Thursday, October 11, 2012

Huffington Post Comments, 10/11/2012


You have not proven your point with your example.
Per capita government spending in Estonia is spent differently. That difference alone can drive an economy. Low comparative to EU wages in Estonia also drive employment numbers. What Estonia does not have is Extremes of Wealth, while people are hungry, and not given medical care, or educated. Their constitution mandates a balanced budget, and in the event of an emergency they THE PEOPLE have to Vote to approve a debt based budget.

Debt is caused not by how much you spend alone, it also is directly affected by how much taxes you do or do not collect.

Historically during periods of higher taxes on the incomes above 1,000,000. the Debt was managed, and Employment and wages raised. That is a fact.


Debt is the result of more spending than income.

There are, indeed, two ways to balance a budget:

1. reduce spending
2. increase income

I'll bet that we agree that for everyone who is not a government, that the best way to balance an unbalanced budget is to reduce spending.  If you have an unbalanced personal budget, then I'll bet that your solution is not to demand that your employer give you a raise.

The recent history of Estonia shows that reducing government spending is a good idea for reducing the size of a budget deficit.

What does it matter if their are "Extremes of Wealth"?  There are countries where almost everyone makes the same as everyone else, one example is the nation of Haiti.

It does not bother me that some people are wealthier than I am in this country.  I would prefer that to be the case than to have all of us poor;  which is what happens when we want everyone to have a similar income.



Part of the quote that I presented:

"after eight years of this Administration"

The administration was of FDR, which started in 1933. How can "after eight years of this Administration" mean 1937?

I'm afraid that your statement is incorrect. And my point still stands:

When he started as Treasury Secretary he favored more government spending, see your quotes for proof.

"After 8 years" he saw that the government spending did not work, see the quote I presented for proof.

When I presented that quote I found that it was from a hand picked cabinet member of one of your side's favorite presidents, FDR. I am using a quote from a guy on your side to prove that your side is wrong.

If you want to try a similar thing to my side, then try using quotes from at least republicans, if you cannot find a quote from a libertarian.

A guy handpicked by FDR says that your side is incorrect, at least on this issue.

I notice that in Luke 3:11 it says: "share" not "have the government steal it and then give it to someone else"

The positions of the right are not inconsistent with the verses you've presented. One difference between our sides is that the left wants the government to forcefully take from some and, maybe, give it to others. The right wants to do that voluntarily.


On November 10, 1937, Morgenthau gave a speech to the Academy of Political Science at New York's Hotel Astor, in which he noted that the Depression had required deficit spending, but that the government needed to cut spending to revive the economy. In his speech, he said:[11]

"We want to see private business expand. … We believe that one of the most important ways of achieving these ends at this time is to continue progress toward a balance of the federal budget."

Yes: Luke 3:11 is spot on. For the excessively wealthy a very high tax rate on earning say above 1,000.000 encourages them to spend the added earnings that are currently going to them by either paying their workers more, or investing in more equipment, or some other way other than let the Government take it and use it as the Government Sees fit. This does effectively work and has repeatedly throughout history. What also has repeated in history when extremes of wealth are vested in very few while there are many poor and a middle class sinking, revolutions and revolts result after the stalled and reversing economy while others have shameful excesses cripple not only financial markets, but all production. This has played out over and over in the Bible, and in our own 200 year history.


I'm afraid that you've missed my point again;  I apologize for my poor explanations.

1933 - FDR is elected
1934 - Henry Morganthau, Jr. becomes Treasury Secretary

1937 - Henry thinks that government spending is a good idea (We agree that in 1937 he was in favor of government spending. But, by all means, continue to give me quotes from before he changed his mind.)

1941 - Henry no longer supports government spending.  He has seen 8 years of spending and says that it does not work. (14.5% unemployment rate 7 years after FDR was elected)

What does "excessively wealthy" mean? Why is $1 million your number?  Why have you decided that some arbitrary number is the cutoff between good and bad?

What gives you, or anyone else, the right to decide what is "excessive wealth"?

Prior to America you description of the problems of wealth would have been correct.  Prior to America, the wealthiest people were those who acquired their income through the use of force to make others work for them.

Now, with capitalism, most people who have wealth earned it or their parents did.

All of the trappings of modern living that we have come to depend on have just come into being in the past 200 years.  Ask yourself why.  Why did this not take place in any of the other two-century stretches in the history of our species?  They were smart, they worked hard, they understood mathematics, and the iron and oil and coal was right there in the ground the whole time.  What changed?    

America - that’s what changed. 

For the first time in the history of the world, the person who “built it” got to keep it.  Liberty – that is all that it took to free the unlimited human capacity for enterprise and advance the living standards of the human race beyond comprehension.

The places that allow people to keep what is theirs are the places where everyone is more prosperous.


Theodore Roosevelt would be an interesting Republican that I find common grounds when dealing on policy and practices regarding economics. The "Other Roosevelt", a Republican who was a "Trust" "Monopoly" buster, solved strikes that resulted in fewer hours and more wages for the employees. None of the Presidents have control over world events that impact our national economy. We should have as a nation protection from the Federation of Corporations that economically enslave workers and corrupt the government, as a starting point. WE as a people should decide what Government Provides, and WE should decide to pay for it. I agree in general with a required ballanced budget. BUT, we are not starting at zero... It will take years to undo the planned debt increases caused by the Tax Cuts Bush put in place. There is a big difference in a One Off budget and a Planned De-funding of Government Revenue for 12 years. The result was a trickle up of wealth, and further harm to the poor and middle class, adding a burden on the Government that the same ilk of economic thinkers want to reduce. It can't be both ways it does not add up, it dose not circulate currency and wealth.

I will stick with the view excessive wealth should not be possible. Wealthy can either do what they pretend to do, hire people and raise wages, or be taxed and have Government do things.


Comment debates can be fun.  You would be welcome to guest post at my blog.

Theodore Roosevelt was a progressive.  He was one of the first people to be called a progressive.  If you call yourself a liberal,  a progressive or a democrat, then of course you would find common ground with him.

Monopolies are an interesting subject that we have all been mislead about. 

"But Standard Oil caused the price of refined petroleum to fall from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to 5.9 cents by 1897 while stimulating an enormous amount of innovation in the industry, just as Microsoft has stimulated innovation in today’s computer industry. For this great service to consumers, Rockefeller was prosecuted and forced to break up his company.

In his masterpiece, Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure, Dominick Armentano carefully examined fifty-five of the most famous antitrust cases in U.S. history and concluded that in every single case, the accused firms were dropping prices, expanding production, innovating, and generally benefiting consumers. It was their less-efficient competitors who were "harmed," as they should have been."

But how do you define "excessive wealth"?  What gave you, or anyone else, the right to do so?

How do you propose that the government "protect us from corporations"?

There were dozens of recessions in this country prior to the government trying to protect us from corporations.  We don't remember them becasue the government didn't help and the country recovered.

In the depressions that started in 1929 and 2008 the government has decided to try and protect us from the economy and that has resulted in our two worst economic situations in our history.

Would you disagree with the three following statements?

1. The economic downturns starting in 1929 and 2008 are the worst in American history.

2. During those two downturns the government has done more to try and "help" the economy that at any other time in American History.

3. The economic downturns that started in 1929 and 2008 have been worse for longer than any other in American history.

When countries favor more government over less freedom it always means a reduction in prosperity for the people.

No comments:

Post a Comment