George Rebane
This Sunday VP Joe Biden was speaking to fellow travelers at a Washington meeting of the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers’ union. He didn’t have to hold back on his deep-seated belief that more socialism is better, and he let it all hang out. To his audience our Vice President incredulously characterized the conservatives with –
They believe that one percent of the wage earners, controlling 24% of the wealth in this country, is a vehicle by which you can spur economic growth, because those with the wealth know the most and will know best what to do with that wealth.
Yes, the ones earning the wealth have always known what best to do with it. Our country has believed that for over two centuries. And now other countries are picking up on this principle of economic freedom, as our own memory of its blessings begins to fade. You bet your sweet butt Joe – you really nailed it with that little piece of class warfare demagoguery.
Joe's mentality is sickening. Joe has never produced wealth of any significance (i.e. value to his fellow man) or burdened himself with reverence for individual liberty. Joe is a hateful, discriminating, hypocritical enemy of The People.
Progressives across the land (around the world) cannot deny the notion that their class warfare is based on emotion.
Is there something morally wrong to be either rich or poor? NO.
Is there something morally wrong in discriminating against a person for being rich or poor? YES.
Progressives target the wealthy and use statistics like “one percent of the wage earners, controlling 24% of the wealth” while they knowingly ignore the FACT that the top 5% of income earners pay over 60% of all federal income taxes collected (thanks to the aptly named progressive tax system).
Progressives claim to fight for the blue collar worker while denying the fact that the blue collar worker needs a strong economy in order to thrive.
Only when the progressive acknowledges the fact that economic activity is essential to the employment/wages of the masses can the real debate begin.
[How to foster robust economic activity/growth?
Does higher or lower taxes foster economic activity?
Do regulations help foster economic activity?
Does political uncertainty foster economic activity?
Does right-to-work foster economic activity?]
To target the rich as a means of ‘social justice’ is an emotional reaction which perpetuates a weak economy and weak employment prospects for blue collar workers. Today’s debate in Washington finds progressives insisting on higher taxes on the rich (at the expense of blue collar workers) as an emotional means of social justice which sacrifices economic activity/growth. Instead, conservatives and progressives alike should be fueling an economy which proudly (and freely) lifts wages and net worth’s of all Americans (including blue collar Americans). All Americans should promote policies which allow for the continuation of personal (individual) economic growth. Americans should be proud of the fact that “the number of people with more than $1 million of investable assets jumped 8.3% last year to 10.9 million.”
Posted by: Mikey McD | 05 July 2011 at 07:58 AM
That type of talk is very dangerous to the future of this country.
Posted by: Barry Pruett | 05 July 2011 at 07:59 AM
An economy can't thrive without a well paid blue collar base or easy credit. Our credit has been used up over the last 30 years and our well paying blue collar jobs have left the country in the failed policy of free trade.
Until we start making things in America again we will not see an economic recovery.
Posted by: Ben Emery | 05 July 2011 at 08:31 AM
The problem you guys have is you see taxes as a punishment where I see taxes as dues for living in a civilized society. Those who benefit most off our system generally use much more of the infrastructure/ commons to make those gains and should pay into the system much more to keep their high benefits continue.
Posted by: Ben Emery | 05 July 2011 at 08:35 AM
"Until we start making things in America again we will not see an economic recovery."
Mining, timber, and other natural resource harvesting are blue collared jobs. Can we bring those back? How can we start manufacturing inexpensively by importing natural resources that we already possess? Your sentence above is a nice one-liner, but if you really want blue collar jobs, you should be supporting the California timber industry and mining.
Posted by: Barry Pruett | 05 July 2011 at 08:36 AM
Ben, you are asking for the impossible. Please tell us what you would "allow" us to produce/manufacture (keeping in mind the regulations/hurdles enforced by countless gov agencies/Employee Unions- EPA, DOE, DOL, etc)?
We can't drill, we can't mine, we can't manufacture with the restrictions imposed by The State and The State's bedfellows (employee unions). I dare you to legally manufacture something in the USA.
"I see taxes as dues for living in a civilized society"- yet 51% of 'americans' DON'T PAY ANY FEDERAL INCOME TAX. How is that not hypocritical?! Socialists always claim that 'we are all in this together'... until the bill comes.
Posted by: Mikey McD | 05 July 2011 at 08:59 AM
Ben, did you forget your wallet...again?
Posted by: D. King | 05 July 2011 at 09:05 AM
That's hilarious Ben - "Those who benefit most off our system generally use much more of the infrastructure/ commons to make those gains and should pay into the system much more to keep their high benefits continue." You are talking about repeat serial offenders, welfare sliders, illegal aliens, children born with deformities that will require institutional care for life, etc. They are the ones using more of the resources and what percentage of the income to the treasury do they contribute? A successful worker with a large income and a big house and lots of mechanical toys will pay a lot more in property taxes, fees, licensing and so forth before we even factor in the income taxes. Then to say that because he has the same rights as the poorer person, he needs to be paying not only more money in income taxes, but also a much higher rate on that income, then yes, at that point it does become punishment. It doesn't balance the budget - it doesn't produce a healthy growing economy - it doesn't provide good, lasting jobs - but it makes you haters feel good, cause you're "sticking it to the man". Take a look at what's happening in California. The libs are getting what they want, and the economy is sinking.
Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 05 July 2011 at 09:14 AM
What BenE and the liberals have done to the middle class in America is destroy it. They did it through higher taxes and fees and labor costs. That drove many jobs overseas and the jobs here were replaced with service sector, sweep up the floor and flip the burger jobs. BenE and his ilk are the true destroyers where we on the right are the harbingers of freedom and prosperity. His ilk ran it for long enough, it is time to bring Ameirca back. I say get rid of the regulations and tax and fee burdens and unleash our people's prosperity once again.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 05 July 2011 at 09:51 AM
On a per capita basis, as pointed out above, the top earners use less infrastructure than those who earn less. And the infrastructure that they use or cause to be used creates more jobs.
Until the borders are sealed to prevent passage of goods and labor, Americans as workers will compete with the world, and Americans as consumers will enjoy the benefits of that competition. Can America really become commercially isolationist? If American workers at any given skill level get paid higher than global wages for that skill level (taking transportation costs into account), then we will soon go bankrupt in isolation. We have been a trading economy since colonial times.
Memo to file: Globally trade is a zero-sum game, the sum of trade surpluses equals the sum of trade deficits.
Posted by: George Rebane | 05 July 2011 at 09:59 AM
We also pick up here the comment thread on taxes and who pays what from the comments under the recent 'Tom McClintock Townhall ...' post. There the datum was cited that essentially half of American wage earners pay no federal income taxes. When you add to that people who are unemployed, working in the 'gray market', the retired, the disabled, ... you have a cohort that numbers well above half of the voting adults in this country.
These are the constituency of the collectivists (Democrats, Team Obama, wealthy globalists, hard left environmentalists, ...) and have arguably taken us past the tipping point waving their Peter/Paul Principle banners. It is they who successfully argue that wealth is easier to take than to make, and that going to a direct democracy form of governance is the only way to achieve social justice.
Posted by: George Rebane | 05 July 2011 at 10:42 AM
Got this over on Watts.
It fits!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyh6fzGUvI
Posted by: D. King | 05 July 2011 at 02:19 PM
I am so looking forward to 2012 when the Republicans sweep House, White House, and Senate, and toss out all the regulations, and go to a flat tax.
This will of course insure full employment for all American citizens, as the borders will be guarded by an outsource militia, staffed by well trained Chinese, as they were the lowest bidders, as they subcontracted it to the cheapest labor they could find, except for their excess convicts. What joy will be found in abundance for all!
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 05 July 2011 at 03:45 PM
BTW, have you bothered to notice how automated both mining and timber harvesting have become? Just how many jobs in your wildest dreams will you be creating there? Maybe you should look at how many currently work in those areas, multiply the numbers by ten, and then look at how many unemployed Americans there are, looking for jobs? (not the funny statistics the Dept. of Labor publicizes)
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 05 July 2011 at 03:48 PM
BTW, have you bothered to notice how automated both mining and timber harvesting have become?
Yes Douglas automation is scary...in 1939.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCfIpF0C4GQ&feature=related
Posted by: D. King | 05 July 2011 at 04:28 PM
Mr. Keachie, a simple Econ 101 class covering supply/demand, elasticity of price, etc would do wonders for you!
It takes a team to produce: Something tells me that the automated machine programmer, salesman, timber planters/foresters, shippers [trucks, trains, boats], managers, bankers, attorneys, human resource reps, book keepers, accountants, equipment mechanics, equipment manufacturers, gas stations, hotels, restaurants, etc, etc 'behind' the automated machines could add many jobs which you failed to cite.
Posted by: Mikey McD | 05 July 2011 at 05:31 PM
So the two of you predict what sort of u employment rate if the Republicans do the Hat Trick?
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 05 July 2011 at 05:35 PM
So back from scary to reality, how many jobs, in your wildest dreams, let's say 10 times the present day numbers in mining and timber and we'll throw in oil too, since nobody cares what happens to our beaches, do you think will be created after Congress repeals all the unnecessary regulations, the EPA, the Food and Drug Administration, and other unnecessary government agencies?
How will you feel if one small group of men gains control of it all, as the four big banks are inching forwards towards a cosmic econ mind meld, into one GigaCorp?
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 05 July 2011 at 05:43 PM
The homeless make such excellent money from using our harbours and airports, both general and commercial aviation.
"the top earners use less infrastructure than those who earn less"
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 05 July 2011 at 05:45 PM
For maximum job creation, dig all ditches with teaspoons and get executives out of bizjets and into rickshaws. Maximum number minimum quality.
Automation is good. Even in medieval paintings, angels used grinding wheels while daemons used sharpening stones.
Posted by: Greg Goodknight | 05 July 2011 at 06:03 PM
The citizens and companies using harbors and airports pay big fees, D. K. That's my point. By the time you get to their income and capital gains taxes, they have already paid for the infrastructure they use. On top of that, you want to punish them for making more money and hiring people. The others I mentioned that you kindly ignored use 100s of thousands, if not millions $ of dollars in resources and will pay little or nothing back. Your constant references to eliminating all regulations is just your personal hallucination. It's not something advocated by anyone on the conservative side of this blog and no one you can quote in real life. But, hey, if you have nothing to offer, then I guess just making it up is the best you can do.
Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 05 July 2011 at 07:04 PM
Show me where, at 20 cent per gallon, federal aviation fuel tax, you manage to justify a $2,000,000 repaving grant. Even if it happens once in twenty years, that's still an amazing amount of fuel being sold to pay for it. We did the calcs for one year and came up with around 2,700 gallons of fuel leaving GV airport every hour, 24/7/365. 20 cents per gallon means 10,000,000 gallons must be sold to pay for the repaving. The Feds do not get what the county or state collects. Even over 20 years, that works out to about 130 gallons per hour, 24/7/365.
Gneeral aviation is subsidized by commercial aviation, which itself services a minority of the citizens in this country, last time I looked.
And Scott, where is a list of the regulations and laws and departments considered, "unnecessary," or "punitive?" Last time I heard about this sort of thing was an attempt to dump the Department of Ed, OSHA, and the EPA? Are those agencies safe today, or are you merely planning on a mountain oyster party, with respect to their budgets, instead of an "off with their heads" celebration?
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 05 July 2011 at 11:20 PM
Greg, we've hit "Player Piano" mode in this country. How is you side planning on dealing with it?
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 05 July 2011 at 11:23 PM
"Americans as workers will compete with the world, and Americans as consumers will enjoy the benefits of that competition."
Except for one minor detail, which is the fact that while working at the global minimum wage, they'll barely be able to feed themselves, let along buy any goodies. Welcome to the New Feudalism!
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 05 July 2011 at 11:27 PM
There must be a LOT of Doug Keachies to write all that bile!
Posted by: Bob Hobert | 05 July 2011 at 11:45 PM
Another view suggests:
We are now 3rd....BEHIND SWEDEN the country with the biggest social safety net on earth. No homeless. Healthcare for all. 0% people below the poverty line. Who said you can't be great to your citizens and succeed. Actually Switzerland was number one. Described as a socialist-liberal country, though not as liberal as the Nordic countries with health-care about what the Clintons wanted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bXKTJCA-QA&feature=grec_index
www.youtube.com
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 05 July 2011 at 11:56 PM
Let's see, if the laissez faire policies had been in place all along, would we be:
The United States of Rockefeller?
or maybe:
The United States of Carnegie & Frick?
how about:
The United States of Vanderbilt...or any combination of the Big Four?
Of course we can't leave of J Pierpont Morgan...and sneaky devil that he is, he's still there, joined with Chase and hiding behind their name.
here's a solution for our immigrant problem (please take all your pills before reading, head exploding moment):
RICHMOND, Calif. (KGO) -- The city of Richmond is poised to begin issuing municipal I.D. cards. Any Richmond resident can get one, but the program is intended for those who are undocumented.
A rally is being held in Civic Center Plaza in support of the municipal I.D. card program. People with no other form of government I.D. say it would give them access to things that most people take for granted like getting a library card, opening a bank account, cashing checks, and advocates say it would make Richmond a safer place.
San Francisco has already implemented a city I.D. card program, Oakland will soon, and now Richmond is likely next. The mayor says one in four Richmond residents is foreign-born, many are undocumented, have a hard time accessing city services and are afraid to have any contact with police, even when they are the crime victim.
Richmond is a sanctuary city where police do not assist with immigration enforcement, but the county does.
"A victim has come forward, they've been asked to produce some I.D., they don't have one, then they're referred to ICE," said Roberto Reyes from a Coalition for Municipal I.D. cards.
"Of course we want to see a comprehensive and humane immigration reform policy and Richmond has stood for that consistently, I've brought forward resolutions calling for that, but in the meantime, while that seems to be stalled at the national level, we think municipal I.D. is really a step in the right direction," said Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin.
The police department says certain details still need to be ironed-out, but it likes the idea.
"If it's going to give people more of a sense that they can actually come to us and report crimes or give is information or anything that they need to do in conjunction with the police, then we're very supportive," said Richmond Police Lt. Bisa French.
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 06 July 2011 at 12:40 AM
BTW, I'm up tonight to see if this 3.8 and .27, both very close to the surface, are the beginnings of the zipper opening on Cali Girl's Geological Horror House...I can mix metaphors better than James Bond can mix martinis.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqscanv/
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 06 July 2011 at 12:45 AM
“We are now 3rd....BEHIND SWEDEN the country with the biggest social safety net on earth. No homeless. Healthcare for all. 0% people below the poverty line. Who said you can't be great to your citizens and succeed.”
Where do you get your data from Douglas?
They have more homeless workers than homeless.
They have successfully created a homeless market.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isr16JFH_40
Posted by: D. King | 06 July 2011 at 07:44 AM
In Fairytopia the rich happily pay 100% of their income to an equitable, humble, and citizen-centered government. Would-be homeless and unemployed are ever thankful to the government for health care, education, food, excessive leisure time and shelter. Despite an entire population being supported by a few there is a peaceful, loving, balance which blankets the land.
Posted by: Mikey McD | 06 July 2011 at 08:51 AM
D.K. - you are so far from reason and reality it isn't funny. Like most of the left wing haters, you care only about mixing a few facts around that support your view of the world that is driven by envy and prejudice. Gen aviation pays a lot more than just the fuel tax. They also happen to provide a lot of good paying jobs. Not all of gen aviation is the "rich". Most of the wear and tear on the runway at the Nevada County airport happens to be caused by some fairly heavy aircraft that is operated by the govt. You might see them if you would actually go out there and look. (BTW - this Sat is the air show - everyone come out and enjoy!) The small planes that make up most of the take-offs and landings are much lighter and don't cause anywhere near the wear. Also, a lot of the "rich" don't own boats or aircraft. They provide a lot of jobs and pay their fair share and then some of the general infrastructure long before we get to their income tax. I can readily supply you with a host of idiot regs that the govt refuses to get rid of. A lot of them have been brought up here on this blog. I notice that when they are, the lefties never have any answer as to why we have to put with them. It has been pointed out by myself and others on the conservative side here on several occasions that we need regs to maintain a healthy, open and honest free market system. Getting rid of many of the money sucking cabinets and agencies in DC does not mean getting rid of all of the regs they monitor. The states can regulate the environment, feed the hungry and educate the students. California alone spews out more than enough regs by itself. You constantly rant about the big businesses getting too big, but it's the govt that supports that, not the conservatives. It happened in the 1800's because the govt wanted to use the railroads to help quickly expand our reach and dominance west, and it happened again in the 30's as the govt liked to suck up all of the money and pay it out to large corps to help with all of the large govt projects. It's happening again now as the feds are picking the larger banks, financial corps and manufacturers to give our tax dollars to, while starving out the small and independent ones. And finally, we don't have an "immigration problem". We are a nation of immigrants. We have a problem with elected officials that take an oath of office to uphold the law and then turn around and ignore the law, openly defy the law and/or attack folks that are trying to uphold the law. If you think the illegals are afraid to use public services, I would suggest you check out the stats from the hospitals in California or better yet, the criminal system. This country isn't a socialist country and our Constitution specifically forbids it.
Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 06 July 2011 at 08:57 AM
I mainly liked the part where Switzerland was described as a "socialist-liberal country, though not as liberal as the Nordic countries with health-care..."
Isn't that where the ultrarich stash their cash, and often retire to? John Walker of Autodesk is one such person, left USA clear back in the 1990's, took his loot and vamooshed. How does Switzerland do that, after Japan stole all the watch business. Do you suppose they'd drill for oil in their tourist attractions, if it was there? Of course the whole darn country qualifies as scenic-ky touristy area. And they seem to get by with not two, but three major languages and ethnicities? We could learn from them. Unlike Poland of course, they did have rather superior natural defenses...
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 06 July 2011 at 09:07 AM
Dear, dear Scott, been there, done that, and expect to do a lot more of that:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=37902535%40N00&q=cdf&m=text
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 06 July 2011 at 09:34 AM
"There must be a LOT of Doug Keachies to write all that bile!"
According to Greg, you are right, I am but one of many, many, sock puppets!
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 06 July 2011 at 09:40 AM
Dear Scotty,
Beam me up to the airport, What a concept, like I've never been there in my life!
Totally and complete corkscrew, Scotty, check these out, all mine and a tiny fraction of a much larger aviation oriented collection:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=37902535@N00&q=cdf
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 06 July 2011 at 09:43 AM
Double posted info as first one didn't show up after additional posts, and finally it comes out of the oven, after second one posted. feel feel to delete the excess, including this note, George.
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 06 July 2011 at 09:45 AM
Here's video sent by a reader that explains the differences in the right/left views of socio-economics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycGRERrGsMo
Posted by: George Rebane | 06 July 2011 at 11:12 AM
Time for a "the lip" Obama post...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama says the debt ceiling should not "be used as a gun against the heads" of Americans to retain breaks for corporate jet owners, the rich or oil and gas companies.
Instead the guns should be pointed at capitalists. Hypocrite.
Posted by: Mikey McD | 06 July 2011 at 01:01 PM
@MikeyMcD
Didn't see you hustling for George Bush to trade in the 3 747's for a Piper Cub.
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 06 July 2011 at 01:27 PM
At least GW could fly a Piper Cub, the safest plane ever built. It can only barely kill you.
Class Warfare looks to be the rallying cry of Democrats for the coming silly season. It does appear the power of the Speakership is being used by Boehner appropriately; there will be spending cuts, maybe a bone of a minor tax increase, but not enough of an additional borrowing authority to not avoid the exercise a couple more times before Nov 2012.
Posted by: Greg Goodknight | 06 July 2011 at 01:37 PM
So D.K., if you knew about the air tankers why did you "forget" to mention them? As I posted, your facts are carefully selected to match your prejudices. I'm sorry, but a collection of photos (as nice as they are) you took doesn't count as an intelligent argument. Your claim that "the rich" don't pay their fair share of the infrastructure has been shown to be totally with out merit.
Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 06 July 2011 at 03:58 PM
Scott, the merit of the class war 'fair share' arguments notwithstanding, they are nevertheless very powerful and fall comfortably on ears that bookend gray matter with little powers of or proclivity for discernment.
Posted by: George Rebane | 06 July 2011 at 04:08 PM
George,
As good an explanation as I have read.
http://tinyurl.com/43obw25
Posted by: D. King | 07 July 2011 at 12:35 AM
Scott, if you dig back into the stuff going on between Greg and myself a couple of weeks back, you'll see that indeed I did mention them. Glad you liked the pictures. Class warfare has been going on since Ogg and Moog. Of late the rich in the USA have been winning more hands, but the casino is drifting like the Aragon Ballroom in Stan Freberg's "Wunderful, a' Wunderful."
The problem is that history is going into some very uncharted waters. Please read at least a summary of Kurt Vonnegut's "Player Piano," to understand the problems confronting us. They are NOT the same problems we faced in the past, and playing economic Tarzan of the Capitalistic Jungle just isn't going to swing it this time.
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 07 July 2011 at 01:11 AM
Any way you look at it the tax cuts for the wealthy certainly didn't create jobs. Just look at Bush2's and Obama's numbers since the tax cuts in 02. Bush 2, who created the tax cuts had the worst job creation record in modern history. It's an absolute joke and completely unsubstantiated to say the Bush tax cuts created jobs. I say return to Clinton-Gingrich tax rates when so we can again balance the budget.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
Posted by: Paul Emery | 07 July 2011 at 08:40 AM
Barry,
Timber and all the other resources you mentioned will be harvested for who? I think the major problem with the regulars at ruminations is our country is huge and the rural region we live is only one small part of it and is even a smaller part of the population. The timber you speak of would go to a housing market that has vanished due to over development that was based on credit not wages. The economy was based on wages in the 30 year period when implemented the policies I talk about,1950's to the 1980's, our national debt was low and we were actually the biggest creditor nation on the planet. In the 30 year period, 1980 to present, we have implemented your policies and we see a economy in shambles, huge national debt, and we are the biggest debtor nation in world history.
I go with the tax rates, trade policies, unionization, and economy based on wages over your trickle down fiasco any day.
Posted by: Ben Emery | 07 July 2011 at 09:03 AM
It always amazes me how the impact of Vietnam and the Great Society social programs seem to disappear into the mists of progressives' interpretation of history.
Posted by: George Rebane | 07 July 2011 at 09:52 AM
Well spoken other Emery. George, what impact? You have to explain yourself. If Obama ever wakes up from his turpor and articulates what a historical sham trickle down economics (meaning the 1% rich peeing on the middle class) is he'll be unbeatable next year.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 07 July 2011 at 10:06 AM
sp "torpor" meaning temporary hibernation
Posted by: Paul Emery | 07 July 2011 at 10:25 AM
Bush II inherited a recession from Clinton and just as that was hitting bottom and things were maybe looking up, 9/11 hit and terror was front and center. He never had either a strong Speaker or a solid Congress. His last two years was a Pelosi/Reid production.
Keachie did indeed mention CalFire but then kept ignoring it; a fully laden S-2 tanker (29,000lbs) makes for a lot of wear and tear. General aviation (which includes a lot of commercial air traffic) is also where the air carriers go to find and train many (if not most nowadays) of their pilots, and in a number of times in the past I've seen a planeload of Japan Airlines pilot trainees and their instructor out at the fuel island at the Nevada County airport in a later model Beech Bonanza, thirty or forty years newer than mine. Most of the aircraft at the local airport are a tenth the weight of the Cal Fire airtankers. CHP and air ambulances also make appearances as do small jets.
A business jet is just one piece of capital equipment being singled out, probably as a result of focus group research. Like blowing money in Vegas, which also hurt the folks working in the industry being targeted more than the supposed fat cats in industry.
I suspect higher taxes on businesses hurts retirement savings (including not only my meager 401k but also Calpers and Calstrs) more than the Heinz-Kerry's of the country.
Posted by: Greg Goodknight | 07 July 2011 at 10:52 AM
So Greg are you willing to give Bush a pass on his pathetic job creation record because of the Clinton "recession" and circumstances that followed? If so then why don't you give Obama he same look? The fact is that historically tax cuts do not lead to job creation. I know you'll turn to Reagan as an example but his tax cuts were accompanied by a tripling of the deficit meaning future generations will pay for the tax cuts to the affluent. Pretty simple math.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 07 July 2011 at 10:58 AM
Paul, regarding your colorful description of 'trickle down economics' "meaning the 1% rich peeing on the middle class".
Talk about propaganda and demagoguery based in hatred!
Who creates jobs and pays wages?
Who produces the goods/services demanded by the world's consumers?
Who's spending spurs economic growth?
Who pays the majority of the taxes in America?!?
Who funds research and development to bring us medical cures/treatments?
Solutions will not come from hatred.
Posted by: Mikey McD | 07 July 2011 at 10:59 AM
PaulE, Great Society's historical impact on America is axiomatic as to the course changes it gave to almost every dimension of the country's life. Numerous authors from both sides have waxed eloquently about it effects, both vilifying and celebrating the new directions taken. It is hard for me to believe that this is all news to you. And since it is an axiomatic aspect of modern American life, I am not prepared to start debating with you the equivalent of the breathability of oxygen. But if you persist in your amazement, I will dig up a few references for you and anyone else who may cohabit that lonely corner of Neverland.
Posted by: George Rebane | 07 July 2011 at 11:01 AM
Politician Emery, "Timber and all the other resources you mentioned will be harvested for who?" how about growing economies like China?
"1980 to present, we have implemented your policies"- stinky bullshit. Insane corporate tax rates, high tax rates, forced SS and Medicare taxes, Obamacare, bailouts, zero % interest rates at the FED, stimulus [to name a few] are all AGAINST our policies.
Never have Americans been taxed more, regulated more and 'pissed on' [to use Paul's term] more by central planners than today.
Posted by: Mikey McD | 07 July 2011 at 11:07 AM
The first two Obama years were just a continuation of the last two Bush years, except Pelosi and Reid were now guaranteed a signature and not a veto. Pelosi unleashed, we had an explosion of government spending which expanded government employment while productive private employment contracted.
We had our trillion+ in spending that Obama recently joked wasn't quite "shovel ready", and our infrastructure isn't rebuilt.
Posted by: Greg Goodknight | 07 July 2011 at 11:19 AM
"I know you'll turn to Reagan as an example but his tax cuts were accompanied by a tripling of the deficit" - Paul E
I was happy not to have ever voted for Reagan, but revenues grew during his Presidency even as rates were cut. It's just that spending, thanks to Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill, grew much faster.
Bush I made a no new taxes pledge, but in a spirit of bipartisanship he agreed to a tax increase with promises of spending cuts, which didn't happen. The Speaker apparently had his fingers crossed when making that promise...
Posted by: Greg Goodknight | 07 July 2011 at 11:50 AM
For Paul Emery: http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/draghi/Middle%20Class%20Taxes.png
does not include 2010
Posted by: Mikey McD | 07 July 2011 at 12:00 PM
PaulE and BenE represent the people that are simply exhibiting the primal human emotion of jealousy (I do admit I am jealous of Paul's musical ability though). They cloak their disdain in the hate of those that financially "make it" in America with a political ropa-dope technique and leftwing talking points. They are the victims of the evil capitalist, mainly the wascally republicans. In America we have succeeded up till about 1990 because people were competing with each other to gain perfection. When it became simply outcome based in America, ruined by all those rules and regulations to lower the playing field to the lowest common denominator, we became a failed state. The proof of all this is in our place in the economies of the planet.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 07 July 2011 at 12:45 PM
D.K. - You had better stop digging the hole you're in. You were arguing that the wealthy do not pay their fair share for infrastructure and that was why all of the wealthy should have their taxes raised. When I pointed out that to be factually inaccurate, you countered with an example of the wealthy (they generally aren't) general aviation owners getting a free ride at the Nevada County airport with a re-paved runway at the general population's expense. I assumed you were ignorant of the real reason there was a need for re-paving. So now you are crowing about how you know all about why they had the general population pay for the re-paving. What am I left to think? I don't like name calling but it seems to me that you deliberately presented a false argument to prop up your side of the argument. We can have an honest disagreement and a lively back and forth, but trying to "win" by those means is just sad. I'd appreciate your side of this issue.
Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 07 July 2011 at 01:58 PM
Scott, you broke Keachie's code, but I think you have it wrong in an important detail. It may be that when he sees an argument to be made that fits what he wants to believe, he just forgets the contrary evidence.
The biggest single subsidy to the local airport was from the donation of the land by Charles Litton Sr, who had a lot of money he earned the old fashioned way, and believed an airport was important to the community.
Posted by: Greg Goodknight | 07 July 2011 at 02:06 PM
George
Which of these do you feel are the culprit? I assume you are referring to negative impacts. I was expecting you to produce some examples of programs or legislation, Medicare for example or the Civil Rights Act or:
"War on Poverty: forty programs that were intended to eliminate poverty by improving living conditions and enabling people to lift themselves out of the cycle of poverty.
Education: sixty separate bills that provided for new and better-equipped classrooms, minority scholarships, and low-interest student loans.
Medicare & Medicaid: guaranteed health care to every American over sixty-five.
The Environment: introduced measures to reclaim our heritage of clean air and water.
National Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities: created with the philosophy that artists, performers, and writers were a priceless part of our heritage and deserve support.
Job Corps: provided enabling skills for young men and women.
Head Start: program for four- and five-year-old children from disadvantaged families that gave them a chance to start school on an even basis with other youngsters."
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/gresoc.htm
Posted by: Paul Emery | 07 July 2011 at 03:05 PM
Todd
You are so dramatic! I am only proposing we return to the tax rates of the Clinton-Gingrich years. That's hardly draconian and is proven to be sustainable and capable of producing a balanced budget. Yes, I believe trickle down is a deception and a casual look at history proves my argument. Reagan knowingly spent more than we earned leaving the debt for future generations. He was a failed President that tripled the deficit with help from Bush Sr. This is an indisputable fact. If he were hired to run a business he would have been fired.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 07 July 2011 at 03:33 PM
Paul, trickle down worked and Clinton/Gingrich proved it.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 07 July 2011 at 03:40 PM
Then you must agree with the tax rate they had. If they would have had todays tax rate we would have run a deficit rather than a surplus that actually paid down the debt before Bush came in and lowered taxes causing massive debt.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 07 July 2011 at 03:44 PM
Todd, I agree ("primal human emotion of jealousy... They cloak their disdain in the hate of those that financially "make it" in America"). The class warfare promoted by the progressives is based on envy, jealousy and hatred against those who have succeeded.
How would Paul E like it if 'society' voted to steal his ability to play music in order to give such an ability to someone such as you or I that felt that playing music was a 'right' promised to us by "pursuit of happiness?"
Check this out (2081): http://vimeo.com/7898284
Posted by: Mikey McD | 07 July 2011 at 03:44 PM
Paul, make that a return to the rates and the budgets of the Gingrich years and you have a deal.
Posted by: Greg Goodknight | 07 July 2011 at 03:44 PM
Paul, are you aware that we could make Federal Income Taxes ZERO today and still have the same income/budget we had 12 years ago!?! Income is NOT THE PROBLEM, SPENDING IS THE PROBLEM. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/hist.pdf
Don't forget: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc
What did Clinton have that Reagan, Bush 1 & 2 did not?
A booming economy (thanks to the tech revolution).
Posted by: Mikey McD | 07 July 2011 at 03:59 PM
Without taking on $1 of more debt...
FACT: The United States Of America could make Federal Income Tax rates ZERO for all US Citizens and still have the same budget as 1996 WITHOUT USING ANY DEBT.
1996 US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET (EXPENSES) WERE $1.5 TRILLION.
2010 (ESTIMATED) US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INCOME WITHOUT INCOME TAXES IS EXPECTED TO BE $1.5 TRILLION.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/hist.pdf
Posted by: Mikey McD | 07 July 2011 at 04:15 PM
"Who creates jobs and pays wages?"
The consumers who pay for goods and services offered.
"Who produces the goods/services demanded by the world's consumers?"
The employees of the capitalists.
"Who's spending spurs economic growth?"
The consumers.
"Who pays the majority of the taxes in America?!?"
The consumers who put their money in the hands of capitalists in exchange for goods and services provided by the employees.
"Who funds research and development to bring us medical cures/treatments?"
The consumers who brought earlier drugs and hospital services, etc.
It's all how you look at it.
No consumers and the capitalists would be digging for grubs.
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 07 July 2011 at 09:16 PM
' "Who creates jobs and pays wages?"
The consumers who pay for goods and services offered.'
Not in this universe, unless you are using definitions of "creates", "pays" and "wages" that aren't in the dictionary.
Posted by: Greg Goodknight | 07 July 2011 at 11:14 PM
How many jobs can a capitalist create without consumers?
The answer is ZERO (0) null nada nothin.
How can a capitalist pay wages with consumers paying money?
HE CAN'T!
and so on.
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 07 July 2011 at 11:19 PM
"How can a capitalist pay wages with consumers paying money?"
should be:
"How can a capitalist pay wages without consumers paying money?"
Wifey Poo interrupted me with discussion of gardening.
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 07 July 2011 at 11:21 PM
Keachie, it would be extremely tormenting to live in your world (ignorance of economic laws and common sense logic coupled with undeserved confidence).
p.s. I would strongly suggest Peter Schiff's "How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes" as a pseudo econ101 tutorial.
Posted by: Mikey McD | 08 July 2011 at 07:48 AM
Douglas does exist in a different world. Nowhere in his "circle of capital" does he acknowledge that the capitalists produce anything of value. His view of life and commerce is controlled by his prejudice and hatred. Capitalists are just like you and I, with the exception that they work harder and take more risks. Most of the time, they make more money. Some times they lose a lot of money. Some times they are greedy and stupid and lose a great deal of money. But if the greedy and stupid ones are politically connected, left wing politicians give them our money. I suppose it's only fair, as the left wing politicians also give our money to greedy and stupid people of all walks of life, here and all over the world. Is this a great country or what?
Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 08 July 2011 at 10:05 AM
Greg
Sure Greg, let's return to the Newt-Clinton budget . However, how do you propose we pay for Bush's trillion dollar war in Iraq? War tax ?
Oh I forgot, mission accomplished.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 08 July 2011 at 10:19 AM
Paul, if my chosen candidate had won in '88, we'd never have sent troops to the middle east.
Posted by: Greg Goodknight | 08 July 2011 at 10:44 AM
Paul, if my chosen candidate had won in '88, we'd never have sent troops to the middle east.
Posted by: Greg Goodknight | 08 July 2011 at 10:44 AM
'88? I didn't know you were a Dukakis guy?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 08 July 2011 at 11:12 AM
Dear Paul,
Our records show that you spend a considerable amount of time entertaining both yourself and crowds via playing guitar. As you are aware their are millions of Americans who are entitled to play guitar who, through no fault of their own, cannot carry a tune. In light of this injustice we are requiring you to decrease the amount of music you play (leisure and otherwise) by 45% in order to equalize the inequalities in the United States arts community. You are required to spend the 45% of would-be guitar time tutoring a struggling guitarist. Furthermore, you must now report how many hours you play (leisure and otherwise) to the Board of Art Equalization for annual review. Should the Board of Art Equalization deem your abilities and time allotted to guitar as excessive you will be reprimanded.
We understand that you may believe that your years of practice may entitle you to your musical gifts, the Board of Art Equalization does not agree. Protest of this law is futile. Punishments for knowingly breaking the aforementioned law is punishable by further decreases in your guitar playing allotment time, confiscation of your guitar(s) and prison time.
The Board of Art Equalization thanks you for your helping to equalize the injustices inherent in the art community.
Thank you,
Loot Mooch
Board of Art Equalization Czar
Posted by: Mikey McD | 08 July 2011 at 11:26 AM
Todd, Mikey
Just because I believe in a progressive income tax doesn't mean I hate or envy wealthy people. That's such a silly diversion from meaningful discussion it makes me wonder if you have anything better to say. Most of the best managed nations in the world have progressive taxes. In fact, show me a modern nation that doesn't. I keep looking for current examples of what you espouse but you offer none so it seems like a fairy tale to me with no substance.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 08 July 2011 at 11:28 AM
PaulE, all of your responses assume as an article of faith that the "best managed nations" are some kind of templates of stability, goodness, and light for the United States. They are not, and that is a tenuous assumption.
Posted by: George Rebane | 08 July 2011 at 11:32 AM
Paul, to accept and promote a system whereby the property of one class of people is targeted differently than that of another class is founded in hate [envy, jealousy, discrimination]. Discussion on a Flat or Fair Tax have permeated this blog (and others). It is hypocritical to espouse a philosophy of discrimination against some in the name of equality or justice. You are sincerely lucky to not be discriminated against in the manner which you push on others. The debate starts with personal liberty (private property) and no progressive wants to 'go there.'
Posted by: Mikey McD | 08 July 2011 at 11:40 AM
Are a man's wages/income his property or The States? Who do you trust to draw the line between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' when 'the dues of society' are invoiced?
Posted by: Mikey McD | 08 July 2011 at 11:55 AM
Okay Mikey, please show me some contemporary countries that have the tax systems you prefer.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 08 July 2011 at 12:04 PM
Dukakis?
Shirley, you jest! ;) He would have been the same, love those tanker hats.
Posted by: Greg Goodknight | 08 July 2011 at 12:11 PM
George
Let's start with infant mortality, crime, education, infrastructure, stability, freedom, equal opportunity, lack of racism, environment, workplace safety, transportation, affordable health care, home ownership opportunity, low crime rate....
I will advance the discussion with examples being Scandinavia, New Zealand Switzerland and Canada. All have progressive income taxes.
Come on guys, you spout all this rhetoric about how things should be without any examples. I do my best to document what I offer.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 08 July 2011 at 12:17 PM
Paul, no other country in the world has a constitutional republic which defends a man's right to private property. I am talking about the USA which has a culture based on individual liberty (private property). Your dodging my questions shows (again) that progressives 'don't want to go there.'
Are a man's wages/income his property or The States? Who do you trust to draw the line between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' when 'the dues of society' are invoiced?
Posted by: Mikey McD | 08 July 2011 at 12:18 PM
Imagine if the writers of the US constitution were forced to use systems already in place around the world circa 1776- we would most likely have a monarchy (or worse). America LEADS, she does not follow.
Posted by: Mikey McD | 08 July 2011 at 12:22 PM
USA 1912 (before the plague of collectivism spread).
"Okay Mikey, ...tax systems you prefer.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 08 July 2011 at 12:04 PM "
Posted by: Mikey McD | 08 July 2011 at 12:25 PM
Mikey
Are you sure the countries that I mentioned don't defend the right to own property? I'd appreciate it if you did a little research before stating that as a fact. I don't have time to do your research.
I was hoping for contemporary examples of admirable tax systems not those 100 years old. Todd will be angry at you for dwelling on the past.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 08 July 2011 at 12:37 PM
I couldn't help but look it up
Home ownership
Ireland 82% Japan 60
Spain 80 Portugal 59
Luxembourg 77 United States 59
Norway 73 Finland 58
Belgium 72 Sweden 55
Greece 72 France 54
Italy 68 Netherlands 46
United Kingdom 67 Germany 40
Canada 64 Switzerland 29
Denmark 60
Posted by: Paul Emery | 08 July 2011 at 12:40 PM
Strike three Paul! Again you ignore my simple, yet foundational questions. Taxes paid were once private property. Any country with the tax structure you promote [those listed above] doesn't value/honor personal liberty (private property).
BTW, the majority of the countries you cite for 'home ownership' (which be definition does not equate to private property) are defaulting on their debts! Foreshadowing for the US...
Posted by: Mikey McD | 08 July 2011 at 01:00 PM
PaulE, what if we posit all the positives that you present for your favorite socialist countries. Their overarching problem still remains that no one from an advanced country wants to go there, and no one from an underdeveloped country that has the US as an alternative. And that entrepreneurs who can liberate their money leave in droves. And since none of them have a sustainable system - as you have ignored countless times - they are all attempting to liberalize their economies and personal liberties in order to keep their wealth creating talents at home.
This is the 47th circuit of the same old barn - we are not making progress in this discussion. But we are underlining the growing interest in the Great Divide.
Posted by: George Rebane | 08 July 2011 at 01:25 PM
Mikey
The countries that I cited as prime examples of well run countries that have a progressive income tax are Norway, Canada, Switzerland and New Zealand not the general list of percentages of home ownership. The burden is on you to show me they (well run countries) are defaulting on their debts as you claim. Norway has the best credit rating of any country in the world. Give me some contemporary examples of countries that do not have progressive tax structures that you admire. Please, no 100 year old examples.
George
I gave you examples of what I thought were "well managed countries" that have progressive income taxes. Before you dismiss my efforts with the same old response you could at least make an effort to give me some living examples of countries that you admire that do not have a progressive tax system. I feel I'm the only one here that is in the real world. George, earlier in this post you weren't sure if Norway and Denmark were socialist countries but now you say they are. Can you explain your change of opinion? When asked if you thought they were socialistic you responded
"PaulE, I have no idea. But their state run programs seem to be gobbling up an ever greater fraction of their GDP. As the song says, 'Something's gotta give.'
Posted by: Paul Emery | 08 July 2011 at 02:37 PM
PaulE, I can't find that quote of mine in this comment stream. Please help.
Regardless, Norway and Denmark are markedly more socialist than yet is America. What I can't communicate to you is that I and others like me are not searching for other countries that we want America to be like or for America to emulate. We are an idealistic bunch, with a heritage that goes back to colonial times (e.g. as observed by de Tocqueville), who believe that America is exquisitely unique, warts and all, and already on a path on which we have a myriad of followers but no leaders. You seem to belong to the cohort who see better countries dot the horizon and after which we should strive, even as you cherry pick their (unsustainable) attributes and ask 'Why can't we do that?'
I see no such countries, and know that I can't even replicate your cherry picks in the US because of unnumbered linkages that will not fit into the simple unlinked worldview so dear to socialists. We have no model to follow, but must instead continue to better ourselves within the framework of our destiny.
Posted by: George Rebane | 08 July 2011 at 03:26 PM
PaulE, I did a more comprehensive search with Google, and found the quote you cited under my post ‘Democracy Bound …’
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2011/06/democracy-bound-on-the-ship-of-fools-.html
You committed an uncharacteristic boo-boo, one that I’m at a loss to explain, other than perhaps your succumbing to the stress of a debate that seems to be slipping away. In the comment stream you ask me - “So George under your definition (are) Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland Socialist countries on the path to Communism?”
To which I answered, “PaulE, I have no idea. But their state run programs seem to be gobbling up an ever greater fraction of their GDP. As the song says, 'Something's gotta give.'”
And from my not knowing the surety of their path to communism, you cobbled together the claim that I changed my mind about the named countries being socialistic. This is something I would expect from Messrs Keachie, Ben Emery, and Thornton. Et tu Paulus?
Posted by: George Rebane | 08 July 2011 at 03:47 PM
My mistake. I stand corrected George. I understand now that you always considered those, and all EU countries as well as New Zealand to be Socialistic so you did not contradict yourself. Also you do not necessarily see Socialism as a sure path to Communism.
Why shouldn't we say 'why can't we do that?' In many areas the quality of life in cited countries far surpasses ours in areas I've already documented such as education, crime rates, home ownership, gender equality, health care on and on... If you had a business and you saw a similar venture surpassing you in many functional areas I'm sure you would give a hard look at the reasons and try to incorporate those practices in your operation. I doubt you would say "Back in 1914 we used to do it this way and we need to go back to those practices. The overall imminent collapse of cited Socialistic countries is only a theory at this point and is not embraced by the vast majority of worldwide economic observers.
Idealism will only get you so far. Trying to emulate an economic situation of 100 years ago and saying that's the way it should be today without any details or current examples will only attract the interest of like minded "ideologues" and will have no chance of ever being adopted. From my observations I see that the push and pull of the Right and Left is healthy and productive without either side having total control. That's why the Clinton-Gingrich years produced a balanced budget. Bush Jr ignored even his chief economic advisors and led us down the dark path of massive debt by not correcting his decision to cut taxes which in no way has proven to be a job creator. That's why the TP's are in my opinion ready for the history books because they will undermine any potential for compromise and will soon be marginalized by the more pragmatic elements of the Republican party.
You and your buglers always come up short when asked for examples preferring to to chant dogma. As Reagan would say "Where's the beef?"
On a slightly different topic, immigration rules in Europe are very strict and if you don't bring it with you ((money) you can't stay legally. They did get flooded with cheap labor workers in the 70's and 80's and are now suffering the consequences. I knew many Americans who wanted to immigrate legally to Denmark but did not qualify. They were attracted to a system that did not allow them to go bankrupt and lose their home if they had a heart attack.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 08 July 2011 at 05:14 PM
Your points about innovation in governance are valid PaulE. My disappointment is that I and my "buglers" come across to you as Neanderthals who want to go back in every aspect to the dim dark distant past (another oversimplification). As a lifelong entrepreneur and certified innovator I am not like that, nor have I ever witnessed my peers over a long professional career to be so afflicted.
Instead, we have always invented, developed, and built new things and approaches that society embraced to its benefit, and that includes socialization processes like group innovation and conflict resolution.
The only thing that we yearn for from yesteryear is the individual liberties people had under a much smaller and less intrusive government. Returning to that is very much the "meat" of what we preach today. What we can do when turned loose has blown away the innovative approaches and products of the left, and are guaranteed to continue doing so.
It really seems that you have little idea from where bright futures for mankind come. But your first clue should be that since at least the French Revolution, they have not come from the broad brush of collectivism.
Posted by: George Rebane | 08 July 2011 at 10:18 PM
I'd like top know what "liberties" other that the ability to keep more of your earnings you are referring to. I never heard any complaints from the people I knew in Scandinavia about a lack of liberty. The historical reference of pre 1912 or whatever close date somewhat coincides with the beginning of income tax so I assume that is your main concern. There are more liberties when you have small populations and lots of land that are inherited in the lifestyles of the times. I am very concerned about the electronic surveillance authorized by the Bush Admin that your side was very quiet about. Also, look into the government intrusion into the lives of those who grow illegal foliage, something that has not raised the concerns of most Conservatives, true Libertarians excepted.
Since you consider all of Europe to be socialist and collectivist, I assume you do not consider the contributions of those cultures in Science, Art and Academics to be significant.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 09 July 2011 at 02:32 PM
Wow PaulE, that's quite a mouthful of propositions in just one comment. It looks like once you got on a roll, your brakes gave out.
For liberties, yes keeping more of one's earnings is one, but only a matter of degree. The one that we can start with is freedom of speech. Most EU countries constrain it in more ways than you can count. All the way from denying the Holocaust to various types of loosie-goosie libel laws to not saying anything that might unravel a turban here or there. And then we can go on to starting a business, renting a house, entering a market, ... .
Re electronic surveillance - you have not paid much attention to the pieces here in RR about that. I continually point out not only the steps that government has already taken here in America, but also the support of tyranny that almost all of our modern warfare systems enable once a perverse government points them inward toward us. You may remember, I helped design many of those systems and know precisely how they can be used to invoke a 3am knock at your door. (Also, stay tuned for my tomorrow's post.)
BTW, the government is not using even its little finger to nail "illegal foliage" growers for reasons which we have discussed before. But they could any time they wanted to.
Have no idea how came up with your last assumption. I'll just attribute it to brake failure and say a little prayer for a soft landing.
Posted by: George Rebane | 09 July 2011 at 03:52 PM