Posts tagged ‘Free Market capitalism’

December 23, 2011

Tax the Young – Since the Democrats can no longer Tax the Rich – to Pay for the Social Security Defunding Credit

Privatize Social Security "Make the Poor Wealthy"

Privatize Social Security "Make the Poor Wealthy"

Lost in Beltway wrangling over a payroll tax cut, an ugly reality lurks: Our politicians are plotting yet another raid on the Social Security “trust fund,” which is already near insolvency. When will this madness stop?

President Obama and his congressional Democrats know well how bad their spendthrift reputation is among voters as election day approaches. With Obama at sub-50% approval numbers and Gallup reporting Congress clocking in at a record-low 11%, they expect a bloodbath at the polls in November — and maybe another slashed debt rating, too.

What then could be better for Democrats than to be able to claim that deep down, they’re tax cutters, too? Just like Republicans — whose corporate tax cuts in 1982 led to an unparalleled decade of economic growth.

But Obama and his Democrats don’t want to direct any tax cuts toward investment for long term growth — as corporate tax cuts do — but to hand them out to taxpayers like party favors in the hopes it’ll pay off come November. It’s a political game, but they have few other options aside from cutting spending.

But there’s a big catch: The payroll tax cut they seek is nothing more than taking cash from the back pockets of taxpayers and handing it to them up front.

The supposed payroll tax cut, as blogger Don Surber has noted, is a Social Security tax cut that comes through the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

That means the tax cut will be achieved by taking $120 billion from the Social Security “trust fund.”

Instead of getting rid of a bureaucrat or a thousand, the idea is to simply raid the Social Security trust fund one more time, hastening the day it goes bust.

Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast

As if it’s not in bad shape already.

Sure as the sun comes up in the morning, the Social Security trust is already bankrupt, as demographic decline means less payroll taxes coming in for ever more retirees. By 2036, there won’t be a dime in it, and the only money to pay a growing field of retirees from a shrinking pool of workers will be from those workers’ contributions. The payroll tax cut proposed by the Democrats will only make that day come sooner.

So let’s call it what it is: A tax hike on the young to pay those already working, with the added kicker of an empty pot at the end of the Democrat rainbow.

via Payroll Tax Wrangling Is All About Raiding Social Security Trust Fund One More Time –

October 21, 2011

What has greed done for you lately?

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Dedicated to the Occupy Wall Street Protesters.

Donahue: When you see around the globe the mal-distribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries, when you see so few haves and so many have-nots, when you see the greed and the concentration of power, did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed’s a good idea to run on?

Friedman: Well, first of all, tell me is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy; its only the other fellow who’s greedy.

The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear: that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.

Donahue: But it seems to reward not virtue as much as ability to manipulate the system.

Friedman: And what does reward virtue? You think the communist commissar rewards virtue? You think a Hitler rewards virtue? You think – excuse me, if you will pardon me – do you think American presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout? Is it really true that political self interest is nobler somehow than economic self interest? You know I think you are taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us? Well, I don’t even trust you to do that.

August 11, 2011

The Cycle of Marx: Why the economic policies of the Democrat Party contribute more to poverty than Free Market Capitalism?

Jeffers M. Dodge, President of

Jeffers M. Dodge, President of

By Jeffers M. Dodge 7-25-11

The question is, why does the economic policies and theory promoted by the Democrat Party contribute more to increased poverty rates even though they claim their proposal’s intentions are to the contrary? My conclusion, after examining the facts, is that there is a correlation between the size of government and the increase in poverty levels. Here is a summary of my logic stream I call “The Cycle of Marx,” which is: The bigger the Government the more it costs; thus the more it prints, borrows and taxes; thus the decrease in the value of the dollar; thus an increase in inflation; thus the increase in poverty; thus the shrinkage of the tax-base; thus the more dependency on big government; thus the need for bigger government… and the Cycle of Marx repeats.

We all know that the Republicans advocate for smaller, less intrusive, less expensive government, while the opposite is true for Democrats. This is why I use the term Big Government throughout this article.

We all know that Big Government gets its operating capital through taxation of both business and individuals (the producers of wealth) in the private sector. And we all know that when taxation is not enough, Big Government makes up the difference by borrowing and/or printing money.

We all know that when Big Government raises taxes on businesses this additional expense is passed through to consumers in the form of higher prices, which means less people can afford to purchase its products and services. This is called double taxation and is a root cause of monetary inflation and resulting poverty. If small business want to compete they will have to cut down on other expenses such as salaries, hiring new employees or future capital investments, marketing or advertising, not to mention cutting corners, compromising quality and public safety. These taxes are anti-growth and anti-competitive Big Government policies.

We all know that small businesses would rather use the money Big Government takes to expand their markets or develop new products. This is how jobs are created, and this is how the tax-base is expanded. The net effect of an expanded tax-base is an increase in income tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury. Our politicians should be doing everything in their power to enable small businesses to grow and compete. Their campaign promises should be about bringing jobs back to their districts not federal stimulus money.

We all know the value of the dollar is negatively affected by the increase in printing, borrowing and taxation by Big Government. The more money Big Government prints means there is more money in circulation, which means the less value it has. The more money Big Government borrows the less there is for the private sector therefore creating an increase in demand for loans which always causes interest rates to rise. The more money Big Government takes out of the economy by taxation the less money there is to spend on consumer goods or new homes or invest in a new business. All of this contributes to the lower value of the dollar, which is a primary cause of inflation that results in the high cost of food and fuel, and a resulting increase in poverty.

Therefore, inflation is a measure of higher prices caused mostly by Big Government intervention and to a lesser extent, natural causes such as drought and supply interruptions.

We all know that prices are set by the Free Market, which is controlled by millions of consumers making billions of transactions every day and not by greedy CEO’s. We all know that Democrats would like to set prices and plan our economy so they can construct their utopian fantasy for what they think is in our best interests. Now this brings me to a question that compares the two competing institutions that affect our economy, private business and Big Government. What is the difference between positive greed and negative greed? What is the difference between greedy big government politicians and greedy CEO’s? The primary purpose of the politician is to get reelected. They do not create wealth. They go to extraordinary measures to look for ways of taking wealth from the successful and redistributing it to people who are not, to buy their votes. CEO’s are owners of bakeries, coffee shops and gas stations and they go to extraordinary measures to find ways to get people to buy their product. They create wealth. Which one uses positive greed and which one uses negative greed?

We all know that poverty is measured, and the poverty threshold is set by the affordability of food and fuel and other necessities in relation to individual income. (note: the poverty rate, currently at 14.3%, has increased every year since the Big Government Democrats took control of Congress in 2008 and has a direct correlation to the size of government. A family of 3 that earns less than $18,310 is considered to be living in poverty. (This income is impossible to sustain the most meager of budgets in large metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles and New York).

We can conclude that the bigger the government becomes, the poorer Americans become.

To further support our conclusion, it is a fact that the poorer Americans become, the more they become dependent on big government. It is also a fact that the more people that become dependent on Big Government, the bigger the government must become in order to service those dependents, and the ‘Cycle of Marx’ starts again.

Looking at the Democrat agenda, policies and campaign promises, we see that bigger government is a primary goal of theirs. This sits well with their primary supporters, the groups who need the government to grow in order to assure their security: government workers, plus poor and un-established people who are or want to be dependent upon government largesse and some wealthy individuals that feel guilty about their riches which may or may not have been earned. I have a very liberal family member that told me that “Rich Liberals are really Conservatives that feel guilty about their wealth,’ and I added “and their sins.”

The consequence of the support these groups give to Big Government Democrats is that Big Government is rationalized as a counterpart to, and therefore competitor of, American business. But it is, ironically, American business that can free the poor and un-established from dependency and set them on the road to financial independence, by giving them jobs.

This is the pretzel logic of the Democrat. This is how they survive. Even with the historical knowledge that they cannot succeed, they express noble goals and institute huge programs to justify Big Government. But their success is not the same as our success. Their success is defined as a bigger government with more people dependant upon THEM. It does not matter how many people become poorer it just matters how many people become beneficiaries of Big Government handouts, like children upon their parents. So what is it that the Democrats gain? Their voter base expands as the number of capable self-reliant Americans decreases. They may win at the polls, but Americans lose in every aspect of our society.

Self-serving, Big Government Democrat ‘dependency programs’ have never worked and always chip away at our liberties and freedoms and ultimately our constitution, which are the roadblocks to their success. Yet the programs never disappear, they are vigorously defended and maintained with the one principle that is the hallmark of their utopian future – hope; the hope of some future success, even as historical facts and mathematics predict future failure.

When confronted with past failures of these programs and policies, Big Government Democrats are unwilling to acknowledge failed results. In fact, their only response, as of the past few years, is the demonization of anyone who challenges them. Ignore the message but kill the messenger.

In the meantime, under Democratic control, not only does America become poorer and weaker, there is another destructive consequence of their self-serving Big Government policies that has become painfully apparent; our international enemies have become stronger and more emboldened to threaten us and our allies… but we will leave that debate for another day… as the ‘Cycle of Marx’ continues.

But only as long as we let it.

Jeffers M. Dodge 7-25-11

%d bloggers like this: