Activism Change

BUSH'S "OWNERSHIP SOCIETY" DECODED: Shift Burden from Rich to Middle Class+Poor

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And create huge deficits. The financial press reports: "Viewers can expect his stated goal to be to make the economy more productive, make the government more efficient and give people more control over their own destinies. "But critics say the plan will shift the tax burden from the upper to the middle and lower classes, while ensuring massive budget deficits for years to come. "…The president has so far offered few details of his plan, and there may be some surprises Thursday night — anything from a reform of the tax code to a call for some kind of national sales tax may be possible.." Neither has Kerry. IF the human race is to avert it’s present, dedicatedly vigorous course towards suicide, a good first step might, just might, be to not to make the psychotic non-sequitor assumption, that anyone who criticizes the Bush fascists must somehow be a "fan" of the Kerry group. Enough said. Kerry has offered extensive details on many proposals. You can download a 250 page "book" which includes many details. You can find more at Johnkerry.com THe press does not cover Kerry speeches in which he goes into details. They have more important matters to bring to us, such as Mrs Kerry saying "shove it," a matter of grave concern to the nation. But that does not mean Kerry has been silent on specific proposals. As to the ownership society, the idea is to get the tax on capital income to zero, meaing that the tax must go way up on labor. THe idea is that there will be a big spurt in growth. It’s central planning. If the govt favors capital, as opposed to labor, we will get more growth. Some people think that markets are better at allocating economic resources than are central planners such as Bush. Those who believe in the market would prefer a tax code which is neutral, taxing labor and income from capital the same. IN that view, the economy itself will send signals as to how much capital should be deployed as opposed to how much labor should be. It’s odd conservatives favor Bush since Bush is, like Fidel Castro, a central planner when it comes to the economy.

Don’t agree with everything above but much of it is accurate. In fact both Republicans and Democrats have a dirty little secret of State Economic Planning through state-guaranteed markets through the now half-trillion dollar military budget. State public planning to get taxpayer-paid things like pharmaceutical drugs and computers (1950s) under state planning via the pentagon…then turned over , as soon as it’s profitable to corporate powers without any ownership given to the people who paid for it — the US taxpayer. That’s one of the more scandelous aspcts, but yes, you’re right, there is no bigger a social engineer than Bush, a central planner than Bush (read up on last 5 years in Cuba’s reforms, which mean now that Bush is the greater of the two in terms of central planning, no joke!) and Bush is the greatest in Class Warfare, as billionaire Warren Buffett puts it: "Supporters of[Bush's tax policies]  like to paint critics as promoters of class warfare. "The fact is, however, THEIR proposal promotes class welfare — for my class" wrote Mr Buffett, who is the chairman of holding company Berkshire Hathaway, world class investor capitalist, billionaire. [emphasis added] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3045391.stm But yes, in terms of class warfare, state central planning, Big Government, anti-family values (cutting aid to children) anti-vet (Bush cut vet’s benefits) and 100 other aspects, the reality is 180 degrees from what the fake-convervative, really statist-reactionary Republican party of today paints on TV. Too bad the Democrats are only "the lesser evil" rather than supporting majoritarian American initiatives like national health coverage like the rest of the industrialized countries on the planet have, but at least they’re not bozo reactionaries endangering the world and our frail economy the extreme way Bush is

Response:

It’s odd conservatives favor Bush since Bush is, like Fidel Castro, a central planner when it comes to the economy.

Conservatives don’t favor Bush, they just hate him less than they hate Kerry. Bush is no more conservative than a typical liberal, he just talks as if he is. The election will come down to which candidate more people vote against. The clueless kooks on the left who have bought into the lies will vote against Bush, of course.  The conservatives will vote against Kerry, of course. The blind party puppets will vote for their prospective puppet masters, of course. For the rest, it’s which is worse.  For some (myself included) neither is acceptable and so will be voting third party or independent.  Most will simply choose the lessor evil or nor vote at all.  Ironic isn’t it, that those are the ones who will decide the election? William R. James

Response:

Most will simply choose the lessor evil

You’re even against landlords? HH

Response:

Most will simply choose the lessor evil You’re even against landlords? HH

That would be leasor evil.:) William R. James

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And create huge deficits. The financial press reports: "Viewers can expect his stated goal to be to make the economy more productive, make the government more efficient and give people more control over their own destinies. "But critics say the plan will shift the tax burden from the upper to the middle and lower classes, while ensuring massive budget deficits for years to come. "…The president has so far offered few details of his plan, and there may be some surprises Thursday night — anything from a reform of the tax code to a call for some kind of national sales tax may be possible.."

Neither has Kerry.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And create huge deficits. The financial press reports: "Viewers can expect his stated goal to be to make the economy more productive, make the government more efficient and give people more control over their own destinies. "But critics say the plan will shift the tax burden from the upper to the middle and lower classes, while ensuring massive budget deficits for years to come. "…The president has so far offered few details of his plan, and there may be some surprises Thursday night — anything from a reform of the tax code to a call for some kind of national sales tax may be possible.." Neither has Kerry.

IF the human race is to avert it’s present, dedicatedly vigorous course towards suicide, a good first step might, just might, be to not to make the psychotic non-sequitor assumption, that anyone who criticizes the Bush fascists must somehow be a "fan" of the Kerry group. Enough said.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And create huge deficits. The financial press reports: "Viewers can expect his stated goal to be to make the economy more productive, make the government more efficient and give people more control over their own destinies. "But critics say the plan will shift the tax burden from the upper to the middle and lower classes, while ensuring massive budget deficits for years to come. "…The president has so far offered few details of his plan, and there may be some surprises Thursday night — anything from a reform of the tax code to a call for some kind of national sales tax may be possible.." Neither has Kerry. IF the human race is to avert it’s present, dedicatedly vigorous course towards suicide, a good first step might, just might, be to not to make the psychotic non-sequitor assumption, that anyone who criticizes the Bush fascists must somehow be a "fan" of the Kerry group. Enough said.

Kerry has offered extensive details on many proposals. You can download a 250 page "book" which includes many details. You can find more at Johnkerry.com THe press does not cover Kerry speeches in which he goes into details. They have more important matters to bring to us, such as Mrs Kerry saying "shove it," a matter of grave concern to the nation. But that does not mean Kerry has been silent on specific proposals. As to the ownership society, the idea is to get the tax on capital income to zero, meaing that the tax must go way up on labor. THe idea is that there will be a big spurt in growth. It’s central planning. If the govt favors capital, as opposed to labor, we will get more growth. Some people think that markets are better at allocating economic resources than are central planners such as Bush. Those who believe in the market would prefer a tax code which is neutral, taxing labor and income from capital the same. IN that view, the economy itself will send signals as to how much capital should be deployed as opposed to how much labor should be. It’s odd conservatives favor Bush since Bush is, like Fidel Castro, a central planner when it comes to the economy.

Response:

And create huge deficits. The financial press reports: "Viewers can expect his stated goal to be to make the economy more productive, make the government more efficient and give people more control over their own destinies. "But critics say the plan will shift the tax burden from the upper to the middle and lower classes, while ensuring massive budget deficits for years to come. "…The president has so far offered few details of his plan, and there may be some surprises Thursday night — anything from a reform of the tax code to a call for some kind of national sales tax may be possible.."       Budget Deficit or YEAR (SURPLUS IN PARENTH)%GDP 1991    $269 billion     4.5   <—-Under Bush Sr.(inherited by Clinton) 1992    $290 billion     4.7 1993    $ 255 billion    3.9 1994    $203 billion     2.9 1995    $164 billion     2.2 1996    $107.5 billion   1.4 1997    $22 billion      0.3 1998    ($69 billion)    0.8     <—deficit turned into SURPLUS 1999    ($126 billion)   1.4 2000    ($236 billion)   2.4 2001    ($127 billion)   1.3<–Surplus inherited by Bush II from Clinton 2002    $158 billion     1.5 2003    $375 billion     3.5 2004    $477 billion     4.2 <—In just 3 and a half years, Bush II turns                                a 127 billion dollar surplus into                                 a $477 billion deficit Privatizing social security into non-social in-security… "Supporters say this could help solve some of the problems affecting Social Security, which some analysts warn could break down when Baby Boomers start retiring at the end of this decade." But critics warn that reductions in payroll tax revenue will drain money from Social Security, which will still pay benefits to those who choose traditional retirement. Critics also say that, by letting individuals gamble with their retirement money, the government will raise the number of financial failures it’ll have to clean up anyway.. Of course privatizing social security WILL make billions of dollars of profits for Wall Street firms. -ED And it will mean the end of the social compact as we know it. As noted i the Progressive back in 1999, those who want to privatize social security want to play games and have it both ways: "If indeed the economy is going to undergo a historically unprecedented slowdown as far into the future as we can see, then the stock market is going to undergo a sharp slowdown, too. You can’t have it both ways. This is not a particularly radical criticism. You can read it in Business Week." They claim the economy’s growth rate will slow down indefinitely in a historically unprecendented way…which if true would mean that Wall Street would suffer a major long term bear market…exactly where they want us to put our life savings and our security in old age. But there’s more. It’s not just that the privateers want a profits bonanza for wall street. Whether the government invests money in Wall Street is (bad as that idea is) a completely separate issue from whether one also privatizes account (that is, gets rid of the ’social’ in ’social security’) Namely, ” The Social Security Act said, "We care if some other elderly person starves. We don’t want that to happen." The idea of putting it in the stock market, though it’s framed in all sorts of fraudulent gobbledygook, is to break down that sense of social solidarity and say, "You care only about yourself. If that guy down the street when he gets to be seventy starves to death, that’s not your problem. It’s his problem. He invested badly, or he had bad luck." That’s very good for rich people. But for everyone else, it depends on how you evaluate the risk. Social Security’s been very effective in that respect. Starvation among the elderly has dropped considerably."  ” (http://www.progressive.org/chom999.htm) = = = In keeping with the "ownership" theme, Bush likely will also call for tax-free Lifetime Savings Accounts and Retirement Savings Accounts, offering further incentive for private saving and investment, which supporters say will spur greater productivity and economic growth in the future. Critics say these plans will shift the tax burden to those who live from paycheck to paycheck, who can’t afford to save. Such plans will also drain tax revenue, with upper-income families able to sock away several thousands of dollars in income, tax-free, every year. Without significant spending cuts to match them, critics say, government debt will rise, which will undercut national saving. "We need to figure out how to help more lower- and middle-income people save for retirement," said Robert Greenstein, founder and executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank that’s frequently criticized Bush’s policies, "not lose large amounts of money by giving people breaks at high-income levels, who already have substantial assets to fall back on." Health "Savings Accounts"?!? Of course despite the fact that close to 70% of Americans favor a choose-your-own-doctor freedom based universal coverage, Kerry is still too timid to go there. Never mind it’s what Europe plus Australia plus New Zealand plus Canada plus Japan have all implemented in one form or another. But really socking it to the weak is Bush’s forte, so his latest whopper is this "savings account" idea; "Critics say they won’t go far enough to fix the serious problem of rising health care costs, and they say the plan will eventually force people out of the safety net of traditional, employer-provided insurance and into the individual insurance market, where some shoppers will have hard going. "If you’re young and healthy, this can work well," Greenstein said. "If you’re not young and healthy, it can be a disaster, and you can end up much worse off than you currently are." Bush also has pushed for the creation of "re-employment" accounts, which would provide money for worker re-training so they can find new jobs as the economy evolves. Critics say more needs to be done to spur job creation in the here and now and to stop jobs from moving overseas. http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/01/news/economy/election_bush_plan/index… = = = = STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT’S GOING ON? = = = = Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org = = = = Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace) And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general)

Response:

Filed under: Activism

Related Posts

• * * * LETTER FROM IRAQI MOTHER TO U.S. MOTHERS OF AMERICANS KILLED IN FALLUJAH
• * * * Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides * * *
• The "W" Effect: Bush's War on Women
• Exposing the Scam of Social Security "Crisis" Peddled by the would-be Privatizers
• FORMER CENTRAL COMMAND GENERAL: BUSH ADMIN "CONNED US INTO WAR"
• Britons' protests 'political tourism'
• 9/11 RELATIVES CONDEMN BUSH 9/11 ADS
• NAFTA COULD COST 150,000 JOBS LABOR SECRETARY SAYS
• * * Bush's Ruinous Economic Plans * *
• Bush Criminal Tactics in Iraq: Holding Women, relatives, as Hostages