From CNN:

Almost lost in the wall-to-wall news coverage of the battle in Washington over the debt ceiling and the convulsions of the stock market was this item:

Merck & Co., the huge pharmaceutical manufacturer, announced that it will be eliminating up to 13,000 jobs through the end of the year 2015. This is in addition to 17,000 job cuts that were previously announced.

That's thousands of families who will newly be cast adrift. The Wall Street Journal explained that "35% to 40% of the new work-force reductions will be in the U.S., while Merck will continue to hire new employees in 'growth areas,' including emerging markets such as China."

And why will those thousands of families be thrust into uncertainty and, perhaps, despair, in an economy where jobs are so scarce? Is it because Merck has been losing money?

Apparently not. The Journal noted that "For the quarter, Merck reported a profit of $2.02 billion, or 65 cents a share, up from $752 million, or 24 cents a share, a year earlier. Revenue increased 7% to $12.15 billion."

American corporations have turned traitor to this country. They take the benefits of being located in the world's biggest economy and give nothing back. 60% pay NO taxes at all, and corporate taxes as a percentage of ALL FEDERAL REVENUES have dropped to only 9%. (Payroll taxes make up 40% and personal income taxes 42%.) In the 1950's corporate taxes contributed 28% and the 1960's 21%.

Corporations are sitting on $1.9 TRILLION in cash that they've hoarded away out of America's economy. It's time they gave some of that back.

Corporations sitting on cash. Some say it's because they don't want to put it back in the economy while Obama is in office. They want no signs of success or progression to be visible till after the election.

From USA Today, 3/31/2011:

Good Graph Friday: You're working harder, they're making money

2010 CEO pay chart, sorted by total

GDP in America today is higher than it was in 2007. The only question is - where is it going?

American workers have contributed to getting us back on track - productivity is at record levels. But ALL of the gains have been taken by American corporations and the investor class.

It's time for a little "shared sacrifice".

What exactly are Corps to do? Re-invest in America? How? You have a totallly ANTI-BUSINESS administration thank you Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Are the Corps supposed to expand? How? Hire? How? These Corps have NO IDEA what they're facing in because of the 2000+ pages of NEW rules and regs not to mention Obamacare! And then because Obama is Ruling through "Governance"...very different from "Government" you've got the EPA runnin' around slapping ADDITIONAL rules and regs w "PUNISHMENT'. Hell, these Corps CAN'T DO ANYTHING IN THE UNITED "57" STATES.

The top 10% pay 70% of the bills while the bottom 50% pay nothing, your right perhaps it is time for a little shared sacrifice. :<)

Hmm almost a recession we middle class are already in one doorknob for like 4 years and it's going to continue.

Idiot

RealAmericansFirst: think about what you just said. If you were a business and one of the 60% that didn't pay ANY taxes, had excellent employees that are 10 times smarter than Americans who work for 1/4 as much money, what would you do? Do you think taxing people, who are already sending jobs overseas because it's cheaper, is really going to solve the problem??? No! They'll just continue doing what they're doing at a faster rate.

You want American companies to hire Americans? Give them a great reason to do so. Last time I checked, businesses are in the business of making money. Make it affordable for companies to do business here, make it easy and most of all, make sure that Americans are the BEST people for the job! We're all sitting around screaming that companies are moving jobs overseas and yet look at the people we're putting into the job force. Most can't perform basic math functions and yet expect to receive a salary of $50k or more. There's a reason McDonalds is always hiring and the jobs Americans think they deserve have gone across the pond. I'm not saying companies SHOULD hire overseas; I'm saying that it's not always their fault for doing so. Sometimes, the people they need for that particular position doesn't exist in America.

I completely agree AnnieRich. It's ridiculous what corporations have to jump through now.

The "forecasts" just as "futures" and "speculations" are obscene, and those behind them are immoral and soulless. What a damaging way to earn a living...by promoting fear and temptation. Manipulation at its finest.

Phil the top 10% make 90% of the money and hold more than 95% of the money. Grow up.

Th answer is to lock these turncoats out. Ban their products and seize their patents. Make the next nickel spent on infrastructure go to factories. And abolish the EPA. Good idea, whores and criminals at the helm. We need a trade war with not a country, but with business and politicians (one in the same) who have stolen America. Lent us money to buy homes and then stole our jobs. Convinced every idiot out there that the homeowner who has paid his house for 20 years and then lost his job is to blame. The time to sit and wait is over.

Quit crying about the rich you self absorbed fools.

If a rapper with no ejamacation what so ever can make a few million dollars singing about his testicles. Why can't you people figure out how to live responsibly and within your means?

FrankLovesMiles - So were supposed to roll over and take it up our backsides? If got one: no jobs/ 95% corporate tax rate - create jobs and you get a break but only WHEN you hire. Have you ever negotiated anything? So what you're saying is give the corporations all the tax cuts on the come and (bless their little hearts) wait for them to start hiring? Don't ever think of playing professional poker.

If we want unemployment to go down and the economy to start moving again, we need to make tax and regulatory changes that encourage companies to do business in the US.

For example, we say we want green manufacturing jobs, but we don't allow companies to mine the requisite minerals in the US. Companies can get the minerals from other countries, but that significant increases their production costs and puts them at a distinct price disadvantage. If we really want to become a "green economy", then we need to have the whole production lifecycle in the US. We have the natural resources - we just don't use them.

Yes, we also need to make changes to trade agreements - but those will take a long time to negotiate and get approved. It's still worth doing, but it will be years before we see the benefits.

AnnieRich

What exactly are Corps to do? Re-invest in America? How? You have a totallly ANTI-BUSINESS administration thank you Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Are the Corps supposed to expand? How? Hire? How? These Corps have NO IDEA what they're facing in because of the 2000+ pages of NEW rules and regs not to mention Obamacare! And then because Obama is Ruling through "Governance"...very different from "Government" you've got the EPA runnin' around slapping ADDITIONAL rules and regs w "PUNISHMENT'. Hell, these Corps CAN'T DO ANYTHING IN THE UNITED "57" STATES.

BRAVO!!!!!!!

I was beginning to think I was the only American who was seeing the real problems in our nation.

We live in a very different world today. A very different economy. We are no longer the only kid on the block who can manufacture things. Emerging markets have caught up and surpassed us. Our corporations have systematically decentralized and made strategic move to increase their profits because THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO!

For those of you complaining about how much CEO's are earning, the solution is simple. Take over their job, run the Forbe's 2000 corporations according to your economic and social justice mindset and create the socialist Nirvana you so revere. Today's economy is based on 9% manufacturing, in 1960 it was 53%. We no longer have the simple repetitive jobs that our education system that creates illiterates once supported. There are two solutions. We recreate our balanced economy of manufacturing and service that created the wealth prosperity and standard of living we are accustomed to, or we accept the ridiculous notion of a "jobless recovery".

I'll leave that decision to you.

Hi Common Sense,

It's a shame your nickname is so fraudulent. Firms aren't sitting on trillions in cash hoping to wait out Obama and get a new president. They are sitting on trillions because there are too many risks out there for them to put their money to work, only to see The Messiah load them up with new costs in an area not predicted let alone contemplated.

We need a PRO-GROWTH agenda, not a pro-government agenda. Obama is not the man for the job, and not just because he has zero private sector experience. I think the larger problem for Obama is his rampant arrogance matched with his omnipresent narcissism. In other words, he THINKS he is The Messiah you all pronounced him to be, and given his demi-God status he can do no wrong. It's always someone else's fault. And Mr. Obama cannot change course.

Why, after all, would the smartest person who has ever lived need to alter his policies just because they aren't working when it is our fault he is failing?

No, companies WANT to earn more profits and will put that money to work as soon as they get the kind of predictability AND stability that long-term investing requires. Why is it that seemingly only liberal politicians and their sycophants don't get this? Better question...why would ANYONE with common sense elect a liberal politician?

Hi Ron,

I am partly with you. My problem with your idea is that you still leave in place the concept that the government is best at deciding future winners and losers, this despite all evidence to the contrary. Tax and regulatory reform are definite musts if we are to get out of the ditch, but rather than pick more winners and losers in doing this let's instead just let the market do its thing.

If "green" industries can survive in a fair marketplace, then fantastic. Otherwise they should fail just like any other firm should fail if it can't produce what you want to buy at a price you are willing to pay for it. So let's eliminate all corporate taxes at the federal level AND eliminate all corporate subsidies at the federal level too. Sure, the government will still try to pick winners by writing laws with clauses in them that make contracting with certain firms our only public option, but this kind of corruption has been going on since the dawn of governments.

The Hockey Guy

Morgan says we are Dangerously close to a Recession

S&P Downgrades America for the 1st time ever

Thanks a lot Obama and Pelosi! (as well as all the libs/progs that voted them in)

Now just resign and go away so we can clean up your mess!

I believe that mess you're talking about is the one that Bush made and Repubs refuse to let Obama clean up.

Without using the word "deficit".. what mess are you talking about?

The Hockey Guy has obviously been hit with one puck too many....

"Your mess" - priceless, just priceless!

It's the mess they both made. Anyone blaming one party has no idea how politics works in the first place.

Well, it's going to get worse, there is nothing to stop the downward spiral. People are looking to government to fix the problem, not seeing that in many cases, government IS the problem. Obama is on his 'tax the rich' class warfare bus, and behind the curtain there are new rule, regulations and taxes just waiting till after the election cycle to spring forth. No wonder the economy is crap, we have allowed the government to become the business manager.

As to the debt, well, face it, we are broke because for decades the can was kicked down the road, each successive administration racking up more debt and doing nothing to curb spending. Instead of calling a halt, becoming responsible and accountable, the administrations and congress continued with business as usual.

Obama wants to expand the government's role into virtually everything, he sees the government as the answer, nationalize everything, get rid of the private sector (except for the massive corporations and banks which, in truth, are the government) and tax the crap out of everyone (start w/ the rich and work down to the middle class) and support the generational welfare voters and massive corporations. His new 'rural commission/initiative' is nothing but more government control over food production which we really don't need right now. Until someone is elected to lead rather than and be an ideologue campaigner, (and Perry ain't that guy either) we will continue on the downward spiral.

The Hockey Guy

Rich,

Brilliantly and Eloquently stated!

If obama would announce he was not going to run again; the economy would sky-rocket and un-employment would drop drastically.

obama is NOT a leader and can not be trusted on any aspect relative to our economy.

Man, you are just full of fun republican talking points today.

The whole idea is to make Obama a one term president so conservatives can go back to f@#$ing us.

Conservative strategy:

1.) Allow Bush to destroy the economy and hand his rich buddies loads of cash. 2.) Have all Republicans keep government in a stalemate while the dems try to undo the damage from the Bush administration. 3.) blame the lagging economy on the dems who have their hands tied by the very people who f@#$ed it up in the first place. 4.) laugh at the fact that the sheeples bought it. 5.) vote in another republican and repeat the process.

Hi B,

Our current economic mess isn't about the federal deficit. We could have a robust economy and a massive deficit, or a crappy economy and balance (or even surplus), or both could be positive or negative at the same time. You make the mistake most liberals do of thinking that the government's fiscal health is what drives the economy.

We do have a deficit mess though, and Obama has made it far worse than anything and everything Bush did wrong. But the problem, really, is that Obama is not pro-growth and instead has made the business climate worse, not better, with his ideas and policies. Obamacare, for instance, makes our health care delivery system far worse and far more expensive than it otherwise would be. This doesn't mean we don't need reforms, just that his reforms are failures.

The federal deficit matters for several reasons, not the least of which is that it's immoral to borrow from our unborn heirs so we can live beyond our means today. It's the major expansion of federal spending Obama is to blame for, not the fact we have a deficit at all. He's just made it so much worse than ever before.

Hi B,

I'm not going to take all of your bait but I would like you to help me understand one of your points. Why do you think republicans want to destroy the economy and hand out cash to political friends? What I mean, really, is how does destroying the economy help republicans? I don't think Obama wants to destroy the economy--I think he is hoping like hell it improves. I think, instead, that Obama sees the government as the answer to all problems and doesn't comprehend it is very often the cause.

Obama has added $2T .. Bush added $6T. My point is that it has nothing to do with the deficit.

Every time I asked someone this question.. "what has Obama done wrong?" its.. "the deficit.. and 'Obamacare'.."

I'm not a big fan of Obama because he's not doing enough and he's letting conservatives walk all over his administration. I just don't want the kind of screwing of America as we had with the Bush admin.

It's too bad our only options for the '12 election will be a failure and a nut-job.

Hi B,

Sorry, wrong on both numbers. Obama so far has added $4.7 trillion, Bush added $5 trillion, give or take a few hundred billion. Which was a LOT, but it was 8 years too. Obama is on track to add ANOTHER $8 trillion PLUS, which will more than double the national debt that he inherited. These are his numbers, not mine. I think if his policies remain in place it will be even worse.

And as for what Obama has done wrong Obamacare is a major component. Apologizing to the world is another. Enacting thousands of new pages of regulations is another. Endlessly blaming everyone else for all things bad is another. De facto oil drilling prohibition in the gulf is another. Class warfare is another. Thinking that private sector jobs are created out of DC actions is another.

And the wave of flipping real estate and the massive bubble which Bush encouraged coupled with deregulating of the banking / Wall Street guys - allowing them to gang rape our economy for the 6 years of Bush prior to Pelosi --- that had nothing to do with it? Nothing to do with it! My blind partisanship is a direct result of what Bush did to our country - not hatred of Bush or Republicans - hatred of horrible policies and that trickle down horse-sh*t which has never worked. I admit it - you, Hockey Puck, don't.

You don't like Obama because he black and he's a Democrat. In fact if the truth be told you're probably a hater. Obama could have the best economy with 1% unemployment and a stock market at 100,000 and you'd still take a failure of a Republican President over a Democrat. Obviously America 1st is not in your lexicon.

Good luck with that as a successful strategy to get through life.

Hey The Hockey Guy,

And I think it goes deeper than just Pelosi's Congress. I mean the Community Reinvestment Act was in 1977. That was Tip O'Neill and Jimmy Carter. It was made far, FAR worse under Clinton. The real estate bubble really began with Clinton--it was there before, but with the policies about "greenlining" it became federal policy to "incentivize" (force really) lenders to loan money to people who were more dangerous risks.

Fast forward several years and we saw how Bush was reviled as a racist for wanting to reform those very policies which Fannie and Freddie were supporting by buying up so much paper in the secondary market. So...no reforms. Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and virtually all democrats in Congress put an end to that concept.

The bubble burst in 2007-2008, and the housing ATM machines began to give no money. Our economy was built on a fraud, a fraud instituted by liberals with the help of squishy republicans who knew better, but who wanted to be re-elected too. Since then our current president has done NOTHING to repair the regulatory flaw that encouraged this fraud. It has, in fact, become worse.

Liberals want to blame Bush for the recession which was caused by a housing market bubble which they encouraged which burst. There is no way to get good policy out of DC when so many voters who support bad policies still, to this day, have no comprehension about how this came about. They think it's all about corporate greed. Fools.

One other thing...the major beneficiary of the Fannie and Freddie debacle? Democratic Party candidates for office, who got MILLIONS of dollars from this fraud donated to them, and who to this day are not held accountable by the most incurious MSM imaginable.

Hi Brian P,

I can't even get through your first line without spotting the lie. Bush wanted to REFORM the mortgage industry in order to make it more sound. He was opposed by Congressional democrats. Go to youtube or CSPAN, it's all there. Maxine Waters, Bobby Scott, Barney Frank, and the long list of ignoble representatives, all refusing to see the bubble and reform the laws.

We have been in a recession for a very long time. The recession was never over. How can they szy we are almost in a recession?

Rich, I have never indicated that both parties don't share responsibility. But supply-side economics has never, not once - worked. And I'll define "worked" : full employment, upward mobility regardless of economic status (in macro sense and obviously "working" people), robust GDP, tame inflation, and deficit neutral.

It has never, not once, worked: Supply-side economics.

Doing the same thing again and again while failing then insisting to do it more and expecting a different result. Reagan knew that, Clinton knew that.

Bush didn't (I guess he was so obsessed with himself as "The Decider").

Brian P,

And that has nothing to do with my post. Your claim that Bush WANTED the real estate bubble is a lie given that he went to Congress asking for reforms to the very causes of it. Democrats in Congress didnt' just say no, they called Bush a racist for even suggesting that Fannie, Freddie, and federal regulators needed to stop the incentives and regulations that caused lenders to give loans to people unable to pay them back.

As for supply side economics, it is one leg of Keynesianism. And Obama is today playing supply side economics too. Don't believe me? Fine. then explain how payroll tax cuts, or income tax rate cuts, aren't supply side? Obama claims these things are helping to avoid a total catastrophe. Is he a liar now too?

What I would support is a flat tax plan that put everyone with an income into the same marginal rate. I would support elimination of all corporate taxes (federal..what your state does is irrelevant to me) AND all corporate subsidies. But I will not support the one thing you ignore as a complete failure over time despite all the evidence proving it to be: Federal economic guidance.

Brian P

Your blind faith is honorable. We know all of you who made the "Great Mistake of 2008" are in shock at how badly Barrck Hussein deceived you. It's OK, we accept your apology.

The massive bubble which Bush encouraged coupled with deregulating of the banking / Wall Street guys

You may want to research the 9 (NINE) different legislative and deregulatory changes Clinton added to the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act). I think you'll see the errors of your way.

Uh, no Rich - I actually over stated those numbers. Of true US deficit Obama has added 1.6T and bush added 6T... I'm not a huge Obama fan, I'm just even less of a Republican fan.

If you guys are going to quote Fox News in every one of your posts, go post on FoxNews.com.

B,

Sorry, you are completely wrong. Bush came in with a national debt of 5.7T. He left with 10.7T, which is where we pick up the story with Obama. We are NOW at 14.7T but we have more spending that is mandatory in this fiscal year which will take it to more than 15T.

Bush added FIVE trillion--a great amount of debt I agree, but less than you claim. Obama, just through this fiscal year--so three years of Obama--will have added nearly FIVE trillion.

But don't believe me, believe the debt clock. Or not. I think the claim you want to make is that there was programmed spending already in the pipeline and we should not hold Obama accountable for that. I would support that kind of analysis except for one blatant problem--you don't give Bush the same analysis. If we go that direction Obama is still set to more than double the record of Bush for adding new debt.

And since I have no idea what the hell you are babbling on about Fox News--I never quoted anything they claimed--I don't know what to say about your comment except to put the pipe down, man.

...and Obama goes off on yet another vacation.

Kinda reminds me of Nero playing his fiddle...

At least Nero had a talent.

Rich,

My example about developing a "green economy" wasn't meant to advocate government interference. I largely agree with you on keeping government out - although there are cases where I'm ok with government being involved in some instances. For my example, what I was referring to was government saying companies could not mine the rare-earth minerals needed for a lot of the green manufacturing people would like to see in the US. In this case, I'm not looking for government to make exceptions for green manufacturing - I'm looking for government to reduce the restrictions it's put in place that are putting the industry at a competitive disadvantage relative to companies in other countries. (and the same goes for all other industries)

The Downgrade of our Debt was made to be a question of if the Gov't can pay today.

That is not what it means.

You will never hear this in the liberal\mainstream media, but they are looking at the ability to pay debts taken out today, BUT PAID IN THE FUTURE.

The figures for 2021 are bleak. You think it looks bad now, just wait.

The baby boomers will be retired. No tax income, just massive entitlement spending.

Our competitors will be more developed and competitive on higher end jobs.

The simple reality is that we are not AAA.

Hey Ron,

Makes sense but I would go one step further and make our's the most business friendly nation possible. We either have to dramatically increase manufacturing--particularly for export--and improve our service sector OR we are going to be forced to cut our living standard to such a degree that I think no other outcome but civil strife is possible.

Ok, Rich, I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers but I'll believe you.

Now, my question is, what did they spend that ridiculous amount of money on?

B,

The majority of that money went to SS and Medicare and Medicaid. Toss in servicing the national debt and you have about 65% of all spending at the federal level.

Look, we've developed a standard of living we don't want to surrender (we don't have to either) but rather than supply it with money we earn today we've decided to borrow against the future so we can live better today. We could promote growth but this will rile environmentalists and liberals if we do anything to harm the environment or do anything without paying off unions.

Sorry, but there are no bogeymen here but us, as voters. Blame republicans, blame democrats...in the end it is all a game. If we want this kind of life, this wealth and power, then we better start producing more goods and doing a better job at delivering services. Our unborn heirs can't pay much longer.

Rich - SS, Medicare and Medicaid are not new programs, therefore that doesn't account for the $2T in 1 year that this administration apparently spent.

Environmentalists!? I don't understand how anyone can disagree with the fact that we have to take care of the only planet we have..

B,

Sorry, I thought we were talking generally. But this admin didn't spend 2T in one year more than before, it was about 1T or so more, but because of lower revenues due to recession it totaled 1.65T. Much of the money has been increases in medical costs and discretionary programs, but hundreds of billions has been cash straight to states to keep unionized state employees working. Which hasn't exactly worked out too well.

No one is arguing we shouldn't care about the environment. My point is that you can't sustain our standard of living AND pursue an absolutist agenda for the environment. Absolutist is a bit unfair since, as we've seen, so long as one aspect of environmental fanaticism is supported, like wind turbine power, then it's okay to kill protected bird species in the process. Kill birds in the name of oil and all hell breaks loose though.

Thank you B!! I don't know why Anne Rich and a few others post their TP agenda in here other than this is still America (barely) and they get paid to do it.

Okay here's a thought. Sweden charges 12% interest on the corporations monies banked there. We charge 35%. Why don't we charge 23% tariff on all goods brought into the United States? We then have start up factories produce the overpriced items brought in and charge our American companies, employing Americans 23%. We insist the Unions modify their policies and make employees pay into their medical and retirement. Government employees included. But they may maintain their bargaining rights regarding wages. All new factories starting up must be responsible to our air and water and the government can float them a loan to upgrade the stinking polluting way business was done under the Republicans. My understand is that we are the largest group of consumers these 3rd world companies have. Well....lets change that.

Next we tax the wealthy incomes and close the loopholes. No more salaries issued through stock etc. If they don't like it they can move to the third world country they moved their stinking factories to.

I agree with Robin in post 1.11 Seize their patents. We probably subsidized them to the hilt anyway.

I don't know what you Teabaggers have against clean air and water. I don't know what problem you have with insurance companies not being able to turn someone down because of a previous illness or deny coverage to someone with a catastrophic disease. Every friggin thing you want to do is toxic in one way or another. You truly disgust me! Annie Rich you need to ask your Teabagger buddy Norquist why he doesn't want to close the borders. And after that ask him about his good buddies DeLay and Abramoff.

B's right....go over to Faux.

Can someone please explain to me how Obama is "totally antibusiness"? AnnieRich it would be nice if you could do it since you're the one who said it. I'm not trying to be condescending here I'm genuinely curious. Specifics would be nice.

Oh, and Hockey Guy, I think you are overlooking the fact that 2009 was George Bush's last fiscal year, not Obama's first. That was when the deficit cracked the trillion dollar range. In 2010, Obama's first fiscal year, the deficit actually decreased by about $160 billion. Obama is not perfect, but if you are going to criticize him, you should at least do it with facts, and not misinformation.

Norquist was Alamoudi’s most influential Washington facilitator, authorities believe, noting that Norquist reminds friend and foe alike that he is close to the president’s powerful political strategist, Karl Rove.

Norquist, who previously has denied any suggestion that his work facilitated any wrongdoing, not only introduced Alamoudi to Washington GOP power circles but also Sammy Al Arian, whom prosecutors arrested earlier this year for alleged terrorist activities. Federal law-enforcement sources say they are focusing on some of Norquist’s associates and financial ties to terrorist groups.

Alamoudi and other Muslim leaders met with Bush in Austin in July [2000], offering to support his bid for the White House in exchange for Bush’s commitment to repeal certain antiterrorist laws.

That meeting, sources say, began a somewhat strained relationship between the self-appointed Muslim leaders and the Bush team. Some senior Bush advisers voiced caution to Rove, who is said to have disregarded such concerns, seeing instead an opportunity to bring another ethnic and religious group into the GOP big tent. A photo of the Austin event shows Bush with Alamoudi standing over his left shoulder, flanked by the former head of the Pakistani Communist Party, several open supporters of the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups and other individuals Insight is trying to identify.

Canceled checks obtained by Insight show Alamoudi provided seed money to start a GOP-oriented Muslim group called the Islamic Institute, which Norquist originally chaired and now is led by former Alamoudi aide and former AMC staffer Khaled Saffuri. A White House memo obtained by Insight prepared for coordinating Muslim and Arab-American “public-liaison” events with the White House shows that the Islamic Institute was instrumental in establishing the connection. The memo, from early 2001, provides lists of invitees and the name, date of birth and Social Security number of each. Norquist, as the first chairman of the Islamic Institute, tops the list.

Article by Pamela Geller....Atlas Shrugs....google it.

Hi your mom,

Sure, Bush is responsible for FY 2009 except for the changes made by Obama, which includes the stimulus and increases in discretionary accounts. TARP is something I will lay at Bush's feet, more or less. But this doesn't excuse Obama's failed stimulus.

Obama is anti-business in many ways--I'd even argue that the subsidization policies of Obama are anti-business as they distort the risk/reward calculations wise people need to make to decide what to produce. It's how we get market bubbles that don't pop before they do so much damage, like the housing bubble did.

There are many ways...regulations, taxation, foreign subsidy (we will become Brazil's best oil customer, remember?), supporting without change the tort system, labor law (card check, anyone?). Not included are free trade agreements.

Anything done by Obama that improves the business climate I will support. I haven't read the FTAs, so I can't say they will do that job, but at least the odds exist they will help.

Obama's stimulus failed because he wasted too much of it on tax cuts. Tax cuts are an indirect stimulus that have been shown, empirically, to be not very effective.

Regulations? What regulations? Obama has allowed Wall Street to deregulate once again, and he even allowed the Wall Street bailouts to go through. He has bailed our auto companies as well. That sounds pro business if you ask me. Could you be referring to environmental regulations? I think you have to admit that those are a necessity, because companies acting in their self interests won't take into account the externalities associated with pollution. We saw how bad the environment was getting before the EPA existed.

Taxation? The majority of our corporations get all kinds of tax breaks, many of them paying no taxes whatsoever. True liberals have repeatedly asked Obama to end corporate welfare, but he refuses to do so (probably because he's actually a corporatist). Corporations probably pay less taxes than you do, so I don't know where you're getting that from.

The lack of change in the tort system isn't exaclty anti business as well. Pretty much every (non partisan) study has found that the notion of tort cases running out of control is a myth that his been deliberately spread by business who don't want to bare the full brunt of thier mistakes. Reforming tort law if anything would be anti business, because it would encourage risk, and would create a moral hazard that doesn't hold companies accountable for that risk.

Even Obamacare, which people complain so much about, was a massive support of private insurance companies.

I also don't get how buying oil from Brazil is hurting American businesses. American oil companies are recording record profits (all of it tax free).

If the business climate is so bad, why are America's major corporations profitting so much right now? I wish Obama would tax these corporations more, but he refuses to do so. At the end of the day, Obama is a corporatist, if anything. I don't know where you get the notion that he is anti-business from. I guess Joseph Goebbels was right when he said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

Actually, all we need to do is look at Europe to see where the Democrats are leading us.

Huge handouts create a dis-incentive to work.

Class warfare leads to an Entitlement mentality.

So then those not working vote additional benefits for themselves while taking from investors and business people.

This drives away business, and runs up Gov't spending at the same time. They soon run out of other peoples' money to spend, and no sane institution will loan them money when they have already borrowed so much for handouts which offer no return on the money.

Then you have default/bankruptcy/insolvency.

Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain all are about to collapse.

(And they had no military spending to speak of.)

So the liberals can call people in the Tea Party offensive names, but your liberal policies will collapse our country eventually, just like it is already doing in Europe.

If obama would announce he was not going to run again; the economy would sky-rocket and un-employment would drop drastically.

From dealing with many businessowners, this statement is true.

I'm ok with reducing the corporate tax rate but only if they hire and manufacture in the USA. I do believe that either through tariffs or tax penalties, companies that outsource overseas to increase profits should not slide tax free.

The solution I would like to see is that companies that have overseas payrolls, have to pay the employer matches in the US for that payroll. It would add money to social security, medicare and the general revenue. It would also incentivize businesses to try and keep the payroll here.

rico-3714896

Why don't we charge 23% tariff on all goods brought into the United States?

You may want to research the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs of 1930 and see what usually happens. Isolationism is not a solution its a reason for more problems. Contrary to many peoples beliefs we ARE and must compete in a global economy. At least until we repay all our debt.

Next we tax the wealthy incomes and close the loopholes.

OK. Who and how much do we tax the mean wealthy rich people you Liberal Progressives so despise? I'm holding the 71,684 page tax code and the 1,200 different forms we use in our criminal progressive tax system. Before you answer and specify which loopholes you want removed, what makes you think the next economics or math geek graduating from MIT, Haaaahvad or Wharton's won't be sitting on Wall Street finding new loopholes in our massive undecipherable tax code? This is the problem, Wall Street gets the million dollar geeks, we get Barrack Hussein and Timmy "Turbo-Tax" Geithner.

No more salaries issued through stock etc. If they don't like it they can move to the third world country they moved their stinking factories to.

ROTFLMAO!

And then what? Are YOU going to start a Fortune 500 corporation in the next year or two and recreate the workforce the rich corporation took offshore completely? I think you need to rethink your solution.

I agree with Robin in post 1.11 Seize their patents.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!!

Annie Rich you need to ask your Teabagger buddy Norquist why he doesn't want to close the borders.

Good God man. Grover Norquist is NOT THE PRESIDENT!

But Barrack Hussein is. Why doesn't HE close the borders. Your Liberal Progressive delusion is showing.

You need to get away from Mr. Chris "Tingle down my leg" Matthews and Mr. Rachel Madcow. Your unsustainable social and economic justice nonsense has created most of our economic collapse. Admit it, and let free-markets fix the problem.

Hi your mom,

Corporations never pay taxes, and it has nothing to do with their deductions, exemptions, or credits, let alone their income. It has to do with the simple economic truth that they pass those tax burdens on to you. Which is why we should end all corporate taxes. I think the only thing I agree with is your desire to end corporate welfare, but not because I am liberal. It's because, like I said previously which you clearly ignored, subsidies are not pro-business since they alter the marketplace and produce the kinds of bubbles that cause us great harm, like the recent real estate bubble.

No, I do not agree with you that any and every environmental regulation is needed, let alone effective. But, even more to the point, despite your post I do not think you are an idiot unable to figure out how to protect your local environment. To the extent pollution is INTERstate I would agree there needs a federal solution, but the vast majority of the problem is localized.

Obamacare is not, as you weirdly claim, some corporate giveaway either. This requires something beyond simplistic linear thought to comprehend, but it goes like this...you mandate a product must be bought, the cost due to the mandate rises (either the price goes up, quality goes down, availability goes down, but these are all costs), the people are even more frustrated and susceptible to anti-business rhetoric, and you then offer the "only" solution left. You offer the benevolent federal government, our collective savior, to help save us.

Buying oil from anywhere, Brazil included, is not the problem. Subsidizing Brazillian oil exploration and development so as to lower their cost of production and so increase their profitability IS anti-business, if the businesses you care about are American. And no, your claim it's all tax free income is yet another lie/myth of the left. When will these self-delusions end?

I'm sure there is much more anal leakage in your post you'd like me to reply to, but this is a fair start.

Rich - Your name is fraudulent because there is not much "rich" about you except your rich need to be argumentative. In my post I said "Some say..." It is posted as a theory of what's going on.

This article? Duh, just a rehash of what business already knows.......

LMAO....some say. Some say many things. I bet some say you are a moron. Does that mean they have any credibility? Some say Marx is the way to go. Some say the Holocaust never happened. Some say the Earth is flat.

If it isn't what you believed then you should have said that some say it, but they are wrong. But you do believe it, don't you? You do think there is some corporate war against Obama, don't you? Of course, the problem with such a claim is the very allies you have in this fight, like your mom (not really your mom, but the poster above), who thinks Obama is very business friendly. What, then, is the problem? Well, if Obama is as friendly as she claims, then why would firms be holding money back hoping Obama is sunk by the economic calamity that results?

Ouch. Logic...it's a killer.

A simple economic truth that corporations pass tax burdens onto consumers? Actually, that depends 100% on the elasticity of demand for that good. If demand is perfectly inelastic, you're right, the burden falls totally on the consumers. Are you trying to argue that every good is perfectly inelastic?

The real estate bubble, by and large, was caused by the derivatives market. Not subsidies. Banks were packaging and selling derivatives without knowing or caring about the risk. Rating agencies were giving bogus ratings and were paid by the banks to do so. Banks were extremely leveraged (another risky thing to do). All of this was able to happen because there was (and still is) virtually no regulation on banks and Wall Street. When that risk backfired on them, banks failed, and the housing crisis began.

Oh, and why did I ignore what you said about subsidies? Because businesses like subsidies! The whole premise of this discussion was whether Obama is pro-business or not. Since businesses like subsidies, and Obama provides them, that certainly doesn't speak to Obamas purported anti business nature.

If there were perfect information regarding pollution, then I agree, the EPA wouldn't be necessary. But that's not the case. Companies have the incentive to hide how much they pollute, and so there would be no way for consumers to accurately incorporate pollution into their purchasing decisions. Since there isn't perfect information, the problem of externalities exist, which is why you need the government to force companies to take pollution into account. And, just note, the EPA tries to get companies to pollute at the economically efficient amount, at the level that maximizes societal welfare. You care about economics so much, so shouldn't that make you happy?

How is Obamacare not corporate welfare? The government gives people vouchers so they can go and buy private insurance with it? Doesn't that sound like a subsidy for private insurance companies? The public option was squashed, so I don't know where you get the notion that people will think that the "federal government" will save them. Buying insurance from the government isn't on the table (unfortunately).

Like I said before, American oil companies are doing just fine. They are recording record profits, and it's all tax free. Please, look it up! Google, exxonmobile profits, and you will see that they are indeed recording record profits, and these profits are indeed tax free.

And, just a question for you now, why do you feel the need to be so condescending? Do you have some internal insecurities (I would too if I believed all the misinformation that you seem to believe)?

Rich - I'm sorry, I'm have trouble where the logic in that post is...

Still no one has explained to me what "spending" we need to cut.

your mom-3884167 - now that is logic.

firms be holding money back hoping Obama is sunk by the economic calamity that results?

Firms are not hiring because they do not need to. Current staffing is adequate to meet current business needs. It has nothing to do with the one, single person sitting in the White House chair. Firms hire based on their own profits, business needs, and demand for their product... not political parties.

Companies are making huge profits at their current employment levels. Why would they cut into their profits by hiring people they do not need?

I may not be a fan of Obama, but I will correct liars who obviously have zero business knowledge.

ohhhh where to start Markmich? Lets start here:

The audit revealed that $16 trillion had been secretly given out to US banks and foreign corporations and foreign banks everywhere in this world.

The Federal Reserve didn't go public about this, nor was US Congress informed about the $16 trillion dollar bailout - probably because US citizens would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks/corporations with our money while Americans were struggling to find jobs, keep their homes, etc.

Okay so our debt is what 14.5 T? Lets call these monies in. Then I wonder how much other nations owe us in loans?

What? Flat tax no deductions, no loopholes work for you? Is there any other way to get the ugly, polluting wealthy to pay their fair share?

Why does it have to be a Fortune 500 Company? You kinda stuck in that thinking? How about small and medium business taking over?

Unconstitutional....lol I remember George W saying the constitution was just an old piece of paper. lol lol lol.....Uphold the Constitution when it suits you, huh? I think so many unconstitutional things have gone on that maybe we need to do one more for the good of the people.

EXCUSSSSSE ME...Norquist is a driving force behind the current Teabagger party. Norquist is the one who had them sign thatanti American oath. Norquist is a HUGE part of the crazy TP, corporate agenda.

Why hasn't Obama done anything about immigration in his 3 years? I don't know...why didn't Clinton in his 8 years, why didn't good ol George W. in his 8 years? Perhaps they are all afraid to tell us we have become the new Mexico. Very American of y'all.

Well thanks Markmich it's been fun. When you can get your head out of the corporate rhetoric come up with some solutions why don't ya? Ohhh and read post 8.1

Hey B,

I'll give you five places to cut and cut deep, now. Commerce Department should, but for the trade office, essentially be closed. Education Department should, but for the costs of educating federal employees, be closed. Energy Department, but for the regulatory functions related to nuclear power and the interstate transmission of energy (pipes and wires), be closed. EPA, but for the INTERSTATE pollution issues it deals with, should be closed. Agriculture Department, but for nothing, should be closed.

Everyone can probably discover reasons, important reasons I'm sure, to keep these departments afloat and fully functioning. But each, in its own ways, saps the flexibility and robustness of the free market in America. Each, in its own ways, has helped to create the dismal economic future we are looking at.

Is there anything you would cut, anything at all that the constitution doesn't authorize, perhaps?

Hi your mom,

It is not likely you could be more wrong about the causes of the housing bubble. Without supporting the underlying asset by buying up the paper on the secondary market derivatives would have had less value, or more risk, or both, and could never have become so prominent. It's the underlying policy that was wrong, not the consequences of it. This isn't something we can merely wish away, let alone regulate away.

If you put into place policies over decades which punish lenders for avoiding high risk borrowers, and rewards lenders by increasing their profits by lending to those same people, then you will always find lenders willing to ignore the risk and go for the profit. It doesn't matter that the goal of home ownership was noble. The method used to try to attain it was unwise and ill-conceived.

Worse, we've done nothing to fix this underlying problem. Without some sort of structural change it will return, particularly if the government once again through it's quasi-public firms mitigates risk by buying paper. The financial reform law only addresses this flaw minimally.

Now, about subsidies. Everyone who gets one loves it. This isn't about loving something that is free to you. We all know this works, just watch what happens when you take a two year old and subsidize his poor behavior--you'll get more of it. No, the point is that this is not business-friendly policy making, this is policy making designed to steal from you to give to someone else something they did not earn so that they will reward the thief with money, or votes. We need an adult in DC to stop this, but, more importantly, we need adults as voters to ensure it happens.

And no, elasticity has nothing to do with passing all costs along. The costs can come in many ways to you, prices are just one. Fewer jobs is another. Lower quality is another. Less quantity is another. Lower wages is another. And so on. The point, again, is that EVERY cost you want a firm to pay will be passed along, over time, to the US consumer. So why do this? Just end the charade and tax ourselves directly.

The reason we won't simplify the code, let alone tax ourselves directly, is because we continue to be able to delude ourselves into thinking someone else will pay our freight for us. So far it's worked and our unborn heirs have picked up the tab, but is this in any way a moral act on our part? Imagine if I went to a restaurant and ordered a meal I could not afford, then got up and left knowing that whoever sits down next is forced to pay my bill? Would I be naturally inclined to eat less costly meals? How about no.

Once our lenders stop allowing us to immorally steal from our heirs then we will be, finally, forced to make hard choices. Until then we will have to contend with people who think it's perfectly appropriate to borrow money from their heirs to fund buying a car today (Cash for Clunkers), or to buy a home subsidized with money our heirs will have to pay.

You can whine about Bush and conservatives--they must shoulder some blame here too--but ignoring the ongoing and enhanced damage being done by Obama lends you no credibility.

rico-3714896

The Federal Reserve didn't go public about this

You do realize that the Fed was created by Mr. Progressive himself Woodrow Wilson right. The Republicans voted against the creation of it.
What you Liberal Progressive teabaggee's don't understand is that the TEA Party is fully against the Federal Reserve and believe it should be audited and eliminated. Fractional Reserve Banking needs to also be eliminated or reformed to stop the monetary inflation it can create.

What? Flat tax no deductions, no loopholes work for you?

Nope.

But a Fair tax with no caveats does. This is the ONLY real FAIR way of taxing everyone. If you're wealthy and you shop at Macy's, Tiffany's or Saks you pay your fair share. If you're middle class and shop at Abercrombie & Fitch, Target or Kohl's you pay your fair share. if your lower class and shop at WalMart you also pay your fair share. Plus it's the only tax system which allows taxing the $1 TRILLION Dollar black market.

Why does it have to be a Fortune 500 Company?

Free market principles can't restrict corporation size growth. How many small to medium businesses are in your 401k or stock portfolio?

I think so many unconstitutional things have gone on that maybe we need to do one more for the good of the people.

Typical Liberal Progressive ideology. So, if it works when it suits YOU we can use it just one more time, RIGHT? This is the mentality that allowed our criminal government to create Social Security, Medicare and over 900 other social programs that are bankrupting our economy. You Teabaggee's need to realize these have not been for the good of the people. Unless you consider $115 TRILLION Dollars in Unfunded Liabilities as a good thing.

Norquist is a driving force behind the current Teabagger party.

Now how would a Teabaggee like yourself know that the TEA Party supports that? And why is fiscal responsibility such an offensive term to you irresponsible Liberal Progressives. We know you don't care because you just keep more real Americans will work harder to support your pathetic existence but that is quickly coming to an end.

Post 8.1 is exactly why we need to eliminate the criminal progressive tax system we have and replace it with a Fair Tax for personal and Corporations.

(By the way, a “teabaggee” is the one who accepts the bag from the teabaggers. You can find a more descriptive definition here, urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teabaggee)

Markmich it's been a long day. I'll get back to you on your points tomorrow. I did want to post this from Wikipedia regarding the Reconstructionist Movement which the Teabaggers are a part of. Please draw Annie Rich's attention to it also. Is this what you want America to become? It's like moving backwards to the days of burning witches in Salem. Vote rick perry and this is what y'all will get.

Civil laws must be changed to match the Bible's moral rules. That is, anything that is immoral (by their standards) is also to be criminalized.

The only valid legislation, social theory, spiritual beliefs, and economic theories are those derived from the Bible

In every aspect of life, there are only two options: God-centered or man-centered; Theonomy or autonomy. Their political goal is to ban the latter, everywhere. Each individual, family, church, government and society must be reconstructed to eliminate sin. Each Christian has the responsibility to contribute to this conversion.

They oppose inter-faith, inter-racial, and same-sex marriages. R.J. Rushdoony wrote about his opposition to:

"inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish." ₃

Rushdoony's condemnation of inter-racial marriage appears to have been his own and unrelated to the biblical text. It was not shared by other Reconstructionists.

Reconstructionists regard the Gods and Goddesses of all other religions to be "the devil," and their teachings to be false. They would attempt to replace all religions with their version of Christianity. For example, David Chilton wrote about Judaism:

"The god of Judaism is the devil. The Jew will not be recognized by God as one of His chosen people until he abandons his demonic religion and returns to the faith of his fathers--the faith which embraces Jesus Christ and His Gospel." ₄

Of course, there exists diversity of opinion within the Reconstructionist movement. Not all followers will necessarily agree with all the above statements of the movement's leaders.

rico-3714896

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

You Liberal Progressive Teabaggee's are so cute when you get ridiculous and start projecting.

Your rationale is as believable as your belief that social and economic justice will somehow ever work.

I'd leave some pearls of wisdom for you about Socialisms inevitable collapse into Marxism or Communism which you Liberal Progressives are a part of but I guess you can just get it from your oh so reliable "Wiki" source.

G'night

Ugh. By identifying your opponent as that which you despise, despite there being no evidence to support your claim, you are able to easily avoid a serious discussion of issues. markmich asked you a simple and direct question, one which remains unanswered from what I've read. Why do you oppose a sustainable fiscal policy unless it involves someone else paying for the things you think the government should do, regardless of their constitutionality?

For crying out loud, I'm an atheist and yet I think it's immoral to burden my unborn heirs so that you can feel noble about how charitable you are with someone else's money. And this, really, is what it all boils down to. I don't agree with markmich about the FairTax. I think that reform will be worse, in time, than the disease, but I do agree with his motivation for wanting it, which is to make everyone get some skin in our national game.

The fact is that if those who favor ever larger government, the kind that has no constraints found in the constitution, had to pay directly the cost of that government (rather than use third party payers like corporations) we would have a far smaller government. Why? Because the cost relative to the benefit (as seen by those people) would change, and it would no longer be as positive. At the margins at least some of those people would therefore conclude more government isn't as good a deal.

It is this very return to more self-reliance that the left opposes in the USA. Not because they don't think they are doing "good"--they most certainly do--but because they realize that if we were more honest with ourselves there could be no intellectual basis for continuing their ideas. And being more self-reliant is harder than being more serf-like. The life of the serf is dismal and limiting, but at least it is known and the consequences for failing to provide the state what the state demands are defined.

But what made the USA great? It isn't what Obama claimed a few months ago, that we had a long tradition of people giving other people's money away through the government (my distillation of his claim that our history is great because of larger government). What made the USA great was the ability to FAIL. Which also means we had the ability to succeed. Note in both instances it is our OWN ability at the center of the consequence. This is what made us great, not the idea we were merely some cog in a great big gear run by the state. Geesus.

Markmich while you're on the floor laughing I suggest you get your head out of your a** and research, in depth, what and who you are voting for. I noticed that you didn't answer my blog in any constructive way. My ideas would work and that for some reason frightens you. Maybe because finally the very wealthy and business owner would have to become responsible. Here's the principles behind your fraudulent "fair" tax.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 13) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

People DO NOT be fooled by this. The wealthy already have everything they need. The people consuming are the middle class and poor who are moving on up. Your so big on the black market Mark but what seems to escape you is that most state already have a sales tax. You are wayyy off the beam on this one Mark. Here's Warren Buffets take:

Our leaders have asked for "shared sacrifice." But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as "carried interest," thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they'd been long-term investors.

Now I'm sure you are wealthier and smarter than Warren Buffet Mark, so I'll just let that stand on it's own.

Now how would a Teabaggee like yourself know that the TEA Party supports that? And why is fiscal responsibility such an offensive term to you irresponsible Liberal Progressives. We know you don't care because you just keep more real Americans will work harder to support your pathetic existence but that is quickly coming to an end.

One of the things I find so reprehensible about the Republicans/TP is that they are so mean spirited on the whole. You know nothing about me. I come from ranchers and my spouse comes from bankers. It wouldn't surprise me at all if my net worth is greater than yours. So you and your TP buddies can lie on the floor and kick your feet all you want in the end y'all need to become fiscally responsible and PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE!

Enough with the pay your fair share rants, please. More emphasis needs to be put on earning your fair share. Furthermore government needs to be held to the same standards we are held to financially. If we want a raise we need to earn it. If government wantsa raise they should earn it as well. The way government can earn it is by controlling spending, quitting the partisan drama and create jobs.

Not just earning your fair share but saving your fair share. Our citizens are just like our government. Borrow and spend until we are so far over our heads we will never get out of it without default.

The mentality average Americans have need to change.

Speak for yourself Bobby Jones. I have one credit card (by choice) and pay it off every month. The only thing I owe on is my house. And no I'm not going to quit saying the wealthy need to pay also. And yes the generation of 30somethings who were handed everything are going to have a rude awakening.

I bet you can throw a pigskin a 1/4 mile too.

That's great, get rid of that one credit card as well. Then start a company to teach others how to do it as well. Bet you go out of business because people will say "what you told me didn't work"

That's because people need to want to do something. Giving things away never works. Just like raising taxes will not work. Because government does not want to reduce the debt.

Rico blames others for being mean-spirited, but this is just projection on his part. I agree that the Fair Tax isn't a good idea, but not for any of the reasons he's claimed. The wealthy already pay their fair share, and then some, but I'm not arguing they should pay any specific rate or amount either. What matters to me is liberty.

Liberty is what made the USA great, and it should be our first national principle. Rico would have other people pay for things he wants done and somehow thinks this is moral. I can't disagree with that concept more. In any case, I want a tax code that does what a free people should want it to do--raise the necessary money for the government to perform its constitutional duties. We shouldn't use it to guide behavior whether we think the behavior is good or bad. Don't tax tobacco, for instance, because you don't like it or think it's bad. Don't give tax breaks to people to buy a home because you think owning a home is good.

Here's some economic truth...all taxes are taxes on income. It doesn't matter if you call it a sales tax, an excise tax, a rural electrification tax, FICA, or anything else. If you earn nothing there are no taxes that you pay. I get why markmich wants a sales tax in order to capture black market economic activity at the federal level, which is something Rico can't comprehend (won't comprehend?).

But rather than introduce a tax which encourages more of a black market, and which supporters claim is voluntary, and which won't end the taxing authority institutions in the USA, I want a tax code that taxes your income once, at the same rate as everyone else (fair share anyone?), that makes your contribution to the common weal clear, and that makes inflation the only modifier in the code. I think this is needed so that the government isn't induced to inflate the currency in order to increase tax receipts to it.

You earn your money, and the most liberating and democratic thing you can do with it is decide for yourself how to spend it. When you see your actual aggregate tax rate at the federal level you might decide it's a fair price for the government you want. I doubt it, but it could happen. But whatever you do decide it will be a decision made based upon reality, not the current common delusion most Americans, and EVERY liberal it seems, suffers from.

If you end up wanting more government and want to pay more taxes then at least it will be a conscious decision made by voters, and not this class-warfare garbage induced ideology bought into by the likes of Rico. I want my self-governing republic back, not the despotic regime under which Rico enjoys being a serf.

If you haven't already read it, here's an excerpt from Buffett's op-ed:

Our leaders have asked for "shared sacrifice." But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as "carried interest," thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they'd been long-term investors.

Sooooo Rich, Bobby Jones and Markmich I just know y'all are way smarter and wealthier than Warren Buffet so your way must be right. Read the last paragraph several million times and you may just GET IT.

Actually, 3.8% growth is pitiful. If this number was confined to the DEVELOPED world, then you would be closer to making sense. But this is a worldwide number, and includes the developing world. We need something more like 5% or more growth to avoid major consequences--like war and famine and recession (not worldwide).

3.8 doesn't really sound too bad, considering the powerhouse of Europe, Germany, is only growing at .01.

Banks don't want inflation. Debtors (many, many Americans) should.

Very funny. :(

So New Zealand is the new promise land? Wish I were young and just starting out......

New Zealand has earthquakes. Supposedly, 1/4 of children live in poverty.

Best post ever!

Thanks for the laugh this morning, I needed that. You are right on. That Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs or S &P had anything to say about the global economy is laughable since they caused the problem in the first place. They need to either shut up or contribute something useful - like lending money to small business and consumers. Do not forget who caused the problem - corporate America run amok. Yes, the public bought in to their scam but supposedly they were the smart, grown ups in the room leading everyone down the path to prosperity and home ownership. Right. Be very careful to trust anything the large financial institutions tell you now and in the future - they have a vested interest and it is not the same as the average American.

Brilliant!

Read every word and enjoyed it. The only sad part is you've given them some new ideas. See you in New Zealand.

Weed is legalized as well.

One of the best posts I have read. Only one very minor disagreement. The Fed does not print money, they print Federal Reserve Notes. They say so on the bills. Money as defined in the Constitution is a measurement of silver or gold. A note is a promise to pay a debt. All the Fed does is issue debt they create from nothing and then charge interest on. Again great post...

Hands down the best rant in the history of rants. That's some funny $h!t. Not only funny, but such a great observation of current affairs in politics and the media. Can't wait to read future posts from this guy.

That is not funny but reality - you forgot to mention China buys all US Debt and settles a new form of government over the people. Chinese is the language of the US and English is banned.... All property becomes state property and sole ownership is banned - those resisting are shot. Now that completes the picture and it will all happen by 2020....

"Moodys, Fitch and SP start rating each other"

Best

Snark

Ever!

Bravo, mate!!

But until we cut these scum off at the knees, they'll just laugh, laugh and laaaaauugh some more as the world continues to tilt toward them and all the world's loot keeps falling out of our pockets and into theirs.

(that's not an onion headline - it's cold hard fact).

Your not angry ? Much of what you say makes a lotta sense, but I would leave Christ out of this. You can be sure; HE's tuned in. JMJ

Gotta love (Progressives, Liberals, Democrats) or hate (all others) MSNBC.

This article: "Morgan: US 'dangerously close' to recession", is sure contradictary to what this Administration is telling the public. Then, to follow this article with the following NOT SO ROSY pictures:

• Jobless data suggest improving jobs market (highly questionable - jobs created or jobs saved ?)
• Existing-home sales down again in July (AGAIN)
• Forgiving debt may be the answer to this mess (Yes, more class warfare)
• Wall Street sinks; Dow falls over 500 points (Gosh, another Dow hit)

But wait, we can expect Mr. Obama to come out with "his" recovery plan AFTER he finishes his vacation at Marthas. Well....he HAS BEEN working on the JOBS issue since the Spring of 2009.

You guys are all the same. You act like you know how to run a company when you don't know the first thing about it, nor do you understand international trade or economics. You prove it with your unbelievably ignorant ideology.

What are these companies supposed to spend their money on when there is absolutely no stability and a completely uncertain future? It's people like you who live paycheck to paycheck and never save money for emergencies that got us in this mess in the first place. THAT'S THE IRONY.

The companies that were conservative and held onto profits during good years to provide for a cushion for bad years are the companies that are surviving today and haven't been forced to lay off tens of thousands of people like other companies who operate with your line of thinking.

But NOOOOO, you'd rather they just spend it on anything regardless of considering the risks or return because in your mind, it's not their money.

And blaming executive salaries is even more ignorant. Anyone with half a brain knows that the executive salaries as a percentage of total corporate revenue is such a small percentage that paying them $0 salary would have no impact on the bottom line.

It's no different than the idiots in congress arguing over a million dollar cut here or a million dollar cut there when the deficit is over a trillion.

Instead of being a lemming with all your other gullible friends who fall victim to left media propaganda, maybe you should take a few classes. Oh wait, most of the colleges are infested with liberal teachers... Maybe you should try running your own business and gain some real world experience and education.

Mark Twain said it best:

"Never let school get in the way of your education."

Well, DUH!!! Of course our economy is tanking!! What many don't realize is we have never LEFT the first recession!! When you have an Obama administration that can't take a stand on anything and votes "present" every time he opens his mouth OF COURSE the markets don't know what the policies are when Obama himself doesn't know what the policies are!!

Here is a News Flash for all those liberals who believe they know how to run a business but have never done so. If a company cannot calculate a reasonable range of risk versus reward they do one thing - THEY WAIT!! Why is that so hard to understand? Why would a business invest, say, $1 million if they have NO IDEA what their taxes will be, what will the ObamaCare law do to their operating costs? Is ObamaCare going to be repealed? How does the Dodd/Frank Financial Reform bill affect their business costs? Will there be new environmental laws and regulations that might affect their business? And I could list for hours!!

The question is why is there $2 TRILLION on the sidelines? THEY ARE WAITING FOR THIS ADMINISTRATION TO TELL THEM WHAT THE HECK THE PLAN IS AND WHAT IS GOING ON!! To blame this poor economy on businesses is naive.

This economy is due to the FAILURES OF THE OBAMA POLICIES!! What I find amazing is FDR pushed through "infrastructure" policies and raised taxes and extended the great depression at least 6 years (if it wasn't for WWII no telling how much longer we would have been in a depression) but here we have Obama duplicating FDR policies and everyone is amazed that we get the same result? Extended recession.

No direction from this administration? This president has never run so much as a lemonade stand and has NO CONCEPT of how a business actually works!! This president has been a DISASTER!! You don't believe me? Then tell me ONE economic indicator that has improved since Obama took office. There is not ONE!!!

"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand."

— Milton Friedman

after reading these posts i think i see the real problem. we all hate each other! there are those posters who think that if you don't have the same education they got that somehow it's your fault because you don't make as much money. so, let me see, so the policy makers from the local level to the federal level create substandard education for those who have NO money and then you BLAME those children who grow up unable to compete for being that which you forced them to become. now, if ALL of our children truly had an EQUAL opportunity at a quality education everywhere. IF local, state and federal governments made education a priority, then those people who chose not to take advantage of said education would rightly be held responsible...except! not everyone is actually as smart as everyone else. my brother, god bless his soul, was a good person. he would give you the shirt off his back, but he wasn't the brightest star in the heavens. he tried, he really did, but he just wasn't as smart as other kids. he made it through high school and spent several years in the military, but he never made rank. he just didn't have what it took. he worked until his asthma got so bad he had to have oxygen 24/7. even then, he would carry his tank with him while he worked. he finally died because of his illness. he was 58. so, let me ask you arrogant snob, how the life my brother lived was his FAULT and that he deserved to be one of the millions of working poor in this country.

don't be so judgmental. you could someday find yourself one of those working poor. i work in a grocery store and whereas i used to see mainly young, single mothers using public assistance, today, i see more and more older people, especially men who are proud americans who if they could work they would, but there aren't any jobs that they can live on. these people are ashamed to have to ask for a hand out, but what would you say they should do? die and decrease the excess population? how is it their fault because of circumstances?

large companies could help out if they wanted to. maybe if they invested in the american worker and not just look to their bottom line and their obsession with instant gratification. the grocery chain i work for made something like 600 million dollars last year...in a recession. go figure. we hourly employees who are union, get at the most 20$ an hour. that's not me. that's the meat cutters. the rest of us get closer to 12$ an hour on the average and most of us are now part time, because the grocery chains aren't hiring full time anymore. look around, it's happening everywhere. well, i did a little research and realized that if my company invested 100 million of their net profit back to the employees directly, we would all get about 6,000$ a year. wow. imagine if you suddenly had an extra $6000 a year. what could you do with it? i'd be able to afford a decent used car, have my mother's caregivers come in more often than an hour a day. i'd actually have money to put back in my ira and you know what? i'd have some money to spend out there in the economy. and that money would give someone else more profit and they could pay their employees more. and those employees could go out and put some of their extra money into the economy. and so on and so on. it wouldn't hurt, would it? but, you see it is the obsession that our corporations have with making as much money as they can RIGHTNOW!!!!! they pray to one god, the god almightly dollar. don't tell me they're not moving because they're afraid. of please, just how stupid do you think we all are? these people aren't afraid, they're greedy. and maybe it is their job to make money, i get that, but to put that above country, above humanity? we're supposed to what? be proud and feel lucky that we live in poverty so they can live in obscene wealth? i'm not asking for communism. i understand that there will always be poor. but, the poorest person in this country should be able to feed his children decent food, put a decent roof over their heads and clothe them. and those children should ALL be given EQUAL opportunity to make their lives better. now, i see an expose on 60 minutes that one if 5 children live below the poverty line and doctors are now seeing signs of grave malnutrition and starvation in our children. HERE! in this country. we should all be ashamed of ourselves.

Aleesa

How much is enough for the greedy?

Thank you for your post. Sorry about your brother.

Aleesa....Excellent post. I liked your example of the corporation getting less profit but the employees earning an extra $6,000. You know they would spend it and that money spent would creat more jobs. We are on a vicious downward spiral chasing short term profits and killing the long term economy.

Unfortunately some of the responses confirm there is a disconnect between those that understand business and those that do not. It is quite simple really: Let's say a person has $1 million. This person could easily buy T-Bills and make about 2.5% with basically no risk. However, by risking their money a little this person could invest in well diversified portfolio of mutual funds/stocks and expect around 8% to 10%. Or this person could invest $1 million in a new business idea. This is very risky and is quite possible this person may lose half or maybe even most if unsuccessful. How much of a return must this person receive in order to risk their money? 12%? 15%? 18%? Most new business ventures plan for a 15% return or better. Why not less? Because the risk is not worth it.

So let's say a person risks their $1 million and is successful and is now making 15% return on investment (ROI in Finance terms). But then the liberals come along and tell this person they can "afford" to pay more in taxes. So let's assume taxes go up 5% and now their "return" is, say, 9%. What does this business person do? He considers selling his business, relocating to another country where taxes and regulations are not as troublesome, or he simply closes the business and sells the assets. Why? Because the same risk is not worth a lower return. Easier to simply invest in foreign markets (that actually want to GROW their business sector unlike the U.S. currently) and get an 8% to 10% return while sipping margarita's on a sandy white beach in the Caribbean.

See, liberals have never RUN a business so have no idea of the impact their philosophy is creating. We are RUNNING our U.S. businesses out of the country and nobody is even noticing? Singapore corporate income tax is a flat 17%. U.S. highest marginal corporate tax rate is currently 35% with Obama wanting to take in near 40%.

This Obama administration is KILLING this economy and running businesses out of the country. If you want to have ANY jobs left in this country you BETTER start finding ways to incentivize them to stay before it is too late. This idea that you can simply take from a business without understanding the risk/reward component is very dangerous. The damage done by the Obama administration will take us years to correct but if not turned around quickly, and stop punishing businesses for being successful, you will see a country that within 50 years will not even be one of the top five countries in productivity and GDP. The countries that are currently attracting U.S. businesses to relocate will reap the benefits.

alessa

Why do you think your grocery store chain owes you, or anyone else, anything? You agreed to what you make, if you don't like it, find another job somewhere else. Also, this bs about education is just that, bs. You don't have to have a degree to make it in this world, you have to bust your butt, and work at something you are good at. I don't have a degree, and I manage a multi-million dollar facility. I didn't ask for a handout, or a handup for that matter, I just busted my butt to make something of myself. I was never priveleged growing up, but I learned how to work hard, watching a single mother make it on her own, raising two kids, with no government assisstance. It can be done, the problem is, noone wants to work hard anymore, they just want to blame someone else, and take the easy way out.

A couple of years ago, when the economy started slowing, our hours were cut. Instead of filing for unemployment, I worked a job for $7.00 an hour sweeping floors. Why? Because I refused to let someone else take care of me when I am able bodied, and can work. That's what the unemployed need to learn. That they are not better than any job, and if they, or their families want to eat, they might have to do something that they don't like, for less than what they want to make. Everyone is not entitled to the American Dream, but they are entitled to pursue it. That's what this country was founded on, and that is what we have lost sight of.

Way to go Jared. That is the "American Way". I had a similar scenario. Went straight from high school into the "real world" and stocking shelves at a grocery store. At the age of 28 I realized I had to be responsible for my own future and my own family (wife and, at that time, one 3 year old). I picked up a second job to help cover the cost of school and, while working two jobs, went to school at night. While I was sacrificing family time, no vacations (there was always a paper due or upcoming exam), etc. Meanwhile several of the other stock personnel were complaining about their pay. I told them THEY are responsible for increasing their value!!

To make a long story short I got a Bachelor's degree in Economics. Went to graduate school and rcvd a Master's degree in Applied Economics. Went BACK to graduate school and rcvd a Master's degree in Business Administration. That whole process was over 10 YEARS!! (Keep in mind ALL that schooling was part-time while working two jobs). Now I own my own business consultation firm AND teach Economics as an adjunct instructor at a local college. I don't teach because I need the money but I teach because I want the "next generation" to understand how an economy and business works.

It is scary how this country has turned into an "entitlement" society. I never expected anyone to give me anything. I am responsible for my OWN destiny and if a person is "unsuccessful" it is because they don't have the work ethic to succeed. ANYBODY can succeed - if you are willing to put forth the effort.

And you are correct - education is not a requirement. It can certainly help but not required. I have consulted with people with a high school diploma but with a pressure washer and a willingness to work more than 40 hours a week created a company with $2 million in revenues, has 20 employees, and 6 work trucks (owner makes about $250,000 a year in profits).

I know another person who was going to a local church for some food assistance but still knocked on doors offering cleaning services. Poor old car barely ran but she persevered. Finally made enough money to buy a newer car. Then some cheap business cards. Then a few inexpensive ads. End result she now owns a company with 12 employees, 5 company vehicles, and is making about $125,000 a year.

Moral of the story? Any person can be successful with hard work. What does a person enjoy doing? There is a good chance that person can develop an idea and, with hard work and long hours, start their own business. It may take several years to get it really going but the opportunities are there. However, I am VERY worried. We are teaching our children that the successful are taking advantage of you and you are not responsible for your own failures. Baloney. Any person can be successful. The problem is nobody wants to work and put forth the effort it requires. They would rather ask politicians to "confiscate" money from the wealthy and just "give" to them. Many don't have any work ethic anymore. Sad. So very sad.

Maybe that is just what the economy needs. The great depression never really ended until WWII broke out. After the war ended, the US experienced 2 decades of unprecidented economic growth.

WWIII would never be a cause for growth. Remember during WWII there was a need to produce products.

WWIII would not be a gigantic mobilization of our country. It would be fought using technology and nukes. Which we already have in huge volumes.

They are begining to feel the effects of standing on the skeletons of the former middle class.

terriels;

Not to worry, it won't bother them a bit.

oh, more class envy BS... what a surprise... now, it must be time for some "Obozo blame game".... when Liberal tax and squander policies (including the "give houses to those who can't make the payments" game, of course) cause the stock market to plunge, the people who own the most stocks are the ones who take the biggest losses... I'm guessing that's not the deadbeats on Welfare... it's wealthy investors... and lots of middle class people who have 401Ks... what we need is to get Obozo and his "wealth redistribution machine" out of the middle class' wallets....

With a lot of help from our government, and the debtor nation of citizens that thinks paying a loan back is simply an option and not a responsibility.

Never mind the gov't strongarming banks to loan to poor risks, or Fannie and Freddie's part in the housing meltdown... packaging bad loans and selling them to your and my 401Ks... all under the "watchful" eyes of Dodd and Frank.... Dumocrats... one big Liberal scam to resitribute wealth from private investment accounts (401Ks) and taxpayers (Fannie and Freddie guarantees) to people who should never had had houses in the first place... but the gubment knows best... NOT!!!

I was going to give you a thumbs up, but then i realized just how scary your comment was in that it could be true.

technical recession meaning by the numbers? Yeah...we get it.

Exactly! It got old hearing how Wall Street was rebounding quite well, which was great news. Then in a mere side note, if mentioned at all, unemployment is still over 9%.

Unemployment will never be lower than 8% period.

But it was 7% when Obozo took office... before he added $6 Trillion to the debt.... remember, under Bush.... <Liberals scream here>

Unemployment numbers are never accurate anyway. The real number for unemployment is more like 15-20%

you go first

Except that the balance on your home loan, credit card, car loan etc, doesn't go down proportionately. So you are faced with paying off your loans with less money.

If you have no debt, deflation is fine. If you have a lot of debt, inflation is great.

@Dan: Wow, that was a unique and insightful response. Nobody has ever thought of that one before (well, except just about every single time anyone suggests that the population should shrink).

@Outotlunch: That's why, except for my house payment, I remain debt free. If I have to borrow to get it, I don't need it and probably can't afford it. Dave Ramsey is right.

GW Bush's legacy lives on. Obama? Jesus couldn't fix this sh*t-show that Bush left us with. The GOP: Romney, Gov. Minimum Wage, or Michelle Batsh*t wouldn't be able to fix this either.

The world economy has cancer and it has metastasized.

There it is.... "blame Bush".... never mind that Obozo has pissed away $6 Trillion in deficit spending and lost 2 million jobs on his watch... get the unqualified rookie out of the way, and we'll show you how we fix it.... by cutting spending, and getting government regulators off of the neck of industry...

This is what you get when you have a bunch of know-nothings sitting in the way of doing ANYTHING to recover our economy. Instead, we have to sit on the sidelines and watch while they scream for cutting off the few people who are still working in our economy - teachers, firefighters, wastewater treatment workers, road crews, etc.

We didn't get out of the Depression by "getting the government out of the way".

The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was a public work relief program that operated from 1933 to 1942 in the United States for unemployed, unmarried men from relief families, ages 18–25. A part of the New Deal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, it provided unskilled manual labor jobs related to the conservation and development of natural resources in rural lands owned by federal, state and local governments. The CCC was designed to provide employment for young men in relief families who had difficulty finding jobs during the Great Depression while at the same time implementing a general natural resource conservation program in every state and territory. Maximum enrollment at any one time was 300,000; in nine years 2.5 million young men participated.

The CCC performed 300 possible types of work projects within ten approved general classifications:

1. Structural Improvements: bridges, fire lookout towers, service buildings;
2. Transportation: truck trails, minor roads, foot trails and airport landing fields;
3. Erosion Control: check dams, terracing and vegetable covering;
4. Flood Control: irrigation, drainage, dams, ditching, channel work, riprapping;
5. Forest Culture: planting trees and shrubs, timber stand improvement, seed collection, nursery work;
6. Forest Protection: fire prevention, fire pre-suppression, fire fighting, insect and disease control;
7. Landscape and Recreation: public camp and picnic ground development, lake and pond site clearing and development;
8. Range: stock driveways, elimination of predatory animals;
9. Wildlife: stream improvement, fish stocking, food and cover planting;
10. Miscellaneous: emergency work, surveys, mosquito control.^[18]

Yes, let the government hire people to work on infrastructure projects, public lands and whatever else this country needs. But I suppose the Tea Party would prefer to send all that money to Iraq and Afghanistan so they can hire their people instead?

Better do a little more homework RAF... FDRs plethora of spending only prolonged the Depression... which didn't end until WWII fired up the economy.... but there it is again... the "blame anybody but Obama" tactic... Bush, the Tea Party, Palin, Big Business... You guys use it so much, you can't decide who to blame next.... Obama's lack of experience, ignorance of economics, and failed Marxist policy couldn't possibly be the problems.... can I get a "tax the rich"? that's the other lame tactic.... the class-envy game....

Class envy??? I don't have class envy. I have been quite happy tyvm in my little middle class world. Do I have a problem with a corporation stealing our resources for their financial gain....welllll yes. Do I have a problem with people making millions off the backs of working men and women and then not wanting to pay them a living wage, not give them medical benefits and outsourcing their jobs? You figure it out.......

At one time, we called robber barons what they are and put them back under the control of the American people.

This time around, they hope that flinging around words like "class warfare" will protect them.

Are we going to fall for that?

Jim you are right. And they are being bailed out at our expense. It is a con game.

Our consumption economy is based on spending. Private spending dipped and now Uncle Sam is doing it for us. Any regulation to cut spending will be deflationary. It is a necessary evil but no democratically elected government has the motivation to swallow that bitter pill. They would rather print money so we pay debt free (and broke) in a different way.

The deficit of 1.5 trillion is funding 50 to 60 million jobs in America. We are borrowing to spend on consumer economy. These are all service sector jobs. We need manufacturing jobs, science, engineering and technology jobs. Service sector jobs are not able to help curb trade deficit. It is a dead end.

Keynesians are dead wrong about it. At the end of the day, they won't be able to spend to stimulate the economy. Once their hand is forced, the crash will be unlike anything we have ever witnessed. We need to let the free markets run so that private sector can align itself with what works and what does not. FED is giving the wrong signals to the economy and it is creating wrong kind of jobs. These jobs won't survive the next leg down that has already started.

www.kondratieffwavecycle.com/double-dip-recession/

Our real problem is not unemployment, or housing, or productive capacity. Our real problem is man made. Self induced. We have borrowed from the banks for many decades. Banks use fractional reserve banking and they legally counterfeit money. This new money inflates the prices and salaries. Now our entire money supply is created by the banks like this and it is N. But we promised to pay back N+I, I is the interest.

I hope it is obvious to you that entire population cannot possibly be employed with salaries that makes it possible to earn N+I. Thus, bankruptcies, foreclosures are a guaranteed part of this debt based monetary system.

When the economy is strained by excessive debt burden like this, do not hope to find employers who can hire people. They are in trouble too. Their customers are in trouble too. Everybody is in debt and nobody wants to spend. It is a deflationary crash. Borrowing is not the solution. Borrowing is the cause of the problem.

Nothing is fixed. We are doing all the same. We will loose more jobs because of excessive spending of today. The economy is telling us we are on the wrong path and to ease the symptom we are spending borrowed money. By the time we attack the real structural causes of unemployment it will be too late for the United States.