I wouldnt have anyone believe anything. I admit though that I often speak on a college educated level so I believe in peoples ability to seperate 'opinion' from 'information'. The reference to the information in the piece is absolutely credited to Klugman, as well as the Bureau of economic analysis and Robert S McIntyre.

Hopefully, those with college education understand the significance of references in any written piece and can distinguish such referenced material from the writers interpretations and opinions.

There is, as in most writing, the presence of both.

National Savings, public plus private (5)
1970 - 1979 7.7%
1988 - 1990 3.0

Private investment (5)
1970 - 1979 18.6%
1980 - 1992 17.4

In 1980, Lawrence Summers (one of the nation's top economists, and then a conservative) conducted a definitive study that found that eliminating the capital gains tax completely would raise U.S. output by only 1 percent over the next 10 years. (3)

???

So having good money being paid out to the "poor" like we have been doing is a viable solution? We have been doing that on the micro and macro scales and it has shown not to work. So the solution from the left is "give them more money" so fork over more money to the poor and there are still "poor" around. So what is the left's solution once this has not worked? "You have not tried giving them even more money". Yes this song and dance has been going around for ages nationally and internationally and always the left is so willing to relieve the productive of their labor while squandering it on the ne'er-do-wells usually to buy their vote. Well it is time to cut the umbilical cord and leave the parasites to their own accord. Sooner or later hunger or greed will drive them to choose more more productive avenues of income and the productive will be all the better for it.

The fact is the poor will always remain with us. The definition what is poverty will forever change. There will always be poor among us. But in a capitalist state that is usually a temporary state which many of us may experience. If we define poor by median income there will always be people below the medium income level. If we define poverty as being the bottom 1%, 2%, 10% what have you there will be someone in that category. If you define poverty by what someone owns or has access to in a home (well that seem to be a new trend), such as owning a Playstation, wide-screen TV, having a cell phone, having high speed internet, a home, a car or what ever else that could be thought of to qualify one to be "poor" there will be people who would qualify for these but these would not necessarily be poor. As I said there will always be a bottom 10% (or what ever number can be dreamt of). So the left will always have someone to claim as a victim of whatever oppression is in vogue at the time.

The only way to create sustained wealth is to allow the free market to make choices. As I have stated cut spending, reduce the public workforce, enact right to work legislation, cut welfare, repeal Obamacare, cut and flatten taxes, cut salaries of the public servants, cut federal benefits etc. Such a policy would make more money available for investment and job creation. If you claim that capitalists are greedy, do you think capitalists would keep money in banks??? No they invest, start business or make existing business even bigger or invest in infrastructure. A free unfettered market is an excellent at figuring as to what is required and where thus the market will decide as to where resources and capital is required.

Garbage.

Rhetoric to push the piss down economics of Reagan that didn't work then and doesn't work now still.

Nothing new and nothing constructive for this country but definitely the same crap who got us where we are.

Probably would not know crap even if you practiced coprophilia or hit you in the face because all you have shown to know can be summed up as that much perhaps even less. Perhaps that is the reason you waddle in it.

Reagan's economics worked on one side but there was no cut in spending due to the Donkeys controlling the house and senate. When money started coming in the Donkeys simply spent even more.

I always find the Reagan myth amusing. Rothbard did a marvelous job destroying the myths about Reagan (and his economics) that conservatives still like to peddle in his "Autopsy" of the Reagan regime. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html

Not to say the Keynesian "left" is correct either, of course. The militant anti-free market "left" is just as myopic and ignorant as the militarist/fascist/Keynesian Stupid Right.

??? College level???
I can understand some people can be obstinately thick to get it. The article was written by Steve Kangas. He was the sole author of the piece he submitted for publishing and makes an absolute claim to the content of the article. You want to debate thsi fact, go debate Steve Kangas - you'll get a pass on this as he died sometime ago.

Next only the following came directly from Klugman.

which say is about 25 words (so so)

Next a supposedly paraphrase of something from Klugman is supposed to be contained withing this:

Which is 41 words supposedly paraphrasing something Klugman wrote.

The article blathers on for a total of 1362 words. It is obvious Kangas is not much of a journalist or much of anything... apart from blatherer that is.
1. He does not own a domain and has to settle for some free space on a server hosting personal webpages.
2. He posted a resume hoping someone would hire his as a journalist. He presents the article you attribute to Klugman as his piece to show potential employees his skill as a journalist.
3. Steve Kangas committed suicide in the washroom of some Pittsburg newspaper after being turned down for another job as a journalist (as far as I remember - that was something like 10 years ago, my memory fails me) The reason I even remeber this much is because I have played blitz chess against Mr. Kangas back in 1993 at the MCC.

I am quite versed with Mr. Kangas. (political views)

Garbage.

Rhetoric to push the piss down economics of Reagan that didn't work then and doesn't work now still.

Nothing new and nothing constructive for this country but definitely the same crap who got us where we are.

IM glad you are versed with MR Kangas. I suppose anyone without their own domain must not be able to gather information from other legitimate sources in your opinion,, but I will let others decide how to seperate those issues themself.

Everything written in this thread is written (typed) by a mingler (a person performing the physical action to put the words on the screen), yet there is often REFERENCE from other sources from which they attained the information they write.

In any case, Im not interested in any discussion of the significance of endnotes, references, etc,,, or whether information can only be obtained by those with domains of their own

Im only putting forth information, with reference to the site, which has further reference to sources used to obtain information on the page.

The rest, as stated before, is up to the individual to research and decide for themself,, so long as they can tell the difference between opinion and FACTUAL INFORMATION,, I think most readers will do just fine.

I always find the Reagan myth amusing. Rothbard did a marvelous job destroying the myths about Reagan (and his economics) that conservatives still like to peddle in his "Autopsy" of the Reagan regime. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html

Not to say the Keynesian "left" is correct either, of course. The militant anti-free market "left" is just as myopic and ignorant as the militarist/fascist/Keynesian Stupid Right.

I always find the Reagan myth amusing. Rothbard did a marvelous job destroying the myths about Reagan (and his economics) that conservatives still like to peddle in his "Autopsy" of the Reagan regime. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html

Not to say the Keynesian "left" is correct either, of course. The militant anti-free market "left" is just as myopic and ignorant as the militarist/fascist/Keynesian Stupid Right.

Kangas was a nutter, and probably had some mental health issues. When I said I was well versed in Kangas I meant from where he came from politically. Having your domain and publishing on that domain provides one with some modicum of credibility.


Have you been smoking crack? I can write a treatise about the CIA manufacturing the moon landing in Area 51. And have each and ever line in my treatise footnoted to hell and back. Oops forgot people have done that already!!! Does that make what they say true just because of heavy footnooting and referencing? Grab your brain before it vacates your cranium and tries to make a getaway from you. Your neurons aren't firing on all cylinders or so it seems.


Any kind of stupidity can be footnoted, endnoted, added to a bibliography etc etc. However there has to be a judgement made to the crediblity of the source rather than trying to find something the conforms to one's opinion. In this case, since you found it so apt to perform a cut and past hack from a probable nutter whose nutty opinion conformed with your own, one could probably conclude the same of you.


la la la, and you actually have read Klugman's book right lol. Or do you do a wiki search?


Obviously you weren't. FACTUAL INFORMATION to you probably is some mantra provided to you by the Donkeys and B0 which you accept because it help you feel better about yourself, or whatever the case may be, your inability to differentiate between credible and non-credible sources certainly calls your credulity into question.

neither Obamacare nor the jobs bill are worht the paper they are written on so I don;t care what the opponents do as long as both are gone ..... an it's legal

nothing regarding healthcare should be mandatory for the consumer. participation in health ins. must remain a choice. the jobs bill?

The supposed savings from that bill may or may not be reinvested. it's just another pay raise for the barons

so while business lays off workers because they can't afford the provisions of Obamacare, their leaders will be buying new caddies with the savings from the jobs bill unless the reinvestment is required which as far as I know it's not and only a fool would believe that business owners will invest those supposed savings in hiring or worker salaries unless they have to

What these guys NEVER like to mention when they invoke St. Ronald is that he tripled the national debt while GWB doubled it. Even GWB's father called Reagonomics 'Voodoo economics'.


That's the funny thing about uber conservatism-- it tries to bring back the days that never were.


-Kerry O.

ah sweety,,,condescention and assumption are not good qualities on anyone,, just some advise.

I wont go on making inane assumptions about you as I dont know you, but I will stick to what my point was in the first place.

in response to your usual condescending type of response
'Have you been smoking crack? I can write a treatise about the CIA manufacturing the moon landing in Area 51. And have each and ever line in my treatise footnoted to hell and back. Oops forgot people have done that already!!! Does that make what they say true just because of heavy footnooting and referencing? Grab your brain before it vacates your cranium and tries to make a getaway from you. Your neurons aren't firing on all cylinders or so it seems. '

no, I dont smoke crack, weed, or any other of those drugs , I dont even drink wine or smoke cigarettes,, so now that we have that stereotyping out of the way,, lets deal with the next

My brain works quite well, in fact, went to the mensa sight myself and took the sample test, got all questions right,, I have also been in the gifted and talented program throughout my entire pre college educational journey, so please dont assume that reading and absorbing alot of things on topics that interest you makes me less intellectually compatible, as opposed to just not as interested

The SOURCE of the information I gave was no one person. That is why referencing and footnoting and endnoting are requirements in serious writing. THe same way credits are requirements in music, because if it didnt come 'from the source' the source has an obligation to point others to where it did come from,, in this case information in the piece was referenced from three other sources. Meaning, three other sources AS Well as krugman are responsible for what the reader is consuming.

louts and barbarians? really,? by what standard?


In america, nothing is free. those 'ner do wells' consist of a majority of 'working' poor, who are helping the rich keep their riches


and in america, 'the system doesnt (yet) toss people aside who fall upon hard times but have otherwise done all the 'required' things like pay taxes, get educated, and work the MAJORITY of their life for 'the system'

Beg to differ... with both.

Not louts and barbarians simply Americans with a diferent opinion.

Yet neither are they 'working poor'...

Most (from news I've seen) have degrees or are pursuing such.

Working poor have not these things. (they work to survive)

condescend (definition 2) miriam webster
to assume an air of superiority

'are you smoking crack', 'quick, grab your brain'

both can be 'construed' as condescending, unless one assumes that they are meant to compliment or imply some unified experience,,,,

and anyone can CLAIM anything on the net, but apparently not everyone can seperate why people should believe THEIR claims even though they wish to dismiss the claims of others,,,

not that I care what people believe of me, as those ad hominem contributions are as common in informal writing as opinions are in formal writing,,,,I give people credit for having the ability to tell the difference between whats relevant with whats personal

as my elders say,

opinions are like behinds, everyone has one

and when I read an article, book, commentary,, I am careful to seperate what is opinion from what is information and , when interested, I will further look into the INFORMATION provided (facts, statistics, historical accounts, quotes,, etc) by going to the references provided for them.