Paul Ryan Explains Conservative Economic Theory To Ezra Klein

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Paul Ryan Explains Conservative Economic Theory To Ezra Klein

Written By : John Hawkins

When I saw that Paul Ryan was doing an interview with far left-winger Ezra Klein at the WAPO, I wasn’t wild about the idea because Klein is a diehard partisan. However, I think Ryan did an excellent job of explaining conservative ideas about the economy in the interview.

Ezra Klein: It’s clear now that there’ll be no more deficit-financed stimulus coming out of Congress. And Republicans, of course, could well take the House in the next election. So with unemployment still near 10 percent, what does the GOP want to do? If stimulus isn’t the solution, what is?

Paul Ryan: I know uncertainty is a new economic buzzword, but for good reason: If we can reduce it, we’ll unlock capital. I’d revisit some of the major issues over the last year. Health care, energy, taxes, financial regulation. I’m not saying these aren’t important issues. We need to reform the health-care system. But these are the wrong solutions. I would advance different solutions with an eye toward international competitiveness and encouraging saving and investing and encouraging certainty.

Then there’s our borrowing. If you look at the deficit, the problem is spending, not taxes. Revenues will come back up. At the end of the day, I’m not a Keynesian, but even Keynesians would agree that raising taxes in this economy is a bad idea. So if it’s helpful for me to concede to that section of Keynesian doctrine, fine. Let’s do that. I really do believe that locking in budget reforms and spending control will help us in the short run by taking pressure off interest rates and monetary policy. Spending control is pro-growth in this age of sovereign debt crises.

The “uncertainty” angle is one Klein obviously doesn’t agree with, because he kept going back to it, but you’ve got to look at it from the perspective of a business owner.

When you have a government that is hostile to small business, wants to expand regulation, wants to expand government, and has raised taxes, it makes you nervous. Combine that with the fact that Obama lies constantly about what he intends to do and has, on multiple occasions, looked for ways to get around Congress and simply enact things like Cap and Trade.

Now, as a small business, these things scare the living hell out of you. You don’t know how health care reform is going to affect you, you’re afraid your taxes may be going up, and new regulations could dramatically affect your bottom line at any time. So, do you hire new employees, invest in new equipment, and expand or do you hunker down and wait for the storm to pass? A lot of them are choosing the hunker down and it’s hurting the economy.

Paul Ryan even mentioned an example,

The people who have capital are sitting on their hands: I just talked to a guy who builds nurseries and canceled three construction projects next year because he just doesn’t know what’s happening. People are just too nervous, they don’t know what the economy will be, what the regulations will be, what the taxes will be, and to the extent you can increase certainty, you can unlock some of that credit.

This is probably the rule, not the exception in our economy today and it’s probably having a much bigger negative impact on the economy than any relatively small positive impact caused by the stimulus and other government spending.

Now, Ezra argues that if Republicans were in charge and were to say, kill the health care bill, that would result in uncertainty, too. Truthfully? Not so much because businesses know Republicans are free marketers who are generally opposed to new taxes, new regulations, and expanding government (I wish that last one had been more true in the Bush years). It’s an attitude difference between the two parties and businesses are well aware of it.

Here’s more from Ryan:

Temporary stuff doesn’t work. These short-term stimulative things like rebates don’t work. They’ll pump up some money in the quarter where they occur. You go right back where you were. These short-term stimuli, which Bush and Obama did, don’t change aggregate demand. And that’s why I think we need more of an investment-led recovery. At this point, given the borrowing costs, stimulus is counterproductive.

In the real world, this has been proven again and again. These short term bills have EVERYTHING to do with politicians wanting to say, “Look what I did to help!” and nothing to do with actually improving the economy.

This comment about taxes from Ryan is also an important one for conservatives to see,

I wouldn’t say that every tax cut pays for itself. It depends on the tax. I would say that you cannot reduce the deficit with a sinking economy. The better way, in my mind, is to grow the economy as quickly as possible and control and slow spending. So keep taxes low, maximize growth and cut spending.

Do tax cuts tend to encourage economic growth? Yes. Now, liberals, are you listening? Good. Do tax revenues often GO UP, not down, after tax cuts? Yes, they do. Now, here’s one for the conservatives: Even if tax revenues go up after a tax cut, is it entirely possible they would have gone up even more had taxes not been reduced? Yes, it is. How can that be? Here’s an overly simple example to help explain it.

Imagine the economy consists of 10 people who make $10 a year and pay $1 each in taxes. That’s $10 worth of revenue per year for the government. Then, the government increases the tax burden to $2 per person. As a result, 3 people stop working/cheat on their taxes/find a way to shelter it, etc. Those people pay no taxes. Well, you still have 7 people paying $2 worth of taxes per year. That’s $14 in revenue for the government.

Again, the example is a bit too simple, but it’s worth pointing: Yes, this is a complex topic that can’t be summed up by the Laffer Curve alone.

Now here’s more on bailing out the states:

Do you worry that even if you got your spending cuts, the American economy will suffer? A report released by the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and United States Conference of Mayors said they’ll have to lay off 500,000 people in the next few years if they don’t get some fiscal relief. That’s 500,000 people on the unemployment rolls.

I’ve always believed we need automatic stabilizers. We need a safety net. But I think it’s becoming equally important to show we’re not going to borrow endlessly. I also think it’s a bad idea to bail out states from making the necessary decisions they need to make to increase and fix their structural deficit problems. All you’re doing then is putting their liabilities on the federal books. And I assume those jobs are mostly public sector jobs. If you focus on those, that money comes from the private sector. The money isn’t free. It’s being taken out of the private economy and pumped through the private sector. The right path is to keep the money in the private sector and so they have money to invest. We should focus on growth in the private sector, not growth in the public sector.

Exactly right. In the overwhelming majority of cases, a public sector employee losing his job and not being replaced is a blessing for the country, not a curse. The federal government also needs to be EXTREMELY reluctant to protect state governments from the consequences of their poor governance. When you reward states like California that refuse to engage in responsible fiscal behavior, not only is it unfair to the people from other states that have to pay their bills, it encourages them to continue behaving irresponsibly. States, like people and businesses, should be allowed to take their lumps.

Last but not least, let me close by going back to my favorite sentence in that entire interview from Ryan,

I just don’t see government spending as a key to growth.

Despite the fact that’s absolutely true and damn near unrefutable if you look at the economic history of this country, liberals HATE to hear it because 90% of their agenda is taking money from the American people, spending it, and then demanding that they be praised for it. Liberals will spend this country into oblivion if we let them, because their whole identity is tied up in expanding the government, taxing as much as possible, and getting as much control as they can over other people’s lives.

Long story short, Ryan is recommending that we control spending, move away from bailouts, cut taxes, repeal Obamacare, and give businesses a predictable environment again. Had Obama been doing those things, it’s likely that our economy would already be thriving again instead of still staggering along.

Lee

It boils down to the question of who is best able to control your (the individuals) life: the individual or the government.

If you control your own life, it also means you bear individual responsibility for adversity. Of course, this also means if you do well, you are free to use your earnings to help others. Jesus did tell us to help others.

If government controls your life, you have the illusion of security. It's an illusion because in order to take care of you, government must take from someone else. Jesus did not tell us to take from those who have and give to those who don't. The obvious problem is you eventually run out of other people's money (to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher).

Reality generally falls somewhere between the two extremes. The question is which way does it (via policies, regulations, taxes, etc.) lean. Leaning toward the first has a proven track record of benefiting the vast majority (exception those who do not want to do anything – to which I ask why they think they are entitled to the fruits of another's labor). Leaning toward the second has a proven track record of hurting everyone (Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea).
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C3IKAXMRVZNEU5BZKUD7LK6WBA Pete Moss

> It boils down to the question of who is best able to control your (the individuals) life: the individual or the government.

In this country, the government is of the people, by the people, for the people. It is there to protect us from business, from corporations.

Unfortunately business runs the show and this country is in decline.

Your vision of individualism being the paramount answer is belied by a history, where only collective action has affected change. Collective action often forcing the government to act on, and then protect, the individual interests of everybody.
StanW

If government controls your life, you have the illusion of security.

Mainly based upon the cold, cold reality that any government big enough to give you a 'right' is also big enough to take your rights away.
StanW

YAWN…..

Another partisan Liberal hack that is COMPLETLY ignorant of the history of this nation. I really wish this surprised me.
whats_up

I see your ignorance is on display again Stanley, actually he is more correct than you know, but then again thats the key isnt it, you dont want to know, you want to continue to live in your fantasy world, the rugged individual, blah, blah, blah.
StanW

So you think this country is dominated by corporations and the government is merely a stooge of those corporations? And which political party is in power right now?

Do the things you post here sound intelligent in your head, because if they do… MUCH is lost in translation.
anwatkins

The only mention of business in the constitution is in Article I Section 5 and it is describing how Congress must operate. The constitution makes absolutely no mention of business or corporations. The commerce statements were designed so that the federal government would regulate commerce with foreign nations and between states. It is a pretty loose interpretation to mean that the federal government was to protect the people from businesses and corporations.

The constitution was supposed to outline how the federal government was to operate, and to see that, simply read the Preamble:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

So, the purpose of the federal government was to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. While establishing justice and promoting general welfare can be a bit vague, the others spell out specific duties, including national defense, quelling rebellion (which is insuring tranquility) and protecting freedoms.

Unless you want to argue that warfare on businesses and corporations is in the justice or general welfare portions.
UFKA_Smithwick

The theory is pretty simple. It is both moral and practical to leave people the most freedom possible to use their resources as they see fit (money, labor, etc).

Some government regulations can be desirable, but it's very easy too go too far. Taxes are necessary to have a functioning government, but again: we must avoid going too far.
UFKA_Smithwick

“In this country, the government is of the people, by the people, for the people. It is there to protect us from business, from corporations.”

Whereas corporations are not made of people. According to liberals they are an unholy alliance of gaia-hating machines, money, jews and others they've labeled as nonhuman.
UFKA_Smithwick

“
Your vision of individualism being the paramount answer is belied by a history, where only collective action has affected change. Collective action often forcing the government to act on, and then protect, the individual interests of everybody. “

Collective action can cause change yes. Often times it is horrible change, as in the Soviet Union or North Korea.

But if your only goal is change in general, rather than improvement (a very specific kind of change) then a hardcore leftwing ideology offers you many opportunities.
http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

I think that in true progressive fashion, Petey is trying to expand, yet again, the meaning of the Commerce Clause listed among the Powers of Congress in Section 8. That's just a guess though.
anwatkins

I would respectfully agree with that assertion.
StanW

It is always interesting that Liberals are able to FIND new rights and new powers in the Constitution, yet have such trouble locating Freedom of (not FROM) Religion and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Mediumheadboy

No no no, not ignorant. Stupid. There's a difference.
StanW

In his case, the difference is so minute as to be unimportant.
Mediumheadboy

Cretins doesn't “think” anything. At best, he feels. At worst he accepts whatever talking points the ruling class regurgitates.
baoxian

Klein is an imbecile. The gist of his question as a rabid liberal was, “Obama's stimulus failed, so why aren't Republicans going to do it again?” More of the same spend-our-way-out-of-debt nonsense that has this country on the verge of economic implosion.

Ryan killed the answer and is exactly right. When nobody knows what the government is going to do next, nobody spends money or hires people. Right now the Democrats are like John Locke in Lost. They think they're following some grand plan that will work if they just believe in it enough, but at the end of the day they're just a loser that got duped by a malevolent con man.
Hotspur1

That's crap and you know it.

The government is to secure our rights from being infringed by not only businesses, but people, groups and even itself. They are supposed to be the umpire, making sure everyone plays the game within the rules. The problem is when they start trying to manage the teams and players.

Furthermore, I don't recall anywhere where only collective action affected change. I defy your definition of collective. You see collective as forced upon us by the government. I see a true collective as individuals finding common ground, whether idealogical or economic, and working together to serve a purpose. That happens with anybody who decides to go into business; they decide that, collectively, they will engage in an activity that will serve some economic purpose. But even then, it all starts with an individual and an idea.

Look at the greatest inventions of the last two centuries and you'll find the vast majority of them were brought about by individual effort.
Hotspur1

Let me ask you:

What do you have against the individual vs. the collective?
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“In this country, the government is of the people, by the people, for the people. It is there to protect us from business, from corporations.”

But businesses and corporations are of, by and for people, too — far more so than elitist politicians and faceless bureaucracies in Washington. After all, no corporation or business can forcibly take my money away without my consent… not yet, anyway.
http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

Given that this interview was being conducted with Ezra Klein, Mr. Ryan now has to wonder how many activist operatives are conspiring to plot their collective revenge against him as we speak. Oh to be a fly on the wall of Mr. Klein's email client.
Christopher_Taylor

Uncertainty, and I think outright fear, is what's keeping the economy from rebounding like it could. Unemployment is high not because there cannot possibly BE any jobs, but because employers are cutting costs to stay competitive as they look toward the future and what damage the Obama doctrine has wrought and will continue to.
gfchicago

Bullshit. Tell you what little Petey (one who like to denigrate his significant other over the internet), you and all of the other trolls that hang out here can pony up your money and give it to the collective.

I need my money to take care of my own. Charity always begins at home. I have family members that need my help and I would rather give my money to them than the Federal Government that pockets a huge percentage and then doles out the rest to people and their cronies that I don't even know.

When I want people that I don't even know to have my money, I give it to my church or another charitable origination, I trust them a hell of a lot more than I do the Federal or State Governments. And if I find out that whatever charitable organization that I've given to in the past is stealing from us I can refuse to give them anymore money, whereas with the Government I can't and it is legalized stealing and I have no recourse.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C3IKAXMRVZNEU5BZKUD7LK6WBA Pete Moss

From salon.com

Matt Yglesias calls Ryan's theory on interest rates “an underpants gnome theory of growth” but I think Ryan Avent's response is most succinct: “This is, quite simply, wrong.”

To get the effective federal funds rate to meet a target 1 percent higher than the current level would involve the use of open market operations that would literally take money out of the economy. Meanwhile, the effect of the higher rate would be to encourage more banks to lend through the Fed and fewer banks to borrow from the Fed. In other words, we're talking more money parked at the Fed and less out in the economy.

So one of the purportedly smartest minds in the Republican party believes that tighter money would loosen credit. In an economy teetering on the edge of deflation, he wants to raise interest rates and shrink the money supply. On, in other words, in addition to cutting spending prematurely, he would like to make the other big mistake that kept the Great Depression going strong — pursue a contractionary monetary policy.

UPDATE: And…. immediately after publishing my post, I reviewed my blogroll, and discovered that just 20 minutes ago, Paul Krugman seized upon the exact same quote and reacted in exactly the same way. I would like to assure my readers that there was no behind-the-scenes vast left-wing conspiracy concocted on a private e-mail listserv necessary to produce this harmonic convergence. It was just too darn obvious to skip.
http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

More stolen ideas from Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V_Man.
the_hawk

He's ignorant of his stupidity.
Christopher_Taylor

Copypasta by the Krugman clone.
abcxyz

The fact that Krooksman is parroting the same argument means it is nearly 100% false already.
Christopher_Taylor

…and the leftist picks “government,” what a shock.
TheDickNixon

blah blah David Duke. Bush. 2004. Blah Blah
Fail_Baby_Fail

But they do Cav. “But businesses and corporations are of, by and for people, too”

Ok lets say they are. Why has the the pay of CEO's risen 2-300% over that of their workers?

Corporations dont forcibly take your money this is true. But they tell you what you will make. They dont have to take it from you. They just dont offer it to you in the first place.

Now lets look at two examples. These are parts of my life.
1) I worked for Circuit City way back in 98-2002. It was a great job at first. Nothing beats a $4000 2 week pay check because you had a very good Commission week. One morning the store opens late to have a “all hands meeting”. CC just fired the top sellers in all the stores to save some money. 10000-12000 people total. Everyone that was left had a choice make way less than what you did. Or lose your job too. I took a 10k pay cut to keep my job. The cap was set at 20.00 an hour. My average was 19.96 only because the year they used to make your average. I got very sick with the flu and missed 3 weeks in December that killed my average. So CC fired the very best they had and replaced them with 9.25 an hour workers. If you averaged less than 20.00 an hour you where safe……………..1.5 years later if you made more than 15.00 an hour you where gone…………. 3 years later if you made more than 11.00 an hour gone. In about 4-5 years CC replaced their entire sales crew with 9.25 an hour workers. Keep in mind the CEO gave himself a 2 million pay raise for doing this. Now you can look at CC's sales after they did this, down every year till they went out of business. I was a very good seller. On average I would sell 100-150k a month just me and I was ranked 11-12th in the store out of 70ish sales persons. Our sales goals where tough. If you missed your goal 3 months in a row you where gone. So CC kept the best sales people you could ask for. The ones that didnt keep up where let go. Then they got greedy. They failed because they trimmed off workers they needed. The people that did the real work.

2) I moved to Hawaii in 2004. I got a job with Sprint PCS. Another good job at first. Sprint paid us in hourly and Commission I made 11.00 an hour plus whatever I did in activations. I was a training manager about a year after I started working for them. Now I have access to the pay scale sprint uses in the 50 states. Hawaii ranked 15th in hourly pay. 14 other states made more than we did. Do you care why? Sprint looked at what the average pay was in the state. Hawaii ranks so low, because we have a very large hotel industry. Thousands of Thousands 9.00 an hour part time hotel workers. Sprint never looked at cost of living they looked at well this person makes X, so we only need to pay our people X. People in Washington state made 3 bucks an hour more than we did. In a state much, much cheaper to live in. How is that for the people?

If CEO's and top level management didnt make 2-300 times what the average worker makes. I could get behind Company's for the people. In the 50's A family could make it on one income. CEO's didnt make 2-300 times as much either.

Sprints CEO
In 2009, Daniel R. Hesse received $12,334,096 in total compensation. By comparison, the average worker made $32,048 in 2009. Daniel R. Hesse made 384 times the average worker's pay.
Verizon's CEO
In 2009, Ivan G. Seidenberg received $17,534,331 in total compensation. By comparison, the average worker made $32,048 in 2009. Ivan G. Seidenberg made 547 times the average worker's pay.

Now where would Sprint be without the workers that sell the product. The rights argument is CEO's work hard and earn so much more because of it. um ok well, All I can say is this. In the 50's the top earners where taxed at 70-80% they where still rich and lived a very good life. They also didnt make 2-300 times what their workers made either. You could make a living on one income. Your wife (it was the 50's thats how it was) could stay at home and raise the kids.

Just think if sprints CEO only made 5 million a year (still a very nice paycheck) How much better would the people that do the real day to day work lives be.

Well Cav?
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“Why has the the pay of CEO's risen 2-300% over that of their workers? “

Why is that any of your business? You want to interfere? Buy stock in those companies and vote your shares.

“Corporations dont forcibly take your money this is true. But they tell you what you will make.”

Hardly. I can take my services elsewhere if the company for which I work doesn't pay me enough.

As for your examples of how eeevil corporations are: tough. My guess is you were fired from Circuit City for being a slacker who spent his days whining about how much more money the manager made than you. And if some company doesn't pay its Hawaiian workers what you think they ought to be paid, who cares? — unless, as I said, you buy stock in the company and vote your shares. Then you get a say.
Fail_Baby_Fail

I was never fired from CC. I quit before the lower bar was set. Hardly a slacker I have been a manager in some form of another since I was 20. Im now 35 and own two cell phone stores. Slacker would be nice I just worked a 60 hour week.

Your a fool if you think a CEO making 2-300 times what his workers makes has no bearing on quality of living for the workers.

What do you do for a living cav? What also makes you think you could get paid better at another company?
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

Well, I call bullshit. If you actually owned your own business you'd understand a little bit about economics. You'd understand that a business is a business, not a charity. You'd understand that a business has to pay its employees an adequate wage or lose them. You'd understand that if a worker wants to move up in salary and responsibilities, he has to work for it. As for me, I've spent most of my adult life as a technical consultant, negotiating my own contracts with businesses who wanted to employ me. I've rarely been out of work for more than a couple of weeks, and only once for more than a month. In order to get more money, I've had to improve my skills, and therefor my worth, to any company with which I wanted to work. I don't go to a company expecting charity or handouts; I expect to have to earn my money, and I'm damn good at it if I have to say so myself. If the CEO of a company makes millions of dollars, I think that's teriffic, as long as the company is healthy and the workers are adequately paid — more power to him! It's jealous little weasels like yourself who think there must be some government interference in how companies are run, forcing them to pay workers more than their skills are worth. Go live in North Korea or Cuba if you want a state-controlled economy.
Bill Fabrizio

Ryan to Klein: “Revenues are good, spending and debt is bad”!

Klein to Ryan: “Racist”!
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C3IKAXMRVZNEU5BZKUD7LK6WBA Pete Moss

What is the corporate objective?

To maximize profits.

Anything else?

Nope.

Takes all the humanity out of it, doesn't it?
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C3IKAXMRVZNEU5BZKUD7LK6WBA Pete Moss

You should check out the documentary called “The Corporation” on Hulu. You need some schooling on this matter.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C3IKAXMRVZNEU5BZKUD7LK6WBA Pete Moss

Stan was thrown off by my use of “belie”. ;)
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C3IKAXMRVZNEU5BZKUD7LK6WBA Pete Moss

It doesn't matter what political party is in charge, Stanley, it is clear that both parties are owned by corporate America.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C3IKAXMRVZNEU5BZKUD7LK6WBA Pete Moss

The power of the individual is a myth.

Otherwise it's a fine myth.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C3IKAXMRVZNEU5BZKUD7LK6WBA Pete Moss

Paramount goal – to increase profits. Takes all the humanity right out of corporate America.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C3IKAXMRVZNEU5BZKUD7LK6WBA Pete Moss

You use the same old tired, disproven arguments.

Why is the CEO's pay our business? What a stupid question.

Because the CEO's pay affects everyone elses pay, you idiot.

It's clearly our business because as the CEOs of the world enrich themselves by placing their friends on the company board of directors, the middle class has disappeared. And you ask why it's our business?

Typical republicon, unable to see the forest for all the trees in the way.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C3IKAXMRVZNEU5BZKUD7LK6WBA Pete Moss

I defer to the experts when I don't know, whereas you pull your ideas from your anal orifice.

(typo corrected)
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“Because the CEO's pay affects everyone elses pay, you idiot.”

Typical Marxist stupidity, thinking that there's a finite amount of wealth in the world, and whoever earns “too much” takes it away from someone else. Please, go to Cuba where you'll be happy. They have great health care and the government controls everything, just as you'd like.
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

And if the company doesn't pay the workers what they feel their labor is worth, so that they become angry, sullen and dispirited, that increases profits precisely how, moron?
http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

Petey, this isn't a class or writing assignment, it's a freakin' opinion site. Have forth with your opinions, let them face the criticism of other, defend them – you might improve that mush you call a brain by doing so. Your incessant quoting of other people makes you look about as empty and bereft of fresh ideas as your fearless leaders.

When you first arrived here you were nothing but snarky criticisms with no other content. After six months of being chided about not adding any value you've finally 'graduated' to quoting other people's ideas. Is it going to take another six months for you to become enough of an independent person to actually dare to express your own thoughts and defend them?

Until then I fully expect more of the same old, same old.

Cheers.
Christopher_Taylor

Yeah, you're right, CEO pay does affect everyone else's pay. Because they take that money and buy things thus generating an economy, which means other people get hired and paid more. Or do you think they take all that cash and put in a vault like Scrooge McDuck, swimming in it on occasion?
Christopher_Taylor

The sad part is you know so little you think the stupidest and least informed people are experts. Because they agree with what little you understand and how your tiny brain distorts that shred of information.
anwatkins

Maybe you should check out the document called “United States Constitution” at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html . You need some schooling on this matter as well.
Hotspur1

it's not the power of the individual. it's treating the individual as having rights that not endowed to him by government. the right to make his own money and keep it and spend it as he pleases without interference. the right to use his own property as he sees fit as long as it does not actively harm the public.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Bark bark moonbat!

The corporate objective is to supply a demand, preferably at a profit. If there was no demand there would be no corporations, shit for brains.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Do you ever get tired of being wrong, the paramount goal of a corporation is to supply a demand. If there is no demand the corporation goes under. Quit being an idiot.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Class envy, the other liberal failing.
Christopher_Taylor

Why does making a profit dehumanize corporations?
UFKA_Smithwick

Ah yes, whereas governments have only pure motives.

That's why government intervened when the BMW company tried to wipe out entire races of people in the 1940s.

And government tried to prevent the Coca-cola company from manufacturing famine in the Ukraine, killing 20million people.

And don't even get me started on the great “cultural revolution” Nike tried to force on to the poor Chinese government in the 60s.

Why!??! Why would corporations do all that to poor governments who never wanted to hurt anyone?
Christopher_Taylor

Yet you keep voting for Democrats. If they're both owned by corporate America and its so awful why do you choose that one party to support?

See just a few weeks ago before you figured out the Democrats are doomed in November and are not just corrupt and incompetent but publicly known for it… you were all gung ho in support of them, attacking Republicans and defending Democrats specifically.

Now all the sudden, they're both bad and you're so much better than either party. Until November when you'll pull that lever every single time for the D without even bothering to find out who they are or what they want.
Christopher_Taylor

Gee I thought you liked collectives. Now when its a corporation that's the collective you don't like it?

Why don't you just come out and say you like government and stop hiding it in all the revolutionary language?