|
World in chaos
Share
Email
Print
CommentOctober 1st, 2008
September 22nd, 2008
September 8th, 2008
August 29th, 2008
August 22nd, 2008
I am surveying the latest news to think over what I want to say about the Obama-McCain race at this point and I can’t help but feeling that the world is breaking down into a lot of chaos right now. I know, I know, it always seems that way, nothing new under the sun, but yet right now ... the problems just seem to be piling up. And there is a gathering sense that things are really out of control. And I am not hearing any answers, just the same old tired propaganda.
Health care, gas prices, recession, mortgage crisis, credit crunch, inflation, stock market, California budget deficits, lower tax collections, Medicare bankruptcy, all hitting us in the pocket book. Today the Fed decided not to deal with anything or provide some direction, instead leaving interest rates as they are, doing nothing as the economic woes mount.
Health care, gas prices, recession, mortgage crisis, credit crunch, inflation, stock market, California budget deficits, lower tax collections, Medicare bankruptcy, all hitting us in the pocket book. Today the Fed decided not to deal with anything or provide some direction, instead leaving interest rates as they are, doing nothing as the economic woes mount.
And on the cultural front, some of the nastiest stuff I have ever seen in a campaign directed toward Obama by this relentless negative e-mail campaign from out of somewhere in the bowels of GOP-dum. First we get Obama is a low life Muslim with ignorant black relatives from Africa, with pictures to prove it, and today Rove informs us that Obama is an elitist rich country club guy hanging around with martini in hand making snide comments about everyone else.
It doesn’t seem to be working, though, as Obama’s numbers are heading up and up. People aren’t going to get fooled by it, the Republicans are just rattling off every negative liberal stereotype they can think of to try to stop this guy and it isn’t working. We have seen it all before, maybe people are starting to get immune to it.
It doesn’t seem to be working, though, as Obama’s numbers are heading up and up. People aren’t going to get fooled by it, the Republicans are just rattling off every negative liberal stereotype they can think of to try to stop this guy and it isn’t working. We have seen it all before, maybe people are starting to get immune to it.
And all the green stuff going on, my column is going green by the way. Please send greenbacks so I too can claim to have gone green. Once I get enough money my column will appear in green type.
How in the world are we going to pay for all this greenery? We can’t, that’s what and that is why we appear to be heading into a world wide recession or even depression.
How in the world are we going to pay for all this greenery? We can’t, that’s what and that is why we appear to be heading into a world wide recession or even depression.
Even though I like both candidates as persons, I am not hearing anything from either one of them that sounds like it is going to help much of anything. Obama is planning on big tax increases, which OK if you think we should, but the problem I have with that is that it doesn’t appear that they are really going to solve any problems. A lot more tax money, some reduction in deficits, very little bang for the buck.
Raising rich people’s taxes over 50%, if they aren’t there already, is one thing that conservatives such as myself have long feared. Why? Because it will really hurt the economy. No one is going to start a business if up front they know that even if they do really well they won’t make much money. Why take the risk and spend all the time? And our economy depends on small business formation, that is the leading edge of innovation and creation of wealth. Over 50% taxes will kill small businesses.
What is helping Obama is that he has a plan, and it is specific, if unrealistic. McCain has suddenly seemed to have lost his footing, and is coming across as Obama lite. Giving a speech on how global warming is a threat? Why not try to get the large minority, about 45%, of voters like myself who feel that global warming is unlikely to be true? Obama has done the green climate change talk sooner and better, and we need some kind of viable alternative to that. McCain would not have to deny the reality of global warming, he could just give us a path that maintains the economy a lot better.
Oh yes, McCain called for 45 new nuclear power plants too. But the way he did it, it seemed like he read a poll one night, didn’t have any other ideas and just blurted that out off the top of his head. He gave no sense of having thought this through or having any real coherent long range strategy for energy, just shoot from the hip. Is this guy always like this?
Obama has expressed the sentiment that he agrees with high gas prices, he thinks it is a good thing. What more of an opening could McCain ask for? Instead we get this, well maybe we could drill in states that want to, except for Alaska which is the only state that wants to and has the most oil. Huh? More mush pudding.
The only bright spot I can see in the swirl of confusion and things spinning out of control is that Obama has maintained his commitment to a positive campaign and is indeed elevating the debate. He is giving people a lot of hope on a subjective level. His policies? Well, not so good.
Both McCain’s and Obama’s plans are economy killers, and Democrats seem to be in La La land thinking they can maintain these gas prices, raise taxes this much, do nothing about looming huge fiscal disasters like Medicare and Social Security, and not drive the economy over a cliff. Oh and the fact that they are demanding we go to alternative fuels without a viable alternative fuel to go to.
No wonder it seems like we are losing control, both candidates need to come up with some better and more realistic answers to at least some of the problems we are facing or we are in deep trouble.
Raising rich people’s taxes over 50%, if they aren’t there already, is one thing that conservatives such as myself have long feared. Why? Because it will really hurt the economy. No one is going to start a business if up front they know that even if they do really well they won’t make much money. Why take the risk and spend all the time? And our economy depends on small business formation, that is the leading edge of innovation and creation of wealth. Over 50% taxes will kill small businesses.
What is helping Obama is that he has a plan, and it is specific, if unrealistic. McCain has suddenly seemed to have lost his footing, and is coming across as Obama lite. Giving a speech on how global warming is a threat? Why not try to get the large minority, about 45%, of voters like myself who feel that global warming is unlikely to be true? Obama has done the green climate change talk sooner and better, and we need some kind of viable alternative to that. McCain would not have to deny the reality of global warming, he could just give us a path that maintains the economy a lot better.
Oh yes, McCain called for 45 new nuclear power plants too. But the way he did it, it seemed like he read a poll one night, didn’t have any other ideas and just blurted that out off the top of his head. He gave no sense of having thought this through or having any real coherent long range strategy for energy, just shoot from the hip. Is this guy always like this?
Obama has expressed the sentiment that he agrees with high gas prices, he thinks it is a good thing. What more of an opening could McCain ask for? Instead we get this, well maybe we could drill in states that want to, except for Alaska which is the only state that wants to and has the most oil. Huh? More mush pudding.
The only bright spot I can see in the swirl of confusion and things spinning out of control is that Obama has maintained his commitment to a positive campaign and is indeed elevating the debate. He is giving people a lot of hope on a subjective level. His policies? Well, not so good.
Both McCain’s and Obama’s plans are economy killers, and Democrats seem to be in La La land thinking they can maintain these gas prices, raise taxes this much, do nothing about looming huge fiscal disasters like Medicare and Social Security, and not drive the economy over a cliff. Oh and the fact that they are demanding we go to alternative fuels without a viable alternative fuel to go to.
No wonder it seems like we are losing control, both candidates need to come up with some better and more realistic answers to at least some of the problems we are facing or we are in deep trouble.
a teacher wrote on Jun 28, 2008 8:37 AM:
I did a quick check of tax rates, nothing fancy, and I found that France, Germany and Sweden all have 50+% income tax rates. While they may not be the most powerful economic engines, they seem to be doing pretty well. Specifically, small businesses haven't closed up shop.
I would further argue that the high taxes enable the citizens of their countries to enjoy several services provided by their tax dollars, retirement, and health care, for instance. That is ultimately a help to business since the business does not have tooffer what the gov't already pays for.
I am skeptical of the taxes kill business argument. "
a teacher wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:02 AM:
I have to say, though, I found that poll depressing. This is a scientific issue. However, the poll showed that it is a political issue for Americans with Democrats believing that People cause Global Warming and Republicans either not believing or that it's all natural. To me that is like Democrats believing that the Earth rotates clockwise while the Republicans believe that the Earth rotates counterclockwise.
I would have more respect for the Republican opinion if the Administration wasn't politicizing the data. Did you hear the latest? The EPA sent the White House a report that greenhouse gasses were a danger to people and regulations to controll them could generate revenue of $500 billion to $2 trillion over 32 years. The White House response, they left the email that the report is attached to unopened. They preternded it wasn't there and pressured them to change it. It's laughable.
Even if Obama turns out to be not so good as a president, I have to believe that that kind of thing won't happen in his administration. "
musikluvr wrote on Jun 28, 2008 10:07 AM:
napablogger wrote on Jun 29, 2008 6:25 AM:
I just think global warming is as politicized from the left as it is from the right. Last night I just read a list of quotes from famous scientists who think what is being presented is hooey. The idea that the debate is over is wrong. It has just begun.
And thinking that something that requires us to use energy that costs multiples more than the energy we use now is going to improve the economy defies common sense. I just wish people would use common sense more about global warming.
I am out of town til Tues, will try to give better answers when I get back. "
Bill wrote on Jun 29, 2008 12:06 PM:
Americans may like to make light of tree huggers but when they truly thinkabout it theyr realize that there is a truth somewhere in all the rhetoric of the proposers and nay-sayers and that is we live on a planet that has limited resources and we must come to an understanding of those resources or perish.
Energy and environmental policy are not separate issues. Dividing opinion as in us against them serves no purpose but personal or political aggrandizement, we are all in the same boat and the hyperbole over global warming by both sides serves to defeat the reality that the earth is changing and that man does effect the environment, many times beyond repair.
As an aside I don’t think you will see 90% of American crying in their beer over the 10% that have the phenomenal income to pay less than 30% in taxes. "
daveposner wrote on Jun 29, 2008 4:05 PM:
Not being one myself (not for lack of trying) I think rich people arrange things so that most of their income comes from capital gains tax (though some magic called the "AMT" gets mixed in with that.) Raising capital gains would discourage entrepreneurship which we don't want to do but raising the income tax might encourage more investment. (Of course I base this on my immense credentials in economics.) Tax incentives and more grants for environmental enterprises would probably be a good thing too.
I think both these guys are pragmatists and realists and that's what we need. Of course they'll have to spew the usual BS during the campaign but however it goes I think we'll have a good president. There may be hope yet. "
sickothis wrote on Jun 30, 2008 12:04 PM:
sickothis wrote on Jun 30, 2008 12:45 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jun 30, 2008 6:14 PM:
How much of Sweden's problem is demographics? More seniors taking money, less youngster's paying taxes. Definitely a problem, but not necessarily the fault of a socialist type system. We have the same problem. "
napablogger wrote on Jun 30, 2008 8:25 PM:
But you know what, it is a legitimate position to want the government to supply things and that is what you might call the European system. I just don't like it. Average people have great benefits and no money. It crimps personal economic freedom, and you also have to be willing to live with very high unemployment. Unemployment in Germany, Spain, U.K. is regularly more than double ours or more.
They have great welfare systems, but many people get stuck in them and never can get out. The kind of job you can do in Germany is determined by the state, here you can try to do any job you want no matter what your high school counselor says about you.
The bottom line is that we have a lot more freedom here, some more failure, and a lot more mobility. We also have less security, from job loss, from health care expenses.
I have read about this and written about it extensively before but the one article I read that really stayed with me is a New York Times article about a guy who went to visit Denmark, held up as a model of happy, well cared for people who pay very high taxes and have lots of free services. What he realized when he went to visit is that no one had the money to even go out to lunch. They are all pinching pennies all the time.
I just don't want that for America. For Europe, maybe it works. "
napablogger wrote on Jun 30, 2008 8:35 PM:
It is not my contention that they would fold up shop, altogether, although some may never start. I have to confess that I always heard that and was somewhat dubious myself until I realized one day I had done that myself.
I thought about buying a house as an investment, and realized that when I added up all the costs, including at the time a 35% capital gains tax when I finally did sell, it wasn't worth taking all that risk to only make a little bit of money.
You have to remember, people are investing their life savings and want to make sure it is worth it. All the regulations and tax consequences have a huge impact on whether someone invests or not.
When I was going to buy that house I was well aware I could lose money. I was taking a risk, the only way you can make money.
So I put down money, and then if I get bad tenants, or the rental market gets soft and I can't get the rent I anticipated, then property taxes go up, and then on top of it when I do sell the house for the equity the Feds take a big chunk of the profit, you reach a point where you say, I could lose $100,000 and never recover for the chance to make say $20,000, it is just not worth the risk. So even though you will potentially make money, that is only if all goes well.
To take a risk there has to be a big pay off. Or no one will do it, not for a small pay off. This happens every day and has enormous economic consequences. "
napablogger wrote on Jun 30, 2008 8:46 PM:
The point here is that more solar power would equal less gas use, more supply and therefore lower gas prices.
The Democrats have been the champions of the environmentalists who have blocked every single effort to increase energy production. The entire problem in one way or another comes down to inadequate supply, and they have opposed nuclear power, oil refining, even in a lot of instances wind power, solar power, every effort to use the earth in any way for human activity is subject to opposition from them.
Although I am hardly a fan of Bush's, we can't blame him for high gas prices. He has been trying to get more supply on the market since he started office and has been continually blocked by Democrats.
One thing I think is his fault is promoting the use of corn for biofuels which is a waste of energy, and has helped cause food and gas prices to rise.
Come to think of it, what have the Democrats done but block any attempt to do things to reduce gas prices? You could say CAFE standards except the main opponent of that has been the Michigan Democrat John Conyers. "
a teacher wrote on Jun 30, 2008 9:33 PM:
Increasingly businesses are trying to get out of giving things like pensions or health benefits - example - Airlines trying to ditch their pension agreements. Either that or bussinesses want to offer less pay for the benefits they give. My union will be faced with that as they negotiate this year, no pay raise and an increase in my share of paying for health, it means a pay cut. I can fore see the same situation as your Danish example.
Is it a race to the bottom with the wealthy taking more and more while the rest of us are being asked to accept less and less. How is that a good thing? "
plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Jun 30, 2008 11:11 PM:
John Richards wrote on Jun 30, 2008 11:11 PM:
John Richards wrote on Jun 30, 2008 11:21 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:05 AM:
My retirement and health care are managed by the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS). It's a gov't/private hybrid. My boss and I contribute equally to the countries largest and most successful hedge fund(I think). It's not the most generous retirement plan, but I can count on it. The public pays some of it, but most of it is based on the returns form private investment of the fund.
For health care, I have a choice of 5 or 6 different plans (I think Kaiser has the best deal, others have a different opinion). I could even opt out and take the cash equivilant. Again, it's not perfect, Kaiser ups it's price every year, Part of contract negotiations is what part I have to pay.
There are two examples of a gov't run retirement and health plan. Not perfect, but not a disaster either. "
a teacher wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:22 AM:
The common critique of both, that lazy people get off easy and the hard workers don't profit from their work, misses the point. There is more to a job than the money you earn. I became a teacher because I think it is a worthwhile profession and I am good at it. I work hard, not because I will make more money (I won't), but because the harder I work, the better I do my job.
Today's workplace relies on the carrot and the stick approach. However, the carrots are getting smaller and the stick is getting bigger.
Marx's idea was that in a perfect world, everyone worked for the common good and everyone got taken care of. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:34 AM:
I have no objection to the government providing services or benefits in general. I do think that they are far more expensive in many cases than they otherwise would be if provided by private enterprise, but there are problems sometimes with that too. There is no black and white answer that we can apply to every situation.
In terms of many wanting that security of a pension plan, etc, I think most people do, who wouldn't want that really? The problem I have is that there seems to be no limit when something is free, which is what the government provides in general, people use a lot more of it and take it for granted.
CalPers is a case in point.
The big public pension funds in general are successful, but many private funds have better managment that get better returns. Unions run CalPers and that means decisions are often made that would not be made if run by private managers, to the detriment of the taxpayers.
Case in point: spiking. Public employees often help each other get into a much higher paying job for the last year of their employment to spike their pensions higher when they retire, because they are based on the last years salary.
Our Governor had a reform commission that tried to reform that, and the union reps on the commission and who also head CalPers blocked it.
It is clearly cheating, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it because the unions control the fund. The commission was a waste of time. "
sickothis wrote on Jul 1, 2008 11:33 AM:
The Bureau of Land Management says an extensive environmental study is needed to determine how large solar plants might affect millions of acres it oversees in six Western states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah.
Solar companies have filed more than 130 proposals with the Bureau of Land Management since 2005.
The Republicans controlled the House, Senate, White House, and SCOTUS (Including BLM and EPA). So no - it was not Democrats.
And regarding all those businesses folding: Remember all those small businesses that employed a couple of million more people than now and made all that money during the Clinton years? They didn't fold, now did they. Fear mongering, unsubstantiated and inaccurate spin from the right. "
a teacher wrote on Jul 1, 2008 11:42 AM:
I also believe that the rule for retirement is your highest three years are used to determine your retirement benefits. That's how it works for us teachers, anyway.
I have no big problem with working the system to your advantage. Business does that all the time to minimize the amount of tax it has to pay. In a perfect world every one would behave. In a perfect world... "
a teacher wrote on Jul 1, 2008 11:51 AM:
Even if we had some sort of gov't run retirement or health, it wouldn't be free. We would be paying for it with our tax dollars. "
Bill wrote on Jul 1, 2008 12:45 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jul 1, 2008 1:27 PM:
Not really, that's the propaganda version of communism. Marx had a much smaller more idealized version in mind, not what the Soviets did. Everyone works together for the benefit of everyone. Idealistic to be sure.
I think there is no perfect system. It's all about trqde offs. "
plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Jul 1, 2008 1:45 PM:
And you think government has any loyalty to its citizens? There have been many sad examples of governments treating their citizens horribly.
If I don't like my employer's offerings, I can get another job. If my government treats me poorly, what can I do? Vote libertarian? Not until there are a lot more of us will that help. Moving to another country is not as easy as getting another job. "
Bill wrote on Jul 1, 2008 2:07 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jul 1, 2008 2:09 PM:
Lee wrote on Jul 1, 2008 2:43 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jul 1, 2008 4:54 PM:
But don't jump up and down for capitalism either. The only purely capitalistic system I can think of is the Mafia. Whether capitalism can really meet the needs of a large country remains to be seen. "
Lee wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:03 PM:
Bill wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:04 PM:
what a novel ideayou mean there is actually a corporation tha t is responsive to the needs of the people it serves? "
Bill wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:25 PM:
If your argument is about the size of the pensions that is one of the things that attracts state employees, if it is about management then you have only the point that so called private money managers do not respond to the will of the investors i.e. investing in South African Apartheid which may have been more lucrative if morally reprehensible.
If other non public sector unions had followed the openness of Calpers and exhibited the strength of organization it has shown there might be a greater voice for labor in the board room. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 2, 2008 12:08 AM:
>>>The bush admin is singlehandedly holding up solar power leases.<<
The BLM is, and you are assuming that Bush ordered it. Probably correct, but not certain. In any case, it is being done for *environmental* reasons. It is environmentalists controlling the agenda, even with a Republican administration. The Wildlife group (Federation, major environmental group) immediately praised this decision.
Unless you are saying that the Republicans are environmentalists.
I think it is possible that the solar leases are being held up by Bush out of gamesmanship by Bush, although no one is saying that yet. Bush's energy plan calls for $1.2 billion more for funding alternative energy, but the money would come from new oil drilling lease fees that the Democrats are blocking. So he is trying some of their game on them.
I never said anything about businesses folding, although I can see why you and teacher might infer that. What I meant is that they wouldn't start to begin with.
People who are considering investing evaluate the odds for success and the pay off before they begin. When they are socked with high enough taxes they don't bother.
You should see the emails I get from business people right here in Napa worried about local taxes and fearing that they could go under due to any increases. It is not a joke or a small point by any means. You multiply that across the country and it is a huge impact.
I have no problem with Obama raising the top marginal rate back to 39.5% as it was under Clinton. But capital gains and payroll taxes and God knows what else and pretty soon you are talking a real recession. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 2, 2008 12:11 AM:
Btw, are you sure you are in CalPers and not CalStrs, the teachers pension fund? It is considerably different than CalPers in important respects. Teachers do not get the same level of pensions that many other government employees do. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 2, 2008 12:26 AM:
None of the money that goes into private pension funds comes from taxpayers. It all comes from the businesses that created the wealth themselves.
In fact, all money, including all tax money comes from private enterprise, so I think it would be more appropriate perhaps to say the the government is funded by business entirely. Businesses generate all wealth, some of which is paid to employees and the government takes some of it from them to itself, in the form of taxes.
Since all wealth is created by private business, all government funding comes from private business, anything that hurts private business ultimately hurts the entire economy.
There is just no way around it and when taxes hurt business you get less business. "
Lee wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:46 AM:
napablogger wrote on Jul 2, 2008 10:01 AM:
No matter how you slice it it is a supply problem. Futures speculators are basing their speculation on future supply shortages, a supply problem.
If we increase supply or even if there is a belief due to approved new drilling that supply will increase there goes the speculative bubble, if there is one. It is all based on the future expectation that prices will increase, and prices will only increase if supply is low.
Supply is being held artificially low by government policy, there is no way around it.
All wealth comes from business activity, there is no way around that either. Of course businesses have to pay their workers, but my point is that many people think money grows on trees and that you can just treat business any old way and the money will just be there. Not so. "
a teacher wrote on Jul 2, 2008 10:21 AM:
I take exception to your statement about all money going into my retirement fund being taxpayer money. That money comes from MY paycheck. I don't complain about it (much), because it goes into my retirement. "
Lee wrote on Jul 2, 2008 11:37 AM:
Bill wrote on Jul 2, 2008 12:56 PM:
sickothis wrote on Jul 2, 2008 12:58 PM:
Again you are factually wrong. George Herbert Walker Bush instituted the moratorium on new leases in 1990. The Republicans had the House, The Senate, the White House and the SCOTUS for 6 years. If it was such a great idea, they could have done it then. So no, the democrats are not holding up new leases. "
daveposner wrote on Jul 2, 2008 1:05 PM:
"All wealth comes from business activity"?
That's a pretty amazing statement. What do you mean by wealth and what do you mean by "business?" A trivial example. There's a couple that walks Foster road just about every day and picks up trash. I would argue that by doing so they make the property along Foster more valuable and therefore they are creating wealth. Are they a business? Is Teacher not creating wealth by increasing the "value" of her students? "
sickothis wrote on Jul 2, 2008 1:41 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jul 2, 2008 1:58 PM:
glenroy wrote on Jul 2, 2008 6:27 PM:
Bill wrote on Jul 2, 2008 6:57 PM:
Bill wrote on Jul 2, 2008 7:25 PM:
The government is funded by business entirely.
Businesses generate all wealth, some of which is paid to employees and the government takes some of it from in the form of taxes.
Since all wealth is created by private business, all government funding comes from private business, anything that hurts private business ultimately hurts the entire economy.
N.B.
If you accept the claim as fact and equate all money as wealth, not property or assets other than cash or those instruments that can be readily converted to cash your convoluted syllogism might hold up. But wealth is not the same as money land and capital in any economic theory hold more value. Money and banking is as subset.
Much wealth is generated by appreciating land value and is not money. Other wealth is generated by the effort of labor to generate value. Intellectual wealth is generated by its effort to generate better circumstances for a variety of purposes. There are numerous other means where value and wealth is generated. Businesses do not generate all wealth individuals do through many means other than the pure control of money by their establishments.
The government also does much to foster wealth by many means and does much to serve the business community. I find you claim to be false and you statement and conclusion not supported by you premises. There is a fallacy in your argument. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:03 PM:
Otherwise they are charitable persons who are donating a service, and the reason they can afford to do that for free is because they are making money to pay for their time from another business.
Property is only valuable for what you can do with it, build on it, put a business on it, grow a farm on it--all businesses.
Wealth is a general term for all forms of money and assets, and wealth is generated by effort, by business.
Government employees and the government in general does not generate wealth, it spends wealth. Sorry if that doesn't fit your philosophy.
teacher is a taxpayer too, and so are all government employees.
teacher your paycheck is paid by taxpayers. It originates as taxpayer money. Once it is given to you, it is your money as payment for a service.
Exxon Mobile's money is generated by themselves through their own business efforts.
There is nothing wrong with the government collecting taxes and spending citizens wealth. The citizens want the services.
Labor is not owed anything in particular except what the business owner and the worker agree to. The laborer helps the owner generate wealth, yes, but it is neither the laborer or owner that generates the wealth, it is the business that generates wealth. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:07 PM:
I assumed that you meant the news that came out this week about the BLM holding up solar energy leases. Now we are back to 1990??? over what? "
napablogger wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:17 PM:
>>>CalPERS and Alaska Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry Pension Trust were lead plaintiffs in a the suit filed in Minnesota federal court over the way UnitedHealth dated stock options for top executives, including a $1.6 billion grant to Chief Executive William McGuire. The practice, CalPERS claimed, cost the fund up to $22 million on its investments in UnitedHealth stock - about 6.7 million shares worth about $322 million at the time.<
CalPers socked it to an overpaid CEO--can you believe it, $1.6 billion in a bonus??? Go CaLPers.
I think one point to understand about me saying all wealth is generated by business and that all government funds come from taxpayers, I am talking economics, not politics.
These are simply basic economic facts.
Once you get your paycheck, the money is yours, you deserve it, etc. But the fact is that you get paid by taxpayers to perform a service. You do not get paid by Microsoft, or Exxon, or Chuck E Cheese's.
It needs to be said because it seems like people lose track of where the money comes from. Labor does not generate wealth, the government does not have any money of its own. Businesses and corporations do generate wealth, they generate all the wealth in the world.
That means if you do things that hurt them there is less wealth in the world.
I suppose you could say that natural resources, if you own them or control them, are a form of wealth. But even then you have to do something with them to use them, and that would be a business. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:19 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jul 2, 2008 10:00 PM:
Bill wrote on Jul 2, 2008 10:28 PM:
Much Wealth is inherited by people who never earned a dime of it or labored for it or provided any motivation or thought process to husband it other than the happen stance of birth.
We live in a mixed economy where we all contribute to the wealth of the nation not just one sector uber alles. "
daveposner wrote on Jul 2, 2008 11:04 PM:
I confess I never took econ so I'm ignorant. Could you help me understand by explaining how say Mother Teresa's or Gandhi's activities were a business? Is your statement perhaps just a "definition", i.e. business is by definition any activity that creates wealth? If not then what is the actual definition of business so that I can understand the content of your statement. "
Bill wrote on Jul 2, 2008 11:08 PM:
The government is funded by business entirely.
Businesses generate all wealth, some of which is paid to employees and the government takes some of it from in the form of taxes: premises
Anything that hurts private business ultimately hurts the entire economy. Fallacy, called begging the question. Your claim is not supported by your premises and your conclusion is irrelevant. "
Lee wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:41 AM:
napablogger wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:42 AM:
napablogger wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:45 AM:
napablogger wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:53 AM:
In my view all the money government has ultimately comes from taxpayers, and all the taxpayers money, my income as well, comes from business. That is also just a fact, however inconvenient that may be to a liberal philosophy of the world.
Money, wealth, whatever term makes sense to you, comes from people working to create it.
I suppose another reason I harp on this is the fact that from a liberal position, at least some liberals, not recognizing that fact feeds the sense of entitlement that people have. That is dangerous.
Unions cannot just demand whatever wages they want regardless of business and economic conditions, because they are not creating the wealth, the economy if you will, to pay for it. Yet many of the liberal writers here appear to feel that they can just demand it because they want it and feel it is fair, without regard to who actually has to pay for it. They feel entitled.
That is a mistake.
Anyway, we are starting to beat a dead horse here so I may not write about this again. However, I will read whatever response you may have. "
sickothis wrote on Jul 3, 2008 1:14 PM:
napablogger wrote on Jul 3, 2008 5:45 PM:
You don't know what a business is? Really? It is an activity undertaken to make a profit by selling something, or producing and selling something, or selling a service. Or something like that. "
a teacher wrote on Jul 3, 2008 5:46 PM:
As for unions, they can demand what they want but that doesn't mean that they'll get what they want. It's a negotiation. Unions use strike if they want. Business, or in my case gov't can let them strike. Mostly they negotiate. I don't see how that is a problem. You sound like I should be happy with whatever the gov't says it should pay me and be happy I have a job. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 3, 2008 6:14 PM:
Dow Jones June 26, 2008: ...the Office of Management and Budget said the idea that leaseholders are "sitting on" leases rather than using them is an "absurd claim" as oil prices hover near record highs.
"Firms want to drill where they can most profitably extract oil," the OMB said. "A firm that is not drilling in a particular area either cannot find recoverable oil there, or thinks it can find oil that can be extracted at lower cost, or has not yet completed the more than a dozen plans and permits needed to allow drilling," it said.
Chevron CEO David O'Reilly as quoted in the International Herald Tribune, June 20, 2008:
Q: Democrats say oil companies are sitting on unused leases and they should drill there first before more regions are opened up to production.
O'Reilly: "What I would encourage the Democrats to do is to look at the facts. We should not be making these crass statements without facts. There are already existing limitations on leases. Already you have to use them or lose them. It takes time for geological exploration to occur. In our case, over 80 percent of our leases are being actively worked."
O'Reilly went on to add that costs to open up new fields are in the $4 to 5 billion range. That is why oil companies need to make huge profits, because exploration and development is enormously expensive. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 3, 2008 6:31 PM:
In reference to your figures about how much the state puts in, that is for state employees only. Most of the money comes from local governments, in Napa alone we are at about $40-50 million a year to CalPers.
The employees contribute about 9-11% depending, the government about 20-28%, that would be of total payroll. So maybe a third from employees, but my point there would be inititially all the money comes from taxpayers, me in other words, and you.
Why do I care? Because that high a level of pension is killing government budgets and hurting the economy. Because if the unions control it then taxpayers are paying whatever they want us to and we have no voice.
When the unions set the rules they do unethical things like the spiking I talked about earlier. The teachers dont get that, but all the safety and many other employees do. They also make unsound investments in order to help their workers.
They recently invested in government bonds that they know won't meet the investment standards needed to cover pensions, but it gives their workers more work and brings more people into the union. Then the taxpayers get stuck with the bill.
It is the fox gaurding the hen house, and because the Democrats control the state legislature, nothing is ever done about it. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 3, 2008 6:37 PM:
Since business is the source of all wealth, if you don't take care of business you have nothing. Even the environment goes down the tubes, because it costs money to protect the environment.
In California, people just do not seem to understand that. They hate business and feel that they are the root of all evil. Maybe they are the root of some evil, but they are us and not only that, they pay our mortgage and bills. The provide ALL the money to protect our environment and run our government, so we should bear that in mind when we do things that hurt business.
Sooner or later it will redound back to us. "
a teacher wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:28 PM:
There are 300,000 teachers in CA. The average salary is around $50,000. We contribute $2.4 billion to STRS. The state contributes $500 million, so Us teachers contribute 5 times what taxes contribute. Just because you pay my salary, you don't get to tell me how to spend it. "
steph wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:58 PM:
But that just sounds downright cynical. "
daveposner wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:19 PM:
bettye wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:44 PM:
napablogger wrote on Jul 4, 2008 11:06 AM:
teacher, first of all I am talking about CalPers, not CalStrs. They are different.
Since it is your money, according to you, what happens if the fund falls short and is unable to pay the pensions, which is happening now?
Will the teachers all get together and pitch in and send pension check money to already retired teachers from out of their personal savings?
Or will the state take money out of the general fund, tax money, and make up the shortfall?
That tells you who is paying for it.
That is why I resent having union leadership running the pension. It is like putting Exxon Mobile in charge of government oil policy, putting developers in charge of land use planning in Napa County. It is an inherent conflict of interest.
If you look into the decisions that have been made, not all of them of course, they are decisions that an objective, independent board would not do.
One is setting a rule that some safety employees can get 109% of their highest salary at retirement. Another is allowing people to cheat on their last salary to pump up their retirement by switching jobs (supposedly) at the last minute.
All CalPers would have to do to stop that is change the rule. They refuse, because they are run by the people who stand to benefit from the rule.
If we are going to do this, then lets' let the corporations run the state government. After all, it is by far their money that the government runs on. "
a teacher wrote on Jul 4, 2008 6:32 PM:
I haven't heard that STRS is failing, in fact, I've heard the opposite. Mr. Bush attempted to "reform" Social Security with plans similar to STRS and PERS. Now I'm getting the impression that not only does the right want to kill SS, they want to control how the money is spent.
It's my money. Wasn't that the slogan? "
Bill wrote on Jul 4, 2008 9:38 PM:
Corporations should run the government because its their money?
What are you advocating? A strangle hold on human liberty by corporations? So much for patriotism on the fourth of July lets bring back the East India Co. and pretend the American Revolution never happened. "
bettye wrote on Jul 4, 2008 10:53 PM:
Bill wrote on Jul 5, 2008 1:11 PM:
Maybe someone should retake American History 101 and Re-enroll in Econ, 1A and 1B not just the quickie 1 semester courses in lower division. Try Money and banking along with Micro and Macro Economics.
The Tea floating in Boston Harbor did not belong to George III but to the East India Company, which had a monopoly on tea and was a major reason beyond the much ballyhooed tea tax why the colonists rebelled.
Business and entrepreneurship especially by the individual is one thing but the idea that an undemocratic corporate structure is something to be bowed down to is an idea that has Jefferson even Adams and especially Adam Smith rolling in their graves. "
glenroy wrote on Jul 5, 2008 1:54 PM:
Anyway, I’m more than a little impressed with your tolerance…I think you many have just located the ’black hole’ that exists between the mind of a business person and that of those who believe government is the provider of wealth. Having taught various subjects on Business Management and Entrepreneurship for many years, I’d have to say most high school level business students could easily follow your clear and accurately stated logic. If nothing else, where does government derive income?…from itself?…then how? If that can’t be correctly answered it helps to explain why so many people are dependant upon others.
Maybe it’s nothing more than new tricks and old dogs…maybe not...
It is all good and very entertaining to say the least…or was that a square peg in a round hole.. "
glenroy wrote on Jul 5, 2008 2:03 PM:
Plus…it was over funded by the tax payers several billion dollars…or at least the state auditors claimed it was over funded….I did not follow the settlement though I’m also insignificantly invested through Calpers. "
a teacher wrote on Jul 5, 2008 5:54 PM:
So far as I can see, my retirement plan has a small amount of gov't involvement, a contribution that is 20% of what teachers put in. Yet you object to ho runs it. On what basis would you do that. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:08 PM:
a fair and good point, and my point exactly about CalPers. If the taxpayers have to bail out Bear Sterns, shouldn't the taxpayers have some say so about what they are doing? Say, some better regulations about sub prime mortgages and limits on how they run their investments? I think so.
All I am saying is the same thing about CalPers. Since it is the taxpayers who bail them out when they screw up, we ought to have some say so about how it is run.
Yet we will and do have regulations on brokerage firms and all corporations, but we can't even get CalPers to stop the most obvious form of cheating. That shows you not only who is really in control, (in California at least) but also proves who is running it. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:09 PM:
napablogger wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:13 PM:
napablogger wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:23 PM:
Their Board President sends out press releases ranting and raving about "big Oil must be stopped" at the same time that they are one of the biggest investors in oil futures that the Democrats are blaming for high oil prices.
They invest money is California bond projects that will create more jobs for union members, but the bonds don't pay the rate that they need to break even on investments, 7.75%. That means ultimately they are at more risk of needing cash infusions from taxpayers to make up the deficits.
Any other group would have to have an independent board. "
bettye wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:33 PM:
jonqcitizen wrote on Jul 6, 2008 1:01 AM:
1) Show me the math and back up your assertions. Otherwise, quit spouting this 109% nonsense.
2) Allowing people to cheat on their last salary? The last time I checked more money means more responsibility. Government payroll is very tightly structured and (assuming you are at the top of your pay scale) you don’t make more money without being promoted to a new job classification with new and/or different responsibilities. So for the last year of someone’s career, they have to perform a more difficult and or technically demanding job with more responsibility and somehow this is cheating?
The other flaw in your logic is that you believe the rules set by PERS (who are just lackeys of unions) are the issue. The ACTUAL issue is that if someone is undeservedly promoted for the sole purpose of allowing them to retire at a higher rate, then the system is being abused by an administrator (read MANAGEMENT), and administrators are generally not union employees. "
jonqcitizen wrote on Jul 6, 2008 1:06 AM:
jonqcitizen wrote on Jul 6, 2008 1:21 AM:
"All I am saying is the same thing about CalPers. Since it is the taxpayers who bail them out when they screw up, we ought to have some say so about how it is run. "
1) Fact: The last time PERS lost a lot of money (their holdings went from 175 billion to approximately 140 billion give or take a billion), everybody lost money. It was the end of the dotcom era. How is that "screwing up"? Did everybody "screw up"?
2) Fact: Since that time through diversified investments, they have recouped that money and then some. Their current assets are approximately 248 billion. Which private investors did better than that? How did the taxpayer "bail them out"? Surely you are not suggesting that somehow the taxpayer made several deposits that added up to 108 billion dollars?
3) Fact: During the dot com boom, local governments including Napa County paid nothing into PERS while employees continued whatever contribution they were required to pay. If their bill has increased at this point, who is to blame for their failure to set aside the money they would have been paying into PERS had their investments not had such a high return? Oh right, the unions, I forgot. "
jonqcitizen wrote on Jul 6, 2008 4:04 AM:
“Unions run CalPERS and that means decisions are often made that would not be made if run by private managers, to the detriment of the taxpayers.”
According to the CalPERS website, the CalPERS Board of Administrators are as follows:
1) Rob Feckner- Elected, employed by the NVUSD as a glazing specialist.
2) George Diehr PhD- Elected, employed at CSU, San Marcos as an instructor.
3) Marjorie Berte- Appointed, Undersecretary of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency.
4) John Chiang- ex-officio, State Controller.
5) David Gilb- ex-officio, Director of California Department of Personnel Administration.
6) Henry Jones- Elected by retired members, former CFO of the Los Angeles Unified School District.
7) Bill Lockyer- ex-officio, State Treasurer.
8) Priya Mathur- Represents employing agencies, employed as a principal financial analyst for BART.
9) Louis Moret- Appointed by the Senate and Assembly. Spent 15 Years as the COO of Southern California Association of Government. Member of the Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension Board.
10) Tony Oliveira- Appointed as the Local Government representative, he is a member of the Kings County Board of Supervisors and a farmer.
11) Anne Sheehan- Appointed, representing the State Personnel Board, Chief Deputy Director for Policy at the CA Department of Finance.
12) Karato Shimada- Elected, Retired from Oak Grove School District where he was a supervisor of operations.
According to my count, there are four out of twelve that are elected by union members at the most. Quite frankly, I doubt that Jones was really a union man since he was the CFO of a huge agency like the LAUSD. Please explain therefore how the unions run CalPERS. "
ADark1 wrote on Jul 6, 2008 6:34 AM:
When glenroy and Bill start making sense to me....when "TEACH" and even napablogger has *CHOKE* consistant valid points I'm starting to get nervous...Comeon you guys you're scaring me.
.~.Runs for lefty " in case of emergency first aid kit".....Wooooosaaaaaaaaa!
Phew! All better now!
Seriously, I would ask all of you...where do you draw the line between sound investment with "agencies" as to what is allowed under state and federal mandate? looks to me like 6 on one hand and half - dozen on the other!
Being self - employed is in no way easy, yet it seems to me, we, ( small business owners) are being asked to carry more then OUR fair share of the tax burden for a dwindling economy as well as middle class! What happens when we can no longer compete against the corporate structures and then global economies? ....I'll answer it!
ANARCHY! "
freeport56 wrote on Jul 6, 2008 8:41 AM:
check out tax policy center.org. They do an unbias study on taxes. They have a .pdf that is a side by side of both candidtes tax proposals. then check out youtube under Obama tax mooron. It is a video of the Las Vegas debat in which charlie gibson outlines the historical facts behind the capital gains tax. Obamas answer should surprise you.
Yes, both candidates have outline their taxing strategies. "
freeport56 wrote on Jul 6, 2008 8:46 AM:
The ice melts.
How about the recent discovery of volcanoes under the arctic ocean that is causing the ice to melt.
The bottom line, the earths climate changes as a natural part of nature. Studying the climate for only 158 years is not a real measure of 5 billion years of existance. Not to mention that for the past 11 yerars we have no sun spots. They traditionally warm the earth and they are missing. Geologically we are headed into another ice age based on the magnectic readings from the mid-atlantic ridge. All the lies are about one thing shifting scoiety. social change is the lefts new religon. "
glenroy wrote on Jul 6, 2008 2:50 PM:
Bill wrote on Jul 6, 2008 6:28 PM:
Applying to you to reason with him over his retirement plan yet sarcasm is his reward. The inability to communicate your concerns in a logical manner leads you to re-explain many frivolous remarks and leads you to a frustrating discourse, not a reasoned presentation of what could be wrong.
Allowing anti union bias to dominate your reasoning defeats any solid points you wish to present. Teach appears more concerned with himself than the general theme of all retirement funds. Ask if Cal-pers is perhaps more solvent than say Social Security or the retirement plans of Enron or World Com along with numerable private employee programs and you have a real bagful.
Defenders of Cal-pers could possibly make an argument that their management is measurably more transparent than any of the aforementioned programs and more so than many mutual funds touted in the various 401k schemes. However it appears that ridicule is better than a sound explanation for your statements. Certainly the number of times you must restate the same claim to justify your frustration in being unable to convince with the battering ram of your opinion the soundness of your crusade against public employee benefits illustrates your own ineptitude.
If there is indeed something wrong, lay it out singly in a reasoned fashion with a logical argument and don’t rely so much on emotion or the appeal to an authority that you don’t possess. "
Bill wrote on Jul 6, 2008 6:39 PM:
bettye wrote on Jul 6, 2008 7:02 PM:
freeport56 wrote on Jul 6, 2008 7:43 PM:
The articdle in the S.F. Chronicle about the transfer of Iraqs 550 metric tons (2240lbs) of high grade yellow cake uranium be sent to Canada. 550 metric tons = 1,212,542.44 pounds.
Enough to kill California+. Enough said. "
freeport56 wrote on Jul 6, 2008 8:56 PM:
you may want to revisit that description of communism. While they may call it the "peoples tractor factory" all production quotas are set by the state. The state controls everything.
What Marx had in mind never materialized in Russia. Beside communism is based on so many false theories. if you want the real low down on what communism is all about look up "The Black Book of Communism" It is down right scary "
freeport56 wrote on Jul 6, 2008 8:58 PM:
jonqcitizen wrote on Jul 6, 2008 10:00 PM:
Thank God someone still uses logic and sound resononing. Your post was a breath of fresh air. (applause in the background)
Things are what they are folks. The facts are what they are. If they help you, great. If they don't, that's the way it is. Scarecrows, red herrings and propaganda prove nothing. "
a teacher wrote on Jul 7, 2008 6:13 AM:
Freeport: I don't believe that there has ever been a truly communist gov't. I don't think their can be. The basic message of communism is anti-materialism, possessions are a trap. It's the same as Buddhism and Christianity, really. Christ and Buddha are worth emulating, but it is extremely difficult to reach their level. That is the realm of saints. "
freeport56 wrote on Jul 7, 2008 7:34 AM:
I agree, I have seen to many people argue for Marxist Communism as it is written. But, they always fail in realizing the political system does not matter. Power and greed always win out and corrupt the system.
Just being a decent human being, be nice to others...etc. Sometimes the simplist behaviors carry the most weight. "
ADark1 wrote on Jul 7, 2008 8:08 AM:
One of the BEST I've seen here since I started reading the NVR Blog. I smell an award coming out of this one!
BTW, Bill? I've got my eyes on you! :)
Those of you who used facts?
Thanks for educating ME! "
jwk wrote on Jul 7, 2008 12:20 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jul 7, 2008 4:11 PM:
Keep drinking that cool aide, dude... "
Raven wrote on Jul 7, 2008 4:32 PM:
kevin wrote on Jul 8, 2008 10:18 AM:
sickothis wrote on Jul 8, 2008 10:34 AM:
tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Jul 8, 2008 1:36 PM:
John Richards wrote on Jul 8, 2008 3:53 PM:
John Richards wrote on Jul 8, 2008 4:05 PM:
John Richards wrote on Jul 8, 2008 4:10 PM:
tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Jul 8, 2008 8:11 PM:
John Richards wrote on Jul 8, 2008 11:38 PM:
jwk wrote on Jul 8, 2008 11:52 PM:
Dr. Faustus wrote on Jul 9, 2008 10:23 AM:
Since when has anyone of substantial wealth – private for otherwise – ever paid a full tax obligation? Tax brackets exist mostly in our imaginations. Republican’s are forever weeping into their golden cups about the high taxes paid, but it is rarely mentioned that such taxes may amount to no more than 15% of their earnings – and after deductions, the amount could be quite less.
How is this not socialism?
Indeed, the very concept of deductions is a socialist one; what you write off now must be paid by someone else later, i.e. The People.
This is not “capitalism” vs. “socialism.” This is about who gets to play by the socialist rules, and who must play by capitalist ones. Traditionally, “Socialists” argue that the tax code and business regulations should be geared toward subsidizing individuals. Capital-Socialists on the other hand, feel it is far more logical to subsidize business interests and let individuals play by capitalist conventions – a cheaper alternative to traditional “socialism,” as there can never be more businesses then there are people.
I’ll let you ponder what that implies about unemployment.
Socialism for me, Capitalism for everyone else: the motto of American Business. "
sickothis wrote on Jul 9, 2008 10:45 AM:
On March 3, 2008, a Euro was worth $1.58. The dollar has declined in 40% value in the last six years, when a Euro was only worth 87 cents. (Source: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Historical Exchange Rates) "
napablogger wrote on Jul 9, 2008 1:01 PM:
The amount of taxes the wealhtiest third of Americans pay comes to about 30% of income.
What's interesting to me about that is through all these up and downs that percentage, 30%, has remained about the same.
The top 40% of wage earners are now paying almost all income taxes. Bottom 60% pay none, some even get some back when they haven't even paid in. I don't see how you then blame the wealthy for not paying.
btw, sickofthis is right about the weak dollar. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 9, 2008 1:03 PM:
napablogger wrote on Jul 9, 2008 1:06 PM:
The only thing I can say is that probably the same thing happens with corporate boards, but at least they are not spending taxpayer money. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 9, 2008 1:13 PM:
Here's one for you, Andrews and Jordan. Does that help?
The point, which is not particularly controversial I might add, is that private pension funds often do better because they are not operating under the same rules as CalPers, as CalPers must do as a public, yes taxpayer funded organization. I have no problem with that.
But I think they need some outside financial management that is not politically motivated and does not make decisisions based on non financial reasons but instead based on giving goodies away to themselves and their own membership. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 9, 2008 1:17 PM:
If global warming is a fraud, or if it is greatly exaggerated, then we could be doing things like say starving people in the third world unnecessarily, which we are I believe. So it makes a huge difference.
Yes, it will be better to have less traffic, cleaner energy, but don't kid yourself the cost is enormous right now and it is reflected in higher gas prices and food prices, not to mention all kinds of other costs.
One problem I have is that we are perpetually lied to by greenies about all this, all this garbage is out there saying it won't cost anything which is patent nonsense, the cost is already enormous and getting worse.
So conservatives are concerned about the other side of the coin, what the costs will be, but not against going green. "
Dr. Faustus wrote on Jul 9, 2008 3:03 PM:
Some of what it means: it means that we subsidize the