I hope all of you have been enjoying Ken Burn's new series as much as I have. I'd forgotten many details of Teddy's crusade against the robber barons, the railroads, the financiers, and the copper kings. I was pleased to see how exactly his political views parallel my own in our present circumstances. As often as I've been labeled a libtard here, I seem to be in good company. If I'm a libtard, So is Teddy Roosevelt.

He also campaigned and acted against state rights and for a powerful central government. While in Wilson's Administration he was chomping at the bit to get us into the Great War.

I like our National Park System and give him credit for that.

I have been watching the series. I am mostly against everything he, his niece Elanor, and his fifth cousin FDR did and tried to do.

That's OK with me, Mike. I enjoy most of your posts, and you've never called me a libtard. The park system is a great monument to Theodore Roosevelt, and they've been a prod to many Presidents since then to commit more public land to permanent preservation. It seems to me a weak federal government caused the Great Depression, and a lack of proper regulation caused the bust in Reagan's presidency and in Bush's. States' rights seem small change compared to letting big money do whatever they please to get even bigger.

A collection of TR quotes here
http://www.picturetrail.com/members/community/homePage/blogPage.php?uid=6511424&entryID=24574
and
http://www.picturetrail.com/members/community/homePage/blogPage.php?uid=6511424&entryID=24575

I can see where a strong fed. gov. has helped us preserve fed land so well that with a few more regulations we may be able to keep hunters from trespassing in our damaged public lands and allow nature to revert back to an unspoiled time. But, there are some regulations that don't work out so well, like welcoming four islamic state terrorist through our unregulated southern border barely a week ago on the tenth. Wish we could follow the law like TR might have.

If you want to see trashed public lands I invite any and all of you to go down near the border in Arizona and walk around. The damage that has been done by illegals who could care less is severe and in some cases may be non reversible at least in the short run.
One of the best measures that could be taken to protect these public trust lands would be to REALLY crack down and get the border secured. This of course won't happen until we get rid of the current inept administration.
Every time I think of this administration ridiculous statements that "The border is secure." I'd like to see this shoved right back at them during the upcoming campaigns.
As an aside: I just saw a segment on Hannity of the Islamists openly mocking Obama and his 'policies " on tv.
Also when a Congressman brought up the fact the 4 Terrorists had been apprehended on the Texas border on Sept. 10 as they attempted to cross with one of the Homeland security top administrators he publicly stated that he was "unaware of this".
Obama is really clueless and he and his administration have truly disgraced this Country.
Jim
I did not mean to hi-jack this thread so getting back to the Roosevelts; Franklin was a closet communist a point that will probably be conveniently omitted from this series.

Jim, maybe this is a situation that Bill thinks parallels his own views today.

Sec. jeh j was asked by Congressman Chaffetz if he was aware of any terrorists crossing the southern border, that's what he was unaware of. Next, the specific 10 Sept. issue was brought, then he back peddled, heard reports, but wasn't sure if they were credible. You hang in there Jim, that's your backyard, not some out of sight out of mind babble from the feller tasked to protect the homeland.

Thanks Craig:
As I'm typing this I was just informed the Sky Harbort Airport is on lockdown due to someone being there with a gun. We are at the forefront of this illegal invasion and I could tell all of you a few stories regarding what I've personally seen that would curl your hair.
We need to get some real control here and we need to do it fast or I'm personally very concerned about the consequences.
The occupant of the White House has done next to nothing and both he and the former head of "Homeland Security" have consistently maintained that the border is secure. This is a sick joke and just one more example of his proclivity to lie.
Jim

From TR's opening address, the Governors' Conference (on conservation) May, 1908. The printed program had the title: Conservation as a National Duty
You have come hither at my request, so that we may join together to consider the question of the conservation and use of the great fundamental sources of wealth of this Nation. So vital is this question, that for the first time in our history the chief executive officers of the states separately, and of the states together forming the Nation, have met to consider it. It is the chief material question that confronts us, second only-and second always-to the great fundamental question of morality.
As a result of this Conference, Roosevelt:
1. Created a National Conservation commission chaired by Gifford Pinchot with commissions on; public lands, inland waterways, and national conservation.
2. Called a North American Conservation conference to enlist the aid of Canada and Mexico
3. Created five more National Parks
4. Proclaimed 16 National Monuments, including the Grand Canyon, Muir Woods, and the Gila Cliff Dwellings, New Mexico
5. Declared 13 new National Forests
6. Created 16 Federal Bird Refuges, starting with Pelican Island, FL
7. Established the first Federal Game Preserve at Wichita Forest, OK

Some private property was appropriated by the government in the process and I don't think that was a bad thing. The (God given) brilliance of our Constitution is the system of checks and balances, and in TR's day the congress was controlled by the 'malefactors of great wealth' and the little guy had no chance for a 'square deal'. Sadly, today the balance is weighted in favor of the intellectual and moral superiority of the progressives who control the courts. The 9th Circuit just decided that the first amendment right to wear a flag on one's shirt ends on Cinco de Mayo. And very soon some court is going to decide that sharing God's word is 'hate speech'.

TR was a wounded spirit with plenty of faults, but he was a man for the times. We could use someone now with his vision of greatness and a willingness to use his power to do good. And it was a good thing to have the govt. insure 'patent medicines' and meat are clean and safe.

TRs biggest fault was that he had never worked in the private sector. Fairly typical of politicians that think that government is the answerto everything . At least he wasn't a full blown sociopathic Statist of the Hegelian-Marxist school. (Like the Democrats, as well as most of the Ninth Circut)

Don't forget that his second try at politics ( the Bull Moose Party) was a failure. What would modern day liberals say if another Republican did something like he did to Columbia to get the canal going again.
Mike

Drew, I agree we need someone of Teddy's caliber today, and there's no one in sight who could hold a candle to him. He was not without major flaws, but his virtues out-weighed his faults. His was a thorough racist and a ruthless bully against those he did not respect. But no politician today seems to care much about the poor. Some are trying to salvage the middle class but with no visible effect. Our country is run by "the interests" TR fought so hard. We have the finest government money can buy.

I agree that the Lesser Depression was caused by weak regulation. But it was also caused by Barney Frank and friends mandating home loans to unqualified borrowers and by the lending of the semi-government corporate entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Eliminate Frank's sub-prime law or the central government's participation in mortgage loans and you don't have the situation that the weak regulators failed to detect and correct.

Rich people are always over-represented in government. It is better to have them over-represented in a small weak central government than over-represented in huge powerful central government. If the gorilla weighs 200 pounds instead of 800 pounds the selection of the gorilla handler is not as critical.

I enjoy your posts too. Much to admire about the Roosevelts. Much to criticize too.

Craigd, Check your "facts".

TR was a revelation to me. My wife turned to me, said, "I didn't know he was a man of such liberal values." I said I didn't know either.

It was a time when one person could make a great difference in shaping a country. Couldn't happen today when we need them.

king: watt we need today is the kind of inspired leadership as provided by fdr and reagan...

thought sarah palin could have been the one. guess not...

dr. ben carson now comes too mind.

just finished his book,"one nation"...highly recommend it. his take on the second amendment debate is particularly interesting.

I have been wading through the latest volume of Robert Carow's LBJ biography. I have read the earlier volumes. The biography is well written. I just get so disgusted with LBJ I have to put the book down for a few months.

TR was certainly progressive, but never advocated redistribution, nor rewarding sloth and irresponsibility. He fully recognized that the rich, educated, and powerful had an advantage, but with that privilege came obligations.

"A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards. More than that no man is entitled to, and less than that no man shall have."
Speech at Springfield, Illinois (4 July 1903)

Can do Bill. Steer me in the right direction, and I'll fix it.

Redistribution isn't a bad word in Canada, Drew. Federal equalization grants go to provinces not doing as well as others to maintain national standards in education, health etc.

Ontario, a have-not once the country's industrial heartland, now is a beneficiary of sharing the national wealth. Oil-rich Newfoundland, once a "have-not" province, now contributes to Ontario.

Our western provinces were basket cases until until oil, potash discovered under them made them the beating heart of Canada's economy. It's all a noblesse oblige, a responsibility of privilege.

My opinion is that the US has the same responsibilities of managing a world empire. China's students are leading in science and math. Canada's educational system is near the top. US is around 25th in world rankings.

China's patents are increasing exponentially. US engineers who won the space race are retiring. China will eclipse US GDP within 20 years. Redistribution isn't without controversy but goes a long way toward greater equality.

I agree with TR's sense of noblesse oblige, "with privilege comes obligations." It's a federal policy here. Overall redistribution has been satisfactory. Sloth and irresponsibility seems to me equally distributed in societies.

Mike, what makes reading well-written and well-documented biographies of leaders so aggravating to me is they're usually not hagiographies but of the celebrated with all their warts and frailties. We keep looking for saints.

In the home of a powerful national politician with illuminated autographed pictures and gifts from dictators and charlatans displayed everywhere, I asked him if he wasn't embarrassed by their presence, they were such sobs.

"Kingsley, anyone who is doing anything anywhere is always sailing close to the wind."

It's often the same in business. If you are not pissing off somebody, you are probably not doing your job.

King I have always disliked LBJ. Reading his biography only intensified my distaste for him. Read the chapter on the hearing for Leland Olds, the federal electric utility regulator.

As far as sailing close to the water a felony is a felony a felon is a felon, getting stuff done of not, convicted or not.

Mike, there is no doubt LBJ was a scoundrel. As a country, we've come to expect politicians to be nice guys, and we know so much today about their private lives, that a thorough scoundrel probably couldn't be nominated. We seem to have lost leaders who can get things done or even leaders who know what needs doing. I was struck with how gradually FDR nudged the country toward an understanding of why we had to confront Nazi Germany. I wonder if any politician today has his grasp of world affairs. I know none of them has his ability to convince us that our problems can be endured and overcome.

In fairness, both LBJ and FDR had the press covering for them. Ronald Reagan did what he did with the near-all-liberal media in full throated opposition of his campaign and programs.

Remember "memogate"? Dan Rather and Mary Mapes planned a release date of the story that would do the most damage to George W. Bush's presidential prospects. But, had they had the goods on a liberal, I bet they would have canned the (faked) story or at least delayed it until after the election. Never mind all the obvious clues that it was faked.

Even now the media is almost all liberal. It was only with the advent of the internet that the dirt on the liberals started showing up, some of it on Monica's blue dress.

The lefty media in Roosevelt's time conspired with his campaign not to show him in his wheelchair or struggling with his braces. They covered up JFK's White House dalliances. But they dug down deep in the Watergate break-in.

So the left's pride that their great politicians "sail close to the water" to get things done is really false. Their politicians are just held to a lower standard than the Republicans.

So true Mike, so true!

That's the bottom line. If a Ronald Reagan or George Bush had pulled 10% of what the Obama administration and hs cohorts had done you'd have heard about it 24/7 on the "mainstream news media". The condemnation would have been fierce and nasty. That's why I have nothing but distain for today's "news" media.
As an aside: As a student of history Roosvelt is getting off with very light treatment here so far from Burns**. We'll see what's reported when we get into the war end negotiation with the Russians. As I've previously stated; Roosevelt was a clost communist and basically "gave away the store" before he expired resulting in a 50+ year Cold War with the Russians and untold suffering on the part of the Eastern Europeans.
With the amateur occupying the White House today in charge it looks like we may be headed right back into his direction.
Jim
**Burns is well know for his left wing politics.

Mike, I---a liberal, although it would have been the same if said by a conservative---referred to sailing close to the wind. It means barely legal in nautical parlance. You postulate a liberal pride in criminality. Your premise is false. Apology accepted.

I checked, and not a once did Mike mention victory, I mean criminality. Any means is acceptable if it can be gotten away with or excused with pc. Even the worst got'yas can be delayed to footnotes on the lecture tour years later. A crisis is just an opportunity, wink.

In nautical parlance it means you have so much sail on your boat while tracking across the wind uou are on the verge of tipping over.

FDR and LBJ illegally funneled oil baron money to Democratic House candidates in the 1940? election. An IRS agent documented this while he was auditing Brown and Root. Brown and Root actually had the temerity to deduct their illegal political donations as business expenses. FDR had his Secretary of the Treasury quash the audit and the felony investigation. Those are felonies and high crimes.

So what the left likes to call "sailing close to the wind" is actually criminality, covered up by their co-conspirators - the lefty dominated media. The left's maxim is "The end justifies the means." Once I understood that then everything became clear. The Republicans get indicted, impeached, and flogged from public life for doing what the Democrats do on a routine basis.

Mike:
IMO the criminality exhibited by previous leftists like FDR,LBJ and W Clinton pales in comparison to the criminality that's been exhibited by the current White House occupant. It is well known that ontold millions were donated to his 2008 campaign by G Soros thru fake small "donations" purportedly from Africans.
Obama has set a new standard of lows in this area and many others.
The office of the Presidency will be a long time in recovering from the stain left by Obama and IMO it will be far worse then the previous stain left by Carter.
Jim

The press actually celebrates Leftist lies, anti-constitutionalism and criminality. They marvel at the achievements, completely rationalizing the corruption within the context of the subjective morality of Religious Statism.

Sorry, this is wrong.

As a life long sailor and keelboat owner, the term "sail too close to the wind" means to point the boat too much into the direction of the apparent wind, thus depriving yourself of both boat speed and then rudder control. Continuing to point this high means your sails will shortly be flapping uselessly. The term gets used in idiomatic circumstances to describe someone/something that is dangerously veering towards a course of action that may have dire consequences. Aptly used by King.


Mike, you are describing a beam or close reach with too much sail. Kinda fun but you'll be faster with a reef or two in the sails.

If US press anything like Canada's, it's almost totally owned by conservatives. Canadian newspapers are peeing all over our majority conservative government, often with good reasons according to my conservative friends.

Perhaps Ken will tell us how the rich conservative owners are corrupted by their workers to celebrate not only another ideology but merrily follow them into criminality and religious statism. Seems strange to me.

with the exception of that media funded by tax payer dollars, the rest of the media is driven in pursuit of profit goals. revenues are derived primarily from advertising sales. profit is what is left over after expenses and taxes...so, media outlets are as liberal or conservative as their advertisers are willing to pay for them to be. for example, fox news advertisers pay for mostly a conservative view. cnn advertisers pay for mostly a liberal view, etc.

the last episode of "the roosevelt's" is on tonight...dont miss it. and if you missed any of it, there should be reruns. it is just amazing how ken burns of walpole, nh can continue to do such wonderful work...bet ike will be his next project?

Ken Burns is a well known Leftie and the episodes I watched are slanted to the Left. I just bet there's NO indication that the military so distrusted Roosevelt that they never told him they had broken the Jap code.
Furthermore E Roosevelt is freely described as being a Lesbian today another fact that I'm sure won't be mentioned.
And then there is the who scenario that he knew about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance and did nothing so he could get the US into WW II.
He is best remembered as the President that started us down the slippery slope to Socialism a path we are paying for dearly today.

What seems a little strange to me is to watch an anecdote 'change' into a fact. Maybe, conclusion reaching via story telling. I wonder what would make a self described liberal follow this type of logic. Used to getting away with it?

Although the "L" word was not used in the segment I saw, there was discussion about ER's female companion, with fairly clear implications of a close personal relationship. Picture of the girlfriend looked like J. Edgar Hoover in drag.

Perhaps you could pay closer attention if you are going to be a media critic.

Letters Between Eleanor Roosevelt & Lorena Hickok

Eleanor Roosevelt (ER) and Lorena Hickok began their decades-long relationship in 1933, before FDR's inauguration. Lorena, or Hick (as ER called her) was a highly successful reporter, and ER was about to become First Lady. They shared an emotional and romantic relationship that peaked in passion and later developed into a friendship that endured until death.

When their relationship began, ER was not a naive, inexperienced woman. Biographer Blanche Wiesen Cook states that after 1920, many of her closest friends were lesbians, and that she both honored their relationships and preserved their privacy. ER's letters (and she wrote ten to fifteen page letters daily to Hick for a time) indicate a romantic attachment that was physical. She knew what kind of attachment this was, and the secrecy its nature demanded. As a result, finding evidence is difficult--but not at impossible.

The relationship these two women shared has been--not surprisingly--heavily censored over the years. While they lived, photographs of family dinners were cropped to remove Hick's image. If she was included in a photograph, she was not identified. And she was certainly not talked about, even to biographers. After ER's death, Hick herself edited and retyped much of their correspondence. She burned some of ER's letters and many of her own. After Hick's death, her sister Ruby read the original versions of their first year of correspondence and then threw them in the fireplace, saying, "This is nobody's business."

Even Doris Faber, author of The Life of Lorena Hickok: ER's Friend was horrified by the correspondence. She tried to get the letters sealed from the public until after the year 2000, and when she couldn't do that, she decided to ignore content that reflected on the relationship. About one particularly romantic passage, she declares that there can be little doubt that "it could not mean what it appears to mean."

The collection Empty Without You: The Intimate Letters of Eleanor Roosevelt and Lorena Hickok, published in 1998, recently gave the public a new glimpse into the life of one of America's most beloved First Ladies.

Top of page
Letters

Some excerpts:

March 5, 1933, ER to Hick
March 7, 1933, ER to Hick
[Date not provided], ER to Hick
[Date not provided], Hick to ER

Comrade King,

If you want analysis, you have to provide a specific example. In America its easy, as normal profit motives are disregarded, (MSNBC, CNN, etc.) with the statist viewpoint being professed despite dismal ratings. Also, the influence of the New York Times is a large factor, setting the statist slant for issues despite a massive contraction of the paper's financial status in recent years.

Normal profit motives rule in Canada but every newspaper except one endorsed the conservative federal government in the last election. Those newspapers almost without exception now are all over the conservative government, editorially representing the owners and in news columns reflecting public sentiment. When did US newspapers start "disregarding" profit?

Ken Burns and biographer Cook say there's no proof ER was a lesbian. What difference does it make if she was? She was a remarkable American, useful, accomplished, effective. I can't think of another American in public life with her courage, to the point of writing a book criticizing her husband's work; not just any husband, a great president. I believe she may have been a lesbian but no one knows where her love fitted in the range of erotic relationships behind closed doors and drawn blinds. Nor do I care.

Tough to say, but it's probably some time before '03 when the jayson blair incident reluctantly uncovered how the 'news' is fabricated by the nyt. TV 'news' easily shows the 'profit' in cheer leading the left comes from redistribution, not sponsor dollars through viewership.

Interesting, useful? All that ever seems to matter is the ends. No wonder you 'care' so much for the minutia of the mantra against influential R's, helps keep 'em in their place.

To say Jason Blair shows that the NYT fabricates news is to take the "one bad apple" metaphor beyond credibility. There are many references to the so-called liberal media from members here who constantly parade the fabricated outrage of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and the whole Fox News circus. Network news is practically worthless, not because it's biased, but because its coverage is a joke. I think of it as News Lite. The bias in the networks is detectable, but it's minor compared to Fox where every story is presented, not to inform, but to inflame. Anybody who believes anything beyond the fact that events happen from Fox reporting might as well wear earmuffs and a blindfold.

Bill, as a consumer of news on both sides of the border, I think you are wrong when you describe Fox as being more outrageous, more inflammatory than network news or CNN or MSNBC. They are all useless because none of them are consistently unbiased and truthful. Have you listened to Chris Matthews anytime since Obama came of the scene. He fawns over both Obama and Hillary like a paid sycophant. I get outraged by MSNBC, you get outraged by Fox. Same shit, different pile. Each of them aims for their constituents.

And lets also be clear. There is one Fox. There are the three major networks, plus CNN and MSNBC.

The remarkable thing is that while aiming for their constituent market brings Fox lots of profits, it is bankrupting CNN and MSNBC. So when the conservatives on here talk about the left wing bias of the MSM, it is that obvious lack of pursuit of profits that makes the bias so clear.

James and King: I stand corrected on the meaning of "sailing too close to the wind". Thanks.

And your point is...????

The world has known ER was a lesbian for quite some time. Proof is not required. Few give a crap. She wasn't president. Her dick of a husband was. Lots to crap on there, although this thread is supposed to be about TR.

Your reputation preceded you, Mike. We knew it was an honest mistake. When I sat on Galveston Bay drinking big pitchers of beer I never thought of it as real water!

Craig, this isn't a real answer. I'd be happy after I'm gone to be thought of as useful in my community. That end is enough for me.

This is misfires Bill, I wasn't looking for bad apples just trying to figure out a time line. 'Fabricated outrage', how about a little tolerance. I bet ole TR would be more of a doer than one looking demons and excuses.

Hey King, I hope you're thought of in only the best ways. The problem I saw with spinning the memory of some lib for ideological purposes is the inevitable risk of not being useful. Dems probably set the timeline one this one, it traces back to the origin of the phrases, 'circle the wagons' and 'thrown under the bus'.

When you got into ER and that erotica stuff, you tread close to breaking a misfires rule, tisk, tisk. But, despise them as I do, hollwood could've helped out and taken some artistic license by hiring a couple of hottie actresses and doing an r-rated episode for the series.

Canvasback, Yes CNN and MSNBC rant much like Fox News from the other side of the fence. I don't watch either of them. At the gym about four mornings per week I peddle a stationary bike in front of The TV that shows Fox news. I warm up on the bike for ten minutes and always get a good laugh from the "news". Of course Fox is profitable; look at their advertisers. The views they push so enthusiastically are precisely those of our plutocratic rulers. Fox gets along by going along. Rupert Murdoch will stoop to any shameless pandering to maintain his profits and power, even having his henchmen tap the phones of private citizens and public officials.PS, FDR cut corners, but at the same time he saved western civilization from the Nazis and the Japanese. That should count for something too.

Now that's funny. To think that "Fox & Friends" contains political rants. When? between the Country singers and the child heroes? I can understand you thinking that O'Reilly or Hannity go on rants, but the morning programs as well?

In general, Fox News is fairly tame, with little real analysis. It's just not completely sycophantic to the Democrats, and occasionally does show a different viewpoint. This, of course, to religious statists, is what makes them EVIL...

Bill, not to be picky, but it seems to me that a whole lot of other nations, besides America and a whole lot of Americans beside FDR had something to do with "saving Western Civilization" during WWII. I think that's why we call it a World War.

You guys were good once you got there but you were late to the party twice in a row. Last guy in doesn't get to claim exclusive rights to the victory.

Is this somehow different than what other media owner do? The history of broadcast and broadsheet news consists of unethical and uncaring behavior in order to scoop the competition. They have only been different from the tabloids in their own minds.


PS When I say both posts, I am not referring to my WWII comment but the post further back up the page and this one. Sorry if there was confusion.

My point Bill, in both these comments is that you are distinguishing Fox as somehow different...worse. It is not. They are all the same. It is only in your (or my) perspective and biases that there is a difference in acceptability.

James,

You cannot debate or carry on an intelligent discussion with people who are stupid and ignorant, and Bill Ferguson, a.k.a. rocky mtn bill, certainly qualifies as both.

Just imagine, this libtard yo-yo says he taught young people in a public school setting.......unbelieveable to say the least.......certainly gives one a lot of insight as to why young folks are lacking in so many areas of basic knowledge .........

Our strong suit was our huge manufacturing base that no part of the world could compete with and massive resources, both human and in raw materials. Anybody with a I.Q. over 40 knows this. The massive U.S. manufacturing base won the war, plain and simple.

FDR was the liberal jerk who foiled and depressed our military build up in the 1930's, the Army and the Navy were at their lowest levels of all time during his administration.....UNTIL PEARL HARBOR...... FDR court martialed General Billy Mitchell for being forceful and vocal regarding the immediate needs of the Army Air Corps in the 1930's..........and this was during a time when it was obvious that world war was immenent ....It took the first three years of the war for us to catch up, especially in materials and logistics..........Thousands and thousands of U.S. Military and civilian lives were lost needlessly because of FDR's poor decisions during the mid to late 1930's.........

Doug, I don't know enough about Bill to have much of an opinion of him as a teacher. Who knows what he says to his students and i don't even know what subjects he teaches.

What I do find funny is that you use the term "unbelievable" to describe someone of middle/left leanings as a teacher in NA today. What is unbelievable about that??

It would be unbelievable if a teacher in either of our countries wasn't weak-kneed over Obama, didn't piss himself at the thought of a gun, didn't think that boys acting like boys means they have ADHD and need to be drugged. I could go on but you get the picture. THAT would be "unbelieveable".

As a side note, in one of our provinces, BC, they just ended a teachers strike. Last two weeks of last years and first three weeks of this year. Teachers there are, by any measure, well paid, with plenty of time off. And yet I had to read in the papers this morning about how they have been "traumatized" by their experience on the picket lines. I heard about a high school kid I think in Tennessee who got suspended from school recently and the police were called because he wrote a story about shooting a dinosaur for a school assignment. I mean, what is wrong with these people???

James,

Meaning as structured James, that it is unbelieveable that someone so lacking in basic knowledge could teach at even a par level in a public school anywhere........it is a "given" that all teachers, at all levels are massive liberals "now days" with zero practical knowledge in the real world........The female influence in public schools is far too overwhelming and not positive whatsoever.......sorry to confuse you James, hope I explained it right.....LOL.......

Best,

Quote:
"FDR was the liberal jerk who foiled and depressed our military build up in the 1930's, especially Billy Mitchell (court martial) and the Army Air Corps....and this was during a time when it was obvious that world war was at hand....It took the first three years of the war for us to catch up, especially in material and logistics.........."

And of course history has repeated itself with the Liberal jerk we have occupying the White House today.

As far as WW III goes the Pope says it's already begun!

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/567003/20...tm#.VCByRvldWXw

Jim

PA24, you are the ignorance of the Tea Party personified. You know nothing about my career or personal life, and yet you somehow feel entitled to attack me personally because you disagree with what little you know of my political convictions. You no doubt consider yourself a model of patriotic courage. It sounds more likely to me that you have no interest whatsoever in free speech and would silence anyone who dares to contradict you if you only could. The more you rave, the better with me. Your freedom of speech lets others see you for what you are. Canvasback, Good for you to say you don't know enough to judge me as a teacher.

Every time you disagree with a comment, you belittle the position and then extend comments to include Fox News and the TEA Party folks. You're always right and other opinions are referred as a joke. You also don't interact with discussion and have a tendency to do drive by attacks then leave.

It may be how you present yourself that give people what little they know about your political convictions. If you have a different image that you'd rather project, why not just tell the folks. You've asked me for 'facts', I've asked for a little tolerance, but as you know, absolutely nothing comes of it.

I'll tell you this Bill, you can be damn thankful that you weren't a teacher in my school when I was a kid. Your ass would have been grass and our Republican school board would have been a lawn mower.

Doug, the US was isolationist for the first half of the last century, the Munroe Doctrine part of it, declaring the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence. Americans didn't want to be mixed up with interminable European wars and wrangling.

When I watched earlier Teddy R. episodes I didn't realize the extent to which the old trooper campaigned against all odds to get the US into the First World War was almost identical to FDR's barely legal efforts to get the US into the Second. A German torpedo decided it for the First, Pearl Harbour the Second.

US participation in the Second made it the new world empire.

King,

What you mention above is correct. People like Charles Lindberg are prime examples of this philosophy, as he lived it and preached it around the world, even after flying some of Hermann Goerings new equipment. Lindberg, like all liberals, came back from Germany in 1938-39 saying "there is nothing to fear, they are our friends"...and of course Neville Chamberlain and his Hitler signed b.s. document were just as liberal and gullable as Lindberg, if not more so.......

FDR channeled large amounts of appropriated funds away from the military in the 1930's to social programs just as our current POTUS is doing today. But the sheeple loved him.

This of course was completely reversed when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, just as the current POTUS'S poor decisions are reversing his military decisions all over the world at present. Stay tuned there is an awful lot more to come.

The abject stupidity being exhibited by the current administration accurately follows the course of the Roosevelt administration during the 30s up to WW II. Back then,although I for one don't believe it, it could be argued that Roosevelt had stated he HAD NO INTENT to get the U S into another world war and decreasing our military to increase his social programs made sense.
As someone pointed out earlier it took us 3 years of concentrated effort from 1941 on to get our military and industry ramped up to really fight in WW II.
We don't have that luxery today with ICBMs, dirty bombs and a porous border that virtually anyone can cross. ISIS has stated they intend to bring their terrorism here and I for one believe them. We need strong leadership who are willing to take the neccessary steps to insure the safety of American citizens and we don't have that today.

I of course agree but why even listen to this clown ,he is concerned with two things, his government sponsored pension(sucking on the government tit while the homeowners in his district suffer) and the continued indoctrination of the children into the socialist ways.
he is a nothing,he knows what he is told by his liberal masters and nothing else-he has no mind of his own its dominated by the libtard doctrine .
Its just going to get worse for those like Bill come Nov and then, the hearings and impeachments will begin.

well, bill...welcome to the club.

how do you like this chess pool?

challenging aint hit?

i do hope you dont get discouraged an bail like some others before you. it does get lonely down here some times jousting with turds all by myself..

which reminds me, billy mitchell resigned from the army air corps in 1926. fdr did not become pres until 1932.

ed: Bill is sincere in his discussions here. You just bait and troll. You don't give a damn, one way or the other, about the arguments you make here. You just hope to stir someone into a rage or a rant.

Bill earned his pension during his decades of teaching. Just as the monthly retirement payments of social security are earned, Bill's pension is earned. There is no "sucking".

I agree Mike, with slight differences though. I think I know Bill is sincere, but when it comes to taking sides, he doesn't seem real long on discussion.

I've always figured Bill's business is his business alone. Separate from him, there's no doubt a big sucking sound. I may be mistaken, but I thought some bean counter in detroit said they have to budget for three police departments, one active and two retired.

Only an example is all, but libs are flat out unwilling to discuss it let alone have answers. But, hey we know who the enemy is, doesn't matter what's going on around us, it goes right down the middle of America.

i admire people who have the patience and fortitude to earn a pension.

In my state, teachers and other state employees are compensated at roughly double to what those in the Free Market earn. This is obviously due to the fact that their union is unconstitutionally awarded a monopoly on providing the services of its members. Unions themselves are not unconstitutional, the monopoly awarded them is.

All union contracts are essentially "No Bid" contracts, a status unions have because they have traded political support to sociopathic statist religious politicians willing to economically inflict themselves upon the taxtayer in order to confiscate their freedom and then buy votes of union members with it.

All jobs covered by unions should be open to bid, by either organizations or individuals for specific positions. That is Freedom and Equality, rather than the unconstitutional religious statism that is currently forced upon free and equal citizens.

You can now see the point that "earning" a government pension is subjective, as the amount of it is the result of a sociopathic statist religious infliction upon the taxpayer.

Defined pension benefits have been around for decades. Between the stock fall caused by 9/11 and the mortgage meltdown the returns on the pension investments have been much less than what the the defined monthly payment calculation was based on. Every pension that promised a defined benefit is at risk.

Every employer that provided or participated in a defined pension benefit plan had or has a liability now. Certainly I wasn't forced to be a union contractor. But to somehow assess those retirees drawing defined pension benefits as "suckers" is inaccurate and unfair. Most of the people that worked for me worked hard, showed up when they said they would, and did what they said they would do. Even though their unfunded pension liability cost me dearly I do not think of those fine people as "suckers".

Ken that is what your state voted for.

You are free to move.

You are free to stay.

You are free to change those jobs to "bid" jobs if you can get the votes.

But in the mean time those public employees made a deal. They made a deal with your elected representatives. Your elected representatives provided a package of wages, health insurance, and pension benefits. The teachers showed up, did their job, and spent their work life in that teaching job. Their pension benefits were earned. Their pension benefits are not dole, they are not welfare, the teachers are not receiving something for nothing. They are a direct result of a contract between that public employee and that public entity that they worked for. Again, they are not "suckers" but just receiving the payout of a contractual obligation.

How about the people living off their stocks and bonds? Are they "suckers", receiving something for nothing? Or did they give up some consumption in their younger years to provide for their older years. If they bought Microsoft stock in the early nineties and held it to this day are they unworthy of that wealth? Should they be shunned as "takers"?

Ken is correct,here is NO fairness or "earned" in the public sector union deals, its basic money laundering-you pay us more then we should get if it was the private sector and we will support you with more votes to give away money paid by others after your gone" !

Big difference in private and public sector pensions and union deals,those "sucking on the government tit"-like Bill got the inflated pension by taking advantage of no one representing the taxpayer on the other side of the deal !

One look at Detroit bankruptcy shows the cause and affect,claw back are coming and not soon enough to those "on the tit"

We could get rid of all public services, put them up for bids in the open market, pay for their costs plus profits, and create an authentic class of takers. Is that it? Societies everywhere are against it.

Reading a Salvation Army publication the other day mentioning its goals and philosophy, I wasn't surprised to read a simple declaration that this much-respected organization "shuns the dependancy culture."

No one likes or wants an unwarranted dependancy ethos. Yet it continues to be attached here regularly and unintelligently to public services, particularly to citizens who make or made a lifetime career commitment to serving us.

The issue here at hand is whether Bill is somehow deficient for accepting the pension provided to him by the terms of his employment as a teacher. IMHO what I'm about to say applies to everyone who works/has worked for the government.

Who among us would turn down an increase in employment compensation? None of us, or damn few, that is for sure. Frankly, in my view it is an obligation for each of us to provide the best possible support for our families and that is all that any teacher has done....got the best deal he could. Any beef one may have with a teacher's wages and benefits package is to be shooting the messenger, so to speak.

The problem lies with the white males who have dominated the political scene for the last 60 years. It is those elected officials who caved to the union demands, who struck unaffordable bargains. It not the microcosm of corrupt black democrats in Detoit who are to blame. it is all the voters and all the elected officials on both sides of the fence who allowed this foolishness to take root. We are now, as nations, paying the price for this idiocy.

But in no way can a man like Bill be faulted. As a young man, he choose what should be an honorable and valued profession, teaching our children. Pretty sure, as the years passed, he didn't make the rules. He probably did get to vote on them every for or five years, but he wasn't cutting the deals. He should take the money and feel just fine about it.

Ken, of all the people posting on this site, and elsewhere, you have, IMHO, relatively accurately nailed the problem. It is a belief system that has been fostered. The problem lies not with just the democrats but with both parties. The rise of the Tea Party reflects this. Disgust with the power for power sake nature that politics has become. King calls it a punk's game and he's right. My choice to vote for the conservative candidates is simply a usually misplaced hope they will expand government more slowly than the alternatives.

But you all make a giant error in reasoning by blaming those on the teat. Would we blame a calf! No we expect that from it. We should be blaming the supplier of the milk!

I won't blame Bill for a single thing, all I know is he does not seem to be open to discussion. By he, I'm referring to the left. What I have a hard time stomaching is someone saying, I'm important, I provide a critical function in society....I'm going on strike. Then clearly, who has the history of encouraging the tactic.

The trouble with public sector unions:

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trouble-with-public-sector-unions

"To tolerate or recognize any combination of civil service employees of the government as a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded. Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous.

And one more, for the Roosevelt fans;

" Even President Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of private-sector unionism, drew a line when it came to government workers: "Meticulous attention," the president insisted in 1937, "should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government....The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service."

FDR as Billy Mitchells antagonist promoted the Court Martial of Billy Mitchell many times long before he ran for office, FDR was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy before Polio put him in his wheel chair....... being so well read I figured you knew that eddie, guess not.......

Mitchell resigned instead on February 1, 1926, and spent the next decade writing and preaching air power to all who would listen. However, his departure from the service sharply reduced his ability to influence military policy and public opinion.

Mitchell viewed the election of his one-time antagonist Franklin D. Roosevelt as advantageous for air power, and met with him early in 1932 to brief him on his concepts for a unification of the military in a Department of Defense. His ideas intrigued and interested Roosevelt..... ..... Mitchell believed he might receive an appointment as Assistant Secretary of War for Air or perhaps even Secretary of War in a Roosevelt administration, but neither prospect materialized.

FDR went on his own systematic destruction of the Army Air Service and other military branches. Roosevelt tried to keep his 1932 campaign promise by cutting the federal budget – including a reduction in military spending from $752 million in 1932 to $531 million in 1934 and a 40% cut in spending on veterans' benefits – by removing 500,000 veterans and widows from the pension rolls and reducing benefits for the remainder, as well as cutting the salaries of federal employees and reducing spending on research and education.

At the time of the Munich Agreement in 1938 – with the U.S. not represented – Roosevelt said the US would not join a "stop-Hitler bloc" under any circumstances. He made it quite clear that, in the event of German aggression against Czechoslovakia, the U.S. would remain neutral.

Roosevelt said in 1939 that France and Britain were America's "first line of defense" and needed American aid, but because of widespread isolationist sentiment, he reiterated the US itself would not go to war. In the spring of 1939, FDR allowed the French to place huge orders with the American aircraft industry on a cash-and-carry basis, as allowed by law. Most of the aircraft ordered had not arrived in France by the time of its collapse in May 1940, so Roosevelt arranged in June 1940 for French orders to be sold to the British.

The German victories left Britain isolated in western Europe. Roosevelt, who was determined that Britain not be defeated, took advantage of the rapid shifts of public opinion. The fall of Paris shocked American opinion, and isolationist sentiment declined. A consensus was clear that military spending had to be dramatically expanded.......duh.......

i know and have known a few individuals with career commitment to the public school teaching system. my hat goes off to anyone who can tolerate the various negative forces one has to deal with:

- unmotivated students
- jealous colleauges
- abusive parents
- cowardly administrators
- weasel like union reps
- penny pinching tax payers

kudos to anyone who earns a pension teaching in our public schools.

Hey, it's not like I agree with public sector unions. I don't and I think they should be banned.

I also think, as a less radical idea, that critical service employees should be banned from striking. Don't know the rules in the US but up here, provincially, some are. But many are not.

But that's the thing. Public sector unions have been allowed. Teachers have not been legally described as critical and have been allowed to strike. Those are the rules.

Until you get your shit together and repeal the ridiculous laws that got passed by Democrat and Republican, those are the rules you all gotta live by. So my original point still stands and I still think you guys are barking up the wrong tree by blaming the employees.

You guys have closed shop unions. Think you invented them. That means Bill couldn't work if he didn't join the union. That means he was forced to pay union dues, forced to strike when the union voted to strike, regardless of his own personal opinions about the subject.

Dave, answer me this. I have no idea what you do for a living but would you turn down benefits if offered?

The problem lies with the lawmakers, not the employees.

You've forgotten the power of presidents, Dave. Remember Reagan and the air traffic controllers? From Wikipedia:

"In the 1980 presidential election, PATCO (along with the Teamsters and the Air Line Pilots Association) refused to back President Jimmy Carter, instead endorsing Republican Party candidate Ronald Reagan. PATCO's refusal to endorse the Democratic Party stemmed in large part from poor labor relations with the FAA (the employer of PATCO members) under the Carter administration and Ronald Reagan's endorsement of the union and its struggle for better conditions during the 1980 election campaign.

"On August 3, 1981, during a press conference regarding the PATCO strike, President Reagan stated: "They are in violation of the law and if they do not report for work within 48 hours they have forfeited their jobs and will be terminated."

On August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In addition, PATCO no longer wanted to be included within the civil service clauses that had haunted it for decades. In doing so, the union violated a law — 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p (now 5 U.S.C. § 7311) — that banned strikes by government unions. Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work. Subsequently, Reagan demanded those remaining on strike return to work within 48 hours, otherwise their jobs would be forfeited.

"On August 5, following the PATCO workers' refusal to return to work, Reagan fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order, and banned them from federal service for life."

Reagan supported a union until it crossed the line and became toast. What's "ridiculous" in the above quote is not that "hired servants" are dictating to government. It's the notion they're accountable only to themselves.

pa: it is my understanding that on the direct order of the president, mitchell was court martialed and found guilty of insubordination and demoted. he chose to resign. what did fdr have to do with that in 1926, when cal collidge was pres?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell

"On August 5, following the PATCO workers' refusal to return to work, Reagan fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order, and banned them from federal service for life."

ah, where is the likes of leadership like this now?

hoped it was sarah palin. guess not.

if not her, then who?

I'm not sure where the "Sucker" label came from, I must have missed it earlier in the thread.

I never voted to award a monopoly to any union. I also never voted to compensate a public employee at double the free market rate. Both are contrary to my individual freedom and equality, as I have to give up my economic freedom in order for both of those things to occur. Freedom is not an issue of majority "Mob Rule". That's exactly how the religious statists rationalize what is happening now, a circumvention of the Constitution.

They are receiving contractual compensation from a government entity that had ZERO fiduciary responsibility or liability, they used "other people's money" in order to buy votes.

Government unions should be abolished. As should the monopolies granted to private sector ones.

And yes, compensation of government workers that is above that a similar worker makes in the private sector is a form of Welfare. It's another form of unconstitutional vote-buying.

King, we 'discuss' the power of a certain prez. near daily. I am glad that you could see that it is possible for a union to 'cross the line'. Is it possible to discuss why it is impossible for a union to cross any ideological dem line.

CB,

to answer your question I do not,nor have I ever taken money from those who could not afford it,I am not a union member-have many friends that are but Private sector NOT public.
Like you I have no issue with what the private sector union members make,those are true negotiations between unions and contractors who win or lose NOT the money laundering of the teachers and other public sector unions. I have seen taxes go so high in New Jersey (small homes paying $12-15 k per year,many paying more much more) that the elderly are forced to eat cat food,freeze in the winter all to pay 6 figure pensions for retired teachers.
No I would never steal money like that,never !

I made my living in the service sector and the customers I had were all very very wealthy,I am very proud to say I don't rob others to survive and never would.

"It's another form of unconstitutional vote-buying."

Exactly !

Unions cross the line every day, Craig, sometimes purposely when negotiations break down to get arbitration. Governments and private sector companies do the same for the same reason. I'm not aware of anything "impossible" between any union or any party. Historically, conservatives have been the parties of business and liberals of the commoners, and that's about it.

if we did not have greedy, abusive employers, there would be no need for unions.

anybody here ever work in an automobile assembly plant?

52 an hour, every hour...

"Historically, conservatives have been the parties of business and liberals of the commoners, and that's about it."

Ha !!! No one here in America buys that old lie King,the ONLY party of the "commoners" is spelled TEA !

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bill-clinton-now-enjoys-1000-cigars_803486.html

Bill Clinton enjoys a Gurkha cigar, "the Rolls Royce of the cigar industry." He "loves the Gurkhas," Gurkha chief executive officer Kaizad Hansotia, maker of the HMR cigar, which stands for His Majesty's Reserve. It is, according to Hansotia, "the world's most expensive cigar."

One box is $25,000 -- and the price will rise next year to $30,000. "The cigars are close to $1,000 each," says the cigar boss to Bloomberg.

The stage was set for the 1937-38 collapse with the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935 — better known as the "Wagner Act" and organized labor's "Magna Carta." To quote Sennholz again:

This law revolutionized American labor relations. It took labor disputes out of the courts of law and brought them under a newly created Federal agency, the National Labor Relations Board, which became prosecutor, judge, and jury, all in one. Labor union sympathizers on the Board further perverted this law, which already afforded legal immunities and privileges to labor unions. The U.S. thereby abandoned a great achievement of Western civilization, equality under the law.

The Wagner Act, or National Labor Relations Act, was passed in reaction to the Supreme Court's voidance of NRA and its labor codes. It aimed at crushing all employer resistance to labor unions. Anything an employer might do in self-defense became an "unfair labor practice" punishable by the Board. The law not only obliged employers to deal and bargain with the unions designated as the employees' representative; later Board decisions also made it unlawful to resist the demands of labor union leaders.[34]

Armed with these sweeping new powers, labor unions went on a militant organizing frenzy. Threats, boycotts, strikes, seizures of plants and widespread violence pushed productivity down sharply and unemployment up dramatically. Membership in the nation's labor unions soared: By 1941, there were two and a half times as many Americans in unions as had been the case in 1935. Historian William E. Leuchtenburg, himself no friend of free enterprise, observed, "Property-minded citizens were scared by the seizure of factories, incensed when strikers interfered with the mails, vexed by the intimidation of nonunionists, and alarmed by flying squadrons of workers who marched, or threatened to march, from city to city."[35]

You kind of make my point much better than I ever could. History doesn't tell us to demonize conservatives, libs do. I also knew you would come to your senses. I didn't really believe you would think a union could cross a line. You pulled out one of those 'code' words. Just as 'working person', 'middle class', even 'minimum wage' are all just wink and a nod for the big business of unionizing the proletariat.

On a brighter note, if constituents have a 'contract' with politicians for a certain tax rate or health system, and a politician goes ahead and 'changes' it. Why can't the contract of a retiree be 'changed'. What's the big deal, either way, it goes to the gov that know much better than the individual what to do with it. Right.

Well, no, on your last sentence. Governments know what we want but---always doing our thinking for us---manipulate public opinion to what they want. A member of our majority conservative government has introduced a bill to give more power to Members of Parliament but was forced to gut it by the prime minister.

Forget that democratic contract notion, with voters or party or leader. As for "demonizing" one party or another, that's crazy and old-fashioned. A Nova Scotia politician just published a book, acclaimed as required reading by every citizen, that proves all pols act the same when elected. Punk's game, Craig. Punk's game.

To think I almost missed this post. Of course public employees compensated at higher levels than the Free Market are sociopathically entitled welfare cases. THAT is the only way to view it "intelligently". Of course it is an intentionally-created "dependency ethos", no different than any other involuntary exchange of goods and services forced upon free and equal citizens who are forced to pay for it. It is only your sociopathically unconstitutional statist religious beliefs that rationalize this. Pushing the fantasy that government employees are somehow sacrificing their lives, implying that they are in some way victims, is preposterous. Since they are compensated considerably higher than the free market due to political favoritism, your point is anti-intellectual at best, and is really more like a sociopathic statist religious fantasy.

Elucidate please on your involuntary exchange forced on the citizenry paying for the services. Governments ostensibly acting from will of legislatures negotiate contracts with nurses, doctors, teachers etc and on breakdown often force them back to work if in essential services, usually with strong public support.

No one here says public workers are sacrificing their lives for anything, and those receiving higher compensation than the private sector get it the same way others do: numbers, organizing skills, political influence, appreciation for services. (I was former national councillor of the American Newspaper Guild.)

The issue is how compensation levels are determined. If, due to awarding a socialist collective a monopoly on providing the service, of course corrupt politicians are going to award as much compensation as possible in order to buy the political support of the collective. This is possible only because of the unconstitutional monopoly. That's why the services should be open to public bid, in order to make the service subject to the Free Market, and not just another statist religious vote-buying scheme.

I plead guilty to failing to respond in great detail in my posts. I don't type very well, and it takes longer than I want to spend at my age to refute foolishness. I would like to make one point though concerning the extensive hatred exhibited here against any individual who draws a check from the government whether it be retirement benefits, unemployment, social security, welfare, whatever. I don't doubt there is fraud committed in these programs. I do doubt it is pervasive. Given the level of outrage expressed here, I have to wonder why no one expresses the least concern about General Electric or Verizon paying no federal income tax or about corporate welfare in the Farm Bill. Find out how much taxpayers are subsidizing Florida sugar producers and other corporate farmers and compare that to teachers' salaries. My point is the criticism here always goes to the least-well-off. Welfare and subsidies to those already rich beyond comprehension doesn't get a shrug. Ken, I assure you teachers don't write the tax code. I think we both know who does, and apparently that's OK with you. It's not OK with me.

I think you're off base, but I can appreciate your tolerance for other points of view.

The US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, do you have your facts straight, or is liberal rhetoric supposed to be taken as fact, just because someone can repeat it like a broken record. Some folks might appreciate that INCENTIVES are offered to create jobs. Why, because many 'pensions' are ponzi schemes that are pushed on our kids and grandkids.

Your guy just handed us the largest income tax rate hike ever. Why's that okay with you, don't have taxable income. If it's not okay with you, why do you keep voting lib and make fun of others who feel the same, that it's not okay.

You're way off base to say that only the 'least well off' are criticized. If you're willing to see, you may see that the criticism is directed at policy that makes sure we have a big supply of these 'least well off'. I'd doubt there're many teachers who write tax code, but it may be just as valid to say that there aren't a whole lot of teachers that create jobs.

GE, Verizon, the farm bill? You've never been interested in 'discussing', solyndra, cash for clunkers, free cell phones, explosion in the food stamp program. Farming, how about the policy of turning off the water to kalifornia's central valley because of some nonindigenous minnow, best part the feds trucked in IMPORTED PRODUCE for relief.

I believe it's a hands off issue, but I'll ask again, if taxes can be raised on working folks, what is the slightest bit wrong with taxing other forms of income, and what's wrong with raising that tax rate every now and then for 'worthwhile' pork. If all current lib social projects are a good thing, what's wrong with pensions being trimmed to redistribute in order to keep dems in power.

EXTENSIVE HATRED?
I and I know many others here collect a monthly Social Security check. The government isn't GIVING me anthing as I spent over 40 years of my working career paying into SS. So the idea that we hate this program is truly ludicrous and shows just how far out of touch some of you are with reality.
However; the program is literally being raped by those who don't want to work and are claiming some kind of "disability" as wholesale fraud is rampart in this area. The Legal leeches regularly advertise on TV in their search for more "disabled" people to scam the system.
It's a whole new industry along with those "free" wheelchairs scam that the providers use to bill Medicare or Medicaid at several times their actual cost.
I won't even bother getting into the Medicare scams per se as they have been well publicised. Botton line: When people were responsible for their own medical expenses they'd have raised holy hell with some of thee outrageous charges paid by insurance companies today.
I tried to tell my insurance company that these charges in my case were unwarrented but they had a deaf ear.
Jim

Craig, What is this about the largest income tax rate hike ever? I missed that news and would like to know about it. What makes you assume I don't have taxable income? I've been paying income tax for nearly 60 years. As for policy creating more poverty, I think you're mistaken, and that issue goes to the heart of our basic disagreement. For instance industries like Walmart and McDonalds pay their workers so little that taxpayers end up subsidizing heath care and food stamps for them. The two decade flat lining of middle class pay through a period of record corporate profits is the general case in point.Productivity goes way up; wages stagnate or decline. I'm not hesitant to discuss Solyndra. No one ever mentioned it here to my knowledge. It was a mistake. The food stamp program grew because the unemployed grew. All over the country people still need work. Do you favor starving them? I don't. California is in the fourth year of a record drought. Do you favor cancelling the Endangered Species a Act? I don't. A final point: A huge majority of the country's net worth over the last fifteen years has gone to the wealthiest people. They're the only ones who gained ground in a troubled economy. They need to be taxed more for the same reason Willy Sutton robbed banks: that's where the money is. PS If incentives create jobs, say where that is so that folks needing work can look there. PSS My pension did just get cut.I pay both state and federal income tax on SS and my pension.

Not a big deal Bill, but I disagree with most of your points. I see much of your thoughts as, not in my backyard and out of sight out of mind.

I worked for minimum wage and there was a time when my kids did. I know I will flat out not hire that young new trainee for fifteen dollars an hour. Near every month since your guy took office, the unemployment rate has gone down, wink. Who exactly does pony up for ten to thirty plus thousand dollar fund raisers. Isn't that a 'fair' tax as it goes to the big business of the dnc. If you define who the rich are and tax them at a hundred percent rate, does it fix the problems that you see.

Since you brought it up, I don't think your pension should have been cut, if you had an agreement. I noticed you didn't quite say you're in the mood for more cuts. You also brought up your taxable income, 100% none of my business, only that my point was tax rates don't mean as much to any person that has a lesser or no taxable income.

Fantasy scenario. A big national park forested area out by you has been identified as being some great mining opportunity. Feds will build a city, roads, etc. Only catch, all workers, top to bottom have to be unemployed and come out of the ranks of the 'poor'. Now who's more important, your grandkids recreational hunting or redistributing for the poor.

There are so many misconceptions in the last few posts, I hardly know where to start. I'll throw out a few things to get things rolling. To show that I'm "balanced" I'll start with Social Security.

True, working people have paid into it. Yet, the mathematical facts cannot be denied. The average person who has worked all their lives gets back ALL THE MONEY PLUS INTEREST in under four years of receiving benefits. That's the math. The program is mathematically unworkable as it stands. It could have been fixed in the early GWB years by allowing younger folks to opt out and privatize a portion of their contributions. Older people's benefits would not have been affected. This would have been a massive power loss to the sociopathic Democrats, so they lied and demonized the whole plan, scaring the ignorant. As it is, there is no "Trust Fund", it was put on-budget by LBJ to pay for the massive vote-buying scheme called the "Great Society". Even in the best case, after four years seniors are simply another group of welfare cases, as their own contributions have run out, and others are forced to pay for their benefits. It is merely another sociopathic statist religious entitlement.

The issue is not about hating people who draw government checks. If your check was determined by the Free Market rather that sociopathic vote-buying, I have no problem. If you're receiving a check due to an involuntary exchange of goods and services sociopathically inflicted on your fellow citizens, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. That would eliminate the whole class of statist politicians who intentionally create chaos and dependency in order to buy votes.

I don't agree with any subsidization in any form, it's unconstitutional, including bloated teacher's salaries.

It's not hatred, it's a reaction to being sociopathically inflicted upon by people like you. You see, since we're equals, I have the right NOT to be your slave.

Ken, I have a hard time understanding your victimhood. We all pay taxes to support the public services we need to be a civil and a civilized society. Government is not a business. It does nor exist to make a profit. Yes, it is wasteful and inefficient. Nowadays it barely functions at a survival level. Your position strikes me as an endorsement of social Darwinism. Not everyone wants to live in a society where it's every man for himself and to hell with anyone who can't compete. The system today is rigged against everyone who isn't already wealthy. Wealth gains since 1989 have gone to the top 3 % of the income distribution. The next 7 % has stayed even. The bottom 90 % has experienced a steady decline. There is no such thing as a free market. It's not a fair game. The market has us all by the throat and is intent on squeezing us dry. If only the government could govern. We don't get to vote on big money. They're the ones calling the shots regardless of who may be in Washington.

What a typical statist religious response. Your ignorance of the role that government plays in our lives today is appalling. Individual freedom and equality is not Social Darwinism, yet you sociopaths repeatedly attempt to define it as such. I have yet to advocate abolishment of a reasonable social safety net, but that is not what exists today. Now, we have not only life-long, but multi-generational vote-buying. Playing the sociopathic class envy game is preposterous, what another person makes in the Free Market is none of your sociopathic business, and shows your ignorance of basic economics. Wealth working as Capital in the Private Sector is called Freedom, as opposed to taxation and vote-buying of government employees and all of the other assorted welfare cases such as yourself. Taxation is what limits wealth creation, and is the cause of the income distribution issues. How many millionaires has Microsoft created? A lot more than you and your ilk have, except for the ones who got it at the expense of other people's freedom. Christ, sometime I wonder why I even bother. Ignorant, sociopathic, religious people are so hard to deal with. I have a right to NOT be inflicted upon by religious sociopaths like you.

Bill, while I agree Big Money punches above its weight it is not a walk-away. Big Money's macroeconomic model is not Keynesian. So they are terribly worried about the national debt, and consequently, the annual deficits. And they have been trying to get Social Security Benefits and Medicare (entitlements) rolled back for years to help balance the budget. But no luck.

I own a small business. I pay income tax on the earnings from that business. When the government allows me to depreciate a truck in one year instead of five they lower my taxes this year but raise them for next year, the third, the fourth, and the fifth years. They make those kind of tax incentives during down economic years in the hope that businesses will purchase equipment sooner rather than later and that it will stimulate the economy, a very Keynesian concept.

I pay income tax. I don't draw any benefits (yet). I do get to live in a great country. I am safe in my house. I am safe in my office. The Feds send in brave young men to combat our enemies on the enemies' soil. If I go broke today I will still have social security and medicare in a few years. But I still pay in much more in Federal Taxes than the benefits I receive. If the government passes a law that lowers my income tax by 1/20th of what it would have been without that law I don't think that makes me a welfare recipient. The 19/20th that I am still sending makes me a contributor.

If I do go broke today and I apply for and receive food stamps then I would think I was on welfare. If I move to Massachusetts and receive free medical care I would think that I was on welfare. But if a tax law lowers my taxes to 19/20ths of what they would have been otherwise I don't think that reduction in my contribution to the general well being of the nation is welfare as I would still be contributing much much more than I am receiving.

I think the teachers earned their pay, earned their health insurance, and earned their pensions. I don't begrudge them one penny of their life's earnings. I don't think their pensions constitute welfare.

I do begrudge foodstamp cheats, SS disablity cheats, unemployment insurance cheats, and Medicaid cheats. But my religious beliefs require me to try to feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe the naked, visit the prisoners, and give water to the thirsty. And so I am glad that it is not just the faithful that are chipping in on those giant chores.

I am angry that AIG, Maurice Greenberg, JP Morgan, Jamie Dimon, Countrywide Mortgages, Angelo Mozillo, and the rest of the financial "wizards" that brought us the Lesser Depression are doing so well. No doubt at least some of them deserve the cell next to Burnie Madoff's.

Ken, you don't believe in taxation and subsidies in any form. You believe there is a free market system. Our economies are subsidized to the gills. We would have developing world GDPs without them.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Chinese workers are subsidizing every facet of the US standard of living. Interest on their money pays the full cost of their rapidly growing military now throwing its weight around.

Subsidies provide your discriminating tastes. Want to go back to nylon?

Nowhere did I say I didn't believe in taxation. Limited taxation is necessary. Taxation for vote-buying is unconstitutional. I disagree with your assertion that without subsidies we'd still have developing world GDP. Got any proof?

where zakly does the u.s. constitution address "taxation for vote-buying"?

Remove subsidies from every industrial sector, or entertainment, publishing, energy, military manufacturing etc and the US economy would collapse overnight. Forgotten who put Wall Street and auto industry back on its feet? Everyone in the US wage economy. Remember Ike warning of the "industrial-military complex" on leaving office? Big money rigs everything to its advantage.

I gotta ask, how can the very issue that you cheer lead for more big gov, be the exact same thing that you demonize as corporate welfare. Maybe more significant, can a white republican use the same tactic against a dem of color without invoking the wrath of all things racial and avoid issues that matter.

Preposterous assertions. The market would reassert itself, business efficiency would improve, innovation would occur, and the economy would stabilize. You're just attempting to rationalize crony capitalism. Wall Street should have been allowed to fail and reorganize. The auto companies should have declared bankruptcy. The bailouts only perpetuated the crony capitalism and insured political contributions at the expense of the taxpayers. You really are a big-government, statist, religious sociopath.

I gotta agree with Ken, King. Say with a little transition, like a dem might strategically position it between election cycles. How do we know it would work. Simple you told us, remember how terrific socialized medicine is supposed to be.

Your laundry list is small potatoes compared to the gubmnt taking over a sixth of the economy in the name of healthier folks on the cheap. Another example, how about stroke of the pen, regulating coal generated electricity out of business. Do you have any idea how many libs light their homes with coal power. Don't worry, you could still call me a hater, but you may do just fine if big bro doesn't hold your hand through all the little odds and ends of life.

Ken, if it's vote- buying when a Democrat casts a vote, why isn't it vote- buying for Republicans? Do you really think each person in the Democratic Party is only there for some government benefit? Your ability to interpret events and motives is truly profound. Think what you could accomplish if you turned your talents to the stock market. PS: This fact surprised me. During the Obama administration the federal government grew by the lowest rate since the Carter years.Craig, it's true teachers don't create jobs, but they make it possible for others to do that and foe workers to be able to perform them.

Universal healthcare is a good thing, Craig. There's no "supposed to be" about it. The US is the only developed country without it. US system is also most expensive, with tens of millions not covered.

You haven't said what you agree with Ken and I don't know what you mean by changing within election cycles. The whole idea of parties is to change things when they become the government.

Anyone believing "big bro" isn't holding everyone's hands whether they like it or not is smoking dope. And no, Craig, I don't call anyone a hater. I don't know anyone well enough here to make that call.

I believe from Mike's post above that he lives to a high standard of human values, which I've known all along. I don't have to know his political affiliations, his church, colour or sexual orientation.

It's the Democrats who are primarily responsible for the Welfare State. It was FDR who got the Wagner Act, and other New Deal programs through. It was LBJ who created the "Great Society" programs. True, it was GW Bush who championed the Prescription Drug program, but he was attempting to emulate the Democrats by becoming a "compassionate conservative", meaning another statist.

It's mythology that the government hasn't massively grown under Obama. In his first (and only) budget, constitutionally mandated to be passed yearly, by the way, He increased departmental spending by around 50%. Add that to the approx. 7% per annum baseline, and you have massive growth.

It's the public school system that has caused most of the problems we have today, by teaching and validating the very statist subjective morality that is at the core. A famous figure said a few years back: "If a foreign power had done what we ourselves have done to our own educational system, we'd consider it an act of war". Bill, you're the problem, not the solution.

The political problem we wrestle with here has been framed in the wrong terms, in my opinion. Rather than argue whether government should be larger or smaller,it makes better sense to me to find ways to make government smarter. Since the financial gains all go to those already rich, I have to believe they're the ones with an interest in keeping government stupid. The current roles government is supposed to play make sense to me. I'm no happier than anyone else at the inability to perform those functions effectively. Big, dark money makes it possible to elect knaves and fools. Citizens United was a fatal blow to democracy. Each of us has no influence whatsoever against the sheer force of big money. They do as they please regardless of election outcomes, and we're left here to argue about minute details. Unless the people can take back control of election financing, there's really nothing left to dispute.

Ken, for what it's worth, I never tried to steer what students think. I worked hard though to teach them how to think for themselves, how to gather evidence, weigh it and arrange it to make a case. You seem to worship " the Market" and expect it to solve everyone's problems if it were only unleashed. To blame schools for promoting moral relativism while adoring the forces of the market strikes me as a contradiction. I'm certainly no theologian, but I know Christ was no fan of the wealthy and had no use for 'the market'.

Bingo! Give this man a prize!!!

That's it, Bill. Big money makes citizens vote against their best interests. Any appreciable change in American lives after November will not come from new faces in Washington. Or from electorates that believe free markets exist and don't know 60-plus cents of every dollar of farmers' income comes from government. We'd be starving in a week without them.

Bill, I think it is of value to argue the point of making the government smaller. Without that impetus, it will NEVER act smarter. Not in human nature.

And to that point, it is clear there is only ONE way to make government actually smaller, to force it to be smarter. Withhold the money!

Oppose every tax increase on every tax bracket. Oppose every fee and fee hike. Oppose government deficits and debt. Every time.

Not that things will change radically in an instant. But to turn the great ship of state around will take a long time. To change public views about what appropriate government intervention is will take a long time. To change what Democrat and Republican politicians see as their mandate will take a long time. And, IMHO, the only way to do it is to reduce the flow of money.

The fundamental problem lies in the area of spending other peoples money. We don't do it well. Ever. So we need to re-imagine the political and bureaucratic systems with an emphasis of managing this persistent and intractable problem.

Until we do that, all government will get bigger, regardless of which party is in power.

That's why Ken is on the right track in my opinion. It's not a battle between left and right, so much as a battle between large intrusive government or smaller, limited government. Our freedoms have been dispensed with effectively by both the left and the right.

It seems to all sound the same, a very superficial 'why can't we all get along, see I'm reasonable'. Problem is, to me, you support the candidate, then the policy, then reaffirm the policy for a second term. The rhetoric around these parts does not show any disappointment for 'smartness' or 'campaign finance reform', only reaffirmation time and time again. How exactly is 'change' supposed to happen when excuses will run to any length to for the policy of far left liberalism.

Take for example you next post about teachers letting kids learn and grow without undue ideological influence. How then can excuses be made for the mandates of 'common core' forcing minimum requirements of left wing pc in the classroom, not 'smarter' kids. Is that a money issue, or purely an ideological force feed. My understanding, current grade school level American history books have two pages on Washington and the Founding Fathers. Bash America for slavery runs dozens and dozens of pages. Bash America for atrocities against native Americans, similar. You know, com'in corps is telling your (all kids across the country) grandkids in Montana that all hunting and firearms are a bad thing.

You won't trim back entitlements and pork, I believe that because you called me foolish and hateful. How exactly would you window dress it to make it appear 'smarter'. And no, to me 'smarter' is NOT green regs, bridges to nowhere, endangered species games, co2 demonizing or multiple fundraising stops each week. All of those cost peanuts to free. But hey, we knocked the intentionally porous border off the headlines, hope your grandkids are not penalized in the classroom for the 'struggles' of felon illegal aliens demanding rights to their educational resources.

The term "Moral Relativism" is another subjective term used by religious statists to rationalize their sociopathic inflictions upon others. It is used to override the Constitution and the whole concept of individual freedom and equality. It is used to rationalize the sociopathic concept of "equality of outcome". It rationalizes confiscation of economic freedom and the consequential religious vote-buying. Thank you for proving my point about public education, as obviously you taught this sociopathic, unconstitutional, statist religious dogma. Once again, you're the problem, not the solution.

Comrade King,

Please cite your sources.

I hope the electorates can see through some of the ideological gymnastics to create 'facts'. Could be there's things like 'factored in' values of lower tax rates to make the point of corporate welfare, and it would be completely ignored that no big city slumlord is even remotely interested in setting up a new ghetto out in the hay fields of the great plains.

Mentioned before, this admin wouldn't let the masses starve, they'd bring in food from mejico and central america. Imagine that, a photo op because a few crates of produce show up in a truck convoy, then off to the links. You know they can't give away 'free' houses and land in detroit, never mind that it resembles gaza or feluja. Why isn't that 'factored in' to the piles of feel good things as a benefit of the great society.

King makes more stuff up then anyone on here and calls them facts, you won't see a credible source,just a change of subject/blame Bush or capitalism post.

Here's some documentation regarding government growth: In Reagan's first term government grew by 8.7%. In GW's two terms it grew by 7.3% and 8.1%. In Obama's first term 1.4%. Google "government growth by President". To paraphrase Russel Sadler, " another myth mugged by a brutal gang of facts."

Sources there for the whole world to see. Google US subsidies. For agriculture see US report on 60 cents of the dollar.

See also corporate welfare.

Dave, no one is interested in Bush's responsibility for Iraq wreck. That's old fact like Columbus 1492. To mention is bullying.

James, the West without exception went to Keynes.

King, it was a terrible mistake.

Cooked numbers purposefully meant to deceive by Obamanite bean counters. These are the same guys who decided to leave the costs of food and gas out of the inflation index. What a sick joke. The REAL inflation rate is far higher then this "administration" is reporting.
Jim

Growth and GDP and lack of both are predicated more on what's happening in the world than the doings of the White House occupant.

US looking pretty good today. Any credit to Obama is that he did what all the West's leaders did to ease the misery. Nothing more.

Canada did better than the rest because of a regulatory system that doesn't allow the moneymen to do as they please.

I wonder why yours and Bill's search function is different from mine. Is it the feature or the person sitting behind the screen that can extrapolate that we'd all go hungry if big gov didn't tell farmers how to farm.

I wonder if google could dig deeper into unemployment numbers, debt, deficit spending, quantitative easing, woman's pay disparity in the bo admin, success rate on the war on poverty, success or popularity of ocare, mixed policy signals on the war on terror, broken campaign promises, broken speech promises while in office, number of rounds of golf, number of campaign and fundraising miles on airforce one, number of radical terrorist clerics that visited the wh, hate crime tactics, vacation accommodations for felony border trespassers.

I apologize for missing things that might be searched and not being all inclusive. Maybe though, failed policy might be recognized, questioned and stopped rather than lock step endorsed because they'll generally make libs feel good. By the way, do you feel good about this completely current admin created middle east quagmire, that'll cost billions as well as lives. Did I mention there's no goal, solutions or answers, certainly not if you string the last few weeks of prompter reads together.

Of course the West went for Keynes. Keynesian policies serve the Government and the rulers in power. All at the expense of individual freedom. That's like saying Russia went for the Bolsheviks and expecting it to mean something. Typical statist religious drivel to rationalize your unconstitutional sociopathy.

Comrade King,

Not only are you a statist religious sociopath, but you must be a drug addict as well. You should check your prescriptions, and ask your government doc to ease up on the hallucinogenics. The American economy has not improved. Since its been covered so many times I won't go into it, but you really are a duped buffoon.

It was reported just today that 72% of Americans still think we're in a recession(and guess what we are!). The other 28% are probably brain dead Obamanites!
Jim

If you use the same formulation of the Carter years, it's been running at around 15%. For virtually all of Obama's time in office.

Pity you don't read the papers, Ken. I wrote: "US looks pretty good today." In fact, the S&P 500 jumped more than 15 points or 0.8 per cent yesterday, and is now less than one per cent below its record high. As for the year, here's Wikipedia:

"US real GDP contracted by 2.1% in the first quarter of 2014, the first decline since 2011. However in the second quarter of 2014, the US GDP grew by 4.2%, reversing the contraction seen in the first quarter and surpassing previous estimates."

Looks like an improvement to me, considering powerful forces beyond US control: the euro zone in a perilous state, China's commodities reaching their limits, its central bank trying to shore up slowing economic growth.

US relatively good shape compared to the rest of the world, Ken.

Comrade King,

The S&P, as well as The Market in general, now reacts favorably to bad or neutral economic news. It means that the wholesale theft of citizen's wealth called "Quanitative Easing" will continue. The GDP formulation was changed once Obama took office. The new formula adds approx. 3% of non-existent growth (yearly basis) to the reporting. When you say "4.2%" its really 1.2%, then divide by four since it's for one quarter. So, in reality, the economy grew perhaps one-fourth of one percent for the second quarter. What we have is Stagflation, just like the Carter years. Virtually all the stock market gains have been due to inflation with the monetization of our own debt, all at the expense of the citizenry. It's criminal. Pity you're a Dupe, Comrade King.

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/us-economy-grow-3-under-new-gdp-calculation

This whole post is sad if you can get past the point that it's truly Libtard sick. The "Stock Market" is being manipulated by a small cabal of "investors"(think George Soros here) and the rise over the last two years has no basis on reality. The "easing" bought and paid for by the FED which has propped up this market is the sole reason for it's uncanny rise that can't be explained in any normal sense. When the market crashes as it surely will it will make 1929 look like a walk in the park.
Jim

Thanks for proving my point King,once again NO facts just made up rhetoric !

BTW Bush had an international coalition and approval of congress and the will to change tactics and use the surge that worked on Iraq. Obama has a coalition of a few unwilling,no approval of congress and according to the Generals no plan to actually win without deploying "rough men with rifles"


Bush’s international coalition to depose Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein involved over three dozen nations and tens of thousands of ground troops, including 46,000 from the United Kingdom, 2,000 from Australia, and thousands from Poland, Ukraine, South Korea, the Netherlands, and Georgia. Countries from Europe, East Asia, and Latin America all participated.


Obama’s anti–Islamic State coalition has proven smaller, and allied contributions more limited. His September 10 speech was vague, referencing only a desire to work with Middle Eastern partners in the region. Since then, Australia has promised combat advisers and France has conducted air strikes. Regional powers Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan joined the United States to strike targets in Syria on Monday.

But the United Kingdom and Turkey remain conspicuously absent from the president’s coalition, as do many of the United States’ traditional partners in Europe and East Asia. "

King has been shown-with facts like BLS links to the statistics that the economy is in very bad shape-labor force participation rates lowest since 1970's,doubling of food stamps (SNAP) and disability payments,wage growth stagnate or dropping for most of the middle class and on and on. He of course,continues to IGNORE them and post his FACT-LESS rhetoric and say its fact.
"Burger King" home of the whopper,if the name fits.............

King is going to need those hallucinogenics come Nov Ken,the rats are jumping off the sinking ship of lame duck obama and the times is running out for "after the election" games on Fast and Furious,IRS,Benghazi "stand down" orders and many of the other " the most corrupt administrations" scandals !

Again, Dave, I was responding to Ken's "no improvement" with "US looking pretty good today," followed by the facts of Wednesday's S&P 500 and second-quarter above all expectations. A snapshot but an improvement.

Iraq was a mistake acknowledged by your generals. Bush's superpower warning "If you're not with us you're against us," sucked in a "coalition of the willing" except for Canada which forecast accurately another debacle like Vietnam.

Canada stayed out of Vietnam because the US "domino theory" made no sense. We don't always come when US crooks its fingers as others do. Yes, the US people wanted in for Iraq, then out for which Obama complied, and now in again with public support after beheading of a couple reporters.

Canada, with a relatively high number of jihadists with IS---apparently more per capita than the US---has its special forces in Iraq and is considering Obama's request for F-18s in role similar to the Libya air war which it commanded (even though that democracy ploy turned out as badly as Iraq).

All countries make mistakes, Dave. Iraq should temper your criticism of Obama who on the evidence so far will never visit on the American people an unwarranted tragedy like 4,500 dead, 11,000 wounded and a trillion dollars.

Markets always crash, Jim. It's built into the system. Moneymen were working like the devil for less regulation before the 2008 recession and they're back at it again. Money permits it. Money talks. There's nothing uncanny or unexplainable about it.

"Markets always crash" when sociopathic religious statist are in charge. If you look at the crashes including and since the Great Depression, (perhaps with the exclusion of the "Dot.com" crash, which didn't have much effect on the economy) you'll find governmental fingers on all of them. Government-created "Bubbles", easily explained by Austrian (von Hyack, Menger, Milton Friedman, Arthur Laffer, etc.) Economics. It's the sociopathic statist religious dogma of Keynes that is the problem. Always promoted by the pseudo-elitist sociopaths like you.

Interesting, what makes us think iraq today, is not a mistake.

How about a little breakdown. Were there any military casualties after bo took power. How many were lost when the 'war' turned pc, say when miranda rights were granted on the battlefield or teams were sent out after soldiers turned jihadi sympathizers or from Gitmo guests on the work release program.

Does the toll count out in benghazi. How many US citizens on US soil have been raped, maimed and murder as 'acceptable collateral' for a southern border policy. How about law enforcement casualties down along the border, and gun running schemes that can be linked to deaths in the hundreds. We know around these parts, there's no outrage from lefties.

A trillion eh? Obscene, but so's the ignoring by the left, of the various 'attached bills'. Where did the budget, in the tens of billions, for nonfunctioning solar panel projects on mil bases come from. How did citizens or the environment benefit from the cash for clunkers program, other than suck military budget and contaminate land fills.

Please explain again how this latest quagmire is justifiable. If(?) you can come up with good reasons to reopen the expensive and deadly quagmire, are you comfortable with the leadership. You know they are already trying to soft peddle and conceal the cost of these limited pin pricks.

King unlike the current president,bush was able to go attack the terrorists and "those that harbor them" to prevent any other terrorist attack here in America.Of course your still thinking call them "workplace violence" makes it not a terrorist attack,we know better !

BTW we will bring up your "mistake" line come 2016 and Hillary


If you remember that day, Clinton,Biden,Kerry and others on the lame duck side soon who voted for the Iraq war;

YEAs — 77
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

could this be why ?




Net job growth has declined under Obama. And by the end of the second year of their terms as President, economic growth under Reagan averaged 7.1% , under Obama an anemic 2.8%.

So, how did Reagan manage it? Across-the-board tax cuts, non-defense spending cuts, a restrained monetary supply, and deregulation.

What’s Obama done? Tax increases, spending increases, a massive money-supply increase through “quantitative easing,” and an explosive increase in regulations.

Game, set, and match to Ronald Reagan- and a sound, conservative economic policy.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/1-4-americans-25-54-not-working_806178.html


1 in 4 Americans 25-54 Not Working




"There are 124.5 million Americans in their prime working years (ages 25–54). Nearly one-quarter of this group—28.9 million people, or 23.2 percent of the total—is not currently employed. They either became so discouraged that they left the labor force entirely, or they are in the labor force but unemployed. This group of non-employed individuals is more than 3.5 million larger than before the recession began in 2007,

To paraphrase Reagan, "there you go again." Reagan did NOT cut taxes across the board. He cut tax rates, but he increased total personal tax collections, substantially. He restructured the tax codes so that the money came from different pockets, but he did take more of our collective money. We have been through this before. Tax rates and total tax collections are completely different things. You may choose to bask in the glow of Reagan's presidency, but facts are facts.

"There are 124.5 million Americans in their prime working years (ages 25–54). Nearly one-quarter of this group—28.9 million people, or 23.2 percent of the total—is not currently employed. They either became so discouraged that they left the labor force entirely, or they are in the labor force but unemployed. This group of non-employed individuals is more than 3.5 million larger than before the recession began in 2007,

This is the crux of what is displayed in Dave's above charts. Obama has extended the welfare teat and we have a whole new generation suckling on it. I'm not going to dig the numbers up again but it's better financially for most of the underachievers to collect welfare then take a minimal wage job. There is no more shame in doing this today then there is in having multiple children out of wedlock,
I'm afraid that unless there's a real return to the moral and Christian values most of us were raised under that the United States we have known is doomed. I also firmly believe it will take some kind of major event serving as a catylist for this to happen.
Jim

I believe we have. What's the point here, you're not saying the same people who had an income tax rate cut made up the difference by paying more for other taxes. If you like the term collective, hasn't history shown that any time the individual income tax rate goes down, revenue goes up because there's more 'collective' working.

Doesn't history show it worked for dems too. Don't have to just bask in Reagan's greatness, it works for small people also.

The point here is that Dave K continues to state that Reagan reduced taxes, and that is simply not true. Reagan increased taxes.

The point Replacement is that argument of yours,once again is what liberals have been hanging on to and losing EVERY DAMN TIME !Just because you live in libtard land does excuse your inability to deal with REAL facts.

Once more so you can try and understand it although I doubt it will get through !

Ronald Reagan may have presided over the most significant tax reform effort in our nation’s history, yet historical revisionists are attempting to besmirch that legacy — while using him as a straw man against modern Republicans.

Saying Ronald Reagan raised taxes is like saying Michael Jordan was a guy who struck out a lot — or that he was a failed baseball player: It’s factually correct, but misleading, nonetheless.

Over the course of his two terms in office, Reagan presided over several changes to the tax code. What is important to remember — what is vital to understand — is that not all taxes are created equal.


Again, it’s important to put things in context. When inaugurated, Reagan inherited a nation with 16 tax brackets — ranging from marginal rates of 14 percent to 70 percent. By 1989, that was down to two brackets — with marginal rates of 15 percent and 28 percent. (Those rates — and brackets — were short lived. By the time Clinton left office, the top marginal rate was back up to 39.6 percent. But you can’t blame Reagan for tax increases that came after his tenure. That’d be like President Obama blaming George W. Bush for tax cuts passed in 2011…)
When Democrats or media embrace Reagan for “raising taxes X number of times,” they are usually engaging in willful obfuscation. This is because they know that when most people hear the words, “tax hike,” they naturally assume you mean raising income taxes. But tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically across-the-board during Reagan’s tenure.

Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets — a double whammy.)

No doubt that he reduced tax rates. But that's not what you initially stated, either in this thread or in the one from a few months ago. You stated that he reduced taxes across the board, and that is not the case. Reagan increased tax collections while reducing tax rates, by restructuring the tax code. A good bit of sleight of hand and it seems to have fooled a lot of people who weren't paying close attention, either at that time, or now. Regardless of your political philosophy, it was an accounting trick that had positive economic repercussions. Regardless, it's still incorrect to claim that he reduced taxes.

Reagan cut tax rates. Because of that, people had the incentive to make more money, because they could keep more of what they earned. High taxes disincentivize increased effort. More economic activity meant more jobs, i.e. more taxpayers. This resulted in more total tax revenue coming in, or, higher total taxes paid in the aggregate. Why is this so tough to understand? There was no "trick". More economic freedom and opportunity results in more economic activity. Less, and you get what we have now.

Exactly. He cut tax rates, but increased taxes through code restructuring. There is a fundamental difference between accounting and economics. I'm guessing you did not do well in economics.

Technically, if you look at it on an individual basis, he certainly did cut taxes. A person making X amount of income one year, then making the same amount the year after the rate reduction took effect, that individual certainly received a tax cut. I'm not sure what point you're making, as lower taxes results in more economic activity. Reagan did not "increase taxes", his rate decreases (tax cuts) resulted in increased collections, which does not qualify as a tax increase.

Holy crap, you are either dumb as a bag of rocks or your ideology makes you incapable of acknowledging simple mathematical facts.



Technically, he did not cut taxes. Technically, he did cut tax rates. Technically, some people paid less in taxes. Technically, some people paid more in taxes. Technically, Reagan increased the aggregated total tax take from all of us. If your total tax bill was reduced, good for you. My total tax bill increased as a result of Reagan's tax code restructuring. Most of the people I work with found their tax bills increasing. At the time of his tax code rejiggering (and until I retired a couple of years ago), I was forced to restructure hundreds of millions of dollars of employee compensation plans to minimize the taxes that those employees would have to pay as a direct result of Reagan's tax changes. Get your head out of your ass and study the subject rather that just parroting the Reagan acolytes' tired lines. He did some good things and he was reputedly a very nice guy, but he did not reduce taxes.

Was Reagan a Keynesian? The numbers indicate so. From Wikipedia:

"Economist Paul Krugman argued the economic expansion during the Reagan administration was primarily the result of the business cycle and the monetary policy by Paul Volcker. Krugman argues that there was nothing unusual about the economy under Reagan because unemployment was reducing from a high peak and that it is consistent with Keynesian economics for the economy to grow as employment increases if inflation remains low.

The CBO Historical Tables indicate that federal spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981–88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public debt rose from 26.1% GDP in 1980 to 41.0% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in 1988, a three-fold increase. Krugman argued in June 2012 that Reagan's policies were consistent with Keynesian stimulus theories, pointing to the significant increase in per capita spending under Reagan."

Are you referring to the reductions of deductability? Can you give an example of one of the changes that caused increased taxes? Did the incomes of the people you refer to increase as well? Are you denying that the changes Reagan made decreased the overall burden on the private sector? Are you saying that his actions did not create the massive economic growth and a near doubling of the amount of revenue collected as taxes? I still do not see your point. Are you trying somehow to say that high taxes are good for an economy?

Bad steer, Ken. He's saying no such thing.

Ahh, the revisionist Volcker argument. Comrade King, I'm sure Arthur Laffer would be interested to know that he is really a Keynesian, rather than an Austrian economist. The statist religious sociopath Krugman, who successfully portrays himself as an economist, has said this many times. Reagan had Volcker restrict the money supply, it was the only was to kill the inflation of the Carter years. This created a brief recession, and then due to the other private sector stimulative actions, the massive growth of a real recovery. Contrast this with the non-existent "Obama" recovery.

You're brought in another red herring, Ken. Leave Krugman out of it and look at the numbers. Pure Keynes.

More like Austrian. I take it that you're attributing the economic expansion of the Reagan years on the delayed effects of Carter economic policies? True, there was increased spending during the Reagan years on the military. I dispute utterly that the expansion was due to Keynesian policies. It was the increased availability of capital in the private sector.

REAGAN’S ECONOMIC SUCCESS
Reagan conservative policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history:
20 million new jobs were created.
Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
The top income tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%.
The Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in.
Total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 (even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War.)
Eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989 (meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just 7 years.)
The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak.
The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990 (a larger increase than in any previous decade.)
The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990 (when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.)
During this 7-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third (equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany to the U.S. economy.)
In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.
The inflation from 1980 (in the Carter era) was reduced from 13.5% to 3.2% by 1983.
(The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.)
The Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom (with short recessions in 1990 and 2001.)
The period from 1982 to 2007 is the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth–assets minus liabilities–of all U.S. households and business was $25 trillion in today’s dollars. By 2007, net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the 25-year boom than in the previous two hundred years.
Economic growth averaged 7.1% over the first 7 quarters.

REAGANOMICS, THE ECONOMICS OF SUCCESS
The economic policy pursued by Ronald Reagan is often called “Reaganomics” or “supply-side” economics. Fortunately, this policy meant a radical cut of Keynesianism where consumption was stimulated with massive government spending. Keynes put the emphasis of economic policy on the demand-side (consumption). Reagan, by contrast, put the emphasis on the supply-side (production). Keynes believed that demand would create supply, but Reaganomics started from the opposite idea, namely that supply would create demand. In this way of thinking, the supply side of the economy (economic activity, production etc…) had to be stimulated in order to create wealth. The best way to do this was to cut the marginal tax rates on personal income. Such a tax cut would create a strong incentive to increase economic activity and would have spectacular effects on growth, investment, risk-taking and saving.

THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAW IN KEYNESIAN LOGIC
A lot of recent studies indicate that an increase in public spending (as advocated by Keynes) does not stimulate the economy. The main reason is that money that could otherwise be spent efficiently by the private sector, is instead siphoned off for pork-barreling public works, very often with little or no return. Money to pay for deficit spending must come from somewhere else and, as usual, it is the taxpayer who must pay. The fundamental flaw in Keynesian logic is that it hardly makes sense to tax money away from productive people, thereby reducing their rewards, so as to spend it on unproductive goals. Some call it robbing Peter to pay Paul. The United Kingdom, home of Keynesianism, experimented with this medicine for years - only to get sicker and sicker, until Margaret Thatcher stopped it. A more recent example is Japan. This country has provided one of history’s best demonstrations that the Keynesian demand stimulus is a deeply flawed economic philosophy. Despite huge government outlays, the Japanese economy is still wallowing in the slump that has afflicted it for more than ten years. This point of view is confirmed by a recent study (based on multiple regression analysis) from the Flemish independent think tank WorkForAll. According to their analysis of the relationship between economic growth and the size of governments in 16 European countries, the two main causes leading to poor growth performance are excessive government spending and a demotivating tax structure, which put a heavy burden on work, income and profit.

STAGFLATION BECAME RECESSION, EXPANSION FOLLOWED
Four young economists (Paul Craig Roberts, Robert Mundell, Norman Ture and Steve Entin) and a journalist (Jude Wanniski) convinced Reagan to completely reverse the economic policy of that time. Their point of view was that high marginal tax rates were a disincentive to produce, to take risk, to invest and to save. In their opinion this “economy of discouragement” had to be transformed into an “economy of encouragement”. The reasoning was as follows: people are producing because it pays to do so. Consumption alone will not result in increased production when the incentives to do so are not there. When tax rates are raised, people reduce their participation in taxed activities, such as working, risk taking, saving and investing. When tax rates fall, people increase their participation. Fortunately, Reagan understood this logic immediately. Few people know that Reagan had a major in economics, which he obtained at the Eureka College (Illinois) in 1932. The economic theory he was taught was untouched by Keynesian thinking and, as a consequence, very appropriate to the problems of the eighties. Reagan followed the advice and took action. The top marginal tax rate of 70% was lowered in two phases: to 50% with the “ERTA” (Economic Recovery Tax Act of October 1, 1981) and in a later phase to 28% (The Tax Act of 1986). These tax cuts created 18 million new jobs in 8 years, lowered inflation to 4.3% and cut unemployment from 9.7% to 5.4%. One of the longest and strongest economic expansions since World War II had begun, with an average annual growth rate of 3.5%. But the first two years (1981 and 1982) were lost for Reagan. Fed chairman Paul Volcker fought inflation with a tight monetary policy and high interest rates. The Reagan administration urged Volcker to decrease monetary growth by a maximum of 50%, in order not to kill the tax cut program. But as the Federal Reserve is totally independent, Volcker cut money growth by 75% in 1981. The recession became even worse, and unemployment rose further. But after inflation had been defeated, money growth resumed and the Reagan expansion took shape.

DID THE POOR GET POORER AND THE RICH RICHER?
“Reagan gave money away to the rich, at the expense of the poor”, many critics claim. The table below proves the contrary. At the end of the Reagan presidency, the rich paid comparatively more taxes than before. As for the poor, their share in total tax revenues decreased. There was a simple reason for this: the lower tax rates were an important incentive for the rich to expand their economic activity.The tax base had become broader, and the lower rate on the broader tax base resulted in higher tax revenues.

Percentage of paid income tax
Income Percentage of taxes paid

1984 1986 1987
$0 - $15,000 5.8% 4.0% 2.8%
$15,000 - $30,000 21.1% 16.8% 14.7%
$30,000 - $50,000 29.0% 25.9% 23.0%
$50,000 - $100,000 22.0% 24.3% 27.7%
$100,000 - $200,000 8.6% 10.2% 11.9%
+ $200,000 13.4% 18.9% 19.8%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: IRS
In the table below we can see that the poor benefited most from the economic growth. Not only did they pay less taxes, but the 20% poorest people enjoyed an increase in income of 77 % in 9 years.

Incomes and Social Mobility
(1991 dollars)
Average Family Income of 1977 Quintile Members in
1977 Quintile 1977 1986 % Change
Bottom 20% $15,853 $27,998 77%
Second 20% $31,349 $43,041 37%
Third 20% $43,297 $51,796 20%
Fourth 20% $57,486 $63,314 10%
Top 20% $92,531 $97,140 5%
All $48,101 $56,658 18%
Source: Urban Institute

HAMBURGER JOBS?
Critics claim that the growth in employment was realized mainly through the creation of crappy “hamburger jobs”. De Wit: "This is not correct. Universities could not follow to deliver enough high qualified graduates. As you can see in the following table, job growth was mainly in managerial functions. Low paid jobs in services increased very little and in farming, employment decreased".

Job Creation in the Eighties
Jobs Created, Jan. 1982 – Dec. 1989
Job Category Number (Mils.) Percentage Increase 1989 Median Earnings
Managerial/Professional 7.600 33.10% $32,873
Production 2.194 19.00% $25,831
Technical 6.630 21.80% $20,905
Operators 1.374 8.20% $19,886
Services 2.210 16.80% $14,858
Farming -0.116 -3.70% $13,539
Total 19.892 20.30% $23,333
Source: Bureau of Labour Statistics (employment), Census Bureau (earnings)

REAGAN, NOT THE FIRST AND NOT THE ONLY ONE
Ludwig Erhard
Time, Nov. 1, 1963
Ronald Reagan was not the first government leader to practise supply-side economics, says Willy De Wit. After World War II Ludwig Erhard put in practice supply-side economics in Western Germany in 1948. At that time he was in charge of economic policy. He introduced an economic shock therapy completely in line with Reaganomics. He abolished rationing and price-controls, although he restricted his own power with this measure. Erhard believed in the self regulation of the market. Not only the Social Democrats were vehement opponents of the abolishment of price-control, but also Lucius D. Clay, the US. military governor, was furious. Erhard had pushed through the economic deregulation without ever asking the general. Clay called Erhard to account, thundering that the professor had infringed upon the Allies’ privileges by changing the rationing regulations. Erhard coolly responded : “you are mistaken, sir, I have not changed them, I have abolished them.”

Later on Erhard, as secretary for the economy, cut the high marginal tax rate in two steps: first from 95% to 63% and afterwards to 53%. The first 8000 DM earned became tax free.

The decisions taken by Ludwig Erhard allowed West-Germany to rebuild itself at a pace never seen. No surprise that he was called the “father of the wirtschaftswunder”.

The German economic miracle cannot be explained by the Marshall Plan. Britain and France received Marshall money too, but they wasted their chances. Britain voted Labour, which brought rationing and price controls. France opted for economic protectionism, which prevented Marshal help to be used in an efficient way.

After Reagan, the theory of supply-side economics was applied in numerous countries. In Iceland, David Oddson became prime minister in 1991. He inherited a poorly performing economy burdened by heavy income taxes. He lowered the corporate tax rate from 50% to 30%. During the next five years the economy grew by 5% per year. Government income did not fall and social outlays could be maintained.

Ireland is another example. In 1987 this country was the “sick man” of Europe, with a public debt of 135 % of GDP. After the elections of 1987 a new economic policy was introduced. Corporate tax rate was reduced from 32% to 12.5% and capital gains tax was lowered from 40% to 20%. Ireland is now the fastest growing country of the EU. Japan, to the contrary, is a classic example of the failure of a Keynesian demand-side policy. The economy has been in shambles for many years and public debt has risen to a gigantic 170% of GDP.

The following graph compares government spending and GDP per capita in Ireland and Belgium between 1960 and 2003. The Irish 'turning point' came with the adoption of supply-side economics.

SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS AND THE LAFFER CURVE

Laffer curve
Supply-Side economics is widely misinterpreted as the Laffer curve. Arthur Laffer, an economics Professor at University of Southern California claimed that an important feature of supply-side economics is that tax cuts will pay for themselves. Laffer became famous after he illustrated this idea on a napkin in a restaurant in Washington in 1974. But the question is not whether tax cuts pay for themselves, but whether they are more effective in creating economic growth and welfare, compared to a Keynesian policy of increasing government spending. The difference between Keynesianism and the supply side school centers on fiscal policy. Does a successful fiscal policy work by incentives (tax cuts) or by increasing demand (spending)? The important question is not whether such a fiscal policy will pay for itself. The Keynesians stress demand, supply-siders stress incentives. Changing fiscal policy by creating incentives will change the behaviour of people. If tax rates rise, people will reduce their participation in taxed economic activities, such as working, risk-taking, investment and saving. When tax rates go down, people are motivated to increase their economic activity. The economic expansion that will follow a tax cut is far more important than the fact that tax cuts should pay for themselves. Most politicians in Western Europe have not yet understood this very important distinction. Even worse: the media in Europe have killed Reaganomics because they do not understand this difference.

Ken61, you continue to post a lot of interesting, but irrelevant crap. Very little of what you posted is relevant to the specific question at hand, i.e., did Reagan reduce taxes across the board. You claim he reduced taxes, while I claim he reduced tax rates and increased actual taxes. The facts related to this specific issue prove my point.

Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986
Note that the TRA86 raised revenue substantially in the first year after enactment, before any of the economic impetus that it would have created could possibly have taken effect. Also note that the act increased corporate taxes. Those corporate taxes came out of your pocket, because when corporations experience increased costs, they pass those costs on to their consumers. You don't see that tax increase directly, but the corporation pays it and then charges you through higher prices. It's still a tax increase.

Another relevant segment from the same article:

So, TRA86 eliminated a bunch of deductions that had been used by a majority of taxpayers across the country, and imposed the AMT on a much greater segment of the population. Reagan deduced marginal tax rates, while imposing those rates on a higher tax base. If you were not smart enough to be using those deductions, or if you were not in a financial position to use those deductions, than you actually got a net tax reduction. But the prudent taxpayers who were making more than low income wages saw a significant increase in their tax burden. The Reagan tax increase legacy lives on today in the form of the AMT.

The Internal Revenue Code is more than 80,000 pages and I'm not going to try to explain it all to you. Do your research, stick to the point at hand, and leave ideology aside. You will find that Reagan did increase taxes, regardless of what the marketing and political spin would lead you to believe.

What is your point? Are you saying the tax increases caused the Reagan economic boom? Are you saying that the increased taxes we are now experiencing is a good thing, in economic terms? Reagan's policies provided more economic freedom in the private sector. Are you saying that the current highest-in-the-world corporate taxes are good? Are you denying this? True, deductions were reduced or eliminated which did affect some people, but the overall economic conditions improved. You can quibble all you want, again, what is your point?

I would suggest that you practice reading and comprehension, and quit injecting irrelevant and superfluous points into the discussion. My point is the same as it has been since the beginning of this discussion: Reagan did not cut TAXES, he cut TAX RATES, and tax collections increased immediately as a direct result of his restructuring of the tax code. Bottom line: he took more money from all of us, on an aggregated basis, not less.

While technically correct, would you kindly explain if you are saying that the above was a good or a bad thing? The way you have phrased the point makes it appear you are arguing that Reagan's policies were a failure because they resulted in increased treasury revenue.

Increased taxes on a fixed tax base are generally a bad thing, and that is what Reagan's early tax changes accomplished. I hate to refer to increased tax collections as Treasury revenue, because revenue implies that they earned the money rather than arbitrarily taking it from us. There is a huge amount of debate in economic circles about whether and how Reagan's policies contributed to "his" economic recovery, but the fact is that there was significant macroeconomic improvement during his term in office, and that is indisputable. The additional tax collections that resulted from overall economic improvements represent legitimate enhancements to Treasury's revenue stream. But this does not obviate the fact that Reagan did not "reduce taxes across the board" as Ken61 originally stated. Reagan's tax rate and other tax code changes actually increased taxes, and would have resulted in increased tax collections from all of us (again, in the aggregate), even if there had been no economic recovery.

The fact that Reagan increased taxes is a bad thing. The fact that there was a coincident economic recovery that contributed additional tax collections is a good thing. Perhaps even Ken61 can follow that.

Replacement, are you confused?

I don't know your mental state, English comprehension abilities, nor your I.Q. I do know that you are confused. You're attributing DaveK's statement that Reagan cut taxes "Across the Board" to me. My interjections were about specific instances where that situation resulted in tax cuts for individuals. If you go back and have someone read this to you, perhaps you'll understand it this time. If you'll recall the debate at the time, the Democrats insisted on eliminating deductions and the "closing of loopholes" in the tax code as conditions of their support on reduction of marginal rates. To their Keynesian thinking, the economy would not significantly improve. Of course, history has proven them wrong, and the resulting economic growth far exceeded the negative effects of the restructuring. No I do not, nor ever have, disputed the fact that the elimination of the politically-granted loopholes and deductions did not result in taxes increasing on the people who had been receiving them. Nor did I agree with them, I never agree with raising taxes. They were the political price the democrats required. I do agree with the concept of a simplified tax code, even a flat tax, with elimination of politically granted advantages. As it is, that's why the Tax Code is so obscenely huge now, it's mainly a collection of detriments and advantages that have been granted for political reasons. Are we clear now?

Ken61, you are correct that DaveK originally made the comment about the "across the board" tax cuts. But you, in Post 378963, stated: So, the "across the board part" does not apply to you, but the assertion that Reagan actually reduced taxes is correctly attributed to you, and you are still wrong about that. After 18 pages, the drivel from you clowns does tend to run together.

Ok, I'll concede the point, only because I should have been clearer, as it was not universal, and it was not my intention to apply it as such. My first sentence in post #378973 clearly was an attempt to address the deductability issue. Even though my initial point in my previous post clearly stated that Reagan cut Tax Rates.

I'll modify my statement to include that "some individuals, specifically those who utilized deductions and loopholes that were eliminated as the political payment for Democrat support, actually experienced a tax increase".

Fortunately, the positive economic effects of the rate reductions far outstripped the initial negative effects.

Sticks and stones will break my bones, etc.

Again, what is your point about Reagan's economic policies. Are you trying to say they didn't work? If so, clown and moron, etc. would have to apply to you....Take your meds and chill out...

Heck, I'll be a clown.

You mentioned there's dispute among economists about the effectiveness of Reagan's policy. To have a few lefties out of some lib university poop on a Republican is no great revelation.

I believe overall tax revenue did increase under Reagan, but it was not from dumb luck or squeezing more money from the exact same amount of tax payers. The tax base was significantly increased, you contend only by code, but never the less more were contributing.

No doubt in my mind, the tax base was significantly increased by putting nonworking citizens from the carter years, back to work and then some.

I believe policy accounts for the overall revenue increase in a growth and productive manner, not by a strategy the squeezes more from less folks, and forcing personal and corporate assets to stay on the sidelines.

I have not tried to make any point about Reagan's economic policies. Some of you have a tendency to impute motives to other posters and to draw conclusions that were never stated nor implied. My point was that Reagan reduced tax rates, but did not reduce taxes. That is all. Back to your cartoons now.

Well, then we're in agreement. Although it was a very convoluted journey to reach it. It appeared to me that this was a debate between broad economic concepts, while in fact it was a debate over minor aspects. You're obviously an anti-cartoon bigot.

Quick! some of you guys post some cartoons now!

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=hot+...electedIndex=52

I can see once again Replacment has gone off the deep end-just as he has done before with Reagan TAX CUTS (yes they were indeed CUT Replacment),he seem to think he know more then virtually every economist about the cuts.

Perhaps Art Laffer does not know nearly as much as "Replacement" (in Replacements mind)but I am going to go out on a limb and just go with Laffer and maybe-again I doubt it thou, it will get through his head that the increased tax revenue was not caused by raising taxes,in fact it was the opposite ! ;

Washington – … The bulk of U.S. tax cuts began on Jan. 1, 1983, and the economic recovery began at the same time. Isn’t it amazing how tax reductions do not work until they take effect?

More to the point, the downturn of 1981 and 1982 as foreseen by many a supply-side economist was actually the consequence of the delayed reductions in tax.

In the year before a tax cut, most people do everything that they can to postpone realizing income from the higher-taxed year in order to defer its recognition until the lower-taxed year commences.

By all accounts, the recovery of 1983 and 1984 was spectacular. Real gross national product, which measures the total value of goods and services, including income from foreign investments, grew in those two years at an average annual rate of some 6 percent.

Notwithstanding the masses of data and commentary emanating from the White House and the Republican Party during 1984 and beyond, some people still have not comprehended the magnitude of the effects of tax cuts.

Perhaps most surprising to traditionalists is the fact that inflation has fallen during this period of nascent and actual tax cuts.

To supply-siders and the electorate, this result seems quite rational. Just as a bumper crop of apples leads to lower apple prices, so an aggregate supply increase leads to a lower inflation rate.

In the period from 1981 to 1983, consumer price inflation fell to 3.2 percent from 10.4 percent.

http://www.laffercenter.com/reaganomics-tax-cuts-alone-are-not-enough/

In particular, supply-side economics has focused primarily on lowering marginal tax rates with the purpose of increasing the after-tax rate of return from work and investment, which result in increases in supply.

Yet in the roughly 30 years from the 1980s through the first decade of the new century, supply-side ideas contributed to the longest boom in United States history and an incredible transformation of the world economy. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, 1982-1999 was one continuous mega-economic expansion. In fact, as it stretched into 2007, this 25 Year Boom saw a tripling in the net wealth of U.S. households and businesses from $20 trillion in 1981 to $60 trillion by 2007. When adjusted for inflation, more wealth was created in this 25 year boom than in the previous 200 years.

DaveK, once again your post is mostly irrelevant to the question at hand. No one disputes that there was an economic recovery during the Reagan years. The issue is whether he cut taxes or cut tax rates. Get back on point.

I can't resist King's admonishment to "leave Paul Krugman out of it". Krugman is merely another one of those Keynesian, Statist, Religious sociopathic ideologues who masquerade as an economist. Here is an excerpt by Martin Hutchinson as a response regarding Krugman's comments upon the death of Margaret Thatcher. His attempts at revisionism are preposterous. I think it's relevant to the thread.

As the top Keynesian gadfly, Paul Krugman's recent attack on Margaret Thatcher wasn't very surprising.

In a blog post on the very day she passed, he questioned whether or not Margaret Thatcher had actually made any difference to the performance of the British economy.

Since she had spent much of her career fighting the theories of like-minded economists you can easily understand why Krugman was so quick to take a swing.

But as someone who was actually there, I can tell you the evidence of Thatcher's success is incontrovertible-no matter what Paul Krugman wants you to believe.

What's more, the larger truth is that Thatcher's principles still hold lessons for us today.


The Real Thatcher Record

To illustrate the difficulty of Thatcher's battle: In the summer of 1981, no fewer than 364 top economists wrote a letter to the London Times denouncing her policies and saying they would inevitably lead to economic decline.

That letter marked just about the absolute low point of the 1979-81 recession.

After its publication the economy reverted into strong growth, and in the following year Thatcher's Falklands victory assured her re-election.

From 1981, Britain's economy continued to strengthen with only minor recessions until 2007. The trends marked a complete break from what had gone before, leading British living standards from 10% below those of France in 1980 to 10% above them in 2007.

You'd think the 364 economists who had written the foolish letter would have had difficulty keeping employment once the trend took hold. But far from it.

For the last 10 years, one of them, Mervyn King, has been Governor of the Bank of England -- which explains a lot about the failings of British monetary and regulatory policy, both before and since the 2008 financial crash.

Where Krugman's Argument Falls Apart

Of course, economic realities are hard to prove. Even 30 years after the event, a clever casuist like Krugman can manipulate figures to throw doubt on Thatcher's extraordinary turnaround in the British economy.

Krugman's argument looks at British living standards compared with the French, and produces a second very confusing graph of British unemployment (which was very high during Thatcher's early years because of all the dead capacity that had to be weeded out - the effect was much like the opening up of the Soviet Union after 1991) and then claims that the trend does not become clear until the mid-1990s, so Thatcher had nothing to do with it.

That ignores the political realities. There was no significant policy change in Britain after Thatcher's 1990 departure, other than the 1992 reversal of the foolish 1990 decision to link the pound to the deutschemark. John Major, Thatcher's successor, was a feeble individual with none of her convictions or courage, but he did not reverse her policies since his voting base would not have stood for it.

The 1990s strength after the 1990-92 hiccup (which only confirmed a trend already visible in 1981-89) was as much due to Thatcher as if she had still been wielding her handbag in Downing Street.

It was only after the massive Conservative party defeat in the 1997 election that policy changed, and then only gradually.

Tony Blair, the Labor leader, was quite willing to build on Thatcher's achievements, although over time the sloppy expansion of public spending by his Chancellor of the Exchequer and eventual (2007) successor Gordon Brown did change the policy trajectory.

Again, unlike Paul Krugman, I was there.

I returned to England from New York in late 1982, after Thatcher's Falklands victory had made her re-election inevitable, and lived there until 1995 (by which time a Labor government was itself inevitable).

The effects of Thatcher's policies were already apparent by the time of her 1983 re-election, and they were crystal-clear to everyone by the time of her second re-election in 1987. (Then the snarling opposition could only growl about "bourgeois triumphalism" - an insult I was happy to acknowledge!)

Yet even now in 2013 Krugman tries to explain them away. It is one of the annoyances of economics compared to the hard sciences, that there is always someone willing to doubt experimental results, however emphatic!

Of course, the current overspending, money madness and debt accumulation will eventually lead the United States to a position not unlike that of Britain in the late 1970s, with high inflation, high unemployment, and a mass of useless malinvestment that has to be liquidated for growth to resume.

However, I'm confident that we will then find leaders who know how to restore our economy and are capable of doing it.

But like Margaret Thatcher, they will have to engage in a titanic struggle against huge entrenched opposition, not least of which will come from economists like Krugman who have justified the current erroneous policies.

No, that is not the issue. He cut individual and corporate taxes, which resulted in investment, innovation, job growth, and increased consumer spending. As a result, more people were paying taxes, and also making more money. That doesn't mean he took more tax money from YOU, it means he created more tax payers in each income bracket. It's a pretty disingenuous argument to allege that the result was an increase in taxes. It's not hard to understand unless you are simply pursuing a different agenda which relies on intellectual dishonesty. That appears to be your intent. Splitting hairs for a dishonest purpose.

Sorry to steer this one back sort of on topic. I've been noticing h.r. 5606 by dem rep honda out of kalifornia. He wants to subject home builders to the same regs as manufacturers. Two interesting points to me, it has an unstipulated 'and for other purposes'. Second, it fits really well with the lame duck regulatory approach, if it dies on the obsolete legislative path.

Quick question to Bill, do these political views parallel your own in your present circumstance. I couldn't help but wonder if all home smiths will be regulated because of 'political views'. Ahh, no big deal, they must be thinking about just bad guys.

You're off on another tack, Ken. I said leave Krugman out of it, look at the Reagan numbers. For confirmation it's all a punk's game that ignorance plays in to, look at how Democrat and GOP rhetoric matches lower taxes and smaller government.

Craig, I can't tell just what your last post is saying. I don't know anything about the reference to California. My point about Teddy Roosevelt was just to say that, like him, I believe our politics and economy are under the thumb of an out-of control group of wealthy individuals and big corporations. Democracy has been high-jacked. I try to say here quite exactly what I mean, but you often seem to impute ideas to me that I don't hold and never stated. You seem to have taken the passage above entirely out of context though I'm sure you meant no offence.

No a bit of offence implied or intended Bill. Sure these things can be taken out of context, that's why I use the quotes to make my point.

It's really not a big deal. It is a specific example of gun control efforts by the left with a strategy that may be near and dear to your heart. My opinion hasn't changed, I don't care for your politics, but you seem to enjoy very well done home gunsmithing projects that I can't imagine you want regulated or shut down. So I asked if it agrees with your line of thinking. My opinion is that these issues can not be brushed off as 'democracy being high jacked'. It comes from one party, one ideology and one agenda alone, and you have said you're a fan.

Maybe that's too narrow an issue to get all worked up about. Maybe you and King might not ignore zeke emanual's remarks from a few days ago. Other than pain control and assisted suicide/euthanasia, he says it is not worth it for society to provide medical care, even the most routine tests, to anyone over the age of seventy-five. Is this consistent with your current thinking, sure he's a nobody. Or, maybe he's probably the top medical advisor/author of ocare, along with the usual resume that you would support politically by misfire comments.

Craig, " Maybe he's probably", is an example of how it's hard to know what you mean. Being 74 years old and still recovering from cancer surgery, I'm not likely to endorse a 75-year-old limit on Medicare. I'd like to see doctors paid a salary instead of paid for treatment. As it stands, many procedures are provided to patients who stand no chance of benefiting from them. Again, I was not endorsing any present-day Democratic policy, instead merely saying that I agreed with TR's assessment of the country's situation.What any of this has to do with gun control politics is a mystery to me. Why would I want to screw up a hobby I've enjoyed for 60 years?

Sorry about that Bill, let's just say I'm wrong. I use vague soft peddle words, but notice you understand libtard right away. Still, if you're curious, search h.r. 5606 representative honda, and ezekiel emanuel 75 years. Sorry, to do that broken record repetition thing, but you stuck a question mark in your comment.

When I quoted you, I made the decision to focus in on your thought that it reflected today's values, and I brought up current events, as you could tell no reference to TR. No, I'm not going to figure out how to insert links into my comment.

Move along, my fault, nothing to see here. I can't wait though, I should be poking around some of the mountains in your neck of the woods in a few weeks.

edit to add, you take care and manage those health issues however they can work out best for you.

Craig, out of curiosity I just read Ezekial Emmanual's article on his decision that living for 75 years is long enough. At first I thought it was perfectly silly and much too arbitrary. However, he makes it perfectly clear that he isn't speaking for anyone other than himself. On reflection. I'm not inclined to put that sort of boundary on my own existence, but it did make me realize that I wouldn't want another experience like that of the surgery I had last spring. I don't regret having it and seem well recovered, but the experience of it makes it clear that another such intervention could result in a life I wouldn't want to live. Thanks for putting me onto his essay.

My point Bill, we had just gone through a patch where King was mentioning Mike and cback are stand up, good folks. Why in the world would a president have someone with that extreme an ideology write ocare law for a whole nation. We are who we associate with.

Jawjadawg:
I have been away for a few days, but did not want to let this go without refuting your nefarious insinuations and allegations. I resent your accusation of intellectual dishonesty and dishonest purpose, so please ...(deleted).
From your post of 9/28:


Regarding the facts of the matter, read this, or have someone read it to you:
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/
Excerpted for your reading pleasure and to accommodate what appears to be a short attention span (highlights are mine):




Or this:
The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 in taxes for every $3 in spending cuts
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact...c7532_blog.html
Again, excerpted for your reading pleasure:


Reagan himself admitted raising taxes by $98.3 billion. Hard to refute that, regardless of what congress did or did not do to follow up.

Perhaps Reagan was persuaded by Dole or fooled by the Dems in The House, but this was HIS tax increase, and he has to own it.

Or this, written contemporaneously in 1988, also excerpted here:
The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488


Note that that last statement is from Reagan's own OMB.

Want more? There is lots of data and opinion out there. To quote Casey Stengel: You could look it up.

Interesting points, but it's all irrelevant (your word) to virtually everyone but you. Reagan's economic policies worked. Since the House was controlled by Democrats the whole time he was in office, he had to compromise in order for his overall economic plan to be passed. As I recall, there were supposed to be real cuts in spending as well, but, due to the Democrats, they never happened. I daresay that tax increases were not Reagan's ideas, but were put forth by the Democrats. It's a credit to Reagan that he was successful at all. Now, what is your point? That some people's taxes were raised? Yes they were, but I suggest you're blaming the wrong person.

I am not talking about Reagan's economic policies. The point is that he did not reduce taxes, regardless of what his acolytes think. The point is that he did actually raise taxes. Not just some people's taxes, but he increased the overall, absolute tax take from the country. Perhaps he did it reluctantly, perhaps he was fooled or stymied by congress, perhaps he knew exactly what he was doing. Regardless of all that, he did raise taxes, by any objective measure, including as a percentage of GDP. Even as GDP increased during the Reagan years, tax "revenues" increased even faster, due to Reagan's restructuring of the tax code. That is the point. He did not reduce taxes over his term in office as so many of you claim. He raised taxes.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact...c7532_blog.html
Stockman is one of Reagan's boys. Weinberger is one of Reagan's boys. How much evidence do you need?

Of course tax revenues increased. They nearly doubled. Government did not shrink, it grew. Since Reagan took office in the post 1974 era, he also had to deal with baseline budgeting and the CBO. As I recall, the CBO projected his economic plan (including the tax increases) to be fairly revenue neutral, so I suspect that the Dems agreed to the plan expecting the economy NOT to significantly improve. Of course the religious statist democrats would not cut spending. They lied. Big surprise. When has a Statist ever wanted to reduce spending? It's the basis of their power. They wanted him to be a one term president. I also suspect that this is why Volcker reduced the money supply 50% more than what Reagan wanted, to make the inevitable recession more painful. Typical Keynesian thinking. Reagan's policies worked despite of the fact taxes were raised on some (but not all, or even the majority) of people.

We have yet to have a Conservative President and a Conservative Congress at the same time. GW Bush was merely another Statist.

Back on topic. TR's reputation as a "Trust Buster" was deserved, as was Taft's. Trusts and Monopolies achieved through unfair business practices and political influence are sociopathic inflictions upon a free and equal citizenry. What we have now is considerably different. Thanks to Hegel, Marx, and the Soviet Union. Now, the government is the primary inflictor through Crony Capitalism, confiscation of individual economic freedom for vote-buying, and preferential treatment for groups such as unions and other assorted victim groups. Bill, you're right, we need a figure like TR with the moral courage to fight these unconstitutional sociopaths, and to re-establish true American constitutional freedom and equality.

Obama and his ilk really care about the poor. They care about them so much that they're trying to insure than more Americans are poor. Then they can convince them that they're victims of evil capitalism and that they're actually morally entitled to other people's freedom. It must be true, Obama and his fellow statists say so.

I'm beginning to think Ron White was correct when he said "You can't fix stupid." Although in your case it may just be stubborn. Sure tax revenues increased rapidly as the economy recovered. But they increased faster than the recovery and at the end of Reagan's term, taxes as a percent of GDP were higher than at the beginning of his term, and higher than the 40-year moving average. That is a tax increase, no matter how you slice it.

Regarding the "revenue neutral" intention, that appears to have been pure marketing fluff to disguise the tax increase that was required to cover the increasing costs of running Reagan's government programs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact...c7532_blog.html


http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/

I'm not sure why you have this fixation. Yes, when economic activity increases, so does taxation. Your point is once again irrelevant. More people are working. More investment is occurring. Yes, Reagan raised taxes. I'm sure I'm typing English, so I'm fairly sure you can understand the last sentence. Once again, what's your point? Your stubborn attachment to this point is the real example of "you can't fix stupid". As is the childish attempt to separate overall economic policy from taxation. It works in the aggregate. Obviously, none of the increased taxes seriously affected the expansion. Did Reagan's policies succeed? Yes of course. Again, what's your point?

My point is that Reagan increased taxes. Not just tax collections, because those went up anyway, as the economy improved. If the economy had remained absolutely stagnant, not a speck of growth, Reagan's changes to the code would have generated more aggregated tax collections. When you do the analysis of the changes in marginal income tax rates, combined with the elimination of deductions and the increases in corporate taxes and capital gains rates (Tax Reform Act of 1986), increased gas taxes (Highway Revenue Act of 1982), increased Social Security and Medicare taxes, increased cigarette taxes (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985), etc., the net result is increased taxes, even in the absence of any economic growth.

Reality is an inconvenient [censored], but facts are facts. I gotta go now, I have to work on some tax returns.

Yes, but his policies successfully "Broadened the Tax Base" and got more people working. This was a result of the rate cuts. He never could have raised taxes, mainly on the wealthy, if the economy hadn't been improving.

Here's an excerpt on "Broadening" as well as explaining the positive effects of the reduction on the cost of capital, very relevant today, as the recession hits the middle/lower middle class hardest.

One criticism that is raised against the Reagan years is that there was a rise in income inequality. The historical record, however, does not support such a conclusion. Data collected by the Federal Reserve reveal that there was, at worst, no significant change in income inequality between 1983 and 1989.[7] Moreover, IRS data indicate that the wealthy paid an increasing share of income taxes during the 1980s.[8]

These observations are consistent with economic theory. In a slowdown or a recession, the wealthy can take care of themselves through their savings and investments. Data show that the wealthy derive a much greater portion of their income from capital investments.[9] Low-income individuals, however, derive most of their income from wages and salaries, which typically decline during recessions. Since they have less savings to draw on, low-income individuals bear the burden of anemic growth far more than the wealthy. Low-income individuals are further hurt by the fact that wage and salary growth is contingent on economic growth.

Critics of the Reagan years assert that cutting taxes on capital is unfair because more of the benefits (in terms of taxes returned to taxpayers) go to individuals with higher incomes. Cutting taxes on saving and investment, however, has implications beyond just the effect on tax returns, particularly with regard to which people are affected. Lower taxes on capital serve to encourage its use. More capital leads to higher wages, increased incomes, and more high-quality jobs. By raising real wages, a reduction in taxes on capital encourages greater workforce participation and spurs investments in human capital, education, and training. Whenever the economy's stock of capital increases, the relative income shares of those already wealthy decline. As a result, the gains from economic growth are spread more evenly across the population.

In fact, data from the 1980s show that a good deal of the alleged rise in inequality is attributable to greater workforce participation. Most studies on income inequality rely on data compiled from tax returns. These studies often point to the fact that the income of some tax returns increased faster than others (even if most households increased in wealth). The problem with these numbers is that they fail to account for increased female labor force participation. Women who were not working previously chose to enter the labor market, since lower taxes on the product of labor increased the net compensation of their work. With two earners, families with these new labor force entrants saw rapid increases in their family income, creating the appearance of inequality. In reality, these number's simply reflect the fact that more people were working.[10]

Median Family Income Falls Under Policies of Higher Taxes

For the typical American family, slower economic growth may seem an abstract economic theory. The effects of slower growth, however, have been undeniably felt by working American families. The increase in taxes during the Bush/Clinton recovery has lead to a noticeably negative effect on family income (Figure 5). In 1991 alone, the median family income, adjusted for inflation, fell by $957.[11] In 1992 and 1993, real median family income dropped by $461 and $709, respectively, resulting in a net fall of $2,127 in inflation-adjusted income during the current recovery.

Replacement, your understanding of supply side theory is pretty nonexistent. This entire conversation is like trying to explain the idea of sacrificing a chess piece to a hoarder.


Ken, he full well understands the point but will not acknowledge it because he is more intent on twisting the intent to suit the disingenuous agenda of the libtard nation. This reminds of Pelosi quoting Jesus during a speech about female abortion rights.

It is not about supply side economics, you big dummy. It is, very simply, about whether Reagan lowered taxes or lowered rates while raising taxes, regardless of what the economy did or did not do. The evidence is pretty clear that his policies and code restructuring had the effect of raising total taxes, regardless of what did or could have happened in the economy. And I'll put my understanding of economics up against yours, any day of the week and in any venue. I look at the facts, not the fanatacism.

Replacement is for some strange reason-perhaps from his Kailf life living with those that lie and twist (and his his case call others-Cowardly,names that show he-and other liberal liars are the ONLY ones that fall for his Reagan raised taxes BS).
As you point out he understands the point but has some enjoyment in twisting facts that show he is wrong.

I have put that clown-cowardly clown Replacement, on Ignore like Ed Good,two of the biggest aholes on here.

You went through a whole bunch of gymnastics to repeat this conclusion. I suppose the economy under a carter second term would have been similar.

Asked again, did the same number of tax payers pay more per tax payer to increase the overall taxes collected. Or, were there more individuals who contributed to the total increase in tax revenue at the time of the huge ideological and policy change from one administration to the next.

Guess what? If someone goes from unemployed to employed, he or she is going to experience a tax increase. Yes, it will add to the total amount of taxation. What a terrible thing...

What is missing here is Historical Context. I touched on it earlier in my posts. The House, and therefore the money, was controlled by the Democrats. The Democrats believed (and still do) in the sociopathic statist religious dogma called Keynesian Economics. They DID NOT expect Reagan's "Supply Side", or Austrian Economics to succeed. Yes, Reagan was forced to raise some taxes, as part of the political price, to pass not only his economic plan, but also the military spending that enabled the West's victory in the Cold War. I'll reiterate once again, the tax increases were not enough to derail the overall economic expansion, but if you're a sociopathic Keynesian, combined with the increased spending, THEY SHOULD HAVE. If you'll notice, the statist religious Democrats have not made the same mistake twice, and have opposed every Austrian measure, both tax and spending reductions, proposed since. Which is why we're in our current situation. We are being unconstitutionally inflicted upon by statist religious sociopaths..

It's not historical context, it's not political philosophy, it's not economics (remember, there is a difference between accounting and economics, but that distinction appears to be too deep for most of you). It is simple math. Lower rates plus taxing more things (gas, cigarettes, social security, medicare, etc.), plus eliminating a bunch of deductions equaled higher taxes. You guys are either too fucking stupid or too committed to your cause to understand that point. You are the opposite of low information voters, you are low comprehension voters. It's too bad, because the country is going down the shitter and you guys are incapable of understanding simple tax accounting, thus your ability to make informed decisions on other matters is very questionable. Good day and good luck.

Thank you for your answer, now I better understand where you're coming from. I apologize for not being as smart as you. When I grow up, I wanna call everyone effer's because then I would be the bestest in the room.

Replacement,

You miss the point. I'm in favor of lower, or the elimination of taxes in general. I do not favor any tax increase, as the government takes up way too much of the economy as it is. I don't recall anyone here saying that we should have lower rates but increased taxes on anything. The issue has been Reagan, with you harping on the increased taxes, and everyone else pointing out the success of his overall policy. I don't know what politics you believe in, but trying to use the "increased taxes under Reagan" issue to attempt to discredit Austrian Economics is pure fantasy, and is typical of the lies believed in by the Left.

Ken61:
Although I don't know exactly what he stated I hope you can now see why posters like Replacement are on my permanent ignore list. I think to you it's apparent what politics he believes in.
As far as Reagan goes: IMO the 8 years we had with him as President were the best 8 years of the last half of the 20th Century. After the Carter fiasco Reagan brought respect back to the United States and the Office of the President as well. It's going to take another Reagan to rectify the domestic and international mess the current occupant of the White House has put us in.
Jim

Debate sharpens the mind. Replacement has yet to make an overall point about Reagan and Austrian economics. It's like the Democrats giving Clinton credit for the good economy during his years. That economy was due to the Republicans winning the House in 1994 and Newt forcing Clinton to be fiscally responsible. That was not completely successful, as legislation modifying the CRA during the Clinton years, including the changes regarding Freddie and Fanny (1992) and the repeal of Glass-Steagall (1999) set up the conditions that eventually led to the economic crisis during the Bush years that paved the way for the religious Demi-god Obama. This was despite Bush trying to correct the classic Austrian government-created "Bubble" that eventually burst. The obstruction credit to that goes to Chris Dodd in the Senate, who countered any effective proposal with a filibuster threat. He was assisted by Barney Frank and other Dems in the house by demonizing all proposals as Racist, or anti-poor people. The result, of course, has been the creation of more poor people, which was the Dems overall goal anyway.

You fellows know that David Stockman, as time has unfolded, has reversed his views on the Reagan years, Right?

I suppose you can choose to believe whatever version of history you get fed, but Reagan did raise taxes. That is a fact of the Congressional Record.
I fail to see the sense in even arguing about facts that are easily researched. The name calling I get, the other stuff, not-so-much.

I don't think anyone is disputing the negative effects of raising taxes. Nor the negative effect on the Free Market of massive government spending and debt. Except those who believe in Keynesian Mythology. The Reagan years would have been even more prosperous if taxes had not been raised and if spending had been reduced. Not possible with a Democrat controlled House. Especially since many of the tax increases were on the wealthy, and removed capital from the Free Market. I dispute that tax increases were a part of Reagan's philosophy, and assert that raising them was the the political price he had to pay when dealing with a House controlled by the Democrats.

Stockman understands, he's very much an Austrian..

Government operates in the world it is in. Not the world we wish it were in.

Having seen many recessions and resurrections in our economy, I suspect the results are just as good when government does nothing, as when it does something. Recovery probably takes the same length of time, the expansions are probably just as broad, and just as lasting.

In my industry, after near a decade of limited capital investment, yet with the cost of capital near zero, there is now a nationwide resurgence, and essential reinvestment being made. Cost of money didn't change, only the necessity, and confidence required to make the investments. Sooner or later industry must invest, if only to stay in business.

In other words basic industry is resurging because it has to. Not because of government intervention or stimulation.

I have come to believe it has always been so.
I don't think capital has any creed other than return vs risk.

Which is my explanation for the curious timing of several of our recoveries. I'm finding this current recovery to have real legs. As I benefit from it every day, I wonder what other board members might say if it really gets cooking. My self, I would say in spite of Obama, but I suspect the next President to say, because of Obama. And it won't really matter who is right.

The Austrian School, generally discredited in mainstream economics, was split in its thinking. Which side are you referring to? Hayek and his notions of laissez-faire and markets organizing and regulating themselves? Look where that got us over the last 10 years. Canada regarded it as voodoo economics, went the opposite way and came out on top of all G20 countries.

As for Keynesian "mythology," the world went to Keynes when it hit the fan, all the developed countries. And the "Free Market." What's that? What does it look like? Where may I see one? Americans may think of the US and China as separate markets. They are Siamese twins; China a command economy. Rabid partisanship and mythology makes Americans vote against their interests.

Jim alluded on an earlier thread, and Replacement said on this one, if the US doesn't start thinking more intelligently and putting country before party we're all going to suffer badly. Mythology reinforces ignorance. To stay on thread, Teddy R. got it right. The Republican chose the side of the underdogs, the common people, and not of his class who he felt were sobs.

I agree generally. It's discouraging to read the poisonous partisanship here, as if this or that president is responsible for everything that happens under their mandates. Some are lucky to catch a roll, others are saddled with events beyond their control. As for recoveries, I think TARP was the start of this one. Here's Wikipedia:

"The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion. By October 11, 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that total disbursements would be $431 billion and estimated the total cost, including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, would be $24 billion. This is significantly less than the government's cost of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s but does not include the cost of other "bailout" programs (such as the Federal Reserve's Maiden Lane Transactions and the Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). The cost of the former crisis amounted to 3.2 percent of GDP during the Reagan/Bush era, while the GDP percentage of the latter crisis' cost is estimated at less than 1 percent. While it was once feared the government would be holding companies like GM, AIG and Citigroup for several years, it was reported in April 2010 that those companies are preparing to buy back the Treasury's stake and emerge from TARP within a year.[2] Of the $245 billion handed to U.S. and foreign banks, over $169 billion has been paid back, including $13.7 billion in dividends, interest and other income, along with $4 billion in warrant proceeds as of April 2010. AIG is considered "on track" to pay back $51 billion from divestitures of two units and another $32 billion in securities.[2] As of December 31, 2012, the Treasury had received over $405 billion in total cash back on TARP investments, equaling nearly a non-inflation-adjusted 97 percent of the $418 billion disbursed under the program."

I think it ended with a small profit. Public intervention. No free market. Bush and Obama in lock-step for solutions. I disagree with it not mattering who gets the credit. It's unintelligent and old-fashioned to not make an effort to know why things happen. Fairy tales have their place with children. But not in the management of public affairs.

You mean discredited among Keynesian economists. It is the growth of government and programs that reward nonproductivity that is the real problem. Ineptocracy is a good term, as displayed on the other thread. I take it that you consider a person voting for a politician to take away another's economic freedom and give it to them via an involuntary exchange of goods and services to be an example of "voting in their own interests"? That's the best example of "partisanship", based upon a mythology of "fairness" and "entitlement". We are suffering, and with no changes, will continue to do so.

Economies can recover if left alone. However, ours is being constantly inflicted on by the government, the comparison with the Great Depression is startling, with government infliction upon infliction. That is not to say that some sectors did not do OK during it, but that the overall conditions were very poor.
Now, we need a politician who does not identify with the government class, who are the real problem.

TARP was created to deal with the previous mess that government intervention itself had created.

The only reason that Keynesian economics has survived for so long in western thinking is not because it works, or even makes any sense, but because it justifies what liberal politicians already want to do – spend with reckless abandon, run bigger and bigger deficits so they don’t have to explicitly pay for it with higher taxes today, and run up the national debt, which will be someone else’s problem later. The truth is, as Fruits and Pozdena explain, “A large and long-standing body of literature finds that increased or higher government spending tends to reduce economic growth rather than increase it.”


http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara...ong-the-states/

The Progressive MYTH of Keynesian Economics !

But most fundamentally, economic growth is not driven by increasing demand, which is insatiable, but by increased production or output (supply), which is driven by incentives for productive activity. In other words, just as an individual cannot spend himself rich, neither can a nation
Prosperity is determined by production, just as an individual increases his or her income by becoming more productive.


The myth of Keynesian economics is based on a failure to take into account basic double entry bookkeeping. If the government spends more, where does the money for that increased spending come from? Either from increased borrowing, or increased taxes, which both take an equal amount of resources and spending out of the private economy as they finance in increased government spending. So not only can there not be a net increase in aggregate, or total, demand from these policies, the spending is in truth a net drag on growth, as the private economy spends money more productively and efficiently than the government. That is why this Keynesian nostrum never worked in the 1930s, as the recession of 1929 extended into the decade long Great Depression, and it hasn’t worked anywhere else since.

We are what we believe, Ken. You believe in spite of all evidence to the opposite that that there are free markets and when they fail, as even mixed economies do cyclically from greed and political mismanagement, the suffering hundreds of millions should take their lumps and wait for free markets to rise again from the ashes.

That's worn-out dogma, a dialectical materialism of I'm-all-right, to-hell-with-the-rest which Christian, social and political traditions forcefully deny. You don't take responsibility for what you've been given by your country's tax system/citizens since the day you arrived. It's rank selfishness, anarchical in nature.

If one needed proof of a call for an absence of government, look at your last sentence: "Now, we need a politician who does not identify with the government class, who are the real problem." Governments in a democratic society are made of political parties competing to form a government with public support for their policies. Politicians are governance, in and out.

Comrade King,

It is you who believe in "worn out mythology and dogma". Ahh, the "greed" code word. As is the word "selfishness". Your insistence on using the sociopathic statist religious lexicon shows how intellectually devoid and vapid you really are. Private sector capitalist profit motive is evil, yet statist religious greed and selfishness via statist Neoslavery is "Righteous and Good". Again, democracy is mob rule. We do not live in a Democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic specifically designed to prevent statist religious sociopaths like you from wielding power. We need a politician who believes in constitutional freedom and equality, not your morally bankrupt, soviet-indoctrinated, sociopathic, religious statism.

Keynesian economic failure in charts !
There is only one chart of employment that truly matters: the number of full-time employees relative to the working age population. Full-time employment is what ultimately drives economic growth, pays wages that will support household formation and fuels higher levels of government revenue from taxes. If the economy were truly beginning to recover, we should be witnessing an increasing number of full-time employees. Unfortunately, that has not been the case as this measure, as shown by the chart below, is only slightly off the lows witnessed during the financial crisis.


Wages & Salaries

Given that nearly 70% of economic growth is driven by personal consumption expenditures, the sluggishness of economic growth since the financial crisis can be directly attributed to a fall in personal incomes. According to a recent Federal Reserve survey, median household before-tax incomes have fallen from near $52,000 annually to roughly $47,000 currently.



Financial Security

Another mainstream media theme has been that the surging stock market, driven by the Federal Reserve's monetary interventions, has provided a boost to the overall economy. However, as I have suggested previously, the bulk of the population either does not, or only marginally, participates in the financial markets. The boost from inflated asset prices driven by Federal Reserve interventions has remained concentrated in the upper 10% of the population. The Federal Reserve study breaks the data down in several ways, but the story remains the same. The median value of financial assets for families has fallen sharply since the turn of the century.



Opportunity

The U.S. economy was built on opportunity. However, since 2007, opportunity to "own" a business has plunged to the lowest level since 1989. As discussed, the Bureau Of Labor Statistics adjusts to the employment report upward to account for "new business" start-ups. Since 2009, the "birth/death" adjustment has added 3.5 million jobs to the employment roll. The problem, however, is that the number of families that owned business equity has plummeted during that same period.

Replacement, I do not need a degree in economics or history to understand the historical facts regarding tax cuts and increased revenue to treasury. It's the same result every freaking time - major tax cuts yield more revenue to treasury. The fact you obviously know more about economics than me only yields one conclusion - you would rather lie than admit the truth. The unanswered question is "Why?"

(1) Working within a mixed economy, I not only believe in profit but capital investment should not be subsidized by government as it is everywhere i.e. our landowners' responsibly sustainable forestry program, acclaimed as one of the best in the world, must also be financially sustainable, not subsidized by taxpayers. Compare that to your "free market" corporate welfare.

(2) As to common people gaining power, that's what we do well here. Government has delegated all its its responsibilities to landowners who proved they could do forestry, the cornerstone of our rural economy, more efficiently, environmentally and socially, with no bureaucratic and technological interference from the top. We believe in freedom and equality and make it work.

You call it morally bankrupt and mob rule. I think of it as responsible citizenship. It beats cawing a gobbledegook cacophony in the back 40 because you don't like paying a fair share of taxes that made your great country, and the world isn't as you imagine it should be.

Comrade King,

You miss my point. Now , what really does the piddly-little example of Canada's sustainable forestry program have to to with the unconstitutionally sociopathic statist religious mythology of Keynesism, Neoslavery Vote-buying, and massive government debt?

Now really, do you actually believe that with responses like that you're taken seriously?

We're talking about America here, and what your fellow statist religious sociopaths have done to it.

I wonder how the 'rural' property tax rate say for folks in your neck of the woods, and maybe for the folks in Halifax compares. I wonder if it's 'fair' for the taxpayer to subsidize the vacation, hunting grounds and wink grape farms of the elite playgrounds of the rich. I wonder what would make a lib elite, not you, jump up on a soap box and belittle that taxpaying working poor in your capital city. Why does he have to subsidize the haves, with disproportionate tax rates on a tiny little house on some tiny little lot.

Hey, I wonder if one person's partisan 'poison' might be seen by another as pc cancerous hypocrisy.

Ken,
he is not concerned about being taken seriously by those of us who know the,in your words " mythology of Keynesism, Neoslavery Vote-buying, and massive government debt" is a big failure-we are going see that in Nov once again America will vote against it and take back the Senate.
King is here to "lull" to try and catch the few-now very few that are still gullible enough to fall for it(like Ed Goods torched gun buyers).

As the house of cards of "fundamentally changing America"-socialism falls,predictably falls, apart on every front,King will do all he can to tell anyone who's left-at this point very few, the ship is not sinking when is going down for the last time !

Ken, I replied to your two erring points of my being against profit and your fear of common people taking power. I haven't seen answers from questions I've asked you, including why did everyone go to Keynes when it hit the fan.

I'd also like to know how taking back the Senate will suddenly end "neoslavery vote-buying and massive government debt." Will those voters be common people, a mob in a democracy, or just the enlightened like you?

King ,your question was answered,although,as usual, you offer NO proof that Keynesian economics has EVER worked,your ONLY defense is why did the liberal politicians go to it once again-after its failed son many times before ?

"The only reason that Keynesian economics has survived for so long in western thinking is not because it works, or even makes any sense, but because it justifies what liberal politicians already want to do – spend with reckless abandon, run bigger and bigger deficits so they don’t have to explicitly pay for it with higher taxes today, and run up the national debt, which will be someone else’s problem later. The truth is, as Fruits and Pozdena explain, “A large and long-standing body of literature finds that increased or higher government spending tends to reduce economic growth rather than increase it.”

Here's a thought, maybe because of greed and poison partisanship, congress could reassert the legislative process. Hang on, now, they're a 'do nothing' congress because reid blocks House bills. What if they become a 'do something' congress.

Will they become poisonous because they may have ideological differences of opinion with the exec folks. It would make sense, because the logical response would be to demonize not to debate policy. I suspect he would be insulated by the pc blanket, but heaven forbid he may have to go on record as blocking legislation.

I wonder what the process is to nominate and confirm fed judges. 'Vote buying and debt', could be the activist courts are a key part of enforcing that right. Maybe, it'll be a bit tougher to exec order or selectively enforce laws of the land? Nope, I didn't think so.

Quote:

"I wonder what the process is to nominate and confirm fed judges"

This Libtard nightmare,Susan Bolton, was a Willie Clinton appointee and she has ben a real disaster in our fight to identify and deport illegals here. She basically gutted SB 1070 a sensible law enacted to help the police here do their job.
However she's small potatos compared to the two witches the Kenyan has appointed to the Supreme Court. They will be plaguing us long after he's just a bad memory.

http://www.foxnews.com/topics/us/judge-susan-bolton.htm

Comrade King,

Your response is preposterously subjective and anti-intellectual, as usual. Sure, you're not anti-profit, as long as you and your ilk can be sociopathic parasites of/on it.

Afraid of common people? Hardly, as I consider the average American to actually believe in individual freedom. It's the statist religious sociopaths that allow their votes to be unconstitutionally bought that are the problem. You and your fellow Dupes, Minions, and Useful Idiots have created this statist religious subculture. What is happening now in America is the attempt to grow this subculture, to the point that elections are irrelevant.

The issue is not "Mob Rule", but the reassertion of the protections (for the "common people") of the Constitution.

You also failed to respond to my question about people voting for politicians who would then go and take other's economic freedom away and give it to them, if they were "acting in their own best interests". I really didn't expect a response, as obviously it's a major aspect of your sociopathic statist religious dogma and doctrine.

Winning the Senate MAY at least, slow down some of these statist sociopathic inflictions. Many Republicans are also statists.


I really do get a kick out of you, but you're so predictable.

Since everyone keeps ignoring the posts I've made regarding the judicial appointments I'm going to take a minute and clarify the situation.
Judicial appointees with a political agenda are kind of like Herpes in that they will continue to give long after the initial provider is just a bad memory. Libtard appointees don't care about or respect the Constitution and as am matter of fact they want to "revise" the Constitution to meet their own warped LIBTARD needs. The 1st really horrid example that comes to mind is Earl Warren a disaster who Eisenhauer maintained was his worst mistake as President.
We've got two long term problems sitting on the Supreme Court now as Kenyan appointees along with that bizarre old bag Ginsberg.
NONE OF THESE THREE BATS HAVE ANY INTEREST IN UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION WHAT SO EVER AND WILL ATTEMPT TO TEAR IT DOWN AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY. THIS WAS READILY APPARENT IN THE RECENT HOLLY HOBBY DECISION.
JIM

Dave, my question was not answered. The reason the world went to Keynes is because he's the pre-eminent authority. Countries of all political persuasions applied his formula when their economies went south.

Those graphs of GDP-stimulation are interesting. They bear no relationship, however, to what would have happened to GDP without stimulation. Imagine
US in current economic malaise waiting around for good days.

Dave, Krugman in NYT today. I know the sources are not to your liking but the content is accurate history:

"During his failed bid for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination George H. W. Bush famously described Ronald Reagan’s “supply side” doctrine — the claim that cutting taxes on high incomes would lead to spectacular economic growth, so that tax cuts would pay for themselves — as “voodoo economic policy.” Bush was right. Even the rapid recovery from the 1981-82 recession was driven by interest-rate cuts, not tax cuts. Still, for a time the voodoo faithful claimed vindication.

"The 1990s, however, were bad news for voodoo. Conservatives confidently predicted economic disaster after Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax hike. What happened instead was a boom that surpassed the Reagan expansion in every dimension: G.D.P., jobs, wages and family incomes.

"And while there was never any admission by the usual suspects that their god had failed, it’s noteworthy that the Bush II administration — never shy about selling its policies on false pretenses — didn’t try to justify its tax cuts with extravagant claims about their economic payoff. George W. Bush’s economists didn’t believe in supply-side hype, and more important, his political handlers believed that such hype would play badly with the public. And we should also note that the Bush-era Congressional Budget Office behaved well, sticking to its nonpartisan mandate."

Krugman is the laughing stock of economists,there is NO credible proof he has EVER been correct.

BTW Charts don't lie King it FAILED, just like it always does !

some o youse guys often use the terms"libertard" and "statist". i hope you know what you are trying to say, but some of us here do not. please define libertard and statist for us.

Hopefully it would not be spun as hateful, particularly since it is related to the current policy of promoting entitlement reliance. Does this 'historically accurate' source take into account any effect of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act had.

I don't see any mention of where jobs, wages or family incomes went up because of welfare entitlements. He does not seem to delve into the voodoo of the significant job market influence of being paid not to work.

Didn't pelosi assert the voodoo that every dollar spent on food stamps net the economy $1.84. Do the economic indicators reflect this success rate. Wasn't she directly refuting the Gingrich clinton era Contract with America and referencing keynes.

Quote:
"...."The 1990s, however, were bad news for voodoo. Conservatives confidently predicted economic disaster after Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax hike. What happened instead was a boom that surpassed the Reagan expansion in every dimension: G.D.P., jobs, wages and family incomes...."

The above is absolute crap because of the lag times between implementing an economic policy and when it actually takes effect.
The eventual result of the Reagan tax cuts was the economic boom experienced during Clinton's years. The bust period were still in now is partially the result of Libtard policies under the Clinton administration led by the CRA.
Of course: We all know, including the Libtards here although the won't admit it, that the absolute disaster was set off by the implementation of the CRA of 1977 under Clinton which led to the housing meltdown and the recession we're still in.
Apparently some of you (probably socialogy majors) can't or won't comprehend basic economics.

Well,okay, you know more than Krugman. Done.

Craig, there are some good books on the current US job market as it relates to jobs, wages, family incomes. When people can't get work they are given money, as in most countries, and a looming social issue is a legislated "living wage."

No one here likes spongers and laggards. A modern society doesn't leave its citizens high and dry when the deserving are shut out of the work force because of lack of skills, poor education, criminal records, racist attitudes etc.

About a third of all state prison inmates and more than half of federal prison inmates in 2010 were drug offenders. I recommend On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City (University of Chicago Press) by Alice Goffman.

There are times when the US needs a little dose of the parliamentary system and regulations, and this is one of them. Leaders with majorities do things, implement their policies. Their test of performance is elections.

All we see are the US wonders of checks and balances producing lame ducks, unwarranted obstruction, dysfunctional governance and executive privilege---the notion of a superpower president doing what he was elected to do.

Oh, my, the horror.

Well, okay, Dave. He's a Nobel laureate in economics, columnist in your country's distinguished newspaper of record, who according to you has has never been accurate and the laughing stock of economists. Thanks.

Statism is the belief that the State is supreme (i.e. The Ruling Class in Power) and that the very concept of Individual Freedom and Equality does not exist. It is the oldest organized religion, coming about shortly after the Dawn of Civilization. It is the belief that the ruling class is somehow superior and elite, and is entitled to inflict their actions on their subjects. This irregardless of how they came to power, either by Coup, Conquest, or election.

The modern rationalization for this comes from the philosopher Hegel, who believe that Man's utility was derived from his usefulness to the State, and was not a free and equal individual. In Hegel's time, Christianity was a binding influence in Western Society, so one of his assumptions was that ruler's would act according to Christian morality, and would rule as a type of "Enlightned Despot", and be bound by the Morals of Christianity. This was merely a rationalization of an age-old concept, as rulers have always sought to seek moral validation of their rule, usually by manipulation of existing religious beliefs on order to manipulate the subjective morality of a society. If we look back through history, the examples are obvious. The creation of the early "God Kings" throughout history in common, as rulers use religion to rationalize their tyrannical pseudo-elitism. Often creating the mythology of semi-divinity, simply asserting that one of their ancestors either was or mated with a God, so as to rationalize the divine nature of their rule and consequential moral superiority. Once a ruler is "Divine", to oppose what they say ceases to be a political difference and instead becomes a religious issue, with the opposition being able to be religiously demonized, and opposed on a moral basis, rather than an intellectual one. That's why the typical religious response to opposition is Deny, Dismiss, and Demonize, rather than intellectual rebuttal or refutation. Comrade King is the best example of this on this board.

Roman Emperors, starting with the attempt by Julius Caesar and achieved by Augustus are excellent examples of the creation of the God-King/Emperor concept.

After the fall of Rome and the firm establishment of Christianity in Constantinople the Christian Church was used to validate rulers, so strong was the influence of Christianity in Europe. The Dogma of the "Divine Right of Kings" is the example for this. This continued up to the Reformation, when Roman Christianity was rejected due to widespread corruption with Protestantism asserting that Man could have an individual relationship with God, and the the concept of Catholic intercession was not required. It was during this time the the concept of a Free and Equal person or citizen was first asserted in the modern sense, although the English had somewhat started the concept of "Rights" with the Magna Carta in earlier times.

Jumping back to Hegel. Hegel was a great admirer of Napoleon, as well as the early Prussian State, but he considered both bound by a christian sense of morality, the "Enlightened Despot" concept. One thing is certain, Hegel led to Marx. Marx demonized Capitalism and the concept of individual freedom. We still see this today, which leads us to the next, and current version of Religious Statism, that of Soviet Union Communism. In reality there was little that was "Communistic" about the Soviet Union, Communist rule was really a form of sociopathic feudalism, where an enslaved populace was held in thrall and ruled over by the neo-nobility of the Communist party, which exploited the populace for their own gain. In was merely rationalized by Communist Doctrine, and indoctrinated using the Soviet social science of Psychopolitics, which is merely a sociopathic religious dogma, or a faith-based belief taught on a strictly subjective morality basis, rather than any form of objective reality. It was/is a moral rationalization for enslavement, and the tyranny of a pseudo-elitist ruling class.

What is happening in America today is purely psychopolitical, and even though the Soviet Union (another classic example of a historical failure) is long gone, the ideology indoctrinated, starting mainly in the 1920s-1930s, still marches on. It's home is now the Democrat party, Obama is clearly an example of statist, religious, pseudo-elitism, as he doesn't consider that the individual exists, and is free to inflict whatever sociopathic dogma he chooses on free and equal individuals.

Now you can see why Obama's opposition is demonized according to faith-based statist morality, and why statist religious ideologues are able to simply deny, dismiss, and demonize opposition rather than actually respond intellectually.

Ahh, Comrade King, you always deliver.

Your capacity for religious denial, dismissal, and demonization is boundless. Despite all the data and analysis posted on this thread. BFD if he's a Nobel Laureate, so is Obama. The Nobel organization, as far as economics, is dominated by Keynesians, so big deal, that's like an Islamic terrorist receiving the "Osama bin Laden" award for International Politics.

The New York Times was once a great paper. No longer. It might as well be called "Pravda West". Notice the massive recent layoffs in the editorial department? How about the massive declining net worth? Let's have a little more denial, dismissal, and demonization...

Paul Krugman Now Laughingstock On Two Continents

http://reason.com/blog/2010/06/24/pa...-laughingstock

It's always the right time to ignore Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist, Nobel Laureate and four-time Latin Grammy nominee whose drink-yourself-sober advice on handling the debt crisis is so sharply at odds with reality.

Of late, Krugman has had his Irish up at Europeans who are resisting the Obama Administration's plan to continue spending hundreds of billions on financial stimulus. (Not that he agrees with the administration, which Krugman has been arguing for the last 18 months should be spending trillions, not mere billions, on stimulus.) And in the case of Bundesbank president Axel Weber -- whom Krugman called out recently in the daily Handelsblatt for trying to shore up the falling euro at the expense of government job creation -- it's created a backlash. The Wall Street Journal reports that Krugman's criticism has turned him into the anti-Hasselhoff and boosted Weber's popularity as he pursues the top job at the European Central Bank:

Wolfgang Franz, who heads the German government’s economic advisory panel known as the Wise Men, tore into Krugman — and the US — in an op-ed in the German business daily Wednesday, titled “How about some facts, Mr. Krugman?”

“Where did the financial crisis begin? Which central bank conducted monetary policy that was too loose? Which country went down the wrong path of social policy by encouraging low income households to take on mortgage loans that they can never pay back? Who in the year 2000 weakened regulations limiting investment bank leverage ratios, let Lehman Brothers collapse in 2008 and thereby tipped world financial markets into chaos?” he wrote.

Unfortunately, as Krugman notes in his response, Franz managed to find the weakest arguments against the Times' fiscal shaman. Europeans have lost their appetite for digging deeper holes of debt for the same reason Americans have: because they don't have a choice. As Margaret Thatcher predicted would happen, we have all run out of other people's money. That reality explains a lot more than airy references to Germans' anti-inflationary mass psychology.

We're at the tail end of the largest economic intervention since World War II, and even on its own narrow, nebulous terms, it has been a colossal failure. The failure is obvious to working people. It's obvious to unemployed people. It's obvious to kindergarteners, to dogs and cats. Only Paul Krugman persists in thinking good things will happen if we just throw more money on the barbecue.

I don't believe I mentioned likes or dislike, and I had hoped I wouldn't be soft labeled a hater. I still believe policy, that may require time to work, should be effective enough after six years to show results rather than count on justification by supporters and skewed reported stats.

I honestly don't have the time to read the book, but I looked up a few reviews, by noted expert reviewers wink, and got somewhat of a feel for the message. The hero of the story had a stretch of 51 arrests while 'on the run', maybe a bit of oversimplification to say that these are victimless drug offenses. I'd hope that if 'drugs' can be blamed, why not discuss the effectiveness of labeling abuse a medical condition and treating it with ocare. Also, why is the 'war on drugs' demonized by the left. After all, if personal responsibility is factored in, shouldn't the stats tell us there should be a war against young black males.

Cough, cough, that doesn't sound too good. Was this pres elected to do something perceived, or was he elected and reelected based on how he can deliver a prompter message. Why aren't the results of the promises and policy of this superpres ever questioned, by blacks or latinos, or college kids, or the media. You have flipped flopped on whether we have recovered or not, economically, but you have said many times it's an accomplishment of this admin. Why is this the first 'recovery' ever to have median incomes go down.

King still thinks NYT is a real newspaper

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/10/21/liberal-bias-is-killing-the-new-york-times/

and one more Krugman piece,the man has been so wrong so many times he now is not taken seriously by anyone except liberal who want to spend other peoples money

http://bastiat.mises.org/2014/07/bubbles...is-are-correct/



Bubbles Everywhere: Krugman Wrong Again; Austrians and the BIS Are Correct
By John P. Cochran
Friday, July 11th, 2014

BankIntZahlungsausgleichPaul Krugman is at it again – distorting or misinterpreting work by other economists to attack critics of today’s central bank driven low interest rate environment and to defend policy status quo or to push for even more stimulus. .

Yep:
I agree with what our resident -non-resident Canadian fence riding waffeler stated about yours truly and Krugman.
He's right and apparently I DO know more than Krugman does. At least I can read and properly interpret charts and statistical presentations.
Those mirco and macro economics classes I took over 40 years ago apparently did pay off.
Jim

Ah, Jim, you guys should welcome opinions other than your own. You're engaging in the familiar Republican ploy of differences, particularly of the evangelical right. Separate. Exclude. Not one of us: "resident-non resident Canadian. . ." It's about control, fear of losing influence.

You're not helping yourselves by adding you're smarter than Krugman and NYT not a real newspaper to conservative right positions on evolution, biblical inerrancy, gay rights, same-sex, emancipation of women, voting rights, immigration, keeping colour in its place.

Comrade King, you never fail to deliver.

Every time you suffer an intellectual beat-down you respond with the doctrinal statist religious response of denial, dismissal, and demonization. Then, you attempt to project your own foibles on others. Your bigotry appears to be boundless. "Conservative Right" positions? you mean the demonizations and distortions of you and your fellow religious sociopaths.

Amen!
Jim

Yeah, it's discouraging to beaten down intellectually on anything, Ken, but a little comforting coming from friends with few peers on this board. They know more about economics than Krugman and more about good journalism than those who award Pulitzer Prizes.

Conservative Right positions are front and centre in America, from taking control of the mechanics of the Republican Party, eroding support for the rights of women and minorities, including voter ID laws to exclude, and abortion to contraception to Nativity scenes on the governor's lawn.

Not to say there's anything wrong with this except they're all about control, white control of coloured, male control of women, rejecting a gathering ethos of modernity of the last 200 years. Bigotry to say so? Hardly. Naming things changes things. It how we come to grips with them.

To get back to the thread, what to make of this, first couple paragraphs today from a very good Treasury Secretary under Clinton who began paying down the debt with surpluses but---crucially--it was at the right time of the business cycle.

"Why public investment really is a free lunch

By Lawrence Summers

"The IMF finds that a dollar of spending increases output by nearly $3

"It has been joked that the letters IMF stand for “it’s mostly fiscal”. The International Monetary Fund has long been a stalwart advocate of austerity as the route out of financial crisis, and every year it chastises dozens of countries for their fiscal indiscipline. Fiscal consolidation – a euphemism for cuts to government spending – is a staple of the fund’s rescue programmes. A year ago the IMF was suggesting that the US had a fiscal gap of as much as 10 per cent of gross domestic product.

"All of this makes the IMF’s recently published World Economic Outlook a remarkable and important document. In its flagship publication, the IMF advocates substantially increased public infrastructure investment, and not just in the US but much of the world. It asserts that when unemployment is high, as it is in much of the industrialised world, the stimulative impact will be greater if investment is paid for by borrowing, rather than cutting other spending or raising taxes. Most notably, the IMF asserts that properly designed infrastructure investment will reduce rather than increase government debt burdens. Public infrastructure investments can pay for themselves."

But the IMF wouldn't know, would it? Nah. Or FT responsible for publishing it. It's not a real newspaper, eh?

YAAAWWWNNN,


Racist, Sexist, Homophobe, etc, blah, blah, blah. Krugman, blah, blah, Keynes, blah, blah, blah, IMF, blah, blah, blah....

Comrade King, I'm fascinated by your ability to deny Objective Reality, and to be able to live in a fantasy world...

Ken, you disappoint me. It's so common: "a doctrinal statist religious response of denial, dismissal, and demonization." Unworthy of a man of discriminating tastes. C'mon, jack it up. Ed does better on a bad day.

Yeah, I just didn't have the time for my usual in-depth response. When I get a chance I'll work something up. It'll be easy, when I have the time..


The doctrinal response answer is spot-on, as virtually all your responses are doctrinal.

Good. You're a lot of fun.

"you respond with the doctrinal statist religious response of denial, dismissal, and demonization."

AKA Kings "punks game" !