British pension plan holders as the newly-deregulated pensions industry robbed them blind. Pension companies were eventually charged with "mis-selling" pensions and fined a pittance for robbing Britain's state system and pension plan holders of billions. If I ever walk into a bank with a stocking mask on and a sawn off shotgun, rob the bank and am arrested on the way out I hope to be charged with "mis-selling" the bank and given the opportunity to avoid prison by paying a fine of 1.something % of the amount I robbed.

Unsurprisingly britian is now looking into a US-style SS system, along with all other major economies that haven;t already copied it.

Can you imagine if Bush had got his way and privatised SS in 2005? SS payments would now be slashed, millions would be destitiute, there's be huge pressure to bail out the system with more trillions of money etc. etc. Keep the bankers out of it. Things are already heading towards a banana republic as they are.


I'll do healthcare tomorrow as I've got to speak to some fucking American bankers now. :D

Kirkland what do you think about China's call for an International Reserve Currency?

Thats pretty interesting about SS. I did some research and it seems your pretty much right on. Odd that politicians from both parties and the media give the idea that its failing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqzMziGop-w

The next PM right there...I wish we had someone like that in the GOP

Well since the pork barrel spending thing has come up how about we name names in the senate, we could do well to write a letter to them and tell them to stop.

2008 Pork Barrel (by McCain's definition) spending.

1. Thad Cochran (R-MS) $892.2 Million
U.S. Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi

2. Stevens (R-AK) $469.4 Million (No longer serving)

3. Richard Shelby (R-AL) $464.5 Million
http://shelby.senate.gov/public/inde...lSenatorShelby

4. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) $458.5 Million
U.S. Senator Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.) | Contact Me

5. Robert Byrd (D-WV) $386 Million
Robert C. Byrd

6. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) $385.5 Million
Send your comments to Senator Daniel K. Inouye

7. Patty Murray (D-WA) $327.8 Million
E-Mail Senator Murray - U.S. Senator Patty Murray - Washington State

8. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) $321.4 Million
Contact Grassley

9. Chris Bond (R-MO) $309.8 Million
.: United States Senator Kit Bond :: Contact :.

10. Tom Harkin (D-IA) $302.8 Million
Contact Senator Harkin's Office

The following Senators spent zero:

John McCain (R-AZ)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Russell Feingold (D-WI)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)


Source: Citizens Against Government Waste: Homepage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Well since the pork barrel spending thing has come up how about we name names in the senate, we could do well to write a letter to them and tell them to stop.

2008 Pork Barrel (by McCain's definition) spending.

1. Thad Cochran (R-MS) $892.2 Million
U.S. Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi

2. Stevens (R-AK) $469.4 Million (No longer serving)

3. Richard Shelby (R-AL) $464.5 Million
.: United States Senator Richard Shelby :: Contact Senator Shelby :.

4. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) $458.5 Million
U.S. Senator Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.) | Contact Me

5. Robert Byrd (D-WV) $386 Million
Robert C. Byrd

6. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) $385.5 Million
Send your comments to Senator Daniel K. Inouye

7. Patty Murray (D-WA) $327.8 Million
E-Mail Senator Murray - U.S. Senator Patty Murray - Washington State

8. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) $321.4 Million
Contact Grassley

9. Chris Bond (R-MO) $309.8 Million
.: United States Senator Kit Bond :: Contact :.

10. Tom Harkin (D-IA) $302.8 Million
Contact Senator Harkin's Office

The following Senators spent zero:

John McCain (R-AZ)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Russell Feingold (D-WI)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)


Source: Citizens Against Government Waste: Homepage

---

Holy shit the guy ran for President and told us all the truth about HIS Pork Barrel spending....but I guess we couldn't "afford" another 4 years of the "same old party"...even thought McCain is a moderate republican and is really nothing like Bush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Well since the pork barrel spending thing has come up how about we name names in the senate, we could do well to write a letter to them and tell them to stop.

2008 Pork Barrel (by McCain's definition) spending.

1. Thad Cochran (R-MS) $892.2 Million
U.S. Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi

2. Stevens (R-AK) $469.4 Million (No longer serving)

3. Richard Shelby (R-AL) $464.5 Million
.: United States Senator Richard Shelby :: Contact Senator Shelby :.

4. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) $458.5 Million
U.S. Senator Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.) | Contact Me

5. Robert Byrd (D-WV) $386 Million
Robert C. Byrd

6. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) $385.5 Million
Send your comments to Senator Daniel K. Inouye

7. Patty Murray (D-WA) $327.8 Million
E-Mail Senator Murray - U.S. Senator Patty Murray - Washington State

8. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) $321.4 Million
Contact Grassley

9. Chris Bond (R-MO) $309.8 Million
.: United States Senator Kit Bond :: Contact :.

10. Tom Harkin (D-IA) $302.8 Million
Contact Senator Harkin's Office

The following Senators spent zero:

John McCain (R-AZ)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Russell Feingold (D-WI)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)


Source: Citizens Against Government Waste: Homepage

---

Holy shit the guy ran for President and told us all the truth about HIS Pork Barrel spending....but I guess we couldn't "afford" another 4 years of the "same old party"...even thought McCain is a moderate republican and is really nothing like Bush.

---

Get over it.

3/26/09

USA - GDP

Actualhttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-6.30%|Forecasthttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-6.60%|Previoushttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-6.20%

The gross domestic product measures the total market value of all final goods, thus serving as an indicator for national income and output.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

New Zealand - GDP

Actualhttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-0.90%|Forecasthttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-1.10%|Previoushttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-0.40%

-------------------------------------------------------------------

3/27/09

UK - GDP

Actualhttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-1.60%|Forecasthttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-1.50%|Previoushttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-1.50%
http://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Kirkland what do you think about China's call for an International Reserve Currency?

---

Economic sabre-rattling. They're terrified that the Fed is going to print their way out of this mess and leave the trillion plus they own in dollar securities worth less than half what they paid for it. But both sides need each other here. Expect them to spend future billions and trillions buying actual productive US assets over the next couple of years rather than treasuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanChilds

Thats pretty interesting about SS. I did some research and it seems your pretty much right on. Odd that politicians from both parties and the media give the idea that its failing.

---

I'm Kirkland Laing. I'm always right about everything. :)

Both parties have people who get paid big contributions by Wall Street who are desperate to get their hands on social security. Huge profits for everybody apart from the people the money belongs to.

After Jimmy Hoffa died the US government took the running of th Teamsters' pension fund away from the Teamsters' union and gave it to Wall Street to run. Over the years it's been run by seven different firms and none of them managed to make as much returns on it as Hoffa did when he was using it as a slush fund for the Mafia. Some even lost lots of money. Funny that.

In my last post, the median family income is $50 000, that's the 150 millionth household total income. The US median wage is $35 000. And flat taxes as espoused by Republicans like Steve Forbes are all bs, they're just yet another tactic of the Republican party to shift the burden of taxation from inherited income to earned income as they wouldn't tax investment income at all, the tax would all be on consumption. Since low/median/above median people consume as much (more the last few years) than they earn, they'd be paying taxes on 100% of their earnings. Guts like Forbes make almost all their income from investments and dividends which are never actually included in these bs flat tax schemes. A bunch of elites who want current earners to pay all the tax and leave people with billions in investments to pay nothing. America should be a country that does the opposite, when it has been it's grown much much faster economy-wise.

Healthcare to follow. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqzMziGop-w
The next PM right there...I wish we had someone like that in the GOP

---

He's another free market deregulationist nutter. You'd think these people would slink off to obscurity after recent events proved them to be dangerous loonies at best and crooks at worst but they don't seem to be able to deal with recent events and are pretending they didn't happen. Here's this particular economic genius on the glories of free market deregulated Iceland before the crisis started and their economy melted into a puddle and left half the country destitute and begging for an IMF bailout :

In the ten years that I have been travelling to Iceland, I have watched an economic miracle unfold there ... Today, Icelanders are absolutely rolling in it. A people two generations away from subsistence farming have become international tycoons.

...

Look at the City of London, for heaven’s sake, which Brussels is doing its best to asphyxiate with its financial regulations.

...

Icelanders understand that there is a connection between living in an independent state and living independently from the state. They have no more desire to submit to international than to national regulation. That attitude has made them the happiest, freest and wealthiest people on earth.

Blue-eyed sheikhs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

3/26/09

USA - GDP

Actualhttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-6.30%|Forecasthttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-6.60%|Previoushttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-6.20%

The gross domestic product measures the total market value of all final goods, thus serving as an indicator for national income and output.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

New Zealand - GDP

Actualhttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-0.90%|Forecasthttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-1.10%|Previoushttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-0.40%

-------------------------------------------------------------------

3/27/09

UK - GDP

Actualhttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-1.60%|Forecasthttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-1.50%|Previoushttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-1.50%
http://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif

---

Not good. Consumer spending fell 3% too when you ignore the adjustments. These monthly numbers don't really tell the full story though. The best clue you can get from them is to look for is the direction of the revisions they make to them a month or three after they post these original numbers. Eventually these numbers all get revised when more accurate data can be produced. If they're revised down, as they have been for over a year, then that's a bad sign. When the direction of the revisions is positive and the year-over-year numbers are starting to stabilize, then we will know things are starting to turn around. Look at the year-on-year numbers too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

3/26/09

USA - GDP

Actualhttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-6.30%|Forecasthttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-6.60%|Previoushttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-6.20%

The gross domestic product measures the total market value of all final goods, thus serving as an indicator for national income and output.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

New Zealand - GDP

Actualhttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-0.90%|Forecasthttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-1.10%|Previoushttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-0.40%

-------------------------------------------------------------------

3/27/09

UK - GDP

Actualhttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-1.60%|Forecasthttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-1.50%|Previoushttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-1.50%
http://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif

---

Not good. Consumer spending fell 3% too when you ignore the adjustments. These monthly numbers don't really tell the full story though. The best clue you can get from them is to look for is the direction of the revisions they make to them a month or three after they post these original numbers. Eventually these numbers all get revised when more accurate data can be produced. If they're revised down, as they have been for over a year, then that's a bad sign. When the direction of the revisions is positive and the year-over-year numbers are starting to stabilize, then we will know things are starting to turn around. Look at the year-on-year numbers too.

---

Can you provide that data, or give me a good source for it?