65 responses to “Keynesianism Delivers a Decade of Zero”

  1. Siegfried

    Jack,
    I agree that BOTH big business and big labor can become an unfair influence on our economy. BOTH use their collective wealth to effect election outcomes that favor their agendas. But that’s a First Amendment RIGHT to support agendas that benefit your interests, with your own money. Where things go haywire and abuses begin is when either or both coerce (BUY) special political favors that give them unfair advantages at the expense of their competitors. This always occurs when any industry interest (business or labor) is given special legal protections or given unsustainable benefits paid for by the tax payers. More Government involvement / interference creates island monopolies that unfairly favor one interest against the other, FREE MARKET fails and WE THE PEOPLE pay the higher price. But mostly it eventually burdens the American taxpayer with tax breaks to special interests, like Big Labor/Business. Recent examples are when the administration handed out tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to supplement union pension funds, GM and Chrysler; now that’s ABUSE! Big business gets similar “favors” like Defense Contracts under restricted competition, special tax breaks, selective tariffs that protect them from competition, like the recent contract taken from Airbus and given to Boeing.
    But FASCISM is when government crushes small businesses under a Tyranny and creates Cartel relationships with Big Businesses, effectively taking over the business dictating what it is to produce and even how. Both individual labor and unions are marginalized, essentially destroying ALL market competition and creating a Government tyranny over the people. Mussolini believed he knew better how to orchestrate the wealth of Italy, kind of like Obama believes he knows how to “Spread the Wealth” better too.

    Your foreign made steel nail is a great example of how big businesses typically find ways to lower costs. But I don’t see the “un-fair competition” connection? I doubt that there is that much direct labor costs in machine made nails? It could be that foreign Government’s are sponsoring steel dumping below their costs? But I’m more likely to believe that our high Government tax rates on corporate enterprises, like in Michigan’s 20%, is probably a bigger deterrent to new startup competition. As I stated much earlier, I own a small business and I compete against several BIG companies that have massive capital resources, 100 to 1000 time my worth. Half the time I can get the jobs by virtue of being a tighter run small company, AND I do pay Union wages. About a quarter of the time I get beaten out because their direct material manufacturers and I simply can’t provide the materials at their wholesale pricing. But the last 25% of the time I lose the work because a few of those Big Businesses have a special Cartel relation with the Government (inside dealings) and they get handed the work at MORE money, Now that might qualify as UN-FAIR!
    I would recommend that your girlfriend’s Uncle take his money and buy some Home Depot or WalMart stock, thus using his capital to maximum effect.

    I agree that there could be more competition if and only if, we can reduce our costs here in America! I’d start with cutting Taxes on businesses AND Employees WITHHOLDING taxes. But how do the likes of Honda, Mazda, Mercedes, Toyota, etc. building multi-billion dollar plants here in America and still make a profit using WELL PAID America labor! Granted they are not UNION jobs, so does that mean the Dems should get busy with that Obama Card Check Legislation agenda (Big Government helping Big Labor) to unionize those pesky foreign manufacturers in America and we can kill those good jobs too, can you say Detroit take 2!

    Maybe not Tariffs but Card Check works the same way when Government gets involved with Big Labor OR Big Business we ALL SUFFER because it eliminates competition and creates island monopolies AND we the Tax payers pick-up the tab.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Jack

      In the ’40s, ’50s, & ’60s, when between 30% and 40% of the workforce was unionized, the middle class was growing rapidly. But in the ’80s, ’90s, and ’00s, when between 10% and 20% of the workforce was unionized, the middle class has shrunk rapidly.

      Can you explain this? Because I thought unions were bad…

      In the ’40s, ’50s, & ’60s, when the top marginal tax rate was between 70% and 94%, workers’ real wages increased massively. But in the ’80s, ’90s, and ’00s, when the top marginal rate was between 28% and 50%, workers’ real wages have been stagnant.

      Can you explain this? ‘Cause I thought the more money the rich had, the higher wages they could pay us. That’s the trickle-down theory anyways…

      #1. Corporations are not human beings, they do not have the right of free speech.

      #2. 15 dollars an hour wage vs. 15 cents an hour wage, health insurance vs. no health insurance, environmental and health safety standards vs. no standards. Maybe that’s why it’s unfair competition, even in the nail making business.

      #3. Those workers are only ‘WELL PAID’ because of the threat of unionization, without that their wages would be half and would be lucky to have insurance or benefits at all.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Siegfried

        Jack
        Thanks for Hanging in there with me!

        I find it interesting how you create a correlation between Union Membership, Marginal Tax rates and Personal Middle class wealth?

        While I do admit that Unions have had their benefits for the oppressed factory and mine workers of the early 20th century, those jobs have all but disappeared from the American landscape.

        Yes Union membership has shrunk rapidly in the Industrial sector but it has increased dramatically in the Public Sector, ala, Public school teachers, fireman, police, federal government employees and on and on. ALL at a massive cost to the American tax payer with little if any added value to the PUBLIC. The public unions have grown so FAT with all their retirement programs they can no longer be sustained. AGAIN I repeat myself… EVERY PERA benefit program across the country is technically BANKRUPT, BILLION IN THE RED

        YOUR SOLUTION is to force more Unionization of every industry that remains. Carpenter, plumbers, electricians, doctors, nurses, and even prostitutes. Oh wait a minute, you do that and we’ll all become prostitutes for the Unions. LOL

        Yes real wages have become “stagnant”. That’s what happens when an economy flips from a 70% producers / 30% service to a 30% producers and a 70% service economy. No one buys your union made stuff because everyone else in the world makes it better and cheaper.

        NO, the more money the rich have does nothing to affect wages, there is no correlation here. BUT what would INDUCE those rich fat cats to INVEST in the American economy to help create those new jobs???? A reduced threat of government confiscation with ever higher Taxes might be a start!!
        You bash “trickle-down theory” without close analysis, well how is that trickle-up poverty working, not very well is it. Neither of us has ever worked for a poor man, go figure.

        #1. Corporations are not human beings, NOT!!! They ARE People who incorporate to build an industry to pool their assets as share holders and take risks to build a product that people want. Cities and Unions are Corporations they are ENTITLED TO FREE SPEECH, why do you want to gag certain corporation? Maybe you have a real prejudice here?

        #2. YOU ARE RIGHT!!!! The GOAL is to RAISE everyone’s standard of performance and living. But More Government does neither; it simply creates barriers and favors that perpetuate the disparities.

        #3. HALF TRUE… If a company does not pay a competitive “market wage”, those workers will go elsewhere, that’s assuming there is an elsewhere. But if a union moves in and demands double the market wage, the businesses leave and go off-shore. Take heart… A recent news report in the WSJ suggests that the trend is that many large businesses are moving back to their home countries. It seems that the Europeans and Americans are smarter and harder workers, better productivity…. Uhmmmmm That’s very interesting.

        I’m a radical Libertarian! I’m for the USA offering numerous TAX FREE ZONES for both foreign and domestic rich fat cats to invest their money here in the USA and build new high tech plants, building better stuff (including nails). Now the real task is making sure those poorly educated folks in Detroit and other depressed areas TOOL UP and prepare for their new future in a technological economy. Indonesian, Taiwan, South Korea, China, India and even Ireland have done it and the result is they took America’s tech industry away. JUST LIKE those foreign auto companies did it here in the US!!! Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, Texas, all states that bribed, cajoled and CUT TAXES to get them thar foreigners to INVEST MEGA BILLIONS in our States and our Country. That’s how it’s done! NOT MORE TAXES TO SCARE THEM AWAY!!!

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Jack

          You’ve brought up the same exact points, lol, and I’m not going to say my same points back to you.

          I just want to know, why did big government work so well in the ’40s, ’50s, and ’60s?

          I mean your point that big government discourages fat cats from investing in the American economy is proven nonsense. Corporations have EFFECTIVELY the lowest tax rate in the industrialized world, paying less than 6%, I realize that the statutory rate is over 30%, but that goes to show how many loopholes there are. Most big corporations pay close to no taxes at all. The top marginal rate hasn’t been this low since the ’20s and neither has the capital gains rate. So how low do their taxes need to go?! Sheez.

          Top rates of 91% and a Corporate tax rate of 50%, fat cats invested, and fat cats got rich. So the FACT is, it’s not that we drove them away with higher taxes, it’s that we let them get away by getting rid of tariffs.

          When productivity increases, wages need to increase. The last 30 years they have not because of the war on unions and the exportation of jobs. We have substituted debt for wages, that’s what has kept demand up with supply. Well it’s finally happening, the average person can’t go in anymore debt, nor can our country as a whole. This is the same thing that happened in the ’20s.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Siegfried

    Jack you say >>> “It was workers’ rights that got jobs shipped to China”<<<
    Jack this is not the early 20th century, American workers have not been oppressed or abused, what are you talking about??
    I agree, it’s not “workers excesses” it’s UNION LABOR MONOPOLIES that have pushed American Businesses out of the competitive market. Unions are just fine to protect workers’ rights, but that’s not what’s wrong here is it?

    NO, I do not believe in “slave labor”, where did you get that from??? I’m all for worker’s RIGHTS, I’m against Government’s oppression of those worker rights, NOT SLAVERY?

    This forum is about Economic Theory not WORKER OF THE WORLD UNIT debates.

    So your solution is TAX (Tariff) Walmart for using Chinese labor as punishment! Let’s work through that solution. [Walmart is ALL US businesses Mfg in China]
    1st: We target Walmart and charge them a 50% tax on all they import because they use Dirty Chinese Slave Labor.
    2nd: Walmart is very upset, but it simply raises its product prices by adding that tax to their total product line and YOU and I have to pay more… remember my Fruit of the Loom T-shirt example.
    3rd: The government sees that Walmart is passing those cost through to the consumer, well that’s Unacceptable, so now we need Price Controls!
    4th: PRICE CONTROLS are installed, guess what, the shelves go empty, because NO business will deliver product when Governments imposes artificial losses!
    5th: Government DEMANDS that Walmart continues to deliver CHEAP products at a LOSS… Walmart says “expletive” you and gets ready to LEAVE the US market.
    6th: Government says no you can’t we are taking over and we will Nationalize your business, ala Barbara Boxer statement to the Oil Industry.

    But that would never happen here, wait a minute, it already has, GM and Chrysler

    Businesses are not Fascist, Government’s are! Big Government often forms CARTELS with Big Businesses and manipulates the market and run things into the ground like the Sub-Prime Freddie and Fanny fiasco and then demonizes capitalism and free markets as the culprit. That’s why Government Stimulus programs have NEVER worked and NEVER will work.
    AGAIN, Government is the problem, not the solution.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Jack

      im done seigfried because im listening to your points youre not listening to mine.

      i addressed this like 5 times already, appearantly you didnt read it.

      1st. tax them

      2nd. walmart raises prices

      3rd. a flood of competition from ethical companies can enter the marketplace

      4th. the competition drives back down costs

      5th. now the only competitors are ones that respect workers’ rights and our environment.

      6th. more americans have jobs, they are buying higher quality and safer products(now there wont be tax increases to clean up corporations destruction of our environment, ‘nor will there be tax increases to pay for the medical costs because of the fascist corporations faulty product)

      The definition of Fascism is business owning the government, rather than the people. Just ask Mussolini.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Siegfried

        Jack, we are getting somewhere here, please be patient.
        I’m just going to follow this topic to its natural conclusion.
        I have been CAREFULLY reading ALL of your comments and I’m trying to respond to each point.
        1st. tax them >> OK!
        2nd. walmart raises prices, >> naturally they must. But Walmart is just a generic of ALL of American companies doing business in China. Nothing is made in the US.
        3rd. a flood of competition from ethical companies can enter the marketplace
        >> a FLOOD FROM WHERE? Out of thin air??
        4th. the competition drives back down costs >> Maybe, assuming Mexican and Canadian competitors move quickly to fill the void, but I doubt it, not with the anti-business and high taxes we continue to impose.
        5th. now the only competitors are ones that respect workers’ rights and our environment. >>> HOW DO YOU JUMP TO THIS CONCLUSION??? You’re assuming Respect and love of the Environment is a Pre-Qualification for businesses in the USA?
        6th. more americans have jobs, they are buying higher quality and safer products(now there wont be tax increases to clean up corporations destruction of our environment, ‘nor will there be tax increases to pay for the medical costs because of the fascist corporations faulty product)
        >> WE DON’T NEED TAX INCREASES TO “clean up corporation destruction of our environment” WE SIMPLY NEED TO ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS ON PROPERTY RIGHTS!!!! AND HOLD THOSE CORPORATIONS ACCOUNTABLE!

        The definition of Fascism is business owning the government, rather than the people. >>> IT IS NOT?? Just ask Mussolini.

        >> “1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a CENTRALIZED AUTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT HEADED BY A DICTATORIAL LEADER, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
        Where did you get your definition of Fascism???

        Yes I agree that Mussolini was a real fan of Fascism, but since he’s unavailable for comment, we should ask his modern incarnate President Obama instead. The Prez has confiscated Bond Holders ownership and Nationalized GM and Chrysler AND gave half to the UAW unions, who didn’t even own common shares! The real insult was that a large part of those Bonds were property of the State of Indiana PERA retirement fund got screwed in the deal! So much for REAL WORLD Fascism!

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Jack

          Well, I’ll address the Fascism part briefly, ’cause this isn’t something that’s really debated. You need to read what Mussolini and his buddies defined Fascism as. And that is corporate ownership of government. The Supreme Court ruling yesterday really may have turned us into the Fascist States of America. But about stuff that actually matters and not what words mean…

          So we can agree companies, such as WalMart, will raise prices if we go back to America’s protectionist ways. I’m glad we’re past the whole price controls thing, ’cause that has nothing to do with what I believe would happen. So that brings us to your question, a flood of competition from where? Well from all the small companies in America that are trying to compete, but can’t effectively because the WalMarts of the world are undermining prices. There are plenty of them, my girlfriends uncle owns a business that makes nails here in America and has always sold them to Home Depot. Well now Home Depot decided to go with the cheaper foreign made nails, he has no chance to compete now, its unfair competition, he made the decision to close the business rather than export jobs to China. So trust me, it will restore fair competition. Is there anything wrong with that logic?

          So if we can agree there’d be more competition, can we agree that will drive back down costs? Now I know they wont go to as low as WalMart sells stuff, but it wont matter because people will actually have good paying jobs again.

          I don’t think you have to worry about this ’cause Obama announced today that tariffs aren’t the answer.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Siegfried

    Dear Jack
    You are fast becoming my favorite Cool Aid drinking Liberal that believes MORE Government is the solution.

    Your comments just proved my point…
    Tariffs are TAXES!!! They are taxes on Walmart products made in China! Lets apply YOUR TARIFF and add a 100% tax on every China made Walmart product, so now that 3 pack of Fruit of the Loom T-Shirt, costs $20 instead of just $10.
    Who pays that tax???? YOU and ME!!!

    Did the Tariff create any new jobs here? NO!!!, Will the investors build new T-shirt textile mills here to pay UNION wages to make cheaper T-Shirts… NOT!
    TAXES OF ANY KIND DEFEATS INDUSTRY and DESTROYS JOBS.
    UNION wages are great for Union BOSSES, the workers get screwed in the deal by pushing the business costs hire, then requiring more TARIFFS costing the US Consumer more money and the circle of continues
    Oh and cut the “slaves” and “destroying” mother earth speak, that’s just another Liberal ploy (Sal Alinsky style tactic) to emotionalize the topic to inflame the people and incite misdirected HATE SPEAK. Libertarians ENFORCE Property Rights, polluting industries violate Property Rights, PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHT, INFORCE THE LAW!!!, DON’T CONFISCATE THE PROPERTY!

    “want to compete with workers pay and conditions that they receive in China” AGAIN, US workers are much better educated and have a much better work ethic. But government’s relentless tax increases in conjunction with union wage demands simply makes the US worker too costly to compete.

    I believe that ALL US Hourly Worker or Salaried Worker who earns under $50,000/ year should NOT PAY ANY PAYROLL TAXES!!! That alone would spur a HUGH employment boom!
    I believe in the RIGHT TO WORK!!!!, UNIONS don’t like right to work, it diminishes their enrollment ranks.
    QUESTION: Which would you rather have, a union job at $35/hr with $4/hr union dues and 25% tax rate where you work 10 hours a week
    OR
    A Free Market job at $12/hr with no union dues and no taxes but you have the RIGHT TO WORK 40-50 hours a week?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Jack

      Siegfried, you gotta get real man.

      Go ahead and raise costs that high, watch them fall out of the marketplace. This would be the perfect opportunity for companies that keep jobs in America that have higher labor costs a chance to compete again. Now it’s fair game, these companies lose their advantage over these companies because they’re taxed for their exportation of slavery.

      So yes the tariff will create many jobs here. You talk about the tax we pay, the real tax we pay is the millions of good paying jobs that were lost and replaced with ‘would you like fries with that?’ jobs.

      And this is where you get delusional and lets me know that you’re the one drinking KoolAid rather than reading and researching. I grew up in Chicago, I seen people with and without Union jobs, you should see the difference between families. Union families are upper-middle class, they own their own home, have a couple cars and a boat, have the best health & dental insurance for their family, most have a vacation home. The non-union families I grew up around mostly were renting homes, had one falling apart car and never upgraded, it was an easily noticable difference.

      Theres two things youre forgetting when you talk about wages. Unions bring up wages of non union companies, and the next thing is go ahead and lower the tax rate to 0%. The company is going to lower your wage so you make the same amount of income as you did before lol. In fact, this is exactly what happened in the 1980s.

      But once again you show how out of touch you are when you talk about the ‘destroying mother earth’. Thats all it is, you being out of touch and not accepting the facts. These people are slaves, they have no rights, they work in factories powered by the worlds dirtiest coal, Cadmium is abundant, and they have literally destroyed life in the rivers, leaving the residents there without their commerce, industry, and food. Some how, we even let the food factories get away with this in America. Maybe cause Bush appointed his buddies from these factories to run the FDA lol.

      You sound like most Libertarians. Most always have this attitude that they have all the knowledge and that everyone else needs educating. But after talking with them you realize they do not know history, they know history and political philosophy through the eyes of their market fundamentalist gods and godesses. You really shouldn’t commenting about Unions ’til you say something with the least bit of truth, you shouldn’t talk about protectionism ’til you read Friedrich List and Henry C. Carey, just because you’ve read Ayn Rand and Friedman and Mises, that does not mean you know everything. I’ve read both sides, no points you’ve brought up have I not heard already said by the people you learn from. But you Libertarians are all so out of touch with where Liberals learn from, and it’s because you’re fundamentalists.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Siegfried

        Jack,
        Businesses compete for limited customer DEMAND, you say “Go ahead and raise costs that high” YOU are the one proposing to raise TAXES and TARIFFS as a solution to PROTECT high UNION wages! That’s a self defeating agenda, it’s never worked.
        AND
        You say “watch them fall out of the marketplace” BINGO you said it >>> GM and Chrysler BANKRUPT mostly because of those High Union Wages and Cadillac Benefit plans, not because of Corporate greed.

        ALL Union pension plans from teachers, firefighters, policemen and oh yes UAW etc. are in deep DEFICITS, BILLIONS IN THE RED, UNION promises that can’t be kept! But that’s OK; just make the Private Business sector pay with more TAXES, you know “Spread the Wealth”, Oh wait a minute, can’t do that it will crush the Recovery, I guess Mr. Gietner simply needs to print some more money!!!

        QUESTION: What’s the BIGGEST difference between Detroit auto manufacturers and all those successful FOREIGN auto plants in the southern US? ANSWER: UNIONS!

        I’ve toured the San Antonio TX Toyota Tundra plant and there is (your words) “exportation of slavery”. Those Texans TOLD ME they are very happy with their good paying jobs, benefits and FULLY funded retirement plans!

        AGAIN Jack, TAXES and UNION MONOPOLY LABOR replaced those (your words again) “millions of good paying jobs” Yes SuperSize me please! lol

        I like your comparison of Union versus Non-Union. Are these the same Unions that are running the MASSIVE unfunded deficits? Question Asked and Answered, One Word >>> UNSUSTAINABLE <<< Sorry Jack but the American worker is simply going to have to adjust his expectations.

        I agree that Mother Earth has and is suffering from the Industrial onslaughts, and only trade agreements offer possible solutions to enforce Property Rights, but China hasn’t even acknowledge Human Rights much less Property Rights, what are the chances that the US can FORCE China into cleaning up its environmental act? Only a total Embargo of ALL THINGS made in China might work but that would result in empty retail shelves everywhere! Walmart used to boast of selling only “American made” well, it’s China made now and mostly because the unions pushed the US Garment workers out of jobs by forcing DEMANDS ever higher above what a Free Market would support. So your solution is to keep raising the union DEMANDS, raise Taxes and raise Tariffs? You must really hate the American worker!

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Jack

          You’re half-right. It was workers’ rights that got jobs shipped to China, why you’re wrong is because you think they were workers’ excesses. And this is just a point of disagreement. You believe in slave labor, I don’t, it’s as simple as that. It all comes down to what woody Guthrie said in the early ’40s, “There ain’t but two sides, the working people’s side and the big bosses’ side. The union side and the Hitler side. The first thing that Hitler cracked down on when he took the Nazi Chamber was the Trade Unions.”

          The solution to China killing the environment and their people isn’t a total embargo, it’s simple, discourage American companies from opening factories there. It’s called tariffs. The shelves wont be empty, it will open up competition to companies that respect human rights and respect our planet. It’s not fair that companies have an advantage because they’re destructive and irresponsible. I love business, I want more competition, but it’s fascism when business is put ahead of Liberty, Freedom, and our Human Rights.

          So when I said go ahead and raise prices that high, it’s because it’ll open up competition to non-fascist companies, not to protect high union wages. Then instead of the monopolies we basically we have now, the true competition will drive back down costs. And at the same time we’re buying products in which the money goes to an American workers wage that helps him provide for himself and his family. I’d much rather do that than buy a product that goes to the 10 cent wage in China and the huge profit for the fascist.

          If you honestly think American workers can compete with Chinese workers youre insane. You want us to work for 10 cents an hour in a dirty factory that compromises our own health? This is why I truly believe Libertarian policies would turn us into a third-world country. This has nothing to do with Unions, this has to do with fair competition.

          So once again it wasn’t taxes and unions that brought us ‘do you want fries with that jobs. It was a group of fascists that couldn’t stand the fact the middle class was growing and getting stronger, and the gap between the middle class and the rich was shrinking at a rapid rate. It’s as simple as this, if we didn’t get rid of tariffs, those jobs would not have been shipped overseas, that’s a fact. So don’t say taxes and the unions did it. It was the lack of protection from fascists that did it.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Siegfried

    Jack, I really appreciate your perspective and I think we are close on some principals! This sort of micro forum is essential for the continued revelation of truth and necessary to preserve our liberties.
    You make some interesting statement that I’d like to respond to:
    1. “All the New Deal programs and Great Society programs were EASILY funded” The truth is that they were NOT funded at all! Lets list the unfunded liabilities, Social Security (FDR administration)now -$14 Trillion unfunded, Prescription Drugs (G.W. Bush admin.) already -$18.6 Trillion unfunded, Medicare (Johnson Admin) now -$74 Trillion unfunded. To pay for these cherished and generous Entitlements, we would have to Confiscate ALL of the top 50% income brackets wealth and we would still be 90% short!!!!
    2. “actually it worked PERFECTLY for 30 years”, It has NEVER worked. There is simply not enough of Other People’s Money in the world to Confiscate. When President O said, “we need to spread the wealth” he ment confiscate it, like General Motors and Chrysler.
    3. ”I know CEOs of large corporations make on average 400 times more than their employees” That’s correct and it irks me too. How can anyone be worth 400 time more than you or me? It doesn’t seem fair or just. Now if you or I owned a large block of proxy shares of that corporation, then we should replace that overpaid hack and hire 10 committee persons and pay them a lot less. Problem is… that has NEVER worked. The Soviet’s tried it and they crashed and burned.
    4. “how much of the wealth does the top 1% own in this country?” Surprisingly very little. Even Bill Gates and Warren Buffett combined wealth of over $120+Billion is a nano-speck of wealth compared to FED Reserve Banksters and, who print it and dilute OUR money stock with impunity. Confiscating ALL of Bill and Warren’s wealth (and those similar fat cats) will NOT pay for those Legislated Unfunded Entitlements. It is simply not possible, the entire stock of M1, M2 and M3 money in the USA wouldn’t begin to cover that horrific debt.
    5. “HOW MUCH TAX CUTS DO THEY NEED, HOW MUCH WEALTH DO THEY NEED BEFORE THEY CAN START CREATING JOBS?!?!” This is my favorite question… Truth is they really don’t NEED more tax cuts! But those enterprising businesses aren’t motivated to pursue risky business opportunities when the rewards are taxed away… So why take Risk when the Reward is Confiscated? Essentially they won’t take the risk without the potential of REWARD.
    6. “Demand create jobs. Wages drive demand.” Yes but only in a consumer service economy and not in a producer economy. Sadly Americans have now become a 70% consumer economy, importing massive Arab oil and Walmart goods made in China and produce (export) only 30% of the gross GDP. The Government produces NOTHING and can’t create real wealth, only very short lived demand with borrowed money from China or counterfeit printed fiat money from the Fed Reserve. Until and unless American PRODUCES something of value that the world will buy, there can’t possibly be any REAL demand, only phony stimulus.
    Answer these three questions …given the facts that Social Security, Medicare-Medicaid and the Proscription Drug programs are all BANKRUPT.
    1. do you believe the Government is capable of managing a total takeover of the Healthcare Industry?
    2. Do you believe the Federal Government can build better cars?
    3. Do you believe in Global Warming?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Jack

      Siegried, thanks for appreciating my perspective, and I’ve got to tell you, I honestly enjoyed reading your post.

      1. The programs were easily funded until the Reagan era. There was no accumulation of debt. The debt did not begin ’til Reagan tried paying for those programs without taxing the rich. Which this is where I agree with Libertarians, I’d rather get rid of those programs than tax the hell out of the working class. Where I differ is I’d like to keep essential Social programs and pay for them by taxes on the rich, and I only believe that because I see how perfectly it worked for 30 years.

      2. It used to be commmon knowledge among Republicans and Democrats the taxing the rich the way they did was very effective. They weren’t confiscating peoples’ money, they were saying over a few million dollars, we’re going to tax you at 70%. But they got to keep everything under (in today’s dollars) 3.2 Million. So there were still plenty of millionaires. Just not people with hundreds of millions. Which as a matter of fact I don’t know the readings off hand, but I’ll find them if you like.. both Jefferson and Paine frequently warned about the danger of private large amounts of wealth. Paine actually proposed no one should have enough wealth to where they can influence the policies of government.

      3. I’m not sure how to respond to that. I believe you close that gap through trade unions and workers rights. When CEOs actually have to clean their pollution, and pay for a safe work environment for their employees, and pay the workers the pay they earn, that number would lessen to hopefully around 100 times.

      4. Yes, those FED banksters used their wealth to change our trade policies and bank regulations to accumulate a great amount of wealth. And actually the top 1% owns about 50% of wealth, which they only use about 1% of that Effectively, this is why I believe they should be taxed at a much higher rate. It’s much better to have 10 people, for example, spending say 100K a year a piece, than one person keeping 900K and only spending 100K.

      5. I just differ with you. In my heart I don’t believe rewards are being taxed away, I believe excesses are being taxed away.

      6. Agree with you completely. That’s why we need to go back to Alexander Hamilton’s 1791 ‘Report on Manufactures’ that laid out our industrial policy for nearly 200 years ’til the neocons tore it apart in the ’70s, ’80s, and completely got rid of it in the ’90s with NAFTA and the WTO.

      To answer your questions… 1. We spend more over $7,000 a year per person for health care, while the Scandinavian Democratic-Socialist countries pay less than $3,000 a year. A single-payer system is the most COST-EFFECTIVE way to handle health care. 2. No, I only want the government to run things that are for the social good. That’s why we have police departments, fire departments, public education, that’s why we should have health care. But I believe in capitalism, and it’s nobody’s RIGHT to own a car. However, it is your right if you buy a car, for there to be a seatbelt in it for you to use. That’s why the government forced automakers to put seatbelts in cars in the ’70s, even though the automakers said it would bankrupt them, much like the scare tactics we see nowadays. 3. Of course I believe in Global Warming.

      I realize what I said MAY cause an outrage among you folks here, especially the union supporting and the protectionism. But I’m really curious to know what you think about those points I made, because that’s the core of Progressive principles.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Siegfried

        Jack honestly, we must be under-employed and have entirely too much time on our hands!
        1. You keep making the statement “programs were easily funded”. Again… these “programs” were never funded; they were legislated and deficit SPENT into existence. The end result, the poor pay the burden when government spends FIAT money printed out of thin air. The rich are insulated from this INFLATION TAX but the poor pay FULL price in higher marginal prices. As for “essential Social programs” I’d prefer that those people be employed at un-inflated dollar values like 1960’s when $1.15/hour was a GREAT wage, rather than suffer the insult of Social Welfare. These social programs only succeeded at warehousing the poor in inner city slums, and that’s “how perfectly it worked for 30 years.”
        2. “over a few million dollars, we’re going to tax you at 70%” CONFISCATION…! If I got to keep that 70% tax dollars, I would plow it back into the economy and HIRE more people to keep building on my success. But YOU would simply transfer those dollars to the poor to continue the “warehousing”. Oh and keep in mind that for every CONFISCATED dollar of Tax the government provides about 30 cent of direct poor benefits, you know that pesky 70% general and administrative cost government overhead.
        3. “trade unions and workers rights” that’s an oxymoron. Union Workers are Union pawns, they pay dues and all earn a fixed common wage irregardless of individual worker abilities. Unions sanction their hardest workers and reward slackers with the same pay. Wait…wait… “equal pay for ALL” Thank you Karl Marx. I’m ALL for Unions when they have to compete for their contracts!!! But they don’t compete, they feather-bed! Detroit auto companies should have a minimum of 4 or 5 UAW type unions to compete for the limited jobs. But the UAW has a Labor MONOPOLY and thus has forced auto labor wages up 2 ½ times above what all other international auto workers earn. Therefore American auto makers are building inferior products at a higher price and American consumers are buying the better made foreign product! Another Union monopoly is the NEA, the freely admit that it is not about educating the children, it’s about padding the teachers PERA fund. PERA is not a Cadillac retirement plan, it’s a Ferrari plan, deeply in the red and now they want you and I to pay up the deficit so that you and I have to work until we’re 70 and live off Social Security, lucky you and me.
        4. Those FED banksters continue to rob the people of their Natural Wealth by proxy grant from our Congress. That’s where the problem is, not the rich, but the Government’s bloated bureaucracy, inefficiencies and corrupt counterfeiting (debasing) of the people’s money. You say “It’s much better to have 10 people, for example, spending say 100K a year a piece, than one person keeping 900K and only spending 100K”, that 900k is not hoarded by that rich guy it’s put back into the economy as investment capital. But soon that 900k will become the average middle class annual salary with the coming inflation tsunami and guess what new tax bracket you’ll be in! Back in the 50’s almost no-one in the middle class paid income tax because they didn’t rise to that tax bracket, now my lowly hourly workers are being taxed $15k a year on a $40k gross income… THAT’S WRONG, there is no future social security waiting for them, they are paying 25% for a bankrupt government promise that will never happen!!!
        5. You said “In my HEART I don’t believe rewards are being taxed away” Jack please use your head on this one.
        6. Alexander Hamilton was this country’s first Central Planner, Comrade, next we’ll be telling GM what type of cars to build to make a profit… Oh pooh, we ARE! Well then the government needs to tell you which car to buy… OK Comrade, you MUST buy that Chevette AND pay $35k for it, Government Motors needs the money.
        “$7,000 a year per person”, that a medium range Insurance Premium for the BEST health care system in the world. My cousin in Germany, my daughter in Switzerland pay about the same amount $5k and $8k annually respectively. NOW let’s take about real reform. Of the 1400 health insurance companies in the US, how many did you get to chose from? I only had two choices in my state, that’s why I have to pay $ 9,600 annually. Regan told Gorbachev “tear down this wall” I would say that about the State’s barriers to open insurance completion. And what about Tort Reform…?
        “single-payer system” YOU CAN NOT BE SERIOUS! is a ruse of Government to confiscate the health care industry and provide you with 30% of what you now have for a 110% of what you now pay, remember they need that other 70% of G&A expense.
        How about some MORE COMPETITION between providers, something the UNIONS really HATE. The NEA fights Vouchers tooth and nail, that’s competing with their sacred public funds. New York city still can’t educate kids for $28 k per student per year while the Catholic Schools get it done for virtually free? Do you really THINK the Government can manage Health Care given the its history of constant failures?
        3. I too think there is Climate Change, warming and cooling, but does it make sense to Cap and Tax half or our economy into oblivion? Europe has tried it and it’s done nothing to Change their Climate, other than raise MORE TAXES! Your said…
        “I realize what I said MAY cause an outrage” Not at all, WE must seek the TRUTH, not the special interest of Unions, Corporations, Banks or GOVERNMENT!
        I choose Personal Liberty over Government Security. Progressives believe we can have Security but at the expense of my Liberty and just Trust Them! NOT!!!! I’m getting tire of the Government Crisis creation machine so Government can solve the problem with More Government!

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Jack

          lol Well I’m on winter break rite now, and it looks like this might go in circles. It is a fact that those Social prorams were paid for over three decades. NO DEBT ACCUMULATED. Look at a timeline of U.S. debt and you’ll see that did not began ’til the Reagan tax cuts. Of course if you cut taxes like that when you have so many programs they won’t be paid for. We were the largest CREDITOR nation in the world in 1980!! Eight years later the largest DEBTOR nation in the world! So this is where I want to come to agreement with you. These programs can be paid through the pre-Reagan tax system, Ron Paul admitted this himself on the Thom Hartmann program. Where he disagrees is that we should have these programs at all. Where Thom, like I, believes they are for the common good.

          And this is where you are just horribly wrong. That money is not stimulative over 3.2 million dollars, they do not create jobs!! Demand creates jobs. Maybe overseas they create jobs, but that’s about it. You’re talking about money that creates no REAL wealth, it’s just money to make money by playing BS games.

          Unions have been and still are the best protection from the corporations in the country. They are all about workers’ rights. It’s all about collective bargaining. Fighting for the pay and the benefits they earn. Before unions you had children working in textile millions, before unions you had 12+ hour a day 6 day workweeks, before unions workers worked in unsafe environments. There are many rights every worker enjoys nowadays as a human right because the unions fought for them. I would say you’ve never been in a union and all you’ve heard are the talking points against them based on what points you brought up. As far as the automakers, its not union that decides what to build, they just build it, thats the CEOs fault. And no crap the make 2 and half times more than international workers, they better! They have to pay for health care for each employee, they have to pay them a living wage, and they have to provide a safe & clean work environment along with other factors. Just cause they’re not slaves like workers in other countries, I don’t think we should actually propose that we enslave them.

          Alexander laid out our industrial policy that lasted nearly 200 years. Being for free trade is the most unamerican thing that’s ever happened to America, more unamerican than socialism lol. We’ve always been a protectionist country. Free trade is just the exportation of slavery and the destruction of the world environment.

          We just wont agree on single-payer, but I can gaurantee you there will be a time in our lives when our country does adopt a single-payer system and well we’ll see what we think about it then.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Siegfried

            Jack… Let me guess, you’re a post graduate student getting re-tooled for the Green Economy, lol.
            FACT: when Social Security started in 1936 there were 20 workers to support 1 retiree, but now there are only 3 workers to support one retiree. Back in 1995 the US Supreme Court had affirmed that the Government has no obligation (liability) to pay any Social Security, it is not a private sector guarantee, unlike the public sector PERA. The private sector continues to passively remit 15% of our income to the IRS under the big lie of future SS & Medicaid benefits, but SS has become the world’s largest Ponzi Scheme. Most of my employees will never see a dime of that money, they need the money know. I would like to see the Government stop collecting SS for all hourly workers but force them to set the money aside into Medical Savings Accounts in their names. But the Government WANTS to take MORE to give them inferior health care, it’s a scam as are ALL government administrated social programs. Your blaming Regan doesn’t hold water, for the US becoming a “DEBTOR nation” because We the Sheeple continue to feed this Monster Government that makes promises like SS & Medicare that it simply can’t continue to deliver without massive RATIONING.
            YES Demand creates jobs, but where is the REAL demand for American made products? Back in the 1930’s the Gov paid guys to dig holes and paid other guys to fill them back holes, the WPA and CCC, lots of busy work but no REAL JOBS. You still believe Gov creates job???
            You don’t have to cry “child labor abuse” drivel, that was over 100 years ago, it is not the Unions of the 21st Century. UNION ARE A LABOR MONOPOLY. You’ve conveniently side stepped my proof that union have an unassailable monopoly! Without competition Unions consistently push up their demands far beyond the market’s ability to support those demands. AGAIN I repeat… most PERA union pensions (Fireman, Teachers, Police) are so grossly underfunded because they are not tied to Real World economics. AGAIN their Ferrari retirement plans are far from “enslavement”; but more like diamond studded platinum parachutes that are simply unsustainable, SS benefits are Yugo’s by comparison.
            I agree that some protectionist laws are necessary to protect PROPERTY RIGHTS, but that knife cuts both ways, be careful. Do you really believe those garments in Walmart are made by Chinese slaves?
            Clearly you’ve not done your research on Single-Payer government run care? AGAIN… Every country that’s tried it has run major deficits and has had to RATION the care, and the elderly get kicked to the curb, as did my grandmother in Bamberg. Absent Competition to hold costs in check the Government simply supplements the Real Cost with taxpayer’s money which it does not have so it PRINTS more! Printing more and more and more money for under-funded programs is simply a hidden theft of your and my savings retirement money, that’s why WE are so poor.

            FINAL NOTES: I am a small business owner with 50+ employees. I pay them UNION wages with fringes. I pay half of their Health Insurance but they opt out. They make a very good “living wage” but they are still mostly poor because our Government still CONFISCATES 25%+ of their “Living Wage” Income with NO Hope or Change for a retirement savings. More TAXES of any kind won’t improve the INFLATION caused Slavery, but LESS GOVERNMENT will reduce the DEMAND for ever more taxes and Inflation Spending.

            BOTTOM LINE: We’ve established that you’re a Socialist Liberal and you believe MORE Government wealth RE-DISTRIBUTION (higher taxes) is the ultimate Solution and you want more of my property! NO!! Margaret Thatcher said it best… The problem with you Socialists is that eventually you run out of other people’s money too!
            I pray you have a Great Day!!!

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Siegfried

            Jack… Let me guess, you’re a post graduate student getting re-tooled for the Green Economy, lol.
            FACT: when Social Security started in 1936 there were 20 workers to support 1 retiree, but now there are only 3 workers to support one retiree. Back in 1995 the US Supreme Court had affirmed that the Government has no obligation (liability) to pay any Social Security, it is not a private sector guarantee, unlike the public sector PERA. The private sector continues to passively remit 15% of our income to the IRS under the big lie of future SS & Medicaid benefits, but SS has become the world’s largest Ponzi Scheme. Most of my employees will never see a dime of that money, they need THEIR MONEY NOW, not taxed away with a future promise to pay. I would like to see the Government stop collecting SS for all hourly workers but force them to set the money aside into Medical Savings Accounts in their names. But the Government WANTS to take MORE to give them inferior health care, it’s a scam as are ALL government administrated social programs are. Your blaming Regan doesn’t hold water, for the US becoming a “DEBTOR nation” because We the Sheeple continue to feed this Monster Government that makes promises like SS & Medicare that it simply can’t continue to deliver without massive RATIONING.

            YES Demand creates jobs, but where is the REAL demand for American made products? Back in the 1930’s the Gov paid guys to dig holes and paid other guys to fill them back in, the WPA and CCC, lots of busy work but no REAL JOBS. You still believe Gov creates job???
            You don’t have to cry “child labor abuse” drivel, that was over 100 years ago, it is not the Unions of the 21st Century. UNION ARE A LABOR MONOPOLY. You’ve conveniently side stepped my proof that union have an unassailable monopoly! Without competition Unions consistently push up their demands far beyond the market’s ability to support those demands, thus destroying jobs by pushing them off shore. AGAIN I repeat… most PERA union pensions (Fireman, Teachers, Police) are so grossly underfunded because they are not tied to Real World economics. AGAIN their Ferrari retirement plans are far from “enslavement”; but more like diamond studded platinum parachutes that are simply unsustainable, SS benefits are Yugo’s by comparison.
            I agree that some protectionist laws are necessary to protect PROPERTY RIGHTS, but that knife cuts both ways, be careful. Do you really believe those garments in Walmart are made by Chinese slaves?
            Clearly you’ve not done your research on Single-Payer government run care? AGAIN… Every country that’s tried it has run major deficits and has had to RATION the care, and the elderly get kicked to the curb, as did my grandmother in Bamberg. Absent Competition to hold costs in check the Government simply supplements the Real Cost with taxpayer’s money which it does not have so it PRINTS more! Printing more and more and more money for under-funded programs it is simply a silent and stealth theft of your and my retirement savings, that’s why WE are so poor.

            FINAL NOTES: I am a small business owner with 50+ employees. I pay them UNION wages with fringes. I pay half of their Health Insurance but they opt out. They make a very good “living wage” but they are still mostly poor because our Government still CONFISCATES 25%+ of their “Living Wage” Income with NO Hope or Change for Real Retirement Savings. More TAXES of any kind won’t improve the INFLATION caused Slavery, but LESS GOVERNMENT will reduce the DEMAND for ever more Tax and Inflation Spending.

            BOTTOM LINE: We’ve established that you’re a Socialist Liberal and you believe MORE Government wealth RE-DISTRIBUTION (higher taxes) is the ultimate Solution and you want more of my property! NO THANK YOU!!

            Margaret Thatcher said it best… The problem with you Socialists is that eventually you run out of other people’s money too!
            I pray you have a Great Day!!!
            DISREGARD PREVIOUS POST, TOO MANY ERRORS

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. Jack

            lol i dont have even my bachelors yet, and itll be in history, good try though, that is where the jobs will be.

            Let’s talk Social Security then. In 1983, Reagan raised the tax payrolls, saying it would create a surplus in Social Security, from the very first day he was using that surplus to finance the deficit he created by giving tax cuts to the rich. If that’s not wealth distribution I don’t know what is. Social Security generated a $2 trillion surplus between ’84 and ’07, it’s empty because they used it to finance their deficits.

            And I don’t know why you can’t get this through your head. We can promise SS & Medicare if we roll back the Reagan tax cuts, that is a fact. And I’m saying I agree with you that if we’re not going to roll back those tax cuts, then we should get rid of all these programs.

            And I take great offense to your comment about WPA and CCC, this is just typical right-wing out-of-touchness. I go to places all the time, state parks and wilderness areas on and on, these beautiful places that are there because things like the CCC. We need much more programs like that. These kids were out of work, so were their families. They got to keep some money, the rest went home to their families. And we’re still seeing the success of thse programs, or at least I do a couple times a week when I go out into the Shawnee National Forest. You should watch ‘National Parks America’s Best Idea’ by Ken Burns, it’s a great film.

            And you’re claim about unions is just wacko. There are hundreds of Sprinkler Fitter companies that do work in Chicago alone, hundreds of Pipe Fitter companies, there is plenty of competition among these businesses, and all the workers are unionized. They are trained and talented workers. ‘Will you be a lousy scab or will you be a man?’

            BOTTOM LINE: I thought you were a little smarter than to quote Margarat Thatcher, but that’s okay. I’m not a socialist liberal, I just believe that Laissez-faire and Fascism are one in the same. As Jefferson said, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” That is what I believe in. I know that Government can take away our rights. But what Libertarians seemingly don’t understand is ‘within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.’ In business, laissez-faire propoes that there are no equal rights of others, that one is free to do whatever he/she wishes, because that’s Freedom… well try not forget you’re only free to do what doesn’t take away others’ freedoms. Call that socialism if you like, but Jefferson called it ‘rightful liberty’.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          4. Bottomline

            JACK, JACK, JACK! I am just as upset of the Government! & You need to get your facts straight! Like You I thought the Government was extremely stupid to bail out Wall Street! I have said many times that I have a problem with the Government! I did not vote for Obama! I believed that the GOP had good ideas to fix the Health Care system! The Demorats would not show their behind the door shady deals! With this WAY TO BIG GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM! I am a Centrist! I am no fan of the Demcratic nor the Republican Party! The Feds needs to be cleaned up!

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Bottomline

      SIEGFRIED, SIGFRIED,SIEGFRIED! I AM NOT A WHINEY LEFT WING THAT DEPENDS ON THE GOVERNMENT EVERYTIME I GET INTO TROUBLE! YOU SHOULD ALSO GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT! I DON’T BELIEVE IN RAISING TAXES ON PEOPLE! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES IS USELESS? GOD BLESS YOU & JACK!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Siegfried

        Bottomline and Jack
        Government is not the solution it’s the problem. You both naively believe that Distribution of Wealth is a Social Justice, its THEFT!!! More taxes drives jobs out of the economy. Your future jobs have been shipped to China.
        Neither of you understand that the Fed Reserve is the TOOL of the Government to STEAL the people’s money while they orchestrate monetary crises after monetary crises and blame it on Capitalism. It’s Fascism and the government creating mercantile CARTELS with Big Banks, Big Business and Big Labor! Unions destroy the Right To Work they force businesses to pay wages that the world Free Market can’t justify nor support, AGAIN your jobs are going overseas! There’s no “Free Market” only a Central Government manipulating markets that defy the laws of Nature and Physics.
        God Bless

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Bottomline

          Of course the Fed has a bunch of crooks stealing our money for their profits! I have never been a fan of Government intervention! It only adds to our problem not solve it!

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Jack

          more taxes dont drive jobs out of the economy… free trade and greed does. Tariffs solve that exportation of jobs problem easily. Now corporations can’t have slaves anymore and wont be destroying the land in which they open up their factories since their are no environmental standards in those countries.

          And Siegfried, this is my biggest problem with Libertarians, and I’m glad you admit it the way you do. I can not believe you guys actually want to compete with workers pay and conditions that they receive in China. The fact that you think workers in this country have it to good honestly scares me and makes me sick to my stomach.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. longshotlouie

    FOOD STAMPS: How JP Morgan gets rich with increased poverty

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYRG9f5F4gw&feature=player_embedded

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Bottomline

      Yeah! That’s becuase the Government Intervene by bailing out Wall Street A Year in a half ago!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Bottomline

    OH! I AM VERY UPSET WITH THE PARTY THAT’S IN THE MAJORITY! I CONSIDER MYSELF A SWING VOTER! I DON’T TRUST BOTH BRANDS OF BOTH PARTIES! I’LL ADMIT THAT COMMENT I MADE ABOUT PALIN WAS HARSH! & SHOULD’VE MADE A BETTER SELECTION OF WORDS! BUT I AM IN THE MINORITY HERE! I AM SURE SHE IS A CHAMPION OF FREEDOM & LIBERTY! & I DID NOT GET INFORMED ANY MEDIA FROM IDIOLOGS! THE DEMS ARE BANKRUPTING THIS COUNTRY! LIKE THE GOP WHEN THEY WERE IN THE MAJORITY & DURING THE BUSH YEARS! I’M JUST SAYING THAT THERE ARE OTHER WOMEN IN THE PARTY THAT ARE ALSO CHAMPIONS OF FREEDOM & LIBERTY AS PALIN!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Lindsey

      Bottomline; There are other women that fall into Sarah Palin’s category except for one fact; They don’t have her record of accomplishments. I would trust her because she has delivered before and I believe can deliver again!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Bottomline

        Maybe so! I guess she’s just warming up! I know that she have a real tough task ahead of her! & She has a full time as a parent and an elected official! I am still a little skeptical!

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Lindsey

    Although I agree that Keynesian policies are a bad approach to economic policy, changing to a different policy will not totally cure our economic woes. Even if we do get the right policies in place it will be a long hard grind to get this country back to where it should be. This effort will require a long period of sacrifice by the American people. Are we ready for it?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. ForeignPolicyPolice

      Yes, we are ready for it and ready to punish those responsible.

      http://www.votervoice.net

      That means repeal Legal Tender law. This is the most important legislation ever put into the USA, it needs to be studied, formed for basis and voted into law.

      Auditing the Fed shows how corrupt all of government has become. Repealing Legal Tender law allows the solution of competition to start wiping it all off the books.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Siegfried

        Auditing the FED is an exercise in futility, a delay of justice. Simply raid the NY Federal Reserve Bank, (and all regional member banks too) lock the doors, secure OUR gold bullion and move it to Ft Knox, the citizen’s bank vault and begin the systematic dismantling of the most corrupt banking system ever. Debt fiat currency has served only the Banksters and has resulted in stripping the people of their natural wealth. The citizens of this country need to force their politicians to make the change to a Debt Free Currency, a Treasury currency, and outlaw Fractional Reserve banking for all time. Commodity backing, gold, silver, copper, etc. is almost superfluous, but perhaps necessary to have Honest Politicians… oops, sorry for that oxymoron.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Siegfried

      The people have already “sacrified” enough. Its time the Government gets sacrificed. Cut in half would be a good start!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. BothAreResponsible

    Jack, both parties are responsible for the downfall of the dollar because both of them follow the completely ludicrous Keynesian model.

    Libertarian conservatives have never been in charge of this country for long, we lost our hold in government during the early 70s.

    We have been pointing out what is wrong since the beginning, that Charles Keynes is truly a fraud and the answer lies in a new economic system and new party.

    Democrats and Republicans have brought us absolutely nothing, after 60+ years. That is why so many people are now voting for third party candidates, under the disguise of some party like republican or independent.

    That is truly the only way to fix this mess, is by changing the policies. Not the politicians as they’ll never fix it. The policies, which both parties follow to the hilt, are entirely flawed.

    Every piece of legislation should be read on the house floor like old school conservatives would do. They don’t even do that anymore. We should not be in the United Nations at all either, and they don’t care about that anymore. Personal liberty is more important than enormous government, that dream started to fall apart in 1970.

    The truth is, your “parties” have had all the time in the world to fix this and they never have. Both democrats and republicans.

    And the only one who can fix this, is always, the true conservatives of the independent Boston Tea party.

    You may find yourself agreeing with our position once you read the truth of these policies, and see that the parties have failed.
    http://mises.org – He was NOT the first to point it out, only one of the most articulate.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Jack

      You’re simply overshooting this BothAreResponsible. Keynesianism ended when Reagan got into office, at the heart of Keynesianism is demandside spending, the last 30 years have been all supplyside economics. And when you say absolutely nothing after 60+ years that’s just horribly wrong. The Golden Age of Capitalism was the ’40s, ’50s, & ’60s and that was a result of true progressive policies such as even a Republican President setting the top rate at 91%. It was proven that those progressive policies worked and it wasn’t until they started to get stripped away did things start to change for the worse again.

      But I agree that both democrats and republicans are corrupt, the democrats talked a good game but they’ve just proven they’re in bed with big business too. Fortunately, there are a handful of democrats and the independent senator Bernie Sanders who are doing good things on the Left. And honestly, I see the same type of thing with SOME of the Tea Party movement on the Right, but for you to say its only true conservatives, just no, lol. What we need is for all the non-corporatists on the Left and Right to find areas of agreement while sticking to our principles, which will actually be possible since we wont have moneyed interests in our way.

      Just look at the last two shows Ron Paul was on, the one’s on this website. Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz. And he was even on the Thom Hartmann Programm and they had a lot to agree about.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. longshotlouie

        What you describe as ‘demand-side spending’ is simply neo-Keynesianism.

        At any point that you had manipulation of the money supply and/or interest rates, you did not have free-market capitalism.

        Your Golden Age of Capitalism could not be sustained, thus Nixon wa changed the monetary system.

        Your point about ‘non-corporatists on the Left and Right finding areas of agreement while sticking to our principles’ is well taken, but what is far more important is that both lose the state sponsered institution of higher re-education take on economic history.

        Sorry Jack, but the facts are not on your side.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Jack

          longshotlouie, I happen to believe the facts are on my side, but I don’t think we could settle that debate.

          I believe it’s time for the people who believe in Ron Paul and the people who believe in Bernie Sanders take back the government from the Corporate Dems and Repubs. I believe we could solve this if we could find areas of agreement. For example Paul and Sanders leading the efforts to audit the fed, Sanders putting a hold on Bernanke, opposing bailouts for these banks. And frankly, I’d like to hear more of what solutions you people have, I figured Ron Pauls website would be the place to learn that.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. longshotlouie

            You see before you a library of our thinking. Many, many hours of reading and viewing right here on site.

            In the event that victory is achieved in this battle, we will still have lost if our interpretation of history is not correct.
            History repeats itself because truth is ignored.

            Welcome to our humble blog.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. TakingDownTheRubicon

          Corporate robber barons and systematic thieves of the republic, run both the Republicans and Democrats in the upper management.

          Some call these corporatists neocons…

          I call them Global Zionists. All of them. Each one in tune with the sacraficial lamb of slavery, that being completely backwards policies that enable theft; and that tout what mankind can only call … -

          “Globalization”

          We don’t want “Globalization” as a society, do we?

          Learn the truth and study what Austria and the Free Market has always said, our slavery lies right in front of our own eyes tied to duplicitous, treasonous banks.

          http://mises.org

          Without it, we would not have much terrorism left to deal with…

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Siegfried

      Our politicians have become the hand puppets of the Military Industrial Complex (corporate welfare) and the Marxist (social welfare), both parties have sold out to these special interests and both welfare recipients expect payback in federal reserve notes and much more than the Politicians are willing to tax the population. The FED has become the willing dispenser of money opium for political payola. This system of political payoff is not likely to change any time soon. International military intervention abroad and social engineering agendas at home have become our political addictions and the politicians are happy to continue the roll of Pushers.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. SS

    Nate, have you read ‘Lombard Street: A Description of the Money Market’
    1873? It has a very interesting introduction.
    http://www.econlib.org/library/Bagehot/bagLom.html

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Nate Y

      I haven’t read it but I’ll give it a look. Thanks.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Bottomline

    Also Palin=dumb! I’m sorry to say this! But there are plenty of other women in the GOP who are more qualified than she is! Quite honestly! I’m one of the few men in this country who think Palin wouldn’t be a great choice to run this country!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Lindsey

      Bottomline: Obviously, you’ve been taken in by the liberal media with regards to your views on Sarah Palin. Go read her book Bottomline and then after you become informed I’m sure that you will change your tune about Sarah Palin! Palin is one of this country’s champion freedom fighters!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. SS

    Even Mexican citizens can have a silver account.

    We need competition in currency.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Bottomline

    Let’s just say that the previous decade was a decade to forget!
    Obama=Bush #3! Democrats=Demorats minus Dennis Kucinich, Far Right Wing=War Lovers+Coorperatists! Ron Paul=Freedom+ Liberty+Realism
    2000+2009=Decade to subtract!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. ThomasPaineReturns.Net

    As the Keynesian rescue plans advance, the gap between the haves and the have-nots will become more and more obvious. Many central banks have reduced interest rates to nearly zero, which greatly restricts manoeuvres by monetarist followers. Thus, Keynesians now have many world economies at their mercy. Australia is an exception, in that it still holds interest rates around 3.00 percent. Therefore, as long as Australia’s interest rates do not fall too far, the country will have more flexibility in weathering the global economic crisis.

    Countries in Africa and South America have already been impacted by the unjust distribution of rescue-package funding. Whole countries and regions are falling into desperate economic circumstances. This is by design of the ruling elite, who are still putting up the pretence that the Keynesian rescue packages will have long-term positive effects.

    http://thomaspainereturns.net/posts/bilderbergers.html

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. ThomasPaineReturns.Net

    Again, with one voice, the world leaders now seek enormous economic rescue packages. Regardless of apparent differences being aired domestically and internationally, their ultimate goal remains similar – to pass huge packages that will draw the whole world into debtor’s “prisons”.

    The leaders are now stressing the urgency to pass these rescue packages to ward off another 1930s-style Great Depression. They argue that the American President, Franklin Roosevelt, used the Keynesian economic model of huge deficit spending to pull the United States out of the Great Depression. This, they claim, can be done again on a global scale. However, the huge spending outlays by the Roosevelt government did not bring the country out of depression, it was the entry into World War II that did.

    The share markets are faltering and have been propped up by the ruling elite to uphold what little value still exists in them. The ruling elite do not want to risk any more of their resources to prop up the markets, so they have called on the governments of the world to do this for them. The governments are answering the ruling elite’s calls by passing enormous rescue packages, which will temporarily maintain the illusion of some remaining value in the markets. These packages are not designed to help the ordinary people keep their homes and jobs. Instead, they are rescue packages for the favoured of the ruling elite. The people who put their confidence in the ruling elite’s providence will end up disappointed when their common stock becomes practically valueless.

    Banks are amongst the most favoured sons and daughters of the ruling elite. Once the plans are in motion, the “rescued” banks will become greedy landpersons who grab higher rents and more properties. The common people will suffer horrendously at the hands of the ruling elite and their banks.

    The rescue packages will fail miserably, which is exactly what the ruling elite anticipate. Then, the global recession will develop into global depression. The ruling elite hope that history will repeat, and just as the Great Depression of the 1930s led to World War II, the ruling elite hope that the twenty-first century economic depression will lead to World War III.

    If the ruling elite have their way, things will get decidedly worse for the people. Those who understand the situation should resist the ruling elite.

    http://thomaspainereturns.net/posts/resist.html

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Siegfried

      The Bankster Elite rescue package had nothing for the sheple of the country, except if you’re in a union. Our government and others have become far bigger than the people can support and they continue to spend us into oblivion, it can’t last much longer.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. longshotlouie
  16. Jack

    This article is insane. It was Keynesianism that brought us the Golden Age of the Middle Class from the ’40s-’70s, not one single boom and bust occurred in that era, since the ’80s we’ve had four boom and busts. This mess was absolutely was caused by a lack of government regulation in the financial markets, most notably the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

    But what’s most insane about this article is the title, this decade was a decade of Keynesianism? That’s news to me. I could’ve sworn we had a Republican president for 8 years of this decade who claimed that the way to create jobs was to give tax cuts to the rich, which is the exact opposite of Keynesianism. Even the stimulus bill Obama signed was half tax cuts and was pretty lame compared to Roosevelt standards.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. longshotlouie

      You seemed to be confused about that which constitutes Keynesianism.
      http://mises.org/daily/2492

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Nate Y

      Republicans are Keynesians and Democrats are Keynesians. This is a one party two faction system.

      Your post almost reads like you would like to see more taxes levied. Please tell us that I am misreading your words.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Jack

        I agree that there’s not much difference between Republicans and most Democrats. They’re corporatists, including Obama. When the Keynesian era ended with Ronald Reagan getting into office and abruptly cutting taxes across the board for the rich, in just a few years we went from largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation. We have a lot to pay for, and we had a tax system that allowed New Deal, Great Society policies to be paid for easily. But it was the conservatives that changed that tax system creating such a large debt to where we had two choices: Get rid of the government programs, raise taxes. Reagan, after the largest tax cut on the rich in history, he then passed the largest increase on working people in history.. the payroll tax, cigarette taxes, etc. I respect Libertarians because they would have cut the government programs rather than put us in debt. I’m a Liberal because I would’ve rolled back Reagan’s tax cuts for the rich and go back to paying for these programs easily like we did for the 40 years that preceded.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Nate Y

          I still call myself a liberal. Traditionally, a liberal is someone who promotes individual liberty and denounces government authority. It’s not my fault the word has been corrupted over time.

          Anyway, you seem to be operating with a definition of “Keynesianism” that is different from any I have ever heard.

          Also, we didn’t have a tax system that allowed the New Deal and Great Society programs to be paid for easily. We’re still suffering from those policies. The Fed with their money printing (inflation) helped finance those blunders.

          Check out America’s Great Depression by Murray Rothbard and The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal

          http://mises.org/store/Americas-Great-Depression-P63.aspx

          http://mises.org/store/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-to-the-Great-Depression-and-the-New-Deal-P580.aspx

          Cheers

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Jack

            Actually, we DID have a tax system that allowed the New Deal and Great Society programs to be paid for easily, because they were paid for easily until Ronald Reagans 1980s tax cuts on the rich. Those tax cuts were specifically designed to create debt which we never had to put those programs in the crapper so they could declare them bankrupt and get rid of them. And they admit it themselves, Ronald Reagans bud Grover Norquist developed it, its called “Starve the beast”. Heres the first line in wikipedia, “”Starving the beast” is a fiscal-political strategy of some American conservatives to use budget deficits via tax cuts to force future reductions in the size of government.”

            The reason we’re suffering is not because of those policies, but because we changed how we would pay for those policies. I personally believe conservatives decided not to get rid of the programs and to keep increasing debt because they are afraid of the people and believe the best way to rule is by a wealthy elite. I believe libertarians genuinely believe we should get rid of the programs because of their market fundamentalism.

            And maybe when you read about Keynesianism you shouldn’t read it from someone who opposes it. Keynesianism is demand side spending into the economy. So give money to those who spend(the working class), they will spend that money into the PRIVATE sector(more demand), the private sector will then need to meet that demand therefore expanding. Libertarians seem to think Keynesianism is any type of government spending..

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. longshotlouie

            We understand exactly what Keynesianism is and why it has failed.
            Keynesian economists believe in a government’s intervention in the economy through public policies to achieve full employment and price stability through the a perpetual daisychain of debt.

            In other words, it is a complete failure.

            Hey, ‘We’re All Socialists Now’
            http://mises.org/daily/3994

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Nate Y

          Jack,

          I am familiar with Keynesian economics. I have more formal education in Keynesian economics than Austrian econ. This is just a consequence of going to a public university in the US.

          Anyway, I doubt I’ll convince you of anything. A message board like this just isn’t the place to even attempt it. I’ll merely suggest again that you give those books a read.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Jack

            Well, I think it’s great that I explained it and why it worked for 40 years, why the last 30 years has NOT been an era of Keynesianism, but the removal of those policies. Libertarians both responded with nothing more than ‘I understand what Keynesianism is.’ Beautiful.

            All you need to do is read ANY history book, or easily go to Wikipedia and it will tell Keynesianism ended with the ’70s and was replaced with Reaganomics. You Libertarians have had your way for 30 years and are the only people in the world that think Bush and Reagan embrace Keynesianism.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Nate Y

            “You Libertarians have had your way for 30 years”

            This is a joke right? Libertarians and those who follow the Austrian school of economics have been most persistent and vocal critics of government fiscal and monetary policy for the last 30 years. So I guess you want higher levels of government spending? That’s what Krugman (one of today’s leading Keynesians) is prescribing.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. GBShaw

          Jack has learned his Newspeak well.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. SS

          Keynesianism reverted to Neo-Keynesianism on August 15, 1971.
          It will die after ~40 years, just the way that Keynesianism died after ~40 years.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Jack

            “Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.” -Fmr. Vice Pres. Henry A. Wallace on fascism in America. This is exactly what our politicians have succeeded in doing. They’ve kept big government, except these past 30 years have been big government for the rich and not for the working people like the previous 30 years. And now instead of having a way to pay for it like we did, we decided that we wont tax the rich and we’ll find every little thing possible to tax on the average American.

            The reason I’m even writing this is because I know on each end of the spectrum, Libertarians and Progressives, both want to genuinely get rid of the corporatists, whom basically are all of Congress besides Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders. And I know I can agree with Libertarians when they say this spending is unsustainable and we need to cut the size of government. And we have to do that if we’re not going to change WHO pays for it. Where I differ is I believe in taxing the rich, I believe we can heavily increase spending and pay for it easily by taxing only the rich. It sounds like socialism, but we’ve had socialism the last 30 years, except it was from the bottom to the top.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        5. Siegfried

          Jack, With all due respect…
          John Maynard’s real contribution was to suggest that Government could employ “short term” monetary stimulus (expanding the M1 money for consumers) as a means to stimulate a flagging economy. But even John knew that to continuously expand the money supple would be highly inflationary. The theory has merit when the accelerator and brakes are applied in balanced measures.

          Milton Freedman argued that Keynes theory failed because the political will never had the discipline to use the brakes.
          Johnson’s Great Society was a disaster, Nixon’s war spending, Carter’s loose monetary policies, Clinton’s social agenda that EVERYONE is ENTITLED to a home and using Ms Reno and the DOJ suites to force banks to lower lending standards with Barney running the finance committee and packaging $5 trillion dollars of loans and using Freddy and Fannie as instruments to monetize this ambitious social agenda. The Liberals used those two GSEs agency to “palletize” these massively unsecured subprime notes. Talk about no brakes, Barney was repeatedly questioned about the obvious massive liquidity shortfalls (zero reserves), and he assured congress multiple times “there is no problem, don’t worry”. Point being, when Government bureaucrats have no skin in the game, it’s all peddled to the metal, NO Brakes. Uncle Milty’s point proven time and time again.

          As for Tax cuts for the rich… Regan cut the repressive Johnson and Carter tax rates from 85% to 39% on the top earners in conjunction with pressuring Paul Volker, Fed Chair, to increase reserve requirements to 20% and tighten the discount window. The two policy changes brought inflation down 12% and industrial and consumer spending rose sharply while Tax revenues doubled.

          How much more taxes would you suggest? Currently the top 10% pay 70% of all taxes, the bottom 50% pay 5%, should we just confiscate the rest and “spread the wealth”? It doesn’t work, never has!

          But go ahead, support Nancy, Harry and Barack with their massive taxes for DemCare and Cap and Trade and Union candy treats for those sacred “government programs” and enjoy the Great Depression, take 2. See you in the soup line!
          God Bless

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Jack

            First of all Siegfried, I think you raised very important pointts and I think it’s crucial to the discussion we need to be having.

            To start with, you have your tax rates wrong. The top marginal rate was 70% for the entire decade of the ’70s(and most the ’60s too). Reagan originally only dropped it to 50% and not until his last year in his office did he cut it down to 28%, while those in lower income brackets paid 33%! Next, those tax rates on the rich were not repressive, the rich did absolutely fine, but there certainly was not these extraordinary unimaginable amounts of wealth a very few people made since. And just to let you know, from the early ’40s to early ’60s the tax rate hovered around 90%, give or take a few percent in some years.

            This was not a problem, we weren’t a socialist country. It kept the tax burden off of the upper middle class working folks. So instead of the upper middle class paying taxes for the lower middle class, basically creating what we see nowadays as one lower middle class. There was a LARGE upper middle class and they were free from the burden of heavy taxes. All the New Deal programs and Great Society programs were EASILY funded because of high top marginal rates, high corporate tax rates, and high capital gains tax rates. So when you say it has never worked, actually it worked PERFECTLY for 30 years.

            You meantioned the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes, I believe that’s correct. But what you’re leaving out is that the top 1% pays 50% of those taxes! So other 9% only has a 20% tax burden. My question to you is how much of the wealth does the top 1% own in this country? I know they own more than the bottom 90%. I know CEOs of large corporations make on average 400 times more than their employees, compared to about 30 times more in 1980, before the supply-side revolution. HOW MUCH TAX CUTS DO THEY NEED, HOW MUCH WEALTH DO THEY NEED BEFORE THEY CAN START CREATING JOBS?!?!

            lol. I think it’s interesting that there was much more job creation when people who supposedly ‘create jobs’ had less money to create jobs. Maybe it’s because tax cuts don’t create jobs. Demand create jobs. Wages drive demand.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0