¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Responder
Acero
guerrillerovengador
Mensajes: 2,507
Registrado: ‎05-07-2004
0 Kudos

VENTAJAS DEL SOCIALISMO

CUIDADO MEDICO GRATIS
EDUCACION GRATIS
SIN CAPITALISMO
 
ESTADOS UNIDOS SUFRE LAS DESVENTAJAS DEL CAPITALISMO.  SE ENGOLOSINO Y LUEGO COLAPSO.  DIGANME COMO ESTA CUBA? COMO ESTA CHINA? COMO ESTA VIETNAM? COMO ESTA KOREA DEL NORTE? BIEN GRACIAS!
Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: VENTAJAS DEL SOCIALISMO

LA DEPRESION PROVOCADA POR OBAMA SERA SEGUIDA DE HIPERINFLACION

OBAMAINFLATION: COMING NEXT YEAR

By D..ick Morris
FrontPageMagazine.com | 3/5/2009

In the last five months, according to the Federal Reserve Board, the money supply in the United States has increased by 271 percent. It has almost tripled.

Have car sales tripled? Home purchases? Consumer spending? Corporate investment? Not only have they not tripled, they have all declined more sharply than they have since at least the recession of 1981-82, and perhaps since the Great Depression.

So where is the money? If it isn’t being spent, where is it?

It is being parked, squirreled away. Consumers are using it to pay down their credit card balances, pay off their mortgages, reduce their student loans, make the payments on the car sitting in their driveway — not the one in the dealer’s lot. Businesspeople are buying T-bills, investing the money and saving it. They aren’t spending, either.

But one day this recession — despite Obama’s best efforts — will end and things will begin to look up again. Then we can expect all of this money to come out of its parking space and get back on the highway of commerce. All at once. The inevitable result will be double-digit hyperinflation.

Since the spending and borrowing splurge is not confined to Washington, but is being mimicked all over the world, the inflation will not strike just one country but will be global in scope. The first global inflation in our history (except, perhaps, right after World Wars I and II), it will confront our policymakers with yet another unprecedented challenge and send them back, once more, to their economics texts. There, they will find that the only remedy for global inflation is global recession, a la Paul Volker. Having just emerged from a ruinous depression, nobody will be in the mood for more unemployment, but that is just what will have to happen to cool off the inflation and break the inflationary psychology that is likely to set in.

The point of this gloom and doom is that all this pain is entirely preventable. It will be caused by Obama’s excessive spending and trillion-dollar-plus deficits. This spending, of questionable utility in overcoming the current recession/depression, is so far out of line with what the economy can handle that it will do more harm than good when the inflation hits.

Proof that his spending will have little impact on the depression is the vast increase in money supply with no commensurate improvement in the economy. Providing money, via spending hikes or tax cuts, does not guarantee that the money will be spent. Tax cuts can be saved and spending increases, while surely spent once (on the initial project), can rapidly lose their multiplier effect as wage-earners on the government payroll bank their money just like those who get tax cuts will do. Getting out of this economic mess depends on consumer and business confidence, a faith that Obama is eroding with his looming tax increases as rapidly as he tries to kindle it with his excessive spending.

None of this should come as any news to Obama. He likely knows all this. But he is determined to pass his agenda of bigger government, nationalized healthcare and vastly greater spending even at the price of inflation and subsequent recession. He puts ideology first and the economy a distant second.

The stock market has figured out his priorities and is responding accordingly. One can only hope that voters also eventually realize what is going on.

Junior
stusert3w457d
Mensajes: 97
Registrado: ‎09-18-2007

Re: VENTAJAS DEL SOCIALISMO

pues vete a vivir a china a viet nam o a cuba para que veas las grandes ventajas que tiene tu socialismo
Diamante
joyafina88
Mensajes: 40,915
Registrado: ‎07-05-2007

Re: VENTAJAS DEL SOCIALISMO

HEY GUERRILLEROVENGADOR!! HABLAS EN CERIO!!?????


YO NO QUIERO PERDER MI PORCH DEL AÑO NOMAS PORQUE A OBAMA SE LE DE LA GANA!!!!???
PREFIERO EL CAPITALISMO!!!:smileysad::smileysad::smileysad:
Diamante
joyafina88
Mensajes: 40,915
Registrado: ‎07-05-2007

Re: VENTAJAS DEL SOCIALISMO

que HORRROR!!!!:smileysad::smileysad::smileysad:
Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: VENTAJAS DEL SOCIALISMO

La recesión que heredó Obama fue creada por los demócratas y el propio Obama tuvo un papel preponderante en la cruzada de Obama encaminada a destruir el sistema capitalista que hizo de Estados Unidos la nación más próspera de la historia de la humanidad, con el avieso fin de implantar el marxismo,  ha convertido la recesión en una depresión que va a ser más horrenda y larga que la de los años 30.

Obama puede seguir engañando a una parte del pueblo todo el tiempo; pero no el mercado que no ha parado su repudio a la agenda marxista de Obama desde el mismo momento que ganó las elecciones.  Jamás ha habido un presidente que haya destruido la riqueza de un país de manera tan rápida, proeza que sobrepasa la destrucción de Cuba por Castro. Todas las medidas tomadas por Obama desde que cogió el poder han sido en detrimento de la economía, no hay sólo sector de la economía que sus medidas no tiendan a destruirlo.  El desplome de la Bolsa, que continúa cada vez que abre Obama su boca, a representado la pérdida de más la mitad de los ahorros del pueblo americano y la deuda en que ha sumido el país en menos de un mes es superior a toda la deuda de Estados Unidos desde su fundación hasta el momento en que se sentó Obama en la Casa Blanca.

Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: VENTAJAS DEL SOCIALISMO

Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow

A financial crisis is the worst time to change the foundations of American capitalism.

By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN

It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis.

[Commentary]Martin Kozlowski

The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown.

Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.

To be fair, specific parts of the president's budget are admirable and deserve support: increased means-testing in agriculture and medical payments; permanent indexing of the alternative minimum tax and other tax reductions; recognizing the need for further financial rescue and likely losses thereon; and bringing spending into the budget that was previously in supplemental appropriations, such as funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The specific problems, however, far outweigh the positives. First are the quite optimistic forecasts, despite the higher taxes and government micromanagement that will harm the economy. The budget projects a much shallower recession and stronger recovery than private forecasters or the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are projecting. It implies a vast amount of additional spending and higher taxes, above and beyond even these record levels. For example, it calls for a down payment on universal health care, with the additional "resources" needed "TBD" (to be determined).

Mr. Obama has bravely said he will deal with the projected deficits in Medicare and Social Security. While reform of these programs is vital, the president has shown little interest in reining in the growth of real spending per beneficiary, and he has rejected increasing the retirement age. Instead, he's proposed additional taxes on earnings above the current payroll tax cap of $106,800 -- a bad policy that would raise marginal tax rates still further and barely dent the long-run deficit.

Increasing the top tax rates on earnings to 39.6% and on capital gains and dividends to 20% will reduce incentives for our most productive citizens and small businesses to work, save and invest -- with effective rates higher still because of restrictions on itemized deductions and raising the Social Security cap. As every economics student learns, high marginal rates distort economic decisions, the damage from which rises with the square of the rates (doubling the rates quadruples the harm). The president claims he is only hitting 2% of the population, but many more will at some point be in these brackets.

As for energy policy, the president's cap-and-trade plan for CO2 would ensnare a vast network of covered sources, opening up countless opportunities for political manipulation, bureaucracy, or worse. It would likely exacerbate volatility in energy prices, as permit prices soar in booms and collapse in busts. The European emissions trading system has been a dismal failure. A direct, transparent carbon tax would be far better.

Moreover, the president's energy proposals radically underestimate the time frame for bringing alternatives plausibly to scale. His own Energy Department estimates we will need a lot more oil and gas in the meantime, necessitating $11 trillion in capital investment to avoid permanently higher prices.

The president proposes a large defense drawdown to pay for exploding nondefense outlays -- similar to those of Presidents Carter and Clinton -- which were widely perceived by both Republicans and Democrats as having gone too far, leaving large holes in our military. We paid a high price for those mistakes and should not repeat them.

The president's proposed limitations on the value of itemized deductions for those in the top tax brackets would clobber itemized charitable contributions, half of which are by those at the top. This change effectively increases the cost to the donor by roughly 20% (to just over 72 cents from 60 cents per dollar donated). Estimates of the responsiveness of giving to after-tax prices range from a bit above to a little below proportionate, so reductions in giving will be large and permanent, even after the recession ends and the financial markets rebound.

A similar effect will exacerbate tax flight from states like California and New York, which rely on steeply progressive income taxes collecting a large fraction of revenue from a small fraction of their residents. This attack on decentralization permeates the budget -- e.g., killing the private fee-for-service Medicare option -- and will curtail the experimentation, innovation and competition that provide a road map to greater effectiveness.

The pervasive government subsidies and mandates -- in health, pharmaceuticals, energy and the like -- will do a poor job of picking winners and losers (ask the Japanese or Europeans) and will be difficult to unwind as recipients lobby for continuation and expansion. Expanding the scale and scope of government largess means that more and more of our best entrepreneurs, managers and workers will spend their time and talent chasing handouts subject to bureaucratic diktats, not the marketplace needs and wants of consumers.

Our competitors have lower corporate tax rates and tax only domestic earnings, yet the budget seeks to restrict deferral of taxes on overseas earnings, arguing it drives jobs overseas. But the academic research (most notably by Mihir Desai, C. Fritz Foley and James Hines Jr.) reveals the opposite: American firms' overseas investments strengthen their domestic operations and employee compensation.

New and expanded refundable tax credits would raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38%. This is potentially the most pernicious feature of the president's budget, because it would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government.

From the poorly designed stimulus bill and vague new financial rescue plan, to the enormous expansion of government spending, taxes and debt somehow permanently strengthening economic growth, the assumptions underlying the president's economic program seem bereft of rigorous analysis and a careful reading of history.

Unfortunately, our history suggests new government programs, however noble the intent, more often wind up delivering less, more slowly, at far higher cost than projected, with potentially damaging unintended consequences. The most recent case, of course, was the government's meddling in the housing market to bring home ownership to low-income families, which became a prime cause of the current economic and financial disaster.

On the growth effects of a large expansion of government, the European social welfare states present a window on our potential future: standards of living permanently 30% lower than ours. Rounding off perceived rough edges of our economic system may well be called for, but a major, perhaps irreversible, step toward a European-*** social welfare state with its concomitant long-run economic stagnation is not.

Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Retirado
ilegalsoy
Mensajes: 50,673
Registrado: ‎01-10-2008

Re: VENTAJAS DEL SOCIALISMO

Noo....dice el ignorante copia chismes del foro que China es mas capitalista que los EU !!!  ja ja ja..........allá dejan que uno entre a criticar asi como lo hacemos ahorita.........ja ja ja.......allá, te dejan tener tantos hijos como quieras.........ja ja ja.......allá......mejor ya no sigo............ja ja ja
Cristal
equilibrium04nov2008
Mensajes: 5,115
Registrado: ‎11-09-2008

Re: VENTAJAS DEL SOCIALISMO

SI, "MAMI" , Y
EN CHINA....
PODRAS TENER ,
TODOS LOS MARIDOS
CHINOS QUE TU
QUIERASSSSSSSSS
JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA
 
LOCAAAAAAAAAAA !!!
COMO TE DIJO
SIR JOHN....,
JEJEJEJEJEJEJE...
"...afeminado ..."
 
JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA
ME MEO A CARCAJADAS
JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA
 
"ELLA" ES
..."la despapelada..." ,
JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA
NO TIENE
PAPELES !!!!
:cara_risa:
Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: VENTAJAS DEL SOCIALISMO

Whoopi Goldberg is “Mad as Hell” About the Increasing Tax Burden

¿SE ACUERDAN EN CUBA DE LA REVOLUCION DEL CALLO?... CUANDO EMPEZARON LAS INCAUTACIONES MUCHOS SE ALEGRABAN HASTA QUE LES LLEGO TASMBIÉN A ELLOS Y LE PISARON EL CALLO.  LA HISTORIA VEMOS COMO SE REPITE CON OBAMA.

 

Whoopi Goldberg is “Mad as Hell” About the Increasing Tax Burden
March 6, 2009

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Did you vote for this? There are people starting to have doubts. One of them is no less than Whoopi Goldberg, who went into a rant this morning on The View, talking to her co-host, Elisabeth Hasselbeck.

GOLDBERG: You remember that movie Network? If you are just fed up, at some point, just lean out your window (laughter) and scream, “I’m mad as hell,” ‘cause that’s what’s happening to me. I’m losing my mind, because I don’t understand why — like they — one of the things that I saw recently, they have this whole thing about taxing “the wealthy.” Okay. Now, I don’t mind that. I don’t mind paying a little more tax ‘cause I make a good living.

HASSELBECK: Sure.

GOLDBERG: But I don’t want to get it coming and going. I don’t want to get the federal raised and then the state raised and then the phone tax raised and then the television tax raised —

HASSELBECK: City tax raised!

GOLDBERG: — and then the city tax. Back off me!

RUSH: That is Whoopi Goldberg on The View today. It sounds like she might want Obama to fail. It sounds like she might not be fully with the program. She’s starting to ask herself, “I voted for this?” She’s right about something here, something that we haven’t talked about. The federal tax increase, when the Bush tax cuts fade into the sunset, that’ll take it up to 39.6%, then the charitable deductions. Guess what? Guess what people are just now starting to figure out? “Well, you know, if he reduces deductibility on charitable donations down to 28%, that means a lot fewer people going to be donating in the private sector!” That’s right. “Well, guess who’s going to come and take over?” The government is going to be in charge of charity. This is the plan! Whoopi, you’re on the right path. You gotta understand what all these taxes on you mean.

And you’re right. The television tax... You’re going to get a double whammy, triple whammy living in New York. How about this statistic: 25% of office space in New York is now vacant. I saw that this morning. I’m running that down. Twenty-five percent of office space in New York vacant? They’re going to have to raise taxes, Whoopi. They’re going to have to raise taxes. So, in addition to the federal, the states are going to see that, and the states are going to raise taxes, and then the city is gonna raise taxes. You’re going to have taxes raised everywhere. I’ll tell you, it’s very simple, folks. It’s because everybody is spending money they don’t have. They are spending money that has not even yet been printed. They’re spending money that has not yet been earned.

They are spending wealth that has not yet been created.

Your children’s children, your great-grandchildren, they are broke the moment they’re born. They are broke when they get their first job. Whoopi Goldberg is one of the 40,000 people in New York City that pay over half New York City’s budget operations. Forty thousand people out of eight million, Whoopi, pay and make New York happen — and the mayor is concerned that some people might start leaving if he raises their taxes. But he’s going to have no choice, the way he thinks. Whoopi, I am number one. I got out of there in 1997, and they still audit me every year. You could be number two. You could tell Barbara Walters that you want a satellite studio in Florida, where there is no state income tax, same time zone, you could be on remote. You could see Robin Williams — who’s in the hospital down here, poor guy, with heart problems.

But if Whoopi Goldberg is starting to see this, starting to feel it... She thinks everybody is coming at her now. They’re coming at her both ways. I don’t care how long it took. I don’t care why she started realizing it. The fact is, she has. I hope... I always run the risk here, folks, when I point these things out — in trying to praise people, in trying to lavish praise on somebody like Whoopi — that she’ll be offended that I’m the one praising her and go back on The View Monday and totally change her opinion. Since I agree with her, she can’t afford have that *** and start back up her tax increases or what have you, but hopefully not.