Since no one jumps in, I will start<g>
Social Security must be reformed
Bush privatization of part of social security is not reform but may push it bankrupt earlier. On the other hand, I don’t see how he could do that since his administration is addicted to deficit spending. Although personally, I hope he can let me handle part of my social security, if not all<g>
Getting rid of the income tax and going to a national sales tax would be even better. Such a structural change would power the economy into the next big wave
This will be the ultimate declaration of war on the poor methink, but it may encourage middle-class to save a little more.
Think of the hundreds of billions (literally) that would be saved on tax preparation and filing, not to mention the management and personal time lost. It would also help unemployment and soften the blow of the next recession. If there was ever a time it could be done, it will be in the next two years
This is true except what are these high-paying accountants going to do to make a living? At least ¼ million accountants might be affected.
How many free trade zones can we get done in the next two years? I know there is one under way with Thailand, but we need to expand the concept. Free trade is good for US jobs
It sounds like a fantasy to count on free trade zones to create more US jobs<g>.
This is the time to deal with the national deficit. Putting an absolute hold on
increased spending is a no-brainer. Run fixed, no increase budgets for a few
years and the deficit drops quickly
I agree, but I doubt Bush agrees<g>
The outrageously high farm subsidies have got to go - phase them out or cut them out if possible. We simply can't afford them.
The food in the US is among the cheapest in the world thanks to the hefty subsidies to agricultural industry. Cut them down or eliminate them completely would hurt the poor people a great deal since the rich people can afford to spend more on food. And it will push the inflation rate much higher, although not the core inflation rate<g>. Furthermore so many congressmen are “making a living” on those pork barrel farm subsidies, why would someone want to cut off their own life support?<g>
And while we are reforming taxes, let's reform the corporate taxes as well.
Simplify the structure and close the loopholes. It can be revenue neutral, but
it should get simpler.
Will those corporations allow the congress do it? I doubt it.
The only way we are going to get control of healthcare is by wider use of
Medical Savings Accounts. Expand the program. It is probably asking too much to get a real handle on this problem (which is worse than all the others combined),
with the rest of the things that need to be done, but we can put a down payment
on it.
Medical saving accounts are not going to solve the problem for uninsured, and it cannot control healthcare cost either.
Boomers are going to need to be able to save more. Expand the IRA contributions, especially the Roth IRAs. That will also be a boost to the economy in the form of higher savings
First time to hear this: more savings will be a boost to the consumer-based economy<g> Maybe one really can have the cake and eat it too<g>
The 2008 Election …
We are essentially out of Iraq and Afghanistan. (If we're not, we are in big trouble.)
I don’t think the US will be out of Iraq for at least another 10 years. The US has been and will be in bigger trouble.
Osama Bin Laden is dead or captured, and we have made a lot of progress in the War on Terror.
Whether OBL is dead or captured doesn’t matter much. What matters is the US has been fostering several new generations of new terrorists, younger and more militant than OBL in terms of killing the innocent.
The dollar has dropped another 20-25% and the Chinese have floated their currency, and the trade deficit is coming down.
Dollar might be down another 30-40%.<g> And China may float RMB, but it is hard to say which direction it will go<g>
The French still don't like us, but nobody really cares. Thus the focus of the electorate is not going to be foreign policy or war.
The US electorate will never focus on the foreign policy or the war, since a lot of them already become hard-core evangelicals<g>, and the (hypocritical) moral standard is the thing they care the most. Never mind the US soldiers are killing thousands of Iraqi civilians, and most of them are women and soldiers.
We will be coming out of a recession, one that was deeper than anything we have seen in 25 years. (By the way, that probably means a world-wide recession as well.)
We will go into another bigger recession, or maybe even depression, maybe one that will be only parallel to 1929 Great depression. China will not have recession before 2008, but after that, might be a bad one. And yes, maybe drag the world with it<g>
We probably have mild stagflation. Interests rates are up so housing
prices are flat or down. That will not be good for consumer sentiment, which is
strongly tied to housing values.
In order to finance its own debt, the interest rate of the US may have to go way up and the housing price will be down. This is definitely won’t be good for consumer sentiment.
By definition, unemployment is up in a recession, and probably higher than it has been since 1991.
Wait a minute, he said the US will be coming out of a recession earlier. How come it can still have highest unemployment rate since 1991? <g> I think that a lot of jobs the US has lost are gone permanently simply due to higher productivity.
The market is down and trying to climb back up, but those estimates of 9% compound returns that every pension fund, both public and private, have made has not come true. Many are in deep trouble. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is in trouble if we did not fix it in 2005-2006.
This I agree, not only 9% compound returns will not come true, even 5-6% might be a struggle. As for PBGC, it may need a saving-and-loan scale bail out as early as 2006.
People, especially boomers, are going to be worried about their retirement. They will be saving more than they ever have, plus paying down debt, but that will cut into consumer spending and slow the recovery. The good times that the next president will enjoy and take credit for (everything goes in cycles) is not yet
evident. (Was Clinton lucky to win when he did or what? Or maybe better, was he
ever lucky that Perot decided to run?)
Saving will not be on the agenda before they first pay off the debt. That may take 3-5 years since a lot of them are struggling with making ends meet and ever increasing health care cost. So even if they want to save, it will be hard. Consumer spending will be cut when housing price down, which is perhaps a bigger engine for consumer than regular salary. Next president will have a hard time to clean up this Bush’s 8-year disaster even with the God Almighty’s help<g>
Bill King, the bond god over at Pimco, says we will have to deal with Hillary in
2008. We should be so lucky.
Democrats indeed have a lot of thinking to do. And hopefully, not all of them escape to Canada or Europe or NZ/Australia<g>, and hopefully, they can find a better candidate than Hillary.<g>
While we have a better and deeper bench for potential presidential candidates
than the Dems (Giuliani, McCain, Frist, Ridge, Condie Rice (!), among others),
they only need one person. Couple him (or her) with Barack Obama as VP, and
their ticket is formidable coming off a recession.
If the US people a little smarter, Republicans should be keep out of the presidency and House/Senate majority for the rest of 20 years (after 2008)<g>. Although I do not hold my breath on this<g>
I am quite the long term optimist.
And naïve too<g>
As a conclusion, the author downplayed the damage done by Bush insane tax cut for the rich, and grossly underestimated the long-term damage it will do. |
