I swear I can hear the ghost of Karl Marx laughing all the way from his corner of hell.

That is obvious. Which stifling regs? How about all of them.
How about the regs that are legion concerning driving a semi truck professionally? How about EPA regs that tell me I need an exp-ensive $50,000+ feces containment station if I feed cows in one place more than 3 months out of the year?
Worried so much about some cow $hit & pi$$ that might get in the water, yet have no reservations about incentivizing farmers to do no till & use tons of chemical? (I’m not saying all these chemicals are necessarily harmful, bcs cow $hit & pi$$ in most cattle operations isn’t either).
How about regs that interfere with me as a rancher being able to have a fuel tank on my place? Did you know that I have been ordered by the Federal govt bcs of EPA to build a containment unit for spilled fuel? Even if I no longer store fuel in my tanks?
I could tell you lots of regs that have interfered with our ranhing & trucking business.
How about unhelpful CAFE standards that have made it loads more expensive to operate a vehicle?
Do you not even understand the enormous costs that have been handed down from all of this garbage the Fed has pushed upon the public regarding CAFE standards?
You have no clue.
I can only surmise that these Progressive policies, whether from a Republican or Liberal, have not affected you negatively.

You really are a piece of work.

AZfederalist on February 24, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Eisenhower is so easy to blame for lots of things. Those who know the history of that era know the truth of the evil that Wilson, FDR & his successors heaped upon this nation.

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 5:38 PM

The Lesser Prairie Chicken might end up on the Endangered Species list. If so, many of our Kansas acres might be impacted.

Also, wolves are showing up in Kansas, no doubt introduced in Wyoming/Idaho, etc, and moving around.

People who think that government is a solution to problems are the the real problem.
Bcs of unjust farm programs, I have to compete with the Federal government’s farm payments for pasture rent.
Bcs they’re paying the farmers so much $$ it’s making it profitable for these guys to farm at a loss & they are as a result, digging up NATIVE PRAIRIE, & even rocky knobs to establish farm ground to get a PAYMENT.
I’m watching this happen all around me.
This is the Federal Govt & it’s Progressive policies at work.

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Yep. Exactly. Older “farmers” are keeping their land to get the government payments/CRP payments, taking land out of production, and stopping younger farmers from getting a start. No one can out bid the feds for pasture or cropland. We are paying mostly around $16 / acre for our pasture. The latest round of CRP contracts were between $35 and $55 per acre. We offered $50 per acre to someone that was going to put productive farm ground into the CRP program, he got $35 and he STILL decided to do it because it was guaranteed money, and we were a risk.

Really? Don’t lie,
have you ever met one, who wās not a communist?
of course, they tell you they are just simply ,,liberals”

magone on February 24, 2013 at 9:10 PM

annoyinglittletwerp is gonna flip her lid when she reads this.

Why are you deleting this simple statmenet?
Does it somehow harm you? And if it does, then- why?

magone on February 24, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Because they’re part of the conspiracy, silly. Everyone knows that Hotair is controlled by the Bilderbergs.

Yes, let’s idolize those who trade freedom for a life of comfort in a dictatorship.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I will never idolize you.

First, technology is enabling corporations to simply eliminate thousands of jobs that were necessary 10 years ago. Technology is vastly underestimated as a job killer (to the benefit of silicon valley and other tech centers).

But the Socialists believe that increased technology will mean less drudgery for mankind. It can’t be something great for the worker and something bad for the worker at the same time…can it?

I do agree that some facets of our current system will indeed change if and when technology advances even more. There could be new ways that workers will be able to thrive that we are not yet aware of. Perhaps not. But we need to allow things to take their natural course. Forcing socio-economic evolution DOES NOT WORK.

If corporations weren’t looking to expand at some time in the future, then they would just fire everyone, liquidate their assets and invest as they saw fit as individuals, or as individual corporate entities, whatever. They aren’t doing that for the most part.

Most of them know that they can’t simply get out and spin the roulette wheel of the stock market or other such systems and make money forever. They know that the real value of money is tied to productivity.

You also can’t forget the stockholders the CEOs have to answer to. They have to show increased profit at some point or they will lose their jobs, and/or the company may fold.

Also, it’s not technology (including online sales) shutting down individual small businesses, especially in the grocery and restaurant industries. Be that as it may, if technology was causing a shift of the work force, the economy wouldn’t be shrinking but at least holding steady.

Second, corporate growth has been subverted by short-term thinking. A recent HBS poll asked corporate CEO’s to consider this scenario: one of your business units has identified a new market and growth opportunity; after careful analysis, the ROI is deemed to meet or exceed IRR and every other key metric. However, the initial investment will cause the company to miss it’s next quarterly earnings.

Same thing with local, state and government thinking in setting up pensions, expanding government, increasing spending, selling bonds based upon future projections and so on. There are economic cycles even in the best of times.

Risk, loss and gain have always been part and parcel of this system. Overall there has been mostly gain, so the prospect of total economic collapse is due to other factors beyond missteps in business forecasts.

To me those factors include the increasing demand for resources…there’s only so much to go around and the Third World is consuming more of it…and a concerted effort by the Communists/Globalists to bring about economic collapse. As we saw with Russian and Chinese Cold War Communism, no system can survive repeated attacks especially when they’re already weak.

Another major factor is the increasing loss of industrialization in the U.S. and Europe. Russia and China (and others) are incapable of really taking the place of Western industrialization and technology. They have not gone through a natural socio-economic progression…without Western industry and technology to steal they will fail.

Just as the Middle East will go back to the Feudal Ages when their oil runs out.

Culture is sticky.

They were Jews…and they were communists. Not all communists are Jews; and not all Jews are communists

Really? Don’t lie,
have you ever met one, who wās not a communist?
of course, they tell you they are just simply ,,liberals”

magone on February 24, 2013 at 6:32 PM

So…what’s your point?

They were Jews…and they were communists. Not all communists are Jews; and not all Jews are communists.

A lot of Jews are ‘liberals’…but a lot are not.

From everything I’ve read, many major corporations are holding large amounts of cash in their accounts, and/or are buying precious metals. The question should be, “How do we get them to free up that capital so it can be used to advance society and to benefit workers?”

If these CEOs feel that they are going to have to pay through the nose, they will not hire nor expand. That will do the average worker no good whatsoever, and the government can support them via virtual money for only so long.

Warren Buffet would say that historically, capital gains tax rates are a poor indicator of corporate cap expenditures for the simple reason that companies expand in response to demand, not in response to supply. In other words, if customers aren’t demanding more of a product, cheap financing or lower tax rates do not incentive capital investments. Companies grow for one reason only- to meet customer demand.

But I don’t really disagree with anything that you’re saying. You also have to keep in mind that government policy can’t necessarily encourage corporate spending for two major reasons. First, technology is enabling corporations to simply eliminate thousands of jobs that were necessary 10 years ago. Technology is vastly underestimated as a job killer (to the benefit of silicon valley and other tech centers).
Second, corporate growth has been subverted by short-term thinking. A recent HBS poll asked corporate CEO’s to consider this scenario: one of your business units has identified a new market and growth opportunity; after careful analysis, the ROI is deemed to meet or exceed IRR and every other key metric. However, the initial investment will cause the company to miss it’s next quarterly earnings. Would you make the decision to invest? 80% of CEO’s responded NO.
In other words, the vast majority of CEO’s are so attuned to the next earnings cycles that investments which promise to increase a company’s valuation over the course of 12 months are actually viewed as undesirable. It’s a characteristic of modern capitalism that policy can’t easily address.

Putin’s Russia suits him well.

According to a majority of the 20 wealthiest Americans listed by Forbes, that’s right, it is fairness. Funny how most of the great capitalists and entrepreneurs who built empires from nothing find your whining absurd.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Bayam, a mob of 1000 angry poor people can storm a rich man’s mansion, kill him and his family, and equitably distribute his wealth amongst themselves…and they’d still be a mob of 1000 angry poor people…and they won’t be getting any more because the man who knows how to accumulate the wealth is gone.

Printing money on government printing presses only works so long if you’re thinking of that. For people to value and exchange money for goods and services, it has to backed by some confidence. That may be precious metals, or not, but the point is it takes financiers and market forces to determine that or our currency is worthless. Zimbabwe comes to mind, and it was announced yesterday that Moody’s (I believe) just downgraded the UK from AAA to AA1 status.

From everything I’ve read, many major corporations are holding large amounts of cash in their accounts, and/or are buying precious metals. The question should be, “How do we get them to free up that capital so it can be used to advance society and to benefit workers?”

If these CEOs feel that they are going to have to pay through the nose, they will not hire nor expand. That will do the average worker no good whatsoever, and the government can support them via virtual money for only so long.

The Captains of Industry did indeed accrue large amounts of wealth. But, because they desired even more, they expanded their enterprises and hired more workers. That benefited everyone including those not directly employed by them. They did not stick their money under their mattresses and horde their wealth. The U.S. standard of living shot waaaay up and quickly when these gentlemen were alive and active in business.

No one says we have to like these people (the wealthy). I’d say the vast majority of us do not believe they should not have to pay any taxes. If nothing else, they spend more, they yield more to the Treasury in taxes. We WANT them to invest, hire, and spend.

Lastly, it’s not just the proverbial Capitalist sporting a cane and a tophat who’s getting hurt. It’s small businesses and their employees everywhere. They’re going out of business left and right. And, since workers have less to spend, are more heavily in debt, and are more uncertain about the future, it’s affecting large companies as well…such as Sears Holdings, Abercrombie & Fitch, JC Penney, Saks, Sweet Bay and several others. Even Wal-Mart took it on the chin in their earnings last month.

Exactly which stifling regulations are you referring to?

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Well, there’s the 127 million hours needed to comply with all the regulation mandates in Obamacare (according to the House Ways and Means Committee)

And of course, that flood of new regulations that were saved up until after the election.

I would happily list the additional links for EPA, farms and gas/oil… but my comment would get stuck in moderation.

Still stand by your comment?

Yes, let’s idolize those who trade freedom for a life of comfort in a dictatorship. After all, it’s all about money and you should relinquish your personal liberties when there’s economic benefit.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

And yet, you voted for Obama… how do you square that circle?

Where Stalin, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Rasputin and the Romanovs came from.

Is it against the law to state the fact that Lenin and Trotsky/ Bronshtein were j-ews who hated Russia and Romanovs and Christianity? Is it against the law to state the historical fact that both of them killed millions of christians and nobody screams holocaust
for years and years?
Why are you deleting this simple statmenet?
Does it somehow harm you? And if it does, then- why?

I won’t steal it though, just give you a “well done” instead.

Gingotts on February 24, 2013 at 5:27 PM

:)

According to a majority of the 20 wealthiest Americans listed by Forbes, that’s right, it is fairness. Funny how most of the great capitalists and entrepreneurs who built empires from nothing find your whining absurd.

bayam on February 24, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Yeah, that’s what they say. When talking to the stenographers from the DNC public relations arm such as Time, Newsweak, NYT, CBS, CNN, etc. they are all calling for paying their “fair share” and making sure loopholes are closed. But when it comes to their personal tax situations? They dig for every possible deduction and minimize the amount they have to pay. You didn’t think that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was set up just to hand out money to the disadvantaged, did you? Your buddy Buffet whom you think we should all revere is in a dispute with the IRS over $1B+ that the IRS says his company owes in taxes. If your buddy Buffet was so in with “fairness” and paying his “fair share”, why is he even disputing the IRS, you’d think he’d be glad to write that check for the good of the country.

You see, the dirty little secret is that all of those folks you cite have already gotten theirs. We don’t have a tax on wealth, we have a tax on income. Those folks got their stack and used every loophole and tax dodge they could find. Now, they want to make it harder for others to accumulate wealth and regressive tax codes like this make the ladder that much harder to climb for new and aspiring entrepreneurs. Reduces the competition for those already in positions of wealth.

Please explain what is fair about having to pay 39% or more of one’s income just because one makes over some arbitrary amount of money. It’s fair that one person has to pay 0% of their income and another person has to pay 39% or more? Really? You have a really warped idea of “fair”. Your view of fair really seems to fit the definition of “envious” or “covetous”. Somebody else has more than you and you want the government to take it. Yeah, that’s fair.

Now, I’ve wasted enough time with you. It’s obvious all of this is going to bounce off that thick liberal skull of yours and you will just come back with another, “but the really rich people like Buffet and the Google kings think it’s right that they pay more”. Sad thing is there are too many like you in our country who view what others have earned as their rightful property and want the government to go take it. Seems it would be hard sleeping at night knowing that you are advocating stealing from the work of productive people just because you resent their success.

Income tax from the beginning was meant to punish those who had money purely to appease those who did not, brought only out of petty spite and jealousy.

If you pay, you stay?

——————–

Russians are leaving the country in droves

Some chafe at life under Vladimir Putin’s rule, but for many others, economic limitations are the prime motivator. Experts say the numbers have reached demographically dangerous levels.
November 14, 2011|By Sergei L. Loiko, Los Angeles Times

but don’t you feel a little bad that he’s so stupid
KOOLAID2 on February 24, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Hell no.