Re: [CTRL] Surplus! What Surplus?
-Caveat Lector- All Americans- including school kids, retirees, and especially American Workers have been disenfranchised by campaign fund hungry legislators, GATT, NAFTA, WTO and on and on. Their union leaders are dues paying members of the CFR, Tri- Lateralists and Bilderbergers (who utilize their privately owned "Federal Reserve System" to strip the US of it's assets) American workers are placed in the impossible position of directly competing with cheap foreign labor who pay zero US taxes. The tax base in this country is visibly lop sided. While we support half the world economy with our imports, foreign aid, wars, and congressional junkets and bloated government at all levels: A National Retail Sales Tax would help equalize conditions: Many estimate a tripling of the tax base because foreigners live and sell in the U.S. on a free loading basis. If we had a NRST foreign product importers, foreign winter residents, tourists, students, truckers, diplomats would at least pay an equal share! American farmers and manufacturers would be on a more even tax basis with foreign competitors. At least, they would have a chance! With a flat tax, it's just more of the same. A NRST would have zero taxpayer paper work, no records! No one would even care how much you made. No one would know or care how you wanted your estate handled. There would be no IRS files for the further development of a US police state.. CATS studies indicate increased productivity, savings, creation of jobs and almost zero paperwork. April 15th would be just another day! http://www.cats.org/ Consider the number and cost of all of the tax accountants, lawyers, bookkeepers, collectors, and IRS employees that would be able to find gainful and productive work! Take a look at this Economic Policy Institute page"February 19, 1999 Trade deficits, job losses increase through 1998 www.epinet.org/ The merchandise trade deficit rose 25% in 1998, its highest level on record, according to the U.S. Commerce Department report released today. The aggregate U.S. trade deficit in goods hit $248 billion in 1998, an increase of $50 billion over 1997. The Pacific Rim and the newly indust - rializing countries (NICs) hit hardest by the Asian crisis were res - ponsible for about half of the increase, and Japan and China were responsible for another third. The broader goods and services deficit also increased in 1998 by 53%, reaching $169 billion and breaking another all-time record. The International Monetary Fund has recently estimated that the U.S. current account deficit, the broadest measure of the U.S. trade balance, will increase by an additional $57 billion, or 25%, in 1999. Rising trade deficits have already taken a toll on the manufacturing sector, which will continue to suffer in 1999 as the trade gap widens. The manufacturing sector has lost 272,000 jobs since March 1998. The hardest-hit industries include textiles and apparel (90,000 jobs lost), electronic equipment and components (88,000), industrial machinery, including machine tools and construction equipment (54,000), and iron and steel blast furnaces (8,000 jobs lost since June alone). Five thousand aerospace jobs were lost in January 1999, reflecting a 20% surge in airplane parts imports in 1998. U.S. trade deficits with the NAFTA countries increased 6.6% in 1998, for various reasons. The decline in the Canadian dollar, combined with sharply lower rates of economic growth in that country, caused the balance with Canada to worsen. Higher U.S. imports of Canadian grain and pork contributed to the deficit. Growth rates in Mexico slowed sharply in the second half of 1998 due to a steep rise in interest rates following the Russian financial crisis in August. This slowdown clearly reduced the rate of growth in imports from the U.S. Unlike the Canadian dollar, the Mexican peso is overvalued and could collapse soon. If the peso falls sharply in 1999, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico will rapidly widen, as it did in 1995. U.S. job losses due to NAFTA continued to increase in 1998. The U.S. Department of Labor has certified that 216,156 workers have lost their jobs because of either shifts in prod - uction to Mexico or Canada or because of increased imports from those countries. These workers, who are eligible for special NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assist - ance, worked in 1,847 firms in 48 states. The U.S. surplus with the rest of South and Central America is likely to disappear in 1999. Latin America (excluding Mexico) was the only major region in the world where the U.S. had a trade surplus in 1998. The crisis in Brazil the United States most important trading partner in the region will reduce U.S. exports this year. Considering that 9% of U.S. exports went to South and Central America in 1998, this trend, if it spreads through the region, could have a significant effect. The U.S. deficits with China and Japan increased 14% in 1998. U.S. imports from China increas
[CTRL] Surplus! What Surplus?
-Caveat Lector- From: Hilary A. Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [InTheShadows] Surplus! What Surplus? Date: Sunday, January 24, 1999 11:55 AM From: "Hilary A. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -Caveat Lector- Clinton says there "is" a surplus.. (depends what "is" is). Surplus! What surplus? There IS NO surplus. --- by John Crudele, NYP THERE is no federal budget surplus. I'll say it again. There is no budget surplus. Before you even get to the issue of whether the "budget surplus" should be given back to taxpayers as the wishful Republicans suggest, or used to prop up Social Security, as the desperately- impeached President Clinton said in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday, there is a small issue that needs to be taken care of -- there really is no budget surplus. Issue No. 2. There is no way people can be allowed to invest their Social Security money in the stock market. That's because the "money" -- as in cash you, I or the government would turn over to a stockbroker -- also doesn't exist. All right, here I go again trying to explain how our elected officials in Washington are perpetrating a fraud by proclaiming that there is a budget surplus. Over the past year, the federal deficit -- which is money owed by our government -- rose from $5.486 trillion to $5.618 trillion. Those are government numbers right out of Barron's. That means the federal debt climbed by $132 billion. Which means the federal budget DEFICIT last year was $132 billion. There was no surplus of $70 billion, or any other amount, as Washington is claiming. When the economy weakens -- as it always does -- the true deficit numbers will increase. The surplus claim is wrong. It's a fraud. Washington is able to pretend there is a surplus because it has been raiding the Social Security trust fund, which, you have to understand, isn't a pile a cash sitting somewhere in the Treasury. It's really a pile of government IOUs (Treasury bills, really) Washington puts into Social Security in exchange for the cash it steals. And it is our cash that is being stolen. Anyone who pays into Social Security is really unwittingly buying IOUs from a government that might not be able to pay in decades to come. Right now the Social Security system is running a surplus because more money coming in than going out. It's demographics at work -- more employees than retirees. That pleasant situation, however, will not last long. But this surplus belongs to people like me and you, who'll need it to retire someday. So Washington shouldn't pretend that it belongs to the country and part of the budget. The president wants this non-existent "budget surplus" pumped back into Social Security. What does that mean? Washington will steal $200 billion from Social Security (turning a real $132 billion deficit into a $70 billion surplus), so that it can proclaim a budget surplus, then it will return the excess money to Social Security from where it was stolen in the first place. Oddly, that's actually a preferable charade to what the Republicans suggest. At least under the president's plan the "surplus" comes full circle and ends up back in Social Security. Under the Republican plan, you would give away the "surplus" and the money will disappear from the Social Security circle all together. The president, however, is wrong in backing a plan to allow people -- in some form or another -- to invest their money in the stock market. But the endorsement is a shrewd maneuver by a president in trouble. Bill Clinton knew back in 1992 what voters cared about -- the economy and jobs. And it is the worst kept secret in American economic history that the only thing keeping this country's marvelous economy going is the stock market bubble. It's just like Japan's wonderful economy before the bubble burst a few years back. Americans -- like the Japanese -- feel rich because of the stock market. And even though companies are laying off workers faster than they were during the hard times of the early 1990s, Wall Street is keeping people content. I estimate that President Clinton has no better than a 50-50 chance of remaining in office. Those odds go down to 60-40 against his presidency once witnesses are called before the impeachment trial (some day I'll be able to tell you why.) The president can maintain his high rating if the stock market keeps the economy rolling along. But like any other Ponzi scheme, the Wall Street bubble can't continue unless fresh money keeps coming into the market. President Clinton's Social Security proposal would provide a lot of fresh money to keep the market going, which'll keep the economy perking, which will keep Clinton's rating high. It all works quite nicely -- except that the proposal to allow people to invest their Social Security money in the
[CTRL] Surplus, What Surplus?
-Caveat Lector- SURPLUS! WHAT SURPLUS? THERE IS NO SURPLUS By JOHN CRUDELE THERE is no federal budget surplus. I'll say it again. There is no budget surplus. Before you even get to the issue of whether the 'budget surplus' should be given back to taxpayers as the wishful Republicans suggest, or used to prop up Social Security, as the desperately-impeached President Clinton said in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday, there is a small issue that needs to be taken care of - there really is no budget surplus. Issue No. 2. There is no way people can be allowed to invest their Social Security money in the stock market. That's because the 'money' -- as in cash you, I or the government would turn over to a stockbroker -- also doesn't exist. All right, here I go again trying to explain how our elected officials in Washington are perpetrating a fraud by proclaiming that there is a budget surplus. Over the past year, the federal deficit -- which is money owed by our government -- rose from $5.486 trillion to $5.618 trillion. Those are government numbers right out of Barron's. That means the federal debt climbed by $132 billion. Which means the federal budget DEFICIT last year was $132 billion. There was no surplus of $70 billion, or any other amount, as Washington is claiming. When the economy weakens -- as it always does -- the true deficit numbers will increase. The surplus claim is wrong. It's a fraud. Washington is able to pretend there is a surplus because it has been raiding the Social Security trust fund, which, you have to understand, isn't a pile a cash sitting somewhere in the Treasury. It's really a pile of government IOUs (Treasury bills, really) Washington puts into Social Security in exchange for the cash it steals. And it is our cash that is being stolen. Anyone who pays into Social Security is really unwittingly buying IOUs from a government that might not be able to pay in decades to come. Right now the Social Security system is running a surplus because more money coming in than going out. It's demographics at work -- more employees than retirees. That pleasant situation, however, will not last long. But this surplus belongs to people like me and you, who'll need it to retire someday. So Washington shouldn't pretend that it belongs to the country and part of the budget. The president wants this non-existent 'budget surplus' pumped back into Social Security. What does that mean? Washington will steal $200 billion from Social Security (turning a real $132 billion deficit into a $70 billion surplus), so that it can proclaim a budget surplus, then it will return the excess money to Social Security from where it was stolen in the first place. Oddly, that's actually a preferable charade to what the Republicans suggest. At least under the president's plan the 'surplus' comes full circle and ends up back in Social Security. Under the Republican plan, you would give away the 'surplus' and the money will disappear from the Social Security circle all together. The president, however, is wrong in backing a plan to allow people -- in some form or another -- to invest their money in the stock market. But the endorsement is a shrewd maneuver by a president in trouble. Bill Clinton knew back in 1992 what voters cared about -- the economy and jobs. And it is the worst kept secret in American economic history that the only thing keeping this country's marvelous economy going is the stock market bubble. It's just like Japan's wonderful economy before the bubble burst a few years back. Americans -- like the Japanese -- feel rich because of the stock market. And even though companies are laying off workers faster than they were during the hard times of the early 1990s, Wall Street is keeping people content. I estimate that President Clinton has no better than a 50-50 chance of remaining in office. Those odds go down to 60-40 against his presidency once witnesses are called before the impeachment trial (some day I'll be able to tell you why.) The president can maintain his high rating if the stock market keeps the economy rolling along. But like any other Ponzi scheme, the Wall Street bubble can't continue unless fresh money keeps coming into the market. President Clinton's Social Security proposal would provide a lot of fresh money to keep the market going, which'll keep the economy perking, which will keep Clinton's rating high. It all works quite nicely -- except that the proposal to allow people to invest their Social Security money in the market is impossible to enact. Here's why. As I said, there is no cash in Social Security. So if I am allowed to, say, put $10,000 of my Social Security money into the stock market, where is the cash going to come from? Washington doesn't have the cash. And if it does raise cash that'll be put in the market, who is going to supply the cash to pay retirees? Plus, liquidating Social Security's bonds would send interest rates skyrocketing. And
