Obama-nomics- increase 15% Capital gains to 28%

[HAL 9000 96]

And letting the sharks do what they want is going to ensure the 'people' are responded to? And what rich are we referring to? Those that had legitimate control over their colonies or those in the colonies that didn't want to be the colonials? Either way its a definition of convenience.

Right now we are paying for a war that is not representative. Or right, I am wrong. Our kids and grandkids will be doing that. Against their political will most likely.

Common sense and proper foresight will go a longer way in preventing these monsters from controlling our form of government. Democracy aside.

Not true. Our elected government authorized the war. You may not agree with it but your elected officials did sign off on it. If you don't like it then vote for someone else.

I'm glad you brought that up....it was good 'ol Republican Teddy Roosevelt who was the Big Trust Buster. Somehow, the Republican Party needs to find itself again.

What he did was wrong. Just because a rep from 100 years ago did something doesn't make it right with me. But now that you bring it up the worst president of all time really started this whole mess. FDR started this country down the road it finds itself on right now. It made the people and business alike get used to the idea of suckling on the big government teat.

You must be joking. You think Teddy Roosevelt was wrong? How did you come to that conclusion???

The government has no right to break up business's because they think they got to big. It's just wrong. The government should just stay out of the way and let the market decide what is right.

All this espouses is the destruction of the United States of America. Do you want a United States of America or a Conglomerate of Divided Companies of America?

No it does not. A free and open market is the strength of our country. Government intervention will destroy the country. The government should just butt out. The government is the devil here, not the free market.

1. I already voted for Obama.

So it is very true for me as a member of the majority now and someone whom voted against irresponsible, monster like political behavior back then.

and

2. The point of having a central federal government is the prevention of abuse and 50 different interpretations of what all want to do within the Union. Thinking retrogradely is counterproductive to the maintenance of a united nation.

1. Thats your bad judgment. And it remains to be seen if you are in the majority. I think McCain will win later this year and the fact he wants a "hands off" approach to the economy is a point in his favor.

2. That is not the intent of the founding fathers. The founding fathers wanted a very limited federal government. That is why the bill of rights spells out what the government CANNOT do rather what it can do. Your idea of the role of government isn't in line with the constitution or the ideals of what this country was founded on.

I don't know Gary... it seems you are extrapolating the ability to judge from what is not yet written on the wall. Furthermore, if you suggest that the majority of Americans do not oppose Bush and his antics, you may want to wait until election day. A close call between either Dem and McCain does not qualify your argument and neither did it become qualified in 2004 when Bush won by a hair. Whether or not McCain want to preach retrograde or anterograde conservative fiscal ideals in order to win conservative votes is not the issue but rather if he can convince enough Americans that the last 7 years of movement have been beneficial enough to them to continue on that train. And sadly, that is not what public opinion says.

However, you may of course continue praying to Rush Limbaugh's divisive politics within the Dems and that may give you consolation in helping McCain into the White House, and if that were the case then all the power to you and such kind of politics.

Funny that my idea of what the Government is is very much in line with what it HAS BEEN since its inception. Yours is what you want it to be. As for what the Founding Fathers intend, well, you can argue all night about the power of semantics and what that means to an interpretation of the Constitution. Specially the Bill of Rights, which you should read again to understand that it pertains to the very citizens, which I will delineate for your reading enjoyment here:

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

3. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

7. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Federal Government Rights takes precedence over States Rights. Otherwise the United States are not United.

[mawilson 2,133]

For our collective record here, my tax rate actually increased under Republican-led taxation, notwithstanding having gross income virtually identical pre-Bush. So, that must mean by your broad and irrational labeling that Bush is also a liberal taxing leftist socialist whatever else you want to call it.

How did that happen?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Interesting commentary about Adam Smith and laissez faire economics:

Adam Smith never ‘advocated a laissez faire economic system’. That was the French Physiocrats, or some of them, whom he visited in 1764-6. Nor is it quite true he advocated “a system that operates with minimal government intervention.” His was not a 'nighwatchmen state' (that was said mockingly by a Lassell, a socialist; and picked up by the 19th century 'Manchester School' of laissez faire promoting campaigners.

These are post-mid 1960’s insertions by neoclassical economists misreading Wealth Of Nations, or rather not reading it at all, but just believing what their tutors told them (most of whom hadn’t read Wealth Of Nations either – we know this because he never mentioned laissez faire once in anything he wrote and they would not knowingly assert that he did if they knew it wasn’t true, would they?).

The quote is about ‘merchants and manufacturers’ imbued with the mercantile political economy of the mid-18th century, who try to persuade the legislature (government) to adopt ‘any new law or regulation of commerce’ to institute monopolies or protection from competition in this or that product market.

It is not about ‘marketers’ as we know them today. It’s about monopolists seeking to narrow the competition, raise prices and ensure higher profits, common enough occurrences in the Adam Smith’s day.

He was not opposed to government intervention as a matter of principle as such. He certainly didn’t think any individual, government minister or official could make production, pricing or marketing decisions for anybody at all. He saw specific roles for government and states them in Book V of Wealth Of Nations; he was not sure about whether publicly-funded activities should be managed by the state or by private persons. Officials could be lazy and incompetent; private individuals could be duplicitous and negligent. He left that question unanswered.

http://adamsmithslostlegacy.com/2007/09/ma...adam-smith.html

[HAL 9000 96]

For our collective record here, my tax rate actually increased under Republican-led taxation, notwithstanding having gross income virtually identical pre-Bush. So, that must mean by your broad and irrational labeling that Bush is also a liberal taxing leftist socialist whatever else you want to call it.

How did that happen?

I'd also love to know. One year you pay X and the next Y.