Nov 15, 2012 at 15:13:15
“I lived in Europe and I won't say the standard of living is so high for everyone. Taxes are significantly higher and it's much harder to start a business. College grads take longer to get jobs because degrees are watered down by oversupply. Companies are slow to hire because it's so hard to ever lay off or fire an employee. Grads are interns with little pay for extended periods. In the cities, people live at home longer because they can't afford their own housing. Opportunities for often nonexistant for those of different color or national origin. The frequent riots on the outskirts of Paris (involving many people from former colonies) and the treatment of Turks in Germany speak to that.
Greece, Italy and Spain are not the only places with debt problems. Debt as a percentage of GDP for France is close to that of the US. Germany isn't that far behind. Their systems are ultimately unsustainable.
I understand the anti-austerity riots and I believe we'll see similar here once Social Security and Medicare implode. The rioters have been lied to by politicians who promised things they couldn't pay for. It's the same here in broad terms, with legislators buying reelection and kicking the cost can down the road for other generations to worry about. FDR is a classic example. Politicians on both sides of the aisle do it now and it's all enabled by the Federal Reserve printing press.”
don16006 on Nov 15, 2012 at 17:25:47
“Nothing is perfect. But I do miss Greenham Common. I think that America has lost it's way and money is God here now. I am almost ashamed that I think England was a better home to me than my own nation.”
Nov 14, 2012 at 11:06:03
“What makes you think the other countries can afford it? In case you haven't heard, most of Europe is in serious debt trouble from dabbling in cradle to grave car funded by taxpayers and the resultant higher tax rates which have not brought in enough revenue to pay for these services. Why anyone wants to follow them off a cliff, I don't understand.
Single payer is not the only answer here. Separating emplyment and health insurance can also work. Health care was not so expensive before the federal government gave tax breaks to companies for offering health insurance, which was an alternative way to attract employees when wage controls were in effect around WWII. Those tax breaks gave birth to major insurnace companies and higher costs, as the end users were separated from the purchase of the services. See cosmetic surgery and lasik to see how health care prices can down when the free market is allowed to work.”
drini on Nov 14, 2012 at 15:19:19
“Greece and Spain are in trouble based on the GOP idea of "austerity", tax cuts to the rich while eliminating middle class jobs.......2 of the WORST ideas ever.
Money HAS to be in circulation just like your heart has to pump blood....otherwise you flatline. Greece and Spain are about to flatline.”
don16006 on Nov 14, 2012 at 11:29:33
“No. The EU debt is nothing compared to ours. You have swallowed the Republican line; hook, bait and sinker. Their standard of living is higher. Their life expectancy is higher. Their education levels are higher. The average income of their middle class is higher. Spain and Greece have debt and economic problems, but he overall health of the EU will insure that they can recover. Our economic problems are rooted in the fact that half of our citizens are ill informed, know little of economics, and think socialized democracy is the same thing as a communist dictatorship.”
“All of those positions are classically libertarian and I'm pleased to see reporting on this. I wish more people would step outside the box and consider these traditionally 'third party' views instead of voting along party lines.”
“Have a look at Zimbabwe when you have a second - you'll see that there are limits to printing money.”
Grisha Graborenko on Jul 27, 2010 at 19:38:29
“Sure there are limits - and those limits get a whole lot lower if you totally ravage the productive capacity of the economy by redistributing farmland to people who don't know how to grow crops. It's what economists call a supply shock - same as in Weimar republic, when the Rhineland went on strike but kept getting paid.
Constant demand when supply collapses will generate hyperinflation. Can you point to which major industry in the US is currently unable to respond to increased demand by, for example, hiring more workers?”
“Hoover? Really? Hoover basically set in motion the policies that FDR later expanded. Note that FDR ran against Hoover stating that Hoover was taxing and spending too much and leading the world closer to socialism. Of course, FDR took these concepts to the extreme, but we all know candidate and President always act remarkably differently (quite evident with both Bush and Obama).
Personally, I'd like to see Warren Harding's vision implemented again. Had we followed his lead (from 1920-1921), we might just be out of this mess now. Unfortunately, though, it may not be that simple, as we've had nearly 100 years of the Fed to screw up the economy.”
“Finally, a good post here! That "two-party" system is really the problem. Look at Obama the president vs. Obama the candidate. The candidate was anti big business, but what did the health care bill do? Guarantee people have to buy health insurance from the existing insurance companies! Also, the financial "reform" puts more power with the Fed, which was set up by the big banks decades ago and tends to be run by someone or another from one of them.
The point is that the two major political parties are corrupt to their cores. Not all members of them are; but the higher people get in either party, the more likely they have to tow the party line. This is because they "owe" the mainstream political system their election.
I'd love to be proved wrong here, but I personally don't think "we the people" enter into the minds of the people running the two major parties except as potential votes to keep them in power (and maybe potential donors).
We need wholesale change in Washington this November and it doesn't mean swinging back to Republicans. The Republicans, who I once supported to a great degree, had six years with the White House and Congress and failed to control the deficit through expanding our unnecessary global empire, etc. Democrats have proven no more effective. Almost all of Congress needs to be sent home...”
“We seem to be making the same mistakes and following an FDR-esque path now. That's a path paved by the Fed via continuation of 'cheap money' policy and also by the promise of public jobs, which are not sustainable. As with the depression, that path - which consists largely of continuing behaviors that got us into trouble to begin with - leads to a longer decline and a postponement of the recovery.”
olephart on Jul 27, 2010 at 17:38:22
“That's why we did so badly between 1945 and 1980.”
“I think you have things about right, but I don't understand why you think stimulus will work the third time around when it did nothing positive the first two times. Three years in a row starts to sound just like another annual handout to buy votes down the road. Further, given the salary caps, it's just more redistribution of wealth away from those who hire people and invest in our economy the most.”
“I agree on main street and don't support war spending. Main street is correct, but it needs to be private spending. Neither public spending during the depression or during the war ended the depression. Public spending extended the depression, and it's a faction of the the real FDR deniers (those who deny his mistakes and war-mongering) who want to drag us in the same direction now. Again, take a look at the 'depression' of 1920.”
research on Jun 28, 2010 at 11:33:23
“Private money is all gone. Banker gamblers have it all. just like before the depression. how are you going to MAKE them invest it?
Conservative need to discredit FDR so they finish destroying the republic, and replace it with the plutocracy.
that's what's going on. FDR was correct, nations that did not invest suffered far more.”
“If we back into the incomes that would have generated your $1K and $1M tax bills at 15% and 39% rates, then apply your $333 and $118,000, we find that the $1K-taxed household keeps an additional 5.0% of their income, while the $1M-taxed household keeps an additional 4.6%.
The lower-income household keeps a greater percentage of its hard-earned money due to the tax cut. Therefore, the cut is biased to the lower-income household.”
“Also, it's interesting that Reich continues the liberal lie about the 2001 tax cuts. The lowest tax rate went from 15% to 10%, which is a 33.3% decrease. The highest went from 39.6% to 35%, which is an 11.8% decrease. Yes, there is more money at the top end, but the rate changes were, on a percentage basis, biased toward the low end.”
jim51fla on Jun 23, 2010 at 11:47:02
“Duh! Thats the neo-con's big fake out! It's about the money. Do the math: 33.3% of $1000 saves $333. 11.8% of $1 million saves $118,000.”
“Reich correctly blames Greenspan policy for much of the current slump, but his suggestions will make things worse in the long run. Creating more money out of thin air to produce more temporary jobs and divert more resources from the private sector to public will not help. The economy needs some healthy retraction, and the false promise of government spending will not help. FDR's mad printing of money likely made the depression much longer, rather than ending it. Look at the recession of 1920-1921 for an example of how quickly things stabilize when government essentially stays out. Reich is clearly an education man with experience, but, in many ways, is economically illiterate to this day, at least when it comes to long-term thinking.”
research on Jun 24, 2010 at 15:11:54
“Enough with the FDR bashing. He saved the country, the counties that did not do as he did, suffered much more.
Besides which, his infrastructure spending was small compared to the WWII spending, which even you FDR deniers agree ended the depression, on debt.
“The sarcasm is greatly appreciated, as far as I'm concerned. You did, however, incorrectly indicate that we have a two-party system. It is effectively a one-party system of Progressives with minute differences between the "two parties".”
Roy in Canada on Jun 23, 2010 at 06:46:38
“Exactly...Politically, there is very little difference between the two parties...And I despise the term "progressive"...That is a term used by the loony left to make socialism sound like blue skies, peace and happiness, and the sounds of children laughing...It`s a fraudulent term...When the Soviet Union came apart, hard core communists suddenly became "Social" Democrats...At it`s core, Progressive`s are still about, "from each according their ability, to each according their need"...”
CulpeperMin on Jun 22, 2010 at 22:13:57
“I would use "collectivist" in place of "progressive" but semantics aside, wholeheartedly agreed.”
“The author is obviously some combination of lazy and partisan, in that the article reveals a lack of understanding of the differences between Rand Paul and traditional Republicans. Instantly, she forgets that the party tried to keep Rand out. Oh well, I guess it makes for good comedy and at least the author did not include any idiotic assertions that Rand Paul (and all libertarian leaning people) is a racist.
That being said, I think it is also dangerous when we assume someone with libertarian leanings goes far enough. A few things about Rand concern me, as a libertarian.
First, I have read that he is indeed against gay and lesbian marriages. Unfortunately, I haven't found a direct quote on that and that issue is not listed on his web site. I feel that banning any marriage between two willing adults is a government intrusion and that people should be free to make their own choices.
Second, he has specifically stated that he is for a Federal ban on abortion. I disagree for the same reason on this issue. This should be up to individuals, as there is no specific constitutional position on the beginning of life.”
cowpunkrva on May 26, 2010 at 07:36:44
“Rand Paul kind of stays away from the whole marriage thing. I suspect that he won't go for any national law on the issue either way.”
“Really, you mean this bill that furthers the current system and forces more people to buy insurance from the existing companies? That's comical.
The problem with primary health costs is that the end customers don't handle purchases directly. Look at optional/elective surgery, like lasik and cosmetic surgery if you want to see what happens to costs when the customers are directly involved. Note also that government brought us the health care system/machine we have today via tax incentives encouraging our buying insurance through our employers.
I'm completely against wiretaps, torture, our overseas empire, etc. I want both major parties kicked out of Washington. They are the problems, and don't offer any real solutions.”
Passenger57 on Mar 23, 2010 at 13:33:19
“Are you talking about the bill that isn't carved in the foreheads of the four Presidents on Mount Rushmore?
The bill that can be changed over time?
The bill that starts helping people today?
“It is indeed a big !#%^*$# deal when you tromp all over the Constitution and States' rights.”
amaboss52 on Mar 23, 2010 at 13:12:31
“Go back under your rock with the rest of the reichwing.”
PixelMarxist on Mar 23, 2010 at 13:11:08
“How have State's rights been trampled? Isn't it the states that are always begging the Federal government for money?”
Olyroller on Mar 23, 2010 at 13:10:11
“Are you talking about wiretaps, email taps, and torture?”
bobnels on Mar 23, 2010 at 13:10:07
“Get over it, the constitution was written for the people of the U.S. And thats what this bill is written for too, the people. Not the corporations”
Mr-Mikey on Mar 23, 2010 at 13:09:53
“The 14th amendment called, it has some words for you...
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
And also in the Constitution, known as the Supremacy clause
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Do try and spin more, you're resembling a gator in a deathroll, only difference is it's your own credibility you're spinning to death.”
SansArc on Mar 23, 2010 at 13:09:17
“If so, it will be repealed and the Supreme Court will say so. But feel free to hold your breath.”
Hank007 on Mar 23, 2010 at 13:08:35
“Funny you didn't complain when your state started using your tax dollars to fund the socialist '911 Emergency' service.”
This article is further proof that neither the partisan Left nor the partisan Right understand libertarianism, Ron Paul or, for that matter, anyone who doesn't fall in line on one of the two predominant sides. This is no surprise - it's always easier to throw people into proverbial boxes and make assumptions, rather than work to understand them and, God forbid, learn something. The two-party system is, ultimately, the problem, and this is part of the proof.”