jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (104 posts)

Reagan economist knocks tentative deficit commission proposals

  1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    Re “Some Fiscal Reality” (editorial, Nov. 11):

    The current federal budget deficit was caused mainly by unnecessary wars and related military spending, the worst economic downturn since the 1930s, and large tax cuts and bailouts for the rich, all stemming from the Bush administration.

    Now a bipartisan commission proposes that we solve the long-term deficit “problem” by cutting back Social Security, Medicare and other social welfare programs. Thus the poor, the sick and the elderly would pay for the tax breaks and bailouts for the already wealthy.

    The Republicans have made it clear that they have only one economic goal: making the rich richer. Are there no Democrats left with any backbone?

    Robert Ortner
    Short Hills, N.J., Nov. 12, 2010

    The writer was chief economist and under secretary of commerce during the Reagan administration and is the author of “Voodoo Deficits.”

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, I'm hugely disappointed with the Commission's proposals.

      But is it really a bi-partisan Commission?  I haven't heard....

      I think they could come up with a zillion other things to cut instead of Medicare and Social Security.

      Drat it, maybe it's time already to start callin' 'em all out on the carpet.
      Republicans should know better than this carp.  And I cannot imagine it being their idea to perpetuate this nonsense.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        http://montaraventures.com/pix/carp.jpg

        We're coming for you Church Lady! 
        mad

        1. JOE BARNETT profile image60
          JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          who is this mitch mcconnel? i think he would be more like turtle head or turtle face ha. but this is good!

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            This is the "carp" Brenda is always referring to, as in "what a bunch of carp".  I'm not sure what she has against the carp, but I don't think they will put up with her attacks indefinitely.

      2. JOE BARNETT profile image60
        JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        wow brenda this is a first for you ! now you see what we were saying before. they always go for big business and at any expense. now they have everyones vote and they don't need you anymore. and yes it is a bipartisan commission of 18. they will have to get a vote of 14 before they can send it to the president. so cross your fingers

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      'fraid this is incorrect. The problem was caused by massive monetary inflation and improper government incentives -- just like every big depression in the past couple of hundred years.

      Unfortunately we're trying to cure the problem with more of what caused.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        'fraid the facts say you are wrong.

        Here's the annual inflation chart.

        http://inflationdata.com/inflation/imag … _chart.htm

        Here's average inflation by decade.

        http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/ … lation.asp

        The Great Depression was marked by massive deflation - a word that libertarians don't understand.  The most recent economic information about he current crises says we may be looking at the same in the future.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          ah, you still use the word "inflation" to refer to the CPI, which is a symptom of true inflation.

          Inflation truly means an increase in the money supply.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            So you are saying the government can't increase the money supply?

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I don't want to get reported and banned from posting. This will be my last post to you.

              The government can't create wealth by creating money, but it can create money. Doing so causes chaos.

              And even the world Economists are finally discussing what every "Austrian Economist" has been talking about for centuries: that free market money is the only true money, and that money is almost always gold and silver.

              http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/opini … .html?_r=1

              To have this summed up briefly: over the past ten years or so, the banks of the US have been given over $1 trillion created out of thin air. This means that they are then able to increase that money supply 10 fold thanks to Fractional Reserve Banking.  This means that they are the first people in the economy to use this money. They lend it out and *cough* "stimulate" the economy by making loans. But, those loans have to be repaid (thus they get interest on top of the money that was created out of thin air! BRILLIANT!)

              But because there has been no true creation of wealth (i.e., bricks, steel, oil, etc), there is simply more money chasing the same number of goods. But because the money has yet to filter throughout the entire economy, the market has yet to respond to this increase of money properly (by raising prices). Gradually -- instead of instantly, as SHOULD be the case -- prices go up (slowly at first, then at an increased rate as consumers begin to realize that the increased prices are permanent). As those who took out the loans realize that the amount of money they took out can't sustain the projects that they started (i.e., the price of the project has gone up X-fold since they borrowed the money), they have to go bankrupt.

              luckily, the market begins to readjust to this, and prices gradually decrease. But "ZOMG, deflation is evil" and so the government instigates New Deal policies, and prices are forever held too high.

              -------

              This has been your loose, 5 minute guide to the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle. It has accurately predicted just about every major economic crisis in the past 200 years, including the failure of the Bretton Woods system, and the abandonment of the gold standard. And it has properly predicted that gold will have to return as the core money people use --- the question now is merely "will we return to gold because we properly perceive it as what must happen to keep debts in check? or will we return because the dollar will be worthless and our economy has been completely ruined?"

              -- Once again, I'm sure I have not convinced you, but i must speak the truth. I don't want to get banned from speaking (it's happened about 10 times since i've joined half a year-or-so ago).  So this will be my last response to you.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Can you suggest any actions that will speed the recovery from the recession and 10 percent unemployment? That is the concern at this time, not inflation.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  because I was directly asked, I"ll respond.

                  ... but, c'mon ralph! I already know you're egging me on! You already know what I'll say! Just disagree with it ahead of time and save me the time of typing it all out!

                  Let the market take it's course: quit printing money, repeal restrictive legislation, open up trade barriers, repeal some of the idiotic New Deal legislation that are still on the books. Abolish minimum wage (perhaps wage rates are too high), end government monopolies on countless industries. etc etc.

                  Think about it: in order for the government to "create jobs", it has to steal money from the people through taxes (or inflation, which is a tax), and then hire people that could have worked through the public system. But, because it's competing with the public system, they have to pay MORE than the public system would, thus the government can't create as many jobs as the public system could!  And on top of that, the government can then say "we created XXXXX jobs!!" (which the statistics will confirm, because you can't measure what doesn't happen. This gets politicians re-elected), even though they ACTUALLY stole jobs, and then paid too much for labor!!!!!!!! (Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt hammers this point in furiously. It changed my life. you can watch videos of the same name to get a taste)

                  Does anyone actually believe that creating 6 trillion dollars out of thin air is going to lead to long-lasting prosperity? Of course not. It'll just raise the numbers -- JUST in time for it to look like the economy is doing better for the 2012 election cycle. The money will be crammed into the economy, the first stage of the business cycle will begin (it'll probably take a year or so depending on how the banks respond), and prices will begin to rise after 3 or 4 years (just an estimate. It's impossible to predict what the few people who get the money first will do with it).

                  The government gets its money through theft, and then uses that money to compete with the very people it stole the money from!!

                  1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Let's look at the 'serious' proposals.

                    "Abolish minimum wage"

                    This remains a cornerstone of libertarian thinking and it's particularly popular in periods of high unemployment - because it allows rich people to get MUCH richer by pushing wages down even LOWER, far below the minimum people can live on.

                    "end government monopolies on countless industries"

                    One of the 'monopolies' has been discussed before - public roads. Many libertarians think the roads should all be PRIVATELY OWNED on some kind of toll system entirely paid for by fees paid if YOU if you 'choose' to move around in the USA. And we can expect that the company who has this monopoly will administer it for the good of all. NOT!

                    Want to read ridiculous? Check out some of the libertarian ideas for privatizing the JUSTICE SYSTEM. That's right - make justice a commodity for sale and see if it isn't the fat cat who wins every time. Check out what libertarians mean by the glossy phrases they use.  It's obscene!

                    "repeal some of the idiotic New Deal legislation that are still on the books."

                    That means abolish Medicare and Social Security, but Evan won't come out and say it. He's not talking to me anymore, but ask HIM if he wants to end those programs, if you don't believe me.

                    'repeal restrictive legislation'

                    Rand Paul opposes the role of 'restrictive' legislation  that provides safe working conditions - even in dangerous work - like mine safety. A true libertarian thinks market forces will naturally regulate safety, because when too many people are dying in coal mines because of unsafe conditions, they will refuse to report to work. Libertarians hate unions - so  don't expect unions will be able to conduct an organized strike over unsafe conditions that the government won't  be able to regulate in the libertarian utopia - unions won't be allowed to strike.

                    Remember how eggs got pulled off the shelves a few months ago? It was a case of the failure of inspectors to shut down a chicken ranch for completely gross and unsanitary conditions. These conditions WERE efficient and profitable, but libertarian philosophy would totally remove the standards AND enforcement that keeps our food chain relatively safe - being poisoned by food producers is the EXCEPTION not the rule. Under libertarian thinking - the question of poisoning the consumer is determined by the overall profit in the practice under consideration.

                    OVER and OVER when you scratch the surface of libertarian rhetoric, you find reality that makes victims of the worker and consumer - and empowers the rich. The basis if libertarianism is that wealth is produced by the rich - and that by empowering the rich nobility, there will be prosperity for all.

                    How poor will you have to be - without Social Security, without Medicare, unable to afford health insurance, unable to afford decent housing and provide for your family on the lowest wages that your employer can get away with.. before you realize it's NOT government that's oppressing you - it's the unrestricted power of business. The only entity strong enough to defend the consumer - and we are all consumers - against the abusive practices of business - is government. And the voter has been convinced that castrating government will produce prosperity.

            2. profile image0
              sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Increasing money supply is about the dumbest thing government could do.  It doesn't inflate prices, it decreases the worth of the dollar.

              The more money there is, the more worthless it becomes.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                What do you recommend for getting us out of the current recession and unacceptably high unemployment? Deflation is the primary worry at the moment, not inflation.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  deflation isn't bad.

                  All that deflation means is that money is becoming worth more, or, that people want to *gasp* save their money for the future. That's really all it means (at least, in incorrect mainstream economic terms). Prices go down, and... that's supposed to be bad...

                  After years of (monetary) inflation, a little (monetary) deflation can only be expected.... .... oh wait, no, they're creating $6 trill out of thin air ($600B x Fractional Reserve Rates of 10% = $6T)

                  Yes yes yes, we've all heard of "deflationary spirals" and all that garbage... Has there ever been a true example of one? I know of numerous hyperinflation examples: WWI-WWII germany, zimbabwe, and I'm sure a quick "hyperinflation" google search will bring up countless more.

                  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinfla … ld_history)

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    We had deflation in the Great Depression. It was accompanied by unacceptably high levels of unemployment and growing support for Marxism. (The Communist Party fielded a candidate for mayor of Detroit in 1935?)

                2. profile image0
                  sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Put foreclosures in forbearance for at least a couple years.
                  Put a temporary ceiling cap on rent for at least two years.
                  Make the banks refinance vehicles to reflect their [buyers] current economic status which they can re-adjust after a two year period.

                  Of course, you might see this as 'deflating' prices but I see this as freeing up consumer cash for more purchasing power and I would also suggest that if anyone took these deals, they would also have to purchase saving bonds or something of the sort with a reasonable interest rate, perhaps 5% that they cannot cash in for the two years.

                  Then maybe use the savings bonds to pay for the rate adjustments after the two year period has expired to help pay down their principal.

                  IDK though.

              2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                holy god! I can agree with sandra on something!

        2. Ron Montgomery profile image59
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't see [monetary] inflation addressed in either of your links.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The argument of inflation hawks is that the VALUE of money falls when the supply increases. (inflation) The expectation is that monetary inflation will always cause a rise in prices and a loss of purchasing power. 

            In the current economy - and in the Great Depression the value of money INCREASED as the value and/or price of goods fell. Wages also went into free-fall, and the fat cat with piles of folding money could buy MORE with a million bucks this year than he could last year - and he can anticipate that as long as deflation is in force he could buy even MORE next year with his cash. This is one reason why major corporations are sitting on cash - not expanding - not building - not investing (not creating jobs) - they are potentially building huge amounts of VALUE by hoarding cash.

            In times of ordinary inflation - the fact is the cash will be worth LESS in the future than today - which is incentive to 'work' your capital - because it will be worth less and less if you keep it uninvested.

    3. Ron Montgomery profile image59
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Without cuts to SS, Medicare, and defense, there is zero chance of balancing the budget.

      1. William R. Wilson profile image60
        William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Cut the defense budget and tax the rich at WW 2 levels.

        1. JOE BARNETT profile image60
          JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          that would be a painless and perfect solution. if the current proposal were to go into effect, then we are on a fast track to becoming a third world nation. the very rich and the very poor

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I agree with everything you said...

          ... except the increase tax part.

    4. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You forgot one.  They will also cut the defense budget as well to pay for it.

      I find it to be absolutely and inconceivably "evil" to push for more funding so many years while calling people against war "hippies" (at best) but can suddenly say, "yeah okay, we can finally cut defense spending so the rich can get their cut". 

      It's is so ridiculously obvious that they just want money that anyone who could agree is just plain well... wrong, yes wrong.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I agree that the "defense" ("offense budget" would be more accurate) should be cut bigtime.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Holy god!! I'm agreeing with someone else I usually disagree with!!

          ... Christmas isn't for another 2 months, though... is it a miracle?

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe you're just becoming a kinder, gentler anarchist smile

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              ... no, that's not it....

              smile

  2. Paraglider profile image91
    Paragliderposted 6 years ago

    Ralph - what I find strangest is that America seems intent on taking this lying down. Over here we had protests at the austerity measures for the general public coming hard on the heels of the bailouts for the rich. Protests in Greece, Spain, France and most recently UK.
    Yet over there, most of the protest seems to be in favour of tax breaks for the rich and cutting social programmes for the people. It defies explanation.

    1. Aya Katz profile image89
      Aya Katzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Paraglider, if you stop looking at people as being divided into the stereotypical groups of "rich" and "poor", then it does not defy explanation. There are people who are not in debt, and there are people who are in debt. Sometimes the people who are in debt live luxurious lives, spending money that they don't own. Sometimes the people who are not in debt live lives of self-denial, working hard and spending very little. Helping those who are irresponsible, of whatever class, to get out of debt at the expense of those who are responsible, of whatever class, is something most Americans are against.

      1. Paraglider profile image91
        Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Aya - I am not in debt, I work hard, and while I don't believe in self denial, I also don't spend a great deal because there's really nothing I want for myself. However, I do want to see more fairness in society. There is no doubt that the divide between the extremely rich and the rest of us is far greater than ever before. So I'm afraid your apparent stereotyping of people as deserving or undeserving doesn't really match up to reality.

        1. Aya Katz profile image89
          Aya Katzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Paraglider, this was not supposed to be about you personally. I grant you that you possess all these virtues that you named. I'm not proposing to take anything away from you or others like you. Or from anyone, for that matter! This was about defending the people you want to dispossess, not for being undeserving, but just for being "rich" (whatever that means).

          I believe in fairness. The words "deserving" and "undeserving", that you invoke, but I did not use, are all about fairness. Your view is like "no-fault" insurance. It doesn't matter who caused the car wreck. How is that fair? Shouldn't it matter what people do with their resources? Isn't that what fairness is all about?

          1. Paraglider profile image91
            Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Most of the dispossession we see going on around us is not of the rich. It is of people who often through no fault of their own find themselves in financial distress. And of course also of people whose improvidence brought distress on themselves. But here's a simple scenario for you:
            If a hundred people have a total of $100 dollars between them, but one of them has $99.01, that leaves one cent each for the others, whether they 'deserve' it or not.

            That's what we're dealing with - gross inequality. A system that allows a few to suck up all the wealth is a system that should be challenged, not supported.

            1. Aya Katz profile image89
              Aya Katzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Inequality is not in and of itself about fairness. The question is how the hundredth person got all the money. Did he steal it? Did he take it by force? Did he use fraud? Did he earn it by climbing trees and picking apples and giving them to the other people in return for money, while they sat and waited to be fed?

              Of course, many people ARE poor because money was stolen from them. Most people, actually. The poor are people who would have had much more if they were not forced to give a very big chunk of what they earned to the government. Most welfare recipients would be better off if it were not for social workers and the welfare state, who take everything, but contribute nothing.

              So in America, there's a sizable portion of the people who still realize that our neighbors, rich or poor or in between, are not the problem. The government, and the people it pays our money to, is the problem.

              What do you call caviar eating, champagne drinking public servants, anyway? Are they rich, because they have lots of stuff? Or are they poor, because it doesn't belong to them?

              1. Paraglider profile image91
                Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The point is that we are at the stage where it hardly matters any more how the distribution became so skewed. The mere fact that it is so skewed means that most people no longer have the power to dig themselves out.
                There would seem, then, to be two options: either the government exercises the means to reduce the inequalities or, sooner or later, you have a popular uprising with inevitable loss of life.
                Which do you favour?

                1. Aya Katz profile image89
                  Aya Katzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You are assuming that the popular uprising would be by poor people who want to loot the rich? But the wonderful thing about the American public, the thing you were lamenting earlier in the thread, is that this is not how Americans think. They don't see it this way.

                  If a popular uprising were to occur, then you would find the poor and the middle-class and the rich fighting side by side for the same thing: the right to be left alone to make their own money.

                  1. Paraglider profile image91
                    Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    If what you say is true. it had better start soon, because the middle class is fast disappearing. And when it does, the game's over, because, as a general rule, ideas and culture emanate from the middle class.

                  2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    The libertarians and conservative Republicans constantly whine about re-distributionist tax proposals when since Reagan all the redistribution has been toward, not away from, the richest Americans thanks to the power and influence of big money in American politics. In case you haven't noticed, the rich are "being left alone to make their own money" by fair means or foul. If you doubt this watch the excellent documentary "Inside Job."

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Very true. Good analogy.

              1. Pcunix profile image89
                Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                And we are frighteningly close to that.

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Michigan has had "no fault" car insurance for 40 years or so. It has greatly reduced litigation and resulted in much faster reimbursement for damage to motor vehicles involved in accidents. It may be or seem unfair, but practically it works quite well.

            1. Pcunix profile image89
              Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              So has MA.

    2. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      People get their information from a right wing propaganda machine that includes Fox but extends far beyond it.  They hear "deficit spending" and "federal debt" and "higher taxes" and don't get the rest of the information. 

      People voted the Republicans into Congress because they wanted lower taxes.  Unfortunately, this means cuts in social programs. 

      The smart thing to do, and what Obama has proposed all along, is to raise taxes on  the rich, and cut taxes for everyone else.

      Now, after the election, we can see what the right wing agenda really was.  More for the rich and less for the poor.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        whoa whoa whoa, all of history has shown this sentence to be incorrect:

        "...they wanted lower taxes.  Unfortunately, this means cuts in social programs."

        Really what this will mean is lower taxes, increased social programs... But rampant monetary inflation.

        As much as everyone thinks they're the devil, rand paul and Ron Paul ARE arguing for cuts in spending. This is the only way to balance the budget at this point.

  3. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Exxon and another big corp paid no taxes last year.

    Hedgefunders and investment banksters are taxed at 15%, while middle class is taxed at 35%?

    FICA is capped at $106,000?

    And they want to cut from every social program.

    Collecting Haliburtion waste fraud an abuse could probably make us solvent.

    Baucus mentioned 235 mil in taxes due, that are never collected.....can you say FOC (friends of congress)

    CUT FROM THE TOP......we are SOLVENT! And it won't hurt them a bit.

    Whereas, the poor and middle class are in a load of hurt.

    Ridickulous policy. Stupid, selfish, greedy and self-serving for a small percentage of Americans.

    Like Bush one and two said: "It's fuzzy math!" "Voodoo economics!"

  4. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago
  5. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Or, it's simply in the name of "We hate Obama."...Period.

    I swear, he could propose that HE himself, would pay down the deficit with his own money, and they still would say "he's a devil who wants to destroy America."

    Makes me sick.  They all make me sick. And now we gotta LOOK at them for the next GD 2 years............AGAIN. argggghhhhhh

  6. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    "Whereas the conservatives' predecessors in the old regime (pre-revolutionary France) thought of inequality as a naturally occurring phenomenon, an inheritance passed on from generation to generation, their encounter with revolution shows them that the revolutionaries were right after all: inequality is a human creation. And if it can be uncreated by men and women, it can be re-created by men and women...He (the conservative) demonstrates a belief in the power of men and women to shape history and to propel it forward--or backward...from the revolution, conservatives also develop a taste and talent for the masses, mobilizing the street for spectacular displays of power while making sure that power is never truly shared or redistributed. That is the task of right-wing populism: to appeal to the mass without disrupting the power of elites or, more precisely to harness the energy of the mass in order to reinforce or restore the power of the elites. Far from being a recent innovation of the Christian right or the Tea Party movement, reactionary populism runs like a thread throughout conservative discourse since its inception...."

    Corey Robin from "Conservatism and Counter-revolution from Burk to Palin in Harper's December 2010

  7. brimancandy profile image81
    brimancandyposted 6 years ago

    I never trusted Reagan. He was another war president. I'll bet that half of the work that was done under the Reagan Administration was put out by George Bush Senior. Reagan was just a well trained puppet under Bush's hand strings. Trying to justify a trillion dollar defense budget, and the whole idiotic Star Wars defense system, that we are probably still paying for.

    Bush senior then had to raise taxes to pay for the mess that he and Reagan made, and is one of the reasons why Clinton became president, and lead us into some of the best economic times we had in years. Only to be crushed by Georgey Junior.

    If it wasn't for George juniors desire to make himself into this glorified war hero, and go after people that made daddy mad, we would not be in the mess we are today. I couldn't believe that he got elected to a second term! Are people that stupid?

    Sorry, but I wouldn't believe any information that came out of the Reagan administration. They were some of the most secrative bastards on the planet. Or, don't people recall that Reagan would only answer questions that he was scripted to answer?

    No thanks.

  8. Jane@CM profile image60
    Jane@CMposted 6 years ago

    One simple question? Are all republicans rich (those in office) and all dems (in office) poor?  I don't think so....

    1. brimancandy profile image81
      brimancandyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The problem is they are all rich. That's why they care so little about the poor.

      We had a little test here in Michigan with a former Governor, to see how their life would be if they were on the public assistance that was on the chopping block to cut costs. Well, they were on food stamps and all that.

      His wife comes on TV and says it was perfectly fine, you just have to know how to budget. Then she and her kids got back into the Limo, and drove back to the governors mansion, where they lived while they were on food stamps.

      Um hello Governor! People who live on welfare do not live in a Mansion, and they certainly don't have a limo available to take them shopping! I
      say put the family in Government housing for a year, take away all their credit cards, and make them take the bus, like a majority of people on welfare. When I saw her saying how easy it was, I just wanted to reach through the TV and slap her silly.

    2. Aya Katz profile image89
      Aya Katzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hardly!

    3. JOE BARNETT profile image60
      JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      no just their philosphy for getting things done are different.

  9. Ron Montgomery profile image59
    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago

    Let's just tax Evan.

  10. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago
  11. EPman profile image61
    EPmanposted 6 years ago

    I am a conservative and it hurts to say that since Republicans want to cut food stamps to the poor before they cut military spending. It is a disgrace. Our overseas empire costs trillions of dollars! How can you even consider tinkering with social security, medicare, etc. without addressing the biggest spending issue first?

    That being said, social security and other forms of entitlements ultimately hurt the economy. They also create a society of dependents. First and foremost, it is absolutely unconstitutional to force people to pay into this system. People should be given a choice; if you want to pay a tax and receive government checks later on down the road, that's up to you. But the truth is social security is broke and there should be an opt-out option. There's a misconception that the government taxes a bit from each paycheck, and puts your money aside in a lock-box until you retire. Untrue. The government hastily spends your money. Whatever is being paid back to retirees is borrowed money, further hurting the economy. How long can this be sustained? That is debatable, but the answer is not forever.

    This whole idea that small-government, pro-private enterprise philosophy leads to elitist favoritism is complete farce. If anything, it is big government that is in bed with the ruling class. If you don't realize that the agendas of the rich minority are entwined with government practices and vice-versa, then it is going to take much more than a lively debate to fix your gross misconceptions. Monopolies exist because of government subsidies, regulation and intervention, making it impossible for competitors to get a foothold in the market they wish to compete in. If there was TRUE competition, then this would be the most effective and potent regulator. Unfortunately, government intervention stifles any form of competition, and then they use the failures of the companies THEY subsidize as an example of why "Washington regulation" is not only necessary, but MORE of it is needed!

    One more thing: not everybody is surprised by the economic problems we are now facing. Many have been predicting these collapses for some time now. It's no coincidence that most of these people belong to the libertarian party/philosophy.

  12. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    In my opinion, Social Security and Unemployment Compensation are absolute essentials in a modern industrial economy which experiences ups and downs in employment causing people to lose their jobs for no reason attributable to them. Conditions were so bad in Detroit and Cleveland and other industrial centers during the thirties that the citizens were on the verge of revolution. China has recently experienced social unrest due to declines in production and layoffs, but it has no comparable social support network. It won't be long before they'll be forced to follow the lead of the U.S. and other industrialized countries.

 
working