patrick.net

Reality says

30yr fixed mortgage was not the driver of bubbles. The variable ones and non-amortizing ARMs and Pick-A-Pay mortgages were the driving force of the bubble.

Good, and those latter types of loans increased during the boom, NOT when federal fund rates were low. All of those types of loans were invented by private parties so that they could securitize more loans and gain more fees. So you are agreeing with me now?

Reality says

Encouragement as evidenced both by official pronoucements to buy homes and to take out ARM loans, as well as regulations that required banks to make loans to less qualified borrowers.

Yes, again, Greenspan holding one of those arrows outside a bank (you know, those arrows that some kid waves around for new condo developments). We're back to that, which is an extremely poor argument. "Encouragement" does not cause transactions. In addition, the CRA argument has been defeated numerous times as one solely based on ideology, so let's get rid of that (even beyond the common sense of it being passed well before the boom).

What specific lending programs are you pointing to that targeted less qualified buyers? And how did those programs result in Pick-A-Pay loans, non-amortizing loans, teaser rates, etc.? Any of those lending programs for under privileged people would be a government program, and those loans have performed far far better than private loans, which is demonstrable.

Reality says

Are you going to argue that raising interest doesn't stop inflation? or even cause inflation, as they were taking place at the same time? The rates have to be high enough to stop run-away inflation. Any rate raise that fails to meet real money supply growth rate is in effect still subsidizing the purchase of inflationary assets rising at a faster rate.

No, I'm saying that the lack of ability of people to take out mortgages means they take out fewer mortgages, and the increased ability of people to take out mortgages means they take out more mortgages.

Apparently, the private sector can never fail, even when private banksters and private ratings agencies clearly did.

The problem is that you are consistently making a circular argument in trying to blame it on the Fed. The reality is that the private sector and the government interacted in various ways. Regardless of what the government did, however, lending standards dropped (this is demonstrable), private parties made the absolute worst kinds of loans (demonstrable), these worst kinds of loans were issued in larger and larger numbers during the boom (demonstrable), and none of these three things was caused by government, in addition to the fact that government lending went down during the boom (demonstrable, and you are going through contortions trying to will that away).

leoj707 says

I played with the typography a bit for you. Not perfect but looks a little better like this.

Wow, that looks a lot better. Thanks Leo. Is that the full size version ? If you have the original, I would like to replace it on igmur, and try again to submit it (a little later when the politics are right) on reddit.

Again thanks for improving it. I didn't like the white on white, but I didn't think of that.

corntrollio says

Good, and those latter types of loans increased during the boom, NOT when federal fund rates were low. All of those types of loans were invented by private parties so that they could securitize more loans and gain more fees. So you are agreeing with me now?

ARMs popularity rose in the latest cycle starting in the mid-1990's. ARMs were very popular when the FED held short term rate at 1% from 2001-2003 . . . that was what enabled the FED to reflate the economy. Reflating the economy through housing was the game plan. It was by design, not accident.

As for who invented loan securitization. That goes back to at least the 1925-29 bubble, if not much earlier. What do you think the original Fannie Mae charter was if it's not about loan securitization? Why else do you think the original Glass-Steagal was put in place?

Yes, again, Greenspan holding one of those arrows outside a bank (you know, those arrows that some kid waves around for new condo developments). We're back to that, which is an extremely poor argument.

You are indeed engaging in very poor strawman tactic. Just because your parents never had sex in a porn movie doesn't prove that they never had sex with each other. Greenspan lowered interest rates, and the Bush administration encouraged "ownership society" via borrowing. Heck, the government officials were literally encouraging people to take out ARM mortgages to buy house in 2004-2005. By 2006-2007, the government sponsored agencies were out there buying subprime mortages hand-over-fist.

"Encouragement" does not cause transactions.

Inducement via artificially low interest rate. If "encouragement" and inducement via interest rate doesn't cause people to carry out transactions in a certain hoped for way, why the heck have the FED manipulating interest rate at all?!

In addition, the CRA argument has been defeated numerous times as one solely based on ideology, so let's get rid of that (even beyond the common sense of it being passed well before the boom).

I never brought CRA, but your repeated assertions doesn't make the statement factual. If CRA does not affect loan portfolio composition, why have CRA at all?! In any case, it's besides the point, as I never even touched upon CRA in my previous post.

What specific lending programs are you pointing to that targeted less qualified buyers?

The "Greenspan Put" program lending money to banks taking on irrational risks. The regulatory problem was far more systemic than a particular lending program. It was the entire fiat money landscape with expected government bailouts that encouraged financial malfeasance . . . just like in the 1925-1929 time frame.

No, I'm saying that the lack of ability of people to take out mortgages means they take out fewer mortgages, and the increased ability of people to take out mortgages means they take out more mortgages.

That's not what you said at all. You talked about nominal interest rates. Raising or lowering interest rate in nominal terms alone has little to do with people's ability to take out loans. It's the difference between nominal interest rate vs. money supply growth that defines the real borrowing cost; then loan qualification standards as mandated by the various loan securitization agencies provide another set of gating.

Apparently, the private sector can never fail, even when private banksters and private ratings agencies clearly did.

I never said such thing, so stop the strawman tactic. People make mistakes; to err is to be human. That's precisely the reason why competition (i.e. private sector operation) works out better than monopoly (ie. government run operation). It is precisely because that people are prone to make mistakes, therefore individuals should be allowed to choose their own counterparties, instead of being corralled into dealing with the one and only . . . i.e. government monopoly, which being run by human beings is also prone to errors.

Under a fiat central banking cartel system, it's questionable how "private" banksters really are, vs. considering them as privleged bureaucrats. The 3 rating agencies are explicitly specifed by government regulations. That's a big reason why they did so poorly in housing debacle. Some of the non government endorsed real private rating agencies actually did quite well in predicting the impending disaster, but their ratings carried no weight in the government sanctioned accounting standards.

The problem is that you are consistently making a circular argument in trying to blame it on the Fed. The reality is that the private sector and the government interacted in various ways.

You think the argument is circular only because you failed to distinguish between real market competition in the private sector vs. government sponsored/enforced cartel/monopoly. A government bureaucrat using government-given privileges to stuff his own pockets at taxpayer expense is somehow considered "private" in your mind; that's more or less what the FED-supported banksters were doing.

Regardless of what the government did, however, lending standards dropped (this is demonstrable), private parties made the absolute worst kinds of loans (demonstrable), these worst kinds of loans were issued in larger and larger numbers during the boom (demonstrable), and none of these three things was caused by government,

They did that because the players all thought they had the "Greenspan Put" backstopping them. The same crew who engineered LTCM and Enron went to work for Lehman, Bear-Stern, etc., and are now still working for the Wall Street firms after the 2008 bailout.

It's hard to blame such expectations as the very purpose of the FED is being the "buyer of last resort"; i.e. the FED Put.

government lending went down during the boom.

Yet the actual taxpayer exposure increased because all the toxic loans made by the banks operating under the FED fiat money cartel would have to be dumped on the backs of the taxpayers at some point.

The only thing Democrats accomplished is temporary bailout of debt holders. When that handout stops and deadbeat businesses finally stop holding back the recovery we'll be ok. But that won't happen on obamas watch. He is too busy bailing out mortgage industry.

srschrs says

Obama himself stated that he will side with his Muslim friends if politics turn against him.

No he didn't. Please show some proof. "Rush Limbaugh says so" doesn't count.

srschrs says

It is in his book. Here is the link:
http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2008/02/i-will-stand-wi.html

wthrfrk80 says

why shouldn't people have to buy insurance

My Parents left Ireland due to the high tax rate caused by Socialized Medicine. (Beatles-Taxman) it will be another gubmint run LOSER. The idea is utopia, but hasn't the present gubmint shown us enough bad examples ? Clunker Cash, QE(s), Ferdie & Frany, Solyndra, and other solar companies, G.M. DAMN.... SEC, NLRB, DMV, Any of you ever applied for a building permit ? Gubmint needs to remain OUT of free enterprise in any form. THEY JUST DON'T CARE !!!

I believe both Republicans & Democrats endeavor to reform those OLD SCHOOL gubmint run systems.

TMAC54 says

My Parents left Ireland due to the high tax rate caused by Socialized Medicine.

That's odd. You posted previously that your parents left Scotland because of the high tax rate caused by socialized medicine. How many other countries did they leave because of the high cost of socialized medicine? If you're going to lie, lie consistently.

Scotland & Ireland are not in different hemispheres ? (only 20mi. apart) Nor are they under different rule ? My Parents born in Edinburgh and Glasgow Scotland and lived in Ireland. Stories of the IRA and medical programs were rare in my youth, but vivid. Both Scotland and Ireland were taken over by the British long before the original tea party.

About consistency ? Cab Drivers make the same income as Doctors in SOCIALIZED countries. Are those Doctors motivated to expand their knowledge base ? Are those countries thriving ? Beautiful, warm hearted concept, But it has been tested in too many different countries. Gubmint philosophy always is "We could make it work with MORE MONEY" !!!!

thunderlips11 says

Unlike Lehman Brothers, the Gov't can print money. They don't have to print it all the missing trillions at once either, just enough to cover some of the difference between receipts and owed amounts.

In other words, you agree that "Social Seucrity Trust Fund" is a fictional device.

Iraq and Afghanistan wars are running at least $1T, that could have gone a big way to replenishing SSI.

You are close to the truth but showing a major blind spot on how the political system really works. The SSI had significant positive cash flow in the last two decades. Where did the money go? Hint: war making was the biggest spending items in the General Fund.

Of course, we could always raise the record-low taxes a bit. Just raising the top bracket 5% would give us more than a trillion over ten years.

So more of the people making $300k-$1mil whose money would otherwise enter the local economy at restaurants, dry cleaners and etc. would now see the money going to the federal government to pay for wars and TBTF banksters. Any wonder why real productive jobs are destroyed in this country? and the unemployed young men and women are suited up to be uniformed mercenaries overseas and possibly soon used here too?

In fact, cutting the military 30% and raising the top margin rate would more than save SSI.

A people believing in that line will see the tax raised, and see another 9-11 like event to stop cutting into the military. As Rumsfeld said in recent interview, every time military spending is on the chopping block, Americans would see another major war. War is the health of the State (-- Randolph Bourne). Such melodrama will continue so long as people believe that the government provides solutions. It is high time for people to realize that the government is just a device for some individuals to control and forcibly exploit other individuals.

The deficit is solvable without too much hardship. The problem is it isn't politically practical as the uber-rich have a massive sense of entitlement, they want all the benefits of living in a first world country without paying the price in taxes.

They perpetrate it by floating myths like the Government-God. "Social Security Trust Fund" is a highly effective device for war profiteering.

Thank you for your interesting "take" on the racism.

The fatal flaw of the Democratic Party is that it ignored the horrific racism in America and nominated Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.

Even if Hillary had made EXACTLY the same decisions as Obama, the traitorous Republicans, etc., would not have dared attack her the way they have attacked Obama, for fear of alienating every woman voter in America.

(Of course, she would most definitely not "reached out" to any of those slimebags, as she knows from experience exactly the level of mendacity, racism, and treachery she
would be "reaching out" to.)

When I consider how correct you are about the "older" population and how viciously racist it is (north and south, democratic and republican, now that you mention it), I see
why people have held back and allowed the Republicans and
Tea-Partiers to commit flagrant treason against the best interests of the United States ... beginning the day Obama was inaugurated.)

P.S. I am a white, yellow dog democrat, and proud of it. But I am NOT proud to be living in a country that did not RISE UP
when Bush and Cheney sent America spiraling downward, and then did not join together to get us out of the disastrous
mess (a war of survival) that Obama inherited.

What a disgusting bunch of people ...

wthrfrk80 says

As far as the health debate, why shouldn't people have to buy insurance if they are going to get "free" heath care in the ER?

The USA is not a command economy. There is nothing within the context of the constitution that specifically states that anyone is to buy anything (or not buy anything i.e boycott).

Now states via the 10th amendment can do certain things because they have the prerogative to do so.

Car insurance is not mandatory because there are no laws that one must drive a car. More importantly it is only mandated because you are driving on public roads. If you have your own private road you can do what you want (can't go far naturally). There are no mandates to have insurance when using public transportation (buses, trains, boats etc)

More importantly what if people cannot pay? Then what? Put them in jail? In mass the problem with the mandate is that some businesses simply incorporate things separately to get around it. I won't name names but there is a small chain of restaurants that did that so they didn't have to pay.

The mandate isn't exactly what is costing the public. it is the subsidized pool for those that don't pay. What is it saying if someone cannot pay even a dime for a doctors visit? Even if the state charge dirt cheap amounts it would look better than nothing. $5 for a doctors visit isn't asking for much.

If Hillary was president I'd say she'd be doing a much better job than Obama. Obama frankly cannot make up his mind. President Clinton could triangulate and make it look like art. Obama couldn't even work with democrats. In 2009 the only things that were done was putting off that digital tv transfer and passing the pseudo health care while watching Ted Kennedy gradually pass away.

The funny thing about the debate is that the democrats attempted to court republicans. Why? Because they didn't want to be caught with it if it failed the courts...which is what we are going though now. If they thought it was a sure thing they would have passed it without any republicans at all.

Reading all the ignorant hyperbole just makes my head hurt. I wish I could point the finger at one side and just say 'stop it, children!' but really it's both sides.

Our government has so many shortcomings, both in driving ideology behind government programs and/or in the implementation. There are elements of truth to both 'sides' in this debate, but defenders of each position cling to the craziest notions to make (or fail to) their points.

Often times after reading the drivel some people put out on this forum I find the urge to resort to hyperbole and irony myself - you know, I want to claim so and so is like hitler and this or that group just wants to destroy the nation. Maybe that's what you're all doing - the idiocy of a few truly driven trolls on either side has pressured you to give up with rational debate and focus instead on countering the insanity with insanity from the other direction. Maybe it *will* all balance out.

I'm not even going to bother contesting any points in this thread. There are just so few people who are even trying here. Instead, I'm just going to join in and point out that republicans eat babies (that's why they hate abortions - cutting into food supply) and libruhls are trying to redistribute the wealth so no one has much power - that'll make it easier for them to dismantle our democracy-like political system and replace it with a big brother totalitarian society. On that note I'm going to stop reading these rants and go eat dog food.

Matt.BayArea says

I'm not even going to bother contesting any points in this thread. There are just so few people who are even trying here. Instead, I'm just going to join in and point out that republicans eat babies (that's why they hate abortions - cutting into food supply) and libruhls are trying to redistribute the wealth so no one has much power - that'll make it easier for them to dismantle our democracy-like political system and replace it with a big brother totalitarian society. On that note I'm going to stop reading these rants and go eat dog food.

Dog food made from republican babies is the best, but since liberals haven't been successful in redistributing the wealth, it's unaffordable to most of us. Nomograph says

Show me one country where cab drivers earn the same as doctors. Just one.
Anybody? Beuller?

Somewhere there's a MD/Cabdriver who could show you - but he's busy causing heart attacks with his driving and then reviving his customers.

Matt --

Hang in there. There are some interesting people who write for these forums, people you would never "meet" in the physical world. Some you will disagree with but that's okay -- if you don't like their ideas then you have to ask why yours are better? Some you will agree with and perhaps for reasons you had not previously considered.

So that's the deal: People bring ideas and you get to pick and choose which -- if any -- you find interesting and worthwhile.

Patrick,
What is the fatal flaw in the Demoncrat party?

Nomograph says

TMAC54 says

Cab Drivers make the same income as Doctors in SOCIALIZED countries.

Show me one country where cab drivers earn the same as doctors. Just one.

Anybody? Beuller?

Let other pens dwell on guilt and misery -- Jane Austen

lmao. That's funny

Nomograph says

TMAC54 says

Cab Drivers make the same income as Doctors in SOCIALIZED countries.

Show me one country where cab drivers earn the same as doctors. Just one.

Anybody? Beuller?

Let other pens dwell on guilt and misery -- Jane Austen

Actually the cab drivers often made/make more than the doctors. It's a common phenomenon for countries in the process of transitioning from centrally planned economy to market economy. It happened to Russia (and the other 14 soviet republics of the former USSR), Poland, Romania, Slovakia, China, Vietnam, etc. etc. It's happening right now in Cuba and North Korea. The cab industry simply get freed up before the medical industry. When tax and regulatory burdens are removed, the industry prospers and workers in the industry suddenly become much better off. As simple as that.

The common saying was actually: the wielder of barber's blade is making more money than the wielder of the surgical knife.

OurBroker says

So that's the deal: People bring ideas and you get to pick and choose which -- if any -- you find interesting and worthwhile.

I just wish it wasn't always a lib vs republican thing. It doesn't matter what the subject starts out to be, it always resorts to that. And of course the personal attacks aren't appreciated.

But there are some very interesting people here, and some who might possibly be.

"When tax and regulatory burdens are removed, the industry prospers and workers in the industry suddenly become much better off. As simple as that."

Like when? Airline pilots and flight attendants saw their pay plummet after airlines were de-regulated:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2524940

In contrast, medicine, one of the most regulated industires in America, has the highest salaries and lowest unemployment rate of virtually any industry in America. The AMA ensures that there is never an over-supply of doctors by restricing the number of med school graduates, thereby ensuring that wages remain high. Do you really think specialists would be making $300 and $400k a year if the supply of docotors was determined based on the free market demand instead of one group with veto power over every med school in America?

What do you think would happen to physician salaries if medical school regulations were eliminated tomorrow and anyone with enough money could start their own medical school?

HW:
when you say medicine, you mean doctors? RN's get paid fairly well depending upon the job (nursing home not so much, hospital yep), while LPN's joke that their title is "low paid nurse."

The workers who do the most physical work are paid the very least - nursing assistants. CNA's are paid shit wages; one could argue that all they have to do is pass a course thats a few months long. But they do the most hands-on work and are paid the least.

Just sayin'

HousingWatcher says

Like when? Airline pilots and flight attendants saw their pay plummet after airlines were de-regulated:

Which formerly centrally planned economy country transitioning to market economy would that be? Can you read context at all? or just interested in context-free circle jerking?

HousingWatcher says

In contrast, medicine, one of the most regulated industires in America, has the highest salaries and lowest unemployment rate of virtually any industry in America. The AMA ensures that there is never an over-supply of doctors by restricing the number of med school graduates, thereby ensuring that wages remain high. Do you really think specialists would be making $300 and $400k a year if the supply of docotors was determined based on the free market demand instead of one group with veto power over every med school in America?

What do you think would happen to physician salaries if medical school regulations were eliminated tomorrow and anyone with enough money could start their own medical school?

Thank you for repeating the points that I have been making: the high cost of medicine in this country is the result of government regulations restricting supply while goosing demand. Also keep in mind that the real earning of doctors (that they can keep) and hospitals are declining thanks to the rapidly rising cost of financing medical education and financing medical equipment and buildings. When there is a government enforced monopoly allowed to seek economic rent at the expense of the rest of the society, it's the banksters who eventually win as the "arms merchant" financing the acquisition of those rent-seeking positions.

In any case, back to the original point. The taxation and regulations in the formerly centrally planned economies were referring to the price caps and wage caps that the governments imposed on all workers, from doctors to cab drivers to barbers. . . a phenomenon that may well be coming to these shores for doctors soon BTW. As market economy experiments took place in those former soviet-style countries, the barbers and cab drivers had their wage and price caps removed first and were allowed to sell their service to the highest bidder, before the doctors saw similar liberty.

I'm not sure that general labels such as "socialized" mean much in a lot of places.

Having been to Romania, Serbia and Bulgaria my sense is that whatever layer of political organization had been in place or is now in place is secondary to cultural drivers.

Official salary scales don't mean anything when much of the economy is based on barter. It may be that on paper a doctor is paid as much as a cab driver but in reality "gifts" for doctors are likely to be rampant.

Speaking of "gifts" it's great to be a border guard.

>>>"Trying to combat corruption, Bulgaria has started using computerized scheduling to assign its border guards to different posts randomly every few hours. Romania has taken steps, too. In the past year, it arrested 248 border guards and customs officers, some of whom were accused of collecting as much as 5,800 euros, or about $8,240, in a single shift."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/world/europe/04border.html

In the first few minutes of the movie Borat they show his alleged home village in Kazakhstan. The scenes were actually shot in Romania. You can find a lot of villages like that. Take a careful look at those scenes.

OurBroker says

It may be that on paper a doctor is paid as much as a cab driver but in reality "gifts" for doctors are likely to be rampant.

The economy has to be developed enough for the local patients to have money to pay "gifts" to doctors. That usually happens at least a decade or more after the reforms begin. In the first decade, the cab drivers benefit from the fact that the cab riders are often foreign investors, who do not patronize local doctors in the run-down former soviet country. That's why the doctors' first response is to get out of the country. That's why there are so many Russian and Ukrainian doctors in places like Lybia.

Reality --

Have you actually been to these places?

OurBroker says

Reality --

Have you actually been to these places?

Yes. Quite a few of them, both before and after the Berlin Wall came down.

Good. Then you're aware of the systemic poverty found in many areas.

For instance, we asked one family we were to meet what we could bring as a token of the US. They asked for children's aspirin.

OurBroker says

Good. Then you're aware of the systemic poverty found in many areas.

For instance, we asked one family we were to meet what we could bring as a token of the US. They asked for children's aspirin.

That request probably has more to do with the long-suffering people's utter despair with the bureaucrats running their home country. After decades of bureaucratic machination, the people have lost all faith in what the bureaucrats can do. Infant formulae (i.e. substitute for mother's milk) made by western companies are also very popular in those places, partly because the adults have given up on themselves but place (and misplace) all their hopes on their children. Little do they realize that mother's milk is far superior to any infant formula . . . and Children's asprin is just regular asprin diluted with sugar-water and color dye.

Access to generic medicine like Asprin is actually very easy in those countries. Medicine was freely available and abused in the former soviet system because they were incredibly cheap. Antibiotics abuse was especially prevalent. Of course, the production quality, and especially packaging, was always questionable. Who knows, the asprin pills from local government-run drug factories may indeed contain enough lead to destroy the children's nervous system, simply because the whole local infrastructure was built from copying the west in the 1920's and 30's, and hence still using more than half a century old lead pipes.

After visiting a few of those countries, a common theme emerged quickly: they were all like time capsules that froze whatever the state of human development was when the local "communist revolution" took place . . . with some critical components replaced by later cheaper and ill-fitting substitutes to keep the whole system going.

Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable at the current rate. Republicans and some Democrats are good enough with math to know that some serious reform needs to be done, otherwise we pay for the deficits through hyper-inflation in the long run.

I would propose the government just runs Social Secuirty and cut Medicare, and give money to the poor elderly and disabled.

Ron Paul has said he would cut the military budget and focus on making Social Security sustainable. I personally, prefer privatization because I am not going to be collecting my Social Security since I am working overseas.

What a bunch of crap - making idiotic comments about Republican positions on things that DON"T exist.Typical democratic spin - railing against positions that are not held by the right. Build a straw man and then burn the straw man.

Yagenrok says

What a bunch of crap - making idiotic comments about Republican positions on things that DON"T exist.Typical democratic spin - railing against positions that are not held by the right. Build a straw man and then burn the straw man.

It would help if you actually stated the positions that you think are strawmen

marcus says

Wow, that looks a lot better. Thanks Leo. Is that the full size version ?

Yeah, that is the full sized. I was working with the first background image that I found on Google.

If you post a larger blank background I could drop text on it.

"when you say medicine, you mean doctors?"

Yes, I was referring to doctors. Nurses typically don't fall under the cateogy "medicine" since they cannot practice medicine (ie: they can't write a prescription). Nurses would be under "healthcare."

Dan8267 says

Gen X ended the propagation of racism by simply rejecting the idea of it. Gen X was not raised by the boomers. We were raised by television as latchkey kids. Gen X kids were largely ignored by their boomer parents and as such did not adopt the ideologies and prejudices of that generation.

Word. Though many Gen X'ers (such as myself) were raised by Silents.

OurBroker says

Official salary scales don't mean anything when much of the economy is based on barter.

That's very true although it isn't nearly as efficient as having a currency/medium of exchange.

In China there are no mandates for car insurance. So what happens when there is an accident? Well one ends up paying the other. Supposedly they don't move during a hit and run because it means they lose a license for life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_the_road_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

Bartering can be funny that's for sure. I recommend anyone bring a calculator for that purpose. Online radio personality Lazlow stated during a trip to Turkey he got his girlfriend to imply that they had a kid that needed an operation in order to gain sympathy to lower the price..I guess it worked.

Reality says

So more of the people making $300k-$1mil whose money would otherwise enter the local economy at restaurants, dry cleaners and etc. would now see the money going to the federal government to pay for wars and TBTF banksters. Any wonder why real productive jobs are destroyed in this country? and the unemployed young men and women are suited up to be uniformed mercenaries overseas and possibly soon used here too?

People are hesitant to start businesses when the economy sucks. Hence "Cash on the Sidelines" phrase.

High taxes actually push investment in new and existing businesses, since to take out the money as profit is subject to those High Taxes.

Reality says

They perpetrate it by floating myths like the Government-God. "Social Security Trust Fund" is a highly effective device for war profiteering.

But it wasn't always so. The deficit problem truly began around 1980.

Taxes are at record-lows, they are much lower than what they were just 30 years ago when the country was at the peak of it's power. Tax Cutting on the rich hasn't trickled down to the middle and lower classes in the forms of high paying jobs.

If low taxes create jobs, where are they?

Reality says

A people believing in that line will see the tax raised, and see another 9-11 like event to stop cutting into the military. As Rumsfeld said in recent interview, every time military spending is on the chopping block, Americans would see another major war.

You may be on to something here.

OurBroker says

Having been to Romania, Serbia and Bulgaria my sense is that whatever layer of political organization had been in place or is now in place is secondary to cultural drivers.

Ah, Bulgaria, I was in my 20s and spent a summer in Sofia and Varna. Good memories. :)

Veliko Turnovo is a place right out of Lord of the Rings.

And holy crap can they drink, Rakia for breakfast? Too much for me.

thunderlips11 says

If low taxes create jobs, where are they?

We need to give "DIGITIZED GOVERNMENT " time to work.

Taxes today are currently lower than they were under the administrations of Socialist presidents George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Dwight Eisenhower.

Under Eisenhower, unemployment was lower than it was today despite a top tax rate of 91%.