SwiftVets.com

[ROWELG]

oldkayaker asks: "So...was Reagan a fiscal conservative and Clinton a liberal spender or the other way around?"

Not the other way around. Let me tell you my personal facts. In 1959, 18% of my free enterprise income went to taxes, and 82% to purchasing power. My wife was stay at home, with a one car garage. By the time Carter left office liberal spending, war on poverty, and taxes took 36% with my purchasing power eroding to 64%. My wife was forced into working to bridge the gap.

Looking at my own personal trend chart, had Reagan not cut taxes to freeze government spending, to stop the trend, this week I would be paying 55% in taxes with only 45% in purchasing power.

Today I am on fixed income social security, plus some IRA's. In the first Clinton Administration we had the largest tax increase in history, on the back of Seniors, when they started to tax social security incomes to seniors. Today this affects myself and wife, both on social security.

HEAR THIS you vets living on social security! Every third social security check is returned to the IRS in the name of taxes. There is no SS trust fund. It all comes from the general fund, and goes back to it. In real purchasing power terms, that is $7,000 to $9,000 a year. I told my Federal Senator of this, which he had no reality of. As I told him, for $8,000 a year, I can buy a hell of a lot of prescription drugs, supplemental medical insurance, and still have money left over for buying a new car. Most seniors I talk to have their taxes done by a third party accountant and have no clue as to how much of their SS purchasing power is confiscated in the name of taxes. Look at the tax form! SS income sets on top of all other incomes, IRA, Interest Income, Pensions, etc, and is taxed at the highest level. Social Security payments from employer and employee were taxed going in over the 40 year work interval, and now taxed coming back out. Liberals accept double taxation as their RIGHT.

Incomes are pretty much fixed. The size of pie is fixed. It is who gets to eat how much. Talk about RIGHTS. Government appetite comes first when it comes to my pie, I get the leftovers. They get first grabs at your paycheck. Increase taxes, decrease purchasing power. Decrease taxes, increase purchasing power. Not very complicated! Taxes are counter economics. As I said earlier, it is not about debt but about where the debt is used, essential versus non essential. It is about managing the non essentials, managing the DISCRETIONARY lifestyles.

A fiscal conservative pays more attention to purchasing the essentials, not what makes them feel good. My wife, even in old age, still persists in purchasing what makes her feel good. The government likes her. The more she spends, the more I must take out of IRA's, and the more SS taxes I must pay.

This year I am screwing the government, and the airline and hotel economy. Just by consuming $3,000 less, I avoid $2,000 less taxs. No cars, no trips, no new computer, no new electronic gadgets. I will sacrifice $3,000 in personal consumption, to keep $2,000 from the government. It is my money, not theirs.

I have the RIGHT to NOT CONSUME! In economics that is called "PURCHASER SOVERIGNTY", our most fundamental basic right. Government cannot tell me what gum to buy, or what brand car, or what food, even though liberals are trying to go to that depth via health management and SUV activists.

[oldkayaker]

Interesting Rowelg:

[JN173]

While I fully share your opinion of the French, I do question some of the historical accuracy of some of your statements.

[MikeWinn]

Sillyrabbit, you are, indeed, silly. If you are going to correct someone, at least correct them with factual informantion. You wrote:


Oh and you asked 'name one thing France did for our country'
Well, for one thing it helped invent the philosophy of democracy. For another, it was the first place in europe to mount a genuine democratic revolution and overthrow its king.

The 'philosophy' of democracy was used by the Greeks (B.C.) and France's revolution was in 1789, a full 13 years after we declared our independence, so how could that have helped us??
_________________
LOCK & LOAD!


GunnerMike
Spectre Gunner and 141 FE
Dedicated to Rico. KIA March 14, 1971.
Love ya man.

[ROTC DAD]

ROWELG,

As the treasurer of a major corporation, you should no that you cannot indefinitely run deficits without showing some form of profit. But government is not business as most business people appear to be unaware of. Government has multiple responsibilities and those responsibilities go beyond simply showing a profit. You argue against the welfare state: which welfare state? The one that subsidizes giant corporations. What you do not seem to realize is that medicare, medicaid, and Social Security make up less than 14% of the US budget. The military budget is about another 15%, and the rest is discretionary spending by government. A great deal of that money goes into pork, and pork does not ever help anyone but someone's particular constituency.

sdpatriot,

So you think Bush should be brought up on charges as he has seen fit to break US law. Good for you!

[ROWELG]

oldkayaker asks: "as long as the conservative spends on essentials such as what, say military, for example and even though he spends over the amount coming in and creates deficits...thats still being conservative?"

Deficit spending is covered by debt, and debt is not BAD, in personal life, business life, or government life. For understanding, look to the logic of your own management of your own income. I am sure you have long term debt (mortage payments), and other short term debts (credit cards), both result of deficit spending. It's the credit card consumptions that break the bank for many. Imagine those who go to the casino's and put their losses on credit cards, converting todays fun into tomorrows liability.

THE WORD SPENDING needs to be looked upon as either CONSUMPTION, or INVESTMENT! I consume toilet paper and food. I invest in a house or car, for future utility. Just as we have to keep our debts in balance with our substance, considering our incomes and our equities, the Federal Deficit level considers its relationship to the Gross National Product. A person earning a lifetime income of $2 million can afford to carry $200,000 in mortage debt. One with a lifetime income of $4 million can afford to carry $400,000 in mortgage debt. Neither can afford to carry $20,000 in credit card consumption debt.

The majority of the military budget goes to payroll and training. If you think the military vet is an asset to the national citizenship in the long run, I would say that is investment use I would not call it consumption. Others will disagree. Based upon my life, my son's, and my brothers, and ancestors, who all went through military duty, I say we all turned out to be great law abiding self determined citizens.

Military budget deficits depends upon the situation, and the level of military activity, and new technologies to meet the future. Today, they are contracting for one high technology fighter plane that can be altered by Army, Navy, and Air Force needs for their unique uses. Today, more spending is going into remote control drones. Today, we are not building lots of big ships, big battleships, big cruisers. Warfare has changed.

Now, $100 toilet seats, and many foolish military specs are another thing.


There is a value judgment in determining essentials. When you buy a house, a long term tangible asset that you value as essential, a must, not a need, that is deficit spending if you don't pay the $200,000 up front in cash. Deficit spending to consume those long term tangible assets (house, car, frig, washer, dryer, furniture) flows into a thing called investment.

Your debt (investment) and mortgage payments (spending) can force you to invest more than desired. You may push the payments for those extra bedrooms for children yet to come. Now if you push that debt beyond essential shelter, like putting in that swimming pool now, for those children yet to come have this luxory, that is not conservative. In time, the non essential of the now, may become an essential in the future.

Toilet paper is essential now, but it cannot be purchased on debt money. A vocation trip to Hawii is not essential, in that year you purchase a house, or put in the backyard pool. It is not complicated, for government, or for you, it all depends upon how much outlay goes to consumption, and how much to investment. Welfare is consumption. Social Security payments is consumption. Medicare payments is consumption. Filling pot holes in the road is consumption. Building a four lane highway between two small midwest communities of 15,000 is consumption. Congressional pork barrel projects are consumption in nature.

In government, as in personal life, excessive consumption to savings (investment) will break the bank. Credit card debt is consumption. If I put no money into savings (investment), consumed beyond my income and put it on a credit card (short term debt).

[sillyrabbit]

edited by Moderator!

Saying the greeks invented democracy is like saying they invented modern warfare. The brand of democracy practiced by the Greeks bears very little resemblance to that in place in the West today. MY UNDERSTANDING IS (and I'm not an expert so I could be wrong) that modern democratic philosophy was a product of the enlightenment writings of english and french writers such as rousseau, paine, and burke. I'm not qualified to argue political philosophy but that's what I remember from college.

[ASPB]

[ROWELG]

ROTC DAD, yes I know deficit spending cannot go on forever. In my personal life, it went on for the first 20 years, covered by debt, for home, cars, furniture, and college education of children. The last twenty years I ran a surplus and I paid off the debt.

Many corporations grow in assets although they run deficits. This can go on for a decade. Profit and deficit periods come and go, equity ebbs and tides. But you will see most corporation assets and working capital are covered by 25-50% in debt. Sound Corporations, like IBM, Microsoft, insure that debt is expended on investments in the business, on in consumption. I now business, funded entirely by debt, who have positive cash flow because their business income exceeds their interest and debt payments. Government sells nothing, creates nothing, so that doesn't work there.

The only premise I am stating is that deficits and debt are not always BAD, in and of themselves. True, if the Federal Deficit prevails for over a decade, then trouble will brew. Although, I think it has rarely been a surplus. When LBJ (I think) balance it, he merged the surplus SS fund into the deficit general fund. When Clinton balanced it, he did it on the back of senior, by taxing social security incomes. As I said in another post, every third SS income check is returned. There is no SS account. It all comes from IRS, and goes back to IRS. For this senior, they confiscate $8,000 a year, or so, from my social security income. That's not hay.

Lets face it, youth and middle age have no assets. The wealth of the nation is in the hands of those over 55, which I presume includes you. When they go after the RICH, that includes most of us over 55. No longer having any deductions, I pay more taxes at 72 than does my 40 year old daughter, living in a $500,000 home, with large mortgage interest deductions, driving new cars, etc.

Fine, raise taxes to balance the budget. All those over 55, get out your check book. Poverty is standard exemptions and standard deduction. That is about $3.75 an hour. Below that, tax filings are not required. Rich begins at about five times poverty, per Congressional Green Book. I presume most on this web page are old vets, are the rich.

I am not against taxes, just their use on pork barrel projects, to get local votes, for both parties, to keep these turkeys in office. Personally, for this I believe in term limits.

[sillyrabbit]

[ROWELG]

Nobody reports surpluses or deficits of State, County, or local governments. Many of the federal debt instruments are picked up (invested in) by all these other governments. Once, I took the time to compile the data. At that time, in combined sum total, the fifty States had surpluses far exceeding the national deficit of Reagan.

In looking at the flow of benefits, to what States, I was amazed that many of the largest Federal Benefits were flowing into those States with the greatest surpluses.

Just imagine, a large prosperous State, lending money to Washington by buying notes and bonds, to have Washington give it back to them as a social benefit, a free gift. One of the things that the Reagan deficit did, which nobody seems to give credit to, was it forced the funding of more benefits back upon the State, creating less surpluses at State levels. Over time, the Federal Deficit was rolled back onto States that had stockpiles of accumulated wealth.

I know many States, Counties, Cities are in budget troubles in terms of deficits, annual spending, but nobody has done a study to see how much they have in assets, how much wealth they hold in federal bonds, that could be liquidated and used for spending. A budget alone does not disclose the wealth of anything, include the State. For those who make a career watching the Federal Deficit, start paying attention to deficits of government at all levels.

[sdpatriot]

[Scott]

[ASPB]

[sillyrabbit]

thanks for posting within my post, classy.

Sure, I'll read that weblog. You read this one.
http://blog.newstandardnews.net/iraqdispatches/

And pictures and numbers don't lie. We're losing an average of 10 men a week. With the emphasis the U.S. Military puts on force protection I'd think it's realistic to assume that means we're killing about 200 a week, low end. This isn't including violence against Iraqi police and governing council members. This is a country doing okay? The violence and chaos in Iraq is not a liberal media 'myth' it's a fact of life for the country.

Save the Smartass Rhetoric if you want to participate here. You've been warned several times today and our patience is running short
Moderator

Sorry I didn't realize asking not to have my posts edited when it's a matter of personal viewpoint, not rule-breaking constitutes "smartass rhetoric". However, your board your rules. Whatever.

I read Ali's blog. I don't claim that Iraq's democracy will fail, but it will without security guarantees. Without security, Ali is in a shallow grave. Yet for the next five years, security will mean U.S. firepower. How many soldiers are we willing to watch die for the cause of an Iraqi democracy? I don't claim it's not a noble cause, but if it's not realistic to assume we can do it will we think back and decide it was worth the bloodshed and divisiveness? My reading of the region is no, and even if Iraq democratizes it will look like Iran in ten years. Small groups of people can shift entire societies in radical directions, and I question how long the U.S. will be willing to protect a liberal government in Iraq from those groups.

Plus, we've basically at this point promised Iraqis that democracy will literally revolutionize their lives, but is that really realistic? I mean the bar has been set so high..... Will democratic governance really improve the lives of the poor in Sadr city in the short term? These are the very people who we hope to win over to the concept of democracy, and if they stay unemployed and destitute (which they will), they're going to think that's BECAUSE of democracy, not IN SPITE of it. I love American democracy, but I also know that it doesn't necessarily provide for everybody in the system, which are in this case Iraqis who are eagerly expecting their lives to dramatically change very soon vis a vi the new democratic government.