The American Spectator : Reaganomics is the Only Answer

jppc| 7.13.11 @ 6:20AM

Libs/progressives/socialists/Marxists must control every aspect of life - for their think they know best and they don't trust individual people making their individual choices in life.

Consequently, Barry Odumbo does not like free enterprise because as a "progressive", he is supremely confident in his IQ and he feels he knows better than us rubes in fly-over country. Also, "progressives" do not like free enterprise because in free enterprise, the smarter, the harder working, the more ambitious usually get ahead and Odumbo's main constituents are, shall we say, the less achieved. He is anti-business, anti-profit, anti-individual liberty.

He is for the collective. Group rights. Collectivism, socialism, statism, communism. Is there any doubt that these beliefs are his main, core philosophy?

This is why many Americans like me say Odumbo is basically anti-American. Not because he's black - hell he's not even black but bi-racial. It's because at his core, he does not agree with the founding of the USA - individual liberty (and thus, free enterprise).

CrackerHound| 7.13.11 @ 11:16AM

{{{"Odumbo's main constituents are, shall we say, the less achieved. He is anti-business, anti-profit, anti-individual liberty."}}}}

He is Hugo Chavez redux

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 12:07PM

You are so wrong ... but believe what you will.

Harry Russell | 7.13.11 @ 1:07PM

The proof is in the pudding. We believe what we are seeing and going through and the stats to back it up. We believe what goes on day by day, not what we are dreaming about.

Dave Williams| 7.13.11 @ 1:16PM

Ah, now we have official confirmation that he is RIGHT, since every day for the Purpster is Opposite Day....

Ground Control| 7.13.11 @ 3:58PM

Our Porphyrous Aquaintance probably works for the government, which means boom-time for him. And I'm sure he cares not a whit for those whose jobs are sacrificed in the drive for ever more government power and authority. Obama is doing to the USA what Sherman did to Atlanta, albeit by other means, and for similar reasons.

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:16PM

Always a reference to the Civil War when we have a Black President... your slip is showing

Ground Control| 7.14.11 @ 11:00AM

This is the stupidest comment I have ever read on these pages. My goodness, you're an idiot.

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:21PM

Thank you for I would be proud to work for the government, as I did as an Air Force active duty. The mantra of government power grab falls like a lead balloon after the biggest government intrusions in our lives under the Republicants. In an effort to provide security, THEY stole our freedoms - and y'all accepted it gladly. And, NOW you are bloviating about why you don't like it? As Benjamin Franklin (you remember him don't you? ) said, and I paraphrase "Those that give up the smallest freedom for any measure of security deserve neither freedom nor security" ...

Ground Control| 7.14.11 @ 11:17AM

Look, your idiotness, the Air Force (military) is a constitutionally authorized power of the US Government. Health care and health insurance are not, nor are education, welfare and food stamps, and corn subsidies. It is these social welfare and corporate subsidy programs (all given to us by DEMOCRATS, with RINO's in a supporting role) that constitute the bulk of Federal spending. In other words, MOST of what the US Government does is flatly illegal, and this flatly illegal spending is bankrupting the country. I never voted for these bloated budgets or unconstitutional programs, which only serve to buy votes for Democrats. Indeed, in the 37 years I have been registered to vote, I have NEVER voted for a successful candidate for the House of Representatives. The guy I vote for always loses to a Democrat. The rep from my district has been, over the years, Robert Leggett, Vic Fazio, Barbara Boxer, and George Miller, and the lot of them ain't worth a bucket of warm spit. If you want to know why we have a spending problem, and why the economy is tanking, look at this gallery of crooks, liars, cheats, and thieves.

By the way, I vocally opposed the Patriot Act (and still do) and similar illegal, unnecesary intrusions into private lives and violations of people's rights. Likewise I oppose the IRS and the current US Tax Code, which routinely violate the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Idiots like you believe that government is the beginning and end of civilization. That it is government that defines a people and a nation. You would have made a wonderful Roman Patrician politician in your smug arrogance and your idolatry of the State. ("Blessed is the State, Blessed are the Masses...") Now go back to your thorazine.

Alan Brooks| 7.13.11 @ 4:07PM

Reagan worked for the '80s, as Ike worked for the '50s-- but no more.
You DO worship Reagan, he is your GOP version of Mao; if Reagan returned to life and asked you to jump off a bridge, you would do so.

Sherman rides again!| 7.13.11 @ 4:11PM

Alan comparing Reagan to Mao is child-est at best.
Please stay on topic and yes your Master has failed.

TrueBlue| 7.13.11 @ 4:16PM

No we wouldn't. That's the difference between libs and conservatives. We don't take what politicians (that supposedly support our views) say as gospel and follow it without thinking.

Alan Brooks| 7.13.11 @ 6:48PM

Reagan wasn't Maoist in politics-- but your worshipping the Gipper is Mao-scale cultist.
After 22 and 1/2 years, your worship of Reagan IS cultist and demonstrates how in 2 decades you couldn't even find a successor to him, show you know the Bushes were inferior in so many ways. I have no respect for the GOP; after I was assured by Repuglicans in 1995- '96 that Clinton would lose the '96 election-- and of course he did not-- I felt no guilt in loathing the GOP.

Nevertheless, you are correct in worshipping Reagan-- he is all you have! memories are all you've got left. He was your Finest Hour...
now the jig is up.

Mike Hawk| 7.13.11 @ 7:13PM

(__!__)

Ground Control| 7.13.11 @ 7:28PM

Horse manure.

Alan Brooks| 7.13.11 @ 7:54PM

Why don't you take the portraits of Jesus out of your churches and place Reagan's portraits in their place?
You DO worship Reagan's ghost.

blackwatch| 7.13.11 @ 10:09PM

brooks thats a pretty damn hateful thing to say even for you.

we don't worship Reagan. He was man. we believe that his policies actually work--unlike the policies of Keynes that The Kenyan wants all of us to follow off a financial cliff.

If printing money is so great then why doesn't Obama have the Fed print up $23,000,000 for every American and mail us the checks.

Alan Brooks| 7.13.11 @ 10:58PM

"The Kenyan wants all of us to follow off a financial cliff."

Obama was born in Hawaii, as you KNOW.
And he is not worshipped, he is thanked for defeating McCain.

Jive Bomber| 7.14.11 @ 12:26AM

Reagan wouldn't ask anyone to jump off a bridge because it would not be an honorable thing for a gentleman to ask much less demand. And besides, when we think lemmings, its democrats that come to mind. :>)

Ground Control| 7.14.11 @ 11:22AM

Look stupid, I worship no man and no ghost. Only God above. You know nothing of me or what I believe other than what is displayed here. You conclusions are groundless. Your assertions are false. You rely on non-sequiturs and wild accusations to make points that mean nothing and do not address the issue at hand. You are clearly unintelligent, arrogant, dishonest, and quite nasty. You really do need help.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.13.11 @ 6:30AM

Companies have relocated millions of job opportunities overseas and there is no reason whatsoever for those companies to bring those jobs back.

Taxes are only part of the problem. The American workplace has become a maze of treachery against the business owners where an employee can retain a grievance privately for decades and then sue for any real or imagined grievance.

Even after they are hired they entitled groups can get together and attempt to sue for billions, the case from Wal-Mart being a recent example.

Companies are forced to hire applicants based on their gender and race. After hiring these government certified winners, those companies are then forced to promote and sustain them.

That is not the way a business can operate and thrive and that's one of the main reasons you see companies changing their operational models, moving some jobs overseas and completely eliminating other job opportunities.

There is no long term security to be found in the job market in America. There are way too many regulations, way to many federal hiring edicts and too few legal options left to protect a business against phony complaints from minorities and women.

In that environment, why would any business hire anyone?

oldfart| 7.13.11 @ 7:52AM

The obvious answer is that they are not. One eastern state has done everything it can to pile on has many hidden taxes as they can and then wonder why there is less tax collected. Your foundation companies - the ones that hire 25 to 200 people are going out of business in droves, and National companies are moving their operations to other states or overseas. The idiots have not figures out that Government destroys jobs - a Government job creates NOTHING. With a successful business more goes out than comes in. With Government - more goes in than comes out. DUH.

PJ| 7.13.11 @ 10:39AM

"One eastern state has done everything it can to pile on has many hidden taxes as they can...."

I bet it's Connecticut. It is so bad in CT (Democratic governor & majority Democratic legislature in both houses) that Pfizer is relocating its entire cancer research dept to Taxachussetts.

Have you considered| 7.13.11 @ 11:29AM

Funny you should mention Pfizer and Ct.

Most people are not aware that it was Pfizer who was the beneficiary of the horrendous Kelo vs. New London Ct. case which allowed a municipality to "condemn" under Eminent Domain, a private citizen's property to hand over to another person or entity, namely Pfizer.

Then Pfizer abandoned the project, and the land remains fallow and unproductive. This action actually cost the city in terms of reduced tax revenue.

A fitting end I would say.

PJ| 7.13.11 @ 12:46PM

You're absolutely correct about Pfizer! They're in any project for the short term bottomline. I guess it's OK for a corporation to do it. Yet in the process, it's burning its bridges. Electric Boat, another large employer, in that area, is questioning, along w/ the state govn't, Pfizer's non-goodwill positions.

In the short & long term, much of Connecticut's economy will worsen. It's already stagnant, just like upstate NY's, unless the state government lowers & eliminates many of the taxes & fees.

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:28PM

This is a disingenuous argument. Since businesses that can offer jobs to prospective employees and can uncerimoniously fire anyone, they hold all the cards in the employer-employee contract. The fact that there are rules and standards to be followed and they are onersome to business is just too d* tough. Businesses serve 4 groups - their customers, their stockholders, the government AND their employees. When Customers are not #1, a business is doomed to failure ... but when the employees are not treated as the assets they are, a business is also doomed. Good managers don't fear regulation or oversight. Only poor management that are small minded and really have no idea how to manage resort to layoffs and shipping jobs overseas to make their numbers. It's only a matter of time before some foreign company "steals" the human resources from the Ugly American company and puts the outsourcing company in America out of business. By ignoring America First, a business begins the long slide to oblivion.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.15.11 @ 5:27PM

That's a ridiculous argument. You claim that employees are assets but you miss the point that they are not assets if you don't control them. It's the result of central economic planning and ever more jobs head overseas while the pinheads protect a stupid system.

potkas7| 7.13.11 @ 6:37AM

Ronald Reagan's low-tax policy deserves much credit for the 25-year period of economic expansion that began during his Administration but he was also the beneficiary of a bit of extraordinary luck in the form a transformational new technology that not only changed the way we work, but imposed a new definition of what work is: the microprocessor of the small Computer.

The so-called Computer Revolution changed everything about the way we live. It made a huge contribution toward increasing the national wealth not only for the boy-geniuses who started the new companies but also for the regular blue-collar workin' stiffs who dug the trenches and laid the fiber-optic cables or learned to operate the new CNC manufacturing machines.

I believe the next President will have the opportunity for his own Reagan Revolution because he will have the chance to say, as Reagan did, "You go to work and I'll keep the government off your back."

figusja| 7.13.11 @ 12:20PM

Potkas you said "Ronald Reagan's low-tax policy deserves much credit for the 25-year period of economic expansion that began during his Administration but he was also the beneficiary of a bit of extraordinary luck"
I do not think it was luck. When government steps back and gives the people less regulation and lower taxes it would always bring more invention. More time and money spent on new technologies.

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 12:25PM

Wrong - Reagan raised tax rates 6 times during his 2 2 terms. What he did was close the loopholes in tax reform. But the innovations made possible by the personal computer, etc. has more to do with the economic expansion than Reagan's policies.

Drunken Sailor| 7.13.11 @ 12:31PM

So your saying the Dot.com bubble did the same for Clinton and his surplus? Funny Liberals usually forget that part and give him all the credit.

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 2:38PM

Yes, it did .. exactly right. And he raised taxes too - tax cuts don't do much of anything long term but bankrupt the government.

Drunken Sailor| 7.13.11 @ 2:59PM

And consistently raises taxes bankrupts the rest of the country.

Drunken Sailor| 7.13.11 @ 3:08PM

Oddly this graph doesn't agree with you.

http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/taxpol/fig-1.gif

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:36PM

How stupid .. growth in GDP does not translate to job growth and moreover both of those recoveries were fueled by tax increases, NOT tax cuts. I know, I know - your side says it often and loudly "we all know that tax cuts create jobs ..." but it's bs. But until you expand your mind, you will never understand what motivates people to put capital to work. History teaches this, but just as Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann keep making up their own versions of history, so do the economists on the right. Really, you should listen to Bernanke - he was appointed by Bush you know. Hardly a left winger. But I guess he isn't as far in right-wing magicland like you all seem to be.
Answer this - since the Bush tax cuts have been in effect since 2001, and tax cuts always produce booming economic times and jobs, why did he leave office with less jobs then when he came into office?

Oldefarte| 7.13.11 @ 3:02PM

Really? Gadzooks, let's eliminate ALL taxes then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bob Grant| 7.13.11 @ 1:43PM

Massive deregulation and massive tax incentives for R and D was the magic elixir of economic success in the 80's.

Don't re-paint his legacy as some moderate/liberal republican. I'm sure if you were around then, you were railing against how ultra-conservative he was.

Reagan's inclinations were less government, don't lie. He had to make deals because of the intense opposition to him on capitol hill.

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 2:46PM

Actually, I voted for him twice. And, yes his inclinations were less government, but he increased the size of government during his terms just like GW Bush did... so that canard can be ignored. So, he's not a moderate Republican but he made deals? So what are the current crop of right-wingers? Off the charts?
With regard to deregulation - been on a plane lately with their deregulated overburdened system? How about the deregulated Trucking industry that used to be the safest drivers on the road - how's that working out for us? How about the telephone system? Do you still have an old Bell Telephone - those babies last forever, while the new phones are cheap, Chinese plastic that break when you drop 'em. And how about the Granddaddy of them all - Deregulation of the banking/investment Wall Street connection? Wow, now that has really worked out well, hasn't it? And, don't try to blame the little guy that wanted to buy a house he couldn't afford. The banks and financial institutions were free to sign them up by the millions - and then to slice and dice the mortgages into complete garbage bonds and such - and you like where that has gotten us? Please, don't talk about what you really know nothing about. Reagan has his place ("tear down this wall") in history, but not in economics. Like I said I voted for him twice. So don't glorify the man like he walked on water - he didn't.

Bob Grant| 7.13.11 @ 3:12PM

Oh, so Fannie May and Freddie Mack had billions and billions to, in essence, give to people to go buy a home. Many of whom were without question unqualified home buyers.

This was criminal misuse of government regulation and bank capital by the likes of Bawney Frank, and Christopher Dodd. Those same criminals who now have their name on the massive bill to "correct" the original problem caused by their own doing.

We truly are living in Alice and Wonderland.

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:40PM

Oh, of course, Fannie and Freddie did it all, with Democratic help... Ever hear of Senator Phil Gramm? Large Banks and Wall Street had nary a thing to do with it, right? Ever hear of "Too Big to Fail"; try reading it OR watching the movie - you will learn what happened; not the Fixed News slanted version of events - Nice story your magicland on Fixed News and Rush Loudmouth have constructed - and you swallow it hook, line and sinker. They are laughing at your poor intelligence in holding them to account.

Ground Control| 7.13.11 @ 7:34PM

Freddie "Mae" and Fannie "Mack" are government programs, o great Porphyrous One. As for increasing government, you should place appropriate blame at the feet of Tip O'Neill, the master of vote buying with taxpayer money. Domestic welfare and subsidy programs increased in budget during the 1980's at a far faster pace than military spending. The difference is military spending is a constitutional power of Congress, whereas welfare and subsidy programs are not.

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:43PM

Oh, yeah, Freddie and Fannie are government programs, so they MUST be bad, bad, bad. Of course, nothing in the Corporate world did anything wrong.
What? You really know nothing if you think that Defense spending in Reagan's time didn't balloon the deficit. That was his big mistake. Had he not increased defense spending, he might have actually been fiscally conservative. After he said "Deficits don't matter" and so here we are ... who you think started to bankrupt the U.S. ? Blame Congress all you like - he signed it into law, period.

Ground Control| 7.14.11 @ 11:26AM

Again, stupid, the bulk of increases in federal spending during the 1980's was in domestic spending, not military. Furthermore, military spending is constitutional. Welfare subsidies are not. And Freddie Maca nd Fannie Mae are cause of the current recession and unemployment problems we face right now. But since you're an idiot, you not only wouldn't know that, you couldn't understand it if it were explained to you. Now go back to your thorazine.

skip| 7.13.11 @ 1:47PM

I seriously doubt stupeldupe was even born when Reagan was president.

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 2:48PM

Wrong ... you just all haven't caught up in wisdom. I've been on both sides and your Republicant chaps are destroying this country. First they bankrupt us all and then scream "fiscal responsibility" - go tell it to someone who didn't pay attention - like everyone on this site.

JayDick| 7.13.11 @ 4:13PM

Republicans certainly contributed to the wildly excessive government spending we have today but Republicans are frugal compared to Obama.

skip| 7.13.11 @ 7:06PM

Stoopledoop,

Reagan bad.

Obama good.

Got it.

If you were around when Ronnie created 25 million or so jobs despite the 20% interest rates, 15% inflation, and 10% unemployment that Carter, the original Obama, left him, that just emphasizes even more how pathetic you come off, like a below average performing high schooler stirring it up a little with nothing better to do. You have not contributed a thing in your gazillion posts. Enjoy that image in the mirror next time you have the guts to actually look at it.

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:45PM

Don't put words in my mouth little timmy. But it is interesting that you bring Carter into the picture when you hate when Bush is brought up in defense of Obama... typical you have to have it your way, but no one else can do the same. So provincial and small.

blackwatch| 7.13.11 @ 10:18PM

Moron---Reagan cleaned Carter's clock at the polls and cleaned up his financial mess.

Obama made the current deficit 400% higher the Bushes last budget deficit.

Obama's Keynesian genuflect is ruining this country. That and the Seiu and other unions.

skip| 7.14.11 @ 11:41AM

Simplewimp,

You are being forced to wear the asshat of your own making in this thread by other posters, not me, whom you've never bested.

Archives never lie.

skip| 7.14.11 @ 12:12PM

Wimpelsimp,

The 7/14 thread on "Obama's Debt' is shaping up to be legendary. And it's early. Archives rule.

skip| 7.14.11 @ 6:44PM

pimplepuss

'it is interesting that you bring Carter into the picture when you hate when Bush is brought up in defense of Obama'

I brought up the truth of what Carter left for Reagan.

You and your ilk bring up lies of what Bush left for Obama.

Re: 'Obama's Debt' thread, what, you leave, whenever more than 15 readers expose you as a stupid liar? Is that all it takes?

Clinton Lovell| 7.13.11 @ 2:24PM

Reagan agreed to one tax increase in exchange for spending cuts in the federal budget. We never got the cuts, just the tax increases. Evidently you weren't alive then, but I certainly was and remember it all real well.

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 2:51PM

Oh, I certainly was alive and wept for the man when he was shot and nearly died. He raised taxes 6 TIMES in his 2 terms. Even David Stockman, Reagan's budget director says Reagan's economic policies were fantasies. He presided over the largest expansion in the military since WWII and you think he stopped spending? I was there and I REMEMBER it well.

Al Adab| 7.13.11 @ 4:00PM

Hello purp:
The military certainly needed rebuilding then as it does (even more so ) now. There are enumerated powers and priorities for which spending is appropriate. Spending is as I'm sure you realize not synonymous with debt. Debt can be used if used properly for emergency, wars etc, while "normal" spending simply should fund the day to day operations of government. Redistribution, funding of private groups or agencies, financing of private projects and the like should not be part of federal purview. The simple reality is that the national government does much more than it was ever designed to do or should do. We can of course argue the specifics Dept. by Dept. and project by project but the principle remains.

Al Adab| 7.13.11 @ 4:02PM

OOPS, my apology for missing the capital on Purp.

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:51PM

thank you for that small consideration .. that was actually quite a courteous move, and I am moved by it.

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:50PM

OMG - "Redistribution, funding of private groups or agencies, financing of private projects and the like should not be part of federal purview." - are you kidding. All governments, all taxes are exactly that - redistribution to the common good. Our only disagreement is what is the common good. You believe that anti-abortion measures and unending wars are for the common good, while I believe that caring for the poor, the sick, the young, the disabled, and the elderly are our common good priorities. When you are strong and successful you don't need any help, and so I am eternally grateful to our Lord for allowing me that freedom. But, I realize it may not always be so, and so I support those that are less or have less than I - a lesson I suspect all the selfish, greedy attitudes displayed could learn something about at Sunday School or regular church attendance, synagogue or mosque attendance.

jpusc| 7.14.11 @ 1:52PM

Do you believe that it is a Federal responsibility to take from others to give to those that have children and no means to support such children? Should there be a limit on the support taxpayers are forced to give to such individuals and where would you draw the line? Hard times require hard choices in distribution of taxpayers hard earned money. The government seems to be willing to offer support to an unlimited number of children born to unwed mothers but not require some responsibility of the mother to use contraception to limit pregnancy. Most responsible parents already limit family size because of economics. We often times see about the rising number of poor children but if the poor continue to have child after child what other result could be expected? I am not against a married couple having several children and being able to get "some" assistance as many are in need today through no fault of their own but how about some individual responsibility. A child born and on welfare often times remains there until 19 years old and if a young female who gets pregnant the cycle starts all over again. We cannot afford to continue this!

Die Fledermaus| 7.13.11 @ 5:12PM

Reagan didn't benefit from the computer revolution as we see it today. Most small and midsized companies didn't use a lot of personal computers because of the cost.

I became the controller of a 340 room, four star hotel in 1990 and we had 2 personal computers that were like using stones and chisels by today's standards.

Even during most of the 1990's we didn't start buying and using more until later in the decade. It was only by 2002 did we have a PC on every adminstrative desk.

casquette monster energy | 7.13.11 @ 7:10AM

nice!

nister| 7.13.11 @ 7:38AM

Canada used a stimulus package, and a bailout initiative in concert with Obama's. The author would do well to leave the example of Canada out of the narrative. Canada is exporting ever more expensive oil to the States. Canada's banks sailed through the rough waters that sunk America's banks because of regulations put in place by their government. Canadians who suffer sudden catastrophic illnesses don't lose their homes and possessions because they are uninsured, or under-insured. In short, anti-Reagonomics.

Truth to Power| 7.13.11 @ 8:28AM

Canada should thank Obama and progressives for expensive oil. Canada did not make American banks make inappropriate loans, the American government did. You can repeat stupid myths about American health care but that just makes you stupid. Now for the reality about Canada. It is a shitty little country that has always hid behind the United States or England. On top of that it is headed for the same fall that the rest of the west is. It is heavily invested in ponzi schemes and you won't be able to BS your way out of that. Greece is coming your way too.

Mark in LA| 7.13.11 @ 9:57AM

Another Republican automaton repeating the stupid lies that blame the government for everything. Alt-A and subprime loans were a creation of the unregulated mortgage industry. Wall Street was packaging these loans intio securities long before Freddie and Fannie got into the game. When the collapse came Freddie and Fannie only had 20% of the subprime loans in existance in their portfolios.

The real cause was the way the "free market" works. One guy make a buck making well documented subprime loans. More people see it and get into the game. The supply of good borrowers exhausts quickly but nobody wants to exit the game first so they cheat a little and soon everybody is cheating. There is almost no penalty for white collar crime so it continues uncontrolled.

Truth to Power| 7.13.11 @ 10:13AM

It was a typical government program. It was made to increase home ownership. It puffed up the market to a giant bubble. Liberals like Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelik and Barney Franks boyfriend made big bucks while applying government pressure to the loan industry to make poor loans. When the bubble popped, Raines, Gorelik, and others kept their money, the tax payer was left to bail out the banks and quite naturally fewer people owned houses. Typical government program. Progressives like Mark are destroyers. Stay in LA. They are already gone.

Mark in LA| 7.14.11 @ 10:48AM

Hey genius these programs started in the 1930's and were quite solvent until they were told to do what private mortage companies and Wall Street were doing, starting in 2004.

Why didn't this problem show up earlier if it was all their fault. I will let you in on a secret - it was very hard getting a conforming (meets freddie's standards) loan prior to the entrance of Wall Street in the mortgage market. The free market created a free-for-all atmosphere with respect to getting and packaging loans. Freddie and Fannie were late to the game and the CRA said nothing about making bad loans. It only said you had to have the same standards for everybody. There were plenty of small community banks who were within CRA guidelines who never made any subprime loans.

I realize that most people who come to these sites are either paid by the RNC to post nonsense or are too stupid to think for themselves, but it gets ridiculous trying to post things that actually make sense against all this RNC crap.

2Anglico| 7.13.11 @ 10:25AM

Banks make loans not "Wall Street". CDO's etc. were created to PROTECT banks from the poison forced on them by government, can you say "Community Reinvestment Act"? The banks KNEW that sooner or later these so called "sub-prime" loans were going to go bad.
If you think the mortgage industry or "Wall Street"was/is unregulated, then you must have gone to government school.

TrueBlue| 7.13.11 @ 4:24PM

Most people go or have gone to government (public) school, that's the problem...

Mark in LA| 7.14.11 @ 10:39AM

More stupidity from a self-described expert. Most of the loans were originated by brokers and mortgage companies that were unregulated like Firstt Century or Ditek in Irvine California. These were companies that went bankrupt within one year of the collapse. The loans were sold off to Wall Street which is where the money came from. Its amazing after all this time that idiots still believe Freddy and Fanny caused all those brokerages and banks that needed to be bailed out to fail. How does that work, exactly?

You are the idiot if you think Wall Street is regulated anywhere hear what a commercial bank is. That was the purpose of Glass-Steagal and the FDIC. Brokerages are only regulated by the SEC and they are mostly looking for fraud against customers and are practically worthless when it comes to shutting down insolvent brokerages.

nister| 7.13.11 @ 10:10AM

Speculators drove up the price of oil, not Obama. Obama was not in power when inappropriate loans were made..Bush was. I didn't bring up American healthcare..you did. Canada doesn't hide behind America; Canada declared war on Germany in '39. Germany declared war on America in '41. Canada was in WWOne in '14, America in late '16. Canada's prospects are brighter than America's, with new gold and diamond mines opening, potash buoying the prairies, and new hires larger than America''s despite a population base one-tenth America's.

Indiana Alex| 7.13.11 @ 10:15AM

"Speculators drove up the price of oil, not Obama."

The fundamental problem is a fundamental lack of understanding of markets by the left.

Truth to Power| 7.13.11 @ 10:20AM

Progressives have driven down supply. Blaming that on speculators is what government owned fools do. Hitler wasn't worried about Canada and we would all be speaking German if we relied on Canada, skirt boy. You do a nice riot after hockey games but aren't much use for anything else. You did bring up health care with the implication of home and possession loss. Keep the blinders on they will serve you well a little longer.

nister| 7.13.11 @ 10:46AM

What makes you think I'm Canadian? Hitler's views on Canada, like most everything he believed, was as suspect as your IQ. Cars get better mileage because of progressives. Canadians don't lose everything when they get sick..would you rather they did? Call me skirt boy to my face and see what hockey violence wishes it could be, brownshirt.

Truth to Power| 7.13.11 @ 2:36PM

You are of course right, progressives don't really have countries and all sound alike. You play economic games and force people to drive unsafe small cars and think you have made innovations. It is the true version of blood for oil. Your view on Hitler was that Canadian BS could defeat him. That is not what got him to kill himself in a bunker, corporatist boy. It was defeat. No America, no defeat. Canadians are in the process of trading their freedoms for the well being of government bureaucrats. Thanks but no thanks. You are a skirt boy and should embrace it.

TrueBlue| 7.13.11 @ 4:29PM

Actually if it wasn't for the requirement to use ethanol in our gasoline cars would be getting better mileage. Ethanol by it's very nature dilutes, and thus reduces, the effeciency for the gasoline. Even with engines specifically made to use the solution (which are themselves less efficient since it's a newer less developed technology) we don't get the same amount of power out of it. That's why Diesel is so much better (and by the way FAR less poluting) than gasoline used in most cars. That occasional nasty looking puff of smoke that enviro-hippies point to as so horrible is nothing but carbon molecules bound to water droplets, the same stuff our ozone layer is made of and plants use to produce oxygen!.

2Anglico| 7.13.11 @ 11:35AM

The shortest book in War College is "Major Canadian Military Victories".

Sherman rides again!| 7.13.11 @ 4:15PM

LOL!

TrueBlue| 7.13.11 @ 4:31PM

Don't be so mean, the French book is shorter.

jothepro| 7.13.11 @ 8:34AM

Nister, you are like all liberals. Lie,lie,lie,lie !!!!!!!

Old Soldier| 7.13.11 @ 8:01AM

I would prefer Harding / Coolidge Economics. Real spending cuts (not planned cuts a decade from now), real debt paydown, real tax cuts.

Al Adab| 7.13.11 @ 11:15AM

Absolutely. The policies Coolidge followed in 1921 staved off a recession and provided for strong growth until Hoover followed what we today would call stimulus policies after the 1929 crash. Those policies exacerbated the situation (sound familiar) geve us Roosevelt who followed a "more of the same" policy and we got the Great Depression. The Coolidge policies became Reaganomics and ended the 1982 recession. It is simple.
1. Lower spending
2. Lower taxes
3. allow wages to seek their own level
4. promote business expansion.
Who can deliver us from these centalizing madmen today?

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.13.11 @ 11:44AM

From The Washington Post:
Fearing revelations about his illicit affair with a young campaign volunteer – which included sex in an Oval Office hideaway while under the guard of Secret Service agents – the president realized that stonewalling was ultimately futile. He stunned a private party of reporters at the National Press Club by confessing his carnal desires.
"It's a good thing I am not a woman," the president said. "I would always be pregnant. I can't say no."

In this administration, the scandals never seemed to end. There was the strange suicide of an administration official, made even more mysterious by a note that disappeared. Then came an investigation into payoffs and coverups connected to a notorious land deal. The president's friends launched smear campaigns against his perceived foes. Dossiers were compiled; private eyes and snitches deployed. Affidavits were drafted in which various women denied liaisons with the president. Jobs were arranged to keep people quiet.

Through it all, a steel-willed first lady kept the press at bay and did whatever was necessary to defend her husband's reputation – even if it meant destroying evidence.

The scandals erupted at a time when technological advances in communication were feeding a nation hungry for distraction, and the economy was booming. Sex sold – and the ravenous press corps was all too happy to name names and offer seamy details. The president and his wife boosted their public image by bringing Hollywood stars to the White House; they knew the value of glamour and the power of celebrity. It also helped that he was a genial populist and inveterate shaker of hands, fond of golf and cards, a man of the people.

Ladies thought him virile and handsome; he photographed well.

Care to guess the President from the article?

Al Adab| 7.13.11 @ 12:57PM

Sounds like Harding to me. ...Or was it Clinton?

We spend too much time on the man (albeit charater counts) and not enough on policy.

TheRightIsAnything But| 7.13.11 @ 1:18PM

Ding-ding-ding-ding! We have a winner!
Warren Gamaliel (hhhmmmm, sounds suspiciously Muslim, don't you think?) Harding was the one.

Further from the same article: "Harding, a small-town Ohio newspaper publisher, was uniquely unsuited for the job of president – and he knew it. 'I am not fit for this office and never should have been here,' he once said ... Harding, a one-term Republican senator, won the job by promising Americans a 'return to normalcy' after World War I."

Though his legacy was soiled, his domestic achievements were substantial: the 40-hour work week, improved health care for new mothers, the first balanced-budget bureau, a focus on technology.
So here are my points:
1. Why would anyone be willing to take economic advice or policy direction from a President who said he shouldn't be one?
2. For the posters longing for Harding-style economics or politics, he surely had some dangerous Progressive achievements, didn't he? The 40-hour work week? What a radical!
3. Since the morals of the past Democratic Presidents have been so roundly criticized (some of it legitimate, no doubt), seems a bit of fairness and recognition that they're all swine is in order.

Al Adab| 7.13.11 @ 2:55PM

Gamaliel was a Rabbi, the teacher of Saul of Taursus. Washington said he didn't think he was up to the job either.

Old Soldier| 7.13.11 @ 4:10PM

You Leftists are always great at playing the ball, not the man. We are talking about policies. If we were talking about adultery or corruption, we would also be talking about FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton as well.

His policies - and follow-through by Coolidge got us out of one of the deepest recessions in history.

The saintly FDR’s taxing, spending, and regulating through the 1930's produced nothing but a series of continuous recessions. It may well have continued after WWII if he had not died while on vacation with a woman not his wife.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.13.11 @ 8:26PM

Nay, 'tis I, the Rational Avenger! Begone, spawn of darkness.

I apologize for no mob, mere mortal. I am part of no mob, meek human.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.13.11 @ 8:27PM

Old Soldier, get your eyes checked. The prescription on your ideological beer goggles has obviously expired. My point is that both sides of the political spectrum, as I stated, are swine. Like Ike's mistress who lived in the White House.

W| 7.14.11 @ 7:12AM

what is her name and what is your source?

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.13.11 @ 8:36PM

And it's you on the Right who have made "character" and "honor" and "family values" completely central to the public discussion. So it's fair play to bring up ANY President's peccadilloes.

What outfit were you with, the 433rd Messkit Repair Battalion?

Old Soldier| 7.14.11 @ 7:31AM

Not me. I will never vote for a "Christian Conservative" in a primary.

W| 7.13.11 @ 4:40PM

Right, you described the Clinton administration if clinton told the truth.
didn't you post as David, the Wisconsin mob apologist?

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.13.11 @ 8:33PM

Oh, and by the way, the virtuous and oh-so-pious and fiscally-conscious Republicans of Wisconsin cost the state $475,000 by running fake Democrats, thus forcing primaries in all six GOP senate districts under recall.

All of them were thumped, by the way. The narrowest margin was 10 percent.

Now on to the real matter. And then it's Scott
Walker's turn, come Nov. 3, 2011. The people, as you so frequently point out, really don't forget.

W| 7.13.11 @ 9:35PM

when are you going to admit you either lied or were wrong about justice scalia, david/right?

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.13.11 @ 9:42PM

When you admit you're just plain wrong. Or as I used to say when I judged international whitewater kayaking events, I may be wrong but I'm never uncertain.

W| 7.14.11 @ 7:11AM

gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you are just a plain liar, like your man clinton and obama.

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:52PM

Hmmm, and what followed them - the Great Depression ... Bubble up, Bubble Burst and BLAM we're screwed. Good plan.

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.13.11 @ 8:14AM

Flat tax would solve all of this in one four year term. Forty eight percent of the slackers that do not pay would be put on the tax roles everytime they bought so much as a donut.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.13.11 @ 11:45AM

Are you including Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation and General Electric among the slackers?

DaveD| 7.13.11 @ 5:32PM

Do you foolishly believe that corporations, of any size, actually pay taxes?

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.13.11 @ 8:30PM

If you're asking me, no, obviously I don't. I believe that News Corporation racked up an impressive $4.3 billion in tax CREDITS, if National Public Radio's report is credible. But, ooopsss, that can't possibly be correct, can it? Obviously, the messenger taints the message, isn't that your worldview?

But I believe even the mainstream media you so consistently diss reported that General Electric effectively paid nothing in federal taxes for the last reporting year.

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:53PM

Good idea - you spend, you pay, period.

Melvin| 7.13.11 @ 8:31AM

We somehow are under this cloud of thinking that American manufacturing jobs, and others types of traditional jobs that used to be here in the United States are going to come back.
People, these jobs are never ever coming back, in any shape or form. When the Chinese pay they're indentured workers .75 and hour, what US or any other company would be in their right mind to come back to a Country that has one of the highest corporate income taxes in the world, excessive governmental regulations, a energy that is fixing to skyrocket with the upcoming release of new EPA restrictions on coal fired plants, and other forms of fossil fuel energy.
Then we have mommies of America that want 30 to 90 days paid maternity leave. Sick leave, paid vacations, and excessive Union demands that could stop a company's production of a product in a heartbeat.
We know have an uneducated work force, of ignorant entry level employees of have a slacker work ethic and want to start off as management with all the goodies.
Until we address all of the above no company is going spend millions of dollars to come back when they can pay a Chinese pennies on the dollar, no EPA or OSHA regulations, no vacations, no maternity leave, no sick leave, no anything but .75 and hour and has the work ethic of a slave.
This problem isn't just our problem it is all over the world. China has sucked up so many jobs because of it's slave labor work force, it has created a massive imbalance in the world of people finding work.
I was reading the other day where Chinese Construction Companies were bidding on government capitol projects up North some where. Thats just great what little work we have left China is coming over here and picking up, and importing their own laborers.
People, unless you haven't realized it yet, we've just been royally screwed by our own Countrymen.

Mark in LA| 7.13.11 @ 10:07AM

Another Republican automaton. Here he is crying that we have rules protecting workers on the job and that we have a modern infrastructure that need to be maintained. Oh the poor businessman is "forced" to contribute to that.

Well guess what idiots - it was that infrastructure, paid for by the public, that allowed these big companies to flourish. It was the roads, the universities, the schools, and the government funded research that made our first world economy possible - and the people rightly shared in it by regulating the businesses.

Now it supposedly OK for corporations to pick up and move their jobs to China but sell their product back here? We need to tell these companies that the stupid idea of "free trade" is over and tariffs are being reinstituted except for countries where trade is balanced.

Indiana Alex| 7.13.11 @ 10:25AM

Again the lack of understanding of markets is spewed as some sort of intelligent thought.

The public does not allow companies to flourish. Commerce does not take place unless it is mutually beneficial. Businesses that do not provide a valuable service or good, or businesses that make bad decisions will be punished.

The remedy for failure in government appears to be more money.

I know in some cases Liberals like to look for the "root cause". In the case of investment, the "root cause" for moving investment outside of the US, insofar as labor or capital is concerned, is the projected return on investment or return on capital.

Liberals would do well to consider proposing conditions under which companies can achieve a higher return on capital and/or investment by investing in this country rather than trying negative reinforcement. Businesses will always be a step ahead of the tax traps, that's one reason why they are successful.

Of course the problem with this arraingement is that the profits from this investment won't be distributed according to the liberals sense of "fairness", so instead we all share the pain.

Except of course the trust fund elite who aren't dependent on income, or other assorted millionares and billionares who claim very little income.

See Warren Buffitt, and ask his opinion on a tax on assets.

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:58PM

Even Adam Smith believed that where there are winners in the market there are losers. Unfortunately, the free market is a fantasy. Freer markets maybe, but free, no way. If government isn't involved, corporate policies or owner biases are always in the way. The lip service to free markets is just that - lip service to convince the low intelligence voters that they vote for free marketeers. Liberatarianism might be the closest to free marketing we have, but with 1% of the population supporting them, free marketeers are not in the Republicant party or the Democratical party .

George S| 7.13.11 @ 12:52PM

Interesting... when the settlers landed in Jamestown they found the roads, the universities, the schools, and the government funded research already in place. Now I understand what made us a great country.

Those rules, by the way, are protecting workers from job related harm by preventing them from finding a job. See, government is helpful.

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:54PM

I hope you are being sarcastic ... yes?

Thomas Wilbur| 7.13.11 @ 8:32AM

Old Soldier is right - a real reduction in government, in domestic and foreign adventures and "America First"or as Harding put it: "America's present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums, but normalcy; not revolution, but restoration; not agitation, but adjustment; not surgery, but serenity; not the dramatic, but the dispassionate; not experiment, but equipoise; not submergence in internationality, but sustainment in triumphant nationality...."

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.13.11 @ 11:46AM

From the Washington Post:
Fearing revelations about his illicit affair with a young campaign volunteer – which included sex in an Oval Office hideaway while under the guard of Secret Service agents – the president realized that stonewalling was ultimately futile. He stunned a private party of reporters at the National Press Club by confessing his carnal desires.
"It's a good thing I am not a woman," the president said. "I would always be pregnant. I can't say no."

In this administration, the scandals never seemed to end. There was the strange suicide of an administration official, made even more mysterious by a note that disappeared. Then came an investigation into payoffs and coverups connected to a notorious land deal. The president's friends launched smear campaigns against his perceived foes. Dossiers were compiled; private eyes and snitches deployed. Affidavits were drafted in which various women denied liaisons with the president. Jobs were arranged to keep people quiet.

Through it all, a steel-willed first lady kept the press at bay and did whatever was necessary to defend her husband's reputation – even if it meant destroying evidence.

The scandals erupted at a time when technological advances in communication were feeding a nation hungry for distraction, and the economy was booming. Sex sold – and the ravenous press corps was all too happy to name names and offer seamy details. The president and his wife boosted their public image by bringing Hollywood stars to the White House; they knew the value of glamour and the power of celebrity. It also helped that he was a genial populist and inveterate shaker of hands, fond of golf and cards, a man of the people.

Ladies thought him virile and handsome; he photographed well.

Care to guess the President?

W| 7.13.11 @ 4:41PM

Bill Clinton if he told the truth

Indiana Alex| 7.13.11 @ 8:58AM

The intellectual bankruptcy of an idiology that proposes policy, predicts success, experiences dismal failure, then suggests that the failure was actually success based on keen hindsight of "what would have happend" is once again lying bare for all to see.

What's worse is their prescription is for more of the same.

Von Mises Jr.| 7.13.11 @ 9:04AM

The stimulus bill has kept the unemployment rate artifically low since a quarter of the funds went to the states to fund teacher and police pensions. If this had not occurred, unemployment would be higher currently. And since these funds just ran out June 30th, more state workers will become unemployed. This is bad news for Obama and his re-election prospects. Perhaps the upside is Keynes will finally be put to rest.

DaveD| 7.13.11 @ 5:34PM

HArd for State employement to get any lower in Minnesota. I'm just sayin'

Anthony| 7.13.11 @ 9:21AM

What many conservatives and pundits fail to understand, or rather, do not wish to acknowledge, is that we are not dealing with people with honest yet flawed theories on how to solve our problems.
We are dealing with fanatics, no different than the Muslim Brotherhood, when it comes to blind adherence to a failed and flawed philosophy.
Our country is governed by a coven of hardcore '60s radical Marxists that inhabit, or should I say, infest, all the vital centers of our society.
It is impossible to be so wrong, with the results of your folly staring you in the face, and do nothing different, or worse, double down on your insanity, unless you are willfully blind because of your blind adherence.
This is precisely why the Rs cannot fold. There is no compromise with people who truly wish to transform America into a 3rd world socialist nation.
The Rs claim to be leaders, crave the attention when asked for their opinions on all things, yet when real leadership is required, they act like craven political hacks.
Boehner and the boys are in a tough spot. There is no easy way out this time, the music has stopped. Either stand against the destruction of America, take what comes from the left, or rather, fight their bullcrap, or capitulate, and have you base abandon you all.
We're all you got Boehner. Either stand with us, or go down with Obozo. That's your choice.

Mark in LA| 7.13.11 @ 10:12AM

If we are holding on to any flawed theory it is that of the idiot economists and their stupid ideas on free trade and open borders. Add in our insane militarism too. This has done far more damage to our country in the last 30 years that any left over 60's socialists still in government.

2Anglico| 7.13.11 @ 10:39AM

The terms "idiot", "stupid" and "insane" are not persuasive and disqualify you from debate.

Drunken Sailor| 7.13.11 @ 10:51AM

Not to mention he lives in LA. Apparently Mark hasn't been reading the LA newspapers. Even they are writing unflattering articles about President Obama.

Truth to Power| 7.13.11 @ 3:05PM

Isn't LA the city where your mayor lives in a compound like Osama bin Laden?

Cabermon| 7.13.11 @ 9:47AM

There is a "Keynesian Multiplier," but sadly it's value is < 1. I'll bet that even Keynes would agree that QE I & II are failures.
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?"
John Maynard Keynes

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.13.11 @ 9:49AM

Peter,
I personally believe 2013 is a quite optimistic time-frame.
As I project in my new novel, there are a number of unpredictable surprises in the offing.
www.americaalonesaidno.com

Just So| 7.13.11 @ 10:09AM

Who’s counting? Mr. Peter Ferrara, that’s who!

After many decades of exponentially accelerating dumbing down, the voters in our fair country epitomize at least one understanding---even if they can’t consciously articulate it---

Figures lie and liars figure.

That is, the essence of the public realm is---confusion.

So many symbols, so little time!

Numbers, dollar signs, what are they, anyway?

Long ago it became apparent to me that members of the left wing of the electorate are either fools or knaves.

One expression of this vital dichotomy could be seen in terms of the answer to the key question---

“Who counts?”

By and VERY large, these days of impending economic doom, most individuals are low on the totem pole, and just “don’t count”, in that they = we are mostly powerless, in the face of actions taken by our “superior” leaders---putatively chosen by us. Ha ha.

And, as for those “dudes”, like Obama and Barney Frank, it’s quite obvious that they “don’t count”, in terms of making a budget and hewing to it.

Everett Dirksen lives---what’s a billion here, or a trillion there?

We are (self-chosen) doomed.

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 2:28PM

"Long ago it became apparent to me that members of the left wing of the electorate are either fools or knaves." - why , because they believe in supporting their fellow man when they are sick, old, young or disabled? And you think the "I've got mine, screw the rest of you" attitude on the right is a better attitude? You need some serious adjustments if you believe what you say.

Sherman rides again!| 7.13.11 @ 4:20PM

Pg keep spouting the lies.

DaveD| 7.13.11 @ 5:37PM

It is one thing for me to use my money to support the "sick, old, young or disabled" and something quite different for you to use my money to make that support. Knavery doesn't begin to describe the latter,.

CrackerHound| 7.13.11 @ 11:14AM

Obama's agenda is quite clearly to have America pay for her past domination of the world and humble her in a very obvious manner for all to see. The average American will have to suffer after so many prosperous years that was achieved to the detriment of third world peoples. Just look at Obama's back ground and who he has been the closest to his whole life and who he associates with now. This is who Obama is!

Peter Ferrara said:
"Under Obama's outdated Keynesian economics, federal debt as a percent of GDP is projected to almost double from 2008 to 2012, from 48% to 81%".
And THIS my friends will be the final nail in the coffin. No nation has or ever will survive the conditions or perfect storm of decline that we will be in at this point. At this moment our country is insolvent and the recovery prospects are bleak unless we turn this ship around 180% NOW.

So when will Mr. Ferrara's words begin to be parroted in the mainstream? When will the media and our citizens wake up and take action against the purposeful destruction of our nation. We are being taken down this path due to a strict adherence to a backwards and failed ideolgy by a few with the acceptance of a lazy and disinterested citizenry.

God help us because it seems no else will step up. What we really need is the center-left and moderate Democrats to abandon the Marxists in our midst and side with America.

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 2:29PM

""Under Obama's outdated Keynesian economics, federal debt as a percent of GDP is projected to almost double from 2008 to 2012, from 48% to 81%"." - it doubled under Bush - your point is? When a Republicant does it it's okay, but now it's just terrible?

CrackerHound| 7.13.11 @ 4:36PM

I don't doubt it doubled under Bush. What has that to do with anything?
As many have stated, Both parties started driving the car towards cliff but Obama has mashed on the accelerator and DOES NOT seem to want to let up!

DaveD| 7.13.11 @ 5:40PM

Lest see, under Bush it doubled - so for every #1 the debt rose to $2. Under Obama the debt doubled again, so that for every $2 in Bush debt we now hav3 $4 in debt. Can you see a difference here? Let me 'splain it: for every dollar Bush added, Obama added two. So now we're up three, one from Bush and two from the Bozo In Chief.

Al Adab| 7.13.11 @ 11:19AM

Central planning of the economy not only doesn't work, it causes a strengthening and centralization in government hands of the means of production. How many have said that in America we would never have government owned auto companies or banks or insurance companies? Well, here we are. Call it what you will, it is antithetical to our free nation and constitutional, representative government. We have had our Grachii, is our Marius next?

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 2:34PM

This country has had an Industrial Policy since the time of Hamilton and Madison. Read Hamilton's treatise on Manufacturing if you doubt it. But it's not central planning ala the Soviet Union - that's where you get bollixed up. Its a Public-Private partnership that made this country great. So called Individual Entrepreneurship without the yoke of government on it is what made the country great is a bunch of hooey. Anyone who thinks so, doesn't know their history (eg, the Erie Canal, the Transcontinental Railroad, the Hoover Dam, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Interstate System, the Land Grant University system, the National Park System - you can read all about how they all came about and you'll be amazed what Government and Industry have done TOGETHER) Have a nice day!

Al Adab| 7.13.11 @ 2:57PM

Since you bring up Madison, he faced a big issue in his day over internal improvement, federal projects within and benefiting a single state. Madison felt the idea was a good one (he was obviously wrong) but also wrote that the Constitution would have to be amended to allow it. Anybody seen that amendment?

nister| 7.13.11 @ 11:27AM

Brazil is doing pretty well with a directed economy..so is China and India.

Drunken Sailor| 7.13.11 @ 11:30AM

Sure, as long as you discount individual freedom. Troll

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.13.11 @ 11:54AM

Interesting. Please explain how Brazil has discounted personal freedom. That's a new one to me.

Al Adab| 7.13.11 @ 12:19PM

To where do I send your plane ticket? One way of course or don't you intend to move to where things are so good?

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.13.11 @ 12:31PM

I simply asked a question. You respond with an insult and an implied threat.
But, sure, I'll take a ticket to St. Bart's. It's a little hot but since you're footing the bill ...

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.13.11 @ 12:48PM

Oh, and btw? I wasn't talking to you. Not entirely sure I want to.

Al Adab| 7.13.11 @ 12:59PM

Then I shan't worry about it any more. G'day.

Drunken Sailor| 7.13.11 @ 12:39PM

So you pick the one out of the three that allows some personal freedoms but neglect to rember the fact that their "directed" Economy gets a nice helping hand from us, 41 Billion from the IMF, and the fact that a large part of their success involves them moving AWAY from a directed economy?
http://www.mongabay.com/histor.....tlook.html

Drunken Sailor| 7.13.11 @ 12:48PM

Almost forgot, some examples of their "Personal Freedom" as you requested. Don't foget to read about the state sponsored killings.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls.....119150.htm

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.13.11 @ 12:56PM

Good sources, DS. Thank you. One question - the mongabay article had a lot of sources listed but there was little, if any, attribution in the article.
Also, the most recent date I saw was from 1995. Anything more recent that you could point me to?

The State Dept. article was from 2008. Has there been an update?

Drunken Sailor| 7.13.11 @ 1:00PM

State dept doesn't update but every couple of years. That was the most recent I could find. Nice place to visit but wouldn't want to live there.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.13.11 @ 1:10PM

Thank you. See, we can interact civilly. And I got a whole new perspective today.

Bob Grant| 7.13.11 @ 6:23PM

Brazil does relatively well in part because the president of a once great country encourages a Drill Baby Drill policy backed up by US taxpayer dollars in the billions. With a little help from Soros.

nister| 7.13.11 @ 1:09PM

Brazil doesn't have two classes of citizenship. You're free to drink some more.

Drunken Sailor| 7.13.11 @ 1:53PM

See the above listed links, Dreamer.

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 2:37PM

We've always had a directed economy until Reagan destroyed the careful Public-Private Balance - how's it working out for us, huh, Chuckles?
Not Soviet style central planning - but you probably don't know the difference do you?

Al Adab| 7.13.11 @ 3:03PM

Always, since 1789? Careful Public-Private balance? Deregulation worked out pretty good for a lot of us who held mutual funds through the 80's 90's etc.

As to central planning you are of course right. The government of the United States would never own Insurance companies or banks or auto manufacturers would it? They would never mandate citizens musr purchase one favored product like maybe a light bulb manufactuured by a company that contributed big dollars to a campaign. They would never decide how much acreage could be planted in a particular crop or what people could use to fuel their cars.

Nope, none of that will ever happen here.

Drunken Sailor| 7.13.11 @ 3:18PM

So educate me then. I'll be waiting.

John| 7.13.11 @ 12:19PM

Reaganomics ended when the country ran out of blue collar workers to sell out. Now the white collar parasite class is feeding on each other.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.13.11 @ 12:26PM

TRIABut
You are too ignorant to even know what is going on in Brazil.
Bottom line...it sucks.
I DO know, and it breaks my heart. In Brazil...one simply must shut up or die.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.13.11 @ 12:32PM

I simply asked for information in a neutral polite fashion and "bottom line ... it sucks" doesn't qualify.
If Brazil is not what its public face is and what the mainstream media says it is, I'd like to know.

Kingofthenet| 7.13.11 @ 1:46PM

So IF we are going to look to Raygun for answers, does that mean we are going to MASSIVE increase the national debt, and INCREASE the tax rate for the Wealthy?

Tired Taxpayer PRM| 7.13.11 @ 2:23PM

I have an idea. How about reducing the corporate tax rate to 0%?

Doesn’t anyone realize that corporations do not pay taxes? Their customers do!

One can only dream of resulting economic boom! And as an extra added bonus, the sound of liberal heads exploding across the land would be wonderful, also.

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 2:54PM

Only if they do EXACTLY what you think they will do - duh.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.13.11 @ 2:57PM

Evidently, your brain is tired, too.
Corporations are persons - just refer to the U.S. Supreme Court when it ruled that corporations (and unions, too, to be fair) could make any political contribution they wanted.

Deep in American law is the principle that corporations are legal entities, just like people.

Sheesh - With logic like this, it's not liberal heads that will explode.

Drunken Sailor| 7.13.11 @ 3:20PM

Only in the legal sense are corporate entities just like people. In the economic sense they pass the cost on to the consumer. When was the last time you as a person were able to pass the cost on?

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.13.11 @ 3:33PM

When I raised the rent on a condo I have to reflect a hike in property taxes - which by the way, I'm not making a profit on:
1. I'm renting to friends.
2. As long as I'm breaking even on the property, it's fine with me.

Drunken Sailor| 7.13.11 @ 4:11PM

But that's just it. You do not have to make a profit in order to stay in business or grow because you have no reason to grow and no employee's. Corporations have to make a profit to grow and stay in business. Rather than decrease the profit margin (or lay off workers to maintan those margins) they pass the cost to the consumer. Raising corporate taxes does not help the consumer in cost of goods, employment, or cost of living. In fact, it pushes the corporations to set up in countries with lower corporate taxes and can actually increase unemployment. Look at the max exodus of companies from Illinois and California to more tax friendly states for example.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.13.11 @ 4:44PM

Okay, DS. And I did answer the question you put to me.

But let me pose a situation to you. Please bear while I explain it because I think about this twice a week when I pass a shuttered business in my small Wisconsin town (because I commute to where I can make a living - also in Wisconsin).

This business started as the brainchild of a small town entrepreneur - seriously Norman Rockwell material. And I know the guy - a good man in all respects. At its height, it employed ~120 people - good-paying, family-sustaining, skilled jobs. The company bought and put up a modern manufacturing facility. Then the founder decided to retire. He sold to a conglomerate. Which sold it to a multi-national comglomerate. Which sold it to still another multi-national conglomerate. All in the space of ~2 years. Honest.

The final holder decided the operation was not profitable "enough." Yes, it made money, turned out a quality product (a timber harvester). It just didn't make "enough." So, the owners moved the operation somewhere down South - Tennessee, maybe? - to consolidate it with other operations. True, some people were offered jobs with the new operation. Most refused.

So I struggle with the concept of having to "make a profit and stay in business" when I see this example of profit not being "enough."

W| 7.13.11 @ 9:41PM

what is your solution, to force someone to remain in business in a location you prefer? what if consolodating the business in down South is best for the business in the long run? do you think the government should decide?

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.13.11 @ 9:45PM

Wasn't talking to you, W. In fact, I'm now making it my policy - not talking to you, that is.

W| 7.14.11 @ 7:15AM

Gee, right/david, we will miss your lies and distortions all in your role as a lefty "journalist"

Kingofthenet| 7.13.11 @ 2:49PM

What did Raygun say to Charlton Heston while at the mall? I hope YOU remember where we parked the car, cause I'm lost...

Drunken Sailor| 7.13.11 @ 3:33PM

What did Ted Kennedy say to Mary Jo Kopechne on dark and lonely night? Don't worry I'll save you.

Ass

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.13.11 @ 3:34PM

Oh - I thought he said, "We'll cross that bridge when we get to it."

See, I can be an equal opportunity lampooner.

W| 7.13.11 @ 6:59PM

lampooning someone with alzheimer or any other disease is different than lampooning someone who wilfully leaves a young lady in a car in a lake to drown, but that is only my opinon

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.13.11 @ 8:22PM

Oh, fercryinoutloud, I was correct - the Right has no sense of humor. Must be all of that Puritanism just sucking the juice out.

Fortunately, it is not permanent or inevitable. I myself have freed myself of that constraint despite Puritan ancestors who landed in Boston in 1644.

Think about it.

W| 7.13.11 @ 9:39PM

in your mind you are always correct

W| 7.14.11 @ 7:17AM

Right/David, you must laught out loud when you see someone blind, or unable to walk, we just don't have your sense of humor. what is the point of telling us that your ancestors landed in boston in 1644?

Petronius| 7.13.11 @ 3:07PM

And the gods of the copybook headings with terror and slaughter return....
To all those posting here who are disposed to state interference and redistribution of other people's money, It will be on steroids.

Oldefarte| 7.13.11 @ 3:13PM

Peter, as usual, your editorial is excellent! I would only partially disagree by saying that the president's/Democrats' stimulus legislation did maintain jobs [though not create same] by preventing state/local governments from having to fire/terminate their labor unionized employees. of course, that was intensional since they are politically beholden to these unions. Without that stimulus, thousands of pothole fillers and office paper pushers in numerous government offices would have become unemployed [as they should have been]. When you talk about ESSENTIAL EMPLOYMENTS, these government morons should thank their lucky stars for El chosen One's [taxpayer funded]benevalence/charity. While provate sector employers have had to lay off/fire their employees because of declining revenues necessary to support their employments, these government lackies were riding the gravy train to increased paychecks and pension funding [again all thanks to the taxpayers, some of whom were correspondingly losing their private sector jobs]. WAKE UP AMERICA to these charletons' ruination of this country!!!!!!!!!!

Jack London| 7.13.11 @ 3:30PM

The Reaganbots here have no idea of course that corporate America is sitting on massive cash piles. They have no idea that by far the biggest contributor to the deficit is ongoing Bush tax cuts (and second, the Bush wars) and that we are already one of the lowest taxed developed world economies. They have no idea what's holding up real recovery (hint: we've not had a real stimulus yet). In fact, they have no idea, no idea at all.

Bob Grant| 7.13.11 @ 3:38PM

Very interesting. If you don't mind expanding, what type of stimulus would you like to see and to what extent?

What would President Jack London do?

Drunken Sailor| 7.13.11 @ 3:41PM

You really need to believing the ThinkProgress website. Try this graph.
http://alhambrainvestments.com.....ntry-oecd/

And Obama and the Democrat spending spree didn't contribute to the state we are in? Or Obama's undeclared 3rd war of non-kinetic hostilities, or maybe the drone attacks in Pakistan or Yemen?
And no real stimulus? I suppose you think that stimulus bill wasn't large enough?

Talk about no ideas

Drunken Sailor| 7.13.11 @ 3:42PM

Typed to fast. "You really need to stop believing the ThinkProgress website"

Jack London| 7.13.11 @ 4:59PM

No - if you're looking at corporate taxes what you need to look at is the per cent they make up of GDP, and we have about the lowest. Few corporations in any case pay anywhere near the nominal rates thanks to all sorts of loopholes.

CrackerHound| 7.13.11 @ 4:49PM

Jack....post unsupported, made up garbage much?

you said: "The Reaganbots here have no idea of course that corporate America is sitting on massive cash piles."

That's the progressive mindset in a nut shell in these times.... Let's take OTHER people's money. It's not theirs it's ALL of ours. What is really ironic just as it was in the Soviet Union, the biggest Marxists were the wealthiest people and they are always able to find (convince) enough of the lower and middle class dupes to fall for this ideology.

progressivism=totalitarianism

Jack London| 7.13.11 @ 5:05PM

Well, the question is whether you want a dynamic economy of skilled and educated workers, with great infrastructure, or a stagnating country that let's its hugely wealthy corporations and individuals sit there and do nothing. There is an absolute correlation between low federal taxes and zero job creation (under GW Bush) and the record job creation under both Clinton terms when we had higher taxes as a per cent of GDP. That's not all of course - we need all sorts of programs for education and small business incentives, and we need to spend the money allocated to distressed home owners. And much more.

Bob Grant| 7.13.11 @ 6:52PM

The economy - via the tech boom - was growing, the dollar was strong, the oil was flowing cheaply, and Clinton enjoyed a massive peace dividend. The fruit of benefits sown during the 80's. Clinton took this "fruit" and used it to push extremely dumb programs, i.e., Fannie May/Freddie Mac knowing the problems associated with passing out loans like crack would be some other president's problem.

Bush is to blame for massive government spending, not tamping down on dangerous programs such as FMFM, and not developing a permanent domestic energy policy.

Obama inherited much of this and the conditions are completely different than ever before. One thing we know for sure is when massive debt occurs the economy must grow to ensure that both the debt is serviced and reduced and more people are employed, hence more tax payers, to take the burden off the federal government.

Taxes in this environment will NOT grow the economy, only exacerbate a horrible situation.

DRed| 7.13.11 @ 3:48PM

"At the time I wrote in this space that the tax cut extension would allow breathing room for the long overdue economic recovery to finally sprout this year. And sure enough, that is exactly what has happened, with unemployment falling to 8.9% since then"
-Peter Ferrara, March 2011

Looks like you were wrong. Where are the jobs your tax cuts created? I sure don't see them.

Bob Grant| 7.13.11 @ 4:32PM

It's not just the tax cuts at any given time, clown, it's THAT, along with creating a non-hostile and predictable economic environment in which companies, investors, small business owners, and the self employed can accurately gauge what costs will be several years in the future.

A real energy policy would do the trick as well. You know, drill baby drill.

But you knew this all along but too proud to admit it works.

DRed| 7.13.11 @ 5:47PM

The tax cut extension clearly did not allow breathing room for the long overdue economic recovery to sprout. Can we at least agree on that? Let's take things one step at a time.

Kingofthenet| 7.13.11 @ 3:49PM

Ah the ol' RAYGUN solution, when in doubt, trot it out!

Marc Jeric| 7.13.11 @ 9:35PM

Well - Reagan proved it; his trickle-down economics provided 16 years of incredible economic growth. By the way - there is only one kind of positive economy, i.e., trickle-down one. The other king - socialist/communist one - is the trickle-up poverty accompanied by terror, utter poverty, mass murder (look up the 90 years history of communism).

TrueBlue| 7.13.11 @ 4:34PM

Well, a flat tax without any of the current loopholes or deductions anyway. A flat tax alone would make things worse sadly.

Howard| 7.13.11 @ 5:37PM

It's funny that when George Bush was running deficits of $200 Billion, the Democrats went ballistic. Now with Obama running 1.5 Trillion , the Democrats are both mute, and calling for more. Not only was the Stimulus expensive, it was counter productive. Temporary fixes that cost real money, i.e. Cash For Clunkers and they accomplished little if any benefit. And of course the Democrats answer now is "more".

Marc Jeric| 7.13.11 @ 9:30PM

Communists have taken absolute power in countries with a losing war, extreme economic crisis, high unemployment, urban strikes and rebellions, bloody demonstrations...Mullah Obama is systematically working on realizing these conditions in this country. Already massive nationalizations have already been accomplished - mortgage companies, many banks, automobile companies - and pretty soon insurance companies, hospitals, doctors' offices, oil & gas companies, coal mines, electric utilities, transportation companies...

POST American| 7.13.11 @ 10:05PM

"Their God is dead. They worship idols."

Reagan was a standardizing, franchise slum
CAP-it-ALLLL-ist who as good as gave place
to the Bush CFR Globalist RED China TREASON
op.

Sure, by today's 'standards' he might seem to
shine, but this is delusional moral and political relativism and nothing more.

Important to remember also that he was the
second Republican administration after
the Nixon-MAO handover ---and not incidentally
the second consecutive Repubican 'conservative' who was an open adulterer.

In what was surely set up, scarcely a word was
said about this unprecedented and unheard of FACT.

-----------These Tavistock people think of everything!

Kingofthenet| 7.13.11 @ 11:58PM

Cantor's personal investment AGAINST the economy? It's his "...investment in ProShares Trust Ultrashort 20+ Year Treasury ETF, a fund that "takes a short position in long-dated government bonds."
The fund is essentially a bet against U.S. government bonds. If the debt ceiling is not raised and the United States defaults on its debts, the value of Cantor's fund would likely increase."

Niiiice. And you conservatives are OK with that? Wow

dadfly| 7.14.11 @ 1:37AM

echos of their "groaning" all heard exactly as i heard in my youth from the jimmy carterites, interrupted in their ceaseless drilling in the wood of our republic.

pity them in their darkness. pray for them, that they come out into the light.

POST American| 7.14.11 @ 3:15AM

BTW ---speaking of economics here and worldwide.

CHECK OUT Alan Watt's yesterday coverage
of Edmund de Rothchild's Monsanto destruction
of agriculture in India.

Shades of the old African Slave Trade, the Poor Laws,
the Corn Laws, the destruction of Old China
via opium etc.

NOTE: Edmund de Rothchild was also the first
to come out publicly with the carbon tax in
1987.

FINAL QUESTION

WHY aren't these characters on Death Row?

-------------WHY???----------------WHY????

Chris Pedersen| 7.14.11 @ 7:34AM

Why can't this website's Authors and many others of Conservatives write a Fair and accurate outline for the passage of the "Fair Tax Plan" HR-25 as it goes to the "Ways & Means" hearing[s].

This is a winning ticket for Conservatism,yet all those who express their concerns for Economic Freedom remain silent on the very "Plan" that would achieve it.

This is why Conservatives always lose the argument, they don't articulate a winning proposition for every American in a manner to win elections.

They're Cream Puff Politicians, as are these Authors, against professional political Bomb Throwers on the left, while the writers remain silent on the FTP which would set the American and the World's economies on fire by totally removing the class warfare mantra from Washington, restoring the economic POWER back to the PEOPLE!

My take is this on FTP. Only a flammming Fooooool would argue AGAINT KEEPING ALL OF THEIR OWN MONY EVERY PAYDAY.

The FTP speaks for its self and abolishs the [IRS] as the Internal "Racketeering" Service of The United States Of "La Cosa Nostra" America!

Particularly when Obama believes he is the "Boss Of Bosses". I'd trust Carlo Gambino front and center before Obama only for the fact that Carlo has more class being deceased that Obama has while breathing.

Silence on the FTP is dumber than electing Obama in the first place.

Free Markets with NO Further Tax on Capital and Labor Beats Obama and the Union Thugs in 2012 hands down.

Pass The Fair Tax Plan NOW! See; fairtax.org
Ronald Reagan would sign it into law from the grave!

jgo| 7.14.11 @ 1:42PM

If you'd followed the employment figures closely you'd know we've been in a shallow economic depression since 1987.

And there was something on the History Channel the other night about the last time the federal debt was paid off was during the Andrew Jackson admin. That's the goal; not just to slow down how fast the debt climbs.

Oldefarte| 7.14.11 @ 1:50PM

It is hardly possible to believe the insanity of JL's above argument concerning taxes paid by corporations, but when one contemplates asinine nature of liberals and Democrats it becomes understandable. They THINK wrongly that corporations and individual income earners have a moral repsonsibility to pay taxes, which is bullexcrement! The money/income belongs to the corporations and income earners, NOT TO THE GD GOVERNMENT AND ITS WELFARE DEPENDENT INDIGENT CONSTITUENTS. Additionally corporations HIRE/EMPLOY THOUSANDS/MILLIONS OF EMPLOYEES and in doing so provide trillions of dollars in income to its employee-recipients who also pay taxes to the government. Without these corporations providing jobs, their employees would be pennyless, starving, non-employed and WOULD NOT BE PAYING TAXES TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE INCOME THAT THEY EARNED FROM SAID CORPORATIONS! These liberal morons are so stupid that they cannot understand that it is THE CORPORATIONS' AND THEIR EMPLOYEES' MONEY-INCOME, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS'. The corporations and their employees EARNED THE RECEIVED INCOME and same belongs to them, not to the government and not to their indigent welfare recipients [and never will]. So as the old saying goes, these corporations and their employees FIGHT POVERTY BY .......WORKING!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 7.14.11 @ 1:50PM

It is hardly possible to believe the insanity of JL's above argument concerning taxes paid by corporations, but when one contemplates asinine nature of liberals and Democrats it becomes understandable. They THINK wrongly that corporations and individual income earners have a moral repsonsibility to pay taxes, which is bullexcrement! The money/income belongs to the corporations and income earners, NOT TO THE GD GOVERNMENT AND ITS WELFARE DEPENDENT INDIGENT CONSTITUENTS. Additionally corporations HIRE/EMPLOY THOUSANDS/MILLIONS OF EMPLOYEES and in doing so provide trillions of dollars in income to its employee-recipients who also pay taxes to the government. Without these corporations providing jobs, their employees would be pennyless, starving, non-employed and WOULD NOT BE PAYING TAXES TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE INCOME THAT THEY EARNED FROM SAID CORPORATIONS! These liberal morons are so stupid that they cannot understand that it is THE CORPORATIONS' AND THEIR EMPLOYEES' MONEY-INCOME, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS'. The corporations and their employees EARNED THE RECEIVED INCOME and same belongs to them, not to the government and not to their indigent welfare recipients [and never will]. So as the old saying goes, these corporations and their employees FIGHT POVERTY BY .......WORKING!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 7.14.11 @ 1:50PM

It is hardly possible to believe the insanity of JL's above argument concerning taxes paid by corporations, but when one contemplates asinine nature of liberals and Democrats it becomes understandable. They THINK wrongly that corporations and individual income earners have a moral repsonsibility to pay taxes, which is bullexcrement! The money/income belongs to the corporations and income earners, NOT TO THE GD GOVERNMENT AND ITS WELFARE DEPENDENT INDIGENT CONSTITUENTS. Additionally corporations HIRE/EMPLOY THOUSANDS/MILLIONS OF EMPLOYEES and in doing so provide trillions of dollars in income to its employee-recipients who also pay taxes to the government. Without these corporations providing jobs, their employees would be pennyless, starving, non-employed and WOULD NOT BE PAYING TAXES TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE INCOME THAT THEY EARNED FROM SAID CORPORATIONS! These liberal morons are so stupid that they cannot understand that it is THE CORPORATIONS' AND THEIR EMPLOYEES' MONEY-INCOME, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS'. The corporations and their employees EARNED THE RECEIVED INCOME and same belongs to them, not to the government and not to their indigent welfare recipients [and never will]. So as the old saying goes, these corporations and their employees FIGHT POVERTY BY .......WORKING!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 7.14.11 @ 1:50PM

It is hardly possible to believe the insanity of JL's above argument concerning taxes paid by corporations, but when one contemplates asinine nature of liberals and Democrats it becomes understandable. They THINK wrongly that corporations and individual income earners have a moral repsonsibility to pay taxes, which is bullexcrement! The money/income belongs to the corporations and income earners, NOT TO THE GD GOVERNMENT AND ITS WELFARE DEPENDENT INDIGENT CONSTITUENTS. Additionally corporations HIRE/EMPLOY THOUSANDS/MILLIONS OF EMPLOYEES and in doing so provide trillions of dollars in income to its employee-recipients who also pay taxes to the government. Without these corporations providing jobs, their employees would be pennyless, starving, non-employed and WOULD NOT BE PAYING TAXES TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE INCOME THAT THEY EARNED FROM SAID CORPORATIONS! These liberal morons are so stupid that they cannot understand that it is THE CORPORATIONS' AND THEIR EMPLOYEES' MONEY-INCOME, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS'. The corporations and their employees EARNED THE RECEIVED INCOME and same belongs to them, not to the government and not to their indigent welfare recipients [and never will]. So as the old saying goes, these corporations and their employees FIGHT POVERTY BY .......WORKING!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 7.14.11 @ 1:50PM

It is hardly possible to believe the insanity of JL's above argument concerning taxes paid by corporations, but when one contemplates asinine nature of liberals and Democrats it becomes understandable. They THINK wrongly that corporations and individual income earners have a moral repsonsibility to pay taxes, which is bullexcrement! The money/income belongs to the corporations and income earners, NOT TO THE GD GOVERNMENT AND ITS WELFARE DEPENDENT INDIGENT CONSTITUENTS. Additionally corporations HIRE/EMPLOY THOUSANDS/MILLIONS OF EMPLOYEES and in doing so provide trillions of dollars in income to its employee-recipients who also pay taxes to the government. Without these corporations providing jobs, their employees would be pennyless, starving, non-employed and WOULD NOT BE PAYING TAXES TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE INCOME THAT THEY EARNED FROM SAID CORPORATIONS! These liberal morons are so stupid that they cannot understand that it is THE CORPORATIONS' AND THEIR EMPLOYEES' MONEY-INCOME, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS'. The corporations and their employees EARNED THE RECEIVED INCOME and same belongs to them, not to the government and not to their indigent welfare recipients [and never will]. So as the old saying goes, these corporations and their employees FIGHT POVERTY BY .......WORKING!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 7.14.11 @ 1:50PM

It is hardly possible to believe the insanity of JL's above argument concerning taxes paid by corporations, but when one contemplates asinine nature of liberals and Democrats it becomes understandable. They THINK wrongly that corporations and individual income earners have a moral repsonsibility to pay taxes, which is bullexcrement! The money/income belongs to the corporations and income earners, NOT TO THE GD GOVERNMENT AND ITS WELFARE DEPENDENT INDIGENT CONSTITUENTS. Additionally corporations HIRE/EMPLOY THOUSANDS/MILLIONS OF EMPLOYEES and in doing so provide trillions of dollars in income to its employee-recipients who also pay taxes to the government. Without these corporations providing jobs, their employees would be pennyless, starving, non-employed and WOULD NOT BE PAYING TAXES TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE INCOME THAT THEY EARNED FROM SAID CORPORATIONS! These liberal morons are so stupid that they cannot understand that it is THE CORPORATIONS' AND THEIR EMPLOYEES' MONEY-INCOME, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS'. The corporations and their employees EARNED THE RECEIVED INCOME and same belongs to them, not to the government and not to their indigent welfare recipients [and never will]. So as the old saying goes, these corporations and their employees FIGHT POVERTY BY .......WORKING!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 7.14.11 @ 1:50PM

It is hardly possible to believe the insanity of JL's above argument concerning taxes paid by corporations, but when one contemplates asinine nature of liberals and Democrats it becomes understandable. They THINK wrongly that corporations and individual income earners have a moral repsonsibility to pay taxes, which is bullexcrement! The money/income belongs to the corporations and income earners, NOT TO THE GD GOVERNMENT AND ITS WELFARE DEPENDENT INDIGENT CONSTITUENTS. Additionally corporations HIRE/EMPLOY THOUSANDS/MILLIONS OF EMPLOYEES and in doing so provide trillions of dollars in income to its employee-recipients who also pay taxes to the government. Without these corporations providing jobs, their employees would be pennyless, starving, non-employed and WOULD NOT BE PAYING TAXES TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE INCOME THAT THEY EARNED FROM SAID CORPORATIONS! These liberal morons are so stupid that they cannot understand that it is THE CORPORATIONS' AND THEIR EMPLOYEES' MONEY-INCOME, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS'. The corporations and their employees EARNED THE RECEIVED INCOME and same belongs to them, not to the government and not to their indigent welfare recipients [and never will]. So as the old saying goes, these corporations and their employees FIGHT POVERTY BY .......WORKING!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 7.14.11 @ 1:52PM

PS; Sorry for the multiple entries....poltergyst again!!!!!!!!

weddingdress | 7.15.11 @ 4:54AM

It is hardly possible to believe the insanity of JL's above argument concerning taxes paid by corporations, but when one contemplates asinine nature of liberals and Democrats it becomes understandable. They THINK wrongly that corporations and individual income earners have a moral repsonsibility to pay taxes, which is bullexcrement!

TK| 7.21.11 @ 7:45AM

Reaganomics was only a debt transfer from the government to consumers. Creating an environment of loose loan standards and easy credit is how you bring in tax revenue from money that does not exist. Instead, the economy should be about liberty, not economic servitude disguised as prosperity and designed to grow the state. Debt created from fiat currency is the reason for the financial crises, high taxes, heavy government regulations, and poverty disparity. It is the tool of the state. How many business, jobs, and tax revenue can be created through a single sale of a $500,000 house alone? How is replaced if not by another loan? Inflation? Pro-growth economies only means that consumers are taking out more loans which eventually has to be repaid. And where does this money come from? A future loan. Credit created through debt is extinguished when the debt is paid off and as such must be replaced just to sustain the economy. This is the reason for economic disparity and inflation. If anything the economy should be a zero sum game if you want to spread real prosperity, not the illusion of it, to your fellow man.

The American Spectator

Another Perspective

Reaganomics is the Only Answer

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (208) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

jppc| 7.13.11 @ 6:20AM

CrackerHound| 7.13.11 @ 11:16AM

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 12:07PM

Harry Russell | 7.13.11 @ 1:07PM

Dave Williams| 7.13.11 @ 1:16PM

Ground Control| 7.13.11 @ 3:58PM

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:16PM

Ground Control| 7.14.11 @ 11:00AM

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:21PM

Ground Control| 7.14.11 @ 11:17AM

Alan Brooks| 7.13.11 @ 4:07PM

Sherman rides again!| 7.13.11 @ 4:11PM

TrueBlue| 7.13.11 @ 4:16PM

Alan Brooks| 7.13.11 @ 6:48PM

Mike Hawk| 7.13.11 @ 7:13PM

Ground Control| 7.13.11 @ 7:28PM

Alan Brooks| 7.13.11 @ 7:54PM

blackwatch| 7.13.11 @ 10:09PM

Alan Brooks| 7.13.11 @ 10:58PM

Jive Bomber| 7.14.11 @ 12:26AM

Ground Control| 7.14.11 @ 11:22AM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.13.11 @ 6:30AM

oldfart| 7.13.11 @ 7:52AM

PJ| 7.13.11 @ 10:39AM

Have you considered| 7.13.11 @ 11:29AM

PJ| 7.13.11 @ 12:46PM

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:28PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.15.11 @ 5:27PM

potkas7| 7.13.11 @ 6:37AM

figusja| 7.13.11 @ 12:20PM

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 12:25PM

Drunken Sailor| 7.13.11 @ 12:31PM

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 2:38PM

Drunken Sailor| 7.13.11 @ 2:59PM

Drunken Sailor| 7.13.11 @ 3:08PM

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:36PM

Oldefarte| 7.13.11 @ 3:02PM

Bob Grant| 7.13.11 @ 1:43PM

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 2:46PM

Bob Grant| 7.13.11 @ 3:12PM

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:40PM

Ground Control| 7.13.11 @ 7:34PM

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:43PM

Ground Control| 7.14.11 @ 11:26AM

skip| 7.13.11 @ 1:47PM

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 2:48PM

JayDick| 7.13.11 @ 4:13PM

skip| 7.13.11 @ 7:06PM

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:45PM

blackwatch| 7.13.11 @ 10:18PM

skip| 7.14.11 @ 11:41AM

skip| 7.14.11 @ 12:12PM

skip| 7.14.11 @ 6:44PM

Clinton Lovell| 7.13.11 @ 2:24PM

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 2:51PM

Al Adab| 7.13.11 @ 4:00PM

Al Adab| 7.13.11 @ 4:02PM

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:51PM

Purpleguy| 7.13.11 @ 9:50PM

jpusc| 7.14.11 @ 1:52PM

Die Fledermaus| 7.13.11 @ 5:12PM

casquette monster energy | 7.13.11 @ 7:10AM

nister| 7.13.11 @ 7:38AM

Truth to Power| 7.13.11 @ 8:28AM

Mark in LA| 7.13.11 @ 9:57AM

Truth to Power| 7.13.11 @ 10:13AM

Mark in LA| 7.14.11 @ 10:48AM

2Anglico| 7.13.11 @ 10:25AM

TrueBlue| 7.13.11 @ 4:24PM

Mark in LA| 7.14.11 @ 10:39AM

nister| 7.13.11 @ 10:10AM

Indiana Alex| 7.13.11 @ 10:15AM

Truth to Power| 7.13.11 @ 10:20AM

nister| 7.13.11 @ 10:46AM

Truth to Power| 7.13.11 @ 2:36PM