The incredible shrinking middle class.

[brett636]

If you are interested in the economy here is an interesting article. This makes it interesting to me to see what the fed does with interest rates at their next meeting. Will the housing credit crunch be enough for them to lower rates?

http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8872

and to compliment it

http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8795

All indications seem to point to yes, but I would have to disagree with the fed's decision to keep lowering rates. They need to atleast maintain them, if not raise them. When rates were low people who should not have been buying houses did so, and now its time for some economic cleansing forcing them back into the rental units they came from. Lowering rates only prolongs the situation, possibly causing another housing downturn in the future. The only real problem with what I suggest is the uncertain political future. If the democrats get the oval office and maintain the congress they are going to use the government as daddy warbucks using my tax dollars to pay for people's bad decisions. Some people need to learn what personal responsibiliy really is.

 

[av8torntn]

Here is an article for you doom and gloom people who are afraid that all good jobs are leaving the US>

From the article.

Sectors affected by the housing and credit crisis suffered job losses. The construction industry continued to shed jobs as it completed its second year of declining activity. Construction lost 49,000 jobs in December and a total of 236,000 jobs since the housing decline began in September 2006. Jobs focused on credit markets declined by 7,000 as banks struggle to deal with bad loans and few lending options. The writers' strike contributed to the loss of 15,000 jobs in the motion picture and broadcasting industry.
Despite these losses, other important sectors of the economy continued to add jobs last month. Mining added 5,000 jobs; leisure and hospitality added 22,000 jobs; professional and business services added 43,000 jobs (33,000 of them in professional services like accounting and architecture); and education and health added 44,000 jobs. These latter two sectors pay above average wages; they are not "burger-flipping" jobs.


And their conclusion.


Policymakers should be careful not to overreact to this month's report. While it is not encouraging, it only provides a one-month snapshot of the economy. An overreaction could result in a more prolonged period of sluggishness or a downturn. Part of the economic slowdown is due to earlier decisions that lowered interest rates too low, which led to real estate speculation and the housing bubble. Policymakers should not repeat this mistake. Washington should focus only on policies, such as lower taxes and fewer regulations on business investment, that will enable long-term economic growth.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1766.cfm


They do make some interesting points.

Here is their take on manufacturing jobs.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1709.cfm

A key point from this article that i have not seen anyone on here make and if I missed it my apologies.

The explanation for these shifts is that productivity has been exploding in the United States and throughout the world. Technological change and innovation are making it possible to produce more output with less labor. In the U.S., that labor is shifting to jobs in the services sector and other parts of the economy.

 

[av8torntn]

All indications seem to point to yes, but I would have to disagree with the fed's decision to keep lowering rates. They need to atleast maintain them, if not raise them. When rates were low people who should not have been buying houses did so, and now its time for some economic cleansing forcing them back into the rental units they came from. Lowering rates only prolongs the situation, possibly causing another housing downturn in the future.

You have a little in common with Ron Paul don't you? I tend to agree with him on this issue also. I think they prolong the growth period for political gain which only makes the bust periods more severe.

 

[diesel96]

Damage? Are you even reading the case put forth in the articles I have posted? You should put down Karl Marx Manifesto and take a look around, your views are not supported by fact. I've shredded every point you have made and yet you still repeat them. Has it ever occurred to you that Limbaugh, Savage, and Hanity are so popular due to their sticking to the facts of the issues at hand instead of trying to shove baseless arguments down people's throats? I have a tough time buying leftist propaganda simply because its based on emotional conjecture instead of real facts. If you are so sure that I am wrong then please post something that has some credibility because you have none.[/quote


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Conservatives like Brett love to portray themselves as the people of truth, advocates of libertarian principles.... free enterprise, private property, limited government, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, our founding principles, and fundamental rights blah blah blah...[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]There is just one big problem, however: Conservatives do not practice what they preach. They instead live the life of the lie. Long ago, they threw in the towel in the fight for libertarian principles by embracing the government wasteful spending, devaluing the dollar, and the warfare state. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It wasn’t always that way. Conservatives once genuinely believed in a society based on economic liberty and adhearing to the constitution.. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Equally important, they also avoided nation-building, and involvement in foreign affairs. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]That is what it once meant to be an American. That is what it once meant to be free. That is the freedom that Americans once celebrated on the Fourth of July. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Not anymore. Today, freedom is defined by the grip that the warfare state have on the lives and fortunes of the American people. Admittingly both conservatives and liberals look to the federal government to be their daddy. We have assigned our federal daddy the task of taking care of our retirement, healthcare, education, employment, and business as well as protecting us from the terrorists, drug dealers, immigrants, communists, and other scary people. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In the process, we have created a federal monstrosity into existence, which can be debated one whose programs and powers do/do not limit/regulate the free-enterprise to set standards and protect it's citizens. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But while it’s true that liberals are as devoted to the welfare state but in a sense so are conservatives, there is one big difference: liberals and Democrats don’t make any pretense of being advocates of economic liberty and limited government. We are direct and straightforward defenders of the big-government welfare state and speakout on the warfare state. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Conservatives, on other hand, continue to portray themselves as advocates of libertarian principles. That’s what makes them people of the lie – people of hypocrisy – people who preach one thing and practice another. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Another popular conservative myth involves the importance of taking “personal responsibility” for one’s actions. Unfortunately, it is a slogan that conservatives, in their life of lie, apply only to others, never themselves. After all, have you heard even one conservative taking personal responsibility for the 50 percent decline in the value of the dollar over the past 5 years? Of course not. Oh, they’ll stand in favor of “fiscal responsibility” and a “sound dollar” during those presidential debate forums but, at the same time, endorse every program, project, department, and agency that produces the out-of-control federal spending that has brought about the plunge in the dollar. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Not only do you hate Democrats and Liberals, it wouldn't surprise anyone that Fox (Noise) News conservatives deeply resent the libertarians also and wish that we would simply go away. Thats why even the libertarians need to remind conservatives of what they have become – people of the lie. Shred on......[/FONT]
[/FONT]

 

[wkmac]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Conservatives like Brett love to portray themselves as the people of truth, advocates of libertarian principles.... free enterprise, private property, limited government, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, our founding principles, and fundamental rights blah blah blah...[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]There is just one big problem, however: Conservatives do not practice what they preach. They instead live the life of the lie. Long ago, they threw in the towel in the fight for libertarian principles by embracing the government wasteful spending, devaluing the dollar, and the warfare state. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It wasn’t always that way. Conservatives once genuinely believed in a society based on economic liberty and adhearing to the constitution.. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Equally important, they also avoided nation-building, and involvement in foreign affairs. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]That is what it once meant to be an American. That is what it once meant to be free. That is the freedom that Americans once celebrated on the Fourth of July. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Not anymore. Today, freedom is defined by the grip that the warfare state have on the lives and fortunes of the American people. Admittingly both conservatives and liberals look to the federal government to be their daddy. We have assigned our federal daddy the task of taking care of our retirement, healthcare, education, employment, and business as well as protecting us from the terrorists, drug dealers, immigrants, communists, and other scary people. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In the process, we have created a federal monstrosity into existence, which can be debated one whose programs and powers do/do not limit/regulate the free-enterprise to set standards and protect it's citizens. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But while it’s true that liberals are as devoted to the welfare state but in a sense so are conservatives, there is one big difference: liberals and Democrats don’t make any pretense of being advocates of economic liberty and limited government. We are direct and straightforward defenders of the big-government welfare state and speakout on the warfare state. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Conservatives, on other hand, continue to portray themselves as advocates of libertarian principles. That’s what makes them people of the lie – people of hypocrisy – people who preach one thing and practice another. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Another popular conservative myth involves the importance of taking “personal responsibility” for one’s actions. Unfortunately, it is a slogan that conservatives, in their life of lie, apply only to others, never themselves. After all, have you heard even one conservative taking personal responsibility for the 50 percent decline in the value of the dollar over the past 5 years? Of course not. Oh, they’ll stand in favor of “fiscal responsibility” and a “sound dollar” during those presidential debate forums but, at the same time, endorse every program, project, department, and agency that produces the out-of-control federal spending that has brought about the plunge in the dollar. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Not only do you hate Democrats and Liberals, it wouldn't surprise anyone that Fox (Noise) News conservatives deeply resent the libertarians also and wish that we would simply go away. Thats why even the libertarians need to remind conservatives of what they have become – people of the lie. Shred on......[/FONT]
[/FONT]

Very nicely said there Diesel man. Even though we vastly disagree on economics I respect your honesty about your belief in the welfare state. I can handle that but as you pointed out so correctly IMO, there are those who call themselves "conservative" and even portray themselves as Constitutionalist or as you said, libertarian, when in fact they are as much statist as you are. I think your heart is in the right place, history just tells me to trust no one (large central gov't that is, a local gov't is another matter) as in the end, even though a noble cause on your part, we'll both be the losers and they'll have all the gold!

It's ironic that I watched Newt Gingrich on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos this morning and one of the things Newt talked about was to make gov't work but he said something else that really caught my ear although I'm not surprised. He said the Reagan era is over and that we must reshape the republican party. Well that's been the MO probably since the late 1990's and has esculated since Bush took office as the party has shifted farther and farther from paleo-conservative, the conservatism of Goldwater and pre-White House Reagan and towards the Neo-Conservatism of Irving Kristol.

Now what made this morning's show even more an eye popper was this afternoon I was doing something and had the radio on and was flipping the dial when I ran across a Rush Limbaugh re-run from earlier this week. During the program Rush took a call from a Huckabee defender and Rush went on to say that what the Republican party needs is a return to Reaganest principles of small, limited gov't and reduce real spending of gov't. Rush, you and Newt need to talk because it's obvious you guys are not on the same page or are you? I happen to think they are because the focus of so-called conservatism is not about reducing the size and scope of gov't but rather making gov't work and be more efficent. Cost cutting via higher productivity not cutting gov't.

Neo-Conservatism is about accepting big gov't but making it work with percision efficency and the highest productivity. At least statist liberals if you will are at least honest and upfront about their intended course and direction but in the case of republican conservatives, I see them like alcoholics who are in total denial. Statist in denial if you will. Brett sez to put down that copy of the Communist Manifesto but Brett, why not pick it up yourself and read it and while you're at it also read Das Kapital as well. I think if you did, first off you'd have a better understanding of what communism really was and that the communism of the old soviet Union and China are not the communism of Marx and Engles. Secondly, once you've read the writings of Marx and Engles and began to look at the republican party platform and policy, you'd either have a "come to Jesus" experience or realize you really are an authoriterian statist after all and then go forth and do the will of God and God's work!

The God being the Super State!

 

[av8torntn]

Neo-Conservatism is about accepting big gov't but making it work with percision efficency and the highest productivity. At least statist liberals if you will are at least honest and upfront about their intended course and direction but in the case of republican conservatives, I see them like alcoholics who are in total denial. Statist in denial if you will. Brett sez to put down that copy of the Communist Manifesto but Brett, why not pick it up yourself and read it and while you're at it also read Das Kapital as well. I think if you did, first off you'd have a better understanding of what communism really was and that the communism of the old soviet Union and China are not the communism of Marx and Engles. Secondly, once you've read the writings of Marx and Engles and began to look at the republican party platform and policy, you'd either have a "come to Jesus" experience or realize you really are an authoriterian statist after all and then go forth and do the will of God and God's work!

The God being the Super State!

Ok here is communism.

• Abolition of Private Property.
• Heavy Progressive Income Tax.
• Abolition of Rights of Inheritance.
• Confiscation of Property Rights.
• Central Bank.
• Government Ownership of Communication and Transportation.
• Government Ownership of Factories and Agriculture.
• Government Control of Labor.
• Corporate Farms and Regional Planning.
• Government Control of Education.

And here is the RNC platform.

Winning the war on terror.
Ushering in an ownership era.
Building an innovative globally competitive economy.
Strengthening our communities.
Protecting our families.

To me they seem to contradict each other. Just for fun I went to the DNC website and looked up their platform. They had more things they wanted from Government. Who would have guessed? Here are the highlights.

Create jobs.
Improve health care.
Promote democracy.


That sounded much closer to communism to me.

 

[diesel96]

Wkmac, as always, another upfront imformative post, we all should prescribe to a more dogmatic demeanor that you display without crossing the line of incivility.

Anyhow back to topic.
An artcle written by
Paul Craig Roberts (Economist) was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. AKA "The father of Reagonomics"

https://web.archive.org/web/20110726230007/http://vdare.com/roberts/060820_jobs.htm
Although it's a year old, it's still a good barometer to todays economy.
:here's an excerpt from this link;

In the US today, government employs 7.7 million more people than does manufacturing. Little wonder we have an $800 billion annual trade deficit when the government sector is larger than the manufacturing sector.
American economists are yet to face up to the fact that offshoring high productivity, high value-added jobs that pay well and replacing them with waitresses and bartenders is a knife in the heart of the US economy. Charles W. McMillion of MBG Information Services reports that compensation is falling behind price rises and that the US economy has been kept afloat by consumers overspending their disposable incomes by drawing down their accumulated assets and going deeper into debt.

I also reccomend to read his bio in wikipedia: A very interesting point of view from someone who is a critic of both Democratic and Republican administrations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts

 

[av8torntn]

Merle Haggard is a big supporter of Hillary Clinton, which shouldn't be a shock since Merle Haggard has never really been a conservative. He is patriotic as hell, but that doesn't make him a conservative, reading his web page should and listening to him on radio backs this up.
I still don't know why I bother correcting people who are misguided about Merle Haggard or about politics.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com

http://www.merlehaggard.com/

 

[av8torntn]

Wkmac, as always, another upfront imformative post, we all should prescribe to a more dogmatic demeanor that you display without crossing the line of incivility.

Anyhow back to topic.
An artcle written by
Paul Craig Roberts (Economist) was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. AKA "The father of Reagonomics"

https://web.archive.org/web/20110726230007/http://vdare.com/roberts/060820_jobs.htm
Although it's a year old, it's still a good barometer to todays economy.
:here's an excerpt from this link;

In the US today, government employs 7.7 million more people than does manufacturing. Little wonder we have an $800 billion annual trade deficit when the government sector is larger than the manufacturing sector.
American economists are yet to face up to the fact that offshoring high productivity, high value-added jobs that pay well and replacing them with waitresses and bartenders is a knife in the heart of the US economy. Charles W. McMillion of MBG Information Services reports that compensation is falling behind price rises and that the US economy has been kept afloat by consumers overspending their disposable incomes by drawing down their accumulated assets and going deeper into debt.

I also reccomend to read his bio in wikipedia: A very interesting point of view from someone who is a critic of both Democratic and Republican administrations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts

OK let's get back on topic. An article with a little more common sense approach.

A key point from the article.


Median household income in the United States is 6 percent higher in real dollars than it was a decade ago at a comparable point in the previous business cycle. Middle-class households have been moving up the income ladder, not down.

The large majority of Americans, including the typical middle-class family, is measurably better off today after a decade of healthy trade expansion.


http://www.freetrade.org/node/782

If that does not work for you than you may want to look at it like this article does. Somehow I think that the real problem you have is not that the middle class is shrinking it is that they are moving up.

Key points from this article.


Critics of trade repeat as a mantra that real wages have been stagnant since the 1970s. But the data on real wages exclude benefits -- which have been rising as a share of worker compensation. Those data also rely on a cost-of-living index that has systematically overstated inflation and thus understated real income gains.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average real hourly compensation earned by Americans has actually grown by 22 percent during the past decade -- even as trade and other measures of globalization have grown rapidly.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8797

 

[Jones]

Brett sez to put down that copy of the Communist Manifesto but Brett, why not pick it up yourself and read it and while you're at it also read Das Kapital as well.

Create jobs.
Improve health care.
Promote democracy.


That sounded much closer to communism to me.

And there you have it, mac. The Cliff's Notes version of Das Kapital

 

[wkmac]

And there you have it, mac. The Cliff's Notes version of Das Kapital

And to think I wasted all those hours in reading both when I could have just read the Jethro Bodine "Collectivism on the Cheap!"



It's amazing when someone first off thinks the 10 planks are the all incompassing of what is communism but more so what amazes me is when someone looks at the 10 planks and doesn't recognize the relevant areas of our own gov't that in many ways mirror those planks. Now I know we have lip service from some sections of gov't to rid us of the income tax or the estate tax for example but what they miss is the fact they aren't cutting gov't so as to not need these type things anymore but rather they "reinvent" gov't to a new paradigm so that they can remove those old means and still manintain the means to driving the revenue, it's just now from other sources. An example would be the income tax replaced by the FairTax. Same amount of revenue, different vehicle to collect it.

In the tradition of Goldwater and Reagan, how does that really reduce the size and scope of gov't? In fact, you could ask that question in relation to the 1994' Republican revolution and the contract with America as it's stated goal was to cut the size and scope of gov't but the only real thing the 1994' revolution did was curtail the amount of fertilizer spreading sessions the President at the time had with a certain female aid! Well it did same money on the excessive cleaning of the Oval office carpets!




BTW: Ron Paul was asked by Glenn Beck on how he would pay for eliminating the income and social security taxation. Ron stated that you bring home all the troops stationed in Europe, Japan and Korea that were there according the the old Cold War paradigm and I agree totally with this and you cut gov't back to the level it was in 2000'. These 2 changes could eliminate the need for an income tax entirely and no national sales tax either, But it could also save the ailing SS program allowing it to provide for it current obligations but also give the freedom to now enter an honest open national discussion about the direction of SS as the need to pay for what we got right now is taken care of. No one gets short sheeted but the new kids in the workforce now have the freeedom to choose a course of self determination of their own choosing and not one dictated by their parents and grandparents who are wasting their economic futures into oblivion.

It's also no surprise why many liberals are flocking to Ron as they realize he's not going to cut and burn as many fear but rather fulfil the obligations promised and then from here forward move those processes either back to the private arena or allow citizens the freeedom on the State and local levels to inact community plans of their own if they so choose. That's the lost message of Goldwater and pre WH Reagan and the traditions of the founding fathers and limited federal gov't.

Cut Gov't back to the level it was in 2000' and they call the democrats the party of BIG GROWTH GOV'T!

Marx would be proud of the new 21st century Republicans!

 

[av8torntn]

And to think I wasted all those hours in reading both when I could have just read the Jethro Bodine "Collectivism on the Cheap!"

I can understand why you guys would like to move the discussion away from the middle class. If I get the time in the next couple of days I would be more than happy to jump in the discussion on the similarities between the DNC and communism. I should be an easy target for the idealists. One thing you guys have right is the fastest way to increase the middle class would be to take more money from the wealthy and force them down to the middle class.

 

[brett636]

][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Conservatives like Brett love to portray themselves as the people of truth, advocates of libertarian principles.... free enterprise, private property, limited government, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, our founding principles, and fundamental rights blah blah blah...[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]There is just one big problem, however: Conservatives do not practice what they preach. They instead live the life of the lie. Long ago, they threw in the towel in the fight for libertarian principles by embracing the government wasteful spending, devaluing the dollar, and the warfare state. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It wasn’t always that way. Conservatives once genuinely believed in a society based on economic liberty and adhearing to the constitution.. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Equally important, they also avoided nation-building, and involvement in foreign affairs. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]That is what it once meant to be an American. That is what it once meant to be free. That is the freedom that Americans once celebrated on the Fourth of July. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Not anymore. Today, freedom is defined by the grip that the warfare state have on the lives and fortunes of the American people. Admittingly both conservatives and liberals look to the federal government to be their daddy. We have assigned our federal daddy the task of taking care of our retirement, healthcare, education, employment, and business as well as protecting us from the terrorists, drug dealers, immigrants, communists, and other scary people. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In the process, we have created a federal monstrosity into existence, which can be debated one whose programs and powers do/do not limit/regulate the free-enterprise to set standards and protect it's citizens. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But while it’s true that liberals are as devoted to the welfare state but in a sense so are conservatives, there is one big difference: liberals and Democrats don’t make any pretense of being advocates of economic liberty and limited government. We are direct and straightforward defenders of the big-government welfare state and speakout on the warfare state. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Conservatives, on other hand, continue to portray themselves as advocates of libertarian principles. That’s what makes them people of the lie – people of hypocrisy – people who preach one thing and practice another. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Another popular conservative myth involves the importance of taking “personal responsibility” for one’s actions. Unfortunately, it is a slogan that conservatives, in their life of lie, apply only to others, never themselves. After all, have you heard even one conservative taking personal responsibility for the 50 percent decline in the value of the dollar over the past 5 years? Of course not. Oh, they’ll stand in favor of “fiscal responsibility” and a “sound dollar” during those presidential debate forums but, at the same time, endorse every program, project, department, and agency that produces the out-of-control federal spending that has brought about the plunge in the dollar. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Not only do you hate Democrats and Liberals, it wouldn't surprise anyone that Fox (Noise) News conservatives deeply resent the libertarians also and wish that we would simply go away. Thats why even the libertarians need to remind conservatives of what they have become – people of the lie. Shred on......[/FONT]
[/FONT]

Like always you could not be farther from the truth.

My values lie with the Reagan era. An time when it was known by all that government is not a solution to anything, but a problem for everyone. I think social security is a ponzi scheme that should be abolished, and socialized medicine is a program that will come back to haunt us within my lifetime if it is initiated. My facts are just that, facts. As of right now we are running a $9 trillion national debt, but the government has committed itself to $53 trillion in promises over the next 40 years. Now you support candidates and ideas that will increase that exponentially and you think everything will still be ok?

This country still has time to change, these problems can still be fixed. Putting more government intrusion into our lives, letting the government control even more aspets of our lives as the liberals such as yourself suggest is a major disaster waiting to happen.

As Reagan once said, if as individuals we are not capable of governing ourselves, who among us is qualified to govern all of us? The answer is the people themselves should have the control, not the government.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Like always you could not be farther from the truth.

My values lie with the Reagan era. An time when it was known by all that government is not a solution to anything, but a problem for everyone. I think social security is a ponzi scheme that should be abolished, and socialized medicine is a program that will come back to haunt us within my lifetime if it is initiated. My facts are just that, facts. As of right now we are running a $9 trillion national debt, but the government has committed itself to $53 trillion in promises over the next 40 years. Now you support candidates and ideas that will increase that exponentially and you think everything will still be ok?

This country still has time to change, these problems can still be fixed. Putting more government intrusion into our lives, letting the government control even more aspets of our lives as the liberals such as yourself suggest is a major disaster waiting to happen.

As Reagan once said, if as individuals we are not capable of governing ourselves, who among us is qualified to govern all of us? The answer is the people themselves should have the control, not the government.

I really like that last part about what Reagan said. It's so true. Right now there are too many people in this country, or the world for that matter, that can't even take care of themselves or their families. Depending on the government only encourages people to accept mediocre lives. It's much easier for them to sit back and blame society for their problems than to take control of their lives and strive for something better. Hence pointing their fingers at the uppper class for their problems. I still don't understand what is so hard to understand? If you want something bad enough and keep trying you'll succeed. Why can't certain people catch on? I live pretty close to a neighborhood with nothing but upperclass homes filled by people with high paying jobs. Most of them make allot of money. Did the government help them earn their way up to those high paying jobs or did they earn them with hard work and/or education? If more and more people are joining the ranks of the rich then maybe it's because more and more people have caught on to the fact that hard work and/or education instead of settling for mediocrity pays off. I've been making just over $40k/year as a cover driver and sometimes I wish I would have finished college or chose a different career but I didn't. Who is too blame? I am. Not the government. I don't feel that I have the right to expect the government to bail me out. Why should they?

 

[tieguy]

carpets!

BTW: Ron Paul was asked by Glenn Beck on how he would pay for eliminating the income and social security taxation. Ron stated that you bring home all the troops stationed in Europe, Japan and Korea that were there according the the old Cold War paradigm and I agree totally with this and you cut gov't back to the level it was in 2000'.

I would imagine there are strategic benifits to maintaining a prescence in those countries. If the US population is willing to turn to isolationism and let the world completely function on its own then this is a means to do so. Pull out of Iraq, korea , japan and germany and let the world fend for itself. I know there is a side to our being the world police that I am tired of.
You folks have taken world politics to the higher levels of academia. Many of your points are in the philosophical stratosphere. For me I think its good if our enemies see us working out on the body bag in their back yards. Tends to stifle a lot of mischief that could end up costing us much more in the long run.

 

[wkmac]

Tie,

You are right that a lot of this is getting into political theory and even history. Some folks view events as nothing more than looking at the current situation and then reacting as they see fit based on belief. I happen to think most people are this way and I think that's probably a normal human nature response.

Most people know that an airplane was flown into a building and nothing else matters but to bring the guilty person down. Also it's important to do everything necessary to prevent that from happening again. This IMO is the process in just about everything from people losing their jobs to whatever. Don't bother me with details, just make it go away so I can return to my life.

Life is all about action and reaction and to understand the reaction of the present you have to understand the actions of the past. All I've done is look back to see forward. It's funny, in good map and compass, you use that priciple to set your current bearing in order to plot the position of where you want to go. If you never use plots to the rear to maintain orientation going forward, odds are you will veer off course and never get where you intended. As a former avid caver among other things outdoors who also surveyed and mapped cave systems, I can tell you when you get underground in a multi-level system that stretches out for miles and miles, knowing past points is the key to getting back out once the trip is over. I just use that same practice so to speak in day to day life also.

AV8,

Not never and I mean not never have I advocated taking one red cent from the rich for any type purpose of wealth redistribution. I abhore the welfare state even under the most noble of causes. Now I do believe there are certain monopolistic federal laws that grant preferred standing to certain business interest over potential upstarts that could rise to compete (our current energy crisis is a great case study of just such a thing) and therefore I do believe that should be not eliminated but annililated from the books so if that would take money from certain rich people then I stand guilty. What many believe is gov't regulatory control used to protect is IMHO and in fact used to undermine competition and control the market which in itself brings out fraud and harnful products as there's no competing element to keep thing honest. All you have to do is control the gov't that runs the bureaucracy and payoffs known as campaign contributions and then it's wide open as no one is minding the store. Only time someone gets caught is when they let something go critical mass and the public catches winds so a lamb is led to slaughter and the people return to their slumber feeling vendicated and the politicos return to bid-ness as usual.

I believe in a true open and free market not one that is called such but in reality is a market of special interest of those who have standing in Washington.

A good case is point is an op-ed from Star Parker posted at Townhall which is by no means a so-called liberal website. Here's what Ms. Star said in an op-ed entitled,"How Republicans Can Help Elect a Democrat!"

The growth in government during this recent period in which Republicans have been in control is obscene. It is appalling that since 2000 the number of registered lobbyists in Washington has doubled, from about 17,000 to now over 34,000.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/2008/01/14/how_republicans_can_help_elect_a_democrat

Do I want to kill that process which would take money from some rich people? OH H3LL YEAH! In a heart attack. I believe Free Open markets for all not Free Open markets for the gov't connected priviledge which is what we have right now IMHO and it's also this skewed scenario that has people like D and others so upset and are crying foul and they have good cause to do so.

Are the democrats any better? Oh H3LL No and D will be the first to tell you I'm not their friend either. I hate both parties will equal passion and since 1984' I've refused to vote for either party in a Federal election. I think they both are of equal guilt. As for either being communist in the 20th term, not really. 20th century communism is a movement by sheer violent force. Revolutionary Empire if you will. Marx was influenced by the 19th century Fabian Society and believed in gradualism and reform. In other words, to change a society for capitialism to socialism and then to the utlimate goal of communism of mental condition of all things in common to the point all gov't would be abolished, you had to take gradual steps.

The 10 planks are not communism in themselves but the gradualism of reform in law needed to move a capitialist society over to one of socialism. This was the means of the British Fabain Society. My personal belief is certain positioned people saw the means of using these methods not for the grander purpose of social change to a society in common unison but rather a means to as they say "corner the market themselves" while the dumb people believe the goal to be for a greater good. History IMO is loaded with these type people steering gov't for their own ends and I'm tired of this process and will continue to object and revolt in the style of King and Ghandi so there you go! Love me, hate, sneer at me or whatever but I'll continue to fight the American Empire with all I can.

The backbone of a free society is a prosperous middle class and that class only survives under a very limited federal gov't and not burdened with an unpayable tax debt because of an out of control federal debt. one even greater harm as our military might is used to secure global markets under the guise of democratization and bringing freedom to the "ignorant" masses. It also depends on a gov't focused on the true national interests at home and not the international global interests of a monied few!

JHMO!

 

[brett636]

Wkmac, as always, another upfront imformative post, we all should prescribe to a more dogmatic demeanor that you display without crossing the line of incivility.

Anyhow back to topic.
An artcle written by
Paul Craig Roberts (Economist) was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. AKA "The father of Reagonomics"

https://web.archive.org/web/20110726230007/http://vdare.com/roberts/060820_jobs.htm
Although it's a year old, it's still a good barometer to todays economy.
:here's an excerpt from this link;

In the US today, government employs 7.7 million more people than does manufacturing. Little wonder we have an $800 billion annual trade deficit when the government sector is larger than the manufacturing sector.
American economists are yet to face up to the fact that offshoring high productivity, high value-added jobs that pay well and replacing them with waitresses and bartenders is a knife in the heart of the US economy. Charles W. McMillion of MBG Information Services reports that compensation is falling behind price rises and that the US economy has been kept afloat by consumers overspending their disposable incomes by drawing down their accumulated assets and going deeper into debt.

I also reccomend to read his bio in wikipedia: A very interesting point of view from someone who is a critic of both Democratic and Republican administrations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts

Manufacturing is no longer what our economy is about. Some manufacturing is good, but our economy is more serviced based and less manufacturing based. This same trend is occurring in other first world countries as well such as the UK and Germany. The bottom line is a lot of the goods you and I buy would not be as cheap as they are if they had not been produced overseas. If you read my article above you would see that middle class Americans as a whole are earning more money, not less. Therefore its safe to say that manufacturing jobs lost are not being replaced with lower paying positions as you suggest. A job lost overseas does equate to some short term financial pain, but it does force people to learn new skills in order to qualify for other well paying jobs. This makes our economy more dynamic.

 

[av8torntn]

AV8,


The 10 planks are not communism in themselves but the gradualism of reform in law needed to move a capitialist society over to one of socialism.
JHMO!

So when you said just read the communist manifesto that is not what you meant right? From memory it seemed like it was all just a rebellion against poverty in the lower class. Again this is the exact opposite of what you guys accuse the Republicans of. Heck even one Democratic candidate is using this as his platform. Yes it is important how you get there. Should we just ignore the aprox. 40 million Russians that were murdered by their government? Not possible. I know I have heard it before they must've strayed from what Marx meant. When Marxism renounces religion what do you expect? Ok they want to enhance civility in society but at the same time remove morality.I have noticed several DNC cheerleaders on here celebrate no prayer in schools. This is much closer to communism than the party that is giving serious thought to nominating a preacher for their presidential candidate. From what I see your only point is that government has grown under the rule of the RNC. I see your point but this is not due to party principles. This is normal when one party controls both chambers and the oval office. I know this is hard to grasp but we are much better off as middle class citizens when the government gets nothing done. As long as they debate on the size of government expansion and nothing passes (an example would be the schip program until the spineless democrats caved and passed it). Yes I believe a free market would solve many problems that the politicians claim that I have. I almost forgot which party believes in a heavy progressive income tax like communism? I will give you a hint it is not my party of one. Maybe it is just lip service like you say. Under the current republican president progressive income taxes were lowered. Under the previous democratic president they were raised. It does seem odd that you do not want to consider the actions of communism but only the actions of our government. No that is not good enough for me but it is not lip service either. It is not good enough that every democratic candidate says they want to raise the progressive income tax rate. All republican candidates claim they want to lower the progressive income tax rate. So if you want to look at their voting record or record as governor or mayor it is mixed but on the democratic candidates side it is not so mixed.


In summary freedom good communism bad.


Sorry I do not have enough time to go into a well though out argument. If some facts were wrong above it was not intentional time is short and it has been years since I have had this argument.

 

[tieguy]

Tie,

You are right that a lot of this is getting into political theory and even history. Some folks view events as nothing more than looking at the current situation and then reacting as they see fit based on belief. I happen to think most people are this way and I think that's probably a normal human nature response.

Its the simplest approach and sells the easiest. Our people can easily understand why we went into afghanistan. When we go into Iraq the case becomes a much harder sell.

Most people know that an airplane was flown into a building and nothing else matters but to bring the guilty person down. Also it's important to do everything necessary to prevent that from happening again. This IMO is the process in just about everything from people losing their jobs to whatever. Don't bother me with details, just make it go away so I can return to my life.

We are generally not allowed to take that position though in our form of a free society. The press good or bad will raise the issues that keep us from turning a blind eye to what we do in the world. Political opposition will make sure the seedier details of such an action are brought to light.

Life is all about action and reaction and to understand the reaction of the present you have to understand the actions of the past. All I've done is look back to see forward. It's funny, in good map and compass, you use that priciple to set your current bearing in order to plot the position of where you want to go. If you never use plots to the rear to maintain orientation going forward, odds are you will veer off course and never get where you intended. As a former avid caver among other things outdoors who also surveyed and mapped cave systems, I can tell you when you get underground in a multi-level system that stretches out for miles and miles, knowing past points is the key to getting back out once the trip is over. I just use that same practice so to speak in day to day life also.

sound principles that weaken generationally. For example those who are my age or older better understand the need to have a foriegn policy that stops the hitlers of the world before they start world wars that cost the world 50 million lives. Those in todays generations don't remember the past world wars , the soviet block and don't see the same threats out there that we might. They tend to see us as the unprovoked aggressors in a peace loving world. that point coupled with numerous foriegn policy disasters where we put the despot into power tends to weaken those historical reference points that could lead us back to an overall safer world. I personally don't think Ron Paul is the guy that will change the mindset here but he is bringing together an interesting coalition to form what I believe will eventually turn into an isolationist movement. The fact that someone so unpolished as Ron Paul can actually gain support shows I think that there is an audience for his beliefs. Its interesting watching Ron sell what I view as isolationist theory while warning of this country turning to soft nazism. While our present leaders may be exhibiting those traits I don't think the general public's mood is in line with nacism soft or otherwise.

My fear is that I think this country will slowly convert to a more isolationist viewpoint. I think the united nations has become totally ineffective as they proved leading up to the iraq conflict and I therefore think we are ripe for another major conflict in the next couple decades and possibly another world war. We have only our past and present leaders and their many foriegn boondoggles to thank for it. If an obama is elected and quickly departs iraq thus destabalizing that whole region then I believe my gloom and doom forecast will be accelerated.

 

[av8torntn]

This article takes a different view. Just something to consider.


From the article.

"Those attempting to measure incomes by what is reported on individual income tax returns erroneously viewed this as a large increase in income at the top, but it simply was a meaningless bookkeeping change in the way those incomes were reported. Switching from the corporate tax to the individual income tax did not make the rich any richer—it simply made more of their income show up on individual income tax returns and, therefore, in the CBO and Piketty-Saez estimates."

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8802