---

Henry Clay Ruark July 26, 2010 2:01 pm (Pacific time)

TIM, C. and F.: Tim, have you received any word at all from C/F/orwhat re my third direct challenge to them to "put up or shut up" and in process be labeled as conscienceless denigrators and totally insensitive, selfish Internet predators. Note ANY accepting response from them NEGATES NAMES so plainly earned otherwise. Here we deal in plain fact, plainly stated, as honesty demands... So much for offputting false excuse to avoid factual labels imposed by own behaviors. Meanwhile note to all: See my upcoming Op Ed just filed with Tim for rapid publication here while their stench still permeates the air, set up by the SNAKEOIL report as very suitable frame.

---

Henry Clay Ruark July 25, 2010 10:00 pm (Pacific time)

Tim: Thanks for kind note; already understood situation in depth. Repetition and added queries simply "follow-story and kill every detail completely, on the record !" --first lesson learned long ago at United Press. One more to-come was to seek from "them" (!) complet info on firm" Name, location, the business, et al, et al, et al. Complete detail in-depth on the record is also first solid requirement for any legal folo for S-N as to damage done to reputation painfully built for solid information, on open, honest, democratic channel --best possible way to build business for at least some well-deserved "profit" -- and for legal recompense when damaged in that process.

---

Henry Clay Ruark July 25, 2010 8:39 pm (Pacific time)

"Frank" and/or "Caroline":
On second-read, admirable edit-habit, note your clumsy, purposely cloudy ref. to an advanced degree at significant university.

Please now file checkable full ref. to address, dates of attendance, and documentation of your claim made in this public channel.

Mine already on record for all to see AND CHECK ...as well as other qualifications for what I write beyond your top- of-head, off-hand "cloudy reference".

Editor: Hank, sorry it took this long for me to check, but Frank and Caroline are one in the same, so there you go.  It just tried to comment on an Agent Orange story and that led to the quick research and boom, there it is.  

---

Henry Clay Ruark July 25, 2010 8:33 pm (Pacific time)

Special for Frak: Readers of this thread have seen two preceding very direct and open challenges to you and to Caroline. BUT for clarity and public record, will repeat it here and now: IF you two will abandon cowardly stance of hide-behind false-name, ID-self with address and working phone for direct contact with me, will happily engage in further and open, honest dialog --with single provision that our full exchange be transferred word for word and in toto to this thread for all to see. Will also gladly send you the legal/case ref., a book and complete taped transcripts from Supreme Court, in full advance-time so you can make sure you know precisely what I have claimed as fact. Fair enough, sir and/or madam, as the case may truly be... let's see who truly fears honest, open, and fully ID'd democratic dialog. GO, boy, go !!!!

---

Henry Clay Ruark July 25, 2010 1:54 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Caroline's lengthy layout of her claimed methods shows in detail the depth and depravity involved in multiperson ID for Internet purposes. She overlooks and is at real risk now on legal damage done and clearly demonstrated by this thread in S-N --to the credibility and responsibility --thus to S-N reputation and commercial worth-- first thing advertisers check out, and the first thing serious readers demand. Does anyone doubt that those two support-groups are truly the foundation for full and open, honest continuance for S-N ? We have Tim's own open appeal for support as proof, making solid claim to careful choice of those advertisers attracted to serious readers, seriously reacting to serious, open, honest dialog --in the precise pattern of the famed Federalist Papers, please do note. THAT is one major reason the FCC is asserting its national responsibilities and seeking further legal responses to the growing incidence of business and political indivuals --and some groups, per Sherrold situation ! --in perverting a longheld Internet tradition of honest, open, and very democratic dialog, now in real danger of forcible curtailment by facts of abuse by some, clearly depriving the general public of its compelling right to a trusted, trustworthy open channel. SO my BEWARE ! is ethical warning to perpetrators that strong national groups are now forming for finding true legal remedies for felony usage by FCC. Please check out C's full, if unintended, confession of complicity in perpetrating all the confusion and coercion she can muster as private,personal and very selfish action on what should be cherished and treasured for open, honest usage by all of us.

---

Frank James July 25, 2010 1:52 pm (Pacific time)

This has been a most amusing exchange between Carolyn and Ersun. As my brother Jesse frequently admonished: "Brother, watch who you turn your back on." So for those who find an exchange of ideas burdensome, just because you cannot operate on the same level, then demonizing is the last resort of a quitter from my life's observation. They are the type who quit everything in life when things don't go their way. Military discipline works for some in their youth, but when they start quitting jobs, school programs, etc., they are coming close to giving up on even life. What a pity. Well, give an advanced degree a shot, MBA at Wharton, law school, anywhere? God sure is a meanie to losers.

Editor: Frank, what are you bringing military discipline up for?  Ersun is one of the brightest writers I have ever worked with, and that is from a career spanning more than two decades.  I suggest paying attention, and I think you can keep your thoughts on education and religion to yourself as they don't apply.  

---

Ersun Warncke July 25, 2010 1:07 pm (Pacific time)

"Carolyn" you are a liar, and not a very good one either. Trying to sandbag me with legal and technical b.s. is not going work. You were exposed for cross posting on your own comments and using multiple names, and so the tales you tell are not at the apex of their credibility at this moment. Simple fact: I use my real name and am very public, you use multiple fake names and go to the extraordinary step of using anonymity services in order to try and hide this. I don't see anything wrong with using pseudonyms or anonymity services in general, although I personally see no need to, but if these devices are used by liars to purposefully deceive people, and try to give a false aura of credence to their arguments, then they must be exposed in order for any reader to have a full understanding of the content in front of them. This discussion is over, and I will not waste any more of my time on it.

---

Carolyn July 25, 2010 9:16 am (Pacific time)

Ersun a former Network Administrator of mine advised me years ago to use rotating anonymous IP's for reasons that you clarified and justified by your attempt at looking me up, when posting on sites that I do not know. My husband Frank also made some "opinion" postings here, I do not know the other posters you mentioned, but Salem-news is on our company bulletin board. At any rate the postings I made have nothing to do with my idenity nor my professional background, but my opinion. I am quite confident that my opinions are mainstream, and are based on reliable and valid info, reflecting on decades of successful living by understanding my environment, and extrapolating that understanding with my experience for future decision-making and problem-solving. It appears some do not like those opinions and decided to look me up for what reason? Too hot in the kitchen of debate? The use of anonymous IP's is growing, and will continue to grow, because of what I stated in my first sentence above. Actually one can easily develop their own multiple IP setup and piggyback on any available signal. It is quite common in places like China and Iran, and in other locales where people desire to be anonymous. My company has our own system, but considering the dozens of signals that I can piggy back with a clone IP or one of those free sites (then I use multiple IP's that eventually trace back to an ip that has not been where it was...a paradox), it allows us to maintain our privacy from unprofessionals, which is actually for their protection, not ours, while not exposing other IP's that I may borrow, but do not really use in a legal sense. There must be several hundred available IP's in my office building and surrounding area, or anyplace actually. One must have a court order to invade one's privacy backed by a sworn affidavit that a crime took place, or they commit a crime of conspiracy, and that is a felony Ersun, look it up. At least there has been no case law in this particular situation that an unlawful event has taken place by me or my associates as per our method. Maybe you know of some case law that my network people have missed? Have you any formal training as a network admin, or something similar that goes along with a graduate degree and coupled with years of professional experience? Excellent income for the savvy in this area, but not for those who just think they're savvy. We only hire the best when needed, and a proven track record is a must. Most successful businesses operate that way, because it's not just about saving a buck. Otherwise my posting of opinions are a personal matter, and my intention is never to be threatening or alarming, but for some reason, some people just cannot handle being exposed as factually unaware, aka,stupid.

---

Natalie July 25, 2010 12:00 am (Pacific time)

What's not prohibited is allowed. Until "one person-one name" registration is required I trust nobody anymore. And I don't care if names changing is used with evil intent or just to spice things up a little. But back to the topic: looks like state workers started working full time again. I see it as a weak sign of hope for the rest. I only wish our turn comes sooner than we decide to sail off in search for the uninhabited island with wild edible fruits and fresh water.

---

Hank Ruark July 24, 2010 7:50 pm (Pacific time)

T. Sellers: You misunderstand and thus misstate the situation at issue, friend Sellers. This was NOT an "innocent mistake" but unmistakable intent to justify ostensible Comments as if "opinion" held by other persons than the perpetrator. THAT simply ain't kosher in ANY honest, open, democratic dialog --ostensibly acting as "the conversation at the heart of democracy" --John Dewey. Would you accept it from a person who suddenly starts to add two, three, or more new voices, out of same mouth, while discussing issue --and stating new-name for each of those separate voices ? How if rep. or senator, on public floor of Congress or Legislature, whips out new nameplate, changes voice, and speaks as if another person ? NOBODY uses two or three names except by intent to defy responsibility to be honest and open on S-N thread. We do NOT (yet !) require original ID-sign/up here, so rule of open dialog is clearly known to all participating. Century of communications research long ago made clear that false/name statements in public channels are clearly almost universally meant to deceive, to conceal facts or distort/pervert them. When commercial services for false ID purpose are sought out and used, that should be more than enough proof of true intent. NObody has right to any such action under First Amendment, which carries responsibilities as well as offers opportunity. Documentation in depth for anyone furnishing full ID and working phone, from recognized legal summaries of key Supreme cases. S-N is private business operation, has every legal right to set own rules for use of channels (supplied FREE !) to those who are thus allowed to participate, with that action alone legally enough to indicate acceptance of our rules. To abuse that privilege is not only unethical, but may well be evidence of intent to harm channel by demonstrated reaction of others and impact on support for the business itself.

---

Tim Sellers July 24, 2010 6:34 pm (Pacific time)

Let me get this right, if I post an opinion that may rub someone the wrong way, then my IP gets looked up and someone runs a trace on me? Why do you do that? All the posts below I read, none were threatening, diverse yes, but why ask for opinions if you have problems with opposing viewpoints? Seems pretty counter-productive and a bit chilling on an Orwellian level.

Editor: Oh that is a bit dramatic, when people write comments that are highly abusive, and when they try to inject false information in our comments, they are taking advantage of an existing system by choice.  So every now and then I get tired of it and post their IP publicly.  But the morons never needed to write their nonsense in the first place.  They chose to, but they don't run the day to day operations of Salem-News.com, the editorial staff does.  

'Freedom of the Press is Guaranteed Only to Those Who Own One'

---

Hank Ruark July 24, 2010 9:17 am (Pacific time)

To all: For public record here as a professionally-demanded ethical action, all please note this incident, as well as others gathered nationally, is being reported to the FCC, and to the state attorney generals in several states indicated as involved. Fyi, check out the link in Ersun's spotlight-message, at www.unblocktoday.com, and note their declaration of policy and of terms of service. Both cover obvious abuse as by users involved here, and also present grounds for legal action and lawful penalties under various state laws, and probably as felony under FCC jurisdiction now established. Any serious reader here is welcome to open, honest and democratic dissent, but usage of "anonymous" and/or any pseudonymous name for covert purposes will soon be unlawful and may bring serious penalty. For S-N's open, honest and democratic dialog channel, we pledge to all readers all due effort for protection of the trust and confidence you place in us with your honorable and responsible Comments. To others, we repeat our continuing warning: NOW BEWARE !

---

Hank Ruark July 23, 2010 10:11 pm (Pacific time)

Friends: Perhaps now those of us who seek honest, open, democratic dialog, worth our and readers full attention and built from the longtime-held American value it has proven ever since The Federalist Papers, will now pay more attention to making sure of source for those who we allow to enjoy the privilege of the First Amendment. Most printside publications long ago learned that lesson and demand simple one-time name/address, phone, all easy to check for validity, prior to committing expensive space and precious reader-attention to this simple abuse of the First, which clearly imposes responsibility right along with granting "rights". (Documentation via Supreme Court records available.) The Sherrod incident and many others have proven even further the absolute necessity of such careful attention NOW, with reverse-impact among the most obvious weapons-used by those who are willing to abuse Constitutional rights for the act of political pander...as demonstrated in this thread by the continuing emphasis and specious detail, far too familiar to most of us, who defy,deny,defeat its impact as demonstrated in this thread, from the very start. Please note that headlines today on TV-discussion and on printside carry Right-wing claims of a claimed "liberal" -press/media "conspiracy" to promote precisely what we have experienced here...ironic note indeed !! SO let us help the FCC to impose the regulations now being considered, including Congressional action to make it a felony to use false ID on Internet activities. (Happens a few of us had a hand in the original concept more than 30 years ago !!) Some of us are already at work again on design for that preventive action for legal protection, with all possible safeguards for the real American freedoms at stake.

---

Ersun Warncke July 23, 2010 9:21 pm (Pacific time)

After reviewing the record, I find that "Frank" is posting from the same IP as "Carolyn" and that "Frank" has posted from two different IPs, one that traces back to the same data center as "Martin." And, as it happens, "Steve Corey" traces back to the same data center as well. Perhaps that sheds some more light on the discussion here.

---

Ersun Warncke July 23, 2010 9:09 pm (Pacific time)

"Carolyn," I will let the record stand for what it is, but I would like to point out one other small thing: Myself, Hank, and Daniel all post with our real names and have our personal email addresses published on this site. My address and phone number can be obtained with about a minute of searching, and so anyone who wants to call me or come to my house to discuss my views with me can do so at any time. You on the other hand, when I trace your IP address, I find that you are posting through an anonymous proxy service (unblocktoday.com) which appears to be a scam site. While the credibility of your comments is low on their face, the fact that you are taking the time to disguise your identity by operating through anonymous proxies only makes your intentions more opaque.

---

Carolyn July 23, 2010 6:16 pm (Pacific time)

There have been many wonderful opinions that have been posted below; special thanks to Ersun, Daniel Johnson, Martin, Steve Corey and Mr. Ruark for sharing your opinions. I myself have become somewhat of a pragmatist over the years and prefer to take my actual accumulated experience in helping me guide my decision-making process. That has allowed me to do fairly well in life and the same is true for those in my immediate social/economic orbit. I am quite blessed to be surrounded by people who share a similar business and social world view as I, but am also grateful for the views of others who do not, even though many cause me some concern because I hate to see people fail. As you all know we are a seriously divided nation, and it appears to be getting worse. I find it actually pretty easy to figure out why we have become so divided. It's poor leadership. For example, it seems that nearly every week many urban centers across the country are asking for more money to help rebuild their crumbling schools and to get more teachers, more up to date textbooks, computers and other supplies. They always get more money (eventually) to help them with getting what they "say they" need, but they continue to fail as they increase (relentlessly) their consumption of our severely limited resources, and the schools continue to be in disrepair (as are the infrastructure in these urban areas, even though taxes have been collected for their upkeep). Meanwhile in many other areas of the country there are literally hundreds of small school districts that have even less per-capita student funding, and they are just doing great, and the kids are making great progress and the schools are in pretty good shape. So why the disparity? It's the leadership, that's why the disparity exists. Unfortunately this same disparity has been commonplace in our university system for decades, putting out two-dimensional thinkers that have no real world experience, so with no practical understanding of their economic world many just end up modeling their two-dimensional mentors from college who essentially inculcated them with their own lack of real world experience, and on and on it goes. Did you know that at one time California, including the LA school district, was a top academic performer in America? So what happened? It was the new leadership that came into these urban areas and turned many of them into wastelands. As the new school year begins you will continue to see more requests for additional funding and more excuses for poor student performance, but if they just had a little more money...? My advice is all people should try to become as self-sufficient as you can in all areas of your life. We may be in a double-dip recession or worse, and our current economic policies by the present leadership is the same type of leadership that created those urban school wastelands and the crumbling infrastructures we now have. It's not the tax base many like to say is the reason, but that is the example these ineffective leaders and their water-carriers like to use so they can continue to increase taxes and fees, and on and on it goes, until we have arrived at the present mud pit. There are countless examples around America and the world that show prosperity when more income is in the hands of the people and businesses, and I do say, Mr. Laffer has irrefutable evidence as to why that is. Reality versus endless theories, no contest.

---

Ersun Warncke July 23, 2010 4:34 pm (Pacific time)

Hank: re Keynes quote: see an earlier essay of mine entitled "How to Make Billions While Leading a Morally Virtuous Life" (http://demockrazy.com/?q=node/48) Exemplary quote: "While government is inefficient, and all government spending is bad, there is an exception to this in capitalist theory. Corrupt government spending is actually good. You see, if government spending is determined by the self interested profit seeking of an individual, then it is part of the perfect market system, and it becomes efficient. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, in capitalist theory the more corrupt a government is the more morally virtuous its participants are, the more efficient it becomes, and the better off society is as a result."

---

Hank Ruark July 23, 2010 4:24 pm (Pacific time)

Carolyn: You wrote: "...having been in private business during the Reagan period, and having a business with employees who depended on my business being profitable "... If THAT endows one with any special knowledge, mine is multiplied by facts of mine own enterprises, some with employees, ever since the late 1930s !! Plus decade in major city, Chicago, as business- communications consultant, serving clients including many large-corporate seeking best-image and best-learning techniques for MANAGEMENT, to build even more profits... Yet,I,too, can STILL learn from history, which is NOT as YOU continue to insist here for your own reasons. Obviously you believe your experience, but that doth not bless it as sole and only truth !! Keynes, when attacked for changing his views, replied: "When facts change, sir, I change mind. What do you do ?" Historians are trained to ferret out that truth and then record and summarize it. Their qualifications far surpass any we-others can ever achieve, and enjoy far more credibility than any-side set of economists you can find... What Ersun relates is plain flat-out factual history; as documented in my multi-book list, offered freely to you and other readers --if you,too wish to learn... Re Reagan, what other source can possibly be more reliable than his own budget chief ? Have you read Stockman ? Have you read DUTCH ? by his own chosen writer, college colleague and WH-familar over his whole era ? His writer's notes fill a massive storage chest-full...he's historian. Have you read classic "The Education of Ronald Reagan",a recounting of multi-GE-plant speechifying,reversing him from union leader to what he became ? Have you read ANYthing re Iran/Contra and similar, with revealing detail on his true economic policies ? AND their ongoing world consequences ?? Have you read classics of American history since 1880 election, setting forth the facts on development of U.S. enterprises ? Have you read The Publisher, biog. of Henry Luce, more than half re TIME,FORTUNE,LIFE, as they generated best-possible in-depth, pro-business views ? Alan Brinkley reflects major historical facts pertinent here, in depth and detail, in very understandable format... you might even enjoy it !! THEN comes more than half on my booklist, every one fully confirming Ersun's kindly, rational, reasonable summary for you...which you refuse to accept, offering here only desperate accusations vs politicians, mostly irrelevant except as obvious defensive denial... Accusations of tax avoidance vs ANY politican fall far flat on face given Enron and more than 50 (repeat; 50 !)similar depredations via DEREGULATION, begun in depth by Reagan, with radical/irrational theme: "It is GOVERNMENT that is the real problem !" Did YOU suffer loss-of-home in housing fiscal/financial disaster ? Millions did...and some are readers here. THAT is widely seen as consequence of distorted- perverted DEregulation. SO ? For common-sense very rational, reasonable next-step, see two quotes presented from Keynes and Galbraith --surely NOT fellow- campers re economic matters !!

---

Hank Ruark July 23, 2010 2:10 pm (Pacific time)

To all: For those readers able to learn from this dialog, I send these two seminal quotes: "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." -John Maynard Keynes, British economist. and "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion; but not his own facts." --Daniel Patrick Moynihan Cannot refrain from adding final word: " One can learn much more from historians than from the finest of economists" --hcr

---

Ersun Warncke July 23, 2010 1:07 pm (Pacific time)

"The free enterprise system, no matter how one defines it, works best when government intrusion is at a minimum. Marxists just hate that concept." Let us dissect the irrationality of this statement: if "free enterprise" can be defined in ANY way, then it is a term with no definition, and thus a nullity which has no meaning at all. That is in fact the case when it comes to how this term is used in political propaganda and debate. "Marxist" is another term with no defined meaning, and thus another nullity. In other words, this entire collection of words has no rational meaning whatsoever. It is merely wasted space. People who speak like this are like babies crying or insane people rambling incoherently. They make noise, but it is unintelligible to reasonable people. Let me pose a simple question, which I eluded to explicitly before: How is the stimulus effect of reduced taxes different than the stimulus effect of the government giving away money? Are they not the same thing: more money in people's pockets? Is not the act of giving away money much more direct and immediate than reducing tax rates, which provides an increase in income at a later date? Is it not true that under the current circumstances, as in the past, both must be paid for by increasing government debt? As I have said, and is well documented, trillions have been given away already both by the Federal Government and the Federal Reserve. How do you propose that cutting taxes by a few hundred billion would have a stimulus effect where giving away trillions would not? This is truly irrational and purely magical thinking, based on a fairy tale history that has been laid out quite clearly here in the comments, and fully rebutted based on its own internal inconsistencies and clear documentary evidence.

---

Ersun Warncke July 23, 2010 12:33 pm (Pacific time)

Carolyn, the referenced link (http://russp.org/taxcuts.html) tells a nice story, but it is totally unsubstantiated. Aside from the wishful thinking present throughout the page, it also contains many violent distortions of the facts. For example: "contrary to the liberal media spin, the lion's share of the growth of the federal budget under Reagan was not on defense, but rather on social entitlement programs such as social security and Medicare." This is blatantly misleading twisting of the facts. See this paper from the Cato institute, hardly an organ of the "liberal media," which shows that discretionary spending on defense increased by 19.2% during the first three years of Reagan's term, while non-defense discretionary spending was reduced by 13.5%. (BTW, the other big increase in spending was at Treasury to pay for all the new debt) Yes, non-discretionary spending on Social Security and Medicare increased because these are OBLIGATIONS: promises made by past governments to their citizens. Of course, the paper fails to mention that TAXES WERE INCREASED on middle and lower income families in order to pay for the increase in costs to pay for past government promises. This partisan b.s. is a waste of time. Every two-bit hustler politician and idiot mouthpiece claims that their s*** doesn't stink because the "other side" is ideologically biased. I reject that, and I have no time for people who cannot argue based on fact, and cannot separate fact from political posturing. If you are claiming a page like that as a source, then you need to do more research and reassess your views and opinions. Also, take into account that the page was written by an "aerospace engineer," which is a euphemism for highly paid welfare recipient. Please tell me more about the "free market" in the aerospace industry which is entirely funded and controlled by the Federal government and composed of private sector monopolists. This is sort of like military people complaining about socialism and government spending, when they work for the most blatantly socialist organization in our country and get every dime they earn from the government.

---

Hank Ruark July 23, 2010 12:02 pm (Pacific time)

Friend Ersun: Thank you for absolutely accurate and immaculate summary of real-world economics as practiced so disastrously in U.S. over the past 30 years. Large-picture full-factual reflection of these realities, through very checkered source-life, has been mine own fate. From allathat and ongoing professional communications work, closely related via client contact, I can and do hereby endorse and confirm what you recount so admirably. For those others here still in doubt, operating from some confusion and/or perhaps from other motives these days, per the Sherrod-situation as prime example, I can only state that for me you are UNinformed, MIsinformed OR simply malignly intended. Will repeat: Booklist of at last count fifteen published works dissecting this whole period available to any S-N reader via ID/address and working phone no. to Editor Tim for relay to me, with our direct contact. That opens way for further dialog and exchange of always-crucial documentation providing full truth/source- information, and motivations for what C.sees as constant distortion/perversion ever present, when facts can be confirmed via reliable public record, as historians must do, reported in books on list.

---

Carolyn July 23, 2010 11:56 am (Pacific time)

Ersun having been in private business during the Reagan period, and having a business with employees who depended on my business being profitable (and still do, though my children are running things day to day), I may look at things much differently than you. I don't know anything about your indepth background, nor you mine, but there's a big difference getting a thumbnail sketch of historical events, and then actually making a comprehensive analysis, both on a macro and micro level. I am also not connected to any party, and I also expected that you would have made the parallel regarding congressional party control during both the Reagan and Clinton administrations. Of course to consider that made them equal in political power is where you may not understand the dynamics that were at play. Ersun your statement "...and the foreign governments with trillions invested in the U.S. are definitely not going to buy into the b.s. of tax cuts being stimulus..." leaves you at odds with history, and there is not much I can do about that. I would add that it really does try my patience when those who make our tax laws either totally refuse to pay their fair share, or find ways around doing it by engaging in obvious dishonest spin as reported in below article excerpt. The main tax man in the House, Charlie Rangel, have you heard the latest on him? Ethic charges (After an 18 month investigation. Why so long?) for tax problems, etc. "Sen. John Kerry skips town on sails tax"// Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I.//Cash-strapped Massachusetts still collects a 6.25 percent sales tax and an annual excise tax on yachts. Sources say the "Isabel" sold for something in the neighborhood of $7 million, meaning Kerry saved approximately $437,500 in sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000." http://bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view.bg?articleid=1269698 Then for those of you who remember the Auto Bailout last year, well Ford Motor Company didn't take any money, which meant if you took the (our) money, then that allows the government to call the shots. How is Ford doing? "NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Ford Motor earned $2.7 billion in the second quarter, reversing from an operating loss in the prior year's quarter and easily topping estimates." So the free enterprise system still works, and the less government intervention the better, as the evidence clearly acknowledges. Leave private enterprise alone, whether it's a one person corporation or a huge conglomerate. Sure you need some regualtion oversight, but at a minimum. The evidence is clear that as goverment starts increasing taxes/fees and increasing onerous regulations, our economy suffers, and in time we get what we have now. The free enterprise system, no matter how one defines it, works best when government intrusion is at a minimum. Marxists just hate that concept.

---

Ersun Warncke July 23, 2010 11:23 am (Pacific time)

Carolyn, you cannot say that cutting spending is a model that works, because in the past 40 years there has never been a reduction in the U.S. government's budget. As I referenced, Federal spending doubled during Reagan's term. When you say that Clinton did not write any bill, that is true of every President, because Presidents have no authority to write legislation. You may also remember that Democrats controlled the House during the entirety of Reagan's term, so it is hard to argue that this is as a D/R political issue. I do not adhere to either party, and so I do not have any political bent. My assessment is that for the last 30 years government has failed utterly, regardless of party. Throughout this entire period there has been unacceptable levels of corruption, waste, and fraud. Not only has there been no long term investment, but on a massive scale, these people have been tearing up and selling off the industrial capacity that was the product of past investment, while racking up massive debts to be paid by future generations. In the short term there have been fluctuations between bad and worse in people's daily lives, but the long term trend line has been steadily downhill for 30 years. Tax policy is now irrelevant. Since the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve are giving away trillions of dollars, to banks, investors, home owners, car buyers, the unemployed, etc, cutting taxes could have no stimulus effect. The government has already given away far more money than would be saved from any reduction in taxes. Economic theories about the effects of tax cuts are based on underlying assumptions of a free market and stable currency. We have a government dictated economy and currency creation on the scale of trillions of dollars, so economic theory predicated on wholly opposite conditions is inapplicable. Neither party will make tax cuts that reduce net revenues, because they have to answer to the people who loan them money, and the foreign governments with trillions invested in the U.S. are definitely not going to buy into the b.s. of tax cuts being stimulus. The current policy of borrowing, creating currency, and direct payments to keep the population at a subsistence level is probably here to stay, because it maintains stability in the short term. All of the real long term solutions would be highly destabilizing, and thus will only be taken in response to a major crisis, which would make them preferable under the circumstances.

---

Carolyn July 23, 2010 9:46 am (Pacific time)

Ersun the below Harvard sourced article is older, but provides an assessment during the last part of the Clinton Administration, and has an as easy to read graph that shows who had the most economic successful policies of the current and previous administrations. Of course Clinton benefited from those congressional policy-makers at that time, and came close to parity, but still had a ways to go. http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/files/bw99_02_22.pdf // Also linked below is a clear crisp narrative on why Clinton/Gore profited from the Reagan tax cuts: http://russp.org/taxcuts.html // Needless to say Ersun one can shop around and find any number of studies using the same set of stats/data that support different positions/viewpoints. The bottom line though is that the country back in the early 80' was hurting big time, and the approximately 20 million jobs that were developed were of immense importance. Those tax cuts continued to have a positive benefit on the economy, until around 2007 when things began to turn sour. So in my opinion, anymore tax increases will continue to drag the economy down. The evidence is overwhelming on what has worked and what has not. http://russp.org/taxcuts.html

---

Hank Ruark July 22, 2010 4:50 pm (Pacific time)

Friends all:
  Please note Ersun furnishes easy-use links to unchallenged authoritative sources, which I checked to ID as reliable.

---

Carolyn July 22, 2010 6:55 pm (Pacific time)

Ersun what I consider an "explosion" of the deficit is what has been happening since the Stimulus Bill was enacted on a strictly partisan basis. Just add up those trillions and compare in real dollars. There are many studies that have been done dealing with the Reagan Administration (and others like FDR by some top notch academics), and they all seem to have different takes, depending of course on their political bent. The fact remains that Reagan inherited a very high unemployment rate and an interest rate at around 21%. I recall paying a bundle for gas at the time, and many of my successful friends were out looking for work, plus the real estate market was at a near standstill that was soon to sink us even deeper into a possible major depression. So when those 20 million or so jobs that were created under the Reagan Administration came along, America breathed a big sigh of relief. How were you doing back then? How's the job market look today with the current policies? If you recall during the Clinton Administration, the republicans took over the purse strings in 1995 in a monumental takeover of congress and Clinton signed all their legislation. He created none, nor did he provide any real input, he got the credit from those who do not know the history of that time period, obviously. Bush really blew it, and for numerous other reasons I have a very intense dislike for him, but we are in serious trouble now, so dwelling on the past is only beneficial in my opinion if it provides some guidance for today, and it does actually. Cut spending and reduce taxes immediately, for that is a model seen many times in the past all over the planet that works. Do you realize what happens if the so-called Bush tax cuts are sunsetted? Did you know that on January 1, 2011 the personal income tax rate for the lowest tax bracket will rise 50% from 10% to 15%? Did you know that on January 1, 2011 the personal income tax rate for the next highest bracket - 25% - will rise to 28%? Did you know that on January 1, 2011 the personal income tax rate that is now 28% will rise to 31%? Just who's raising these taxes? That would be the Democrats by allowing the Bush tax cuts for the "rich" expire on December 31, 2010. If Bush only cut taxes for the rich, where did the 10%, 25%, and 28% tax rates come from? It seems to me there aren't many "rich" people in the lowest tax bracket. And btw, the marriage penalty will be making a much-heralded comeback along with a rise in the capital gains rate (you know, the one for the 100 million "rich" people who own stock) from 15% to 20%. Then again we can always discuss who it is that creates the jobs to pay for the government.

---

Ersun Warncke July 22, 2010 2:12 pm (Pacific time)

Carolyn, if you would like some facts concerning the myth of the "rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" you can also review this study based on the Federal Reserve Consumer Finance Surveys: http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_502.pdf (page 12) What it shows is a small change in wealth distribution from 1983 to 1989. Wealth in the U.S. has always been highly consolidated, so the fact of the matter is that there is very little room for further consolidation. Between 1983 and 2004 the share of wealth for the top 20% increased from 81.3% to 84.7%, which is not a huge increase, but taking into account the fact that the other 80% of the population saw their slice decrease by 18%, it may have been somewhat noticeable to them. The 2007 survey shows that the bottom 50% (i.e. half of the population) has about 1-2% of the total wealth. That was at the peak of the housing bubble, so the 2010 survey will probably show significant erosion in wealth for the majority and further consolidation by the top 10%.

---

Ersun Warncke July 22, 2010 1:30 pm (Pacific time)

Carolyn, you can look at the facts on Government spending, deficits, and debt right here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=economic_indicatorsanddocid=32ja98.txt Whether or not you call $1.7 trillion dollars an "explosion" is up to you, but $1.7 trillion in increased Government debt is the number. It is worth pointing out that in the next 4 years under King Bush I another $1.7 trillion in debt was added, doubling the rate of increase. I am not a fan of Clinton at all, but the fact is that the rate of increase in debt slowed during his presidency, with an increase of only about a trillion. Under King Bush II the increase in debt was $5 trillion. I am not sure if that qualifies as an "explosion" or not, but if it doesn't, I am not sure what does.

---

Carolyn July 22, 2010 12:34 pm (Pacific time)

On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years. Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency. The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years. Facts and gibberish often collide when ideology is agenda-based rather that fact-based. Some fables of Reaganomics (often taught to undergraduates and spread by those who should know better): that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, the Reagan tax cuts caused the deficit to explode, and Bill Clinton's economic record had been better than Reagan's. Also remember who was in charged of congress at that time Reagan was president, during Clintons administration and in the last nearly 4 years. Elections have consequences, so make sure you become an informed voter, not a conned voter.

---

Ersun Warncke July 22, 2010 10:28 am (Pacific time)

To clarify a few points on Reagan's supposed cutting of government spending and taxes: Taxes were cut for the wealthy, but taxes were increased for everyone else, by increasing the Social Security payroll contribution. The Federal Government was then run into deficits in order to raid the SS payroll contributions and use them for general fund expenditures, thus permanently destabilizing Social Security and creating massive unfunded liabilities. Over the course of Reagan's term in office, the Federal Government's spending increased from $590 billion to $1,064 billion per year, with deficits every single year, and debt increased from $909 billion to $2,346 billion. The economic policy under Reagan was to cut taxes for the wealthy, increase taxes for the majority, and massively increase debt and spending. The major factor in economic recovery under Reagan was falling oil prices. Fossil fuels are the industrial economy. Most economic numbers are essentially abstractions of the burn rate for stock energy resources, although few people realize this. If oil is not flowing, "the economy" sucks, because in the real world there is less energy being utilized. Keeping the real world in mind is a good idea, because 99% of "economics" is ideological gibberish and/or con artists making their pitch.

---

Steve Corey July 22, 2010 9:04 am (Pacific time)

Just a quick observation here. I noticed Martin and Henry Ruark were cross-posting about economics and the different perspectives that exist on what is the best way to solve current problems. I found the exchange wonderful debate, and somewhat polite. Then we have someone change the topic and writes how bad and evil America is, then this Martin is supposedly attempting to snow those who no more than him. Methinks it is obvious whose attempting to snow. It is quite clear to thinking rational people who have even a superficial background in American history of the great accomplishments of America. As far as our current recession, even those in congress on the left are starting to realize that the current economic policies have failed, thus many are campaigning from the center, and advocating for lowering taxes. This upcoming November election will be a showcase of rejection of current policies across the board. I get the gravity example in the below post, and it sure worked by demonstrating how quickly one can lose focus on the topic at hand. Theories are just theories, except to those who really do know what they are talking about. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is just as likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity. Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, knew there were problems with the theory. He claims to have invented the idea early in his life, but he knew that no mathematician of his day would approve his theory, so he invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to “prove” his theory. This became calculus, a deeply flawed branch having to do with so-called “infinitesimals” which have never been observed. Then when Einstein invented a new theory of gravity, he, too, used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. It seems that every time there is a theory of gravity, it is mixed up with “fringe” mathematics. To make matters worse, proponents of gravity theory hypothesize about mysterious things called gravitons and gravity waves. These have never been observed, and when some accounts of detecting gravity waves were published, the physicists involved had to quickly retract them. Every account of anti-gravity and gravity waves quickly turns to laughter. This is not a theory suitable for children. And even children can see how ridiculous it is to imagine that people in Australia are upside down with respect to us, as gravity theory would have it. If this is an example of the predictive power of the theory of gravity, we can see that at the core there is no foundation. I have read a number of Kleins articles and have always enjoyed her humor, though I don't think she was trying to be humorous. Maybe it's a cultural thing?

So, "two high tides falsifies gravity", you say. You might want to contact the American Association for the Advancement of Science directly. I'm sure they would be interested in your insight. Their phone number in New York is 202-326-6400. Good luck and I look forward to you being feted on the front page of the New York Times, just as Einstein was when his theory of relativity was experimentally conformed. DJ 

---

Martin July 21, 2010 9:49 pm (Pacific time)

Yes Daniel you are spot on that "Economics" is nothing more than a compilation of theories, just as gravity is but a theory that works one way on earth but is much different in the vacuum of space. What good scientists do, when they can, is use empirical evidence to see how those theoretical assumptions pan out. I have briefly stated what the economic evidence purports in my earlier posts below, and that is when there is a reduction in taxes and spending, the economy, both on a micro and macro level, generally prospers. There is certainly no proof that it worsens until the government begins an over-regulation process. As far as your opinion that it is "erroneous" that America takes on global responsibilities, and certainly more so than any other country, is an opinion that has few proponents/followers. To take past events as you have done probably weakly serves your individual purposes, but taking all the history of what we have done around the world in the last 235 plus years makes those events of yours statistically quite small. That is not to say unimportant and also neccesary for academic review in an objective manner, it's just the overall good my country has done for people around the world has been magnificent. I, as most Americans, am incredibly proud of the United States. There are legions of people out there who absolutely hate America, and constantly attempt to diminish us, they have always failed, and always will. They are simply jealous people in my opinion who probably lead small unfullfilled lives. I always pray for them, but so far no luck. Maybe my God has created people like that so we take the time to see how fortunate we are not to suffer from the same myopic saddness?

Look up the word sophomoric. It applies to your position. Gravity? Gravity, in Einstein's theory is the warping of space-time and is a universal phenomenon and essential part of modern cosmological theory. Then read Stephen Kinzer's (New York Times journalist, an American) book Overthrow and come back and post about the wonderfulness and benevolence of America.  (I also recommend Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine but as she is a Canadian, like me, she is an outside agitator and not worthy of notice.)

Let this be a lesson to you. Don't try to snow people who know more than you do. 

---

Martin July 21, 2010 6:56 pm (Pacific time)

Mr. Ruark, there are so many economic theories out there, it's difficult to keep up with them, but when you look at it from an historical problem-solving context, increased government spending has never been the solution. The economic theories of John Maynard Keynes have undergone a stiff test over the past few years in Europe and in the United States. What we’ve gotten is unsustainable deficits, a national jobless rate hovering around 10% (though the real unemployment rate may be closer to 20%) and the near collapse of parts of the European Union. Obama is still a true believer, but the rest of the world is beginning the process of exorcising Keynes. Many currently in power are still dutifully committed to the idea that the Keynesian model will win out. It won’t, it never has, and it never will. Eventually, the massive debt catches up with any government as we are seeing in Greece or you get the “stagflation” that brought down President Carter. Current powers however, are driven largely by ideology and they will never give up on an economic system that carries with it elements of “social justice” and collectivism, even though it will eventually destroy our economy and make things infinitely worse. In its glee, Newsweek published a homage to Time’s 1965 cover story “We are all Keynesians Now.” But we are NOT all Socialists as Newsweek said and we have never been all Keynesians. Read Adam Smith, Friedrich von Hayek of the Austrian School, Milton Friedman, Arthur Laffer—or Ronald Reagan. President Reagan’s 1981 “Kemp-Roth” tax-cutting bill used supply-side economics to actually create long-lasting prosperity from the throes of recession that created approximately 20 million jobs, not to mention the R and D funding that produced the technology we enjoy today. The proof is overwhelming that a high spending government coupled with increasing taxes to continue their expanding/monolithic growth will destroy even the best economy in the world. It is also overwhelming historical fact that the best way out of this mess is to cut spending and reduce taxes. It will happen, and once again more evidence will be provided, and as the next "boom and bust" cycle comes along, that evidence will be ignored by those we want to make sure we keep out of power.

---

Martin July 21, 2010 6:52 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel if we followed your logic about low labor costs, then practically all manufacturing jobs would no longer exist here, in Canada, or any European country, for they would all go to the lowest labor cost bidder. It is simply a reality that the reason we became the wealthiest country was because of what the free market system coupled with our form of government allowed us to accomplish. In 2006 we had a two hundred billion dollar deficit, it is now around 14 trillion. Considering it is the congress that makes the legislation, whose been in charged of the store since then? I don't know about the "war-footing" you alluded to, but as a military superpower, we have taken on global responsibilities, and I'm sure not pleased with that. We do have a pretty lean volunteer military compared to the past, and I expect that when we do pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan some day, it will not have a big impact on our current military size. Since our state national guards will always be needed on the domestic level, they should pretty much stay the same size, and our regular military will probably do the same. Our military costs pale in comparison to other domestic costs. If you have ever looked at economic graphs, they show boom and bust (up and down) cycles across time. They happen during good, mediocre and bad times. In the past when we have been in this type of downturn, it has been economic growth that has pulled us out of it, and it has been a reduction in "all" taxes that fostered that growth.

You say: "If we followed your logic..." That's one of the reasons that economics is not a science and never has been a science. Too many variables, and practitioners try to convert statements and observations into absolutes. There are a host of reasons, mostly political, that there hasn't been a wholesale flight of jobs to foreign countries. Right now, for such jobs to come back to the US would inevitably mean higher wages and higher costs which Americans would resist.

Your statement that the US has taken on "global responsibilities" is erroneous. In the last century or so the US military has overthrown or debstabilized at least a dozen popular and national elected governments at the behest of American business interests. It starts with Hawaii in 1898 for Dole; Central American countries for the United Fruit Company; Chile, Iran in 1953 for the oil companies, etc. America does not have free market system. It has a rapacious capitalist system. Read Stephen Kinzer's Overthrow or Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine for documented expositions of these realities that contradict American mythology. 

---

Henry Clay Ruark July 21, 2010 12:43 pm (Pacific time)

Martin: Remember David Stockman ? He was Reagan Director of the Budget. He "was there, when it happened." Can you say/prove the same ? Re Laffer Curve, you need to read Stockman's classic, revealing, book-length confession: "The Triumph of Politics: The the Reagan Revolution Failed" --esp. Appendix on Fiscal Realities. "Abject failure" applies in strong terms to what Stockman relates from close personal experience re Laffer, Reagan, GOP "leaders, massive deficits caused --and current economic consequences-- begun by actor Reagan, playing at President, driven by own psychological difficulties. (See Stockman story re "pony and roomful of manure" !!) DUTCH, biography by his own selected author,longtime colleague, makes clear and complete the catastrophic collapse of what you cite as if political fact, when truth is that it is only simplified false political pander, per prolonged political propaganda over decades ever since. Yours re Keynes reveals flat perversion of potent economic truth, either purposely or as consequence of ignorance and proven international record --much more than Laffer Curve ever achieved. ID-self to Editor for my emailer address for direct dialog-continuing for full and reliable-source documentation of every statement.

---

Martin July 21, 2010 11:00 am (Pacific time)

Daniel Johnson do you understand the tax/fee system the federal government and 50 states (each having different tax rates) have that impact our ability to produce, thus creating more jobs, increasing tax revenue and keeping fewer people out of poverty? Not to mention to maintain our ability to meet growing population demands for future jobs? Of course there are many expenses, but the tax rates are primary. An over-reaching government is the problem when they cross into creating a tax/fee scenario that causes diminishing returns, and that is where we are now. Let's look at our neighbor to the north: To promote small business firms, Canadian controlled private corporations or CCPC are entitled to a corporate tax rate in Canada, which is low. It is felt that corporate taxes act as hindrances in the financial headway of Canada (DUH!). The Canadian corporate tax rate for 2010 is 19%, and is structured to even go lower in the future, for example, it is projected to be 15% in 2012, of course depending on the product. 24 U.S. states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than top-ranked Japan. 32 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than third-ranked Germany. 46 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fourth-ranked Canada. All 50 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fifth-ranked France. Thus, if lawmakers are serious about making the U.S. corporate tax system more competitive internationally, corporate tax rates will have to be reduced both in Washington and in state capitals. State officials should be champions of substantial cuts in the federal corporate tax rate because there is only so much they can do to improve their own competitiveness. After all, even corporations that operate in the three states that do not impose a major state-level corporate tax—Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming—still shoulder a higher corporate tax rate than fifth-ranked France and 24 other OECD countries because of the 35 percent federal corporate rate. The above is economic reality, not coulda, woulda, shoulda rhetoric. For those of you who want to know why we are bleeding jobs to overseas locations, re-read the above.

There's a good reason you're bleeding jobs overseas and it's not taxes. It's low labour costs. This is why the jobs are definitely not coming back.  If company X relocated so their labour cost for making widgets is $40/day, to come back to the US their labour costs will be far higher than that, which means that the price of widgets will have to rise, perhaps significantly. Will Americans pay higher prices. Certainly not. They've been used to low prices from third world countries for decades. The American consumer will be difficult to wean from an attitude of exploiting less developed countries in the world.

But, back to taxes. The US has been on a permanent war footing since Vietnam. You can't exactly pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan unconditionally, because your whole military-industrial complex would collapse, throwing millions more out of work, probably triggering a real global depression. 

You might find it educational to reread Orwell's 1984 on the permanence of war. 

 

---

Frank July 20, 2010 6:39 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel Johnson what does my faith or non-faith have to do with wanting the government observe their fiduciary responsibility and their oath of office? If they continue with their spending pattern we will be broke, then things will really get dire. What one can clearly see is that the nearly one trillion dollar Stimulus Bill which was suppose to head off the current situation we are in has failed. Now maybe it's time to look at what others currently and in the past have done to avoid this problem. The state of Virginia did a cut across the board and they may even produce a surplus. The unemployment extension could be financed by the left-over stimulus funds, and maybe have enough left to purchase some eggs to make that spinach into a souffle'?

A Christian, in principle, cares about his neighbors. You seem to only care about money. If you had to face the children of unemployed workers, out of work through no fault of their own, I would be very interested in hearing how you would explain their poverty to them in terms of fiduciary responsibility.

And quit blaming the government. Corporate America has driven the country into the ground.  Profits before people. Always.

---

Frank July 20, 2010 2:51 pm (Pacific time)

do not know if Keynes was right or not. All I do know is that I want my government to live within its means. If this means cutting or reducing some programs...so be it. There comes a time when "you need to eat your spinach." I believe we have reached that point.

Daniel Johnson: There are tens of millions of Americans in dire and below-dire straits: unemployed, underemployed, losing or about to lose their homes and little or no money to feed their families. Your advice to your fellow Americans is simple: Let them eat spinach. I guess you're not any kind of a Christian. 

---

Martin July 19, 2010 9:49 pm (Pacific time)

One potential result of the Laffer Curve is that increasing tax rates beyond a certain point will become counterproductive for raising further tax revenue because of diminishing returns." It's an empirical reality that the previous statement is true, that is, if one has a clear economic perception interpreting current economic conditions, both on a macro and micro level. The state of California clearly illustrates what happens to a rather large economy (California is the eight largest in the world), when taxes/fees continue to be increased. Many of our cities are also facing bankruptcies like California because of similar tax/fee tracks. In terms of Keynesian economic theory, Keynes would have never approved of the economic approach that the powers in Washington DC are pursuing, for it is not even remotely similar. Just a quick read of that theory should make that clear to even economic theory novices, hopefully. Of course I would love to see evidence that increased government spending beyond available tax revenue brings about prosperity, for it has never happened and never will. The Stimulus Bill and it's abject failure is enough evidence for most people to understand the Laffer Curve as a realistic economic tool for seeing what to avoid. As Thatcher made clear, once you run out of other people's money (us taxpayers money), you're history, and history is what it is (over 20 million new jobs in the 80's). Even Krugman has thrown in the towel with regards to DC economics, except he wants the government to spend even more money we do not have, so whose getting the guffaws now? I would like to add that if we created 250,000 new jobs monthly for the next 3 years we would still have over an 8% unemployment rate. So what has worked in the past to create new jobs? History provides a guide, unless powers that be are actually not interested in creating jobs. The number one concern of Americans is the economy and jobs are number two. Upcoming elections will be similar to 1994 is my guess, unless we are in a major conflict or some kind of catastrophe. I pray not, we need a change of economic direction, but healthcare should still be a major priority for our people.

---

Henry Clay Ruark July 19, 2010 4:39 pm (Pacific time)

Martin et al:
IF your ref. is to Reagan policies built on tax slashes for rich and deregulation, globalization, privatization, you are either misinformed or wishing to distort current analyses of longterm causes ending in Great Recession now underway.

Re "centuries", ref. is meaningless without full image of world areas, history-then, and other shaping factors so neatly side-stepped.

It was study of all those centuries which prompted the development of Keynesian and similar economics, which is ONLY world-tested pattern and protocol to succeed.  Bretton Woods familiar to you ? If NOT, check it out.  Other world economic meets also involved, with some few assisting, others simply more guff-and-googaw...such as the Clinton-conceived one setting up Mexico for destroying its rural-worker basis-for-economy and forcing current "illegals" debacle.   Re Laffer, name ironic since it draws guffaw from nearly all modern economists, and his "Curve" proved to work only in reverse when tentatively used; documentation when you set up yours, then we can compare the credibility --and political ties !!-- of each.

---

Martin July 19, 2010 2:41 pm (Pacific time)

Over 20 million jobs were created in the mid to late 1980's via tax cuts and tax breaks that overcame an entrenched recesion that also had interest rates in excess of 21%. So states like California continue to raise their taxes and fees, and businesses continue to leave the state. Oregon passed tax measures in a very deceptive way, and how's that working out for revenue generation and new job development? There are literally centuries of examples of what happens when a government over reaches and injures the economic well-being of their population. In fact we fought a war of Independence over it. The formation and the growing membership of the Tea Party is because of the obscene lack of capability to govern by the currnt administration. Laffer has i right, and I would like to see someone discount him, documentation please.

---

Henry Clay Ruark July 19, 2010 11:01 am (Pacific time)

Friend R.C.: Surely we all must agree re necessity to avoid snake-oil, however skillfully massaged. You wrote: "The answer is quite simple really, tax breaks! You see, companies are in business to make a profit for the individuals who invest in them. When taxes go up, those companies will find a way to reduce expenses, thus keeping profits up and one way to do that is to find cheaper labor, which usually translates to off shore hiring. Large enough tax breaks would provide the impetus necessary to reverse the trend to replace taxpaying U.S. workers with foreign nationals." SO, natural end-point for yours is simply to discard ALL TAXES of any kind,at any level, on any and all business activities --and, of course, also slash ALL hampering government "interference" with what any and all business says it wants --as you state, "profits" !--- by obviating ALL regulation or other restriction on fullscale "capitalistic enterprise". We all know civilization is entirely dependent on profit, motivating all human endeavor, do we not ? Ongoing research over the past centuries surely proves that, from every page of any history consulted, right ?? Do I understand you Right, sir ? If not, please enlighten me on what, where, how, and WHY you would have government do ANY intervention of ANY kind on business operations, no matter of what rapacity or irresponsible impacts on any and all other segments of our democracy ? Given enough "tax-breaks", we can simply obviate all the other hampering costs of our mutual civilization --and rely, naturally since nothing else is left !!-- on the self-regulation of business, so well proven in very recent years. Please also includ reference and documentation from any leading economists currently offering this same so-obvious remedy for our complex and very painful present economic debacle, worldwide and thus obviously unconnected to our U.S. policies-alone...

[Return to Top]

---

©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.