Stimulus package and the economy

[Norwiscutter]

Perhaps overly simplistic, but didn't we win the cold war by spending the Soviets into to the ground?

Essentially a war of economic attrition right?

Hard times in Russia for 10 years until they finally started tapping into their natural resources.

The scary question in my mind is that when the government has finally exceeded the capacity of the taxpayer to generate revenue, where will they turn?

Will big government sacrifice their existence once things hit rock bottom, or will they, as a survival mechanism, initiate new deal part II, and start taking advantage of the one thing of value that will remain... natural resources?

[LOGDOG]

Two words: Eminent Domain.

See definition: Eminent domain (United States), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia) or expropriation (South Africa and Canada) in common law legal systems is the inherent power of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or rights in property, without the owner's consent. The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to "public use." The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are public utilities, highways, and railroads. Some states require that the government body offer to purchase the property before resorting to the use of eminent domain

It's already begun in the USA with recent changes to the law.


LOGDOG

[Tom]

You, as a citizen, have all the tools it takes to hold the Government at bay.  We all do.  It's called the vote.  It works in conjunction with people who have the abilities to fill the government positions and not forget that they are first a citizen.

Our problems all begin very simply and the symptom is when WE call the government THEY.   The government isn't THEY, it's WE.

Complacency, greed, lack of knowlege of voters, It's all a reason that the Government runs over the citizens.  We have voters who use the good looks of the candidate to select them for office.  Now how stupid is that?  We have 18 year old students with no life's experiences at all telling the experienced population how the world works instead of using their opportunity to learn how to make the system work.

We have women voting for women, blacks voting for blacks, whites not voting for blacks, blacks not voting for whites, men not voting for women and all manner of incidental personal failures.

We have candidates who don't give a D about the country, the military, the citizens, the Natural Resources, or the country's reputation.  We have citizens who don't give a D about the Candidates who do.

The system will never work as long as individuals bend the system to gain their own personal benifits at the expense of their fellow citizens.  We, as a society, need to quit looking at this as a welfare state and Government money as Free.  We are all in it together and we will all either come out of it together or go down together.   The more disgruntled everyone becomes, the easier it is for another government to take over.  We don't see it because we are used to being strong, the big boys on the block.  But, you let China, Japan, Korea or one of the mid-eastern countries find an inroad and we'll all be speaking another language.

[pigman]

While those that did not have their witholdings set up to hold back enough, get extra $ over those that did. :

Since I am  farmer and had nothing withheld, I should be getting a large check. 8)  But since I have not had nothing withheld, I will be sending the IRS a rather large check before the first of March. :(  I bet the check I will be sending in will be  ten times as large as the  money the IRS will be returning to me. :

[DanG]

Two words: Eminent Domain.

I ain't real sure how that relates to this conversation, but there was an excellent thread about that a couple of years ago.  A little search on "eminent domain" should bring it up for ya.  There is some good reading in there.

[Faron]

Furby, I haven't researched it, but I am wondering since you have paid taxes during the year, if that is not defined as "owing " taxes for 2007.  The question would then apply say to a person who is self employed, shows no profit or a loss, and has not paid any taxes throughout the year, and will owe no taxes come April.  That taxpayer would get the $300.  Not sure about it, but I suspect that might be the case.

I believe we as good neighbors and friends ought to help Furby find a wife.  Maybe post a few pictures of likely candidates for him to pick from. ;D

[Ron Wenrich]

My understanding is that all you have to do is file a 2007 tax return.  It didn't say anything about you having to make money. 

On the plus side, with all the extra tax filers will mean less time for audits. 

[Don P]

I'm like Bob in that regard, I file estimated's. Being in construction I've got money coming back anyway, woohoo :. I had planned on turning the checks over and writing on the back "Cash to IRS" and sending them right on back in for this years estimated payments. Well, I guess it keeps the postal workers employed  :D.

DanG, Logdog's response was to me asking what our collateral was when our dollar and our promise is worthless. I assume at some point our public lands and then all land is forfeited to the holder of our nations dun, people who might not be our friends. And yet here we are taking a chunk out of the bank and going to the mall because we're depressed.

[LOGDOG]

Perhaps overly simplistic, but didn't we win the cold war by spending the Soviets into to the ground?

Essentially a war of economic attrition right?

Hard times in Russia for 10 years until they finally started tapping into their natural resources.

The scary question in my mind is that when the government has finally exceeded the capacity of the taxpayer to generate revenue, where will they turn?

Will big government sacrifice their existence once things hit rock bottom, or will they, as a survival mechanism, initiate new deal part II, and start taking advantage of the one thing of value that will remain... natural resources?

Two words: Eminent Domain.

I ain't real sure how that relates to this conversation, but there was an excellent thread about that a couple of years ago.  A little search on "eminent domain" should bring it up for ya.  There is some good reading in there.

Dang,

  See the above quote for how it relates to the conversation. Norwiscutter asks what happens when the government has exceeded the capacity of the taxpayer to generate revenue? Would they next possibly attach to the natural resources? I found it interesting that in Alaska the majority of the Timber and Mineral rights are owned by the government and the Native Americans. This contributes to the PFD -Permanent Funds Dividend - from which each Alaskan gets a royalty check annually. It's interesting that the majority of Alaskans do not pay property tax, sales tax, or state income tax. I think the revenue's from the natural resources help off set the need for the tax to the people.

  So the question is this: What if the government decided they needed more revenue beyond what the taxpayers are providing and decided by way of Eminent Domain to "purchase by compulsion" the oil and gas interests currently owned by the private sector and devote the revenues from said natural resources to use by the public sector? Follow? The government currently has the right to seize these assets "without the consent of the owner" if they can argue that the asset will serve the needs of the country better and provide more taxable revenue or revenue to the state owned and used in a different manner than it is currently.

   If the government can't get the money from the citizens effectively to balance the books they have no choice but to go to the natural resources - as was the case in Russia as Norwiscutter mentioned.



LOGDOG

[DanG]

I understand what you're saying, but I just don't agree with it.  I don't believe we spent Russia into oblivion.  They merely imploded on their own, partially because of corruption and mismanagement of their government, but primarily because their system took away their people's motivation to advance.  Our role in it was to stop them from taking over other countries to get THEIR natural resources, and to maintain a relatively stable capitalistic economy.  We did spend some money to help and encourage some vulnerable nations resist, but it wasn't us who shot them in the foot.

I still don't think that the Stimulus Package, or any other tax cuts are going to cause our Govt to nationalize privately held assets.  As I've said several times on this thread, I believe the money will soon come back to the Govt through being taxed numerous times as it circulates.

[Warbird]

I believe we as good neighbors and friends ought to help Furby find a wife.  Maybe post a few pictures of likely candidates for him to pick from. ;D

In trying to be a good neighbor, I believe I've found him the perfect wife:

[Jeff]

When I think Stimulus package, that thing would be the farthest thing from my mind I can gar-un-tee!  Giterfurb!

[leweee]

 :D Run Furby RUN......she'd spend you into the poor house. :D :D :D

[pigman]

Whoopi, we found some Goldburg for Furby.

[Gary_C]

I understand what you're saying, but I just don't agree with it.  I don't believe we spent Russia into oblivion.  They merely imploded on their own, partially because of corruption and mismanagement of their government, but primarily because their system took away their people's motivation to advance. 

It is somewhat true that Reagan pushed our military sending and readyness to the point where the Soviets could not keep up and their economy was to the point of collapse. But it was also true that their economy was a failure in every sense. Here is a famous excerpt from Regan's speech to the British Parlment:

the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people

Here is a link to the entire speech. In his speech he details the failures of the Soviet system. It is interesting reading today as we look to elect a new president. It will be difficult to find one as good as Ronald Reagan.

http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/reagan-parliament.htm

[tcsmpsi]

You, as a citizen, have all the tools it takes to hold the Government at bay.  We all do.  It's called the vote.  It works in conjunction with people who have the abilities to fill the government positions and not forget that they are first a citizen.

Our problems all begin very simply and the symptom is when WE call the government THEY.   The government isn't THEY, it's WE.

Complacency, greed, lack of knowlege of voters, It's all a reason that the Government runs over the citizens.  We have voters who use the good looks of the candidate to select them for office.  Now how stupid is that?  We have 18 year old students with no life's experiences at all telling the experienced population how the world works instead of using their opportunity to learn how to make the system work.

We have women voting for women, blacks voting for blacks, whites not voting for blacks, blacks not voting for whites, men not voting for women and all manner of incidental personal failures.

We have candidates who don't give a D about the country, the military, the citizens, the Natural Resources, or the country's reputation.  We have citizens who don't give a D about the Candidates who do.

The system will never work as long as individuals bend the system to gain their own personal benifits at the expense of their fellow citizens.  We, as a society, need to quit looking at this as a welfare state and Government money as Free.  We are all in it together and we will all either come out of it together or go down together.   The more disgruntled everyone becomes, the easier it is for another government to take over.  We don't see it because we are used to being strong, the big boys on the block.  But, you let China, Japan, Korea or one of the mid-eastern countries find an inroad and we'll all be speaking another language.

Unfortunately, from what I've seen, the candidates who do most appropriately seem to have the Constitutional/Moral venue of the nation at heart, won't get the corporate funding which would put them in the 'real running' of more corporate directive tunedlackeys candidates.

And, unless one has the advertising capability of the Big Mac, folks see the candidate as 'inadequate'.    Then, the few folks left who might see through the facade go and vote on another popular candidate to 'cancel the vote' for the one they see as less than desireable.

Then, the little guy down there, who truly has the capability and proper heart of the matter,  poofs into oblivion, and, there we are, once again with a smiling nincompoop, nodding their head to the public, and listening to the corporate directive in their ear. 

[Tom]

And, unless one has the advertising capability of the Big Mac, folks see the candidate as 'inadequate'.    Then, the few folks left who might see through the facade go and vote on another popular candidate to 'cancel the vote' for the one they see as less than desireable.

In the words of that famous physician, Archy Campbell, when told "It hurts when I do that", he replied, "Well, Don't do that". :D

[tcsmpsi]

The Zen of Politics

                               

[Tom]

If voters were of a mind, they could make Politicians go stand in the corner.

[Roxie]

tcsmpsi........ :D :D :D :D :D

I agree with Tom...write a letter, send an email, make a phone call...it makes a difference!

The biggest contribution is your vote, and not just in the big elections.  Even votes for the school board, auditors and judges should be well educated and researched votes. 

[tcsmpsi]

I could probably go all one winter heating with nothing but 'thank you for your concerns' letters from politicians.   Which would be their most worthy attribute.

[LOGDOG]

I understand what you're saying, but I just don't agree with it.  I don't believe we spent Russia into oblivion.  They merely imploded on their own, partially because of corruption and mismanagement of their government, but primarily because their system took away their people's motivation to advance.  Our role in it was to stop them from taking over other countries to get THEIR natural resources, and to maintain a relatively stable capitalistic economy.  We did spend some money to help and encourage some vulnerable nations resist, but it wasn't us who shot them in the foot.

I still don't think that the Stimulus Package, or any other tax cuts are going to cause our Govt to nationalize privately held assets.  As I've said several times on this thread, I believe the money will soon come back to the Govt through being taxed numerous times as it circulates.

Don't misunderstand me DanG. I wasn't saying that we spent Russia into oblivion so much as I was refering to their inability to raise money from the population base by way of taxes simply because the people live in poverty. Two extremes there for the most part - very wealthy and very, very poor. So if you can't tax them to raise money for government you have to get the money from somewhere else. This would include oil and gas revenues, timber, etc. You can bet that the majority of those assets are owned by the government.

Living in FL you no doubt have heard firsthand of the eminent domain issue and it's effect on Floridians. That was happening prior to the stimulus package so I definitely don't think the stimulus package or any other tax cuts would be the cause of it. However, overspending and fiscal irresponsibility - oh and greed  ;D -  can, does, do, will make the US Gov't trample the rights of a landowner by a forced aquisition of their property.  :-\ The only reason I brought it up though was to answer Norwiscutters question about how a government can raise money when they exceed the ability of the taxpayers to pay.

LOGDOG

[Ron Wenrich]

The way the government gets more money than they get in taxes is by floating bonds.  They've been doing it for a long time.  Even you state and local governments do it when they don't have the cash.  It has nothing to do with eminent domain.  The US has been able to find buyers, thanks to our export of US dollars for goods.  The dollar remains stable, although it has eroded vs other currency in the past few years. 

The problems that arise from floating bonds is pretty minimal.  The US is still the best market in town.  Wreck our economy and foreign investors would wreck their own.  Assured mutual destruction, the same as the nuclear deal during the Cold War.

The problem with the eroding dollar and exporting our wealth for goods is that we no longer have a competitive edge.  If a foreign concern wants any information about a certain technology, all they have to do is buy the company.  Such are the ways of the free market system.

The number one holder of US debt is Japan.  China is second, but at half the amount.  After that comes a lot of European countries.  If the US were vulnerable about paying debt, do you think these countries would be investing in the US?

[scsmith42]

DanG, regarding the end of the cold war, as I recall we spent the funds necessary to get 1 - 2 generations beyond the Soviets (in terms of military technology), and to do so involved spending around 10% of our GDP (Gross Domestic Product).  That 10% was, of course - obtained through taxes, bonds and the usual government funding.

After that, we "leaked" information about our developments to the Soviets, so that they would realize just how far behind there were technologically.  Gorbachev realized that they were already spending close to 50% of their GDP to try to keep up with us militarily, and that they were now 1 - 2 generations behind, and to try to catch up would totally bankrupt their economy and he'd be looking at massive civil unrest.  So he started making changes.

So yes, we did "outspend" the Soviets and that's one of the major contributors to the end of the cold war.  It is a philosophy that was developed by the Reagan administration, and he did not stray from it during his time in office.  As a matter of fact, not wanting to lose focus on the eventual goal is one of the reasons why Reagan did not take major steps (other than public condemnation) during the Soviet shooting down the Korean Air Liner incident.  All of his advisors counseled some type of retribution or reaction, but Reagan refused, explaining that he felt that the world would rightly condem the Soviets for their act of barbarism, and that he did not want to lose sight of the long term objective re the USSR, and to take some type of steps beyond public condemnation would only prolong that timeframe.

It is also worth noting that the weapons systems that Reagan funded production of, had the R&D done during the Carter administration.  Although Carter would not fund the production, he deserves credit for funding the R&D, because that provided Reagan with the foundation necessary to take things to the next level.

When questioned regarding if the changes happening in the USSR were real, one of the former Soviet Foreign Ministers made a comment to Colin Powell that Gorbachev was the first lawyer that was running the USSR since Lenin, and he was the first leader to question the military as to why they needed a new weapons system simply because the US had one.

[Faron]

It is interesting to note that we are fixin to shoot down one of our own spy satellites with the technology the left ridiculed as "Star Wars" 20 some years ago.   8)