Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ECONOMY: Capitalism system is what’s failing

Letter by Bernice Larsen, Puyallup on Dec. 3, 2010 at 9:12 am with 107 Comments »
December 3, 2010 2:14 pm

A recent letter (TNT, 12-3) states that socialism is at the root of our monetary problems. It was the capitalist system which failed.

The Republican tax cut for higher income individuals in year 2001 has produced no new jobs, and still they want to keep the tax reductions for the wealthy. The wealthy have failed to produce jobs, and conservatives are still hoping the peasants don’t figure it out.

Unions came about due to the abuses from those “who own the means of production.” Unions are no more evil than unfettered capitalism.

It must be nice to have a warm home, medical care and good food to eat and then whine about socialism. No wonder this planet and its people suffer all over the world.

Tags:
,
Leave a comment Comments → 107
  1. Concernedfather says:

    It must be nice to have a warm home, medical care and good food to eat and then whine about socialism?

    Bernice, the ones who you directed that statement towards obviously WORKED for those things if they are complaining about providing it to someone else.

    Shame on you for trying to make someone feel guilty for making a living by working hard their whole life. Charity is a choice, it should NOT be a government mandate!

    I am ALL FOR feeding hungry people, but NOT with food stamps (or Quest Cards). Give out commodities at a government food bank. Give them FOOD, not money.

    Give them a warm place to live, but don’t rent the house next to mine for them at $1,400.00 a month. I don’t want to see them driving around in their new Chrysler 300 w/ the 24″ rims that I paid for. I can’t afford those payments, I have a mortgage to pay. I have to feed my own family, pay our own medical insurance.

    Yeah, don’t try to shame me for what I have, you are barking up the wrong tree.

  2. Roncella says:

    Bernice, I believe as Bill Cosby does, he recently said If you haven’t contributed to Social Security, guess what, you don’t get any Social Security money, plain and simple.

    The Congress, Especially the Liberal/Dems. have used the Social Security Fund as a piggy bank for their special programs.

    Now Social Security is about to operate in the red, thanks to the Congress using the funds that hard working Americans have set aside for themselves to retire on.

    Bernice, you sound as though you are feeling guilty about having a nice home and food on the table, Medical Care.

    Nothing is stopping you from writing a big check to the State of Washington or The Federal Government at tax time and give them all money you can.

  3. madmike272 says:

    Bernice – Spoken like a true communist! move to Venezuela!

  4. Failing due to greed at the top.

  5. Roncella says:

    If Capitalism is failing blame it on the left/Politically Correct agenda, leading American down the path to Socialism, like France or Greece or Spain etc.

  6. Blame the greedy fat cats who run the corporations and who ship American jobs overseas, and their wholly owned subsidiary formerly known as the Republican Party.

  7. sumner402 says:

    Well Bernice like all other truth your letter has cause the far righties to do the only thing they can do, attack you personally, and lie.
    Wear it as a badge of honor because that is what it is.

  8. aislander says:

    Bernice Larsen writes: “The Republican tax cut for higher income individuals in year 2001 has produced no new jobs, and still they want to keep the tax reductions for the wealthy.”

    Not true. The Bush tax cuts saved or created at least 30 million jobs…

  9. beerBoy says:

    American corporate profits last quarter were the biggest ever recorded yet the latest jobs report showed an increase in unemployment claims.

    Clearly, something doesn’t jibe. The American system of Capitalism creates profits but doesn’t create jobs.

  10. aislander, your lie about the 30 million jobs created cannot go unchallenged here, either. Bush had a disasterous job creation record, the worst in modern history. The tax cuts, if anything combined with the Republicans other disasterous economic policies to create huge unemployment and loss of millions of jobs. There was a net gain of 3 million jobs in eight years. If the Bush policies had remained in effect and Obama had not reversed the trend through immediate intervention, a huge number more would have been lost.

  11. aislander says:

    So…tuddo: How do you know the Bush tax cuts DIDN’T “save or create” 30 million jobs? After all, Obama is trying to pull off that scam…

  12. aislander says:

    By the way, Bernice: “capitalism” is a noun. The word you were searching for, and didn’t find, is the adjective, “capitalist…”

  13. Ronc, Bush wanted to turn the SS Trust Fund over to Wall Street just like he did our retirement accounts. Thank God the little shrub was not able to let the good old boys on Wall Street get their grubby paws on it.

    Islander
    – jobs created or saved outside of the US do not count.

    -“capitalism system” appears in the title, Bernice uses ‘capitalist system” in her letter. But I’m sure the TNT editors appreciate your help.

  14. aislander says:

    Have you never emailed a “Letter to the Editor,” xring? The writer chooses the subject and writes the headline…

    …and the point I’m making, xring, is that jobs “saved or created” is a scam, whether I use the term or the Obama administration does. YOU seem to want to call it phony only if I use it…

  15. aislander says:

    …and if “jobs saved or created” ISN’T a scam, then George W. Bush should be able to make the case that he did it, too, and it would have been SO much worse than the net 3 million jobs created during his administration. And, of course, one has to stipulate that net 3 million includes 2008, when the economy was hemorrhaging jobs…

  16. sumner402 says:

    Not true. The Bush tax cuts saved or created at least 30 million jobs…

    More made up numbers passed off as fact.

  17. aislander says:

    I’ll make an exception and respond, sumner–mainly because you’re helping me make my point. How can I “pass off as fact” something that I admit is a scam–the SAME scam the Obama administration is perpetrating?

  18. redneckbuck says:

    Remind me again how the Soviet Union faired? Maybe if the right people were in charge right???

  19. aislander says:

    …and if the scam is good enough for the messiah, why shouldn’t poor old George W. Bush be able to get in on it, too?

  20. aislander says:

    …hell: I’ll bet W saved or created 45 million jobs!

  21. redneckbuck says:

    bottom line, the rich create the jobe in this country. I have a great idea, let’s spawn a plan to ellimiat them.

  22. bobcat1a says:

    Redneck, the rich don’t create any jobs except at stores like Nordstrom and Tiffany. Jobs are created by demand from millions of people buying products and services. The rich simply hire people to help them profit from that demand. No money in the hands of millions of consumers, no widespread demand, no building of factories, all started by demand. No entrepreneur in his right mind hires workers to produce goods when people don’t have money to buy the goods. The share of wealth held by those in the top 1% has gone up dramatically every year for the last ten years and millions of jobs are MIA. That’s mathematical reality which a math teacher should recognize.

  23. redneckbuck says:

    bobcat the rich hire middle America

  24. Red,
    The Soviet Union failed when the people at the top started believing their own propaganda, and putting theory over reality. Sort of like the right wing theory that voodoo economics is good to the nation because it is good for the top 2% of the population.

    Big Business just reported record 3rd quarter profits, US unemployment is at 9.6%, so logic says there is little or no relationship between profits and jobs in the US.

  25. Publico says:

    Bernice,
    Thanks for the courageous letter. As you can tell for the responses here, you have rattled the cages of those imprisoned in the phony beliefs of the so-called conservative wing. In reality they are subjects of the steady stream of misinformation that comes from ideologists who have only one purpose.
    They wish to enslave you and everyone else to their idea that unrestrained capitalism is the answer to everything and that there is no reason to reasonably share the bounty our democratic republic offers no matter the differences among individuals.

  26. aislander says:

    Publico writes: “…to reasonably share the bounty our democratic republic offers no matter the differences among individuals.”

    First of all, Publico, that bounty ISN’T just “offered,” it is created. It is created by those who invest their sweat and treasure in creating the means of producing that bounty, and also by those who apply their labor to that end. The system wouldn’t work without both, but you seem to want to eliminate the former, and if you do, your precious workers would not be able to create any wealth to share. The simple concept is that, together, infrastructure, creativity, and labor make wealth that did not exist before, and if you do not create that wealth (and government doesn’t create wealth) there will be NOTHING to share…

    Secondly; are you suggesting that all should share equally in the bounty, regardless of the role they had in creating it?

  27. Sagacious says:

    Bernice, Bobcat, Sumner, Publico, et al of that ilk,

    When did you last work for a poor man? Have you ever owned a company? Have you risked you home and savings start a buiness? Have you ever borrowed against your retirement to make a payroll?

    What do you think the rich do with their money? Do they hide it under their mattress? No, they invest it, they loan it to the guy trying to start a business, to companies who need capitol to expand, to hire people.

    Where did the jobs go? India, China, Mexico. If you live in Tacoma, where did the 160 Nalley jobs go? Idaho! They go where the company can make a profit, where they are not taxed and regulated out of existance.

    People do not start businesses to create jobs, they start them to make money for themselves. If they need some help along the way, they hire folks like you. If the government takes their money, as you seem to want, why hang around here? When they leave, you complain that you have no job. Be careful what you ask for, you may, indeed, get it.

  28. patriot62 says:

    i didn’t even bother to read this one. Only one true comment to make here. If the people and corporations making all the big money didn’t create any jobs, then I guess, tax cut or not, the unemployed right now will never find a job.

  29. beerBoy says:

    Apparently the TNT censors want to keep these threads fact-free. Any quotes I post disappear.

    Anyway……here are some facts:
    $1 in unemployment benefits creates a net $1.60 impact upon the economy
    $1 in tax cuts creates 30 cents impact upon the economy.

    The Republicans are holding the economy (and everything else – McCain just said he can’t vote on DADT because of this) hostage to tax cuts for the rich….even Schumer’s $1 million and above bracket…..which:
    only adds 30 cents to the economy for every dollar taken out of the revenue
    and has not created jobs over the past decade.

    When Obama and the Dems cave on this issue (because they will) the economy will continue to limp along, no improvements will be seen.

    Gotta love that Tea Party revolution – fighting to defend the status quo of failed policies.

  30. sumner402 says:

    The Soviet Union failed when the people at the top started believing their own propaganda, and putting theory over reality.

    Sounds like the GOP.
    Look at the way their lemmings just make things up on this board in deference to reality and fact.

  31. sumner402 says:

    bobcat the rich hire middle America

    No they don’t, they hire the working poor and get richer on their labor.
    The middle class hires middle America.

    Stop guzzling the koolaide.

  32. sumner402 says:

    When did you last work for a poor man?
    Yesterday

    Have you ever owned a company?
    Yes

    Have you risked you home and savings start a buiness?
    Yes

    Have you ever borrowed against your retirement to make a payroll?
    No, I’m a better manager than that.

  33. sumner402 says:

    If you live in Tacoma, where did the 160 Nalley jobs go? Idaho! They go where the company can make a profit, where they are not taxed and regulated out of existance.

    No, they went to Iowa, which has hire taxes than Washington. They went there for the simple reason of logistics, it’s closer to the raw materials they use and more centrally located to distribute the final product.
    Get with aislander, she will explain about how making stuff up doesn’t work around here.

  34. sumner402 says:

    That should be ‘higher’ for the spelling for Sargent sozo and privet aislander of the spelling police squad.

  35. redneckbuck says:

    Libs, I challenge you to start a business and run it the way you want. Stop complaining and do it. Do something about it you are not helpless.

  36. sumner402 says:

    Already done it redneck. The fact is taxes are not much of a factor in a business.
    you know going in what they are and you plan for it.
    if you can’t, then you shouldn’t be in business.

    Stop drinking the koolaid and start your own biz redneck, then and only then will you learn.

  37. redneck, there are a lot of liberals who own small businesses. We have actually had a lot of practice with the “trickle down”, “the rich need a tax break because they do the hiring” bit. The USA is not a top-down driven economy. It is the huge masses of the middle class that creates the demand for goods and services. If the demand is not therre, then businesses fail. Businesses do not hire because the company is wealthy. Look at corporations right now. They are making record profits hand over foot, but they are not hiring, because they have excess capacity because people are not buying.

    Republicans use to know something about how capitalism works until Reagan got in. He tried out the trickle down theory, and that is when the middle class stopped seeing wages and income and wealth rise. The top 10% had huge increases in wealth and income, but the middle class did not. Except for phony and fraudulent financial schemes, we have had economic problems since Reaganomics were instituted.

    The two Bush administrations were the worst disasters for creating jobs and for income for the middle class since the industrial revolution. Hype and the blind obedience of the Fox watchers are all that Republicans have going for them. Unfortunately ignorance of how capitalism in American works does seem to benefit them. They can keep telling their cult fans that huge tax cuts for the wealthy are beneficial to the middle class, when we’ve had 30 years to prove they are not.

  38. xring says:
    December 3, 2010 at 6:45 pm
    Ronc, Bush wanted to turn the SS Trust Fund over to Wall Street


    Nice revision of history. Bush wanted to allow s.s.i. contributors to take 2% of their contributions and invest it in the market. They would still be sending 98 of every $100 into the bankrupt s.s.i. money hole.

    Riddle me this, why is a certain group of government employees exempt from s.s.i. contributions and allowed to invest in 457 plan instead?

  39. aislander says:

    Yeah, right. If you want to know how capitalism is supposed to work, ask a socialist. Thanks for the laugh, tuddo…

  40. Roncella says:

    Tuddo, and other extreme Liberals, How come I never read about the terrible job that President Jimmy Carter did while President in your posts ?

    I remember the gas lines, even and odd days for filling up with gas, terrible un-employment, dead RealEstate Market, Extremely high interest rates, Iran hostage mess, on and on and on.

    It aways goes back to blaming President Bush , or President Reagan for everything the Liberals believe is wrong about America. Its that selective memory syndrome so many Liberals are infected with.

  41. sumner402 says:

    How come I never read about the terrible job that President Jimmy Carter did while President in your posts ?

    Because he didn’t do a terrible job.
    he created more jobs than your saint ronnie the raygun did, and spent less doing it.
    The koolaid you drank and the talking points you washed it down with are simply incorrect roncella, when will you wake up to that?

  42. sumner402 says:

    I remember the gas lines, even and odd days for filling up with gas, terrible un-employment, dead RealEstate Market, Extremely high interest rates, Iran hostage mess, on and on and on.

    Do you remember any of that under Nixon and Ford?
    And saint ronnie?
    I do.

  43. Roncella, we are talking about the economy and the Bush tax cuts. Jimmy Carter’s economic record was not very good, but it wasn’t the disaster that the two Bush’s created. The average economic growth rate under his administration was 3.4 percent per year, slightly higher than the growth rate under Ronald Reagan and far better than growth under either Bush.

    What people like to remember about Carter was his final 16 months, when the oil cartels held us hostage. Right now we have about twice the GDP as we did then, but we only use about as much oil as we did then, and a little less imported oil. Carter all but eliminated the government distribution of oil during his final two years, (Reagan finished it off immediately upon taking office) and it became the private sector’s responsibility. They were not ready for the task, and oil did not go where it was needed most. Where I lived in Texas, we did not see the big oil lines and there was plenty of oil at the stations. People in some of the large cities did see big lines, because the government rationing system was no longer in place and the private sector had not rallied to the task yet. Plus they loved the higher prices they were able to get because of the fake shortages. The oil cartels cut production to raise prices by a huge amount. Carter might have been able to do something about it, but Reagan was lucky when the oil cartels changed their mind just as he took office. None of it has to do with what we’re talking about.

  44. sumner402 says:

    Yeah, right. If you want to know how capitalism is supposed to work, ask a socialist.

    Better than asking a corp owned and controlled foxbot fascist.

  45. sumner402 says:

    In other words what CF is really saying,
    They are correct and we have nothing to stand on, so we have to go to the grade school litter box of insults.

  46. Islander has hit the nail on the head!
    America’s bounty was produced by a combination of capital and hard work by everybody from the lowest apprentice janitor to the CEO. However, for the past decade most of capital and efforts by CEO’s have gone to created jobs and wealth OVERSEAS.

    Secondly, all the workers have every wanted is a fair wage for what they do. It is the fat cats at the top who are demanding an unjust share of the bounty.

    ‘to know how capitalism is suppose to work ask a socialist” Is the converse true, To know how socialism works you ask a capitalist?

    Sagacious,
    In America CEO’s think only of profit and view workers as replaceable cogs who should be happy to have a job and take whatever the company deems fit to offer.
    In Japan CEO’s know workers are a business’s number one assist and are willing to forgo some profit to keep a loyal workforce.

    Red, you challenge has already been answered by Henry Ford and Costco.

    T_W,
    The plan was to allow (force) people to open individual retirement accounts instead using SSI, and they would have been allowed invest up to as 2% of their total wages.
    And the longer term goal of privatization was to turn all government trust funds over to Wall Street thus reducing the size of the federal government.
    All Federal employees hired before 1983 and still under the old CSRS were and are exempt for SSI donations and thus do not earn SSI for the government service. Those under the newer FERS do contribute to and earn SSI. All federal employees have to option of opting out of Federal Retirement in favor private retirement planning.

    Tuddo the gas lines under Carter came about be Carter and Congress would not disavow US support for Israel. And it was the Savings and Loan Scandal which was a mirror image of the current Housing Scandal. Also Regan, and Bush I and II served after Carter (a total of 20 years compared to Carter’s 4)

  47. bobcat1a says:

    Does anyone here really believe that a rich person goes out and hires workers because he has some extra money? He/She hires workers because someone on the street has money to buy products he/she makes. It doesn’t start with people having factories; it starts with people having money to buy stuff. When people buy stuff, rich people get richer. Or in our case where we have completely forgotten that little capitalistic fact, rich people get richer because they no longer have to hire people, they just get a bigger slice of what is already being produced. The simple fact of American business which any honest manager will acknowledge is that business is getting more revenue by cutting employees, pushing those who remain to do more, cutting pay and outsourcing. And paying less tax. Those are facts, not BS and those things are ignored at our nation’s long term peril.

  48. sumner402 says:

    Does anyone here really believe that a rich person goes out and hires workers because he has some extra money?

    Sadly, yes.
    Roncella, aislander, redneck, sozo and many more of the usual far right extremist foxbots do in fact believe that.
    I think the only way to convince them of the truth is for fox to tell them.
    And we know that will never happen.

  49. Well Bernice I am flabbergasted. What part of today’s economic woes of the socialist economies of Greece, Spain, Portugal, England, Ireland, and Germany have you missed?

    What part of history of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, or Mussolini did you miss in your studies?

    Did you sleep through the years of 1982 through 2008? Were you alive and struggling in 1978, 79, or 80?

    Drop the hate BS and think about what is best for America and Americans for a change.

  50. MarksonofDarwin says:

    Of course it’s absurd to say a “rich” person hires someone because they have extra money.

    They hire people because of the laws of supply and demand.
    Neither consumers or the government create products. Businesses do.
    Entrepreneurs invest in, and create products that people WANT.
    A popular product will make a business person very rich.
    These rich people want to sell more of their widgets, and hire competent people to assist in producing and selling their product.

    So….jobs **begin** with entrepreneurs.

    Also, if you are a “poor” businessman, you are either selling a crappy product, or it’s over-priced, or you’re in a bad location, or you have lousy customer service. Employees can have a small affect on some of these factors….but they do NOT shoulder the blame OR the atta-boys for a business being successful, or going under. The owner gets it all.

    If you’re a good businessperson, you will recognize and reward good employees. If you fail to do that, they will seek employment with your competition where their talents will be used against you….

  51. Nanook go till it to the Republicans.

  52. redneckbuck says:

    The Boeing family hires the middle class, they are rich, Costco owners hire the middle class, they are rich, the Gates family hires the middle class, they are rich……on and on and on

  53. It’s not just federal employees that don’t pay s.s.i. xring. Washington state police and fire employees don’t either.

  54. villager98 says:

    As you can see from many of the comments posted here, Bernice, the peasants still are clueless. We have become the United States of Bubba.

  55. Refreshing bit of logic MoD. Thanks.

  56. Mark, SoD, Democrats generally favor a demand-side economic approach, while Republicans favor supply-side. Most economists say that it is important to look at what is causing the problems at the particular time and not to focus so much on strict economic theories. 450 economists signed a letter pointing out that our current problems are not due to lack of supply. We have plenty of surplus supply, plenty of items, goods, services that people want to buy, plenty of unused capacity. What we don’t have, and haven’t had for a long time, is much of a demand for those goods and services, because wages and income are stagnant at the middle class, and more and more people do not have money to spend.

    The Economic Policy Institute released a report addressing concerns of the long-term effects of supply side economics. While Democratic President Bill Clinton left office in 2000 with a surplus due to demand side policies, Republican Presidents since 1980 all left office with a huge deficit. The three poorest performing economies in terms of growth of GDP were, in order of lowest first, were George W Bush, George HW Bush and Reagan. Even Carter beat out Reagan by far.

    I like to look at what really happens when a theory is tested, and we have certainly tested supply side and demand side. Supply side that you desribe just hasn’t worked well. It is the consumer being able to purchase goods and services that drives the economy.

  57. Roncella says:

    Tuddo, your haft right on your comments above. Most economists agree that whats hurting our economy right now, is all the uncertainty.

    As the end of the years approaches the continuing debate on extending the Bush tax cuts or not, the possible extending of unemployment checks for another year after 99 weeks of unemployment already, possible effects of ObamaCare on Business expenses in the next few years.

    Foreign affairs also adds to all this uncertainty, ie: North Korean threats and attacks on South Korea, Iran very close to having Nuclear capabability, the dollar getting weaker and weaker.

    You have mentioned that you own your own businesses, then you must realize all these things have put a fear of the unknown into businesses expanding or hiring more folks, or starting new businesses.

  58. MarksonofDarwin says:

    Tuddo,

    To be candid, I don’t buy into the idea that it’s partisan policies that drive our economy. Both the Ds and Rs use the same formula.

    The tech bubble that Clinton enjoyed during his presidency is a perfect example of why aggregate demand will eventually bust. At the same time, Bush’s stimulus checks that he showered on everyone comes from the exact same economic theory….he was attempting to boost demand.

    Products have a optimal price. When the market is skewed, inflation of that product goes to an artificial level, and eventually MUST get to a ceiling, and drop. Our government has been “chasing the dragon” for the next big bubble that will be our salvation. I believe they are looking to “green technology” for the new “it” thing, but many others think that we are actually seeing a *government* bubble right now.

    In truth, the theories are a bit complicated, but about a year ago, I found this very entertaining video that explains the main thrust behind them.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk&feature=fvw

    *warning* If you are allergic to rap, you may find the vid. troubling, but it’s well worth listening to at least once! They’ve added sub-titles which bugs me, but maybe they’re helpful….

  59. Roncella, consumer confidence plays a large role, but it still supports the Dem’s demand-side approaches. Consumers do not spend when they feel that their savings, home or job may be in jeopardy. Consumer confidence and demand-side economics also depends on rational diplomacy instead of war mongering, fiscal oversight, and other policies which are all Dem-supported and which the Republicans, especially the Tea Party opposes.

    Glen Beck’s little gold show, in which he pronounces all of these paranoid right-wing fantasies to destroy confidence and spur investment in his pet (and lucrative) project, is a good example of how to destroy consumer confidence. Usually only a tiny, tiny fraction of mentally-unstable people listen to such nonsense, but somehow it became popular.

  60. MarkSoD, I agree that it is not pure on either side. However, the two biggest issues about the economy in the last week were extension of the Bush tax cuts and the extension of unemployment. Demand-side says that the most effective thing for the economy right now is to extend unemployment. (The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office ran the numbers based on previous history and found that to be true). The Republicans oppose it on moral and ethical grounds (makes people lazy and dependent) rather than on economic grounds, because it is provably true that the economy would benefit.

    Republicans favor the extra tax cuts for the top 1-2% using supply-side economic language. The tax cuts for the middle class were shown to have spurred consumer demand, especially the rebate stimulus check, which people viewed as a “bonus’ and spent it instead of saving it. The Republicans try to argue on economic terms using supply-side language, but no study has shown that the extra tax cuts for the most wealthy did anything except add to the deficit. Dems use language opposing it that make them seem to be attacking a class of people who happen to be very successful and/or rich. That doesn’t help the debate at all.

    I like to look at the results, and since we can show that, in every recession, we have always extended unemployment benefits until the economy was creating jobs again, and we can show that those benefits stimulate consumer confidence and demand, then it is a good thing. Whether it makes a few people “dependent” or not., It’s good for the country.

    No one can show that the top 1-2% tax cuts did anything except give people at that level a lot more money to play around with and gamble on risky investments that helped bring the economy to its knees. It didn’t stimulate GDP growth, didn’t stimulate spending and didn’t “trickle down”. I don’t care whether or not some far-left ideologue attacks the “economic elite”. I care about result, and I care about the huge deficit that needs to be controlled.

  61. ItalianSpring says:

    Bernice, Bernice, Bernice. Capitalism hasn’t been in effect for over 100 years here. We’ve had socialism lite for all that time. Your reaction to it is understandable.

  62. MarksonofDarwin says:

    Tuddo,

    Maybe the Republicans oppose it on moral grounds, I honestly don’t pay attention….it’s political theater, and they don’t mean it.

    The Democrats are claiming that the Republicans are giving the “rich” a huge gift. Some Congressman even had a huge pic. of Leona Helmsly (sp?) with her dog, claiming that the Republicans are giving the dog a tax break…pure theater.
    The R’s claiming that the D’s are engaging in class warfare is equally repugnant, and is a deliberate mis-characterization of their goal.

    Partisan politics….*barf*
    I can’t stand it, and it **always** muddies the water of every discussion.
    It’s a fools game, and I refuse to play it.

    The tax cuts will be extended, and so will unemployment.
    That’s what the current fashionable economic theory says must be done.
    All of those economists who signed some paper are of the same mind….but are they correct in their assessment?
    We need to be more vigilant in educating ourselves instead of waiting for partisans to give us the “gist” of something, or simply succumb to an appeal to authority.

  63. aislander says:

    tuddo writes of demand side stimulus: “…because it is provably true that the economy would benefit…”

    HOW is that provably true? Government’s pumping money into the economy in order to create growth has NEVER worked (Oh, it wasn’t BIG enough and we didn’t do it LONG enough, but if we had it WOULD have worked, I just KNOW it would have!). All that does is increase debt and fire up inflation. Letting the producers produce and leaving people their OWN money is what works…

  64. aislander says:

    Partisan politics, MoD, can be irritating, but it is, at its best, people acting on what they believe to be best for America and Americans. At its worst…well we can see that here on this forum, as well as in DC…

  65. MarksonofDarwin says:

    I understand what you’re saying ai, but that is only when it’s at its best…

    Too often, people spend most of their time idealizing one party and demonizing the other. They do this all the while not realizing that BOTH parties are simply saying what they know their “base” wants to hear while their actual policies create the very opposite of what they claim to be their core values….

    I don’t put any bad faith on people who identify with one party over the other.
    I don’t even really mind the bickering until it becomes too vacuous and stupid.

    The fingers on chalkboard moment for me is when someone is so blinded by partisanship, that they never even question the fact that their favorite party never lives up to the deification they lavish on them.

    There are good and bad policies from both the Rs and Ds, but some just choose to put them into “devil” and “angel” category. Then there’s the confirmation bias that we are all subject to, where NO amount of evidence showing the reality of their policies will convince them that they are wrong….

  66. MarksonofDarwin says:

    Instead of “subject to”, I should have said “susceptible to”.

    *shrug*
    I’m a goof, not a scholar!!

  67. aislander says:

    Everybody comes off as “goofy” from time to time, MoD, when there is no ability to edit…

  68. sumner402 says:

    You have mentioned that you own your own businesses, then you must realize all these things have put a fear of the unknown into businesses expanding or hiring more folks, or starting new businesses.

    Well, either that or a total lack of demand and therefore no reason to expand and hire.

    Now, which do you think is more plausible?
    No demand or fear of Iran and North Korea?
    If you own a business you know the answer.

  69. aislander says:

    There is a truism, MoD, that government can’t improve an economy, but it certainly can ruin one. THAT is the crux of the partisan argument over economic policy. The implication of that is that ANYTHING “proactive” done by government with respect to the economy is counterproductive…

  70. aislander says:

    How bizarre is it, anyway, MoD that the letter writer is attempting to mount a defense (however illogically framed) for a system that has been thoroughly discredited, both due to its economic failure and to its cost in freedom…

  71. MarksonofDarwin says:

    I completely agree that this letter is bizarre ai.
    She’s all over the place in her thoughts, and I do wonder if she’s got some political form of tourettes. Ya know, she is just reflexively barking out a few populist ideas that sound good to her.

    I especially like the fact that she claims capitalism is an abysmal failure, and then goes on to say that unions are no worse than capitalism!

    You can almost see the curled lip and sneer when she wrote (those) “who own the means of production.”….

    Oh well. She’s a socialist. No doubt she labors under the illusion that if “just the right people” were in charge, and all that BS.

    That’s why I commented on the comments, and not the letter. It is useless by itself, but the conversation it spurred has proven to be more educated and enlightening, so it served that purpose at least!

  72. beerBoy says:

    Obama caves on taxes.

    I’m even more disgusted by the man with no testosterone.

  73. aislander says:

    Marksonof Darwin writes: “…labors under the illusion that if “just the right people” were in charge, and all that BS.”

    That WAS the genius of our system of Constitutional government: it could survive having the “wrongest” of leaders without sustaining too much damage, but, very unfortunately, the left has found a way around that system, through the courts and bureaucracy, and by gulling some of the electorate into giving up voluntarily their control over government.

    As George Washington said: “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

  74. I read all this, and what comes to my mind is a TNT staffer getting paid to blog (with their self).

  75. MarksonofDarwin says:

    HEY!
    Where’s my dam check!

  76. Now that the ice is broken :-)

    I did find your comments and Tuddo’s very refreshing and enlightening from what I read here most of the time. There are others that have good arguments too, but most of the time they get drowned out by the partisan rhetoric.

    Too bad DC can’t have a civil discussion.

  77. yabetchya says:

    WAMTD says:
    December 5, 2010 at 5:00 pm
    I read all this, and what comes to my mind is a TNT staffer getting paid to blog (with their self).

    :)
    Oh, yabetchya

  78. MarksonofDarwin says:

    Thanks WAM.

    This is a pretty good forum for the most part. Many of us have been posting for literally years, and have gotten to know each other a bit. You will find that after a while, you will be able to pick out who is worth your time, and who is just trolling.

    Sometimes it gets a bit heated, and feathers can fly, & beaks can get a little tweaked…but it’s best to take all of it in stride, and really REALLY not take it too seriously! (Of course that comes with the universal disclaimer: not that I don’t get a bit testy myself sometimes!)

  79. sumner402 says:

    You can almost see the curled lip and sneer when she wrote (those) “who own the means of production.”….

    Oh well. She’s a socialist. No doubt she labors under the illusion that if “just the right people” were in charge, and all that BS.

    Didn’t take long for the partisan politics to show through, but was anyone really fooled to begin with?
    It’s always funny when a partisan hack trys to take the high road and claim they are non-partisan and everyone else is to blame.

  80. beerBoy says:

    Just to be clear here: aislander and IrishSpring claim that capitalism hasn’t failed because we don’t have a “true” capitalist system in America and haven’t had one for a long time.

    Question – was there capitalism in Henry Ford’s day? Or when the military was making the world safe for Standard Oil?

  81. beerBoy says:

    I especially like the fact that she claims capitalism is an abysmal failure, and then goes on to say that unions are no worse than capitalism!

    So….what exactly are you saying? And what was she saying?

    Unions bad when resisting the excesses of capitalism. Unions good when resisting the excesses of communism.(?)

    Unions are a reaction to the excesses of the prevailing economic system.

  82. aislander says:

    Well, we had the progressive movement to stir things up back then, too, beerBoy, and nobody is saying that capitalism was perfect then, but industrialization was a relatively new social arrangement and America had to come to terms with it. But socialistic solutions are not the answer. They have always resulted in less wealth and dramatically curtailed freedom. THAT trade-off is not worth making…

    As for your perception of capitalism in the late19th/early 20th century, I suggest you read “Myth of the Robber Barons,” by Folsom…

  83. aislander says:

    beerBoy writes: “Unions are a reaction to the excesses of the prevailing economic system.”

    And they’ve NEVER been a vehicle for rabble-rousers to attain power…

  84. aislander says:

    One question, beerBoy: Who has more influence on government: the rich or the poor?

  85. sincere says:

    I don,t see too many poor people reducing the unemployment lines!There seems to be a lot of complaints about the rich.I personally admire them for their being productive,unlike those who keep taking from the system and putting nothing back.The ones complaining are the ones who do not pull their own weight on the economy.If the rich people took all their money to another country and left us with the lower and middle class to pay all the Govt.s bills,You would see everyone sink into poverty.But that would make the people that like A socialist type of Govt.happy.

  86. aislander says:

    Sincere: Enthusiasts of socialism in ALL its variants would prefer equal shares of misery to different allotments of wealth. That’s FAIR, you see…

  87. MarksonofDarwin says:

    bB,

    When she says that unions aren’t any worse than capitalism…then they are *equally* bad. She is blaming capitalism on our failing economy, so by her logic….unions bear equal responsibility.

    I suspect she really doesn’t mean that. I suspect she thinks unions are the ultimate good.

    See? She’s all over the place….

  88. sincere says:

    I believe there will be an extension of Unemployment Benefits for as long as we can get China to Fund our Debt.There does,t seem to be much concern about how this money is to be paid back!But you can be sure the day will come when this problem will have to be answered.

  89. MarksonofDarwin says:

    Trolls will be trolls, and they know little to nothing else, but to be a troll.

  90. aislander says:

    MarksonofDarwin writes: “Trolls will be trolls, and they know little to nothing else, but to be a troll.”

    I can just hear someone singing, “I gotta be mee, I gotta be mee! What else can I be but…what …I…yam?”

  91. sumner402 says:

    Speaking of trolls…..

  92. sincere, I agree we need to pay our debt. That is why we need to eliminate the extra tax cuts for the super wealthy. They certainly won’t miss it. It will help our entire economy. The extra tax relief has proved not to stimulate anything, unless you have some statistics that show every economic indicator since they were passed is false. During the time they have been in effect we had 8 years of the lowest GDP growth of any administration since the Great Depression, we had a staggering loss of jobs, we had the wealthiest gambling their money away on fraudulent securities. Ah, but the cry from the right is “More of the same. Please, sir, may I have another?”

  93. aislander – I have no reason to believe than anything on your reading list is any more credible than the Goldberg nonsense that so influenced your thinking.

  94. sincere, Scott Brown, (R) says extension of unemployment will not add to the deficit. He has been one of the few Republicans speaking out for their extension, and then was made to be silent so R’s could block it until they get their way on tax cuts. The Urban Institute and many other non-partisan economists point out that, in the past, extensions of unemployment has paid for itself through job creation and has averaged paying back $2 in taxes for every $1 spent. The tax cuts, however, are estimated to add $700 billion to the debt without creating any jobs, at least if you look at past history and studies by the non-partisan CBO.

  95. aislander says:

    tuddo writes: “…we had 8 years of the lowest GDP growth of any administration since the Great Depression, we had a staggering loss of jobs…”

    If you are saying those things are true of the entire eight Bush years, or even a majority of those years: that is a lie. Growth was average for most of his two terms, 2008 being, as we know, a terrible year due not to lowered tax rates, but to the housing collapse.

    As for job growth, well there wasn’t a lot of room for it with unemployment being at 4.5 to 5.5%, which is generally considered to be full employment.

  96. aislander, we are talking about an entire administration over a period of time when their policies were in force, not one or two years.. I can point to Jimmy Carter’s first years and show he had a wonderful economic time of it, you know, except for all the bad stuff. He still had a phenominal growth rate and GDP increase compared to the two Bush’s and Reagan, however.

  97. aislander says:

    I JUST SAID I was talking about the entire two terms, tuddo. Can’t you read or what? Look at the GDP curve from ’01 through ’08 and compare it to ’75 through ’83 (Ford/Carter stagflation era) and then from ’83 through ’90 (Reagan tax cuts). You have to look at the inflation-adjusted curve to get an accurate picture. Your statements just aren’t true…

  98. aislander says:

    beerBoy: You STILL haven’t proven your case or refuted any of the facts I provided oh, so long ago, but you insist on calling it “nonsense.” I suggest you would do better to be less descriptive and more factual. Dismissing a resource merely because I suggested it is just puerile…

  99. sumner402 says:

    Aislander do you know the difference between average and net?

    Ever wonder why you bush boot lickers have to use ‘average’ numbers to get anything near a positive outlook for the failure and his administration?
    Doesn’t get old defending what you have to know is not worth defending for anything other than partisan reasons?

  100. beerBoy doesn’t do “refute facts”.

  101. beerBoy says:

    What you call facts are mere truthiness.

  102. aislander says:

    …and what you call points are mere slogans.

  103. aislander, so you are saying that all of the statistics provided by the federal government are wrong about GDP growth, and we have to use yours? Let me know where you got them, and I will look at them, but I’ll generally refer you to the CBO, and other “official” statistics. Jimmy Carter had a net growth of GDP over his 4 years greater than the net of Reagan and the two Bush’s combined. Net is what it means to look at the policies over an entire administration. You cannot average averages.

  104. aislander says:

    You’ll notice that GDP rose until the economy began to go flat, NOT coincident with the Bush tax cuts…

  105. sumner402 says:

    aislander says,
    “I suggest you would do better to be less descriptive and more factual.”

    If only we could harness irony and hypocrisy, we could light the nation with ailander and sozo alone!

  106. aislander says:

    I should have written “…not coincident with the time line of the Bush administration,” not “the Bush tax cuts…”

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0