Post #179,174
10/13/04 6:32:51 PM
|
Economists against John Kerry
[link|http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/release_bc04_economists.html|For those who believe in economists]
Excerpts:
We, the undersigned, strongly oppose key aspects of the economic
agenda that John Kerry has offered in his bid for the U.S. presidency...
John Kerry boasts that his economic policies will lead to the creation
of 10 million jobs in his first term as president. As Martin Sullivan
wrote last April in the strictly non-partisan Tax Notes, no one "has
presented any analysis to relate the Kerry plan to the creation of 1
million jobs, much less 10 million jobs." In fact, we believe Kerry's
proposals would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress
productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive
internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and
real wage growth...
All in all, John Kerry favors economic policies that, if implemented,
would lead to bigger and more intrusive government and a lower standard
of living for the American people.
I say:
I don't know from the economic theory mumbo jumbo. But if we don't
win the war against Islamist terror, we won't have an economy to worry
about.
Oh, and could we please drill in the ANWR and reduce our dependence on
foreign oil? Thank you very much.
[link|http://fnmarlowe.blogspot.com/2004/10/economists-against-john-kerry.html|COmment at blogger.com]
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/kerry.html#20041013|Angelfire link] (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)
----------------------------------------------------------------
I will not rate.
Lucy Ramirez please pick up the white courtesy phone.
Kerry is a liar and he doesn't tolerate fights from others.
"All the news you wish would go away"
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
|
Post #179,179
10/13/04 7:27:45 PM
|
The dismal science strikes back.
[link|http://economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3262965|http://economist.com...?story_id=3262965] In an informal poll of 100 academics, conducted by The Economist, Mr Bush's policies win low marks. More than 70% of the 56 professors who responded to our survey rate Mr Bush's first-term economic policies as bad or very bad. Fewer than 20% give positive marks to Mr Bush's second-term economic agenda, and almost six out of ten disapproved. Mr Kerry hardly got rave reviews either, but his economic plan still fared better than the president's did. In all, four out of ten professors rated Mr Kerry's economic plan as good or very good, but 27% gave it negative scores.
[...]
Despite their diverse assessments of today's economy, the professors are overwhelmingly critical of the central plank of Mr Bush's economic policy\ufffdtax cuts. More than seven out of ten respondents say the Bush administration's tax cuts were either a bad or a very bad idea, and a similar proportion disapproves of Mr Bush's plans to make his tax cuts permanent. By contrast, Mr Kerry's plan to roll back the tax cuts for people with incomes over $200,000 wins the support of seven in ten of them. (This poll was taken before October 4th, when Mr Bush signed into law his fourth tax cut, which extended several popular components of earlier tax cuts that were due to expire at the end of this year, including the child tax credit.)
[...]
Health care also seems to be an issue that pushed our economists towards Mr Kerry. More than 70% of the academics reckoned health-care costs were a serious problem for the economy\ufffdand they preferred Mr Kerry's plans to control those costs by a margin of 59% to 25% (with the rest ducking the question). It's not all happiness and light for Kerry, though: One area where the economists clearly favour Mr Bush is trade. Mr Kerry's ranting about outsourcing has irritated economists: a huge majority dismiss outsourcing as either a small or non-existent problem, and almost 60% give Mr Kerry's trade policy a bad or very bad rating. Although they are plainly not wild about Mr Bush's record on trade, they back him by a margin of almost two-to-one to do more to help free trade and globalisation than Mr Kerry would. Not exactly a left-wing rag, The Economist. Anyway, economists are like statisticians. Anything can be done with the numbers. Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #179,181
10/13/04 8:14:38 PM
|
Not a rag maybe
but it isn't centrist or right.
I like the Economist for the most part...even with that in mind.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #180,095
10/20/04 12:08:52 AM
|
Major Economic Problems in the U.S.
Concentration of wealth in the U.S. is very high.
Much of this has been caused by the dilution of inheritance tax through the use of trusts.
As the rich get richer, they have less sympathy for those of us struggling.
I'm all in favor of a capitalist economy when there are a large number of competitors in each market. However, this is no longer the case, and even our "new" market called computers (hardware/software) is rapidly becoming a den for lawyers, and pushing the real creativity of the industry to other countries.
If the inheritance tax were extended to trusts, then each generation would have to earn their money honestly and we would have a large fund to draw from to pay things like Social Security.
I want $1 a gallon gas tax. The funds from this should go toward alternative energy source development.
I want punitive damages from lawsuits to not go to the "harmed" individuals, but set up as a healthcare support fund for the poor.
And I want my taxes to go down while the rich pay more.
20% Federal Income Tax
8.25% Sales Tax
25 cents a gallon gas tax
Most new roads are now funded by tollroads.
And 1/3 of my mortgage, taxes, and insurance is tax. (33% of my payment is taxes)
16% Social Security (both sides)
and about 4-5% Medicaid.
(and I know I'm missing some, but I do live in TX, so no state income tax)
I'll bet my total tax rate is close to 50% now. My guess is that most of it is going to pay interest on the federal debt, because most new initiatives appear to be "pay as you go".
Whether Kerry or Bush gets elected, I think my investment strategy is going to shift to gold/silver, as the dollar declines, the payments on the federal debt cripple our economy, and interest rates soar on the dollar's decline.
Glen Austin
|
Post #180,156
10/20/04 3:06:07 PM
|
Not metals
Gold and silver are historic sustained value, you can buy the same items with a gold coin that you could buy 100 years ago, but they are not growth markets.
if you need to earn not just sustain capital find something else.
regards,
daemon
|
Post #179,183
10/13/04 8:37:28 PM
|
Well the terrierists havnt killed as many people as hookers
have infected people with aids last year so I guess its still a nuisance, but by all means lets drill our own oil now.
regards,
daemon
|
Post #179,478
10/15/04 6:52:58 PM
|
Ever try being honest in your posts?
Your subject line: "Economists against John Kerry"
Your opening line of "support" for this title: "We, the undersigned, strongly oppose key aspects of the economic agenda that John Kerry has offered in his bid for the U.S. presidency.."
They're not opposing Kerry, they are opposed to an economic plan that John Kerry is supporting. See the difference?
lincoln
"Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times
[link|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net|contact me]
|
Post #179,479
10/15/04 6:53:50 PM
|
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
|
Post #179,482
10/15/04 7:11:18 PM
|
Hrm.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #179,511
10/15/04 11:31:36 PM
|
dont worry, if kerry wins in 3 years he will be posting
We have to re-elect Kerry, the (insert repo here) is a liar, and afraid of terriorists and will get us bombed because the ex neocons, now firmly neodem(neo=democratists) have all the facts to show that the Duchy of Grand Fenwick has WMD's and must be invaded immediately!
regards,
daemon
|
Post #180,093
10/19/04 11:55:10 PM
|
Alternative Energy
What ticks me off about the Bush administration, though, is that the Republicans (heavily funded by oil big wigs), have kept the alternative energy policy laws which subsidize fuel cells, windmill electric generation, etc. tied up in committee, and so we continue dependence on oil.
T-Boone Pickens drove a Cadillac with two CNG tanks. Lots of natural gas left in the U.S.
So, what's our problem? We are owned by big oil.
Glen
(really wanting to figure out how to build the generating windmills WITHOUT the subsidy, economically)
|
Post #180,098
10/20/04 12:24:14 AM
|
I'm too lazy to Google.
These are my off-the-cuff thoughts. Subject to revision, of course. :-)
I think we import a lot of natural gas from Canada and elsewhere. CNG is a good near-term transportation fuel as it pollutes less than gasoline and it's relatively easy to convert gas engines to use it.
Wind has a problem that the power density is pretty low. You need big farms of windmills to get a significant amount of power out of them. Similarly with solar cells. Neither are very good for powering transportation.
Fuel cells are still years away, partially because they often use expensive noble metals as catalysts.
Hydroelectric power is probably the friendliest renewable power source except for the tiny problem that it usually requires daming a river. :-( If there were more sites like the Bay of Fundy it might be easier to get hydro power without the environmental problems. It's also not very good for powering transportation.
There are other ways to get power without burning stuff. For instance, years ago one of the big US defense contractors (Lockheed?) had plans for making power plants that would be in the deep ocean. There would be a very long heat pipe in the plant that would stretch from the warm surface waters to the cold, deep ocean waters. A metal that has a temperature difference will have a voltage difference generated and thus you can get electric power from it. (The thermoelectric generators that Boxley likes work this principle with the heat supplied by radioactive decay.) An obvious problem with such a plant is getting the power from the plant to the power grid...
For powering transportation, burning hydrocarbons is going to be important for a while. Hybrids are going to push up fuel efficiency. I would think that the natural progression would be a turbo diesel hybrid - if the pollution issues can be addressed for a reasonable cost.
It's an important problem. It's a shame that the two Skull and Bones Yalies won't address it seriously.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
