Socialism, A Scientific Economic Theory (Part IV)

Foolish Thoughts?

Now, with everything I have said about socialism and about liberalism I will only add that our nation is in a fiscal crisis at this time. And when I speak of this I speak of more than our national government. I speak of our State and local governments as well. The debt that these governments have accumulated stagger the mind and politicians are now beginning to understand that they need to get it under control.

Sitting back and watching them struggle with this problem is interesting. We see all kinds of solutions put forth. We see those governments controlled by the left address it from a revenue point of view and those governments that are controlled by the right trying to deal with it from the expenses point of view. Then there are those who are attempting to use both. Which faction will succeed is anybody’s guess.

You can see this same situation on the international scene also. Whole nations, like Greece, seeking a bailout from other nations. And the bailout nations like Germany demanding that Greece address the problem by cutting expenses. Many other nations are facing this same dilemma. France is talking about placing a 75% income tax on some of their citizens.

I will go even farther by asking if it is possible to succeed anymore? Has anyone ever sat down and figured out just how long it would take to pay down the 16 trillion dollar debt of the U.S. national government? Regardless of how you approach this problem all of the people are going to feel the effects in a very real and a very harsh way. Even if you passed a law holding expenses at its present level and raised revenues each year by 10% it still would take generations to pay off the debt. In fact, it would take generations just to get that debt down to a manageable amount in my opinion.

And the thing is we are not even talking of nations that can be said as totally socialistic. We are speaking of nations that believed that socialistic solutions could be used to solve the perceived problems of a Capitalistic society. We are speaking of nations that attempted to augment an recognized imperfect system with programs of another historically recognized failed system with the idea that doing so would result in a more perfect system.

Any unbiased scientist would have to come to the conclusion that this experiment of a mixed society has resulted in a failed experiment. A good scientist would have to come to a conclusion that we live in an universe governed by natural laws. A good scientist would have to come to the conclusion that man cannot bend or break those laws to fit his own philosophy of how life should be.

People need to realize that to be successful in fiscal matters one needs to have control over revenues or over expenses. One or the other is always determined for you regardless if you are a government, business or just a person or family. The nature of economics declares that revenues are always determined for you. That only leaves expenses that are controllable. The problem is that in a socialistic form of an economy expenses are also determined.

Debt is the determinant factor of whether or not you have expenses under control. Lack of control over expenses will always lead to bankruptcy. In a socialistic society bankruptcy will ever be the end result. That is the economic reality of any society.

The idea of a society succeeding in any form of the liberal or socialist mindset is an economic impossibility. The laws of the nature of life will never allow it. And those laws were determined for us. We can only choose whether or not to live in accordance to them. Failure is guaranteed either way. The only difference is the scale of the failures. Only the opportunity to succeed exists. Whether or not a person accepts the opportunities that come his way is up to him.

We haven’t gotten to the point of no return yet but we are close. We as a nation are going to have to make some hard decisions sooner or later and those decisions are going to hurt. It is just a matter of whether we are strong enough to make those decisions and spare future generations of the pain or whether we are to be seen as cowards and leave those hard decisions up to future generations. Either we make those decisions voluntarily or the laws of life and economics will force us to make them. See me for the fool that I am but of this I have no doubts.

Ok, Obama, Let’s Soak the Rich. In Fact, Let’s Take Every Penny They Have. What Will We End Up With?

Think about this. Europe is attempting to solve this problem now and you can see one of the consequences of it in my last post. My only question is how will the people react when the time comes that Congress gets serious enough to deal with the Debt crisis in this nation?

A h/t to The Libertarian Patriot

The Liberal Philosophy is Morally Superior To The Philosophy of the Right.

Foolish Thoughts?

A friend who follows Ayn Rand religiously in her Objectivist philosophy has said that an union was just like a business. And when asked how so he replied in this manner;

“In structure they are much like a bushiness in the sense they have a hierarchy and well defined roles for individuals who perform individual tasks. They “manage”, “invest”, pay “salaries”, “lobby congress”, hold “conventions”, maintain a “payroll”, and other activities that are perceived to be in the union’s rational self interest.”

His words gave my mind food to think upon. Now, if you look at that explanation you can assume that an economic system can be set up using a union type of businesses as the model for all business. And given the intent and purpose of unions we can now imagine what an economic system would be and how it would work as opposed to the current model of business.

It can only be said that Socialism, with an union type of business model is a morally superior economic system to Capitalism with the current type of business model. Why? Well, let’s look at the two models. The current type of business model by the nature of its being places profit above the welfare of the people. History records that Unions came into existence only because of greedy owners of business in their desire to accumulate money at the expense of workers forced a necessity for them. So what does that say about the moral fibre of the current model of business?

Safety was one of the reasons unions came into existence. An union model of business by the nature of its being would place the welfare of the worker above profits. Since its primary concern would be the welfare of the worker it would see that the worker had a safe environment to perform his tasks even if it was at the expense of greater profits. Now, you tell me, is the welfare of the worker or the accumulation of money more important? This is proof that a socialistic form of economic is the morally superior economic system.

The current business model seeks to pay as little as possible to its workers even to the point of forcing those workers into debt in order to feed his family just to create greater profits and make the rich richer. History shows this as one of reasons for the necessity of the existence of unions. We see it now days in the form of sweat shops using illegal aliens as labor. This indicates a need for unions in order to protect these hard working people from being exploited for only one thing, profits. We see it in the outsourcing of jobs today to places where businesses can hire worker for slave wages. Is this the model of moral superiority? I don’t think so.

In an union type of business model this could not occur. Each worker would be paid a living wage so that he could feed his family in a nutritious manner even if it meant that the business would be less profitable. Sweat shops could not exist in this type of environment. This is why this business model is the moral superior model. How can anyone doubt this?

The current business model seeks to maximize its profits by selling its product or services at inflated rates to the consumer and it is done without care as to the impact those prices has on people. We can see this impact as the price of food and gas rise each and every day. The rising number of the poor is proof of this impact. The profit is this business model’s only concern. Is this how a morally superior system treats people?

In an union type of business environment a product would be sold at a fair price to all. This is because it would be recognized that the consumer is the very person who produced that product, the worker. And we must remember that it is the welfare of the worker that is the primary concern of the union model not profits. Isn’t that what morality is all about?

Isn’t that what any society is all about, the welfare of all of its people? If it is then shouldn’t we judge the morality of any society by how it treats the individuals that depend on society for his safety and welfare? If it is then shouldn’t that society through government policies put into practice an economic system that places the welfare of the individual above the greed of profits?

And we should remember, no business has a right to exist. If we recognize this then shouldn’t a society through government policies set up an economic system where businesses realize this and in this recognition realize its privilege and indebtedness to that society by giving back as much as it has taken from society? Wouldn’t that be the best indication of a morally superior system?

Best of all it would be a system without any governmental regulations in the finest tradition a free enterprise system. For why would there be any regulation in a system that places the welfare of the worker above the greed of profit? Regulations are only necessary to prevent abuse and the cause of abuse is greed as a result of placing profits above everything else. And isn’t government regulations the biggest complaint of the right in regards to the current system? As we see it would meet all of Ayn Rand’s criteria of an economic system.

So, my friends, these are but a few reasons why Socialism with a union type of business model is the morally superior Economic system over the morally corrupt Capitalistic form of Economic system that is now in place. And anyone who is an advocate of the current system can only be said to value greed above the welfare of people. Everything he does is done with greed in his heart. He is a person that cannot do anything good for everything he does he does to profit himself and himself alone. And this type of person only deserves to be treated with contempt, should he not?

Can we doubt the moral superiority of the liberal mindset over the morally corrupt mindset of those on the right now?

The Second Amendment of the federal Constitution and Bank of America

Supporter of 2nd Amendment?

Any advocates of the Second Amendment who do their banking with Bank of America might want to read this news about their banking policy. If what the professor is alleging about Bank of America is true it might give you second thoughts about your personal banking policy.
Legal Insurrection

Yup, Let’s Tax the Rich Into the State of Poverty With the Rest of Us

$250,000 a year Family

President Obama and all of the liberals want to force the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. They aren’t paying enough now. That is fine then we’ll all know equality in poverty. But that is fine too, isn’t it, for then everyone will be on the welfare rolls and all income will be distributed fairly and equally. Greed will be eliminated, won’t it? People will be seen as being more compassionate towards the poor, won’t they?

Of course people won’t have any power over their own lives anymore either but that is a small price to pay to create a society where fairness and equality rule. Now where am I going with this? This was an introduction to an analysis of what is happening to that rich family whose income is around $250,000 a year making them in the upper 5% of income earners. As stated,

“The bottom line: It’s not exactly easy street for our $250,000-a-year family, especially when they live in high-tax areas on either coast. Even with an additional $3,000 in investment income, they end up in the red — after taxes, saving for retirement and their children’s education, and a middle-of-the-road cost of living — in seven out of the eight communities in the analysis. The worst: Huntington, N.Y., and Glendale, Calif., followed by Washington, D.C., Bethesda, Md., Alexandria, Va., Naperville, Ill. and Pinecrest, Fla.”
Read the whole article here if you dare

This is your liberal ideology at its best. This is your ideology of compassion working hard every day to bring fairness and equality to our society.

The Government is not God. We Need Economics not Ideology to Solve Our Problems

Anybody who believes that the federal government can continuously add programs and control its spending by taxing the rich can be conned into believing that the government is God.

-UPDATE-

“Now we learn that the Buffett tax the Senate is expected to vote on early next week will make the deficit worse. That’s because both Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats have made it clear that their new “fairness” tax is to offset the revenue loss from another provision related to the Alternative Minimum Tax.

That measure would exempt more than 20 million middle class Americans with incomes as low as $80,000 a year from getting nailed by the AMT. This year’s Obama budget clearly describes their intent: “The Buffett Rule should replace the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now burdens middle-class Americans rather than stopping the richest Americans from paying too little as was originally intended.”

The Joint Tax Committee—the official scoring referee on tax bills—calculates that the combination of AMT repeal for the middle class and the Buffett tax would add $793.3 billion to the debt over the next decade. As Mr. Obama has said, “This isn’t politics, this is math.”
READ MORE HERE

Make Sure You Take All of Your Deductions This Year but…!!!!

Raise Taxes!!! Collect What is owed First

Tax Burdened

Income taxes!!!! As my regulars know grandpa is all for repealing the Income tax amendment and grandpa gave his primary reason here

Now that we are running trillion dollar deficits Obama and the democrats want to raise the tax rate on people in order to address the budget problem instead of doing the sensible thing of cutting expenses like the ordinary folks must do when revenues do not match expenses. Well, grandpa says that before they can justify taking any more money from the people that they should see to it that they have collected all of the money owed in taxes now.

Take for example federal employees. They are paid higher wages than the private sector. Federal employees receive on the average of 50% more than their private sector competition. How much could be saved if they were being paid a competitive wage? Not only are they taking money from the taxpayer they are not paying their fair share of taxes.

Here are some statistics for you to chew on:

• 114 billion dollars is owed by all Americans in taxes, interest and penalties.
•  1.03 billion is owed by postal and congressional employees. That is a 32 million dollar increase from 2009 to 2010.
•  10.6 million dollars is owed by congressional staffers.
•  833970 dollars is owed by white house employees.
•  111 million dollars owed by active duty military personnel.
•  265.1 million dollars owed by civilian military workers.
•  9.3 million dollars owed by Treasury employees.
•  62508 dollars owed by employees of the U.S. tax courts.

Remember, these are the people who are being paid by your taxes that you patriotically pay every year. We must also remember the tax cheats who were caught and some are actually serving time in federal prison for not paying their taxes as reported in an earlier post. On top of that a study shows that almost 15% of the people feel that it is alright to cheat on your taxes. Deliberate tax fraud is what we are talking about.

You can say what you want in regards to taxes but there is no doubt in my mind that taxes is the one expense that people will do just about anything in order not to pay them. Taxes and death may be inevitable but one thing is for sure. You cannot cheat death but you can cheat on your taxes and end up not paying your full share because the government will negotiate the amount that you will be indebted for if caught. Tax lawyers brag about how much they save the taxpayer.

One more thing that you might think about. The government has the power and authority to set the rate of the income tax as high as they want. History has already shown us that it will tax the income of some at a rate of over 90%. what is there to stop them from doing it again? In fact, what is there to stop them from taxing everyone’s income at that rate? I’ll tell you, nothing. A tax on consumption or a sales tax would be a preventative against this abuse of governmental powers.

Now, if anyone can present an argument of why we are better off with a tax on production which is what the income tax is instead of a tax on consumption which is what a sales tax is I’d like to hear it.

budget problems at home? an answer to it guaranteed by the government

Well, folks, if you got budget problems here is your socialistic solution courtesy of the U.S. government.

health statistics: make of them as you will

A recent “Investor’s Business Daily” article provided very interesting statistics
from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization. Read them then ask yourself where you want to live under each of these conditions. For me the answer is obvious.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in “excellent health”:
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%

And now for the last statistic:
Has National Health Insurance?
U.S. NO
England YES
Canada YES

If one understands the principles of business then it is from statistical evidence such as these that one can understand the reason for higher health care costs in the U.S.A as opposed to the Canadian or English System. I guess you could say that the principle “you get what you pay for” is an applicable principle even on the issue of health.