Warning from a Student of Democracy's Collapse

[Nicodema]

• "Some people recognized the moral perils...testant areas."

(Click above to read full story. It is from the New York Times; a login might be required after a certain period. Right now -- 1/11/2005 -- it will take you straight there.)

[Pockey]

Use jimmie/jimmie for the login/password.

(courtesy of http://www.bugmenot.com/ )

[Neil D]

[:"green"] Dr. Stern's speech, given during a ceremony at which he got the prize from the Leo Baeck Institute, a center focused on German Jewish history, was certainly provocative. The fascism of Nazi Germany belongs to a world so horrendous it often seems to defy the possibility of repetition or analogy. But Dr. Stern, 78, the author of books like "The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology" and university professor emeritus at Columbia University, has devoted a lifetime to analyzing how the Nazi barbarity became possible. He stops short of calling the Christian right fascist but his decision to draw parallels, especially in the uses of propaganda, was controversial.

"When I saw the speech my eyes lit up," said John R. MacArthur, whose book "Second Front" examines wartime propaganda. "The comparison between the propagandistic manipulation and uses of Christianity, then and now, is hidden in plain sight. No one will talk about it. No one wants to look at it." [/]

Being a student of history has it's benefits...and it's fears...This article is one that sends shivers up my spine. Same tactics that Nazi's used to gain control of the political system, the religious right is doing the same.....

And this will prolly be denounced as fear mongering....I say this ahead of time for all you who disbelieve....For shame....

[Neil D]

Kennedy Accuses Bush of Hyping Problems

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) accused President Bush (news - web sites) on Wednesday of hyping concerns about the nation's retirement program just as he did on Iraq (news - web sites) and urged Democrats to stand up to the "politics of fear."

The leading liberal voice in the U.S. Congress, Kennedy said Democrats, who lost the race for the White House for a second time in a row, must do a better job promoting their basic unifying values without mirroring Republicans in order to rebound from last November's election defeats.

"We have an administration that falsely hypes almost every issue as a crisis," the Massachusetts Democrat said in a speech prepared for delivery at the National Press Club. "They did it on Iraq, and they are doing it now on Social Security (news - web sites)."

"They exploit the politics of fear and division, while ours is a politics of hope and unity," Kennedy said.

Yahoo News source

[Bravus]

Yes, there are plenty of economic commentators noting that Social Security is in nowhere near the level of crisis the Administration is protraying, and also noting that the privatisation solution being suggested will actually make the situation worse - for everyone except investment bankers, and maybe even for them...:

" ... Privatization wouldn't even begin to reduce the budget deficit until 2050. This is supposed to be the answer to an imminent crisis? While we waited 45 years for something good to happen, there would be a real risk of a crisis -- not in Social Security, but in the budget as a whole. And privatization would increase that risk."

"We already have a large budget deficit, the result of President Bush's insistence on cutting taxes while waging a war. And it will get worse: a rise in spending on entitlements -- mainly because of Medicare, but with a smaller contribution from Medicaid and, in a minor supporting role, Social Security -- looks set to sharply increase the deficit after 2010."

"Add borrowing for privatization to the mix, and the budget deficit might well exceed 8 percent of G.D.P. at some time during the next decade. That's a deficit that would make Carlos Menem's Argentina look like a model of responsibility. It would be sure to cause a collapse of investor confidence, sending the dollar through the floor, interest rates through the roof and the economy into a tailspin."

To get an idea of how much the government would need to borrow to cover the costs of privatization: The Social Security actuary says an inflation-adjusted $4.7 trillion over 40 years.

[Ron Lambert]

Surely without argument everyone would agree that the real problem with social security has always been the continual raiding of the social security fund by Congress to balance the general budget by spending the surplus in the social security fund instead of saving it for its intended use. This leaves funding for social security benefits coming solely from those who are currently working and paying into the fund. When the point comes (as it is expected to in about 15 years) when there are not enough people paying into the fund to pay the present benefits owed to people in social security, then the pyramid scheme will collapse.

Congress never should have been allowed to steal money out of the social security fund in the first place. Bush is trying to fix the fundamental problem by dedicating at least a portion of the social security fund so it must be saved for its intended use. This will force Congress to stop raiding the social security fund to balance the general budget. Nobody likes to go on a fiscal diet, and that is the source of most of the opposition to Bush's attempt at meaningful reform.

If you agree that money paid into the social security fund should stay there and not be used for anything else, then how else do you believe we should achieve this reform? Bush is actually trying to phase it in, and not make Congress go cold turkey all at once.

[bevin]

Actually I disagree that the real problem is Congress raiding the Fund.

The real problem is Congress spending money it doesn't have. This forces it to borrow. It may as well borrow from SS as from anywhere else.

In 20 years from now either (a) Congress will owe SS the money or ( SS will have place the money in shares and other assets. If the later, then the need to sell those assets will drive the price down and SS will still be underfunded. To sell you have to find a buyer.

So, 20 years from now, the taxpayers have to either (a) pay taxes to repay the loans owed SS, or ( buy the shares etc SS is selling.

In either way, 20 years from now, the money has to come from the taxpayers.

There is a simple solution - and it will be followed. The taxpayers will inflate the paper wealth of the retirees out of existence, will tax their physical assets out of existence, and will use high labor and goods prices to extract their physical wealth. The taxpayers will decide then, as today, the standard of living they are prepared to support in the retired generation.

Why do you think hospitals and retirement homes are so expensive?

/Bevin

[Ron Lambert]

Bevin said:

Quote:

---

Actually I disagree that the real problem is Congress raiding the Fund.

The real problem is Congress spending money it doesn't have. This forces it to borrow. It may as well borrow from SS as from anywhere else.

---

That looks like the same thing, to me.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

If you agree that money paid into the social security fund should stay there and not be used for anything else, then how else do you believe we should achieve this reform? Bush is actually trying to phase it in, and not make Congress go cold turkey all at once.

---

Very easy,Ron. You pass a law that says that the SS funding is not to be used except for SS. That means, it is kept out of the US budget and is in a budget of it's own.

[bevin]

The Congress would simply borrow from elsewhere - or print money and cause inflation.

There are two different issues here, both big problems:

1. Congress spends more than it gets outside SS

2. SS as currently structured is not viable once the baby boom retires

/Bevin

[Bravus]

Or, you avoid unsustainable tax cuts and be realistic about revenue and expenses. You ask the people who supported the war to be willing to pay some of the costs now in taxes to avoid having to pay them later in a reduced standard of living in retirement. This is the crux of bevin's point: Congress is spending more than it's earning, and that's what causes the problem. Moving the deckchairs around on the Titanic by moving still more of workers' cash to investment firms to finance a stock market bubble (and the inevitable following crash that will wipe out the workers' savings) isn't the solution. never thought I'd say this, but some fiscal conservatism is a big part of the solution - don't put the next generation so far in hock they'll never get out. And the other part is to levy realistic taxes for the running of the nation. One day, but maybe not for many years, people will finally realise that less taxes is not an inevitable, automatic Good Thing.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

avoid unsustainable tax cuts

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Lesson one in economic theory (you won't get this at Salon or The Hamster).

Tax cuts generate revune by stimulating the economy. This was done by JFK in the 1960s and Reagon in the 1980s. It worked both times. GW Bush has tried it and it seems to be working again. Worste case we can always reverse it. But either way it was certainly not wreckless to try it again.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

You ask the people who supported the war to be willing to pay some of the costs

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

That would be a sure way to cause strife and division. No, the war protects everyone so everyone pays. It doesn't matter if they "believe" in the war or not. The nation goes to war and the cost is distributed to all accordingly to existing tax codes.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Moving the deckchairs around on the Titanic by moving still more of workers' cash to investment firms

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Again, obviously not an economics student. The private sector has a higher rate of return than Social Security. The government is not a safe place for retirment dollars. A well-regulated private sector would be much safer than the government. The marker has always had ups and downs but with a steady flow of Social Security dollars that would be less dramatic. If you don't grasp that I don't have time to give you an entire course on the market forces.

[Bravus]

Some of this is in response to the post that you deleted, but most of it still applies:

I'm not trying to tell Americans how to run their country. I'm making general points about national economics. Actually, my examples of the 'rush to the bottom' in taxation are from Australia and Canada, where I see exactly the same things happening, and exactly the same problems looming. If I'm doing anything in relation to America, it's giving friendly advice about what I see as common-sense principles of economics, whether in the home or in the nation. I'd definitely say the same to John Howard and Paul martin.

It's the act of a friend to give such advice, and then of course it's the recipients' choice what to do with it.

And I'm not sure where the Salon.com reference comes from - I read a range of media, as do you, including some perspectives considerably further right than yours, and make my decisions. Again, I'm not hating on Bush, or pushing any party line, I'm explaining what I see as sensible economic approaches. Feel free to disagree on the economics, but why throw in a gratuitous slap at my reading habits? (and what is the Hamster?)

I agree that the market does better than Social Security over the long term. But the whole point is that Social Security is a shared pool, that spreads the risk. Individual investment accounts are definitely going to mean that some people lose all their retirement savings (well, the pieces outside social security) just before retirement, and it's those people I feel sorry for. Keep the government's hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, and invest it in the markets (well diversified) if you want, to get those rates of returns. But a socialised system is safer for more people.

As to tax cuts stimulating the economy, just the very brief note that tax cuts for the poor do this better than tax cuts for the rich, since the poor will spend it and the rich will save it. Tax cuts for the rich end up as a net transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich - a reverse Robin Hood. But I know this is one where we'll have to agree to disagree. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

And finally, on 'getting people who supported the war to pay for it', I phrased that poorly, and I apologise. I didn't mean a differential charge on supporters versus non-supporters: I agree, that would be divisive craziness. I meant he should ask everyone. Since GWB started the war and they voted him back, he should be willing to go to them now and say 'we started this war, for good reasons, we think it's a worthwhile thing to do - will you agree to not making the tax cuts permanent, at least until we get Iraq sorted out?' If people believe in the cause, they should be willing to get behind it.

I may not be a student of economics, but I know from sad personal experience that living beyond your means is a route to disaster. Money is not magically created, so if the US is to stop living so very far beyond its means, it has to either increase revenue or decrease costs. It's not that complicated. But that's just the friendly observation of a disinterested canuckeroo...

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

This is in response to the post that you deleted

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I misread your post so my response was not appropriate. So I deleted it.

I read Salon.com, The Hamster, Media Matters as well as DrudgeReport and Newsmax.com. So I recognioze stuff that is just being repeated from these sites.

You economic commentary seems to be opinion based. Economics as taught in the school of management I graduated from disagrees signifficantly. Most people and companies that are wealthy are not wealthy because they won life's lottery. They are wealthy because they know how to use money. Thus by giving them more money they will multiply it thus increasing revenues and jobs. It is like Jesus who gave each man so many talents and the man with the most talents produced the most money so Jesus said, "Well done good and faithful servant". BTW, what did Jesus say to the guy with one talant? You know, the poor guy?

[Bravus]

Fair enough, although I'd say 'just quoted' rather than 'just repeated': I used the quotation marks to indicate that the text wasn't my own, but I should have cited it. Maybe a little scared of 'Salon Hate', though! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

And kudos on being willing to delete the tougher post when you re-read: that takes a gentleman!

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Maybe a little scared of 'Salon Hate', though!

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

When some radical conservatives have a fund raiser called "Salon Hate" we can start focusing on that. IMO, Salon and the like are just the other extreame of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hanity.

Contrary to what Brother Neil believes, I didn't pick up the term "Bush Hate" from some radical like Rush or Hanity. I picked it up off from a link to a liberal, Hoolywood site that Drudge had on his site. So it is liberal terminolgoy not from the radical right.

[Bravus]

1) 'Salon Hate' was definitely a joke - me trying to back away with a modicum of grace intact from hassling you about it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

However:

2) I'm sure that's the origin of the term, but it's definitely been pretty thoroughly appropriated by the Right since then. Maybe that's not how you're using it, but it often ends up meaning 'no more discussion, no more dissent, it's just Bush Hate so we don't have to listen any more...'

I think we can agree that *all* governments have problems and make mistakes, since the beginning of time. We can argue about whether Clinton's mistakes were bigger or Bush's are, but what worries me is when *any* description of *any* problem with the current administration gets simply ruled inadmissable as 'Bush Hate'. It makes it impossible for the people to make their views about the government's actions known (not by force but by ridicule), and IMO that's dangerous.

I accept that that's not the way you believe you use the term. But by using it, you do tend to get identified to some extent with those who use it that way.

Anyway, I'm glad we've clarified at least our differences here and can continue as friends. We don't have to have that duel after all (see Town Hall). Just as well for you, mate - I'm pretty darn dangerous with cream pies at 3 paces! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Dr. Shane]

This is my point. There is a lot of Bush-hate among academics (universities) and the media. There is no secret about that. Many journalists are out there salavating at the mouth to become "famous" as breaking a story that brings down the President. This has been the case since Nixon was brought down by reporters.

As consumers of news we should be aware of that. When I read or hear a news story I automatically start trying to figure out what the reporters' bias is - regardless if it is Tony Snow or Dan Rather. Then I try to find a news source which will give me the other side.

The news story now about Bush cutting growth in the budget is a good example. The Left (and much of the Right) has been criticising Bush for wasting the surplus and going on a spending spree and now that he is going to seriously curb growth in the budget the Left is up in arms. They show it doesn't matter what he does. They have a target on him and have him in their scope.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

don't put the next generation so far in hock they'll never get out.

---

Oh, don't worry - they will get out.

[1] Raise wages really high - soak the money out of the retirees that way

[2] Be reluctant to buy stocks/shares/property so that the sellers have to drop the prices

These mechanisms don't require any congressional vote.

Bush just wants more of our money going into the stock market so he and his buddies can get on mgmt fees and other boon-doggles.

No-one seriously believes that having money pulled out of the stock-market by $10M/yr income investment managers makes the rest of us wealthy.

However there are many suckers voting for Bush, and he is such a likeable honest christian man. Like the really good con-artist his is.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

One might use a little more caution when accusing Christian brothers and sisters of such grevious sins. We will have to answer for our words one day.

[]http://www.clubadventist.com/ubbthreads/attachments/151521-judgement.jpg[/]