Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
I think that I've seen that in chain emails going around, if you didn't write that, then you shouldn't post it.
Obama's plan does raise taxes on the wealthy, duh? I don't see how an additional couple percent tax increase damages their standard of living, when you have Warren Buffet saying that the Bush tax cuts really did very little good to stimulate the overall economy, keep in mind this is coming from a billionaire investor, you know that there needs to be some serious discussion on how to handle the fiscal crisis.
If you make under 100k per year, you get a larger tax cut under Obama than under McCain, period. The tax cut plan may have some readjustments at the top and middle, but if you vote for Obama, your voting to have your federal taxes cut substantially more than under John McCain.
Dear Kim: I like the cut of your jib.
I do think you tried to make your point about Obama's plan very plain and personal.
I would say that if you can afford to tip anyone ten bucks then you would not suffer much from an Obama victory.
Geez how much did you pay for lunch ?
A progressive tax system, as we have now, which is supported by both parties, is "redistribution of wealth." The bailout was a "redistribution of wealth" (from the poorer people to the wealthier people) and was supported by both McCain and Obama. The income tax itself, as well as Social Security, is a "redistribution of wealth."
Both political parties have been supporters of redistribution of wealth throughout the 20th Century.
If you believe that there will be a tax cut coming as soon as Obama gets into office you are all fooling yourself..it will take a lot of wheeling and dealing..and that could take years..every election we here all these empty promises..the country is in a economic slump right now..and to start giving 1000-1500 dollars tax cuts to all us middle class people ,the money is just not going to be there,by raising taxes on the top one percent .It just doesn't add up..McCain cant do it either..We need to raise workers hourly income,to move this economy.What ever job you have just ask your self if you see your boss giving you even a 1 dollar an hour raise if Obama get elected..If the company has to start paying higher taxes,corperate or other wise,were will the money come from to give you that 1 dollar an hour raise..Its all BS
We're $10 trillion in debt. We're in a recession. We're spending $10 billion per month in Iraq, and Obama has made no specific promise as to when that will end, but he wants to increase expense in Afghanistan.
Neither candidate is talking about the kind of massive expense cuts that need to take place, such as closing our 700 bases around the world and bringing the troops home (which would reduce expenditures by $500 billion), or eliminating all of the wasteful and ineffective federal spending, such as the department of education.
Barack Obama supports a line by line review of the Federal Budget, find out whats working and whats not and elminate the inneffective parts of government.
Eliminating the Department of Education is a 20 year old and unrealistic talking point, like or not, government is a part of our lives that provides vital services to Americans. You want to see bad schools across the board, public and private? Eliminate the Department of Education. You want to see roads and bridges fall apart? Eliminate the Department of Transportation.
We've interwoven parts of these agencies to work with the private sector, and they may not be perfect, but without them we would have even more serious problems than we face now. Look at the schasm between the rich and the poor throughout most of the 1800s. Look at the 1920s and its deregulation.
We need some government, we need it to be more efficient and provide the services that are necessary at a reduced cost. Eliminating entire agencies though, frightening proposition indeed.
At any rate, a line by line review of the budget, beginning of withdrawing troops in Iraq and resetting taxes on the top 1 percent to pre-Bush levels gives you more than enough money to cut taxes for the middle class and enact a health care plan.
Mark, of course its not going to happen the minute he gets inaugurated, but I believe that his position is a much better position to stand from than John McCain's.
The line-item veto is a tool of the Imperial Presidency, which violates the separation of powers built into the Constitution. The line-item veto gives the president legislative powers not intended by the the Constitution.
And thus one of the chief problems with our one-party, ur, two-party system (two-party in name only): Neither party will bring to the Executive a person who will reject the Imperial Presidency, the president who does not want the line-item veto, who will not use signing statements and executive orders to override both the legislative and the judicial branches.
As for the department of education: There is no argument you could make that would make the case that the average school child is better off today than it was 60 years ago when the DOE had little influence or power. The DOE has been an absolute, unqualified DISASTER for education. The latest folly is "no child left behind," which only goes to illustrate the problem with allowing a federal bureaucracy manage programs better left to local control.
If you really care about the education of children, if you really care about how our children fare in a global economy, you would unconditionally support the demolition of the Department of Education. There is really no other alternative. History proves it. Common sense proves it. Results prove it. Continued bad policy by administration after administration proves it. The DOE is the epitome of wasteful and ineffective federal spending.
I find it absolutely baffling that Democrats, who supposedly are the champions of working people, cannot see what an enemy the DOE is to the children of working families.
There is absolutely nothing, no positive result whatsoever, that has ever come as a result of the federal Department of Education. All the DOE has managed to accomplish is dumber students who are even less equipped than previous generations for advancement and economic equality.
And -- let's look at the 19th century, when the US was the beacon of economic advancement, when monetary systems were stable, when the economy grew at a fast rate WITHOUT inflation, when more people were lifted out of poverty than any time prior in human history, when the U.S. economy was the envy of the world.
As for the Depression -- let's call bullshit bullshit. Deregulation didn't case the Depression. The Federal Reserve caused the Depression, because free markets were not allowed to be free, and the Fed totally mismanaged the monetary supply (in this case by restricting supply at a critical time). The greatest sin for 80 percent of the 20th Century was causing inflation, but at a critical time when the Fed could have actually increased monetary flow, it contracted it in about 1931, and hence a recession became a depression. If the US had still been on the gold standard and there was no Federal Reserve, there would have been no Depression.
Howard, did I ever suggest the Line-Item Veto? No, what I suggested is doing what Bill Clinton did with Al Gore, use department funding and work with congress to eliminate unessecary and useless programs.
Howard, DOE programs helped implement imperfect, but on the whole positive changes to enforce regularities and civil rights within education. Had it not been for IDEA and so many other inititives that came out of the DOE Special Education would be non-existent, and a large percentage of the population that could not previously have been mainstreamed would be left in the dark. We've seen what happens when there's no standards.
No Child Left Behind was a disaster because of inadequete funding for it, I say we just scrap it and come up with better policies with more local input, but some streamlining is necessary. We need to tie in school boards, teachers, administrations and students in with a new and more practical set of education goals.
Daniel, you wrote "Barack Obama supports a line by line review of the Federal Budget, find out whats working and whats not and eliminate the ineffective parts of government."
Which sounds a lot like a line-item veto to me.
If that's not how you intended it fine. So let's start with what's not working and never has, ever: The department of education.
Next, let's look at 700 military bases in 130 countries, which only breed resentment toward the United States at a cost of $600 billion per year.
I haven't heard Mr. Obama talking about those issues.
Your so right Howard...Daniel im glad you believe in your government..to think that it can do all for every one..but this is the real world..take a look at fannie mae and freddy mac..government at its finest..i believe the state should be able to handle the schools not some big federal agency called the dept of education..not needed..we send them money they keep a part and send back to the state with some kind of mandate attached to it..get rid of them..the line item veto is not right..a budget is a budget..if the president doesn't like it then don't sign it..send it back..and Daniel you dont really believe that tax increase to the top 1 precent is going to be enought for a tax reduction and a health care program..were talking allmost a trillion dollars for all that..the math doesn't add up for obama or mccain..I've been around awhile and let me tell you they all claim they are going to make my life better if i vote for them..I am the only one to make things beter for me..i just need the govenrment not to stand in my way..
You want to see bad schools across the board, public and private? Eliminate the Department of Education. Hello Daniel we have bad school systems now with a dept of education..privite schools arent controled by the dept of education and they preform as a whole alot better that public schools.
Blaming The Great Depression on the FED is pretty hysterical, I'm not sure how much bantering back and forth on that subject it would take to change anyone's mind who feels that way, so I probably won't go there except to say that the Government felt the nessecity to cast off all of Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson's regulations to serve "interests". Look what happened.
Would you say "bullsh*t" in-front of your Mother at the dinner-table?
Why are Democrats so opposed to giving power to the people? Why continue these wasteful federal programs that do absolutely no good. Why are Democrats so in love with the Federal government, which enables greater and greater power to fewer and fewer people?
Mark-Our government is imprefect, it needs improvement but it is still standing, we need to improve it to keep it from collapsing. I believe in efficiant, effective and low-cost government to provide some services. The idea that we should go at government with a hatchet is pretty unreasonable in my mind.
I don't know about you, but medical insurance companies, banks with high interest rates on my student loans and gas prices are standing in my way. We've had "deregulation", maybe it's time for something smarter?
"Would you say "bullsh*t" in-front of your Mother at the dinner-table?"
It wouldn't be the first time.
In fact, think I did it last week when my parents were here.
Blaming the Depression on the Fed is hysterical? You might want to explain that to Milton Freidman, or any other number of economist and historians who have correctly diagnosed the issue.
And if you're defending the Imperial Presidencies of Teddy and Woodrow ... well, that speaks for itself.
I don't have much of a problem defending Teddy Roosevelt. The fact that you think that Milton Friedman is some undisputed walking dead-on think-tank speaks for itself as well.
Good post, Mark. But my belief in abolishing the wasteful and useless and ineffective and harmful FEDERAL department of Education doesn't stop there. State Departments need to be hugely scaled back as well. Education belongs in the hands of parents and teachers in local communities, not distant bureaucrats who couldn't innovate themselves out of a paper bag. As education has become more and more centralized in this country, students have become dumber and dumber.
Howard: You seriously are drawing conclusions from some pretty far-out scenarios. I live in the real world, sorry.
Milton has wrong, this very noble but naive idea, that without Government there will be enormous progress and fairness. We need some form of regulation to prevent those at the top from sucking everything out of the bottom.
The Gold Standard plain doesn't work in the modern world, we're too large to tie our monetary supply to a finite resource.
i don't know about you, but medical insurance companies, banks with high interest rates on my student loans and gas prices are standing in my way. We've had "deregulation", maybe it's time for something smarter? So Daniel does your statement mean that the high and mighty federal govenment is needed to tell banks what interest rates they can charge,or the gas company what price to charge.even thought they dont control what a barrel of oil cost..this is were the free market left alone should be able to set a price of what things will cost..if they are to high we just dont buy it...a case in point gas prices have come down ..why because we quit buying so much..now a barrel of oil is half of what it was just a few months ago..The fed needs to let the market run its course..if crimes are committed then come in and start putting those in jail that are doing things illegal.thats thier job..dont create new regulations if you arent even enforcing the rules on the books now..Other thing i dont get..every one always complains about school loans and how will they afford college..but never is the question why do they keep raising the tutition prices..lower what those costs are and you wont have to borrow as much to go.College cost are going up more than the rate of inflation..
Daniel wrote: "I don't know about you, but medical insurance companies, banks with high interest rates on my student loans and gas prices are standing in my way. We've had "deregulation", maybe it's time for something smarter?"
High medical costs are a direct result of government interference in the free market. Fifty years ago, doctors had much freer reign to provide low-cost and no-cost care to for indigent patients. Those where the days when they made house calls, and when you could afford a routine visit with the cash in your pocket, but with subsidized government programs, regulations to create HMOs, medical costs spun out of control.
Banks don't have high interest rates. Their rates are tied to how much money the Fed is willing to create out of thin air, and for most of the past 30 years, the Fed has been quite free with its monetary supply, which has kept rates artificially low (hence, the housing bubble and the Internet bubble before that).
If not for inflation, created by the fed, which disproportionately punishes working people (the lower you are on the economic scale, the more your earned income is ROBBED from you by inflation), you're student loans would be lower if non-existent.
And gas prices are lower than they were a year ago, and would be lower without all of the state and federal taxes levied on fuel.
Daniel, where has Friedman ever said "no government"?
Friedman said that in a free market, greed and excess is punished by the natural greed and excess of competitors. Truly free markets are self correcting.
We haven't had a free market, a truly free market, in this country since 1913.
Before that, we had more than a century of an expanding economy with no inflation.
Dan,
You are wrong, Mark is right. Inflation and the ability of people to vote goodies from the public treasury are the main problem. I tell you that if you vote for me, I'll give you something for free, it is your "right" to have it for free. You will vote for me. The next guy over sees what I did to get elected and he does the same. Now they are all saying you have a "right" to something, for free, from the public. Now the guy in government sees that to get reelected, he has to give away more "free" stuff. No money to pay for it, no problem, just print more. Inflation starts up again like under Jimmy Carter.
There are no "rights" to all this free stuff. My sons have/had student loans, but is it a right? Medical care; nice to have, sure, but is it a "right" that requires you to take my money against my will, and give to somebody who may not even be here in the country legally, to pay their doctor bills? And if I say no, you can not take my money to pay for your mothers doctor bills, you put me in jail. Is that morally right?
I have read Milton Friedman, he was right, just that most people didn't like what he said.
Howard, do you really want to turn the clock back to the 19th century? Greed, curruption, child labor, lack of civil rights and a very wide gap between the rich and the poor? Do we really want to return to a day where disparity of wealth was at its focal point in American history? Even with the age of "big government" as the fear-mongering goes, even under some conservative Republican Presidencies, we've gone into the digital age because the free-market worked with some government investments. It really should be a partnership.
Those days did provide many advancements that proved crucial for our sociological and economic development, but I wouldn't call them golden days by any standards.
Mark, the Fed is slashing interest rates right and left and the market has run its course. We've had a presidency and for the most part, a congress that has insisted that if we cut taxes for the top one percent and deregulate industry, then everyone will be taken care of. It really is a noble idea, but it doesn't work. My interest rates on my loans have to do with the fact that banks have been left to run wild, even as the fed cuts interest rates my rates still skyrocket. I'm a diabetic who works his arse off, goes to school and still can't find insurance that's affordable.
Nothing is free, that's absolutely for sure. What we need to do is re-instate pay-go, or a system where you can't spend anymore money or cut anymore taxes unless you find other areas to cut more spending or raise other taxes. I'm no 'socialist', but I do believe that our government should run a small but effective operation that provides services to people and works hand in hand with the free market to provide necessary investments.
For the record, I think that everyone having health care is possibly the best move this country could ever make, you could alleviate business costs in a major way.
Daniel, your formulation of "going back to the 19th Century" is a straw man. There was great economic progress and a steady progress in social change and advancement up until the early part of the 20th Century because of the vast amounts of political and economic freedom, not in spite of it. And the fact that courageous individuals fought against the worst of the injustices proves the cause of freedom, not against it. Further, the wrongs and changes that took place have nothing to do with the primary issue here -- the centralization of banking.
If you really care about working people, inflation should be a huge concern to you. Unabated inflation in America is purely an 20th Century thing, after the creation of the Federal Reserve. Inflation hurts the poorest people the most because when money is pumped into the system, to goes to the top of the monetary chain first -- the rich bankers and such -- and starts driving the costs of goods and services up well before wages can rise, and the lower you are on the economic ladder, the longer it takes for your wages to go up to keep up with inflation. So in effect, the Fed robs poor people of their earning power through a kind of silent taxation.
And centralization and federalization of schools had nothing to do with breaking down color barriers. The courts did that, and courageous individuals exercising their freedoms broke down those barriers. We didn't need a department of education to make that happen, and in fact the DOE was much less powerful then than it is now.
Yesterday, I was in Logan Airport and I stopped by a restaurant/bar in the terminal. My computer batter was low, so in order to eat and work on the computer, I needed to plug in. I ask the manager, do you have seat near a power outlet? No. I said, you should get a power strip along the bottom of the bar (like they have in Rochester). And he said, we'd like to do that, but we've got to get plans drawn up, and then have them approved by the airport, by the county, by the city, by the Department of Homeland Security, and then hire DHS approved contractors, and make sure they're working at a time when the DHS and the airport can inspect the work ... and I said, "So you've got to pay $1,000 for a $100 job." He said, "Exactly."
How is so much government interference in free enterprise a good thing for working people?
You talk with small business people all across America and they will have similar stories.
Howard, the courts wouldn't have been able to have their decisions enforced without the courage of Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Your also forgetting that the threat of losing valuble aid forced districts and states to integrate, it was the only way to do so. I'm not ashamed of that legacy, "big government" or not.
There's times when we're 50 states and millions of communities and there's times when there's one America, we have common goals.
We had the courageous leaders of the past that fought for policy changes, and we were able to finally enact the policies that let changes go into effect.
Today on my way to lunch I
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
I think that I've seen that
I think that I've seen that in chain emails going around, if you didn't write that, then you shouldn't post it.
Obama's plan does raise taxes on the wealthy, duh? I don't see how an additional couple percent tax increase damages their standard of living, when you have Warren Buffet saying that the Bush tax cuts really did very little good to stimulate the overall economy, keep in mind this is coming from a billionaire investor, you know that there needs to be some serious discussion on how to handle the fiscal crisis.
If you make under 100k per year, you get a larger tax cut under Obama than under McCain, period. The tax cut plan may have some readjustments at the top and middle, but if you vote for Obama, your voting to have your federal taxes cut substantially more than under John McCain.
Dear Kim: I like the cut of
Dear Kim: I like the cut of your jib.
I do think you tried to make your point about Obama's plan very plain and personal.
I would say that if you can afford to tip anyone ten bucks then you would not suffer much from an Obama victory.
Geez how much did you pay for lunch ?
I should have noted this was
I should have noted this was an email sent to me, thinking about it all day- I cannot take the credit!
Kim
A progressive tax system, as
A progressive tax system, as we have now, which is supported by both parties, is "redistribution of wealth." The bailout was a "redistribution of wealth" (from the poorer people to the wealthier people) and was supported by both McCain and Obama. The income tax itself, as well as Social Security, is a "redistribution of wealth."
Both political parties have been supporters of redistribution of wealth throughout the 20th Century.
So your point?
If you believe that there
If you believe that there will be a tax cut coming as soon as Obama gets into office you are all fooling yourself..it will take a lot of wheeling and dealing..and that could take years..every election we here all these empty promises..the country is in a economic slump right now..and to start giving 1000-1500 dollars tax cuts to all us middle class people ,the money is just not going to be there,by raising taxes on the top one percent .It just doesn't add up..McCain cant do it either..We need to raise workers hourly income,to move this economy.What ever job you have just ask your self if you see your boss giving you even a 1 dollar an hour raise if Obama get elected..If the company has to start paying higher taxes,corperate or other wise,were will the money come from to give you that 1 dollar an hour raise..Its all BS
I don't see how a tax cut is
I don't see how a tax cut is realistic.
We're $10 trillion in debt. We're in a recession. We're spending $10 billion per month in Iraq, and Obama has made no specific promise as to when that will end, but he wants to increase expense in Afghanistan.
Neither candidate is talking about the kind of massive expense cuts that need to take place, such as closing our 700 bases around the world and bringing the troops home (which would reduce expenditures by $500 billion), or eliminating all of the wasteful and ineffective federal spending, such as the department of education.
Barack Obama supports a line
Barack Obama supports a line by line review of the Federal Budget, find out whats working and whats not and elminate the inneffective parts of government.
Eliminating the Department of Education is a 20 year old and unrealistic talking point, like or not, government is a part of our lives that provides vital services to Americans. You want to see bad schools across the board, public and private? Eliminate the Department of Education. You want to see roads and bridges fall apart? Eliminate the Department of Transportation.
We've interwoven parts of these agencies to work with the private sector, and they may not be perfect, but without them we would have even more serious problems than we face now. Look at the schasm between the rich and the poor throughout most of the 1800s. Look at the 1920s and its deregulation.
We need some government, we need it to be more efficient and provide the services that are necessary at a reduced cost. Eliminating entire agencies though, frightening proposition indeed.
At any rate, a line by line
At any rate, a line by line review of the budget, beginning of withdrawing troops in Iraq and resetting taxes on the top 1 percent to pre-Bush levels gives you more than enough money to cut taxes for the middle class and enact a health care plan.
Mark, of course its not going
Mark, of course its not going to happen the minute he gets inaugurated, but I believe that his position is a much better position to stand from than John McCain's.
The line-item veto is a tool
The line-item veto is a tool of the Imperial Presidency, which violates the separation of powers built into the Constitution. The line-item veto gives the president legislative powers not intended by the the Constitution.
And thus one of the chief problems with our one-party, ur, two-party system (two-party in name only): Neither party will bring to the Executive a person who will reject the Imperial Presidency, the president who does not want the line-item veto, who will not use signing statements and executive orders to override both the legislative and the judicial branches.
As for the department of
As for the department of education: There is no argument you could make that would make the case that the average school child is better off today than it was 60 years ago when the DOE had little influence or power. The DOE has been an absolute, unqualified DISASTER for education. The latest folly is "no child left behind," which only goes to illustrate the problem with allowing a federal bureaucracy manage programs better left to local control.
If you really care about the education of children, if you really care about how our children fare in a global economy, you would unconditionally support the demolition of the Department of Education. There is really no other alternative. History proves it. Common sense proves it. Results prove it. Continued bad policy by administration after administration proves it. The DOE is the epitome of wasteful and ineffective federal spending.
I find it absolutely baffling that Democrats, who supposedly are the champions of working people, cannot see what an enemy the DOE is to the children of working families.
There is absolutely nothing, no positive result whatsoever, that has ever come as a result of the federal Department of Education. All the DOE has managed to accomplish is dumber students who are even less equipped than previous generations for advancement and economic equality.
And -- let's look at the 19th
And -- let's look at the 19th century, when the US was the beacon of economic advancement, when monetary systems were stable, when the economy grew at a fast rate WITHOUT inflation, when more people were lifted out of poverty than any time prior in human history, when the U.S. economy was the envy of the world.
As for the Depression -- let's call bullshit bullshit. Deregulation didn't case the Depression. The Federal Reserve caused the Depression, because free markets were not allowed to be free, and the Fed totally mismanaged the monetary supply (in this case by restricting supply at a critical time). The greatest sin for 80 percent of the 20th Century was causing inflation, but at a critical time when the Fed could have actually increased monetary flow, it contracted it in about 1931, and hence a recession became a depression. If the US had still been on the gold standard and there was no Federal Reserve, there would have been no Depression.
Howard, did I ever suggest
Howard, did I ever suggest the Line-Item Veto? No, what I suggested is doing what Bill Clinton did with Al Gore, use department funding and work with congress to eliminate unessecary and useless programs.
Howard, DOE programs helped
Howard, DOE programs helped implement imperfect, but on the whole positive changes to enforce regularities and civil rights within education. Had it not been for IDEA and so many other inititives that came out of the DOE Special Education would be non-existent, and a large percentage of the population that could not previously have been mainstreamed would be left in the dark. We've seen what happens when there's no standards.
No Child Left Behind was a disaster because of inadequete funding for it, I say we just scrap it and come up with better policies with more local input, but some streamlining is necessary. We need to tie in school boards, teachers, administrations and students in with a new and more practical set of education goals.
Daniel, you wrote "Barack
Daniel, you wrote "Barack Obama supports a line by line review of the Federal Budget, find out whats working and whats not and eliminate the ineffective parts of government."
Which sounds a lot like a line-item veto to me.
If that's not how you intended it fine. So let's start with what's not working and never has, ever: The department of education.
Next, let's look at 700 military bases in 130 countries, which only breed resentment toward the United States at a cost of $600 billion per year.
I haven't heard Mr. Obama talking about those issues.
Your so right Howard...Daniel
Your so right Howard...Daniel im glad you believe in your government..to think that it can do all for every one..but this is the real world..take a look at fannie mae and freddy mac..government at its finest..i believe the state should be able to handle the schools not some big federal agency called the dept of education..not needed..we send them money they keep a part and send back to the state with some kind of mandate attached to it..get rid of them..the line item veto is not right..a budget is a budget..if the president doesn't like it then don't sign it..send it back..and Daniel you dont really believe that tax increase to the top 1 precent is going to be enought for a tax reduction and a health care program..were talking allmost a trillion dollars for all that..the math doesn't add up for obama or mccain..I've been around awhile and let me tell you they all claim they are going to make my life better if i vote for them..I am the only one to make things beter for me..i just need the govenrment not to stand in my way..
You want to see bad schools across the board, public and private? Eliminate the Department of Education. Hello Daniel we have bad school systems now with a dept of education..privite schools arent controled by the dept of education and they preform as a whole alot better that public schools.
Blaming The Great Depression
Blaming The Great Depression on the FED is pretty hysterical, I'm not sure how much bantering back and forth on that subject it would take to change anyone's mind who feels that way, so I probably won't go there except to say that the Government felt the nessecity to cast off all of Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson's regulations to serve "interests". Look what happened.
Would you say "bullsh*t" in-front of your Mother at the dinner-table?
Why are Democrats so opposed
Why are Democrats so opposed to giving power to the people? Why continue these wasteful federal programs that do absolutely no good. Why are Democrats so in love with the Federal government, which enables greater and greater power to fewer and fewer people?
Mark-Our government is
Mark-Our government is imprefect, it needs improvement but it is still standing, we need to improve it to keep it from collapsing. I believe in efficiant, effective and low-cost government to provide some services. The idea that we should go at government with a hatchet is pretty unreasonable in my mind.
I don't know about you, but medical insurance companies, banks with high interest rates on my student loans and gas prices are standing in my way. We've had "deregulation", maybe it's time for something smarter?
"Would you say "bullsh*t"
"Would you say "bullsh*t" in-front of your Mother at the dinner-table?"
It wouldn't be the first time.
In fact, think I did it last week when my parents were here.
Blaming the Depression on the Fed is hysterical? You might want to explain that to Milton Freidman, or any other number of economist and historians who have correctly diagnosed the issue.
And if you're defending the Imperial Presidencies of Teddy and Woodrow ... well, that speaks for itself.
I don't have much of a
I don't have much of a problem defending Teddy Roosevelt. The fact that you think that Milton Friedman is some undisputed walking dead-on think-tank speaks for itself as well.
Good post, Mark. But my
Good post, Mark. But my belief in abolishing the wasteful and useless and ineffective and harmful FEDERAL department of Education doesn't stop there. State Departments need to be hugely scaled back as well. Education belongs in the hands of parents and teachers in local communities, not distant bureaucrats who couldn't innovate themselves out of a paper bag. As education has become more and more centralized in this country, students have become dumber and dumber.
If not for Teddy Roosevelt,
If not for Teddy Roosevelt, there would have been no Japanese Empire, no Pearl Harbor -- this you're defending?
As for Milton -- name one economic principle he got wrong?
Here's something for you to read: <a href="http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html">Alan Greenspan on the Gold Standard</a>.
Howard: You seriously are
Howard: You seriously are drawing conclusions from some pretty far-out scenarios. I live in the real world, sorry.
Milton has wrong, this very noble but naive idea, that without Government there will be enormous progress and fairness. We need some form of regulation to prevent those at the top from sucking everything out of the bottom.
The Gold Standard plain doesn't work in the modern world, we're too large to tie our monetary supply to a finite resource.
i don't know about you, but
i don't know about you, but medical insurance companies, banks with high interest rates on my student loans and gas prices are standing in my way. We've had "deregulation", maybe it's time for something smarter? So Daniel does your statement mean that the high and mighty federal govenment is needed to tell banks what interest rates they can charge,or the gas company what price to charge.even thought they dont control what a barrel of oil cost..this is were the free market left alone should be able to set a price of what things will cost..if they are to high we just dont buy it...a case in point gas prices have come down ..why because we quit buying so much..now a barrel of oil is half of what it was just a few months ago..The fed needs to let the market run its course..if crimes are committed then come in and start putting those in jail that are doing things illegal.thats thier job..dont create new regulations if you arent even enforcing the rules on the books now..Other thing i dont get..every one always complains about school loans and how will they afford college..but never is the question why do they keep raising the tutition prices..lower what those costs are and you wont have to borrow as much to go.College cost are going up more than the rate of inflation..
Daniel wrote: "I don't know
Daniel wrote: "I don't know about you, but medical insurance companies, banks with high interest rates on my student loans and gas prices are standing in my way. We've had "deregulation", maybe it's time for something smarter?"
High medical costs are a direct result of government interference in the free market. Fifty years ago, doctors had much freer reign to provide low-cost and no-cost care to for indigent patients. Those where the days when they made house calls, and when you could afford a routine visit with the cash in your pocket, but with subsidized government programs, regulations to create HMOs, medical costs spun out of control.
Banks don't have high interest rates. Their rates are tied to how much money the Fed is willing to create out of thin air, and for most of the past 30 years, the Fed has been quite free with its monetary supply, which has kept rates artificially low (hence, the housing bubble and the Internet bubble before that).
If not for inflation, created by the fed, which disproportionately punishes working people (the lower you are on the economic scale, the more your earned income is ROBBED from you by inflation), you're student loans would be lower if non-existent.
And gas prices are lower than they were a year ago, and would be lower without all of the state and federal taxes levied on fuel.
Daniel, where has Friedman
Daniel, where has Friedman ever said "no government"?
Friedman said that in a free market, greed and excess is punished by the natural greed and excess of competitors. Truly free markets are self correcting.
We haven't had a free market, a truly free market, in this country since 1913.
Before that, we had more than a century of an expanding economy with no inflation.
How is that bad?
A less central government
A less central government makes people more free, more prosperous and more wise. I'm at a lost to figure why that's a bad thing.
Milton Friedman on Greed:
Milton Friedman on Greed:
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A]
Dan, You are wrong, Mark is
Dan,
You are wrong, Mark is right. Inflation and the ability of people to vote goodies from the public treasury are the main problem. I tell you that if you vote for me, I'll give you something for free, it is your "right" to have it for free. You will vote for me. The next guy over sees what I did to get elected and he does the same. Now they are all saying you have a "right" to something, for free, from the public. Now the guy in government sees that to get reelected, he has to give away more "free" stuff. No money to pay for it, no problem, just print more. Inflation starts up again like under Jimmy Carter.
There are no "rights" to all this free stuff. My sons have/had student loans, but is it a right? Medical care; nice to have, sure, but is it a "right" that requires you to take my money against my will, and give to somebody who may not even be here in the country legally, to pay their doctor bills? And if I say no, you can not take my money to pay for your mothers doctor bills, you put me in jail. Is that morally right?
I have read Milton Friedman, he was right, just that most people didn't like what he said.
Howard, do you really want to
Howard, do you really want to turn the clock back to the 19th century? Greed, curruption, child labor, lack of civil rights and a very wide gap between the rich and the poor? Do we really want to return to a day where disparity of wealth was at its focal point in American history? Even with the age of "big government" as the fear-mongering goes, even under some conservative Republican Presidencies, we've gone into the digital age because the free-market worked with some government investments. It really should be a partnership.
Those days did provide many advancements that proved crucial for our sociological and economic development, but I wouldn't call them golden days by any standards.
Mark, the Fed is slashing interest rates right and left and the market has run its course. We've had a presidency and for the most part, a congress that has insisted that if we cut taxes for the top one percent and deregulate industry, then everyone will be taken care of. It really is a noble idea, but it doesn't work. My interest rates on my loans have to do with the fact that banks have been left to run wild, even as the fed cuts interest rates my rates still skyrocket. I'm a diabetic who works his arse off, goes to school and still can't find insurance that's affordable.
Nothing is free, that's absolutely for sure. What we need to do is re-instate pay-go, or a system where you can't spend anymore money or cut anymore taxes unless you find other areas to cut more spending or raise other taxes. I'm no 'socialist', but I do believe that our government should run a small but effective operation that provides services to people and works hand in hand with the free market to provide necessary investments.
For the record, I think that everyone having health care is possibly the best move this country could ever make, you could alleviate business costs in a major way.
Howard, if we hadn't
Howard, if we hadn't centralized part of our education policy we would still have "white" and "colored" schools.
Daniel, your formulation of
Daniel, your formulation of "going back to the 19th Century" is a straw man. There was great economic progress and a steady progress in social change and advancement up until the early part of the 20th Century because of the vast amounts of political and economic freedom, not in spite of it. And the fact that courageous individuals fought against the worst of the injustices proves the cause of freedom, not against it. Further, the wrongs and changes that took place have nothing to do with the primary issue here -- the centralization of banking.
If you really care about working people, inflation should be a huge concern to you. Unabated inflation in America is purely an 20th Century thing, after the creation of the Federal Reserve. Inflation hurts the poorest people the most because when money is pumped into the system, to goes to the top of the monetary chain first -- the rich bankers and such -- and starts driving the costs of goods and services up well before wages can rise, and the lower you are on the economic ladder, the longer it takes for your wages to go up to keep up with inflation. So in effect, the Fed robs poor people of their earning power through a kind of silent taxation.
And centralization and federalization of schools had nothing to do with breaking down color barriers. The courts did that, and courageous individuals exercising their freedoms broke down those barriers. We didn't need a department of education to make that happen, and in fact the DOE was much less powerful then than it is now.
Yesterday, I was in Logan Airport and I stopped by a restaurant/bar in the terminal. My computer batter was low, so in order to eat and work on the computer, I needed to plug in. I ask the manager, do you have seat near a power outlet? No. I said, you should get a power strip along the bottom of the bar (like they have in Rochester). And he said, we'd like to do that, but we've got to get plans drawn up, and then have them approved by the airport, by the county, by the city, by the Department of Homeland Security, and then hire DHS approved contractors, and make sure they're working at a time when the DHS and the airport can inspect the work ... and I said, "So you've got to pay $1,000 for a $100 job." He said, "Exactly."
How is so much government interference in free enterprise a good thing for working people?
You talk with small business people all across America and they will have similar stories.
Howard, the courts wouldn't
Howard, the courts wouldn't have been able to have their decisions enforced without the courage of Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Your also forgetting that the threat of losing valuble aid forced districts and states to integrate, it was the only way to do so. I'm not ashamed of that legacy, "big government" or not.
There's times when we're 50 states and millions of communities and there's times when there's one America, we have common goals.
We had the courageous leaders of the past that fought for policy changes, and we were able to finally enact the policies that let changes go into effect.
Your also forgetting the
Your also forgetting the Panic of 1837, pre-Fed era and while still on the gold standard, the gilded age wasn't all happy trails.
Daniel, here's an interesting
Daniel, here's an interesting link that supports, in a broad sense, your position. Interesting reading -- a refutation of the <a href="http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausmain.htm">Austrian School</a>.
Can you post the link for the
Can you post the link for the rest of us?
John-http://www.huppi.com/kan
John-http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausmain.htm
Dan, You and I get up way too
Dan,
You and I get up way too early. See you later around town.
Actually I've been up all
Actually I've been up all night doing homework so I can spend my spare time on the campaign trail. :)