To those who voted for Democrats two years ago

I mean that the tone of politics has become nastier.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/the-complete-history-of-dirty-politics-a-qa-on-anything-for-a-vote/

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-22/living/mf.campaign.slurs.slogans_1_jefferson-family-sally-hemings-vice-president-jefferson?_s=PM:LIVING

Sometimes it's STOLEN money

<p>Companies need consumers to buy the products they produce. By outsourcing the jobs that some of your consumers have to other countries, you reduce the amount of cash available to buy the products. If you do it too long, you end up killing your profits because your consumers are out of work.</p>
<p>Look back in history. Henry Ford increased the pay of his workers so they could afford the products they were manufacturing. It worked quite well for a number of years.</p>
<p>As far as things being socialist, consider the following:</p>
<p>If you are the owner or stock holder in a company that is outsourcing jobs, or a person who is part of the companies getting the jobs being outsourced, a Profit/Employee based corporation tax IS socialism.</p>
<p>If you are the person training your outsourced replacement, a Profit/Employee based corporation tax can look tempting. You might consider it to be socialism, but many people would favor it, especially if they are going to be out of work when the training is over.</p>
<p>If you are the government official who is trying to pay for basic services, like roads, schools and public safety, it is a way to balance the budget.</p>

It doesn't matter to the world economy if it's 2,5*10^8 americans earning 5*10^12 dollars a year, or 1*10^9 Chinese earning the 5*10^12 dollars a year...
Of course, since the average wage is one fourth, the Chinese will tend to buy less expensive goods, which of course will hurt some industries more than others.

Also, the US corporations are sending jobs overseas to increase their profits. So, you'll need to make that particular move quite costly if you want to bring those jobs back. Like tax the corporations on a Profit/Employee basis for domestic operations. That'd make the Indian Help-desk savings disappear like smoke, as the overseas employees aren't counted for domestic operations.
Or something.
Sounds socialist, doesn't it?

<p>Borrowed money is also used to pay for capitalism and speculation.</p>
<p>But socialism, capitalism, speculation, and other items of that sort are not specifically mentioned in the article.</p>
<p>Now there is a warning that leaders will have to be wary of credit hot spots where too much lending takes place.</p>
<p>The United States would certainly qualify, especially with the housing market bubble and the increase in personal debt. The economies of places like Ireland and Greece, who also have economic problems, would also qualify. But these aren't specifically mentioned in the article.</p>
<p>The article does say that the global credit stock doubled between 2000 and 2009 going from $57 trillion to $109 trillion. The additional $100 trillion over the next decade is another near doubling.</p>
<p>While doubling cannot be sustained indefinitely, there are economies in the world whose annual GDP increases are at or above the doubling in a decade rate. Since two of them, China and India, are roughly a third of the population of the planet, and their growth has been more capitalistic than socialistic, a lot of the extra credit could be needed to sustain the growth in those areas.</p>
<p>I'm guessing that part of that $100 trillion dollar credit 'need' increase is capitalism based. I'm also guessing that another part is socialism based. And then there are the speculators who gamble that the assets they are buying will go up in price faster than the cost of the money they borrow. They also contribute to the credit 'need' increase.</p>
<p>But they are educated guesses and not specifically mentioned in the article.</p>
<p></p>

The article talks about supporting the future economy, not government!! Supporting the economy is not socialism, its capitalism. To my knowledge, that's good.

But lending huge amount of money that banks don't have is not good.


TCB

..... because the borrowed money is used to pay for socialism.

Doesn't say nothing about using them, though.
Nor is there much redress in bearing arms when outnumbered and outgunned.

If someone were to try and apply the second in conjunction with petitioning the Government for redress of grievances, things won't end well.
Either the someone meets with a sticky end - or Obama will run out of outstanding orations.

So, with all due respect and idolation - pull the other one. <font color=FFFFFF> And no, I do not mean the 45</font>.