Comments


  • Santos, naw that was for Mike, he was crying into his beer, I just wanted to cheer him up.

    July 8, 2010 at 12:47 p.m.

  • Conservative speak= death tax instead of estate tax.

    The Estate tax has never been a concern of middle class taxpayers because it only applies to the wealthiest 2%.... Of those wealthiest 2%, many have bypass trust to get around this. They would love not paying the attorneys' fees for setting up the trust. The death tax is a term coined by the anti-tax groups in order to mislead. This tax is usually paid by the survivors after a generous exemption and deduction amounts.
    according to the tax rates:

    Exclusion
    Amount rate
    2009 $3.5 million 45%
    2010 * Repealed * 0% *
    2011 $1 million 55%

    I've always wondered why someone making $80,000-$1000,000 or below would even worry about this insignificant tax to the wealtist 2% of taxpayers but it is my opinion. the talk show hosts they are listening to, has enticed them to do their bidding.

    That's $55 billion of tax revenue that we would have to take away from the middle class tax , in order to satisfy the 2%.....

    Now that's ludicrous.

    July 8, 2010 at 10:44 a.m.

  • John

    Aha,it becomes the old battle of semantics.... You call it subsidizing poverty; I call it a safety net. You go after the poor; I go after defense spending.

    I will continue with the old tried and true theory of diversification especially in these times of ups and downs.... I will continue to believe there is no truth certain to financial theories, or else everyone would be using that theory.... Why wouldn't they?

    I do agree on a local front, many people are saying the same thing that you used to say about reviving Victoria's economy but I don't know if that's to your credit or that it's an accepted concept that's been out there for years.

    July 8, 2010 at 9:56 a.m.

  • No tax is truly progressive and I understand how it is used in general context; but I never like the idea of subsidizing poverty, it’s weak and encourages weakness. At the risk of sounding Republican, subsidizing poverty under the auspicious presumptions of helping those less fortunate that happen to vote Democratic, is insulting. When you have a system that does nothing to eliminate generations of poverty, you have an oppressive system.

    Generation after generation have lived in poverty under this “progressive tax system”, to no avail. The small numbers that manage to rise above the rest are touted as being examples of it’s success, despite being the exception to the rule.

    If your worried about trade ceasing, then don’t, it’s a ridiculous notion. All modern countries know, international trade is crucial to avoiding a world war, so it’s highly unlikely that it will change completely.

    We supply the world with food and high technology, these are essentials to modern societies, which have no desire to digress. Europe has and is continuing to take action to balance their budgets, as soon as Israel comes to some self-understanding the Arab states are willing to work with them, natural resources for new technologies like lithium are in countries that can work with us, and China cares more about economic dominance than military conflict.

    We have all the leverage, period.

    All our present problems stem from one thing, the finance markets. Everyone should just pull all their money out of the finance markets and into real estate. This will have multiple effects, increase the price of their property because of rapid investment, reduce risk by speculators, stimulate construction of new homes, and create real tangible wealth from presumptive wealth.

    Most people don’t want to do this right now, they want to keep doing the stupid thing and then complain about it, idiots!

    As far as my NST idea is concern, it should be very obvious as to how it works. I’m not inclined to produce statistical analysis on how it would work, because I like people thinking for themselves, without me prejudicing their opinions. This idea is so important, second only to deficit reduction, that it deserves and should receive all scrutiny independent of bias opinion.

    Thanks for your interest, and have a nice day.

    Was that “LoL” at me rollinstone?

    Interesting, if Mike remembers he could tell you that many of my novelty ideas have become reality; if not in the U.S., then in other countries. I love the internet.

    July 8, 2010 at 9:05 a.m.

  • Rollinstone.

    I look up the meaning of Marxist and what you are saying doesn’t match. DO NOT FEED ME COW POOP AND WANT ME TO CALL IT SUGAR.!!!!!!!! GO BACK, LOOK IT UP AND GIVE ME A HONEST Definition !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    July 7, 2010 at 1:57 p.m.

  • Hello John

    To summarize your idea, you want to replace our progressive tax system with a national sales tax but you never mentioned expenditures, budgets, energy policies, trade imbalances and plans for growth.

    We have a dilemma because we are in a world financial crisis, so we don't really know how long other countries will be able to afford our exports... For the first four months our exports are up to $148.8 billion that's a 17% increase over last year but unless our trading partners fix their economies we will start to suffer. If the companies won't hire, consumers won't spend, and our exports start decreasing, it won't matter what type of tax system we have.

    We also have to do something about our hyper- partisan congress if we want to take on a huge undertaking like a national sales tax. Right now, Congress can't even agree on the time to take a coffee break.

    Speaking of novel ideas, I heard one this morning by Barney Frank.... He suggests that we start pulling out of places like Okinawa and South Korea and protect them by sea and air, but we start charging them for the protection. We do need a presence there but is not likely that our 28,000 troops in South Korea will do much good against North Korea's one million man force but our submarines and an Air Force would still be a deterrent, the same for Taiwan.....

    I guess we're in agreement in that we need a reset but I'm probably not as optimistic as you are, that we will ever get one.

    July 7, 2010 at 1:25 p.m.

  • LOL!

    July 7, 2010 at 12:29 p.m.

  • Thanks for your feedback mike. Companies can hoard cash all they want, it will not last. Savvy investors know, that it is a bad long-term fiscal policy; as long as government keeps authorizing more money. Eventually, companies will begin to hire more.

    Under the “old system”, capitalist saw themselves as independent entities in an open market. Because of their size and importance to localities and regions, this is simply unsustainable.

    My proposal is simple, government should be reduced to security, protection, standards and regulation, and intellectual development. Once we have completely come out of this recession, keeping to a surplus budget, then we can add additional expenditures.

    All taxes, with the exception of a national sales tax, should be eliminated.

    All imports should be taxed the loss of national sales tax. Basically, if a product would have been made here, then (X) amount of sales tax revenue would have been collected from American workers. This money could then be used to create or promote jobs, through small business loans, that will not be outsourced and provide higher incomes.

    If Americans have more money they will spend more, which translates to higher (NST) revenue, common sense.

    Consider this, we import more than we export; how much money would be generated if we just taxed all imports (5%)? Obviously other countries would do the same on our exports, but is not most of our imports in agriculture and high technologies, both are essential to the development of other countries. We might buy less imports, but they most definitely will continue buying our exports.

    If you ask me, working with other countries to institute (NST’s) on imports, is the way to go. Every country will make more money but we will make the most, and it will pave the way to internally instituting the (NST). This is the least evasive and quickest way to end this world wide recession, along with deficit reduction.

    July 7, 2010 at 12:14 p.m.

  • Misinformation:"You were the one that brought up the topic of the stimulus package and how wonderful it was"....Answer: I never said the stimulus was that great.... The fact that 700,000 jobs were lost prior to the stimulus and we now have a net gain is a certified fact but nothing to brag about.

    I posted:"That's water under the bridge since most of the stimulus money has now been spent and we will see the coming months just how well it did.... That's questioning the outcome and providing what the opposition proposed.

    It is my opinion that you follow a" either you with me are against me" philosophy, so you can't tell a difference between "wonderful" and a wait and see for the final analysis, answer.

    Misinformation:everything you learned from your Democratic workshops...Answer:. I have never attended any democratic workshops.

    That is just from one post..... As I'm fond of saying, I'm usually pretty tolerant and will ignore the rants but every now and then I have to show that I am not a shrinking violet or a pin cushion.

    You don't want to see Chris Matthews mentioned, you have options available to you, that's what I do. I will continue to quote Chris Matthews, MSNBC, and all the bogeymen you're not fond of.

    I don't know which are talking about because sometimes I don't read all your cut and paste(Or posts) but the stimulus package has always been an part of the blog.

    Don't bother responding because I'm pretty tired of this childish back and forth that we have.. We will never agree on anything, and I'm not going to be a part of childish bickering. I will admit my role but I will not continue. It's not fair to the readers and I don't want to post anything I will be deleted for.... I would rather quit the forum because it's just not that important.

    July 7, 2010 at 11:57 a.m.

  • Name calling yes, hyperbole sure, but misinformation where, when? And yes occasionally I do cut and paste it's mainly because you keep yelling about sources, where's my sources???

    And the name calling, come on Mike you are the one that usually resorts to that tactic first - usually when you find yourself out of ammo. That's when you start belittling, smearing, everything you learned from your Democratic workshops and watching that jackass Chris Matthews.

    And finally what I wrote about on this blog was according to your rules - exactly on topic. You were the one that brought up the topic of the stimulus package and how wonderful it was. Believe me that is nothing new - YAWN.

    And BigJ a Marxist is as a Marxist does and in this case as a Marxist proclaims himself to be at least in his recent past. Marxist also like to associate with other Marxists - so if calling a Marxist a Marxist is name calling so be it.

    July 7, 2010 at 11:07 a.m.

  • Don't fret young Writein....You see, name calling, hyperbole, misinformation, cut and paste, are all prerequisites for enrolling in the brand new Glenn Beck university.... :-)

    You are right,it is a yawn.

    July 7, 2010 at 9:54 a.m.

  • Rollinstone.

    YAWN. You need to say something new. Tell me what is a Marxist?

    July 7, 2010 at 12:06 a.m.

  • "I agree legion357 but I was mocked the other day for making that same point." I think you are referring to me.

    But I agree with you we do need to lower the trade deficit and currency revaluation is a start. I think at one time the Yuan was tied to the dollar until the Chinese figured out we were exporting our inflation to them.

    Now we are in a very weak position in any negotiation with the Chinese because we need them to finance our debt. They have been doing this because they have excess dollars and they need to get rid of them.

    This has had the perverse effect of expanding our federal government by providing cheap low interest money for our government to spend - I recall someone saying "deficits don't matter" I think it was Obama.

    Now we are negotiating a free trade agreement with the S. Koreans and from what I've read we are being screwed again. This is our own government doing this to us?????

    July 6, 2010 at 7:42 p.m.

  • "I honestly think if we start instituting Hoover like fiscal policies; we will head into a deep depression. The fed is already at 0%."

    During 1929 and 1932 federal spending increased by 50% the largest peace time increase ever recorded. Hoover also increased taxes during this period. These were the same policies that FDR continued with after he became president. However FDR went even further nearly destroying our economy with excessive regulations and taxes on businesses and corporations.

    Hoover however did one other thing he signed into law the Smoot Hawley Tariff that collapsed world trade. Prior to this Hoover and the fed practiced a policy of easy money and credit that created a stock market bubble, a bubble that was heavily levered.

    Sound familar yet? The final straw was the fed reducing the money supply. By 1932 unemployment stood at 25%. When FDR became president his policies resulted in a double dip recession that extended the depression for 10 years.

    Now tell me again Mike how the "free market" has screwed things up now and in the past - oh wait now we have Obama, a Marxist, as president things will be different, right?

    July 6, 2010 at 6:40 p.m.

  • I agree legion357 but I was mocked the other day for making that same point.

    That's another thing that we need to do .... Fix our trade imbalance... Have you ever looked at our trading deficit?

    I believe China will overtake us in manufacturing some time next year but they still have a lot of poverty, that will keep them in check for several years.

    July 6, 2010 at 6:18 p.m.

  • A link concerning my previous comment

    http://www.mb.com.ph/node/264332

    July 6, 2010 at 6:15 p.m.

  • And China does all that by setting a arbitrary value to their currency. I am not sure but I think it is the only nation that practices that policy. Yes at the recent economic meetings it was suggest the Chinese tie their currency to.......something. But why would they now?
    Their exports deliver more income than they should , and their imports are priced artificially high. It amount to Chinese trade restriction on imports without actually calling them trade restrictions.

    July 6, 2010 at 6:03 p.m.

  • BSspotter

    If we didn't have the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank; who would buy our exports? We have a strong consumer base that is not spending.... The strong dollar will entice investors but you have to have a strong consumer base at home because the third world countries would not be able to afford our goods. China bypasses all this by building roads, hospitals,schools and repairs the infrastructure in return for that country's mineral rights.

    I am curious, using the tools we have now because we cannot possibly get rid of the fed, bring back all the troops at once and get out of my current commitments, what is your solution to restoring this economy?

    July 6, 2010 at 5:35 p.m.

  • Mike said: "You remind me so much of Ron Paul because you start out by getting my attention with common sense principles but then you go into liberties, authoritarianism, and other theories that are out in left field."

    In that sense, you remind me so much of the average American who can't/won't perceive & extrapolate incrementalism. There's nothing "left field" about our national sovereignty being tied to the viability of the dollar, especially with the ever-increasing power of super-national financial entities like the IMF and World Bank. The notion of America needing to fall back on a regional or global currency is not new.

    July 6, 2010 at 5:23 p.m.

  • BSspotter, you remind me so much of Ron Paul because you start out by getting my attention with common sense principles but then you go into liberties, authoritarianism, and other theories that are out in left field...IMO

    I do not have a fear of losing my liberties, our sovereignty or our form of government despite what political party is in charge. I agree, corporatism per say, is alive and well and the recent supreme court ruling will cement that. As I said before, it is a blessing in disguise, that Wall Street will no longer support democratic candidates. That's a start I'm talking about.

    I do not fault anyone for not liking Keynesian policies and as I said in my blog several European countries are abandoning that philosophy for now. Right now, we need cannot compare our economic situation with theirs because they were a ticking time bomb.... I honestly think if we start instituting Hoover like fiscal policies; we will head into a deep depression. The fed is already at 0%

    July 6, 2010 at 5:22 p.m.

  • BSspotter

    I remember now, the legislation never had a chance to pass because the president would not have signed a bill to "audit the fed" and they were not enough votes to overturn a veto.

    I think the president wanted to safeguard the secret's held by the fed , in our national interest.

    July 6, 2010 at 5:10 p.m.

  • BSspotter

    Get in back of of the frustration line because I've seen one republican senator keep nominees from getting up and down vote and important legislation getting to committee...... Just one senator can have that much power.... I guess that's democracy and minority party rights.

    As far as Ron Paul bill, it is my understanding that the fed chairman made alternative concessions and most of the cosponsors were satisfied.... I may be wrong but I don't believe that to be the case.

    If I've misunderstood or took your words out a context, I apologize because that was not my intent.

    July 6, 2010 at 5:05 p.m.

  • Mike,

    I never said the 'Audit The Fed' bill was a "sure thing". I said having a 70%+ co-sponsorship should merit a vote on the floor. Instead, they used political tactics to wick the life out of it. I can't believe you're boasting over such crap. And by means does the defeat make it right, as we've seen by everything else coming out of that turd factory for decades.

    On 7/17/09, I said:
    "He has 270 co-sponsors, 218 being a majority. But it will surely get butchered or watered down by Barney Frank in committee, despite the overwhelming support."

    On 11/26/09, I said:
    "This fiasco has been frustrating to watch. A bill with a 70% super-majority co-sponsorship being held up in committee is a blatant usurpation of representation. Whether you agree with this bill or not, EVERYONE should demand this bill go to the floor for a vote."

    On 1/28/10, I said:
    "If the Democrats want credibility, they should start with being Democratic by letting Ron Paul's Audit The Fed Bill onto the floor for a vote. After all, it has a 73% (317/435) super-majority co-sponsorship. And Mike, if you want any cred, you'd support this since you put so much stock in elections that put those Representatives in those positions. 317 Reps support Paul's Bill, yet political games are being played to stifle the majority (result of elections)."

    July 6, 2010 at 4:57 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    July 6, 2010 at 4:55 p.m.

  • Mike,

    The fact that governments can't successfully plan economies was proven well before Ron Paul ever picked up an economics book.

    And I have absolutely no idea how things would turn out if we ceased economic planning and established a commodity-backed currency, but I know we'd have a better shot at preserving our sovereignty, restoring liberties, and would have less cause to worry about the authoritarianism and imperialism that Keynesian principles have funded. That alone would be a good trade-off. The bonus would be the atrophy of corporatism. The symbiosis of Big Government and Big Business has worn out its welcome.

    July 6, 2010 at 4:40 p.m.

  • BSspotter said

    "No one does, but it hasn't stopped them from centrally planning our economy"... Another call for eliminating the Federal Reserve System? What ever happened to that" audit the Fed" legislation by Ron Paul.... Didn't you say it was a sure thing because Mr. Paul had over 300 sponsors.... I think l told you not to count your chickens before they hatch.

    July 6, 2010 at 4:37 p.m.

  • John

    I'm not ashamed to say that I can't possibly process everything you wrote, you might have some good ideas but we can't even make small decisions, much less a complete overhaul. I have been saying for some time that we need a complete reset because the economic model were using probably predates back to the 1960s...... Companies will try to get more out of employees by paying overtime and increasing workloads before they start hiring., Our economic forecasters need to know that.

    As I mentioned, companies are now hoarding cash, to entice investors, continue paying their executive bonuses, and paying larger dividends, instead of hiring. This is been since 2002.....

    The free market fundamentalist want us to believe that if we were to lower corporate tax rates and cut back regulations(BP,Wall Street) all would be fine because the market would take care of itself.... We should all know, that is a blatant lie.

    July 6, 2010 at 4:30 p.m.

  • OK Mike, thanks for getting everyone's mind right on economic theory. I will try to sum up all your arguments because it's pretty complicated and lots of people won't be able to fully grasp the more than subtle points.

    In short you are saying you are right and everyone else, including many leading economists are wrong - did I miss anything, I went over that pretty fast?

    July 6, 2010 at 4:26 p.m.

  • arlewill

    I've tried to to give an honest analysis of the mistakes we made and the political parties solutions for our immediate future.... We are always gonna have disagreements but in this political environment we're in, I think the only solution is a compromise.... As always, people will disagree.

    Have a good one.

    July 6, 2010 at 4:18 p.m.

  • BSspotter

    Despite what you think, you don't hold a truth certain economic policy that will sustains jobs. You hold a dream, you hold a philosophy, that you hope will create what you call a " free market boom.".... I know I can not get through a " free market fundamentalist" mindset, you made your intellectual point, and but I've heard the Ron Paul free market ideas ad nauseam.

    July 6, 2010 at 4:12 p.m.

  • Mike said: "Do you understand the uncertainty, the positive signs, and generally what is happening?"

    No one does, but it hasn't stopped them from centrally planning our economy.

    July 6, 2010 at 4:06 p.m.

  • Mike says: "I am now convinced we are a hybrid nation because we're not totally Kensayian or laissez-faire, not conservative or liberal but a little bit of everything, which makes the argument an ongoing process."

    The only "ongoing process" is the suffocation of the free market with intellectually-flawed & historically-detrimental Keynesian "principles." A free market* can't exist under the omnipresent, artificial, arbitrary forces of our Keynesian monetary policy and shortsighted tinkering, much like your idea to offer narrow tax incentives to companies to hire new employees with little regard for the sustainability of those jobs. It's this kind of A-to-B "thinking" that creates pre-bust booms. More Keynesian solutions to former Keynesian solutions.

    *Being "free" to operate in the "market" doesn't make it a free market

    July 6, 2010 at 4:01 p.m.

  • Mike
    My compliments on a good blog. You and I have more in common than I previously thought.

    July 6, 2010 at 4:01 p.m.

  • “Austerity methods or another stimulus”, are not the right questions.

    I’ve had a few conversations over this archaic methodology, my position is “Good leaders are not focused on the right answers but the right questions”. If you ask the right questions, then your methodology is based on real and pragmatic understanding of the situation. Most solutions in life, can be found in the problem, so if you ask the right question your half way there.

    Gentlemen and Ladies, the right question is what are we doing? Are we repairing, modifying, or creating a new economy from scratch, for starters.

    It’s my assessment, that we need and are in the transition of creating a new economy, completely new.

    “Irresponsible Non-Debt Resistant Government Subsidies”, is not needed, nor beneficial in the long run to create an American economy that will lead us, not only out of the Recession but into a new golden age. Concerning ourselves solely with getting out of the Recession, negates the critical thinking needed, to ensure that we will stay out.

    We need to eliminate all federal, state, and local taxes and create a national sales tax partitioned for Federal, state and local governments. This should be done in a phases and modified for imports.

    All government services should be cut or shrunk to meet the new paradigm. A national identification card should be created for each citizen and required for all purchases. This card should be able to be scanned by an Android or I-phone, and a special device should be created for those without. To ensure all taxes are being paid. If someone bank account does not match their income, we know something is wrong.

    This reduces accounting and administrative cost, streamlines taxes, reduces the burden on citizens, and forces government to only take legislative action that will increase our economy.

    Not to mention, make it damn difficult on illegal alien employers, lol!

    A small one time fee could be deducted from current taxes, along with government cut in spending, could be used to pay for the cards and get it started.

    Imagine how many bureaucracies would either be eliminated or shrunk?

    Imagine how many fewer officers will be needed to deal with tax evaders and illegal immigrants.

    Maybe this is not what you want to hear, but I’m talking about creating wealth from existing resources and solving a number of problems at the same time. I’m a multitasked, it’s in my nature to do more than one thing at the same time; that includes dealing with problems.

    July 6, 2010 at 4 p.m.

  • I understand the economic uncertainty but you do your level best to be an apologist for big business because you do not acknowledge the findings of JPMorgan.... You won't even consider that their current philosophy is keeping them from hiring..... When the final chapter is written, I won't hesitate at all, to say the Obama the administration's fiscal policies were wrong , if they are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't get any royalties from the Keyensian policy people. If Obama's economic policies fail then he and his party will be voted out office.... I'm consistent, I have been saying this since early February of 2009.

    I did not hear a peep when the $7.0 trillion and Medicare part D was passed without being paid for, not to mention two wars.... I guess corporations don't feel the economic uncertainty under a republican administration. I would continue to say we cannot leave energy policies, Health Care, infrastructure repair to the GOP because they will always ignore it in favor of tax incentives to big business. I'm glad Wall Street will no longer support democratic candidates.

    July 6, 2010 at 3:12 p.m.

  • Anyone can cut and paste but do you understand the message? Do you understand the uncertainty, the positive signs, and generally what is happening?

    It's not about what Joe Biden or president Obama said and Jeffrey Sachs Has been saying for over year that it was not large enough and would fail... Nothing new but it takes more than a cut and paste to know that.

    Your cut and paste does not tell me any more than I could learn by going to a negative right wing blog... I know their views but they are in no position to make legislation,so we will never implement their ideas,,It's a moot point.

    July 6, 2010 at 2:58 p.m.

  • Mike here's some more of that right wing blather you are so fond of. It's just all over the internet about how the stimulus spending is just a bunch of crap - sorry the people that write this stuff can't get their minds right.

    Morning Bell: Why Obama’s Stimulus Failed
    Posted June 7th, 2010

    Last Friday’s Department of Labor jobs report, which showed private sector job creation fell by 190,000 between April and May of this year, jolted markets worldwide including the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which fell 3.2% Friday to its lowest level since early February. In total the U.S. economy has now lost a net of 2.2 million jobs since President Barack Obama signed his stimulus bill, and his administration is now 7.2 million jobs short of what he promised his $862 billion stimulus would help create by 2010. This morning on MSNBC, former Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL) pressed prominent Keynesian economist Jeffrey Sachs on whether it was too early to declare President Obama’s stimulus a failure. Scarborough had to ask the question twice, but Sachs finally relented: “It did fail.”

    Last week, Vice President Joe Biden told Charlie Rose on PBS that the stimulus was “an absolute success.” Betraying a common perception about unemployment, Biden told Rose: “[W]e lost 8 million brand new jobs since we hit the skids.

    In fact, the American economy has shed 55.4 million jobs since the recession began in the First Quarter of 2008. But at the same time the economy has only added 46.5 million jobs. Putting the two together produces the net approximate 8 million jobs lost that Biden referenced.

    But isn’t net jobs all that really matters? Why should anyone care exactly how many jobs were lost and created since all that really matters is the net number of Americans who are no longer employed?

    Heritage Senior Labor Policy Analyst James Sherk estimates that lower job creation accounts for 65 percent of the recession’s decreased employment.

    Our nation’s unemployment rate is hovering near 10% not because of record job losses, as Biden suggests, but because of record job non-creation. Private sector employers have gone on strike. Contrary to what the President’s economic wizards and New York Times columnists believe, massive government deficit spending does not stimulate job creation.

    The resources the government spends come from the economy. When the government increases spending, it crowds out the resources that business owners could have invested in their enterprises. Private investment falls sharply when government spending rises.

    And then there is the rest of the Obama agenda that has created, and is creating, significant economic uncertainty: Obamacare, EPA carbon regulations, financial regulations and impending tax hikes. Renouncing these policies, and canceling the rest of the stimulus, would do more to spur private sector job creation than anything this White House has done so far.

    July 6, 2010 at 2:44 p.m.

  • A typical right wing response emphasizing a lack of economic reasoning other than gloom and
    doom prognostications without offering any solutions,... This is the 21st century.

    On the first statement there were many reasons for that drop, the census takers were no longer employed, companies gave current employees overtime and a more permanent status instead of going out and hiring and many did give up. I don't think anyone's try to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.

    The government is not trying to create full employment and many economists say that a high unemployment rate will go on for another decade. I never mentioned creating larger entitlements, increase in payroll taxe,s those are all preconceived talking points of the right to continue a gloom and doom crusade.

    40% of our economy is in the service and financial industry because we know darn well we cannot compete worldwide with countries that are four times larger and pay a 10th of our wages, unless you are advocating cutting everyone's wages to suit the big corporations. Now if the innovators, comes up with a unique product that the world is craving for, that's different.

    You can continue with the talking points of old but now the JPMorgan study contradicts the old supply side economics about cutting corporate rates being the only way to go.. If we cut the corporate rates, we will never have that a guarantee that the jobs won't go overseas and everyone can see that. It's been proven time and time again.... If only the right wing had as much compassion for the poor and middle class, as they do for big business. If they would only cut back just a little bit of their hate for the government and apply just a little bit of it to Wall Street; just perhaps they would allow them self to compromise for the common good, and come up with some good legislation for reform,as the Victoria advocate editorial staff recommended.

    July 6, 2010 at 1:59 p.m.

  • First off there was a drop in unemployment from 9.7 percent to 9.5 this was caused by a big drop in the number of people seeking employment, they just gave up - but this drop was credited to the stimulus?

    There is little doubt that the government could create full employment, we did it in WWII, communists states all over the world do it. The downside is it destroys the standard of living, creates shortages and eventually destroys the currency. This happens every time without exception - so yeah, let's try it one more time WTH.

    While we are at it let's create bigger entitlement programs, increase payroll taxes and other taxes on businesses and employment. Let's give people more government handouts to spend on products made in China, because our manufacturing sure the hell won't be expanding - yeah Mike, you just keep thinking, you're really good at it.

    July 6, 2010 at 12:56 p.m.