Shared publicly  - 
Today, President Obama traveled to Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton where he made the case for the Buffett Rule.
Nick Seay's profile photoRobert Bedo's profile photoDrew Heyen's profile photoLexi Reno's profile photo
Trip to the home of the Fighting Owls sounds like it was a hoot!
Donkey support Israel to kill innocent people in Palestine and the right owners of the land and committing massacres under the pretext of fighting terrorism
Yes, what is happening in Syria Revolution
They understood what about the blind blind insight???
Obama and John McCain and Paul Wolfowitz and support the Syrian Revolution
Bernard Levy looks and calls for the arming of Syrian Revolution
Avi Dichter, the Israeli minister sympathized with the revolution, the Syrian
Sarkozy and Alain Juppe does not concern them except the Syrian Revolution
Arabs dictators weeping on the freedoms and rights Syrian
Sheikhs and bananas funded support and trigger the Syrian Revolution
Did not you understand yet???
It's really a revolution Syrians
But a revolution against their likes bisexual men
Liberal revolution against slaves and Almenbtahin
Revolution Sham and Aleppo against Arabs Mtshinin
Revolution and fuel anger against the Khan of the country and family and religion
Supervision revolution against corrupt vendors and accounts receivable
Resistance and revolution against the honor of absent from the minds of Palestine
It's really a revolution
Vlmlmoa Otaravkm Dear Arabs
You missed the honor and will become your master Tgazzmt between necks
And masculinity while Nam and distributed some of you missed and some
Syria by the men and the victory inspired mirage
Syria by women Mazlt days and not bent to snap Wolves
For the tired and Bakayakm Hrolloa the walls of the Levant to despise it might pardon
And punishment of Njutm
There is a difference between the free and the revolution of a slave rebellion, Liberal revolt for freedom, and slaves in order to chaos and more bread and new restrictions may be more severe
Not Tasven the treachery of time
For as long as it raised over the bodies of black dogs
Do not deceive height remains black dogs and black dogs
President Bashar al-Assad errors that led to the crisis for


... ... 1 - you turned your back to Olmert did not Tertm Bahdana Kmafl Hamadi Jebali with McCain
2 - you are not the sword dance with George Bush

3 - he does not have a palace in Tel Aviv, such as Hamad bin Jassim
4 - you remember Palestine, while they are trying to forget
5 - I told you they were half men one day of 2006
6 - you are the president academic and first legitimate in the Arab World
7 - you keep the honor of the nation did not trade him
he need to come to Virginia!!
The fairness argument is for kindergarten children. Then again politicians are somewhat childish.
what do u think about what happened in China last night
Can't wait 'til this feeb is out of office. Totally sick of this Islam loving socialist. I'll even vote for Romney just to get rid of the fool!
Veronica, Romney is hardly any different. He will continue the spending and wars
Election is hot!
^ veronica your slander is sickening. maybe if you feel so strongly about it you should run for president. try and make some of the decisions this man has for a country/economy as large and powerful as the US at one of the most difficult financial/economic times for decades.
+Taylor Evans I think she should move to Somalia, where they already have exactly the economy she wants.
Since I don't have the millions required to run, I won't. Nor am I slanderous. Obama and his dems keep promoting Islam through groups like CAIR and he is clearly a socialist, look how he keeps going around our duely elected congress and look at the debt. I mearly speak the truth, which probably hurts, but the truth usally does.
Great speech! Wish you'd come to Anthem, AZ and drive some sense into the crazies here.
+Veronica Cawelti Define "Socialism" and explain its relevance in this context.

I assume you are using this definition of "Truth" - Absolute fiction, entirely conceived within a deluded mind.
maybe the truth in your mind..

slan·der   [slan-der]
1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3. Law . defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
Must I also give you a definition for socialist?? He most definitely is not a socialist.. maybe among conspiracy websites, but that is not the truth, maybe your truth but not the real TRUTH. clearly you should take some classes in political science/economics/foreign policy
+Gerald Hines exactly. This is why I believe in a different candidate, Romney and Obama are nothing but the same candidate appearing on two different party tickets
there is an obvious problem with government today look at the debt we are in and im on bout the whole world so i ask you this who is the whole world due this money to then and also why do you defend people in power who lie all the time this world aint run by government it run by a bank so we need a big change
we empower these people so dont you think we should get to no whats behind the scene as you say
+Teresa Stombaugh the loopholes are actually there to help small businesses, such as a break on capital that's not realized or is reinvested. If you kill the loopholes you actually hurt small businesses.
+Jeffrey Hamby But at the same time, it's loopholes allowing large multi-million corporations to not pay a fair share of tax, so the loopholes either need to be gotten rid of or completely rewritten in a way that only allows small businesses to make use of them. For that to work, what defines a small business would probably need to be stricter if it's currently not pretty strict already. I don't believe that all those loopholes are there just for small businesses, I wouldn't be surprised if some of those loopholes were specifically made by large corporations that payed lobbyists to put them there for their own benefit.
Why don't we have separate laws for businesses and corporations? End the loopholes and be specific with what you intend to regulate. Nobody's making any friends by sneaking around back doors whether or not they are a small business.
+Janeen Lantry that is most certainly the goal, in general, which is not to suggest that pockets don't ever get lined, and very abusable loopholes don't get written in because of it. The problem with a checks and balances system is that it has multiple points of failure, in the form of checks and balances. Dodgey wording, corrupt legislation, and finally bad rulings are always a very realistic possibility. Don't think for one moment that it is as simple as you have made it sound, Every piece of legislation that makes it through our Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, have some altruistic motivation, of some kind. Otherwise, they don't make it through.

The biggest problem with our government, is that "Democracy", in any form, is ultimately a fallacy, it is an "Argumentum ad populum". Band-wagoning. Your ideas don't have to be right, in the slightest. They just have to be popular.
+Drew Heyen +Taylor Evans I know what slander is, I did not need your definition. I already gave examples. As for socialism it is today defined as "Big Government". As such it is intrusive and cumbersome. It does not solve problems but creates them. Look at Europe, it's still insane over there. You want our country to be like that?? What about $16 Trillion of debt? and it's still growing exponentially. You can blame Bush for that all you want but that doesn't change the fact that this President created more debt than all past Presidents combined. Not only that we have more debt than the Euro Zone and the UK combined. He acts more like a dictator than a President with his executive orders no past President would have dared to do. And it makes you proud that he does this? Have you no respect for the Constitution and our Founding Fathers? Clearly not. How very un-american. I suggest you move to Europe where there is no opportunity. Leave America free of Big Government.
+Melissa Peterson then you should spend some time finding out what those loopholes actually are rather than believing the rhetoric.
Yes, we do. The United States of America is a Representative Democracy. Which is, smart guy, a form of Democracy. Thus the word "Democracy" right there in the end of the name.

+Veronica Cawelti I want us to be like the US of the 50s, give or take. You want us to be like Somalia. Who is insane?
+Jeffrey Hamby Quit being an idiot. For the purposes of my comment, just to start, the use of the word is completely valid, in and of itself, as the election of "representatives" subjects our rule to the rigors of popular demand.

Then there is this. Just so you know it isn't just me.
Take your stupid semantic issue elsewhere.
+Drew Heyen according to wikipedia, the CIA world factbook, the United States Senate website, and our Constitution I'm not the idiot here.
+Chase Ambrosini It absolutely, positively, does not, and says so, clearly, and repeatedly.

First, we should be very clear that the ability to detain US Citizens has existed since the first day the Constitution was signed. Local authorities have always possessed various degrees of authority to detain anyone on suspicions for various lengths of time. While this rider does not prevent any such detention, neither would the non-existence of the Bill. Therefor, the issue in question is if the rider allows for any new authorities or abilities of any part of the US government, or Law Enforcement, to detain US Citizens. Since the rider takes the form of two "sections, I will address the two sections individually, and in order.


"(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force."

This means that this section of the rider is not intended to alter the authorities of the President or change what the US military's job is, as pertains to detention.

"(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

This means, and is very clearly stated, that any laws or authorities concerning the detention of US citizens or the detention of individuals within the US which existed prior to this section, still exists, but that no new laws or authorities are generated BY this section. This is a crucial piece of wording as pertains to this bill and the detention of US citizens and those inside the US.

Sec. 1022

"(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending dispositionunder the law of war."

The wording here is SO important. This is a REQUIREMENT of detention. I have been seeing people argue that wording later in this section "doesn't require detention, but doesn't prevent it either."

The reason for the wording in that part refers back to this part, and that argument is taking the later part entirely out of context, which a court of law will not allow. The allowance of detention is in Sec 1021. This section addresses the REQUIREMENT of detentions ALLOWED in sec 1021.

"(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined—"

QED, Here you have the culmination of what I was just saying. This section ONLY APPLIES to those who's detention was authorized in Sec 1021, and since sec 1021 very very specifically does not change authorities or laws which existed outside this bill, to detain US Citizens and/or individuals inside the US, neither does this section.

"(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.— (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States."

This is the part that everyone seems to attack as "dodgy". Yeah, taken entirely out of context, you can easily see why. It LOOKS LIKE tricky wording which says "Well, you don't HAVE TO detain these people, but we aren't telling you that you CAN'T". Well, NO, THIS PART, doesn't say you can't. Since this entire section addresses dutiful requirement of the US Military, and the President, and the PREVIOUS section addresses authority and law, it really wouldn't address authority, now would it. Of course all that "tricky wording" goes away when you consider that none of this section, including this part of it, applies to anyone not covered by Sec. 1021.

"(d) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody."

This says the jurisdictional rules of detention and law are not changed by this section. A person being detained within the US is neither subject to any new laws or authorities of detention, nor are they protected from existing ones. The funny thing about these two sections, is that not only do they not only say that they don't apply to US citizens and individuals in the US legally. They say it redundantly. They repeat it in a variety of different ways, to insure an un-abusable clarity of wording. While the US media and people, in general, can section out wording and use it non contextually, US Authorities and Courts CAN'T.
+Jeffrey Hamby the idiot, is the one of us who is insisting that the two terms are mutually exclusive.

For no better reason than he thinks that it makes him seem OH SO CLEVER.
+Chase Ambrosini While there may or may not be a question is some people's minds, the wording is CRYSTAL clear. The "All inclusive language included in the excerpts I provided, overrides the phrase you listed. That is what "exemptions" and "qualifiers" do, in legislation. The Legislation says "I do this, this, and this", then the qualifiers says "Except when this, this, or this, is included." It is linguistically sound.

+Alexa Alexa Who is asking you to "trust" anyone. Besides, who, exactly, do you think is both altruistic, wise, and NOT taking corporate lobbying funds. I don't hold it against the President, using the rules as they are. I do not expect him to "hamstring" himself, against his opponents. That is an entirely unrealistic expectation.
+Drew Heyen there is a defining difference. In any form of democracy, whether that be direct or representative, there is no protection from unlimited power of the majority. It's the "what if 51% of the people vote to pee in 49% of peoples cereal?" analogy (a poor but popular analogy). This problem was discussed in the Federal Convention as they were reforming due to failures in the Articles of Confederation. Read Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virginia" for some clarification.

A republic is a constitutionally limited government. Ours has three branches so as to limit the power of each branch.

So by definition they are two rather different forms of government.
+Jeffrey Hamby I understand all of that. What I do not understand, because it is incorrect, is how any of that means that we do not elect representatives, by popular vote. The essential element in a "Representative Democracy". I'm not replying to this stupid attempt to derail the subject again. If you can not, or will not understand my original point, then you really are too stupid to be posting in this thread.
sigh I like how you keep eliminating the word republic. We are not a representative democracy, we are a representative republic.
I'm sorry. You are absolutely correct. We do not "ELECT" our representatives by popular vote. I was wrong all along. So sorry for my ignorance.
+Drew Heyen I get that when you have no argument you resort to insulting people. It's what children do on the playground because they don't know any better.

But attempting to redefine words is beyond ridiculous. Nobody said you don't elect representatives in a representative republic.

I know for a fact you can get too Google from Houston.
Just throwing out there, in case someone, anyone, is so stupid they haven't gotten it yet.

Main article: RepublicanismIn contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.[79] The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.[80]The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure.What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[81] was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?". He replied "A republic—if you can keep it."[82]
+Alexa Alexa I'm anti speculative investing, but it is an ingrained and essential part of our economy, as is, and I wouldn't hesitate to make full use of it, as limiting my ability to survive in our economy, in its present state, on principle alone, would be pointless. Obama has to face his competition on level ground.
Yeah, he just goes after "independent" contributors who happen to work for lobbyists but don't themselves register as lobbyists, hires lobbyists (campaign senior advisor, deputy attorney general who was an attempt at a recess appointment), took lobbying fund from Exelon, and various other single company special interests which don't have to register as actual lobbyists.
+Drew Heyen apparently you found google after all, congratulations!

Did you happen to find the world factbook or the senate's site, or are you just going to dig for information that supports your view with no source?
There is no case for the Buffet rule.... It's ass backwards economics, and it WILL hurt middle class and low income people.
+Nick Seay based on.....based on....? Has being a conservative taught you that you can just say things, and that makes them true?
dont interfare in our matters obama !!pakistan
Based on basic economics Drew. Did your liberal collage professor teach you nothing? Fact is, the revenue the buffet rule would raise won't add any substantial amount to the budget. What it will do is take funds out of the market that would have otherwise been circulated. Since 1954 the government has gotten a steady average of 18% of GDP. That is not likely to change. SO, logic will tell you that the best way to raise revenue is to grow the GDP. How do you do that? Let people, especially people with disposable income, spend keep there own money. This is BASIC ECONOMICS Drew, not rocket science. The more money you take from these people, the less money they have to start businesses, give to charity, build things, hire people, ect.
Basic economics? You would think that would include how little of their money, the top margin re-introduces to the economy. Low taxes for the top margins do not, and have not ever helped the economy. The vast majority of the capital holdings of the top margins get put into speculative investments, which DO NOT BENEFIT ANYONE OR ANYTHING BUT SPECULATIVE INVESTORS. Speculative investing DOES make the economy unstable though. Now agreed, none of that is "BASIC ECONOMICS", you would need more than a hillbilly's understanding of economics to get any of that, so how about you shut your idiot mouth until you have that?
First of all, a hillbilly I am, and proud of it. Second, exactly how do you know what I know? We're not children, no need for name calling.

Look, the buffet rule's projected to bring $5 billion a year in revenue. (some say less, but for sake of argument.) The government in 2011, on average, spent at a rate of $10 billion a DAY. So The buffet rule's ANNUAL revenue will fund the government for about 12 hours. It will never pass the house and even if it did, it's pointless.

I don't think speculative investing is a very good idea myself, and if, in fact, it is hurting the economy, see what can be done about them. Try and find a win win solution. there is no reason to demonize these people like they have.

The democrats and republicans of our government are both either ignorant, or have an angle. They are doing nothing but cutting the heads off dandelions instead of looking for the root of the problem. Government is the root of most of our problems, not the "1%".

We need a simplified tax code, at least maybe we can agree on that.?
Um...I see no one who supports this bill demonizing anyone but the idiots against it, and THEY aren't really the ones this rule will effect. Again, taxation is one of the few "balancing" tools available in our economy, and since trickle down economics failed miserably (assuming it was ever as altruistic a plan as suggested, and not just a greed grab). If 10 billion a year is nothing, then the conservative proposed tax cuts are doubly so. Either we are trying to fix the deficit, or we aren't I am sick to death of debating with water. We are not going to fix the deficit by lowering taxes, and decreasing revenue slightly more than the brutal social program cuts they want.

The government is NOT the root problem. The root problem, this deficit issue, is a result of the state of our economy, and revenue lost from that. I really only care about two things. The only two thing anyone should care about. The economy, and income disparity. That's it. We need to trim the budget, but slowly, and AFTER the economy is fixed. We need to START with the idiotic defense budget, which bares absolutely no resemblance to the job it is designed to do.

The Buffett Rule helps (however small) with the income disparity, the budget, and the economy. It fixes something that is definitively broken, Given how broken, there is something seriously wrong with anyone who is against it.
You think that, because you have absolutely no concept of economic reality. The concept of the flaw in what you are saying is so simple, that it is found perfectly described IN THE BIBLE. That is how poor your understanding of this situation is. Writers from 2000 years ago understood it better than you do.
John, I don't see why it wouldn't work. I think it's worth looking into more.

Drew, my friend, I think we're after the same goals, just don't agree on how we get there. I ain't going to shut up, but I will agree to disagree. I try to keep an open mind man, because we as a country have some monumental problems, I'm sure we can agree on that. The only thing I refuse to do is step on peoples rights. Black, white, rich, poor, democrat, republican, I don't care. I'm a libertarian myself, and i think people have the right to keep what they earn however they make there money. Taxes have to be collected, but the less we rely on government, the better off we all will be. Individualism is at the root of American exceptionalism. We as a country are lost and confused, so we must restudy the basics so we can move forward. God bless ya Drew. Hopefully we can figure something out that works for everybody.
You know, the concept that, "not enough" - 10% is very very different than 100X"enough" - 10%, just doesn't seem all that difficult to me. In fact, I can't understand how a person could be unable to understand that concept, and yet, there you are.
Are you talking about how some people say a flat tax is harder on the poor than it is on the rich?
Yeah...some people say that. Don't they.
なに!?はおだばんちまおか。。。ははは 可愛いのぁ
Well, I'll leave it at this. One of my favorite quotes.

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'”
-Thomas Jefferson
I think the quotes you choose to use, say an awful lot about you. I'm getting your message loud and clear. Since you favor Jefferson, here's mine. It doesn't apply DIRECTLY, but the concept behind why it was said, certainly does.

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
~Thomas Jefferson

and I very much like what using that quote, says about me.
I like what this one says about me, even more.

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
~Abraham Lincoln
Shame about this one, really. Almost makes it seem like your man believed as I do.

Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor.
~Thomas Jefferson
Well said. I can't say I disagree. No person, or business is above the law. Lincoln, ( who I have a lot of respect for also.) is absolutely right, you can not have capital without labor. That, though, forces the question; How do we define labor? Why is it that people that sit at a desk all day earn more than someone who is digging a ditch? Is physical labor less valuable than mental? Who makes that decision?

As for your Jefferson quote, let me ask this. Why do large corporations and very wealthy people not pay taxes?

I want you to know, these are not loaded questions. I honestly want to hear what you think. Not so I can shoot it down, just an exercise in thought.
I can answer all of the questions, which you just asked with one word.


"Leverage" is the antithesis of "balance". It is where, how, and why, our economic system breaks down.

Many against the buffet rule and other tax "balances" for the rich keep citing "hatred of evil corporations" or "envy". With the exception of a few extremists, no one hates the rich. No on resents the wealthy. No one wants to do away with "corporations". This is about asking for fairness. For "balance". It is saying that the system has been "tweaked" in such a way as to intentionally make it fail. Leverage is what allows "wealth" to become a destructive runaway freight train. I don't think asking for westinghouse deadman brakes is too much.
I see your point, but more specifically.... Here are the conclusions I came to are:

"How do we define labor?" The sell of time and knowledge.

"Why does physical labor pay less than mental?" Market value.

"Who makes that decision?" The market.

"Why do large corporations and very wealthy people not pay taxes?"

Here is the question most applicable to the topic. I agree that leverage is part of the problem, but what gives them that leverage? Is it money? I would say yes, in part, but more importantly it is our leaders allowing themselves to be bought. The favoring of some over others. If we want to talk about "fair" we must TIGHTLY regulate , not trade, but government involvement in the market. Political favor is a market in it's self. All government incentive and disincentive in trade must go. The only answer I can come to is that the tax code must be simplified so that anyone can understand it, and anyone can spot fraud and everyone is taxed the same. There are many different ways that can be done, but it needs to be done some how. My problem with the buffet rule is it's just one more piece of paper on the stack. Even if you think it makes things more fair, it still is not addressing the root of the problem.
"it is our leaders allowing themselves to be bought."

That's where you went off the path. "Bought". What do you "Buy" with?
Yes, money, but I am not getting off the path, I am simply fallowing the path as far as it will take me. By eliminating loopholes in the tax code, everyone pays what they should, and you eliminate a lot of the incentive to seek political favors. No subsidies, no tax brakes for anyone. That will get rid of the other major incentives. Because it is transparent. It will be to obvious to try to pay a politician off.

Sorry, If I misunderstood your point, please explain. What do you suggest? My answer to your question is still the same, Yes, you "buy" with money.
As long as everyone is paying a "fair" tax, and by "fair" I mean is evidenced in the results, not the method, I am fine. What ideas like you "remove the loopholes" one, ignore, is that those loopholes serve a CRUCIAL purpose in our economy. They help and serve to stimulate it. Keep money flowing in it, and not stagnate. By the way, using the data presented, "loopholes" is slang for "standard deductions". Removing your so called "loopholes" might sort of, kind of, in a way, solve one problem, but they create a totally new one. Unacceptable. The Buffet Rule solves the problem, without creating a new one.
I think I see where we disagree now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I gather you believe the economy needs government to stimulate it and constantly involved to keep the economy moving.

I, on the other hand believe that a free market needs minimal government intervention meaning, laying and collecting reasonable taxes on interstate commerce , protection from fraud, and settling of disputes. Because the less interference, the freer things flow.
We tried your way. It's actually how we got where we are. Laissez-faire has been tried, and it has failed. We tried "Trickle down economics", that has absolutely not worked. My position is based on observation of history.
My position is based on history also. My way has not been tried in a long time man. My way would take massive reform to put the role of government back where it belongs. I'm for Ron Paul, that should be explanation enough. If you know his position, you pretty much know mine.
Oh it is. It is absolutely explanation enough. It shows your true colors crystal clear. It says that you are a Laissez-faire-ist. Plain and simple. As for your method having not been tried, it is being used right this very second, in Somalia.
+Drew Heyen I am a big fan of Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and Adam Smith. You are correct to a point. The U.S. keeps swinging back and forth between a form of Laissez-faire economics and Keynesian economics, they both have issues, but the issues with free market economics are far fewer, and much easier to solve, yes, with some minor interference, but nothing like we have now. A free market is a basic principal of capitalism. I can't understand why people want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Somalia Is still recovering from a LOT of stuff. That country has been unstable for a long time my friend. As far as I know, they are still trying to get there government going. Somalia is not much of a comparison.
No, no the issues with free market economics are absolutely not fewer, and I have 50 years of recent economic history that proves it.Not to mention the last 50 years of definitive failure, proving that (as I keep saying over and over and over and over and over) Laissez-faire DOES NOT WORK. What kind of mind can look at the last hundred years of our economic history and think "Ah, well, clearly this shows that Laissez-faire works better." That's is deluded. That is mentally ill.

Somalia is a PERFECT example. What they are recovering from, is Laissez-faire.
What kind of mind can look at the last hundred years and say the government hasn't had it's hand in the market more and more? The more they are involved the worse it gets.

I'll hear you out, show me what you have on the last 50 or 100 years.
+Drew Heyen Ok, I'll respond to these in order. History is one of my favorite subjects by the way.
and yet, somehow, you think that economic regulation by our government has been increasing over the past 50 years. You don't know much about your favorite subject.
Boy I wonder how much it costs the taxpayers to fill up the fuel tank on Airforce 1. Obama's sure like their vacations and getaways. While the rest of us suffer.
+Robert Bedo I can't decide which is worse, The unbelievable lack of context in your ignorant comments, or your insistence on sharing them.
Add a comment...