Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 4th, 2018, 01:46 AM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 151
A Cyclical Boom And Bust

The title of this thread is meant to be redundant.

Cyclical is the latest synonym for Boom and Bust.

B.S. (Before Socialism) the purchasing power of the American dollar was one of the few constants in a changing world irrespective of inevitable boom and bust cycles. Bring back the constant dollar and everything else will take care of itself.

An unstable dollar is the major problem with Social Security. When Eugene Debs, Norman Thomas, and early Socialists envisioned SS they could not possibly have seen that the purchasing power of the dollar would shrink as the welfare state grew in size. Because their concept did not incorporate a defense against an unstable dollar they must have believed that a dollar would buy the same goods and services forever, or at least into the foreseeable future.

NOTE: FDR appropriated Social Security from Norman Thomas (1884 - 1968 ) along with snatching the Socialist Party platform. Thomas ran for president on the Socialist ticket six times between 1928 and 1948. Thomas founded the National Civil Liberties Bureau during WW I which morphed into the ACLU in 1920. Eugene V. Debs (1855 - 1926) ran on the Socialist Party ticket five times; once when he was in prison. Norman Thomas was the Socialist Party after Debs died.

The price of apples is the best example of how the devalued dollar works. One apple sold for five cents before WW I. One apple sold for 5 cents throughout the 1920s, and up until WW II ended the Great Depression. Today, the price of a single large red delicious apple often sells for a dollar or more, and rarely drops below 75 cents despite huge farm subsidies.

Everybody knows about rubber chickens, but how many remember rubber dollars.

When I was a kid, rubber dollars sold for a nickel in some candy stores as a joke. They were pieces of rubber a bit thicker than the wall of a balloon. They were painted to look like a paper dollar. They were the exact size of a dollar bill before they were stretched. Youngsters played with them by stretching them every which way to watch the pictures and print change shape. I will wager that they are collectibles now, and probably worth much more than a paper dollar.

The minimum wage is the best example of today’s rubber dollar distortion.

Socialist economists invented the minimum wage to help those people at the lower end of the workforce. Today’s problem with Thomas’ original minimum wage is that his concept was based on a stable economy. The minimum wage was a valid tool that can be used to help those at the lowest end of the workforce


Economic planners have been defeating the original intent of a minimum wage since WWII ended.

No government economist would ever suggest returning to a stable dollar. Indeed, I doubt if there is an economist anywhere with enough intellect to tackle a constant dollar in relation to the welfare state. As things now stand, the minimum wage is an escalating disaster with Social Security on its way to oblivion thanks to the unstable dollar.

Today’s Socialists/Communists always place the minimum wage at or near the top of their highly-touted list of good deeds. I doubt that it will remain a good deed where the dollar has steadily lost purchasing power from the day Socialism became a political force in the U.S.

The minimum wage, another Socialist gem, also contributes to an inconstant dollar. Had the purchasing power of the dollar remained constant the minimum wage, and Social Security, would be viable economic policies.

Serendipitously, the minimum wage has become a thorn in the sides of Democrats, the heirs apparent to Norman Thomas. As Democrats insist on higher taxes and more federal spending the minimum wage becomes harder to defend. Socialists will never be able to reconcile a minimum wage with Socialism’s tax and spend economic policy.

(Democrats love the rubber dollar because it put collectivism on the up and down escalators at the same time. Taxes on the up escalator and the dollar’s purchasing power on the down escalator.)

Will Democrats ever abandon tax and spend in order to resurrect the relevance of a minimum wage? Or do they abandon the folks at the lowest end of the workforce by disavowing one of Socialism’s good deeds? Or do they ratchet up their drive toward a full-fledged Communist state? Or do Socialists hope they can put everyone on the federal payroll; thereby, eliminating the need for a minimum wage before coming out of Communism’s closet? The answer to every question is obvious.

On the plus side there is no unemployment when everybody is a government slave.

NOTE: It is possible to have a stable economy under Communism. Nobody owns anything, Nobody can buy anything is a stable economy of sorts.

Of course, Americas had individual liberties and a constant dollar under laissez faire capitalism; so why do they need Socialism/Communism to bring them to a stable economy by such a roundabout route?

Incidentally, Social Security is not an entitlement. SS is funded by labor performed. An entitlement is getting something for nothing.

In theory, if you do not pay into SS you cannot collect. In reality, elderly chain migration immigrants who never paid into SS collect a monthly check. Illegal alien children also collect SS benefits as though they were orphaned by American parents.

Social Security should have been a pension play

FDR Socialists were very careful to make SS a required insurance plan rather than make it a voluntary pension plan. Had they done it that way American workers would have the choice of paying into a government-backed pension plan, or buying a private sector pension plan.

A Social Security pension funded by voluntary donations instead of an insurance program funded by forced contributions is the way to go. The more the individual contributes voluntarily during his work life over and above the minimum policy the bigger the monthly payout after retirement. Private pension plans would remain the same.

Naturally, a pension plan cannot include free stuff for strangers as does Social Security Insurance.

Should the sharpshooters find a way to loot the pension plan the new tax code would guarantee pay-outs. I say “new tax code” on the assumption the XVI Amendment will be repealed someday.

Lending SS pension funds to banks at a minimum rate of interest would replace the Federal Reserve. The sheer size of such a pension fund, managed properly, would earn vast amounts.

Unlike Social Security Insurance SS pension funds would be untouchable.

Bankers could not be trusted to handle the savings of millions upon millions of workers; so the Social Security Trust Fund was created during the Great Depression. One of Social Security’s objectives was to separate SS pay-outs from general tax revenues so that boom and bust cycles would not devastate low income Americans every time there was a bust.

SS would have been the first time in history where government tax revenues were earmarked to protect taxpayers. Instead of protection, the Social Security Trust Fund was eventually looted.

This is the dirty little secret concerning Social Security.

In 1967, Democrat President, Lyndon Johnson, along with a large Democrat majority in Congress, took all of the money out of the Social Security trust fund and mixed it with the government tax revenues. What replaced the stolen money? Answer: Nothing but IOUs called G-Notes.

Politicians in both parties saw nothing wrong in stealing the money. That is why they are all very careful to refer to Social Security as a promise to senior citizens without connecting that promise to general tax revenues; hence, SS has to be reformed in order to save it. That line of crap comes from the very people who looted the Trust Fund to begin with.

Unlike general tax revenues in every government throughout history SS was specifically earmarked for the people who paid into it. Ergo, the Social Security Trust Fund had to be looted, corrupted, and finally bankrupted in order to preserve the historical status quo.

Reform and International are the two ugliest political words in the language

Just a few words about the need to reform Social Security before it goes broke. The scam is that 17 workers contributing to one retiree’s benefits when Social Security began. Now there are only three workers ——soon to be two. I want to point out that those 17 workers were NOT supporting an elephantine parasite class; whereas, today’s two or three workers are required to pay into Social Security as well as support an extremely well-paid parasite class that just keeps growing in number. The question is: Which group will take the hit when the bubble breaks? (No sarcastic responses to my question!)

Ask who was forced to pay into SS? Answer: Private sector employees.

Allowing civil servants to opt out of SS was essential in anticipating the day SS is deliberately bankrupted without affecting government employees; i.e., civil servants have their pensions guarantied by general tax revenues in one way or another.

Put every federal, state, and local government employee —— most especially teachers —— into the current SS system with private sector employees and SS will be fully funded overnight.

Individual retirement accounts opened with Wall Street firms used to be touted as a good deal for SS recipients. It was called Privatizing SS. I did have one objection to the sales pitch.

If investing in the stock market was such a sure thing then a substantial amount of the money collected in FICA taxes should be invested in stocks by professional money managers employed by the Social Security Administration —— rather than put individuals at the mercy of Wall Street crooks who will churn millions of individual investor accounts into lucrative commissions.

Labor is converted to money. Taxes are paid with money. The wealthy pay their taxes with the labors of the many. Today’s wealthiest Americans supposedly pay most of the taxes. In truth they receive the most. When you hear a rich guy call for a tax increase he means increase the income tax on private sector working Americans. Proof: If the wealthiest Americans are hurt by taxes they would not call for tax increases.

NOTE: President Trump is full of crap when he says he wants to tax the rich. If he really wanted to tax the rich he would be pushing hard to repeal the XVI Amendment.

Before all of the pension ripoffs were known, I made this comparison to Social Security and parasite pensions. My numbers are close enough to make my case.

I made no allowances for the many parasites who retire years before the age of 65. (A substantial number of government parasites double-dip —— collect two pensions,)

A SS recipient who began work at age twenty and paid into the fund for the next 45 years might collect checks for 10 years before dying. For convenience, I put the payment at $1,000 a month which is higher than the average payout. That comes to $12,000 a year. $120,000 over ten years just to get back money that was worked for. Most people do not live long enough to collect for 10 years. Many pay FICA taxes for decades but die before collecting a check.

I think life expectancy for men is around 74. Slightly higher for women.

Now lets say that an unnecessary parasite dives into the public trough at age twenty, and retires at age 65; living for ten years before dying. I will put a parasite’s average salary at $40,000 a year paid from general tax revenues. Therefore, one unnecessary parasite feeding at the public trough requires more than three times the amount of tax revenues it takes to pay one SS recipient for one year. And the folks in Washington want to fix SS! The country would be better off if they fixed the public trough first.

Sticking with the numbers I selected randomly to keep it simple, the unnecessary parasite’s weekly pay check amounts $1,880,000 in taxes levied on the private sector. I will take a guess and put the parasite’s pension at $25,000 a year since government employees have been allowed to opt out of paying SS. Ten times 25,000 comes to another $250,000. Add that to $1,880,000 and you get $2,130,000. Figure in the lifetime benefits the parasite enjoys and the total will be closer to three million dollars paid from general tax revenues without a parasite ever creating an ounce of wealth.

The numbers holds true on federal, state, and local levels. The lifetime spread between what the parasite collects and what the private sector SS recipient is paid after retiring is approximately 18 times higher for the leech.

Now look at a cut in income. Lets say that two people who were born in the same year marry at age 20. They both work in the private sector at low-paying jobs for 45 years. At age 65 they retire in the same month. Their combined SS incomes amount to $24,000 a year. They have some savings and a modest home so they figure they will be okay if property taxes do not eat them alive.

One month after retiring one spouse dies cutting the remaining spouse’s income in half. Can you imagine telling a couple who feed at the public trough for 45 years that their retirement income will be cut in half if one dies. They need not worry because a survivor’s benefits take care of parasites to the very end. That is not the same as a widow or widower who collects benefits from a deceased spouse’s SS. The survivor can only collect the higher of the two pay-outs.

NOTE: A Social Security Card was never meant to be a form of identity which is what it has become short of a cop demanding “Show me your papers.” (As far as I know there is no law that says you must carry your driver’s license so long as you have one.)

Finally, same sex marriage entitles those “couples” to Social Security benefits. That forces me to support a belief I abhor.
Flanders111 is offline  
Old June 7th, 2018, 03:47 AM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 151
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
In theory, if you do not pay into SS you cannot collect. In reality, elderly chain migration immigrants who never paid into SS collect a monthly check. Illegal alien children also collect SS benefits as though they were orphaned by American parents.
Social Security and Medicare are on the path to insolvency sooner than previously thought, and Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., is frustrated that Congress won’t act to stave off fiscal disaster when the solution seems obvious to him.

On Tuesday, the government announced that on their present courses, Medicare will become insolvent in 2026 and Social Security faces the same fate in 2034. The Medicare projection moves the insolvency date three years closer than the government estimated just last year.

And it’s not just the warnings of impending fiscal chaos. Brat says mandatory entitlement spending once consumed 25 percent of the budget and 75 percent was spent on defense and other domestic spending. Now, he says entitlements gobble up 75 percent of the budget and it already has some people feeling the pain, since far less money is available for other priorities.
Brat: Social Security, Medicaid money soon gone
Posted By Greg Corombos On 06/06/2018 @ 8:35 pm

Brat: Social Security, Medicaid money soon gone
Obama stole the money from Americans who worked for Social Security so illegal aliens could collect MEDICADE:

Obamacare 'robbed' Medicare of $700B, says Huckabee
By Linda Qiu on Friday, August 7th, 2015 at 12:27 a.m.

Obamacare 'robbed' Medicare of $700B, says Huckabee | PolitiFact
The stolen money disappeared down a parasite rat hole. Now they are demanding more. The fact is: Social Security, Medicare, and state program Medicade, would NOT be in trouble if illegal aliens were not given access to every welfare state program the minute they come across the border.

Note that parasites also bankrupt the public education system. Not to worry about that one. Teachers’ unions have their own key to the public trough.

Finally, Mexico is invading this country with an army of illegal aliens. So instead of building a wall president Trump should invade Mexico and make it a bunch of U.S. states. All the Mexicans want to come here anyway.
Flanders111 is offline  
Old June 12th, 2018, 02:31 AM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 151
A great big attaboy to David Neumark for demolishing the Democrat Party’s longest running fraud. Norman Thomas must be screaming bloody murder wherever he happens to be:

A new study from a prominent researcher finds that higher minimum wages have increased poverty in poor neighborhoods, a finding that could shake up the debate over the federal wage floor and slow the liberal push for a $15-an-hour minimum.

The study, led by the University of California, Irvine economist David Neumark and published by the business-backed Employment Policies Institute, finds that, over the course of decades, higher minimum wages don’t reduce poverty in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Rather, the analysis finds that a $1 increase in the minimum wage raises poverty rates and government dependency by about 3 percent.

The report also finds evidence that cash welfare fails to lower poverty.

“The clear evidence here is that the minimum wage doesn’t deliver long-run gains and welfare doesn’t deliver long-run gains,” Neumark said.

Neumark, the director of the Economic Self-Sufficiency Policy Research Institute at the university, is a top expert on the minimum wage, having co-authored a book on its effects and published related research over many years, as well as engaging in academic debates.

The new study, which hasn’t undergone peer review, differs from past research on the minimum wage in that it studies the effects of the minimum wage based on location and over long periods of time.

Most studies on the minimum wage, such as the ones cited by the Obama administration in pressing to raise the federal rate, have studied the impact of minimum wage increases on employment and earnings in a short period after the change.

Neumark’s study instead examines the impact of minimum wage changes over four decades, based on changes between states and at the federal level. It uses data from the Neighborhood Change Database.

It also assesses the impact of minimum wage changes on poverty and public assistance generally, an outcome Neumark said is of interest particularly because of his focus on self-sufficiency.

Neumark emphasized caution about the results, saying that he was trying to open up a new line of research rather than end a debate.

Still, the study weighs against the argument that a higher minimum wage would cut poverty or lessen dependence on public assistance.

It found similar results for cash welfare.

The study also reviewed a third federal initiative: the Earned Income Tax Credit that effectively subsidizes work, giving low-income earners a refundable tax credit. The study did not find evidence that the EITC lowered poverty over the long run, although that finding depended on the exact specification of the model used. In Neumark’s other research, he has found strong positive effects of the tax credit.

Brian Asquith of the National Bureau of Economics and Brittany Bass of the University of California, Irvine helped write the study.
Higher minimum wages increase poverty in poor neighborhoods, study finds
by Joseph Lawler
June 11, 2018 09:00 AM

As the evidence mounts up against Socialism there is enough data to demand that Democrats help the poor by producing a stable dollar:

Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
Socialist economists invented the minimum wage to help those people at the lower end of the workforce. Today’s problem with Thomas’ original minimum wage is that his concept was based on a stable economy. The minimum wage was a valid tool that can be used to help those at the lowest end of the workforce

Flanders111 is offline  
Old June 20th, 2018, 09:31 AM   #4
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 151
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
Economic planners have been defeating the original intent of a minimum wage since WWII ended.

No government economist would ever suggest returning to a stable dollar. Indeed, I doubt if there is an economist anywhere with enough intellect to tackle a constant dollar in relation to the welfare state. As things now stand, the minimum wage is an escalating disaster with Social Security on its way to oblivion thanks to the unstable dollar.

Instead of economic planners Washington, D.C. parasites are planning the future. They could not get statehood so they are going after increases in the minimum wage. It might start at $15 an hour, but it will go up and up until the average parasite will be earning more than the president of the U.S.

D.C. is already a magnet for the wealthiest, the poorest, and every parasite in-between. It can only get worse:

DC Passes Initiative Guaranteeing $15 Minimum Wage By 2026
1:59 AM 06/20/2018
Tim Pearce | Energy Reporter
[DC Passes Initiative Guaranteeing $15 Minimum Wage By 2026 | The Daily Caller
Washington D.C. is entirely dependant on the nation’s productive Americans

Fifteen months Eleanor Holmes Norton was the not the first time, nor will it be the last time, parasites go after statehood:

Democratic Del. Eleanor Holmes Norten, who represents the District of Columbia in Congress, forwarded legislation Wednesday to transform the city from a district into a state.

Mayor Muriel Bowser came to the scam late. D.C. when parasites failed to get their snouts in the public trough when Nutso Pelosi and Dirty Harry Reid were in charge:

Joining Norton was D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, who also petitioned Congress separately to allow D.C. the same rights as any other state.

“We’re 681,000 people. We’re tax-paying American citizens. We send our residents to war. We pay more taxes than 22 states. [They pay their taxes with taxes.] And we’re larger than two of them,” Bowser said.
DC Delegate Introduces Legislation In Congress To Make DC A State
Jonah Bennett
National Security/Politics Reporter
7:36 PM 03/01/2017

DC Delegate Introduces Legislation In Congress To Make DC A State | The Daily Caller
Statehood would give the parasite class a city-state of their own with full representation in Congress should the Democrat Party succeed. Every full-time resident is a pedigreed parasite. They feed on everybody else. They sow no crops; they sew no garments; they produce nothing of value; they live on tax dollars taken from Americans in the fifty states.

NOTE: In 2009 the statehood scam was in the news. I am pretty sure it had something to do with the first full-blown, American-born, parasite moving into the White House a few weeks before George Will’s commentary?

One answer is: Six rows of stars -- the top, third and fifth rows with nine; the second, fourth and sixth rows with eight. The question is: How might the nation reconfigure its flag to acknowledge a 51st state. Or "state."

The question is pertinent, or it would be were Congress inclined to adhere to the Constitution. Both the House and Senate are moving toward pretending, as part of a disgraceful bargain with Utah, that the District of Columbia is a state.

The D.C. House Voting Rights Act will give the District a full voting member in the House of Representatives. The problem is, or should be, that although the Constitution has provisions that allow various interpretations, the following is not one of those provisions: The House shall be composed of members chosen "by the people of the several states."

But the District is not a state. It is (as the Constitution says in Article I, Section 8 ) "the seat of the government of the United States." That is why, in 1978, the District's advocates sent to the states a constitutional amendment requiring that "for purposes of representation" the district would be "treated as though it were a state." Only 16 states ratified it, 22 short of the required number. So the District's advocates decided that an amendment is unnecessary -- a statute will suffice because the Constitution empowers Congress "to exercise exclusive legislation" over the District. They argue that this power can be used to, in effect, amend the Constitution by nullifying Article I, Section 2's requirement that House members come from "the several states." This argument, that Congress's legislative power trumps the Constitution, means that Congress could establish religion, abridge freedom of speech and of the press, and abolish the right of peaceful assembly in the District.

And, of course, Congress next could give the District two senators. Which probably is the main objective of the Democrats who are most of the supporters of this end run around the Constitution. In the 12 elections since the District acquired, by constitutional amendment, the right to allocate presidential electoral votes, it has never cast less than 74.8 percent of its popular vote for the Democratic presidential candidate. That amendment, the 23rd, stipulates that the District shall allocate the number of electoral votes to which it would be entitled "if it were a state." If. Senate passage of the D.C. House Voting Rights Act is assured, partly because under the act's terms, Utah, which has two Republican senators, will be awarded a fourth House seat. The state came close to qualifying for a fourth after the 2000 Census and, because it is growing like Jack's beanstalk, would have been awarded a fourth after the 2010 Census. But why wait for 2012? The Constitution, that cobweb, is all that stands between Utah and instant gratification. So for the first time in 96 years, the size of the House will be permanently increased, by two members, to 437. Last year, as a senator, Barack Obama supported the act, so when it flutters onto his desk, he will sign it, although a veto would seem to be required by the recent oath he swore to defend the Constitution from threats, presumably including Congress.

Still, a freshly minted adjective describes this unseemly handing out, like party favors, of seats in the national legislature: Blagojevichian. He had an unsavory plan for filling one Senate seat for a while. Congress has an anti-constitutional plan for creating two Senate seats and one in the House forever.

When the first modification of the nation's flag was occasioned by the admission to the union of Vermont and Kentucky in 1791 and 1792, respectively, Congress stipulated that the flag have 15 stars -- and 15 stripes. But by the time the second modification was ordered, in 1818, there were 20 states. It was clear -- because of Manifest Destiny, "Westward the course of empire takes its way," etc. -- that the flag was going to resemble the necktie displays nowadays at Brooks Brothers (founded in 1818 ): too many stripes. So the flag went back to 13 stripes, and only stars have proliferated.

When the 51st star is added for the District, Congress should make at least a limited nod to the Constitution by stipulating that the star be bracketed by quotation marks, or have over it a small asterisk. This would be a way of saying: "As if it were a state."
Voting Rights and the 'State' of D.C.
By George F. Will
Thursday, February 5, 2009

George F. Will - Voting Rights and the 'State' of D.C.
Senators from D.C. would quickly join the other Democrats in pretending they are helping the poor, the children, the elderly, etc. As it stands now the rest of the parasite class have their own key to the public purse; while D.C. parasites must go to Congress with their hats in their hands whenever they want more; no small thing when conservatives are in charge. Pure and simple, statehood will give District of Columbia parasites their own set of keys to the public larder.

Finally, incremental minimum wage increases is scary enough, but I break into a cold sweat when I think about the benefits International parasites at the U.N. will enjoy if the District of Columbia gains two Senate seats. And lets not forget two reliable parasite votes in confirmation hearings.
Flanders111 is offline  
Old June 20th, 2018, 11:31 AM   #5
Sabcat's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 27,108

Sabcat is offline  
Old June 20th, 2018, 11:50 AM   #6
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 151
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post

To Sabcat: That is okay. I do not post messages for bumper sticker mentalities.
Flanders111 is offline  

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics

boom, bust, cyclical

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Electric cars an eco bust! roastpork Environment 36 December 19th, 2014 09:23 AM
Trust Goes Bust skews13 Political Humor 11 October 28th, 2014 10:01 PM
Hannity's Health-Care BUST!!! Medicine Man Current Events 9 October 19th, 2013 09:27 AM
Hillary's Bust alias Political Talk 12 July 31st, 2006 10:26 PM

Facebook Twitter RSS Feed

Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.