A COUNTRY'S ECONOMY IS FUNDAMENTALLY FUELED AND BASED ON ITS OWN ABUNDANCE OF RESOURCES - NOT CURRENCY OR DEBT!!!
Civilizations exist due to some degree of order. If there is no order, there is no agreement between humans and you have chaos. If you have chaos you have no law. If you have no order, no law and chaos exists, there is no possibility for a government to be established to provide and Regulate Order and Law for the benefit of humans that co-exist in the same location. If there is no Government, then you by logical deduction cannot have Civilization. If there is no Civilization and no form of agreeable Government; I maintain it is impossible to achieve a sustainable economy for the masses.
· Ensure Domestic Security and Safety
· Ensure Domestic Economic Stability
· Protect the Rights of its Citizens
· Ensure its Citizens have Equal Opportunities
· Promote Freedom, Democracy, Capitalism and Free Markets
YOUR DEBT, MY DEBT, CORPORATIONS DEBT AND GOVERNMENT'S DEBT
If you believe that Resources are the backbone of any economy then whoever or whatever controls those Resources has power to establish, develop, create, maintain, grow, stimulate, or advance economic growth.
NATIONAL ECONOMIC SECURITY VERSUS CORPORATE SECURITY
Corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE though they are run by people. A Corporation's priority is not to care about its employees but to MAKE A PROFIT. A Corporation computes its Economic Security based on its ability to continue to make a Profit.
It is NOT a Corporation's responsibility to ensure worker rights, worker opportunities, equal pay, safe work environment, etc and if they are not regulated; they will not provide any of those things for its workers. If allowed, a Corporation will work its employees to death with as little compensation as possible and as few benefits as possible. That is a fact. Just go back and review the history of the USA when there were few laws or Corporate Regulations early in the 1900s and how Corporations treated its employees. Look around the world today in other Countries and see how Corporations and Companies treat their employees where there is little to no Regulations on them by their Governments.
We (People) established a Government to give it power to Regulate Corporations and Companies and we put our trust in the Government to effectively Regulate Corporations to ensure the people are not abused, treated fairly, have worker rights, opportunities, equal pay, safe work environment , etc. That is one of the purposes of the US Government. We the People must trust our Government to Regulate Corporations for the benefit of everyone and we should encourage those Regulations upon Corporations.
There is no logical reason for anyone to believe generally that De-Regulation is good for the economy or good for the People of the USA. For anyone to put in your mind the idea that somehow the Government is going to take over your life because they are over Regulating Corporations or that Government Corporate Regulations is the reason for a depression or recession is propaganda and none sense. If there are legitament good reasons for de-regulating Corporations; that legislation should be carefully considered. The point to be made here is that we have Republican Law Makers today, their leaders (GOP) and Mitt Romney trying to brainwash the American people and put fear in our minds that Corporations need to be regulated less, the Government should not Regulate them at all, telling us we need to give Corporations more tax breaks and more power, and allow them to create more Monopolies and send more jobs overseas.
It is logical for a Corporation to want less Regulations and it is logical for a Corporation to try and influence Law Makers to sell you on the idea that less Regulation on Corporations is good for you and me and the economy. You should think it through carefully. When a Law Maker tells you he wants to Regulate Corporations; he/she is standing up for your rights, security, best interest and trying to protect you and me from an entity that does not care one bit about you or me.
If a Law Maker tells you that we need to De-Regulate Corporations so they will hire you and add jobs to the economy, you should ask yourself why has there not been more jobs created in the United States in the last 5 years with the stock market doing as well as it has and is currently? Where are jobs at or going? How about overseas? How about Profit to Boards of Directors? Why would you believe that just because fewer Regulations are in place; that would cause more jobs to be created or created in the USA?
De-Regulation does not create jobs or improve working conditions or provide greater security or benefits to Americans. In fact it is the opposite. The more you De-Regulate Corporations, the more power they get, the more profit they make, the more they will monopolize and choke out competition in the Market Place, and the less they will do for its employees.
A Corporation will do what it is regulated to do and it will provide benefits based on what it is regulated to provide for its employees and it will pay wages based on either what it is regulated to pay at a Minimum Wage or pay wages based on Market Rates due to competition within the Free Market.
So if you De-Regulate, Corporations will monopolize further to choke out competition and thus make it easier for them to reduce your wages further. Get the picture folks?
Fact is that a Corporation will pay its employees as little as it can to make as much profit as it can for its Board of Directors, providing the least amount of compensation possible to its employees. Hence if a Corporation can set up manufacturing and production in a foreign country to pay less wages and provide fewer benefits in order to make a larger profit; it will do so at the expense of livelihoods of people in its own domestic country.
So if a US Corporation can manufacture and produce goods and services abroad for less costs and then in turn sell those goods and services abroad for as much or more profit as it cost to export those goods and services back to the USA to make a profit; why would they manufacture and produce those goods and services domestically here in the USA or export those goods and services back to the USA to sell? They won't unless they are Regulated to keep that manufacturing base and jobs in the USA.
Again, we established and support a US Government to protect Americans from allowing Corporations to have too much power and control and to ensure its people are treated fairly.
One of the purposes of the US Government is to ensure fair export and import trade laws between Countries and to Regulate Corporations and Companies with respect to restricting the setting up of too much manufacturing and production overseas and restrict the sending of to many American jobs overseas. We need to ask ourselves, what Law Makers in our Government are for De-Regulating Corporations and giving Corporations free will to send manufacturing and jobs overseas without ANY consideration for what it has done and is currently doing to our economy here in the USA? It is Republicans (GOP) and Mitt Romney.
There are many people that are afraid, worry or concerned with the "Size" of the US Government and consider the "Size" of the Government a serious problem and believe that is a main problem with the current state of the economy or has something to do with the current recession and we must make it a major priority to shrink the size of the Government without any consideration for its implications or consequences in order to revive the Economy.
I will make the case that this is a complete distortion of the truth, propaganda and completely mis-leading the American people and is absolutely NOT the MAIN problem with our economy rebounding faster. I will now make the case that monopolization of Corporations is a major problems and priority over the size of the Government. I will agree however that we do need to carefully, slowly and methodically reduce the size of the US Government.
For instance, why are we not hearing about the "Size" of Corporations? What about that? What about "Monopolization" of Corporations? Where is the discussion about that? I will discuss the size of the US Government later below.
Let me first give you this much to think about. During World War II (WW II) how much of the working population worked directly for the US Government and what percent of jobs were created due to initiatives by the US Government directly or indirectly? What does that say about the expansion of the US Government during that time period and its effect upon the economy? Was it the Peoples Trust in the Government or was it the Peoples Trust in Corporations that brought us out of the depression? Please go to http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII to read a good example of what actually happened.
Law Makers who say that the US Government has never created a job either knows nothing about the history of this country or what happened during WW II or I must conclude they must simply be completely bought off by Corporations.
We hear a lot of debate regarding don't tax corporations more but instead reduce taxes on Corporations and wealthy because they are the JOB CREATORS. We hear the argument the reason Corporations don't hire is because the Government is Over Regulating and Over Taxing Corporations. We hear the argument that the Government is unfairly going after Corporations and thus restricting Free Market Enterprise and weakening Capitalism and that Free Market Enterprise is based solely on Corporate Freedom and less taxation and that we should put our faith in "Corporate America" and don't trust the US Government. We are told that the US Government is wasteful and Department of Defense (DOD) is to a large degree wasteful and that the US Government has never created a job and neither has the Department of Defense (DOD.
We hear a lot about how bad Unions are and that they are destroying Free Market Enterprise and Capitalism and that we need to get rid of all Unions. We hear the argument that all social programs such as Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, and unemployment benefits are bad and wasteful and are anti-Capitalism and Anti-American. We hear that the Department of Education is too large and needs to be reduced or completely done away with. We hear that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needs to done away with.
FACT: It is a FACT that the disparity (GAP) between the Wealthy and the poor in America is greater today than ever before. If you do not believe that then you should have never read any of this.
What causes this GAP? I will argue that CORPORATE MONOPOLIZATION is one of the major causes of this GAP. In addition I conclude that Corporate greed feeds this gap.
Corporate Monopolization is where a Corporation becomes so large that it controls a segment of the economy or major economic product or service to the point that no other Company or Corporation can compete for selling, promoting or making a profit off that service or product.
We look at Financial Corporations and Banks and Insurance Companies as examples. These Corporations are so large and control so much of the Gross National Product (GNP) of the USA that competition is almost non-existent to a large degree.
Let's take a look at the Federal Reserve. Who sits on the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve? It is the CEO of the largest Banks in the World. The Federal Reserve is a Corporation. How is it that CEOs of Banks are in control of our Federal Reserve? We look at the melt down of the Economy at the end of 2007 and must recognize that the largest mortgage companies and insurance companies backing these mortgages caused the crisis. THEY ARE ALL MONOPOLISTIC CORPORATIONS THAT CONTROL TOO MUCH OF THE GNP.
In other words, the US Government should force them to break up into multiple separate smaller Companies to promote COMPETITION in the work place and to ensure that if they FAIL, THEY WILL NOT HARM THE ECONOMY. I will argue that breaking up monopolistic Corporations should be a much more important priority than downsizing the Government. I do however agree we should also address the size of Government very slowly and carefully. I will explain this below.
That requires Government OVERSIGHT, Government REGULATIONS and Government POWER to restrict Corporations from becoming TO BIG TO FAIL.
Ask yourself this question? Who in Government refuses to break up these Corporate Monopolies but instead encourages Corporate Monopolization and refuses to impose Regulations on them for that purpose? It is obvious that the answer is Republican Law Makers (GOP). Who supports the continual monopolization of Corporations? Mitt Romney.
Capitalism and Free Market Enterprise does NOT work in a Monopolistic Corporate Environment. Corporations will monopolize at will if given the opportunity to make more profit. Everybody knows that for Capitalism and Free Markets to work effectively, there must be COMPETITION. As competition is reduced due to Monopolies; the economic stability of the country decreases and Corporations gain more control and power thus causing a greater gap between the rich and the poor.
The fewer the number of Corporations that control more wealth in this country the greater the degradation of the middle class and more people become poor. Thus this increases the wealth of the rich and gives them power to take control of smaller companies and corporations and put them out of business. THIS IS THE RESULT OF DE-REGULATIONS.
The size of Corporations is far more of a concern than the size of the US Government. Those that argue a problem with the size of the Government and ignore monopolization of Corporations and want to advocate for De-Regulation of Corporations further are in effect either in bed with Corporations and bought off by Corporations or I assume they must believe in a communistic form of government or simply don't care what happens to our way of life.
You need to think about this folks. We are in the crossroad of where we want this country to go. Do you believe it is the Governments role to look after our best interest for the whole of the country or Corporations? Do you believe Corporations should regulate themselves or do you believe our Government should Regulate Corporations? Do you believe Corporations have your best interest in mind or the Government?
The Government is not perfect but we established the Government and we have a Constitution that our Government must follow to protect our Rights and Freedoms. That is why we established the Government in the first place. Does a Corporation have a Constitution to protect you from corporate power over you? NO. We can vote Law Makers out of office. YES. Can you vote Board of Directors out of a Corporation as an employee of that Corporation. NO
But you are being told and made to believe that is what the Government is doing to us right? If a Law Maker is bought off by Corporations and willing to sacrifice the good of the people to serve corporate interest; then it is logical for a Law Maker to push these ideas and try to convince you these ideas are good for the American people. So take a hard look at who in Congress is pushing these policies and aggressively trying to convince and scare you into believing these ideas and policies are good for the American people.
The US Government during those years expanded its authority to direct Corporations in building military hardware, took control of Corporations or ordered Corporations to support the war effort, took control of the railroads, told the airline industry to make fighters and bombers, told the auto industry to build military vehicles (there were no commercial cars made during WW II) and invested heavily in infrastructure. This massive GOVERNMENT SPENDING effort lifted the United States out of the depression. By the end of WW II, the DEFICIT was completely eliminated and unemployment was at an all-time low. There was plenty of money (Taxes) to pay for operation of the US Government. Let's be clear. It was the US Government that controlled and directed the creation of these jobs or created most of those jobs and not private industry.
So question? What happened to all that Federal Debt that accumulated prior to WW II and during WW II? Nothing happened to it. It was never paid back to the Federal Reserve and it DID NOT MATTER. Once the DEFICIT was erased due to hardly no unemployment; it was inconsequential and did not matter.
Think this through carefully. Remember we talked about RESOURCES and what generates an economy. If the US Government by virtue of its power has Eminent Domain over all Resources in this country; it stands to reason the Government cannot impose a Debt upon itself to that which it inherently owns and controls and has power to use and distribute.
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON AND THE FEDERAL DEBT AND DEFICIT
In the 1990s President Bill Clinton through a balanced approach of tax increases on the wealthy, careful spending cuts within the Government and Department of Defense and investing in infrastructure spending erased the Deficit. His administration through cooperation with Congress (Republicans and Democrats) was able to create enough jobs and reduce the unemployment in this country to where there was more taxes being paid by the collective collaboration of working people than taxes needed to operate the Government. Question? After the Deficit was overcome, did anybody care about the Federal Debt that existed prior to that time? NO. Did it matter? NO.
Let's discuss Government spending and Resources again. It is the US Government's responsibility to utilize the Resources of this country, manage and regulate those Resources and ensure fair and equitable distribution of those Resources for the benefit of all Americans to have opportunities to live and prosper. When the country's economy gets out of balance as it is today; it is the Government's responsibility to initiate policy and laws to bring the economy back into balance.
The fundamental of Capitalism and Free Market Enterprise to have a balanced economy rest in fair competition and ensuring that THE MAJORITY OF WEALTH IS NOT CONTROLLED BY A SMALL PERCENT OF PEOPLE OR SMALL NUMBERS OF PEOPLE RUNNING MONOPOLISTIC CORPORATIONS.
Today our economy is out of balance and everyone knows that. We have a huge problem where the majority of wealth in this country is owned and controlled by about 1% of the people.
That is NOT A size of Government problem. When you look back at what happened during WW II you must recognize that the US Government did what it was designed and needed to do. It is the Government's role and responsibility to use the Resources, authority and power it has to create more competition in the workplace and grow the economy.
That requires spending currency since that is the medium upon which the people have agreed to use for transacting exchange of products and services.
The question is; does the Government spending currency or distributing currency matter? If there is an abundance of resources the answer is NO.
Does the size of Government matter at all? The answer is YES. If the only employer in the country was the Government then there would be no competition and Free Markets would not exist. But the same is true for Corporations. If there was only 1 Corporation and everybody worked for it, then obviously there would be no competition in the workplace and Free Markets would not exist.
Can the Government start a project, build a product, establish a service, or take control of a Corporation and then later turn it over to private industry? Yes and that is exactly what the Government has done numerous times in history. We look recently at the Government taking control of General Motors. Did they keep control? No. Did the Government utilize resources to assist in recovering General Motors and the Auto Industry? Yes. Was it a success? Yes. Did the Government perform similar functions during WW II? Yes. Was it successful? Yes.
Today we hear about turning all Health Care over to the private sector, all retirement programs over to the private sector and turning social security over to the private sector. The Republican GOP and Mitt Romney wants to do this and has been trying for many years. I will argue that social programs and social services designed to help the middle class, the poor and advance National Security Interests for this nation such as Education, Environmental Protection, etc should never be completely turned over to private industry and Corporations to be left to the whims of Financial Markets.
However, I will argue that in many cases, the Government can perform research, develop and innovate specific technologies and products and services in cooperation with private industry and colleges and university that should be, can and commonly are transferred to private industry that creates more competition in the Market Place.
Why not transfer Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and all Health Care completely to the private sector and let the Corporations and Financial Markets control their functions and benefits for the American people? Wouldn't that create more competition in the Market Place and foster Free Market Enterprise? Maybe but most likely not. Because Corporations, Financial Markets and Private Industries are not designed to care about humans or human interests and these services would most likely be monopolized quickly and be subject to Financial Market Risks.
Corporations are designed to only care about profit for their Boards of Directors. It's like this. You take away completely the Government controls out of these programs and turn them over to Corporate controls and the whims of the Stock Market and Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies; these programs will be only about profit and nothing about ensuring retirement for people or decent health care for people and they will take financial risks with these programs in order to compete and if the programs financially fail, they will simply bankrupt them just like Bain Capital and Mitt Romney does all the time with companies, walk away with millions of dollars and leave it up to the Government to salvage what is left of these programs for the people.
The danger of these types of programs being turned completely over to private sector control is that A LARGE MAJORITY of the population need them and depend on them for survival. When a Republican Law Maker was asked during the GOP campaign this year (2012) about his desire to get rid of these programs for the poor and middle class and what the poor and middle class should do in the event they have no health insurance or retirement benefits, he responded by shrugging his shoulders and implied if they were to die that would be ok. Basically it was go to your church and relatives for help. Well folks, the church and the relatives are also poor and middle class and they are all in the same boat. I am sure that 99.9 % of the people of the USA would prefer that we didn't need any social programs but guess what? 99 % of the people are middle class or poor and the poor is the majority now and growing.
Regarding Social Security, if we allow Social Security to be played on the Stock Market, take a look at the risk in that and you decide. If you’re rich and wealthy maybe you have little to lose but if you’re not then you should think twice about it. The Republican GOP is on a mission to privatize social security and allow Corporations and the Financial Markets to decide if you have a retirement or not. Now again that is great for Corporations and the wealthy and if they decide to liquidate your retirement and walk away with millions or hundreds of millions of dollars by investing in private equity like Bain Capital and you lose it all; what are you going to do for retirement after that? You want to trust the Republican GOP and their corporate interest with your retirement? I suggest you take a hard look at these Law Makers and Mitt Romney specifically because Mitt Romney is 100 % for doing this to your retirement benefits. On the other hand, President Obama is TRYING TO PROTECT YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY!!
Let's look at Health Care and Medicaid and Medicare. We all agree that the cost of these programs is a problem and the cost needs to come down. President Obama has passed Health Care Reform that we all know is being decided by the Supreme Court. We know that for at least 30 years just about every President Administration has been trying to reform Health Care due to its high costs. We all know that the Pharmaceutical Industry are Corporations and have a great deal of power influencing Law Makers and since they are Corporations only care about Profit for their Board of Directors. Same is true of Insurance Companies. I won't discuss the Federal Drug Administration but we can deduct that the people that work and control the FDA are also lobbied and influenced by the Pharmaceutical Corporations and Insurance Companies. So the Pharmaceutical and Insurance Corporations are about profit, less competition and monopolization and not about better health care or human interests.
The intent of Health Care Reform is to create more competition with Health Providers (Corporations) while maintaining an appropriate level of Government control in order to bring down the costs. By creating more competition, this will drive the costs down.
I will argue that is exactly what President Obama is trying to accomplish. We see where the Republican GOP and Mitt Romney are lining up on the side of trying to prevent Health Care Reform and lobbying the American people against it and have nothing good to say about it. Logically speaking who do you believe the Republican GOP is more interested in? The best interest of the people or the Corporations? I am not going to debate this further in this article because it is obvious that the Republican GOP cares more about corporate interest instead of what is good or best for the American people. We have a President who cares about the people. We need to re-elect him and give back his administration a democratic majority in the Senate and House of Representatives.
Today we have a very large Government with a lot of programs and the debate go on as to what programs we should keep and which ones we should get rid of or restructure. Many will say it is socialism and communism for the Government to be so involved in our lives and providing programs for the poor, or feel like the Department of Defense is to large, etc. We will look closer at this.
Presently my understanding is the annual operating costs of the US Government is somewhere around 3.5 Trillion yearly and of course we have a tax problem with meeting those obligations each year and a calculated definition of a Federal Debt which is rising due to the Government needing to take more money out of the Federal Reserve to cover those operating costs.
Let's assume for a moment that I am right that the use of currency by the Government from the Federal Reserve is not an issue since we have plenty of Resources at our disposal. The real issue then is unemployment since we don't have enough tax base to cover the operational costs of the Government yearly. So now it comes down to how much People Resources does the United States have? Let's assume the yearly operation costs is 4 Trillion Dollars. Let's assume the United States has the capacity to employ 200 million people. That equates to about $20,000 a year in taxes per worker if everybody made the exact same amount of income each year and paid the exact same amount of taxes. What this tell us is that we need to address the unemployment problem in this country, make sure that the WEALTHY and CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES and we need to create more competition in the workplace. Cost is a measure of what a Resource: product or service is valued at and value is arbitrary and can rise and fall based on market conditions.
Consider this. The expansion of Government spending is to a large degree determined by corporate greed and monopolization and reduction in competition in the workplace and disparity of wealth where fewer people have a disproportionately greater amount of wealth than the masses. I am going to try and prove that to you.
Programs are of necessity created to help the poor. For our example, 90 people out of 100 have to budget their money, live within their means, plan for helping their kids go to college, pay for Health Care, and plan for a retirement.
The Government has to create social security and other social programs because the Government knows full well the Corporations cannot be depended on to provide for the 90 people that are poor or middle class. The poor who must exist must have help and the Government by necessity steps in to set up Programs; so taxes are levied to help them. So in effect the Government grows thus requiring a larger tax base. If the 10 wealthy people are paying a less percentage of taxes than the middle class, then that puts an even greater burden on the 15 middle class people and could threaten to put them in poverty.
Point is this. The Government will grow out of shear reduction in the middle class to poverty because it has too in order to keep civilized stability. Now that is one example.
We see today where on average Corporations pay less taxes than middle class Americans. We see that Oil Companies receive tax subsidies. We see that Corporations have unfair advantage within the tax system and we see the Republican GOP and Mitt Romney wanting to continue this rape of the American people.
Look, when some person controls billions of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars for their personal use; I have a problem with that and so should you. Especially when the masses are suffering and in poverty and can't afford to send their kids to college, can't afford health insurance or save any money for retirement.
People controlling ungodly amounts of personal wealth for their personal use is wrong on every level. IT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CORRECT THESE UNFAIR FACTORS IN OUR SOCIETY!! So you want to blame the Government for its size? I say you need to look very closely at the specific Law Makers that want to tell you in the name of Capitalism and Free Market Enterprise it is ok for a minority of people to control the majority of wealth in this country and tell you to trust Corporations to take care of you.
It is the Governments responsibility to ensure fair competition in the Market Place and Regulate so that WEALTH IS NOT DISPROPORTIONATELY DISTRIBUTED!! Our current economic problems force a necessity of the Government to be as big as it is.
If the middle class was growing or allowed to grow and people are able to get good paying jobs; then less people would need assistance from the Government and the Government Programs would naturally decrease and the size of the Government would naturally decrease as well. Additionally if more jobs are created through investing in infrastructure, more competition in the work place is increased, more business can compete and monopolization would decrease.
Let's talk about Socialism. We hear all this debate about Medicaid, Medicare, and social security. What about for example the Oil Companies getting tax breaks from the Government, Corporations paying little to no taxes, and Corporate Monopolies. Are they not welfare recipients? I will argue that Corporate Monopolization, Corporate manipulation of the financial markets, corporate influence in our Government and De-Regulation of Corporations has created the disparity of wealth in this country reducing the middle class and increasing poverty in this country; thus forcing the Government to grow to where it is today.
Socialism has many definitions. Generally it means an organization of production that directly satisfies economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit.
A civilized society by definition is a society of social interactions and groups in one form or another. Collaboration of human interests for the benefit of all in a collaborative group is natural. Free Market Enterprise and Capitalism for profit is considered by many contrary, opposite and opposed to socialism in terms of how an economy is supposed to work.
However, we see the art of socialistic systems within Capitalism and Free Markets working all the time. You get to pick which ones you think are fair and which ones are not. I argue that both socialistic systems and non-socialistic systems are an important part of a stable economic structure but just like Corporations, they must be regulated by the Government. If you had a perfect system where everybody was doing well and making sufficient income and profit that equated to a decent standard of living for all with robust competition, no monopolies and adequate Regulations; then by natural consequences there would be no need for socialist systems within an economic structure. That is not the case and far from it.
I will argue that Corporations socially collaborating together to use their power and influence to persuade Law Makers to adopt policy and laws to give them unfair advantages within the Market Place and succeeding, is a socialistic agenda and system. Maybe you call that fair competition but how much money do you personally have to compete with Corporate Power or how much money does the poor have to compete with them? Get the picture? Corporations have untold amounts of money to obtain unfair advantages and the only weapon the people have against that is our vote to determine who these Law Makers are that are bought off by Corporate lobbyist and to vote them out of office.
It should be interesting to note here how the Republican GOP and Republican Law Makers are on a mission now to make it harder for the average American to vote. Why is that? Why all of a sudden are they pushing to make it harder for people to VOTE? Now you can see this for what it is or you can bury your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge what is really going on in this country.
Let's look at this closely. We are told by the Republicans (GOP) that the Government must get rid of Social Security or make it (Private) or in other words, turn it over to Corporations and the whims of the Financial Markets. Let's see how that works. Take a look at Mitt Romney's track record with Bain Capital Private Equity and see how the Federal Government had to bail out pension plans for people that lost their jobs due to Bain and Mitt Romney overloading Companies with Debt and sending the Companies into Bankruptcy and walking away with millions of dollars into the pockets of the Board of Directors i.e. Mitt Romney.
The GOP wants to get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, turn Health Care over to Private Industry, get rid of all Unions and take away all Worker's Rights, stop all unemployment benefits, etc.
We see the GOP has through obstruction forced teachers, police, firemen, etc out of work that had to be laid off due to cutbacks in Government Spending. They are trying to kill the Unions in this Country and fighting in every state they can to take away all Worker's Rights and giver further tax breaks to the wealthy and Corporations. How is that supposed to fix the economic problems? Answer? IT CAN'T.
It makes the problems worse but it does accomplish one thing. It gives Corporations more power and control over our lives and it puts more people in poverty, reduces the middle class and increases the disparity of wealth in this country and creates more Corporate Monopolization.
What happens to these people that lose their jobs by force with nowhere to go and can't obtain new employment? They either go on Welfare and Unemployment or have nothing to live on to support their families. Their credit gets ruined, their families suffer and the Federal Defict and Debt goes higher.
Why does the Federal Debt go higher? Because most of them will most likely receive unemployment and welfare and they WILL BE NOW PAYING LESS TAXES or no taxes. It compounds the economic problems. It does not do ANYTHING TO MAKE THE ECONOMY BETTER!! It further destabilizes the economy reducing the middle class further and increases poverty. You tell me how that reduces the Federal Debt? IT DOESN'T REDUCE THE FEDERAL DEBT AT ALL!!!
We see the Republican GOP trying to convince us the size of Government is the main problem with the economy and we need to get rid of the Department of Education, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We see the Republican GOP obstructing Health Care Reform, and taxation on the wealthy, etc. They tell you that all social programs are too big and cost too much and of no value to the American people.
Social Programs. The big bad word to many Americans and they go up in arms declaring the Government is taking over and turning us into a dictatorship and communistic country and putting everybody in poverty.
We should examine this carefully folks. If 1% of the population is controlling 99% of the Wealth in this country what actions does that automatically require of a democratic style Government in order to keep the country stable? Think about that?
Let's suppose we say it is ok to have 1% of the people controlling 99% of the wealth and the Government has NO Social Programs at all for the rest of the population. Is that acceptable? Is it? Because that is exactly what the Republican GOP wants you to believe and that is their agenda folks and that is what they are pursuing.
Let's break this down. So we leave the status quo and deregulate Corporations completely, take away all Government Social Programs and we leave the 99% of people at the mercy of Corporate America and what the GOP calls Free Market Enterprise and Capitalism. What is going to happen?
Now there is no unemployment benefits at all because the GOP has made it clear they want to stop all unemployment benefits, there is no health care at all for the poor and senior citizens, and there is no social security for anyone.
There is no department of education and no Environmental Protection Agency, etc. So the masses now are dying on the street. Remember NO Government Social Programs because you believe that is communistic and not right or good for people. People must in your opinion tighten their belts and find a job. Where are they supposed to find a job with so many people out of work and what about wages?
There are no more Unions since all regulations on corporations is now gone. So wages now have plummeted. People are now begging for food everywhere and starving and dying. Oh disease is rampant because of massive pollution in the water and air.
Oh but wait; Corporations are going to save the day right? Wrong.
Remember each corporate entity is designed only to consider its needs for its Board of Directors and profit. So the US is going to hell and the Corporations simply move their Corporate Operations overseas.
So now massive demonstrations everywhere in America but hey this is democracy, Free Market Enterprise and Capitalism at work here. You are saying oh this won't happen here and this is ridiculous. You look at the Stock Market and look at how much MONEY Corporate CEOs are making. Their profits have rose over 6% this year on average but look at the unemployment rate in this country and how slow it is recovering. They are sitting on all that CAPITAL (MONEY), yet why are they not creating more jobs? Because they don't have to and when they do; they are sending most of those jobs overseas. The Republican GOP has successfully deregulated them over the years to the point they can do pretty much whatever they want. The Republican GOP have blocked most all legislation to fix these problems initiated by the Obama Administration.
The Government has a responsibility to ensure people have a chance at prosperity and a minimum acceptable standard of living. That is what Government Social Programs are all about. If we didn't have any, you need to seriously consider what the impact would be to the National Security of the nation.
We discussed above that in order to have an economy you have to be able to tap into the Resources you have and we discussed in order to accomplish that; you have to have education, innovation and technology. A country's viability and security is also measured by the knowledge, technical capabilities and ability to innovate. That requires education, investment in education and research and ensuring the people can compete intellectually.
If you want to bring a country to its knees over time; you do that by degrading its education system to the point that people are ignorant and unable to compete intellectually. This in turn degrades that nation’s ability to innovate and compete for new technologies thus in turn reduces the nation's capacity to effectively utilize its Resources: People, etc. How does a country utilize people that do not have the education and knowledge to compete? YOU CAN'T. Remember that people are also critical Resources.
It is the US Government's responsibility to ensure the National Security of our country and ensuring that we INVEST in education, technology and research and make education affordable for ALL AMERICANS, and that is part of our National Security Interest.
Advocating getting rid of the Department of Education is not only Anti-American, it is also in my opinion pro-communism and in my opinion cannot be interpreted as anything else. Mitt Romney and the GOP have declared their desire to GET RID OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and make it harder for Students to get Student Loans and want to double the interest rates on Student Loans. Why? They want to privatize the education system thus turn it over to the control of each state and Corporations.
Where would investments come for new research and development of new technologies and innovations and who or what would guarantee there would be any research for them? What would guarantee we would have sufficient efforts to educate our children in each state effectively? How would students afford to go to college?
Why would you or anyone support that? Why would any Law Maker support that? Because once again they must be bought off by Corporations.
Having a Federal Department of Education is vital to the National Security Interest of the United States folks and getting rid of that is a threat to our Freedom and way of life.
It is the US Government’s responsibility to Regulate and ensure we have the highest standards of education in the world and that is one of the reasons we elect Law Makers to protect education for the American People. NOT DESTROY IT or turn control of education completely over to the States and Corporations.
We see where the Republican GOP want to get rid of the Department of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and want you to believe the EPA is an obstructionist for promoting energy growth in this country. Let's look at that carefully.
It is obvious from history that the US Government has had a policy of using other country's Resources where possible instead of our own. For instance Oil and Precious Metals. We have had a policy for many years to use Middle East oil for the most part instead of our own and to use China's precious minerals where possible instead of mining for them here. It is a strategic goal of any country or should be to use other country's resources to the maximum extent possible to preserve its own. Hence again we see we have the largest military in the world to ensure our national interest and ability to protect those interests and Resources.
The protection of Resources issue is now an Achilles heel for the US. We see that foreign countries are able and been able to use oil money to build up their militaries to try and compete for control of Resources and Technologies such as Nuclear Technology. We also see that with Global Warming there is a need to consider the Environmental effect of carbon in our atmosphere.
Regardless of your side in this; the fact is Environmental Protection is of National Security Interest for our country. It is the US Government's responsibility to ensure we have safe water to drink, that our rivers, lakes, etc are not polluted, that Corporations are regulated so they do not pollute our land and expose our people to dangerous chemicals, etc.
Do you think if there are no Environmental Regulations on Corporations they will care if they destroy our environment or kill us in the process of making a profit? The Republican GOP have tried to propaganda the American people regarding President Obama's rejection of the Keystone Pipeline that is planned to be built that will run from Canada to Texas. The President has initially rejected it on the basis of Law Makers refusing to impose adequate Environmental Protections and the GOP wanting to further de-regulate Environmental Protection Laws. Yet President Obama has increased US Oil drilling permits and the US is now producing more oil than ever before. It is the President's job to ensure the SAFETY OF EVERYONE regardless of politics. This is another example of the President doing what is right for the people at the expense of political gain. Let's also be clear that President Obama would love to approve the Keystone project if the Republican Law Makers would not interject into the legislation bills demanding further illimination of existing appropriate Environmental Regulations that are in place to ensure the safety of our environment and people.
What is concerning is that the Republican GOP wants to undermine fundamental Environmental Protections for the American people through de-regulations to make more profits for Corporations at the expense of the health and wellbeing of the American people. You need to think carefully about that.
When you look at this for face value; it is clear that the Republican GOP will do anything to protect the Oil Companies and enhance Oil Company profits at the expense of the American people. They block forcing them to pay their fair share of taxes telling us that it will hurt the creation of jobs and continue to block legislation to stop them from receiving hundreds of millions of additional dollars in welfare subsidy money from the Government each year.
The Republican GOP is on a mission to destroy all Unions and Worker Rights in this country. We have discussed competition is required for Capitalism and Free Market Enterprise to work. Competition is not just lots of companies but it is also about opposition, negotiation and compromise between companies and
Corporations naturally want all Unions to go away and all worker rights gone. We have discussed what Corporations do when they are not regulated and have too much power. Some argue that Unions destroy Capitalism and are degrading to the Free Market System.
Unions play a vital role in the structure of our economy to ensure democracy works. Unions provide a framework for allowing employees to negotiate, oppose and compromise for benefits and worker rights. This is a form of competition in the Market Place and healthy for the economy.
If you believe that giving all power to Corporations is the way to go, I encourage you to review the history of how Corporations have treated employees when they have had no Regulations, no Unions, and didn't have to provide any rights to its employees.
So why would Law Makers support the demise of Unions? Again the only answer I can think of is they are bought off by Corporations to the point they don't care about the American people. Once the Unions are gone, Corporations would have free will to lay off employees at will.
You look at the thousands of teachers, police officers, firemen, etc that have lost their jobs and their retirement over the last couple of years since the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives and State Governments. Now they tell you this is necessary in order to bring down the Debt. So again, all these middle class workers now are unemployed and many drawing unemployment and/or having to go on welfare. So how does that bring down the Debt? It doesn't. It sure increases poverty in the country, provides more money and power to the wealthy and Corporations and increases the disparity of wealth. Now you can refuse to believe this but this is the facts.
If our country fell into a depression, what would the US Government do? I imagine the US Government would then step in and take control of the Banks, The Financial Markets, the Insurance Companies, etc; and tap into the Resources we have to put people back to work and re-set the price of goods and services and RE-DISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH so that everybody has a fair chance to live prosperous decent lives again. Just like they did during WW II. It would either be that or a revolution.
The wealthy don't have to worry about health insurance, retirement money or a house to live in or affording to send their kids to college. The poor and the middle class have to worry about those things. I don't see how these Law Makers can pursue these unjust policies and agenda when in the end it undermines the whole Free Market System just to make the wealthy richer and Corporations larger, puts more people in poverty and increases the disparity of wealth.
If the Government gets too big and spends too much, don't just blame the Government or the poor or the middle class. Look real carefully as to what is really going on and who is pushing the wrong policies in our Government.
We see today the Republican Party (GOP) pushing all the above ideas on us and doing everything they can to obstruct laws and legislation and refuse to compromise for what is best for the country. More so than ever before. Now I am not saying that all Democrats are not part of pushing some of these policies but generally speaking there is a difference in philosophy between the 2 parties.
In the past, the parties would debate and argue and when they got in chambers they would work together to make laws beneficial to our people. Today those days seem to be gone. Why? I believe that corporate influence now dominates policy making for many of our Law Makers; especially on the Republican side of the isle. It appears now there is a very clear distinction between parties as to who is still trying to compromise and work on behalf of the American people and who wants to push and enforce these extreme policies that are dangerous.
The obstruction of policy and law making by the Republican Party GOP is so obvious and appalling that it makes one question these Law Maker's interest in the people of this country. The GOP has blocked almost everything President Obama has tried to do to recover the economy.
The Republican GOP have blatantly acknowledged publically their number one priority is to get President Obama out of office and they are and have been willing to sacrifice the economy and blame it on the President to try and convince Americans it’s the President's fault the economy has not recovered fast enough.
It takes a balanced approach to fix the economic problems we are facing. President Obama understands this. He has been trying to work with the GOP and get them to come to the table for the benefit of the American people but they have consistently refused and obstructed the economic recovery. The need for reduction in size of the Government needs to be done carefully and slowly but it should not be done without first creating more jobs and breaking up the Corporate monopolies that currently exist. If the size of the Government needs to be reduced, it should be accomplished with the ability to TRANSFER those people into other jobs in the private sector. Unemploying Government employees DOES NOT do anything to fix the economy by itself.
The first priority should be to invest in infrastructure SPENDING to put people back to work and allow the Government to get involved directly and indirectly to create millions of jobs that can be transferred to private industry or performed directly by private industry thus allowing for the transfer of Government employees and those outside the Government that are unemployed into these new private industry infrastructure jobs. This would gradually reduce the size of Government but preserve the tax base without increasing unemployment, without destroying people's lives and protecting their families.
This is exactly what President Obama wants to do and has been desiring and trying to do. Just putting thousands of Americans out of work just because they work for the Government (Federal or State) in the name of Federal or State Debt is WRONG!! It has been the Republican GOP that has been obstructing the economic recovery and not the President.
I will argue that the United States today still has an abundance of Resources that enables it to easily bring itself out of a recession. What matters most is its Government leadership and political will to do so despite world economic conditions. The United States is still the largest most versatile economy in the world with more diverse Resources than any other country.
Regardless of what the value of its currency is; I argue that what matters most is for the Government to tap into those Resources for the Creation of jobs to put enough Americans back to work to reduce the DEFICIT to below zero. That should be the priority and not focusing on the Federal Debt or the size of Government. From a Corporate perspective rolling money out of the Federal Reserve matters now that we are not just a domestic economy but now a world economy and the value of the dollar is affected on the world market by the Federal Debt and Deficit to some degree (not enough money or taxes to pay for operational cost of the Government each year). I argue that the Federal Debt to the US Government is not relevant. I will argue that the Deficit (not enough people working paying taxes to cover the operating expenses of the Government yearly) is relevant. I will argue that where the US has outstanding Debt to some other country that is relevant. Domestically speaking I argue the Government has no Debt because the Government has eminent domain over all Resources in this Country. Once enough people are working and enough shared tax base is being paid to operate the Government; nobody is going to care about the past Federal Debt.
DOMESTIC ECONOMY VERSUS A WORLD ECONOMY
During WW II we were mostly a domestic economy so from a Corporate perspective it didn't matter much regarding the Federal Debt but now it does matter to Corporations since we are in a world economy. Corporations care a great deal about the Federal Debt and the Deficit because it affects their Stock Value on the World Market. It is the Government's responsibility to seriously consider the financial impacts to US Corporations but both the Government and the Corporations should recognize that everyone has to play a part and share in recovery and not just the middle class and poor. When it is obvious that Corporations are using their power and money to avoid paying their fair share of taxes that reinforces the fact that Corporations do not care about you or me and are only concerned about their profits.
Law Makers that want you to believe we need to trust Corporations to create more jobs if we further de-regulate them and reduce their taxes and telling you that is the basis of Capitalism and Free Market Enterprise is selling your freedoms down the toilet.
If you want to look at it from a National Security perspective, the United States controls all its own Resources, a huge percent of Resources around the world and power to negotiate effectively for Resources it needs anywhere in the world. So from a worst case scenario; the United States has the power to do whatever it wants to recover itself from economic doom without any help from any other country. We have the largest most powerful military in the world as well to leverage and negotiate for Resources anywhere in the world.
However, from a practical perspective; we should ask where does the value of our currency come from. Again I will argue it fundamentally comes from the abundance of Resources we have at our disposal. I know that is a very simplistic view because currency value on the world market is complex. But I am not considering all that. I am only considering if you take all the complexities out of the equation and look at it from a domestic Resource perspective; the US Government from a domestic perspective could set our own currency rates based on the exclusive use of our own Resources as a last resort.
Let’s assume for a moment that the US Government was to roll out additional Trillions of dollars to upgrade our highways, bridges, dams, electrical grid, levies, etc and put back to work 50 million more American workers? What would it do to the US dollar on the world market with the already existing Federal Debt? I will argue it would do little to hurt the dollar and probably do more to increase its value. Why? because most of the countries for one understand the idea of investing in job creation will reverse the recession and once the DEFICIT is overcome; nobody is going to care about the US Debt that accumulated just like nobody cared about the Federal Debt prior to WW II or after WW II or the Federal Debt after Bill Clinton erased the DEFICIT in the 1990s.
Since the US in my opinion controls the economies of the world through our Federal Reserve anyway and our currency is the currency on the World Market through the International Monetary Fund (IMF); I maintain that no country in world is going to devalue the dollar very far regardless of what the United States does in terms of rolling money out of the Federal Reserve. And the idea that some other country is going to take control of the IMF and their currency replace the US dollar as the currency for trading on the world market is laughable and ridiculous. All those countries gave that option or possibility up when they agreed to let the United States recover their countries from WW II and establish their economies through our tax dollars funded off of our Federal Reserve. Now this paragraph is my opinion but I am pretty confident I am right.
They sure didn't care when we rolled Trillions out of the Federal Reserve to rebuild their countries and economies after WW II and establishing manufacturing and jobs in their countries. So when our economy shook after the Trade Centers fell what did the rest of the world's economies do. They shook. At the end of 2007 when we almost had an economic collapse due to Bush and GOP economics; what happened in the rest of the world. Their economies also almost collapsed. Why was that? I maintain it is because their economies are to a large degree controlled by our Federal Reserve.
Some History: So what happened after WW II and the world saw the United States booming economy and recovery from the depression? Oh the rest of the world wanted a piece of the action. So what did the United States do? We rolled the equivalent of Trillions more out of our Federal Reserve (in today's dollars) to rebuild Europe, Asia, etc). We not only paid for the rebuilding of these countries from WW II; we began an economic world expansion to build the economies of the world we have today from rolling money out of our US Federal Reserve. So why did the United States agree to do this? And was any of this DEBT ever paid back to the Federal Reserve? NO. Did these countries pay any of that DEBT back to the US Federal Reserve? NO.
My opinion is after WW II and the invention of the transistor and computer, the United States knew the Computer Age was coming. The Government knew and figured out in the 1950s that the future would be in the control of Financial Information and whoever controlled the financial information would control the economies of the world. I personally believe the US Government cut deals with these countries: China, Japan, Europe, etc that guaranteed that the US Dollar would be the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Currency for trading on the World Markets forever. So we see that manufacturing, jobs, production and services gradually began to be moved overseas to other countries along with relaxation of Regulations on Corporations to allow them to operate in these countries. Why? My opinion is so the US Government could have significant control over their economies through our Financial Systems and Federal Reserve. What else would they have or did they have to offer the United States for rebuilding their countries and establishing their economies off the back of the Federal Reserve and American tax payer?
WHAT SOME OTHERS HAVE SAID
Nobody Understands Debt By PAUL KRUGMAN
Paul Krugman: Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.
Mr. Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the "new trade theory," a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. In recognition of that work, in 1991 the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal, a prize given every two years to "that economist under forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic knowledge."
Mr. Krugman's current academic research is focused on economic and currency crises. At the same time, Mr. Krugman has written extensively for a broader public audience. Some of his recent articles on economic issues, originally published in Foreign Affairs, Harvard Business Review, Scientific American and other journals, are reprinted in Pop Internationalism and The Accidental Theorist.
On October 13, 2008, it was announced that Mr. Krugman would receive the Nobel Prize in Economics.
When people in D.C. talk about deficits and debt, by and large they have no idea what they’re talking about — and the people who talk the most understand the least.
have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure
that debt grows more slowly than their tax base. The debt from World War II was
never repaid; it just became increasingly
irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation.
Second — and this is the point almost nobody seems to get — an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves.
This was clearly true of the debt incurred to win World War II. Taxpayers were on the hook for a debt that was significantly bigger, as a percentage of G.D.P., than debt today; but that debt was also owned by taxpayers, such as all the people who bought savings bonds. So the debt didn’t make postwar America poorer. In particular, the debt didn’t prevent the postwar generation from experiencing the biggest rise in incomes and living standards in our nation’s history.
But isn’t this time different? Not as much as you think. It’s true that foreigners now hold large claims on the United States, including a fair amount of government debt. But every dollar’s worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents’ worth of U.S. claims on foreigners. And because foreigners tend to put their U.S. investments into safe, low-yield assets, America actually earns more from its assets abroad than it pays to foreign investors. If your image is of a nation that’s already deep in hock to the Chinese, you’ve been misinformed. Nor are we heading rapidly in that direction.
Now, the fact
that federal debt isn’t at all like a mortgage on America’s future doesn’t mean
that the debt is harmless. Taxes must be levied to pay the interest, and you
don’t have to be a right-wing ideologue to concede
that taxes impose some cost on the economy, if nothing else by causing a diversion of resources away from productive activities into tax avoidance and evasion. But these costs are a lot less dramatic than the analogy with an over-indebted family might suggest.
And that’s why
nations with stable, responsible governments — that is, governments that are
willing to impose modestly higher taxes when the situation warrants it — have
historically been able to live with much higher
levels of debt than today’s conventional wisdom would lead you to believe. Britain, in particular, has had debt exceeding 100 percent of G.D.P. for 81 of the last 170 years. When Keynes was writing about the need to spend your way out of a depression, Britain was deeper in debt than any advanced nation today, with the exception of Japan.
Of course, America, with its rabidly anti-tax conservative movement, may not have a government that is responsible in this sense. But in that case the fault lies not in our debt, but in ourselves.
So yes, debt matters. But right now, other things matter more. We need more, not less, government spending to get us out of our unemployment trap. And the wrongheaded, ill-informed obsession with debt is standing in the way.
Nick Hanauer's TED Talk
Multi-millionaire Nick Hanauer has an important message for those who think the rich are America's job creators. Problem is, he can't seem to get it out.
"For thousands of years people were sure that earth was at the center of the universe. It's not, and an astronomer who still believed that it was, would do some lousy astronomy," Hanauer said at a March 1 speech, according to the Atlantic. "In the same way, a policy maker who believed that the rich and businesses are 'job creators' and therefore should not be taxed, would make equally bad policy."
Hanauer, one of the first nonfamily investors in Amazon.com, shared this argument as part of a talk he gave at the TED University conference. Now, the organizers of TED -- a movement aimed at bringing attention to "ideas worth spreading" -- is refusing to share Hanauer's talk on the internet, calling it too "political," according to the National Journal.
Chris Anderson, the curator of TED, wrote in a post on his website responding to the allegations that the organization is inundated with requests to post talks on its homepage and only features those that are "truly special." Anderson also claimed that once Hanauer found out the site would't be posting his talk, he hired a public relations firm to promote the talk to progressive organizations like MoveOn.org. Anderson also released a video of Hanauer's talk, providing a link to it in his post.
"The talk tapped into a really important and timely issue," Anderson wrote. "But it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance."
In his talk, Hanauer argued that the rich, people like him in other words, aren't responsible for the bulk of America’s job creation and therefore shouldn’t receive tax breaks to help them create jobs. Instead, he noted that middle-class consumers are more likely to create jobs by spending and spurring businesses to hire. Brandishing a chart comparing millionaires’ effective tax rates to the unemployment rate over time, Hanauer noted that a drop in the tax rates of the super rich hasn't meant a drop in the unemployment rate (h/t Business Insider).
"If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs," he said in the talk, according to the Atlantic. "And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs."
It may seem odd that TED won't distribute Hanauer's talk just because it evokes political tropes, especially since the TED website features talks from actual politicians, including British Prime Minister David Cameron and former Vice President Al Gore.
In addition, Hanauer's remarks shouldn't have been too much of a shock to TED organizers, considering that he's been an outspoken critic of the notion that lowering taxes on the rich will help create jobs. In December, Hanauer penned an op-ed for Bloomberg, which included many of the same arguments featured in his TED talk. It even used some of the exact same language.
UPDATE: This story has been updated to include comments from Chris Anderson, TED's curator and a video of the talk.
Check out the slides from Hanauer's talk below: