You say a lot of things, and it's based on an assumption of America as a nation, as Rush Limbaugh likes to say, of 'rugged individualism.' Of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. This has never, in the history of the world, worked. But I'll happily go through, point by point here. We are a nation of barnraisers. A nation of communities working together to build a better tomorrow.

Poin 1: "The rich fuel the American economy. They invest, build, and start businesses. Taxing them will reduce investment capital and reduce the incentive to generate more wealth."

The rich have never driven the American economy anywhere but into the ground. The laissez faire capitalism model that has been in play since Reagan started to dismantle FDR's policy has failed everywhere it's been tried. In the US, this was known in the late 19th century and first part of the 20th as the Robber Baron era. It led to frequent crashes as bubbles formed and popped, culminating in the 1929 event that, oddly enough, started with a real estate crisis in Florida.

Since the New Deal, the American economy has been powered, not by the wealthy, but by the middle class. There will always be industrialists and entrepreneurs, but they don't do this out of any kind of generosity. The supply side economics model here presumes that by giving a millionaire a lot of money, he'll for some reason want to use that money to build stuff that helps other people. This is ridiculous, and akin to thinking if you built a factory that makes useless purple plastic things, then people will want to buy useless purple plastic things.

If, on the other hand, there's less incentive to keep this money, like, for instance, taxing them, then they will pump that money back into the economy as a tax dodge. In 1973, the top marginal tax rate was 70%. If cutting taxes on the wealthy really did power the economy, we'd see real wages increasing, instead of being basically stagnant since 1973. This is very interesting, given that this is based on faulty inflation numbers.

#2 No one puts a gun to any ones head and forces them to open credit accounts and max out their credit cards buying stuff they do not need and/or cannot afford.

This is part 2 of economic misconceptions 101. We now have a bankruptcy bill that was actually written by the credit card companies in order to enhance their bottom line. They are able to charge interest rates up to 30% and put fine print in their contracts that allow them to raise the rate at any time for any reason. At this point they should just be honest with themselves and call it a vig. Combine that with the falling value of the dollar, stagnant wages, and rapidly increasing costs and you've got a recipe for absolutely wiping out the middle class. And that's no good for anybody. Furthermore these companies use predatory practices and target college students who don't know any better.

#3. As far as education is concerned, every child is owed a decent education system.

Absolutely correct. But your theory is that the money put into is good after bad. You're partially right. Our education system is messed up, but taking money out of the system isn't going to help. The problem is No Child Left Behind has taken an already crippled system out behind the woodshed and given it a bullet. What needs to happen is a complete overhaul of the system, but if you've got an idea to do that that doesn't cost a boatload of money, I'm all ears. I think one of the problems with America is that we are utterly convinced that we have a monopoly on good ideas.

But, as it turns out, private schools don't do any better than the public ones. The best way to improve our educational standing is, believe it or not, to reduce poverty. Children without a parent invested strongly in them don't fare as well, and parents that have to work two or three jobs have trouble finding the time to become invested in their children's education.

#4. I have no problem with the production of alternative fuels as long as it done by private industry for the sale to private citizens.

Private industry is fine, but the energy business is done by an ever-decreasing number of huge conglomerations. Right now oil is as expensive as it's ever been, and gas prices have more than tripled since Bush took office. What this means for the oil business is record profits. We don't have a choice but to buy their product. The laws of supply and demand stop working when demand is inelastic. Development of alternative energy is an incredibly massive, expensive project that maybe someday some company will do, but they're not in any particular hurry. Plus I don't want them to hold the patent on it, because then we're in the same situation we're in now.

#5. Government only knows how to waste and mismanage.

While that's true for, say, the military, I'd rather pay a thousand bureaucrats fifty thousand a year than pay one CEO fifty million. Taking the health care industry as an example, Medicare has an overhead of 2.1%. For every hundred dollars that Medicare taxes in, only $2.10 goes to administrative costs. Using numbers cooked up by a right-wing think tank figuring in costs to providers for compliance, that figure rises to 5.2%. UnitedHealth, one of the country's largest insurance providers, spent $21.80 of their money on overhead in 2005. This doesn't include their profits, which were up 18% over 2004. That means that for every hundred dollars that UnitedHealth brought in in 2005, twenty-seven dollars went somewhere other than health care. And that doesn't count what it cost doctors to comply with their paperwork. I'd say the government agency runs a bit tighter ship here than the private company, wouldn't you agree? Government doesn't pay its CEO millions of dollars. The director of Medicare makes a little under $150,000 and does not have a private jet with a gold-plated bathroom.

#6 Every state should be on top of managing the roads and bridges in their area.

Federal highway money is primarily spent on the Federal Interstate Highway System. Note the word Federal in there. And I swear to God, making sure that our roads and bridges are safe is probably the most obvious of federal duties, especially when it's right there in the name of the system. Moreover, it's a commerce situation: if Oklahoma doesn't maintain their highways, makes it awfully difficult for somebody from Kansas to deliver something to somebody in Oklahoma. At any rate, this money is taken from the federal gas tax, which means you're truly paying for what you use.

#7. "Now, see if you can follow this line of reasoning Mr. Obama. The more oil companies make the more taxes they pay. Therefore, just by making more money oil companies pay more taxes. Increase tax rates and American companies will lead a mass exodus to Europe.

In addition, you cannot just force them to stay here. This is not a communist nation. There is no reason for any company to stay in the US if Obama and company are just going to tax them to death. Moreover, make companies leave and you will be responsible for the jobs lost. It is better to let free market economy alone and deal fairly with everyone."

The myth of the free market economy is one of the sadder economic myths foisted upon us by Dr. Friedman. If lack of government intervention was actually good for the economy, then postwar Iraq, which was built on Friedman's policies, would be the fastest growing economy in the world. It has no import tariffs, nor minimum wage laws, nor is there such a thing as an 'illegal immigrant.' But what we find is kidnapped Bangladeshis working basically as slaves, which is perfectly legal due to the lack of labor laws.

Despite the fact that the American economy is failing due to the disastrous policies of supply side economics, it is still the most powerful economic force in the world. The force of government can be used to keep companies from offshoring either their headquarters or their labor. Import tariffs combined with tax incentives for hiring Americans would resolve this supposed problem somewhat easily, but it's not used because it does not fit into the ideology of the free market.

This is where the myth breaks down: the institutions of government are what make the market possible. The courts that enforce contracts, the police that enforce the law, the bureaucrats who ensure that when I go buy ground beef I'm not getting ground cat. You take these protections away and the marketplace goes with it. A real plan to reduce oil prices starts with a windfall profits tax; that is to say that there is no incentive for these companies to make such insane profit. Of course, a bigger part of the high price of fuel is due to speculators taking advantage of a trading loophole that was actually written by Enron, driving up the cost of a barrel of oil between 25-50%.

#8. Now, health crisis are serious issues and do cost people a lot of money. However, we all know that medical complications can arise in life and we should factor that in our plans for life. At some point we are going to have to be real about the demands of life and plan accordingly. In addition, there is no excuse for letting insurgence expire by not making payments on time. What are we children?

I've checked around. An insurance policy for me, a young man in good health, costs $12,000 a year. If my mother was to suddenly lose her job and her health insurance with it, it would cost her around $48,000 a year, which is more than she currently makes at her job, which obviously she would no longer have. Plus this insurance that she was forced into buying that she can't afford wouldn't cover her many pre-existing conditions, so I suppose she wouldn't live long enough to become a drain on our libertopia.

The federal poverty line in the United States is $10,400 a year for one person. Clearly, if you're making that much, you can't afford to buy a house. In Topeka, Kansas, the fourth cheapest real estate market in the United States, a one-bedroom apartment in a lousy neighborhood will run you $300 a month, or $3600 a year. Figure in various bills you have to pay just to survive, you're up to $6000 a year. Let's figure you eat on the cheap. Three meals of ramen a day. You die of malnutrition within the year, but it still costs you $400 a year. So you've got $4000 left, which gets you a third of the way to getting an insurance policy just for yourself, and you're going to need it the way you're living.

#9 I’ll ask this again. How can people with cell phones, Internet, and cable or satellite TV say they cannot afford insurance? Seems to me like many people in America have their priorities screwed up.

My cell phone, internet, cable bills run me $800 a year. So, if I cut out all of them, I'd be just $11,200 short of an insurance policy that would cover me if I got sick IF THEY FELT LIKE PAYING FOR IT. This isn't liability-only insurance on an old beater of a car, this is expensive stuff. And God help you if you lose your job, because then you're totally screwed.

#10 On the other hand college is an opportunity and not a “right”. No one owes you a college degree. It is beneficial to America to have college graduates. However, at this time there are actually more college graduates in the job the market then the market can support. Therefore, there is no shortage of college graduates and no reason for government to over spend on helping college students. Do what most of us have done to get a college degree and pay for it. Get a job.

"Get a job." Thanks. So I'm making $10,400 a year, I've got $4000 left, I'm dying of malnutrition, and I'm trying to get myself through college. Well, my tuition is $2100 a semester. $4200 a year. Oh, and I have to buy $700 worth of books for that year if I manage to get really good deals on them. But, oh wait, that $300 apartment I got is ten miles from campus, so now I need a car. And to pay for gas. So, I've got to put stuff on my credit card, which builds up at 30% interest, and soon I'm going bankrupt, but that's no help because I still have to pay it back.0

#11. Now to Mr. Obama’s peace dividend after he supposedly brings the troops home from Iraq. Take a walk down to the White House and ask how the war is being funded. America is borrowing greatly from China to fund the war. Are you telling the people of America, Mr Obama that you plan to borrow America in to debt in order to turn over the country to the 15 percent that cannot get their lives in order?

This is called "long term planning." You spend $15 billion a month in Iraq, all you've done is spend $15 billion a month in Iraq. You spend $15 billion on infrastructure and building for the future like education, health care, roads and bridges, you make that money back many times over. Also you don't wind up in Dickensian England, which is a nice plus.

#12 Today, it is necessary to borrow a little to pacify Iraq. However, America’s plans in Iraq should be short term. Otherwise, borrowing will cripple the nation.

This is absolutely true. We're spending all these trillions of dollars, essentially throwing them down a rat hole, while our own country is falling apart and our economy is crashing around us. The fact that unemployment is up 10% from last month (!) and is an underreported number anyway (if you're out of work for six months, even if you're looking for a job, you're not unemployed. If you're a particle physicist working at Starbuck's, you're not unemployed).

Where we are now, teetering on the brink of a massive recession unlike any we've seen in 80 years, is where we were going anyway. We have failed to invest in America, and our policies have served to promote the wealthy at the expense of the poor. However, throwing money away on a war we should never have gotten into has accelerated the process to the point where it may be too late. John McCain wants to keep these failed policies in place. At this point I'd be willing to vote for a candidate that promises a revolution of the proletariat to prevent that from taking place. Thankfully, instead, we have a Democrat in the mold of FDR that will take common sense measures to restore our broken government.

Geiiga - admirable work, but Jesus Lopez-Ledesma isn't worth your time or effort.

Do post again, though! Just not on this tool's blag.

Jesse - I think you want to have buttsex with Obama, don't you? Do you like the hard-on he must give you? You sure obsess over him enough.

I ignored Jesse's post but thoroughly enjoyed Geiiga's reply. Nice work!

Why, oh why post in that horrible unreadable font again???

 

The post is totally unreadable but probably not worthy of reading anyhow. kudos to Geiiga's reply tho.