State budget cuts

[FreePressAdmin]

We are relaunching the Free Press Forums under a new structure and with a different mission. We have designed this forum to provide the community access to some select viewpoints from people who are authoritative and deliberative on a variety of subjects. In this thread, we will focus on Politics and Government of Minnesota River Valley.
We will strive to find a cross-section of opinions that will counter each other but in a manner that will enlighten through civil discourse.

To that end we will not be offering open registration but rather participation by invitation only. If you would like to participate, please send an email to FreePressAdmin (webmaster@mankatofreepress.com) with your name, phone number and what background you bring to a particular subject. We may need to call both to verify the registration as well as learn more about your expertise.

We hope you enjoy this new offering from The Free Press.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Listed below are two essays republished from the Sunday, Jan. 25 Free Press from Democrat Terry Morrow and Republican Bob Gunther on the state budget deficit.

By Terry Morrow, DFL, St. Peter
Minnesota faces a budget crisis. In 2008 and 2009, the state's projected revenue was approximately $17.3 billion per year. Of this amount, 40 percent was for K-12 education ($6.9 billion/year), 27.7 percent was for health and human services ($4.8 billion/year), 9.1 percent was for higher education ($1.6 billion/year), 9.2 percent was for property tax credits ($1.6 billion/year), and 5.4 percent was for public safety ($800 million/year) — this totaled $15.7 billion/year.
Veterans' services, natural resources, environment, energy, agriculture, economic development, debt service, state government and more cost an additional $1.6 billion.
The February forecast will likely report a state deficit of $6 billion or more for the next two years. Rising unemployment, lower business revenues, slower sales, the housing crunch, and other factors cause the shortfall. A $6 billion deficit would leave $14 billion/year available to the state, a 19 percent reduction.
Each Minnesotan will feel the impact as we solve the budget crisis. The problem's scale is substantial. Cutting a program that costs $3 million fixes only 1/1,000th of the total deficit. Minnesota could lay off every state employee and close every prison — a deficit would still exist.
We are combing through every state budget. We are exercising the Legislature's oversight responsibility to ensure that state agencies use our funds wisely and transparently. Minnesotans need to know that we are getting value for our money.
Facing more bills than money in the bank, Minnesota must make hard choices, made more complex because Minnesota's funding is often tied to federal funding. Cutting a dollar in some areas means losing even more money. We need to be wary of cuts with cascading effects.
Unlike the federal government, Minnesota cannot engage in deficit spending. Under Minnesota's Constitution, the state must balance the budget. This is important when some suggest more tax credits. Tax credits are an expense — the state deficit hole becomes even deeper with a tax credit. Unlike the federal government, Minnesota cannot borrow to create tax credits. Minnesota would have to make more cuts than necessary to pay for new tax credits.
The federal recovery act offers Minnesota a substantial tool in rebuilding our economy. By investing federal funds in 'shovel-ready' projects for schools, energy efficiency, roads and rails, health care, science, and more, Minnesota will create jobs in the short-term and a promising economy for the future. The Legislature is actively working with state agencies to allocate federal recovery funds fairly and wisely.
Our economic crisis lengthens the lines at unemployment counters, food shelves, health care clinics, and temporary housing offices. As we work to support great jobs and a prosperous economy for our future, Minnesota must stand true to its tradition of serving others in need by accepting and using federal recovery funds.
We can meet these challenges. We have overcome challenges before. We will create a foundation for a stronger economy and state.
I hear from folks every day, “We know things are bad. We know it's going to take time to get things right. Let us help.” Minnesota's spirit helps our communities recover from natural disasters. We can work together to solve this economic crisis. Please let us know your ideas. You can call, write, send an e-mail, or set up a meeting. Our contact information is at www.house.mn. I look forward to The Free Press discussion. Thank you very much and I look forward to hearing from you.
Rep. Terry Morrow is a Democrat and represents people of District 23A, which includes Nicollet County and parts of Sibley County. He is also an assistant majority leader.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

By Rep. Bob Gunther, R, Fairmont

Minnesotans are hurting.
Their incomes are flat. Their expenses are escalating. Their retirement plans are tanking.
Some are losing their jobs due to slow business; others are unemployed because their company is leaving the state altogether due to our unfavorable business climate (high business taxes).
Minnesotans want their Legislature to stop the bleeding. This will be difficult as Minnesota is facing a $5 billion budget deficit — and that number is likely to rise significantly following our February budget forecast.
So how can government help solve these problems? By putting more people to work, reforming the way Minnesota spends its revenue, and becoming more fiscally responsible.
Two years ago, our DFL-led Legislature inherited a $2 billion surplus and spent it. In addition, it increased state spending by nearly 10 percent, from $31.5 billion to $34.6 billion.
Thanks to these decisions, the $2 billion surplus became a $1 billion deficit the very next year. Instead of making real spending reforms, our leaders solved this problem last May by making $355 million in spending cuts and draining $500 million from the state’s rainy day fund.
Instead of making tough fiscal choices, the Legislature took the easy way out. Now we’re spending money faster than we can collect it — roughly $2 million per day.
Soon the majority party will tell you about the need to “increase revenue” to solve these problems. That’s a fancy way of saying “raising taxes.”
That would be another easy way out.
Minnesotans deserve better.
They deserve a government that recognizes their financial pain and refuses to make their lives even more difficult. They make tough decisions on how to spend their paychecks, and expect government to do the same.
Minnesota has many wonderful government programs that are beneficial to people around the state. But with this mammoth deficit only the most beneficial programs are going to survive. Some will be pared or cut altogether so your government can balance the books.
Investing in job creation will solve many of these deficit problems. Redirecting current spending to create a more favorable business climate will allow this to happen.
If more people are working at a good paying job, fewer Minnesotans will need to utilize welfare and public health insurance programs, thereby lowering those state expenses. Meanwhile, they’ll be paying income taxes on their salaries, while spending more on goods and paying a sales tax. All of this means “increased revenue” to the state — without tax hikes.
The DFL will be selling hope this session, hoping you’ll believe a larger government means better things for your family.
I’m selling reality. If you lose more of your income while you’re already struggling financially, how have you improved?
Government got us into this fiscal mess, so government should get us out of it. We need rational spending on the programs that are the most vital. We need to stop thinking that the taxpayers should be forced to bail out the government.
We need a long overdue dose of fiscal responsibility.
Rep. Bob Gunther is a Republican and represents the people of District 24A, which includes parts of Watonwan, Faribault and Martin counties. He is also an assistant minority leader.

[Bob Jentges]

I agree with Rep. Gunther. Hope (larger govt.) won't do it. We need action based on reality and fiscal responsibility i.e. necessary vs. nice.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

First. Thank you Terry and Bob for your willingness to provide your views and participate in this forum.

A question for each of you.

Is it feasible to balance the budget with cuts alone?
Since jobs appear to be the thing that will jump start our revenue flow, is there a way to do a big bonding bill that will create jobs. Could we boost the 3 percent debt service limit as was suggested in Strib editorial this Sunday?

[Ellen Mrja]

Minnesota finds itself -- as does our federal government -- in a precarious position regarding its economy. It's true that Minnesotans, as well as all Americans, are willing to roll up their shirt sleeves and get to work helping to turn this recession around. We're nervous; we're scared. For the first time in our lifetimes, we understand reckless borrowing and spending can have dire consequences if left unchecked.

At this time, we need real leadership. I believe that's what many Americans are hoping President Obama can bring -- new energy, new ideas, new vision. Similarly, at the state level, we await Governor Pawlenty's budget recommendations and the legislature's replies.

What people really do not want to hear anymore, however, is political bickering. Democrats vs. Republics, liberals vs. conservatives, left-wing vs. right-wing..none of these labels work for us. They only divide us. Politicians who sling mud: Beware of backlash.

So, let's drop the talk about "what the DFL will do now" or "what conservatives will try to do..." Let's look at this as what Minnesotans and Americans can do. Afterall, we're all in this together. Let's work together.

[Fred Slocum]

For insight on how NOT to resolve this budget crisis, just look to the last one, in 2003. Then, Republicans were fresh off big gains in the 2002 elections that resulted in Tim Pawlenty as governor, an 81-53 Rep. majority in the state House, and a trimmed-down and threadbare DFL majority in the state Senate. Pawlenty hewed rigidly to a "no new taxes" pledge, legislative Republicans equally rigidly followed suit, and together they forced a "no new taxes" budget balancing plan, resulting in Draconian cuts to local government aid, arts funding, social services, and public higher education - the latter resulting in astronomical tuition increases that hammered students and families so much that even Pawlenty admitted in July 2006 that state university tuitions increased too steeply. That, of course, was the same Pawlenty who derisively dismissed those affected by the 2003 cuts as "victims du jour."

Now, we have an even bigger budget hole, and almost no reserves to tap this time around. Given this history, Pawlenty's insistence once again on "no new taxes" is irresponsible. No lawmaker advocates balancing the budget with tax and revenue increases only, no cuts. That would be an extreme position. Why is it not equally extreme to insist on balancing only with cuts, cuts and more cuts, which is what "no new taxes" amounts to? To address this crisis responsibly, *everything* must be on the table - yes, we must accept some cuts. But to avoid devastating worthy programs, some revenue increases must also be on the table.

[Bob Jentges]

I do not blame Pawlenty for the entire deficit problem; he is only the governor. The legislature here, as usual, is controlled by Democrats. There forte seems to be to first bloat the budget, follow that with excessive spending and then raising taxes. That cycle must stop; there is no bottomless pit of taxpayer money.

When a business has problems it is usually not because their prices are too low. Their problems most likely relate to an inferior product, low productivity because of being over-staffed/staffed by the wrong people, excessive overhead and/or over pricing. A business is seldom successful in solving their operating problems by raising prices. Their solution is to make reasonable and necessary changes and/or cuts in those areas. Governments must first do likewise before considering raising taxes.

Governments like business and private citizens need to exercise the nice but necessary approach.

[Ben Willaert]

People like to talk about raising taxes like it is the stoic and noble thing to do, but the fact is, our economy wouldn’t be able to handle it. Consumers already aren’t spending money. Businesses are resorting to layoffs to offset the loss of production from consumers not spending. Adding taxes to either consumers or businesses would just result in less spending and more layoffs.

The current budget problems are exactly why I opposed the Clean Water amendment on the last ballot. In tough times, any and all programs need to trim the fat. Now we have tax payer dollars that can’t be touched by the legislator. This type of cop out by the legislator has to stop. Using the guilt of clean water to get voters to vote in new taxes is intolerable. It amounts to nothing short of voters buying a mortgage they can’t afford.

On a federal level, the problem I see with the new stimulus package is that it is doing too much to just keep people somewhat comfortable, without encouraging new business. There is an unprecedented amount of educated people that are laid off right now. They present an excellent potential to create new and innovative businesses that can take us into the future. I don’t see any money to help them get started. Supporting government programs does nothing but make people dependable on government programs. Those new businesses will create new tax revenue and provide consumers with the jobs and high quality products needed to increase spending. More importantly, those businesses can eventually take over the old and inefficient businesses we hear about everyday, that are begging for more and more money.

[Terry Morrow]

We have been asked to follow up on our original posts and address whether the budget deficit can be handled with cuts alone. I return to the numbers set out in my first post.

A decrease in state revenue in the twenty percent range is a steep drop. All who have looked closely at the state budget---no matter one's party affiliation---agree that there's nothing approaching 20% in 'waste'. If there were, no serious concern would exist.

Also, there was no long-term surplus as Representative Gunther suggested. I addressed this in a 2007 Free Press commentary. About 6 years ago, the state started inflating projected revenue (but not using inflation for projected expenses). Well, we see the problem now---actual revenue went *down*, not up. Minnesota needs to fix this inflation-adjustment inconsistency.

Minnesota "can" cut to balance the budget. And all working on this crisis agree that Minnesota "will" deeply cut expenses.

The coming weeks will bring forth the impact of these cuts. Today, we heard from folks about losing health care, transportation for disabled residents, college course cancellations as instructors are laid off, reduced city services, and more. Again, I agree that cuts will and must occur and that the cuts will impact us.

The coming weeks will also determine whether the public wants to restore health care, transportation, services, class seats, and other items that will otherwise be reduced or eliminated. I will continue to listen as I have to the folks who have let me know over the past few days about their lost jobs, lost health care, higher tuition, and other immediate impacts of this economic crisis.

[Bob Jentges]

I trust the legislature will "deeply cut expenses" as Representative Morrow indicates will happen. Although I do not know for certain, for the sake of arguement I am willing to accept "there's nothing approaching 20% in 'waste'" in the budget. Governor Pawlenty and the legislature should begin by eliminating whatever percentage of "waste" their might be, and then start cutting back on things that might not be "waste", but in this period of deficits are not necessary. Because of current circumstances people are going without some things in their personal lives that are not neccesary right now. Likewise, reasonable people should accept going without some government sevices that are not necessary during this time of deficits.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Thanks Terry, and Mr. Jentges. I see a good conversation developing here. I wonder if it would be worth examining our fee system with the principle in mind that those who use a government service should pay for it. Would that give us a legitimate way to raise cigarette taxes, for example, to cover all the smoking-related costs the state health insurance program is bearing? Do fees for hunting and fishing pay for all the wildlife management we do? In this kind of conversation, we can still debate whether for example, all of us should subsidize state parks, even though all of us do not use them.

[Bob Jentges]

I think Joe's idea about fees for use of services has merit, especially if the activity for which the fee is being charged is recreational e.g. hunting, fishing, boating, trail usage, etc. But those fees should be targeted for use toward the specific activities they are most related to. They should not be put into the general fund for the government to use on whatever their favorite project of the session might be.
No doubt their would be some complainers because it might mean an increase in the cost of a hunting, fishing boating, or whatever licence in some instances, but I think most adults interested in the activity could find the money even if they had to cut back in some other non-essential activity to do so. An exception could be made for children and the handicapped. Maybe some charitable organizations would be willing to provide "scholarships" so to speak for not more than one activity for employed adults that qualified based on their income.
We should not expect the general taxpayer to foot the bill for non-essential services used by others by using their tax dollars to pay for services they do not use, even indirectly. After a time if not enough fees are being collected for a certain non-essential activity it would be an indication their is not enough interest in the activity to contiune its operation and funding.
Fee for use is not the total solution, but it is certainly something worth considering in conjunction with other ideas, if it can be administered without adding another bureaucracy.

[Dan Conner]

Thanks for your message Terry. I thought it was important to mention that the deficit was not caused by runaway State expenditures, but instead, a decline in State REVENUES, caused by the contraction in the national economy. The national economy is expected to lose $2 trillion in GDP over the next 2 years because of the contraction. Well, less money in products means less revenues in taxes.

I believe we must have a healthy increase in State tax revenues to make up our deficit. Budget cuts have been exclusively used for too many years. Minnesota is no longer a national leader in education, because of the cuts in education. And education IS the future for Minnesota. Also, Minnesota no longer has one of the highest standards of living in the country. We can't attract people to Minnesota because of warm sunny beaches all year, but companies will relocate to Minnesota if we have an outstanding public education system and high standard of living.

While I believe increasing revenues is most needed to resolve our budget deficit, I'm sure there are some budget cuts that can be made. However, I believe tax increases must be the prime ingredient for fiscal solvency. Those tax increases must come from people who have benefited most from the economy. A way to increase revenues, is to increase the progressivity in our tax rates and/or limit tax deductions/credits. Our country has had a clarion call of patriotism for many years, in Republican and Democratic administrations. Now is the time for the rich and wealthy to "step up to the plate" and demonstrate the call is more than idle words. They, and we, have been lucky to be born here with so many opportunities. Now, it's time to return the favor and show appreciation. While Joe Biden was ridiculed for saying paying taxes was patriotic, I think he did state a truth. Paying taxes is the collective compassionate sharing we all engage in to promote the common good of all our country's inhabitants. It is improving our country for future generations. Certainly, selfishness or the "I've got mine and screw you" mentality is not going to lead to improvement of our State or democracy.

[Dan Conner]

Joe--

I read your comments. While I believe an increase in fees will bring in additional revenue, it is a "spit in the ocean" when looking at the State deficit. A lot more than fees must be considered. However, I do like your statement that fees should pay for all the associated expenses the fee is assessed for. Hunting and fishing fees should cover all State costs associated with those activities.

I believe that an increase in taxes are necessary, primarily from the rich, because the marginal propensity to consume by the rich is far smaller than the poor or middle class. And if we are to get out of this depression, we need to have people consume--there needs to be more spending. The rich will save large chucks of income because they can, but the poor and middle class will more likely spend it. However, another critical component of this is that peoples' faith in our economy and political direction have to be increased to get people to consume more. Once this can be done and people start making major purchases again, our economy will start to return to where it was.

[Ben Willaert]

While Joe Biden was ridiculed for saying paying taxes was patriotic, I think he did state a truth. Paying taxes is the collective compassionate sharing we all engage in to promote the common good of all our country's inhabitants. It is improving our country for future generations. Certainly, selfishness or the "I've got mine and screw you" mentality is not going to lead to improvement of our State or democracy.

Couldn’t it be argued that taking social responsibility away from the citizens makes them less compassionate? Forced charity (taxes) gives people a bad taste in their mouths so then they are less likely to engage in charity on their own. Besides, if we all figure the government will take care of everyone, then why contribute to charity?

As responsibilities are taken away, we become less dependable with the responsibilities that are left. Soon we become dependant on government to make all our decisions for us.

I think we need to have faith in our fellow man. Cut spending and allow us to take on the social responsibility like we should. Responsibility empowers and creates better citizens. With the government taking care of everything, it is easy to have the me first attitude.

[Ben Willaert]

I believe that an increase in taxes are necessary, primarily from the rich, because the marginal propensity to consume by the rich is far smaller than the poor or middle class. And if we are to get out of this depression, we need to have people consume--there needs to be more spending. The rich will save large chucks of income because they can, but the poor and middle class will more likely spend it. However, another critical component of this is that peoples' faith in our economy and political direction have to be increased to get people to consume more. Once this can be done and people start making major purchases again, our economy will start to return to where it was.

The rich invest large chunks of money in new business. In order to have a high standard of living, we need to lead the world in innovation. That will not happen without large investments in research and development. Taxing the rich only handicaps us to the rest of the world. That means instead of innovators, we would be general labor. Frankly, I don’t want to live on the average labor wages of the world.

People are consuming innovation. Sales of smart phones are still strong. Right now, the average American is saving more then they have in a long time. We need to give them new products to spend that money on. Advancements in technology, from investments of the wealthy, will restore consumer confidence and get them spending again.

Increasing taxes to the wealthy and businesses will just reduce production even more, with more layoffs. Consumers still are going to be scared of getting laid off, so they will not spend. Then taxes need to be raised more to pay more unemployment and you can see where that cycle goes. Soon we will all have government jobs because they will be the only employer that has any money.

[Dan Conner]

The rich invest large chunks of money in new business. In order to have a high standard of living, we need to lead the world in innovation. That will not happen without large investments in research and development. Taxing the rich only handicaps us to the rest of the world. That means instead of innovators, we would be general labor. Frankly, I don’t want to live on the average labor wages of the world.

People are consuming innovation. Sales of smart phones are still strong. Right now, the average American is saving more then they have in a long time. We need to give them new products to spend that money on. Advancements in technology, from investments of the wealthy, will restore consumer confidence and get them spending again.

Increasing taxes to the wealthy and businesses will just reduce production even more, with more layoffs. Consumers still are going to be scared of getting laid off, so they will not spend. Then taxes need to be raised more to pay more unemployment and you can see where that cycle goes. Soon we will all have government jobs because they will be the only employer that has any money.

Ben--

I disagree with you. I don't want to repeat what I said before in the section of the forum about the economy, but investment money from individuals is not nearly as relevant as having financial institutions. When a business is doing very well, lots of people are willing to invest. Banks too. There's incorporating and "going public" that are also options. We don't need to worry about the prospering businesses. It's the failing busiensses that won't be able to get money from anyone, regardless who has the money.

Also, I think you are raising the rich too high on a pedestal. When I say raising taxes on them, I don't mean taking all their money away. It means paying MORE taxes. Today, US taxation if grossly unfair. The rich pay a lower percentage of taxes, while reaping extraordinary benefits. FICA taxes are but one example. The rich would make you think that you tax any of their income and the sky would fall? That's rubbish! Most innovation and growth in our economy comes from small business, not the large business with large investors. I could also argue that to grow our economy consumption is most important, that the poor and middle class are the largest consumers, and that taxing their wealth away will hurt consumption. So, no one should be taxed and our country fail?

I think it is important that all Americans must realize their RESPONSIBILITY to the whole. Our society fails without that, including the rich. I believe that since the rich have so disproportionately benefited they need to disproportionately return wealth to benefit all. Everyone returns something, it's just that the rich need to return more. Increasing their taxes isn't going to bankrupt them, cause our economy to fail, or economic growth to stop. In fact, I thought it might be interesting to point out that the tax cuts for the wealthy, implemented by Ronald Regan in the 80's, did virtually nothing to spur growth. I remember in one of the years he gave a $99 billion tax cut, mainly for the rich, which coincidently caused about another $80 billion in deficit.

Economic growth happens far more vigorously through consumption that saving, good times or bad. On top of the confidence it creates in the economy, it causes capital growth, more employment, etc. It's not the savings/investment of the rich. In fact, too many times prosperous businesses have failed because they grew too fast. So there's no use in having too much money available.

[Ben Willaert]

The majority of wealthy people do not make their money hurting others. On the contrary, their vision and work ethic usually help others become more successful. I do not see why they should shoulder the consequences of our actions or inactions.

People need responsibility in their life in order to live responsible. If the government does it all for us, we won’t do it for ourselves. Every parent does it. They slowly give their children responsibility to help them mature. Spoiling children with no responsibility usually has negative consequences. Our government is trying to spoil us.

Let’s cut spending and get back to each and everyone of us being socially responsible.

[Dan Conner]

The majority of wealthy people do not make their money hurting others. On the contrary, their vision and work ethic usually help others become more successful. I do not see why they should shoulder the consequences of our actions or inactions.

People need responsibility in their life in order to live responsible. If the government does it all for us, we won’t do it for ourselves. Every parent does it. They slowly give their children responsibility to help them mature. Spoiling children with no responsibility usually has negative consequences. Our government is trying to spoil us.

Let’s cut spending and get back to each and everyone of us being socially responsible.

Ben, obviously you are prone to favor the rich. That's fine. I'm not saying the majority or even a minority of the rich hurt others. However, I am saying that they are not shouldering their fair share of the economic burden in our country. That's why people go to war and die to preserve freedoms for others. By the way that is responsibility.

When you say people need responsibility, does that mean that society must be responsible for the fantastically rich bank executives that were largely rresponsible for this economic mess? Does it mean the poor must now starve because of their greed?

I don't think you will have to worry about being spoiled when this period of economic calamity is done. You, me, and most people in our community risk losing everything. I don't know if you lived through the Great Depression, but be prepared. We will then be taking responsibility for a lot of other people's sins. And when that happens, who's the one being spoiled.

As food for thought, you might find it interesting that almost 70% of all our nation's wealth is inherited. Those people didn't get that wealth from hard work, some one handed it to them as a birthright.

[Ben Willaert]

I wouldn’t say I favor the rich, I just think it is bad to blame them for everything. The rich are the scapegoat. Hitler did it with the Jews, to take over Germany. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying anyone like Hitler is trying to come to power, just that using the rich as a scapegoat is very powerful propaganda.

I think we all need to be accountable for what has happened. We need to examine what each and every one of us did and make sure it doesn’t happen again. Pointing our finger at a few people only fixes a few problems, while our other problems fester and get bigger.

I care too much about this country and the potential it has, to throw it away to socialism. Socialism is a great way to make everyone comfortable, but it will not take us anywhere. I believe we are all good people, but we need motivation to be the best. Socialism doesn’t provide that motivation. There is room for some to ride other’s coat tails but we can’t all ride the coat tails.

[Bob Jentges]

I could not agree more with the final paragraph in your recent post, Ben!

[Dan Conner]

I wouldn’t say I favor the rich, I just think it is bad to blame them for everything. The rich are the scapegoat. Hitler did it with the Jews, to take over Germany. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying anyone like Hitler is trying to come to power, just that using the rich as a scapegoat is very powerful propaganda.

I think we all need to be accountable for what has happened. We need to examine what each and every one of us did and make sure it doesn’t happen again. Pointing our finger at a few people only fixes a few problems, while our other problems fester and get bigger.

I care too much about this country and the potential it has, to throw it away to socialism. Socialism is a great way to make everyone comfortable, but it will not take us anywhere. I believe we are all good people, but we need motivation to be the best. Socialism doesn’t provide that motivation. There is room for some to ride other’s coat tails but we can’t all ride the coat tails.

Sorry Ben, but I disagree. The trouble is I love this country too. That is not your exclusive province. I have demonstrated that in the past by volunteering for the military. Our country certainly is NOT the best it can be. There have bee too many lies causing too many people to needlessly die.

There will always be people riding coat tails, "socialist" or otherwise. Right now, the banking system is riding our coat tails. Corporate taxes paid are lower now than they have been since the 1960's, contrary to what Republicans try to sell. They argue the corporate tax rate is among the highest of the industrialized world (it's funny how corporations use industrialized countries in that benchmark, but not others), but they neglect to tell people that the actual corporate taxes paid are among the lowest in the industrialized world. Lots of deductions you know.

We have, in fact, "socialized" the banking industry. Has that ruined it and its motivation? It seems that was ruined before any "socialist" help was given to them. I think we have all witnessed how destructive capitalism can be. Remember, it wasn't "socialism" that has ruined our economy. How about the auto manufaturers? GM, Ford, and Chrysler didn't mind a little "socialism" to save their rear ends. The CCC was "socialist", but that didn't spoil workers. They were proud to do the workand of what they accommplished. And it accommplished many things. There was the WPA, where my grandfather worked. He was proud of the improvements he made to parks in Minnesota. Social Security is "socialism", so I guess we are already spoiled. Medicare is "socialism" has that spoiled you? The tobacco tax is "socialism" has that spoiled us? Building roads, bridges, parks and other public works is "socialism". Has that also spoiled us? There are so many "socialist" programs, acts and laws that our country has now, that I think your cow has already left that barn.

"Socialism" is one of those things we have all been taught to hate since children, many times without completely understanding it. Also, it's a convenient stigmatized label to acuse someone/something of, until dire circumstances are presented. The executives of the above companies all were trained to rail against socialism, as we have, but when the chips are down they willingly and cheerfully use "socialism" for all its worth. When it gets tough enough, we will all accede to it.

I don't know why you worry. We are all already spoiled as the dickens, because of the plethora of socialist laws and policies.

[Ben Willaert]

I absolutely agree the cow has left the barn. Our country has been becoming more socialist since the 1930’s. I think the work ethics instilled by capitalism have carried us this far by getting handed down from generation to generation. As we get more entrenched in socialism, I think we will lose our motivation.

Looking at children and teenagers can show us a lot about us. It is easier to see what factors influence what. Most teens are good but if they are not motivated they can loose their focus and partake in deviant behavior. Keeping teens in school and extra circulars motivates them to be the best they can be. True, some don’t need this motivation but the majority does. This can be applied to our society. Given the motivations of a free market, we can achieve the stars. With the government providing everything for us, we will eventually get bored and sidetrack to destructive activities.

Let me ask this: What will be our motivation under socialism? I already know good people, with tons of potential that are willing to sit at home on unemployment because they can. They have lost their work ethic because the government is making them comfortable. Why should they apply themselves?

/notice I said "what will" because I do know socialism is where we are going.

[Dan Conner]

I absolutely agree the cow has left the barn. Our country has been becoming more socialist since the 1930’s. I think the work ethics instilled by capitalism have carried us this far by getting handed down from generation to generation. As we get more entrenched in socialism, I think we will lose our motivation.

Looking at children and teenagers can show us a lot about us. It is easier to see what factors influence what. Most teens are good but if they are not motivated they can loose their focus and partake in deviant behavior. Keeping teens in school and extra circulars motivates them to be the best they can be. True, some don’t need this motivation but the majority does. This can be applied to our society. Given the motivations of a free market, we can achieve the stars. With the government providing everything for us, we will eventually get bored and sidetrack to destructive activities.

Let me ask this: What will be our motivation under socialism? I already know good people, with tons of potential that are willing to sit at home on unemployment because they can. They have lost their work ethic because the government is making them comfortable. Why should they apply themselves?

/notice I said "what will" because I do know socialism is where we are going.

Well Ben, while I agree with threads of what you say, I disagree with your conclusions. There have been many, many changes in our economy and society since 1930. In 1930, and before, the typical family was rural. Both mom and dad were home to raise the children and impart values. Today, in the vast majority of families both parents work away from home. Children are in day-care during the day, and in many cases, parents are tired after a full day working and probably don't devote enough energy to raise their children and impart values. I'm not going to judge what is right and which is wrong. That's just the way it is.

In many ways, schools, businesses, and government have not worked effectively to resolve that very big problem. It is generally accepted that both parents must work to have a meaningful standard of living. Capitalism taught NOTHING to our children. Schools, parents, and experiences did, and in case you forget, Keynes taught us that capitalism is ruthless and cold. It's money over everything else. That's why time has to be spent by economics teachers to explain that. Kenneth Galbraith a famous economist says it is necessary that societies have "countervailing" forces to compensate for ruthless and malicious capitalism.

I don't know that "socialism" erodes motivation. However, I would appreciate it if you would offer evidence to support that view. At this point, I will take it that that is simply a belief of yours. It is my belief that it doesn't. I will offer some evidence that might help refute what you say. Currently, Norway has the highest standard of living in the world, and they are highly "socialist". You might respond that that is because Norway has lots of oil, and you are right. Well, I will tell you that Sweden has a standard of living among the top 5 in the world, and they are very "socialist." Sweden has very little oil. There is nothing tangible I can think of that demonstrates "socialism" is less motivating...and most of all, achieving. Being a capitalist, I assume you are interested in the "bottom line." Well, Scandinavia beats us hands down, in most measureable achievement categories.

I don't know why you are singling teens out as ones with motivational issues, but I think they are genereally the same kids that they were in 1930, except that they are exposed to many more experiences. You say idle underchalleged kids are predisposed to get in trouble? I agree, but I don't know what evidence you offer to show that capitalism is more challenging than socialism? I think you are doing a lot of assuming there. These "socialist" underchalleged people have oil derrick drilling rigs for deep water drilling far superior to ours. In fact, our oil companies contract to use theirs once in a while, when in a difficult situation. Finland is the home of Nokia, a technological leader in cell phones. Of course, there is Volvo in Sweden. Also, there are scads of other innovative and cutting edge companies. How else can they afford such a high standard of living for everyone. These countries seem to run contrary to you position about motivation, creativeness, and destructiveness. In case you aren't aware, none of the Scandinavian countries have started any wars in modern history. We sure have.

I don't think capitalism motivates anyone. It's parents that do that. Also, I believe there is a certain proclivity in the child. Capitalism never motivated me in school. I knew little about what it was. I and my parents motivated me. They taught me to be the best I can. And I tried to pass that down as best I could, to my children. I'm proud of my "bottom line". My oldest is raising three children, sells internet jewelry, and is working full-time. They are doing fine. My son is a patent attorney, with an industrial engineering degree from the University of Michigan. My youngest daughter is an architect in San Francisco. She received her undergraduate degree from the U or M and her masters from the University of Michigan. I feel proud of their achievements and what little role I might have played in them. My children would have accommplished these same things whether in a capitalist or "socialist" society.

Today, there are millions of kids in our capitalist system that are discarded because they either couldn't or wouldn't compete on it's terms. If there had been more of the "nanny" spirit, some of them might have been saved. Why are so many of our children on drugs (the worst in the world, I might add)? As far as destructive kids are concerned, I think you are way off. World statistics show that the US has the largest prison/criminal population in the world. And I don't mean that just because we have a lot of people. I mean we have the largest per-capita prison population in the world. Number 2 isn't even close. So don't tell me about how much capitalism prevents destructive tendencies. We are kings in that category!

WOW! You jump from people lazily sitting at home, content to collect unemployment because the government caused it? I think you better look to parents and schools for an explanation of that. Besides, you call us a capitalist nation and yet this occurs here? I thought you said capitalism "instills" motivation in them? I guess it didn't, did it? That might be another failure of capitalism...not success. Capitalism never spends the energy on trying to find out why those people aren't motivated, nor does it help to remedy the problem. That goes back to that cold and ruthless part. It callously throws people who don't want to play by your particular rules, on the junk pile of life. Nothing but a tremendous lost potential.

Ben, I feel you have bought into the virtues of capitalism without quite knowing what those virtues are. I hope that I can provoke, or better yet, "motivate" you to better research capitalism and "socialism" with an open mind. If you are looking for varying points of view, I would encourage you to read Noam Chomsky.

[Ben Willaert]

My primary motive for participating in these forums is to develop and keep an open mind. I will read up on Chomsky.

Answer me this though: If our country continues in this path, what is going to stop us from becoming Brave New World by Aldous Huxley?

[Dan Conner]

My primary motive for participating in these forums is to develop and keep an open mind. I will read up on Chomsky.

Answer me this though: If our country continues in this path, what is going to stop us from becoming Brave New World by Aldous Huxley?

Ben--

I clipped the below from the internet. It says it far better than I could. Brave New World was a FICTION book. It was never intended to be scientific. It's like accepting Star Wars as an economic model. It was derived from Huxley's imagination. However, he spends a lot of time developing a theme of euphoria/nirvana through drugs. Isn't that what's happenig today in our capitalist society? Drug use is soaring. Maybe capitalism is the "Brave New World? Socialism might mean universal fairness more than happiness. I redacted parts of the clip because it was too long. Here's the internet summary:B

Brave New World (1932) has come to serve as the false symbol for any regime of universal happiness. For sure, Huxley was writing a satirical piece of fiction, not scientific prophecy. Hence to treat his masterpiece as ill-conceived futurology rather than a work of great literature might seem to miss the point. Yet the knee-jerk response of "It's Brave New World!" to any blueprint for chemically-driven happiness has delayed research into paradise-engineering for all sentient life.

Thus BNW doesn't, and isn't intended by its author to, evoke just how wonderful our lives could be if the human genome were intelligently rewritten. In the era of post-genomic medicine, our DNA is likely to be spliced and edited so we can all enjoy life-long bliss, awesome peak experiences, and a spectrum of outrageously good designer-drugs. Nor does Huxley's comparatively sympathetic account of the life of the Savage on the Reservation convey just how nasty the old regime of pain, disease and unhappiness can be. If you think it does, then you enjoy an enviably sheltered life and an enviably cosy imagination. For it's all sugar-coated pseudo-realism.

In Brave New World, Huxley contrives to exploit the anxieties of his bourgeois audience about both Soviet Communism and Fordist American capitalism. He taps into, and then feeds, our revulsion at Pavlovian-style behavioural conditioning and eugenics. Worse, it is suggested that the price of universal happiness will be the sacrifice of the most hallowed shibboleths of our culture: "motherhood", "home", "family", "freedom", even "love". The exchange yields an insipid happiness that's unworthy of the name. Its evocation arouses our unease and distaste.

In BNW, happiness derives from consuming mass-produced goods, sports such as Obstacle Golf and Centrifugal Bumble-puppy, promiscuous sex, "the feelies", and most famously of all, a supposedly perfect pleasure-drug, soma.

For a start, soma is a very one-dimensional euphoriant. It gives rise to only a shallow, unempathetic and intellectually uninteresting well-being. Apparently, taking soma doesn't give Bernard Marx, the disaffected sleep-learning specialist, more than a cheap thrill. Nor does it make him happy with his station in life. John the Savage commits suicide soon after taking soma [guilt and despair born of serotonin depletion!?]. The drug is said to be better than (promiscuous) sex - the only sex brave new worlders practise. But a regimen of soma doesn't deliver anything sublime or life-enriching. It doesn't catalyse any mystical epiphanies, intellectual breakthroughs or life-defining insights. It doesn't in any way promote personal growth. Instead, soma provides a mindless, inauthentic "imbecile happiness" - a vacuous escapism which makes people comfortable with their lack of freedom. The drug heightens suggestibility, leaving its users vulnerable to government propaganda. Soma is a narcotic that raises "a quite impenetrable wall between the actual universe and their minds."

If Huxley had wished to tantalise, rather than repel, emotional primitives like us with the biological nirvana soon in prospect, then he could have envisaged utopian wonderdrugs which reinforced or enriched our most cherished ideals. In our imaginations, perhaps we might have been allowed - via chemically-enriched brave new worlders - to turn ourselves into idealised versions of the sort of people we'd most like to be. In this scenario, behavioural conditioning, too, could have been used by the utopians to sustain, rather than undermine, a more sympathetic ethos of civilised society and a life well led. Likewise, biotechnology could have been exploited in BNW to encode life-long fulfilment and super-intellects for everyone - instead of manufacturing a rigid hierarchy of genetically-preordained castes.

Huxley, however, has an altogether different agenda in mind. He is seeking to warn us against scientific utopianism. He succeeds all too well. Although we tend to see other people, not least the notional brave new worlders, as the hapless victims of propaganda and disinformation, we may find it is we ourselves who have been the manipulated dupes.

For Huxley does an effective hatchet-job on the very sort of "unnatural" hedonic engineering that most of us so urgently need. One practical consequence has been to heighten our already exaggerated fears of state-sanctioned mood-drugs. Hence millions of screwed-up minds, improvable even today by clinically-tested mood-boosters and anti-anxiety agents, just suffer in silence instead. In part this is because people worry they might become zombified addicts; and in part because they are unwilling to cast themselves as humble supplicants of the medical profession by taking state-rationed "antidepressants". Either way, the human cost in fruitless ill-being is immense.

Of course, Huxley can't personally be blamed for prolonging the pain of the old Darwinian order of natural selection. Citing the ill-effects of BNW is not the same as impugning its author's motives. Aldous Huxley was a deeply humane person as well as a brilliant polymath. He himself suffered terribly after the death of his adored mother. But death and suffering will be cured only by the application of bioscience. They won't be abolished by spirituality, prophetic sci-fi, or literary intellectualism.

In later life, Huxley himself modified his antipathy to drug-assisted paradise. Island (1962), Huxley's conception of a real utopia, was modelled on his experiences of mescaline and LSD. But until we get the biological underpinnings of our emotional well-being securely encoded genetically, then psychedelia is mostly off-limits for the purposes of paradise-engineering. Certainly, its intellectual significance cannot be exaggerated; but unfortunately, neither can its ineffable weirdness and the unpredictability of its agents. Thus mescaline, and certainly LSD and its congeners, are not fail-safe euphoriants. The possibility of nightmarish bad trips and total emotional Armageddon is latent in the way our brains are constructed under a regime of selfish-DNA. Uncontrolled eruptions within the psyche must be replaced by the precision-engineering of emotional tone, if nothing else. If rational design is good enough for inorganic robots, then it's good enough for us.

To cap it all, in Brave New World life-long emotional well-being is not genetically pre-programmed as part of everyday mental health. It isn't even assured from birth by euphoriant drugs. For example, juvenile brave new worlders are traumatised with electric shocks as part of the behaviorist-inspired conditioning process in childhood. Toddlers from the lower orders are terrorised with loud noises. This sort of aversion-therapy serves to condition them against liking books. We are told the inhabitants of Brave New World are happy. Yet they periodically experience unpleasant thoughts, feelings and emotions. They just banish them with soma: "One cubic centimetre cures ten gloomy sentiments".

Even then, none of the utopians of any caste come across as very happy. This seems all too credible: more-or-less chronic happiness sounds so uninteresting that it's easy to believe it must feel uninteresting too. For sure, the utopians are mostly docile and contented. Yet their emotions have been deliberately blunted and repressed. Life is nice - but somehow a bit flat. In the words of the Resident Controller of Western Europe: "No pains have been spared to make your lives emotionally easy - to preserve you, as far as that is possible, from having emotions at all."

[Ben Willaert]

Ben, I feel you have bought into the virtues of capitalism without quite knowing what those virtues are. I hope that I can provoke, or better yet, "motivate" you to better research capitalism and "socialism" with an open mind. If you are looking for varying points of view, I would encourage you to read Noam Chomsky.

I am a little confused with your referral to libertarian socialism. That is quite contradictory to the big government you have been insisting on in order to control the wealthy. With the government passing so many labor laws and forming OSHA, they have rendered labor unions nothing more then extortion machines. Either you have big government, or you have labor unions, not both. I don’t see how our current path could go in that direction of anarchy. I do like the direct involvement part of that system as excellent motivation though. In fact, I could see myself buying into that system much easier then the one that appears to be before us.

[Ben Willaert]

Ben--

I clipped the below from the internet. It says it far better than I could. Brave New World was a FICTION book. It was never intended to be scientific. It's like accepting Star Wars as an economic model. It was derived from Huxley's imagination. However, he spends a lot of time developing a theme of euphoria/nirvana through drugs. Isn't that what's happenig today in our capitalist society? Drug use is soaring. Maybe capitalism is the "Brave New World? Socialism might mean universal fairness more than happiness. I redacted parts of the clip because it was too long. Here's the internet summary:B


I guess I wasn’t referring to the drug part of the book. In the economic model in the book, the citizens are programmed to consume. The government provides the jobs and “creates” the workers to work in those jobs; producing what the government has calculated will be consumed. The government also takes away all their pesky emotional attachments in the name of protection and the good of society. What I am asking is: Are we going to follow that slippery sloop? Are we going to need soma to numb us to our scripted existence?

In tonight’s address by the President, it was mentioned that we need the consumers to start consuming again. In order to do that, the government is going to provide 4 million jobs. I was glad to hear him dismiss the worn out theory that all education needs, is more money. I wonder if the reform he spoke of will include specializing our schools to get students into the field they are most likely to do well in. Throw in the detachment of calling a baby in the womb something less then human and we can see the beginnings of a Brave New World.

With that said, I should note that I was very encouraged by the Presidents address tonight. We are in a grave situation and I understand drastic measures must be taken. I felt his charisma alone can go a long way toward instilling much needed consumer confidence. My position is that when this recession is behind us, we need to cut back the drastic measures and reapply the free market; instead of continuing down the road of socialism and eventually communism.

[Dan Conner]

I am a little confused with your referral to libertarian socialism. That is quite contradictory to the big government you have been insisting on in order to control the wealthy. With the government passing so many labor laws and forming OSHA, they have rendered labor unions nothing more then extortion machines. Either you have big government, or you have labor unions, not both. I don’t see how our current path could go in that direction of anarchy. I do like the direct involvement part of that system as excellent motivation though. In fact, I could see myself buying into that system much easier then the one that appears to be before us.

Oh, believe me union have a considerable role to play outside of government. Government and unions have coexisted since before WWII.

[Dan Conner]

I guess I wasn’t referring to the drug part of the book. In the economic model in the book, the citizens are programmed to consume. The government provides the jobs and “creates” the workers to work in those jobs; producing what the government has calculated will be consumed. The government also takes away all their pesky emotional attachments in the name of protection and the good of society. What I am asking is: Are we going to follow that slippery sloop? Are we going to need soma to numb us to our scripted existence?

In tonight’s address by the President, it was mentioned that we need the consumers to start consuming again. In order to do that, the government is going to provide 4 million jobs. I was glad to hear him dismiss the worn out theory that all education needs, is more money. I wonder if the reform he spoke of will include specializing our schools to get students into the field they are most likely to do well in. Throw in the detachment of calling a baby in the womb something less then human and we can see the beginnings of a Brave New World.

With that said, I should note that I was very encouraged by the Presidents address tonight. We are in a grave situation and I understand drastic measures must be taken. I felt his charisma alone can go a long way toward instilling much needed consumer confidence. My position is that when this recession is behind us, we need to cut back the drastic measures and reapply the free market; instead of continuing down the road of socialism and eventually communism.

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. I believe we will be trending more and more toward more socialism. The trickle down part of capitalism has not worked well. There was way too much graft and corruption coupled with a growing disparity between the rich and everyone else. I don't feel we will be any closer to BNW than we are now. Both have aspects of it, but not there by a long shot.

I noted that you are now accepting that it's OK to use socialism to fix the capitalist mess.

[Dan Conner]

Here's a very interesting article in the NY Times about the Japanese financial collapse in the 1990's and the parallel to ours. It give ideas about what should be done:

In Japan’s Stagnant Decade, Cautionary Tales for America

By HIROKO TABUCHI
Published: February 12, 2009
TOKYO — The Obama administration is committing huge sums of money to rescuing banks, but the veterans of Japan’s banking crisis have three words for the Americans: more money, faster.


Related
Times Topics: Credit Crisis -- The Essentials
The Japanese have been here before. They endured a “lost decade” of economic stagnation in the 1990s as their banks labored under crippling debt, and successive governments wasted trillions of yen on half-measures.
Only in 2003 did the government finally take the actions that helped lead to a recovery: forcing major banks to submit to merciless audits and declare bad debts; spending two trillion yen to effectively nationalize a major bank, wiping out its shareholders; and allowing weaker banks to fail.
By then, Tokyo’s main Nikkei stock index had lost almost three-quarters of its value. The country’s public debt had grown to exceed its gross domestic product, and deflation stalked the land. In the end, real estate prices fell for 15 consecutive years.
More alarming? Some students of the Japanese debacle say they see a similar train wreck heading for the United States.
“I thought America had studied Japan’s failures,” said Hirofumi Gomi, a top official at Japan’s Financial Services Agency during the crisis. “Why is it making the same mistakes?”
Many American critics of the plan unveiled Tuesday by Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said the plan lacked details. Experts on Japan found it timid — especially given the size of the banking crisis the administration faces.
“I think they know how big it is, but they don’t want to say how big it is. It’s so big they can’t acknowledge it,” said John H. Makin, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, referring to administration officials. “The lesson from Japan in the 1990s was that they should have stepped up and nationalized the banks.”
Instead, the Japanese first tried many of the same remedies that the Bush administration tried and the Obama administration is trying — ultra-low interest rates, fiscal stimulus and ineffective cash infusions, among other things. The Japanese even tried to tap private capital to buy some of the bad assets from banks, as Mr. Geithner proposed.
One reason Japan’s leaders were so ineffectual for so long was their fear of stoking public outrage. With each act of the bailout, anger grew, making politicians more reluctant to force real reform, which only delayed the day of reckoning and increased the ultimate price tag. Japanese taxpayers are estimated to have recouped less than half what it cost the government to bail out the banks.
A further lesson from Japan is that the bank rescue will determine the fate of the wider economy. While President Obama has prioritized his stimulus plan, no stimulus is likely to succeed unless the banking sector is repaired.
The Japanese crisis of the 1990s and early 2000s had roots similar to the American crisis: a real estate bubble that collapsed, leaving banks holding trillions of yen in loans that were virtually worthless.
Initially, Japan’s leaders underestimated how badly the real estate collapse would hurt the country’s banks. As in the United States, a policy of easy money had fueled both stock and real estate speculation, as well as reckless lending by banks.
Many in Japan thought that low interest rates and economic stimulus measures would help banks recover on their own. In late 1997, however, a string of bank failures set off a crippling credit crisis.
Prodded into action, the government injected 1.8 trillion yen into Japan’s main banks. But the injections — too small, poorly planned and based on little understanding of the extent of the banking sector’s woes — failed to stem the growing crisis.
Fearing more bad news if banks were forced to disclose their real losses, Japan’s leaders allowed banks to keep loans to “zombie” companies on their balance sheets.
Japan, instead, experimented with a series of funds, in part privately financed, to relieve banks of their bad assets.
The funds brought limited results at best, says Takeo Hoshi, economics professor at the University of California, San Diego. For one thing, the funds were too small to make an impact. The depository for bad loans had no orderly way to sell them off. And the purchases that did take place failed to recapitalize banks because the bad assets were priced so low.
So far, the Obama administration’s plan avoids the hardest decisions, like nationalizing banks, wiping out shareholders or allowing banks to collapse under the weight of their own bad debts. In the end, Japan had to do all those things.
Economists say these blunders meant Japan’s financial system did not start to recover until late 2002, six years after the crisis broke. That year, the government of the reformist leader Junichiro Koizumi ordered a tough audit of the country’s top banks.
Called the Takenaka Plan after Heizo Takenaka, who headed the government’s financial reform efforts, the move finally brought the full extent of bad loans to light. Initially, banks lashed out at Mr. Takenaka. “The government can’t order bank management to do this and that,” Yoshifumi Nishikawa, president of the Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, complained to the press in October 2002. “It’s absolutely absurd.”
But Mr. Takenaka stood firm. His rallying cry, he said in an interview on Wednesday, was, “Don’t cover up. Don’t distort principles. Follow the rules.”
“I told the banks clearly, ‘I am in a position to supervise you,’ ” Mr. Takenaka said. “I told them I am not open to negotiation.”
It took three more years to finally get the majority of bad loans off the banks’ books. Resona Bank, which was found to have insufficient capital, was effectively nationalized.
From 1992 to 2005, Japanese banks wrote off about 96 trillion yen, or about 19 percent of the country’s annual G.D.P. But Mr. Takenaka’s toughness restored faith in the banks.
“That was a turning point in the banking crisis,” said Mr. Gomi of the Financial Services Agency, who worked with Mr. Takenaka on the audits.
By then, other factors had fallen into place that aided economic recovery, including a boom in exports to the United States and China.
(Those very share holdings would come back to haunt banks, as the recent market sell-off batters their balance sheets. And as the economy worsens, bad loans are again on the rise, the Financial Services Agency said Tuesday.)
The United States will probably not be able to count on growing demand for its products, since the global economy is worsening.
“The way things are going right now,” said Mr. Hoshi, “the U.S. taxpayers’ burden will keep going up and up.”

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Long articles cut and pasted will slow the flow of this thread. It's preferable to summarize and provide the link....to provide links all you have to do is put before the link and after the link. Thanks.

[Fred Slocum]

First, "thank you" to both Ben Willaert and Dan Conner for the vigorous discussion in these pages. I would like to offer my two cents.

That said, I side much more with Conner's position than Willaert's. Willaert worries that the country is proceeding down the slippery slope of "socialism." I am a professional political scientist (I teach political science at MSU, focusing on American politics), and I understand socialism as a governmental system in which government takes significant to full *ownership of* multiple sectors of the economy. I.e. utilities, financial services, nuclear power, oil and gas, health care etc. Willaert also worries about communism down the road, a position that I find close to ludicrous. Communism entails government owned everything that we regard as private enterprises, and totalitarian control, including silencing of political opposition, government monopolized media and more. The fall of communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, 1988-1991, have undermined the legitimacy of communist ideology in most of the world, outside of China, North Korea and Cuba today. Out of all industrial democracies, the U.S. is the motherlode of ANTI-communist ideology, which is a shared political consensus virtually across the U.S. political spectrum save perhaps the vanishingly small, fringe, FAR left (with which I do NOT identify).

Political trends since 2004 have unmistakably favored the Democratic Party, but that does not necessarily mean socialism or communism. Why? Because as Democrats have expanded control over national government, especially by growing their numbers in Congress, they also have become *MORE DIVERSE* politically, with moderate to even conservative Democrats like Travis Childers, MS, Heath Shuler, NC and Brad Ellsworth, IN added to their ranks, joining fellow moderates like Collin Peterson, MN, Ellen Tauscher, CA and Kirsten Gillibrand, NY (recently appointed into the Senate). This does pose some political problems, to be sure.

Meanwhile, as Republicans have shrunk in numbers, they have become an increasingly right-wing and Southern party. The Republican Party's once-influential moderate Northeastern wing is virtually nonexistent today. The last Republican standing in New England's 22-member U.S. House delegation, Chris Shays of Connecticut, lost his seat in 2008 to a Democratic challenger; former senators Jim Jeffords, VT and Lincoln Chafee, RI, are also former Republicans, having left the Republican Party and its increasingly extreme right-wing ideology on economic issues, regulation of business, right-wing extremism on moral issues (remember Terri Schiavo?) and zealous opposition to environmental protection and serious efforts to combat global warming. In nine Northeastern states, holding 18 Senate seats, Republicans hold just three. Today, Republicans hold 41% of Senate seats nationwide. In 13 Southern states, they hold 19 of 26 Senate seats (73%), but in the 37 non-Southern states, Republicans hold 22 of 74 seats, just under 30%. The South's right-wing Republicans like Saxby Chambliss, GA, Jeff Sessions, AL, John Cornyn, TX and Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint, SC, have secure electoral futures given their states' right-wing tilts. Elsewhere, Republican senators and representatives are increasingly endangered, and rightly so. A party so increasingly anti-environmental, anti-regulation (no matter the economic situation), anti-stem-cell-research, anti-evolution, anti-science, anti-individual choice on medical decisions, anti-immigrant and pro-unnecessary-war deserves the electoral shellackings of 2006 and 2008 it received.

Bottom line: Socialism, much less communism, is not a threat in the U.S., even under Democratic control. The Democrats are a party that straddles left and center, but today's shrunken Republican Party has virtually abandoned any pretense of moderation (case in point 1: Sarah Palin; case in point 2: right-wing primary challenges to moderate Republicans like Arlen Specter, PA and others). An ideologically broad Democratic Party is scarcely a fount of communist ideology, and it won't be in the future.

[Bob Jentges]

Mr. Slocum thinks "Socialism...is not a threat in the U.S., even under Democratic control." I sure hope he is correct.

I believe about a week ago the Newsweek cover story by Jon Meachem and Evan Thomas read: "We Are All Socialists Now". I did not read the article because I assumed ( I know, never assume anything) the meaning of the cover was not that we should fear socialism, but rather it was something we should celebrate. If my assumption was correct, I sure hope Meachem and Thomas are wrong.

[Ben Willaert]

I am not trying to look at this from a strictly Dem. to Rep. standpoint. What I see happening, from both sides of the isle, is a disregard for the small government intentions of our founding fathers. I believe strongly in the capabilities of lassies faire economics as the best way for our country to reach its fullest potential for all its citizens.

Could it be argued that as government creates and funds more programs, the pressure on private businesses to be social responsible is actually reduced? I think most Americans and American businesses are good, but they stray because they lack the onus to be socially responsible.

We have the attitude that since the government is doing it for us; we do not need to contribute to charity ourselves. It used to be businesses would try to give back to the community because there was a need. Today, many feel their taxes are already taking care of the needs, so why should they do more.

Without the need to be socially responsible, it is much easier for greed to set in. Actually doing charity work makes people much more compassionate, then having the government do it for them. Capitalism relies on business and individuals to do the charity work themselves, making them better people. Under socialism, charity is taken out of your paycheck on payday which leaves distaste in many peoples mouths while funding inefficient programs.

[Dan Conner]

I am not trying to look at this from a strictly Dem. to Rep. standpoint. What I see happening, from both sides of the isle, is a disregard for the small government intentions of our founding fathers. I believe strongly in the capabilities of lassies faire economics as the best way for our country to reach its fullest potential for all its citizens.

Could it be argued that as government creates and funds more programs, the pressure on private businesses to be social responsible is actually reduced? I think most Americans and American businesses are good, but they stray because they lack the onus to be socially responsible.

We have the attitude that since the government is doing it for us; we do not need to contribute to charity ourselves. It used to be businesses would try to give back to the community because there was a need. Today, many feel their taxes are already taking care of the needs, so why should they do more.

Without the need to be socially responsible, it is much easier for greed to set in. Actually doing charity work makes people much more compassionate, then having the government do it for them. Capitalism relies on business and individuals to do the charity work themselves, making them better people. Under socialism, charity is taken out of your paycheck on payday which leaves distaste in many peoples mouths while funding inefficient programs.

Ben-- I know you want small government, but that is not really possible today. Today, we have enormous multi-national corporations with revenues that exceed that of many countries. Government must operate like Kenneth Galbraith's economic theory of "countervailing" authority. In other words, we must have big government to compensate for big business. If we didn't, Standard Oil would probably be our government today. Businesses are so concentrated among so few people, they have extraordinary power. While the number of proprietary businesses are large in number, they share a very small percentage of GDP. Our limited number of large corporations share the vast majority of wealth in our country. Good small businesses are bought up by large corporations and either integrated into it, or disbanded to eliminate the competition. Just a short time ago, the news broke a story that there are like 100 lobbyists for each representative and senator. Many of them handsomely paid. Well, not many of these lobbyists represent charities and non-profits. The vast majority represent monied corporate interests whose mission is not necessarily congruent with the American public.

I think you fairly say that businesses don't take an onus to be socially responsible. I agree with that. That is capitalism. Capitalism is concerned about generating wealth for owners/stock holders, not doing the responsible thing. That is why big government is necessary--to make them social responsible. I disagree that in socialism social responsibility is just taken out of your check. Again, I suggest you look at Scandinavia. There are thousands and thousands of volunteers and charities helping others. Far better meeting societal needs than in our capitalistic society.

I think you worry far too much about others and their motivations. If you feel you would be lazy because of socialism, then that is you. That doesn't necessarily translate to people across the country. People in Scandinavia are hard working, and may I add, very successful. Far more successful than here. There is no lost ambition because of socialism. In fact, there is more ambition to work toward a common good. Competiton can be good and it can be very destructive. People in Scandinavia are very sharing. Many times, I think far more than here. There is less selfishness and greed. People better realize what the impacts of their actions have on each other.

[Ben Willaert]

There is quite a cultural gap between us and Scandinavia. Like I suggested in one of my first posts, socialistic countries have citizens that put society first. Our citizens put themselves first. So either we would have to change or we will run our government into the ground demanding it make every concession for each of us. JFK said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”, but this last election was won on the premise of, how can we change our country to help you.

We have had a mixed economy for a long time now. Employers used to be able and provide benefits for their employees as a way to lure them in and keep them loyal. Now the government is taxing those employers and competing with the health care they can provide. In a true free market, businesses will offer good benefits and be socially responsible in order to stay in business. Poor benefits won’t land the quality employees needed to be successful and lack of social responsibility results in bad PR for the company. Right now it doesn’t matter if a business is socially responsible or not, because we all know the government is doing it for us.

The red tape is on the side of the government program. There are many ways our government programs are forced to make poor business decisions because of politics. The problem is the government doesn’t seem to mind taking a loss. How can private health care compete with government health care that can run in the red? I’ve read SCHIP needs 22 million MORE smokers in order to fund that program. It is set up to fail, but all failure means is that money will be sent in from somewhere else.

[Dan Conner]

There is quite a cultural gap between us and Scandinavia. Like I suggested in one of my first posts, socialistic countries have citizens that put society first. Our citizens put themselves first. So either we would have to change or we will run our government into the ground demanding it make every concession for each of us. JFK said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”, but this last election was won on the premise of, how can we change our country to help you.

We have had a mixed economy for a long time now. Employers used to be able and provide benefits for their employees as a way to lure them in and keep them loyal. Now the government is taxing those employers and competing with the health care they can provide. In a true free market, businesses will offer good benefits and be socially responsible in order to stay in business. Poor benefits won’t land the quality employees needed to be successful and lack of social responsibility results in bad PR for the company. Right now it doesn’t matter if a business is socially responsible or not, because we all know the government is doing it for us.

The red tape is on the side of the government program. There are many ways our government programs are forced to make poor business decisions because of politics. The problem is the government doesn’t seem to mind taking a loss. How can private health care compete with government health care that can run in the red? I’ve read SCHIP needs 22 million MORE smokers in order to fund that program. It is set up to fail, but all failure means is that money will be sent in from somewhere else.

Ben--

You are speaking in nothing but contradictions. You say socialist put society (country) first, but that in our country we put ourselves first? What are you talking about? We had a civil war where more than 250,000 of our countrymen died to keep our society whole, in WWII hundreds of thousands of our countrymen died to preserve our government for everyone else, and soldiers are dying now in Iraq and Afghanistan to win a war for us. Do you think they die for themselves? Yes, JFK was trying to get people to do things for others (our country). And you are wrong about this current election. Obama has asked that people do public service waork, as an obligation of being a citizen. He has been trying to work with Republicans as well as Democrats. He is trying to unite us. For a while Bush united our country after 911. It's just that he wasted that national unity in a war of opportunity in Iraq. So, I almost totally disagree with you. Maybe you are in this for yourself, but that is not what our President is trying to do. He knows that we will succeed as a country only if we work together. Republicans have been pedaling division and resistance too long.

You make it sound like someone has prevented employers from offering health benefits. That's not true. It's just that the benefits are too expensive. And what do you expect, when you have pharmaceuticals and insurance companies profiting handsomely of our health care system. It all adds to the cost. We have, by far, the most expensive health care system in the world and we aren't getting what we are paying for. Too many people profitting. As an example, Mr. McQuire, CEO and Chairman of United Health Care, here in Minnesota, received a $1.6 billion golden parachute when he retired. Who do you think paid for that? That's one person receiving more compensation than all of the 100,000 people receivng Social Security benefits in Southern Minnesota. That's way too much for one person. And it affects the cost of health care big time. With national health care, employers won't have to worry about giving their employees health benefits. It will already be furnished for them. That will eliminate one area where employers have to compete against each other. Government will do it far cheaper because of the large volume of people covered. This volume allows government to reduce prices charged by suppliers. Don't tell me what employers will or won't do for employees, you can't predict intent anymore than I can. The bottom line is that many of them aren't doing it now. Yes, government will be doing it for us, and it is nice someone or something does.

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what you are saying in your last paragraph.

[Dan Conner]

Ben, we have to be a country working together, or we will end up not being a country. The Civil War was fought over this issue. It was Abraham Lincoln's resolve to hold the Union together so that we will function as one people. The very purpose of a nation is that a collective of people work for a common purpose. And you can't have that in a "me" socierty.

[Dan Conner]

Ben and Bob--

I'm attaching a link to the Huffington Post. Today, on ABC's This Week, Senator Linsey Graham (R) from South Carolina and Representative Peter King (R) from NY both said the Government should consider nationalizing the US banking system. They feel it is too broken for the banks to fix themselves. Representative Maxine Waters (D) from CA, and Senator Chuck Shumer (D) from NY, were both against the idea. Attached is a link to the story and video of the interview:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/15/graham-nationalizing-bank_n_167048.html

How ironic that Republicans are now supportive of nationalizing our banking system (real socialist), like Sweden, and the Democrats are willing to help capitalism make a go of it. Sen. Graham is a pretty fiscally conservative Republican. It's is really funny how the two of them voted against the stimulus, but yet, are for considering nationalizing banks? hummm....

I think this should help re-enforce the point I've been trying to make that our economy is in desperate shape. Capitalism has dug a very very deep hole. Hopefully, it has not buried us.

[Dan Conner]

There is quite a cultural gap between us and Scandinavia. Like I suggested in one of my first posts, socialistic countries have citizens that put society first. Our citizens put themselves first. So either we would have to change or we will run our government into the ground demanding it make every concession for each of us. JFK said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”, but this last election was won on the premise of, how can we change our country to help you.

We have had a mixed economy for a long time now. Employers used to be able and provide benefits for their employees as a way to lure them in and keep them loyal. Now the government is taxing those employers and competing with the health care they can provide. In a true free market, businesses will offer good benefits and be socially responsible in order to stay in business. Poor benefits won’t land the quality employees needed to be successful and lack of social responsibility results in bad PR for the company. Right now it doesn’t matter if a business is socially responsible or not, because we all know the government is doing it for us.

The red tape is on the side of the government program. There are many ways our government programs are forced to make poor business decisions because of politics. The problem is the government doesn’t seem to mind taking a loss. How can private health care compete with government health care that can run in the red? I’ve read SCHIP needs 22 million MORE smokers in order to fund that program. It is set up to fail, but all failure means is that money will be sent in from somewhere else.

Ben--

As a short aside, I would like to refer you to a column in todays NY Post (conservative newspaper) about our socially responsible businesses. This article point out the reverse:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02152009/news/regionalnews/madoff_wall_of_silence_155259.htm

[Ben Willaert]

Sure, there are always going to be bad apples. At least with our current system there are countless business leaders and the government influencing our economy. You’re proposing we have just the government control our economy and country. That would mean we only have 535 apples controlling everything. A few bad apples there would do a lot more damage.

Remember these studies:
http://www.boom2bust.com/2009/02/04/congress-a-distinct-criminal-class/
And yes, I realize these were both republican majority years, but that is beside the point. It is easy for bad apple to get voted into our government.

As for the hole capitalism has dug; is it capitalism or is it the government messing with supply and demand, as it has for years now? The first thing taught in my high school economics class is that supply and demand need to be left alone. Any influence on one side will have negative repercussions on the other side.

I think I need to clarify what I was talking about with a “me first society”. We have a democracy. Democracy is based on the rights of the governed. Socialism (as a governmental style) is based on the imposition of government above the rights of the individual.

[Dan Conner]

Sure, there are always going to be bad apples. At least with our current system there are countless business leaders and the government influencing our economy. You’re proposing we have just the government control our economy and country. That would mean we only have 535 apples controlling everything. A few bad apples there would do a lot more damage.

Remember these studies:
http://www.boom2bust.com/2009/02/04/congress-a-distinct-criminal-class/
And yes, I realize these were both republican majority years, but that is beside the point. It is easy for bad apple to get voted into our government.

As for the hole capitalism has dug; is it capitalism or is it the government messing with supply and demand, as it has for years now? The first thing taught in my high school economics class is that supply and demand need to be left alone. Any influence on one side will have negative repercussions on the other side.

I think I need to clarify what I was talking about with a “me first society”. We have a democracy. Democracy is based on the rights of the governed. Socialism (as a governmental style) is based on the imposition of government above the rights of the individual.

Ben--

I think you are distilling ideas down to a phrase or colloquialism. You've stated there will always be bad apples. Well, I agree with that, but I totally disagree that I propose we have the "government control everything." You stating things in the extreme, which I have never said. I think it is important for you to state your views, not try to state mine. When you do, I would appreciate it if you would state them more accurately. Are you aware of how Scandinavian countries operate? Are you aware of what elements of socialism they use? If you did, I don't think you would state things to such an extreme. There are lots of private business there, as there could be here. These businesses run their companies just like they do here. The difference being businesses don't have to contend with furnishing health insurance for employees. That is taken care of by the government. Government establishes certain baseline laws, just like we do, but they have a few more. They prescribe the amount of vacation time, maternity leave, etc., but they do not operate the business. Here, businesses must do all of that for themselves, in light of competition. The Scandinavia element of competition is more of a "level playing field."

I think you look at things far too simplisticly to say the government controls everything. They don't. They only get involved with those elements where human rights (care of/for the country's citizens) are concerned. It's America's competitive me-me system that encourages and rewards "bad apples." You know, the guys that like to "cut corners" - like a very recent peanut butter/oil manufacturer (Peanut Corporation of America (PCA))? Just think what that one "bad apple" caused: 900 people ill and 9 dead. That's what you get with too small a government not able to examine/recall products. That voluntary corporate system sure didn't work. I think you forget, our country has far too many large, large corporations who affect way too many lives. Then, you get the case of PCA sickening hundreds. How about the large meat packers on salmanella? Big big business needs big government. Besides, your statement about 535 "bad apples" being able to do a lot more damage...that isn't relative. There are 535 now. They are able to do those same damages with or withour socialism. In fact, they are probably able to do more damage now because socialized health care would already be set by the government. Now, business and government screw with it.

I don't even know what you mean about government messing with supply and demand. The government hasn't messed with supply and demand. Is it government that purchsed your last car? What are you saying here? You are mixing up the political with economic. You make a unsubstantiated statement that isn't even correct and it wasn't the first thing I was taught in school. Don't mess with supply and demand? Economics isn't about messing with either of these. They are simply tenets of an enterprise economy. There are many things that affect supply and demand. What I mean is, as demand goes down, supply goes up, and visa-versa. However, these aren't the extent of economics. There's another important element called price. As price goes up, demand goes down, then supply goes up, which, in turn, drives price back down - except when there are monopolies or oligopolies, like oil companies. With them, price is set at profit maximization, not equilibrium. With them you can defy the laws of supply/demand. What has happened over the last many years is that large corporations are messing with supply, demand and price - not government. Our problem today is that supply and demand HAVE BEEN LEFT ALONE!! Another example of that is OPEC. They control supply, which drives up price. That's great for OPEC countriess, but not for oil consuming countries.

You are wrong about socialism. Socialism is based on the rights of the governed. You are confusing democracy with socialism. Democracy is a way of selecting our representation and voting in reforms, etc. Dictatorship is the opposite of democracy. Socialism is about the mechanics of our economy, like capitalism is, except socialism is predicated on the needs of the people, while capitalism is predicated on the needs of business. It is democracy (government) that implements and oversees socialism and capitalism. It is appropriate that you compare socialism with capitalism, but not democracy. Instead, compare socialism with a totalitarian government.

[Dan Conner]

This is a very interesting article in todays addition of the NY Times. Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman says a new Federal Reserve economic report came out showing that there has been NO, zero, zip, zilch growth in our economy in the last 10 years. Today, there is less wealth than in 2001. This is very coincidental to the last 8 years of Republican dominance in the economy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/opinion/16krugman.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for Bush lassez-faire economics.

[Ben Willaert]

Bush did the same thing Clinton did (yes, ten years goes back to Clinton) and now Obama is proposing to do. Spend spend spend and then spend some more. The republicans are no longer the fiscally conservative party they used to be. Bush is many things, but small government he is not.

Here is an interesting article that disputes your belief toxic assets and banker greed are what led to this meltdown. Notice the last paragraph refers to Reagan’s deregulation that got us back on our feet after the spending slump of Carter.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=312766781716725

Here is another article on the damage sub prime mortgages have caused.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html

[Ben Willaert]

You are wrong about socialism. Socialism is based on the rights of the governed. You are confusing democracy with socialism. Democracy is a way of selecting our representation and voting in reforms, etc. Dictatorship is the opposite of democracy. Socialism is about the mechanics of our economy, like capitalism is, except socialism is predicated on the needs of the people, while capitalism is predicated on the needs of business. It is democracy (government) that implements and oversees socialism and capitalism. It is appropriate that you compare socialism with capitalism, but not democracy. Instead, compare socialism with a totalitarian government.

Since socialism requires government intervention in the setting of prices and regulating industry it is required to straddle the fence.

[Dan Conner]

Since socialism requires government intervention in the setting of prices and regulating industry it is required to straddle the fence.

Ben--

Now I know you don't know what socialism is. There's no requirement that socialism sets prices and regulates industry. Most of the time, it deals withonly human rights issues. And what do you mean by "straddling the fence?"

[Dan Conner]

Bush did the same thing Clinton did (yes, ten years goes back to Clinton) and now Obama is proposing to do. Spend spend spend and then spend some more. The republicans are no longer the fiscally conservative party they used to be. Bush is many things, but small government he is not.

Here is an interesting article that disputes your belief toxic assets and banker greed are what led to this meltdown. Notice the last paragraph refers to Reagan’s deregulation that got us back on our feet after the spending slump of Carter.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=312766781716725

Here is another article on the damage sub prime mortgages have caused.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html

Boy, I guess you sure are looking for blame aren't you. Of course Clinton shares in the blame - a good 20% of it. However, Bush and the Republicans, who supported him down the line can take their 80% blame. Reagan? He's the one who might have helped get us out of the depression of 1981 with his supply side economics, but the continuance of it is what has done us in. It created a hyper greed and selfishness and made the maldistribution of income far worse. As far as your reference to investors.com, it's hardly and objective source. Of course they feel Wall Street never caused any problems...let's see I imagine they go way back to Clinton and Carter, even though there was an intervening Bush.

The CRA was meant to encourage loans to low income, but it never said loan to people who can't afford to repay. It didn't mean to be used by real estate investors who bought with nothing down. The CRA was meant to encourage banks to loan to poorer people to help with home ownership, but not to be a "door busters" unverified, illegitmate loan process. It was banks that went crazy over the money potential of these loans. Freddie Mac was buying these up like crazy, not even looking at the credit worthiness of them. However, they did know they weren't good enough thet they needed to insure the messes. So then they dragged in insurance companies.

Another point, it was nearer the end of Bushes failed second term that Bush touted his succes at creating a "ownership society." He put a process in hyperdrive that Clinton started. Again, the Republican Congress voted with the President down the line. There weren't very many years of Democrats doing that. Besides, the politics of the situation isn't what matters as much as it is an demonstration that capitalism failed us, and failed miserably. In fact the world is very angry with us because we are largely at fault for causing this worldwide recession.

Here we have been discussing the foibles of capitalism and socialism and you go back to the Republican Democratic blame game. Capitalism didn't fail because of too much regulation; it was not enough regulation. If you think otherwise, then you tell me what regulations forced this capitalistic system to fail. Accusations don't mean anything, without proof.

[Ben Willaert]

Reagan is to blame? After Reagan got us out of trouble, every president has increased spending and increased the size of government. Now we are in trouble again.

Objective or not, there is something to say about the people that got into the sub prime mortgages. The housing bubble was caused by everyone building and buying houses if they could afford them or not. When it turned out they couldn’t afford them, they got foreclosed. The market is now saturated and the banks are left holding the bill. Home ownership is not a right. It is something that is earned.

I’m not playing the republican, democrat game. They are both doing the same thing. Stepping on the toes of capitalism.

[Dan Conner]

Reagan is to blame? After Reagan got us out of trouble, every president has increased spending and increased the size of government. Now we are in trouble again.

Objective or not, there is something to say about the people that got into the sub prime mortgages. The housing bubble was caused by everyone building and buying houses if they could afford them or not. When it turned out they couldn’t afford them, they got foreclosed. The market is now saturated and the banks are left holding the bill. Home ownership is not a right. It is something that is earned.

I’m not playing the republican, democrat game. They are both doing the same thing. Stepping on the toes of capitalism.

Ben--

You better do some reading. Reagan only reduced taxes. He kept spending about the same. He was the first president to run more of a deficit than our country had run in its entire history. The debt skyrocketed during his administration. So, he like you other favorite guys, liked to spend, spend, spend.

[Ben Willaert]

Isn’t that the shame of it all? Our founding fathers instilled capitalism as the economic model to make us the best in the world. And it did. Now our greed has distorted what is a right and what should be earned. Like you said, the free market does not exist anymore.

[Dan Conner]

Isn’t that the shame of it all? Our founding fathers instilled capitalism as the economic model to make us the best in the world. And it did. Now our greed has distorted what is a right and what should be earned. Like you said, the free market does not exist anymore.
Yeah, it's a crime...literally. There's that tendency for capitalism to lead to greed and selfishness. That's because it's obsessed with money and power, and you know what they say about power..."Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That's why government is needed - to control runaway power and greed. Government was missing the last 10 years.

[Ben Willaert]

And how is it not greed to take away from people that have earned their money and give it to those that haven’t?

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
Dr. Adrian Pierce Rogers (September 12, 1931 – November 15, 2005) of Love Worth Finding Ministries, Pastor Emeritus of Bellevue Baptist Church.

[Bob Jentges]

And how is it not greed to take away from people that have earned their money and give it to those that haven’t?

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
Dr. Adrian Pierce Rogers (September 12, 1931 – November 15, 2005) of Love Worth Finding Ministries, Pastor Emeritus of Bellevue Baptist Church.

Very good, Ben! I have been waiting for the "I disagree".

[Dan Conner]

And how is it not greed to take away from people that have earned their money and give it to those that haven’t?

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
Dr. Adrian Pierce Rogers (September 12, 1931 – November 15, 2005) of Love Worth Finding Ministries, Pastor Emeritus of Bellevue Baptist Church.

I think you need to look up the definition of greed. Greed means an excessive desire to acquire and possess beyond whatone needs or deserves. Giving to others is not greed...that's charity. Unfortunately, the correct definition of greed also means that excessive desire to acquire happens even if others are hurt. Selfishness is when you don't want to help others and hoard onto yourself.

What do you mean by legislating freedom? What has that to do with greed or selfishness. You make some key statements that I don;t agree with. Executives of any kind, don't earn hundreds of millions of dollars a year.They are part of a "rigged" game where the good ol boys sit on each other's board of directors and give to each other as part of the club. They spend countless hours thinking about redesigning their executive bathrooms, furniture and shower curtains. I feel large companies could find far superior executives to run the companies if pay was whittled way back to under Z$1,000,000 a year. Then, they will be more concerned about doing their job, than buying new airplanes and planning the next office outing. So, I reject your statement that they "earn" thir pay...they don't.

[Ben Willaert]

It is not charity when it is forced upon us by the government.

Does Bill Gates not deserve his wealth? His contributions that made Microsoft what it is today exceed his personal fortune. His contribution to society by far exceeds his personal wealth.

Locally you have dedicated, hard working people like Glen Taylor that gave it their all to build businesses like Taylor Corp. He is a very rich man now, not because he cheated people, but because he created a valuable service. His hard work has provided thousands of local citizens with employment over the years. His generosity has been a huge asset to our community.

Do you and I deserve some of their money simply because they have it? No. If they choose to give it, that is charity. Having the government take it from them and give it to us is greed. That is the desire to acquire and possess beyond what one needs or deserves. We don't deserve it, they do.

[Dan Conner]

It is not charity when it is forced upon us by the government.

Does Bill Gates not deserve his wealth? His contributions that made Microsoft what it is today exceed his personal fortune. His contribution to society by far exceeds his personal wealth.

Locally you have dedicated, hard working people like Glen Taylor that gave it their all to build businesses like Taylor Corp. He is a very rich man now, not because he cheated people, but because he created a valuable service. His hard work has provided thousands of local citizens with employment over the years. His generosity has been a huge asset to our community.

Do you and I deserve some of their money simply because they have it? No. If they choose to give it, that is charity. Having the government take it from them and give it to us is greed. That is the desire to acquire and possess beyond what one needs or deserves. We don't deserve it, they do.

Ben, I don't know what you are saying above. Glen Taylor or Bill Gates have never been discussed, and your analogy is like looking at an apple and drawing an orange. However, I am attaching an article out of Bloomberg about what I consider cheating. Try reading it:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a.MJ0tBKx67w&refer=home#
It might help open you eyes. Our country's treasure is being looted by these guys.

[Bob Jentges]

Ben, I don't know what you are saying above. Glen Taylor or Bill Gates have never been discussed, and your analogy is like looking at an apple and drawing an orange. However, I am attaching an article out of Bloomberg about what I consider cheating. Try reading it:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a.MJ0tBKx67w&refer=home#
It might help open you eyes. Our country's treasure is being looted by these guys.

Dan's final sentance reminds me of a John Adams quote which says in part: "...Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadaquate for any other." I tend to agree with founder Adams. It is not the system that has brought on many of our current problems, it is those seemingly bent on gaming the system. We do not need to change the basics of what has been a wonderful system for us for centuries; what we do need is better oversight within that system. If we would find a way to eliminate or at least limit the "cheating", what Eric Holder said back in 1959 (the year I graduated college) could continue to be a reality i.e. "For those who want to be left alone to realize their capabilities and talents this is an ideal country".

[Ben Willaert]

Executives of any kind, don't earn hundreds of millions of dollars a year.They are part of a "rigged" game where the good ol boys sit on each other's board of directors and give to each other as part of the club. They spend countless hours thinking about redesigning their executive bathrooms, furniture and shower curtains. I feel large companies could find far superior executives to run the companies if pay was whittled way back to under Z$1,000,000 a year. Then, they will be more concerned about doing their job, than buying new airplanes and planning the next office outing. So, I reject your statement that they "earn" thir pay...they don't.

Wouldn't Mr. Taylor and Mr. Gates fit this definition?

Besides how much money is made in salaries and how much is made in stock? They make their money based on performance of the company. That seems right to me since they make the decisions.

Looks like the government already stepped in to control salaries.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2008-04-09-ceo-pay-million-dollar_N.htm

I’m not trying to say all wealth people are ethical and hard working, but I think saying that none of them are is wrong. Using them as a scapegoat in our current crisis does us no good. We need to identify all the problems that got us into this mess. Some executives are part of the problem. Now, what else got us into this mess.

[Dan Conner]

Dan's final sentance reminds me of a John Adams quote which says in part: "...Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadaquate for any other." I tend to agree with founder Adams. It is not the system that has brought on many of our current problems, it is those seemingly bent on gaming the system. We do not need to change the basics of what has been a wonderful system for us for centuries; what we do need is better oversight within that system. If we would find a way to eliminate or at least limit the "cheating", what Eric Holder said back in 1959 (the year I graduated college) could continue to be a reality i.e. "For those who want to be left alone to realize their capabilities and talents this is an ideal country". Despite your disregard for the Constitution, it is the law of the land. It is the foundation of our system of government. It is the document that gave you freedom of speech, the right to vote, the right of habeas corpus, etc. I think you are listening to too much pontificating here.

[Bob Jentges]

Despite your disregard for the Constitution, it is the law of the land. It is the foundation of our system of government. It is the document that gave you freedom of speech, the right to vote, the right of habeas corpus, etc. I think you are listening to too much pontificating here.

It never crossed my mind that in quoting John Adams someone would accuse me of having a "...disregard for the constitution". With respect to the Constitution, I consider myself an origionalist. But I am not looking for an arguement this morning.

[Dan Conner]

It never crossed my mind that in quoting John Adams someone would accuse me of having a "...disregard for the constitution". With respect to the Constitution, I consider myself an origionalist. But I am not looking for an arguement this morning.

I don't know what, nor do I care what you consider yourself. Your consideration and a buck and you might be able to buy a cup of coffee. If you were an "origionalist" you would believe in th intent of the Constitution as the framers intended, and there were many more than John Adams to sign onto that. But, your quotation of propundities really impressed me. Now if you would read about John Adams and Thomas Jefferson you might learn more about what these men intended.

[Bob Jentges]

If you were an "origionalist" you would believe in th intent of the Constitution as the framers intended...

I agree, and I do!:)