I believe they were cautiously optimistic before the Bay of Pigs too...

Heh. That's true.

But at least the optimism wasn't being announced at press conferences.

No. Government officials didn't predict victory before hand. They knew back then what egg on the face could do to a political career...

Now they no longer care. All politicians are looked at as flawed these days. What's a little egg?

(02-13-2011 11:10 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  No. Government officials didn't predict victory before hand. They knew back then what egg on the face could do to a political career...

Now they no longer care. All politicians are looked at as flawed these days. What's a little egg?

I don't know about all bit, but certainly the vast majority. Occasionally a good man or woman manages to find their way into office. The problem is they are few and far in between. And even those with the best intentions sometimes inevitably are corrupted by corporate and other powerful special interests.

I find myself often pondering how we reform the political AND economic systems of this country. How we get ourselves moving again and how do we build the political capital to do the right and necessary things. For instance saving Social Security and Medicare as robust and meaningful programs doesn't mean raising the retirement age dramatically and reducing benefits or worse turning them over to the same Wall Street thugs who cause mess after mess. Its called raising the cap on amount of income that is subject to the payroll taxes paid half by you and half by your employer from the current (just under) $107K annually to something considerably higher. I'm sick of SSI and Medicare being referred to as entitlements as if they are something that people didn't pay into their whole lives and are potentially abusing. I'm all for personal responsibility too, but let's face it getting rid of these programs or significantly changing them to be meaningless or close to it would be catastrophically stupid. Now this is a problem that's years down the road from occurring but we know about it and frankly the fix is very simple for once and yet there is almost no political capital or will to do that. Why? Because the monied interests would throw a total hissy fit if they had to pay a little more in taxes (or in most cases go back to paying a fair and reasonable share) so that we can have an actual middle class. As Warren Buffett often says there is a class war in this country and his class is winning and he doesn't know why. While he will take advantage of the system as it is now because he isn't stupid, but he actually advocates for a higher estate tax or such things like that because they are good for a middle class and what's good for the middle class is ultimately good for everyone involved. And frankly the estate tax should be a way higher rate, its unearned income. Talk about welfare.

I know what you're saying Brista. I wouldn't put SS and Medicare in the same category as Welfare and Health Care but at the end of the day they're entitlement programs. If there aren't cuts to those 2 plus Defense, we're in big trouble.

Artilcles like this scares the sh1t out of me.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents...10209a.htm

IMF discusses plan to replace dollar

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/10/markets/dollar/

(02-13-2011 11:43 PM)brista21 Wrote:  As Warren Buffett often says there is a class war in this country and his class is winning and he doesn't know why.

Whenever the celebrity billionaries (Buffett, Gates, etc.) form a consensus on some matter of public policy, I become very suspicious. Basically, I just don't trust them. Secondly, I've never understood why a person's extreme wealth should be considered a sign of their wisdom about (for example) how the tax-system ought to be administered.

Quote:And frankly the estate tax should be a way higher rate, its unearned income. Talk about welfare.

If everyone knew the wealth they had generated could not be passed on people of their own choosing (usually, their own children), they would generate a lot less wealth to begin with.

(02-14-2011 09:09 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

Quote:And frankly the estate tax should be a way higher rate, its unearned income. Talk about welfare.

If everyone knew the wealth they had generated could not be passed on people of their own choosing (usually, their own children), they would generate a lot less wealth to begin with.

I have to completely disagree. People will generate wealth no matter what because they want to become wealthy. We've had high unearned income tax rates before and its never impacted the economy negatively. Why? Because top-down economics has never worked. Economies grow best when everyone's getting a piece of the growth. The people at the top will always get richer unless they do something boneheaded. I'm not advocating for some socialist economy because frankly those don't work either. Recapturing some of that unearned income to say pay down the national debt, rebuild our existing railways, roads, bridges and other infrastructure and build the infrastructure of the next 50+ years would be a much better way for society to use that unearned income. I think this $5 million per person exemption with 35% rate for the over is a total joke. Going back to the $3.5 million per person exemption with a 45% rate for the over would have been better. Although I'd have stratified. All inheritance over $3.5 million up to $5 million at 35%, inheritance from $5 million up to $10 million at 45% and everything over $10 million at 50%. If anything it would motivate people to generate more wealth. Human's by nature want more than they have and the ones that would generate such wealth to begin with will generate large amounts of wealth no matter what. Economies grow best when the growth comes from the bottom up as a rising tide will lift all boats.

I tend to disagree somewhat, brista. From my experience, the people that actually build the nation and make it strong only care about living comfortably while they build something to be proud of. The people that amass great fortunes often do this at the expense of those who only wish to create. A few rise out of those creative people who advance our civilization step by step, whether the step is small or large. But the majority of those who have made our lives better throughout the history of our civilization have ended up destitute, with little or nothing to show for their work. The majority of those who have amassed great wealth have done so at the expense of others...

(02-14-2011 06:25 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(02-14-2011 09:09 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

Quote:And frankly the estate tax should be a way higher rate, its unearned income. Talk about welfare.

If everyone knew the wealth they had generated could not be passed on people of their own choosing (usually, their own children), they would generate a lot less wealth to begin with.

I have to completely disagree. People will generate wealth no matter what because they want to become wealthy. We've had high unearned income tax rates before and its never impacted the economy negatively. Why? Because top-down economics has never worked. Economies grow best when everyone's getting a piece of the growth. The people at the top will always get richer unless they do something boneheaded. I'm not advocating for some socialist economy because frankly those don't work either. Recapturing some of that unearned income to say pay down the national debt, rebuild our existing railways, roads, bridges and other infrastructure and build the infrastructure of the next 50+ years would be a much better way for society to use that unearned income. I think this $5 million per person exemption with 35% rate for the over is a total joke. Going back to the $3.5 million per person exemption with a 45% rate for the over would have been better. Although I'd have stratified. All inheritance over $3.5 million up to $5 million at 35%, inheritance from $5 million up to $10 million at 45% and everything over $10 million at 50%. If anything it would motivate people to generate more wealth. Human's by nature want more than they have and the ones that would generate such wealth to begin with will generate large amounts of wealth no matter what. Economies grow best when the growth comes from the bottom up as a rising tide will lift all boats.

I respect your position, Brista, but exactly how much wealth was created by the laborers' utopia, the USSR? None, at least for themselves.

Seriously, programs should be pushed down to the lowest levels (local governments) rather than massive centralized programs that are inefficient, overstaffed and mismanaged. This is a basic business priciple that works the world over. Further, the local people do more to police corruption as they know the officials, and if that does not work, there remains an unbiased third party, the FEDS, who can even the score in court.

But that would require the politicos in Washington to give up their control and the money they take in taxes (which would be decreased Federally, but increased locally).

(02-17-2011 04:52 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(02-14-2011 06:25 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(02-14-2011 09:09 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

Quote:And frankly the estate tax should be a way higher rate, its unearned income. Talk about welfare.

If everyone knew the wealth they had generated could not be passed on people of their own choosing (usually, their own children), they would generate a lot less wealth to begin with.

I have to completely disagree. People will generate wealth no matter what because they want to become wealthy. We've had high unearned income tax rates before and its never impacted the economy negatively. Why? Because top-down economics has never worked. Economies grow best when everyone's getting a piece of the growth. The people at the top will always get richer unless they do something boneheaded. I'm not advocating for some socialist economy because frankly those don't work either. Recapturing some of that unearned income to say pay down the national debt, rebuild our existing railways, roads, bridges and other infrastructure and build the infrastructure of the next 50+ years would be a much better way for society to use that unearned income. I think this $5 million per person exemption with 35% rate for the over is a total joke. Going back to the $3.5 million per person exemption with a 45% rate for the over would have been better. Although I'd have stratified. All inheritance over $3.5 million up to $5 million at 35%, inheritance from $5 million up to $10 million at 45% and everything over $10 million at 50%. If anything it would motivate people to generate more wealth. Human's by nature want more than they have and the ones that would generate such wealth to begin with will generate large amounts of wealth no matter what. Economies grow best when the growth comes from the bottom up as a rising tide will lift all boats.

I respect your position, Brista, but exactly how much wealth was created by the laborers' utopia, the USSR? None, at least for themselves.

Seriously, programs should be pushed down to the lowest levels (local governments) rather than massive centralized programs that are inefficient, overstaffed and mismanaged. This is a basic business priciple that works the world over. Further, the local people do more to police corruption as they know the officials, and if that does not work, there remains an unbiased third party, the FEDS, who can even the score in court.

But that would require the politicos in Washington to give up their control and the money they take in taxes (which would be decreased Federally, but increased locally).

Sure, however I'm from NJ where our very structure of local organization is screwed. Decentralization is frankly a double-edged sword.

Frankly no one today including liberals like myself would call the USSR the way to do things. The facts are pure capitalism left to its own devices doesn't work and pure socialism left to its own devices doesn't work. It requires a balance of the two which in this country is far out of whack in capitalism's favor to have a system that works best for all. The middle class is literally dying because of economic policy that increasingly favors Wall Street, other large corporations and the wealthy. We're told to share the burden and the only people I see sharing in the burden are the middle class and the poor. Many want to cut government spending, many claim its too big yet tax revenues are at their lowest percentage of GDP and Federal employees are at their lowest percentage of the U.S. workforce since the Eisenhower administration. Think about that for a second.

And as for Social Security and Medicare I maintain that A) these are not an immediate problem as a $2.5 trillion dollar surplus exists in the Social Security trust fund, B) are not related to the budget deficit and C) have a simple fix by raising the amount of income that is taxable by "payroll taxes" from $107,000 to a much higher amount likely somewhere around $200K to $250K (and then adjusting by inflation once again.) Those are two programs that aren't handouts and are good programs even for all the issues with medicare often on the payouts to providers side of things.

(02-17-2011 09:44 PM)brista21 Wrote:  Sure, however I'm from NJ where our very structure of local organization is screwed. Decentralization is frankly a double-edged sword.

Frankly no one today including liberals like myself would call the USSR the way to do things. The facts are pure capitalism left to its own devices doesn't work and pure socialism left to its own devices doesn't work. It requires a balance of the two which in this country is far out of whack in capitalism's favor to have a system that works best for all. The middle class is literally dying because of economic policy that increasingly favors Wall Street, other large corporations and the wealthy. We're told to share the burden and the only people I see sharing in the burden are the middle class and the poor. Many want to cut government spending, many claim its too big yet tax revenues are at their lowest percentage of GDP and Federal employees are at their lowest percentage of the U.S. workforce since the Eisenhower administration. Think about that for a second.

And as for Social Security and Medicare I maintain that A) these are not an immediate problem as a $2.5 trillion dollar surplus exists in the Social Security trust fund, B) are not related to the budget deficit and C) have a simple fix by raising the amount of income that is taxable by "payroll taxes" from $107,000 to a much higher amount likely somewhere around $200K to $250K (and then adjusting by inflation once again.) Those are two programs that aren't handouts and are good programs even for all the issues with medicare often on the payouts to providers side of things.

RE: Considering the Eisenhower administration, we just came out of WWII, had to rebuild the world and were facing the newly empowered threat of worldwide communism so comparing the tax percentages and Fedeal employee percentages is akin to comparing apples and oranges.

As to SS and Medicare: The surplus is only IOUs, not real dollars. Both sides of the political aisle have "borrowed" from this fund. Both sides need to start paying off that borrowed money to the "surplus".

As for raising the tax, will you raise the payments to these payors in exchange? If not, you simply redistributing wealth. If that is what you seek, say as much.

Both programs can be salvaged, though, as both are wrought with fraud (kudos to the feds for the recent busts in fraud!) and as is typical in all of government, far too much management/administration staffing. The people staffing and managing these programs are not on par in performance or in responsibilities to the private sector. I like checks and balances, but the government runs too much on checks and balances to the Nth degree when you already have the investigatory, investigation and prosecutory ability to curtail fraud. No additional monies need to be "spent" on SS or Medicare, simply reduce the waste, manage the program as the private sector would. Enough money will be saved to make the scheduled payments AND pay back the "surplus".

HtownOrange, that's one of the best summations of THE major problem within any bureaucracy today. Social Security is merely one of the government organizations that need such scrutiny...

(02-18-2011 12:39 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  As for raising the tax, will you raise the payments to these payors in exchange? If not, you simply redistributing wealth. If that is what you seek, say as much.

Both programs can be salvaged, though, as both are wrought with fraud (kudos to the feds for the recent busts in fraud!) and as is typical in all of government, far too much management/administration staffing. The people staffing and managing these programs are not on par in performance or in responsibilities to the private sector. I like checks and balances, but the government runs too much on checks and balances to the Nth degree when you already have the investigatory, investigation and prosecutory ability to curtail fraud. No additional monies need to be "spent" on SS or Medicare, simply reduce the waste, manage the program as the private sector would. Enough money will be saved to make the scheduled payments AND pay back the "surplus".

Of course its redistribution of wealth, I'm not one to shy away from that fact. And since Reagan we've used our tax policies among other things to redistribute wealth from the middle class and working poor to the upper class and large corporations. Its redistributing a very small portion of their wealth back to the people we've been sucking it from for 30+ years. I'm not advocating handouts that's for certain.

And on your latter point we have a point where we agree almost whole heartedly. A lot of people say we need to run government like a business and what they mean is very different from the way you're defining it. And defining it your way is how I'd want to do it. Although in some areas the waste isn't as bad as you think. Problem is the waste in the worst areas is definitely bad news. I know first hand how the FAA operates and their isn't a whole lot of waste in the areas my dad works in. He's shocked at times how easy it is to get tools or software you need compared to the private sector, but you're expected to your job right there. Lives depend on it after all. And I know how NJ TRANSIT operates very efficiently first hand which is why I've felt Governor Christie's large scale cuts were very misguided. Believe me efficiency, integrity and effectiveness are how I want things. I'm just not a believer in we can't do this and we can't do that. I want to hear lets figure out how to do this and how to do that and do them the best way possible.