This is one of those economic myths that has achieved urban legend status. It's one of those things that seem plausible if you completely ignore human nature and pretend that all human activity is driven by economic incentives. It's also one of those things that people start to believe because those who would like us to believe it repeat it constantly.
In fact, it's a bit of pernicious nonsense. People don't act based on such simplistic economic motives. The reasons people work, once their earnings get past what's actually needed to live on, have very little to do with "economic" incentive and much more to do with things like money as power or simply because they are driven to do what they do for non-economic reasons.
One could make just as plausible an argument that, because many people who are actually making lots of money by "working" are driven to do this simply because they want to accumulate as much wealth as possible, raising taxes on them will actually cause them to work even harder to make lots of money. They are like rats pushing a lever to get food. If they get food every time they push the lever, they only push the lever when they are hungry. If you change it so they only get food by pushing the lever multiple times (essentially a tax) they spend a lot more time pushing the lever -- in other words, the tax caused them to work harder.
If we consider that money and wealth are essentially drugs to some people, and we replace the food with a cocaine injection into the brain of the rat, you can get them to spend their entire lives pushing the lever if you reward them infrequently.
Based on this theory, which actually takes human nature into account, raising taxes is not only the fair thing to do, it's the best way to get the wealthy working harder.
All the evidence points in the other direction. An important aspect that you're overlooking is that the wealthy are not just trading their time for money. They are risking their capital. Risking one's capital may be a good bet if you get to keep your winning. But when the government steals most of your winning, that risk often becomes a very bad bet. That means the rich don't fund so many risky new ventures, we all enjoy less innovation, and there are fewer jobs for the working stiffs.
Socialism has produced poverty and misery everywhere it's been tried.
Doesn't anyone else find it a bit obscene that ......
Thats 6000 patents at $160k each.
One, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head asking them to sell the patents. Two, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head asking them to sell the patents at that price. Three, the folks getting a billion (assuming that's what it's sold at) are better off with that than getting zero. Fourth, the only obscene thing is people like you getting all judgmental about a perfectly arms-length transaction in a private market between willing adults.
Read a psychology textbook, they are classic experiments. Do you have any actual studies to back up your "Just So" fairy tale? No, because there is no supporting evidence.
Well, I was hoping for an economic reference, not a psychological one. I'd categorize swapping out economics for psychology as "original research" on your part.
Anyway, it's pretty easy to find information that backs up the idea that higher taxes hurt both productivity and consumption. From newspaper articles:
An interesting interview. Thank you. I have to admit it didn't sway me though, for two reasons.
1) When Buffet is asked about a "Flat Tax" he says we already have pretty close to a flat tax. But then he goes on giving reason after reason on why our taxes are not even close to flat.
2) No actual studies were referenced in the reasons Buffet and Gates gave. They just thought the current system "unfair". Perhaps it is, perhaps it's not. But I'm more interested in economic arguments rather than arguments about being "fair". This is because I believe giving people the most economic opportunity possible is what's fair and just. Case in point: the multitude of millionaires created by Microsoft.
An interesting interview. Thank you. I have to admit it didn't sway me though, for two reasons.
1) When Buffet is asked about a "Flat Tax" he says we already have pretty close to a flat tax. But then he goes on giving reason after reason on why our taxes are not even close to flat.
2) No actual studies were referenced in the reasons Buffet and Gates gave. They just thought the current system "unfair". Perhaps it is, perhaps it's not. But I'm more interested in economic arguments rather than arguments about being "fair". This is because I believe giving people the most economic opportunity possible is what's fair and just. Case in point: the multitude of millionaires created by Microsoft.
The same Warren Buffett who takes the bulk of his wealth from investment income which carries a low capital gains tax rate? If he was so concerned with the rich not paying their fair share, he can start with his own tax avoidance policy. The treasury will take his check if he'd like to send them one.
This is incredible. While it's certainly within the realm of reasonableness for the DoJ to address actual anticompetitive behavior, preempting sensible business strategy by successful companies in the name of thwarting some vaguely-defined, potential behavior because of the caterwauling by self-described 'open source advcates' (whatever-the-heck that means -- how does one become an open source advocate?) is absolutely insane.
This is the kind of nonsense that sometimes results in US companies having to compete in global markets with one hand tied behind their backs.
Just becoz u dont know what open source is does not make u a smart-ash..It s the only reason today ur mac is not worth more than 10k bucks.t
The same Warren Buffett who takes the bulk of his wealth from investment income which carries a low capital gains tax rate? If he was so concerned with the rich not paying their fair share, he can start with his own tax avoidance policy. The treasury will take his check if he'd like to send them one.
All the evidence points in the other direction. An important aspect that you're overlooking is that the wealthy are not just trading their time for money. They are risking their capital. Risking one's capital may be a good bet if you get to keep your winning. But when the government steals most of your winning, that risk often becomes a very bad bet. That means the rich don't fund so many risky new ventures, we all enjoy less innovation, and there are fewer jobs for the working stiffs.
Socialism has produced poverty and misery everywhere it's been tried.
Making the rich pay a fair share in supporting the society they live in isn't socialism, it's fiscal responsibility, as opposed to the irrational policy of endless tax cuts for them without benefit that this country has engaged in over the past 30 years.
An important aspect that you are overlooking is that most people aren't Daniel Dancer, interested in money for money's sake. Most of them are either doing what they are doing for its own reward, or chasing money for what they can get for it. Raising taxes isn't going to change those motivations, and we'll still have just as much innovation as we have today. Maybe more as the rich can't depend on easy money and have to work even harder to get what they want. nd why shouldn't they, everyone else does.
Sorry, could you be more specific and try to elaborate. If you mean them going to court defending their in-house portfolio, nothing's wrong with that. For bought IP, maybe...
That's exactly was what I was going to comment on.
Quote:
given the iPhone maker's legal track record.
Does Apple have "legal track record" of something that would make this a dubious purchase?
Well, I was hoping for an economic reference, not a psychological one. I'd categorize swapping out economics for psychology as "original research" on your part.
Economics as theory applied by politicians has become worthless. The economic policies of this country over the last 30 years, including tax policy, have failed spectacularly, and shown to be utterly wrong in every detail, yet the right and others are unwilling to let go of their cherished beliefs. That's not science. It's superstition.
Economics as theory applied by politicians has become worthless. The economic policies of this country over the last 30 years, including tax policy, have failed spectacularly, and shown to be utterly wrong in every detail, yet the right and others are unwilling to let go of their cherished beliefs. That's not science. It's superstition.
All well and good, but still original research on your part.
Can you provide examples where your ideas have succeeded financially? Because I'm looking at the places where they've applied liberal economics, California, New York, Detroit, the U.S. Federal Government, most of Europe, and all I see is debt piled on top of debt. I see a left wing in America who hasn't even produced a budget in 2 years.
In a nutshell, the problem with giving a government an extra $10.00 to spend in new taxes is it just means that they'll actually spend an extra $15.00. And all we get for is reduced production or reduced consumption.
Making the rich pay a fair share in supporting the society they live in isn't socialism, it's fiscal responsibility, as opposed to the irrational policy of endless tax cuts for them without benefit that this country has engaged in over the past 30 years.
An important aspect that you are overlooking is that most people aren't Daniel Dancer, interested in money for money's sake. Most of them are either doing what they are doing for its own reward, or chasing money for what they can get for it. Raising taxes isn't going to change those motivations, and we'll still have just as much innovation as we have today. Maybe more as the rich can't depend on easy money and have to work even harder to get what they want. nd why shouldn't they, everyone else does.
If you took every single penny of income from the rich after they paid taxes for last year, it wouldn't be enough to cover even last year's deficit.
So damn easy to raise taxes on them, and push any need to make a hard choice the problem for some other administration. Isn't that always the answer? How about our politicians having the balls to tell us the truth and give us some solutions? Instead it's more *f*ing important not to the tell seniors, or the military, or the liberals or the conservatives the truth and risk not getting re-elected. Put and end to career politicians and maybe we could actually solve some of our problems instead of covering them up with band-aids. Have some balls and tell the naked truth for a change. Who the hell cares if someone doesn't like the facts? If it's honest it doesn't matter.
So don't tell me you want more of my money and not show me a light at the end of the tunnel. What the heck do you plan to do when there's no more to give but the Social Security recipients still depend on a check to survive? When the US really does find itself in need of defending it's citizens. When hospitals and health care providers expect Medicaid to come up with more or forget treating patients that depend on it.
Pure stupidity to think taking more from those that still have something makes the problems go away. Asinine. . . Yeah, just tell the rich to pay some more this year. Perhaps a bit more a couple years down the line and even more 10 years from now. That'll solve everything and no hard choices ever have to be made, right?
Can you provide examples where your ideas have succeeded financially? Because I'm looking at the places where they've applied liberal economics, California, New York, Detroit, the U.S. Federal Government, most of Europe, and all I see is debt piled on top of debt. I see a left wing in America who hasn't even produced a budget in 2 years.
You are selectively quoting facts and overgeneralizing, perhaps to serve your political point of view. Much of Europe -- Germany, France, Northern Europe -- are less indebted than the US. Moreover, the debt in the US went up as badly, if not worse, during Republican administrations and Congresses as it did during Democratic. Republican states -- e.g., Texas, Florida -- are as badly off as those that you mention.
Aside: I care about neither party and its abilities to run the government well.
I think Apple already own enough patents to guarantee assured mutual destruction in any patent case against them... Google, not so much.
I'm sure Google want them more as a defensive measure. If Apple buy them it's going to be an offensive move, either to go after someone like Google, or prevent Google from defending themselves.
So to me, they seem more valuable to Google than Apple.
Apple is more than likely interested in the 3G and 4G patents, not because of Google, but because of Nokia. Nokia is currently trying to sue Apple for "taking" their IP without licensing it, all of which is related to 3G tech that Nokia holds patents over. Apple is merely trying to build a patent portfolio of 4G tech so they can avoid this type of attack in the future.
So damn easy to raise taxes on them, and push any need to make a hard choice the problem for some other administration. Isn't that always the answer? How about our politicians having the balls to tell us the truth and give us some solutions? Instead it's more *f*ing important not to the tell seniors, or the military, or the liberals or the conservatives the truth and risk not getting re-elected. Put and end to career politicians and maybe we could actually solve some of our problems instead of covering them up with band-aids. Have some balls and tell the naked truth for a change. Who the hell cares if someone doesn't like the facts? If it's honest it doesn't matter.
So don't tell me you want more of my money and not show me a light at the end of the tunnel. What the heck do you plan to do when there's no more to give but the Social Security recipients still depend on a check to survive? When the US really does find itself in need of defending it's citizens. When hospitals and health care providers expect Medicaid to come up with more or forget treating patients that depend on it.
Pure stupidity to think taking more from those that still have something makes the problems go away. Asinine. . . Yeah, just tell the rich to pay some more this year. Perhaps a bit more a couple years down the line and even more 10 years from now. That'll solve everything and no hard choices ever have to be made, right?
Sorry, but if you're rich, you have 30 years of back taxes you owe the rest of the American people, plus interest. You've been getting a free ride, and then some, with the Republican redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle-class to the wealthy plan, also known as voodoo economics. So, no, we don't want more of your money, we want our money back, and we want it now, because the tax cuts and breaks and loopholes you got are the whole reason we're in this mess.
I see. The government essentially destroys all healthcare competition in the country, forces the largest companies into taking funds against their will...takes over banks and auto manufacturers...
But the DOJ chooses to look at Apple. Let's go after one of the few companies trying to grow and make jobs while ignoring all the job killing policies going out, yes?
Whatever they're putting in the water at the DOJ, I think they've had enough.
You are selectively quoting facts and overgeneralizing, perhaps to serve your political point of view. Much of Europe -- Germany, France, Northern Europe -- are less indebted than the US. Moreover, the debt in the US went up as badly, if not worse, during Republican administrations and Congresses as it did during Democratic. Republican states -- e.g., Texas, Florida -- are as badly off as those that you mention.
Aside: I care about neither party and its abilities to run the government well.
Well, no. What I was asking for were examples where liberal financial systems succeeded.
As to other states having budget troubles, that is true. But they tend to be due to Medicaid and Education budgets, which are both liberal systems. And none are in as bad a shape as California and New York.
Texas Budget Analysis (See "Structural Deficit" section):
As to Republicans screwing things up, you're right. George Bush was a terrible President, especially at finance. He created federal medical systems we couldn't pay for and ran huge deficits thinking it would improve the economy. Instead, it ruined the economy.
Comments
This is one of those economic myths that has achieved urban legend status. It's one of those things that seem plausible if you completely ignore human nature and pretend that all human activity is driven by economic incentives. It's also one of those things that people start to believe because those who would like us to believe it repeat it constantly.
In fact, it's a bit of pernicious nonsense. People don't act based on such simplistic economic motives. The reasons people work, once their earnings get past what's actually needed to live on, have very little to do with "economic" incentive and much more to do with things like money as power or simply because they are driven to do what they do for non-economic reasons.
One could make just as plausible an argument that, because many people who are actually making lots of money by "working" are driven to do this simply because they want to accumulate as much wealth as possible, raising taxes on them will actually cause them to work even harder to make lots of money. They are like rats pushing a lever to get food. If they get food every time they push the lever, they only push the lever when they are hungry. If you change it so they only get food by pushing the lever multiple times (essentially a tax) they spend a lot more time pushing the lever -- in other words, the tax caused them to work harder.
If we consider that money and wealth are essentially drugs to some people, and we replace the food with a cocaine injection into the brain of the rat, you can get them to spend their entire lives pushing the lever if you reward them infrequently.
Based on this theory, which actually takes human nature into account, raising taxes is not only the fair thing to do, it's the best way to get the wealthy working harder.
All the evidence points in the other direction. An important aspect that you're overlooking is that the wealthy are not just trading their time for money. They are risking their capital. Risking one's capital may be a good bet if you get to keep your winning. But when the government steals most of your winning, that risk often becomes a very bad bet. That means the rich don't fund so many risky new ventures, we all enjoy less innovation, and there are fewer jobs for the working stiffs.
Socialism has produced poverty and misery everywhere it's been tried.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVOwaMWewGY
Doesn't anyone else find it a bit obscene that ......
Thats 6000 patents at $160k each.
One, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head asking them to sell the patents. Two, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head asking them to sell the patents at that price. Three, the folks getting a billion (assuming that's what it's sold at) are better off with that than getting zero. Fourth, the only obscene thing is people like you getting all judgmental about a perfectly arms-length transaction in a private market between willing adults.
Read a psychology textbook, they are classic experiments. Do you have any actual studies to back up your "Just So" fairy tale? No, because there is no supporting evidence.
Well, I was hoping for an economic reference, not a psychological one. I'd categorize swapping out economics for psychology as "original research" on your part.
Anyway, it's pretty easy to find information that backs up the idea that higher taxes hurt both productivity and consumption. From newspaper articles:
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/2010/...-productivity/
http://www.dailynews.lk/2011/04/06/fea01.asp
To academic studies:
http://www.ecn.ulaval.ca/%7Esgor/cit..._oecd_2008.pdf
http://www.tepper.cmu.edu/news-multi...sts/index.aspx
Warren Buffet and Bill Gates On Why U.S. Taxes Are Too Low For The Wealthy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVOwaMWewGY
An interesting interview. Thank you.
1) When Buffet is asked about a "Flat Tax" he says we already have pretty close to a flat tax. But then he goes on giving reason after reason on why our taxes are not even close to flat.
2) No actual studies were referenced in the reasons Buffet and Gates gave. They just thought the current system "unfair". Perhaps it is, perhaps it's not. But I'm more interested in economic arguments rather than arguments about being "fair". This is because I believe giving people the most economic opportunity possible is what's fair and just. Case in point: the multitude of millionaires created by Microsoft.
An interesting interview. Thank you.
1) When Buffet is asked about a "Flat Tax" he says we already have pretty close to a flat tax. But then he goes on giving reason after reason on why our taxes are not even close to flat.
2) No actual studies were referenced in the reasons Buffet and Gates gave. They just thought the current system "unfair". Perhaps it is, perhaps it's not. But I'm more interested in economic arguments rather than arguments about being "fair". This is because I believe giving people the most economic opportunity possible is what's fair and just. Case in point: the multitude of millionaires created by Microsoft.
The same Warren Buffett who takes the bulk of his wealth from investment income which carries a low capital gains tax rate? If he was so concerned with the rich not paying their fair share, he can start with his own tax avoidance policy. The treasury will take his check if he'd like to send them one.
http://www.www.istockanalyst.com/fin...-his-secretary
This is incredible. While it's certainly within the realm of reasonableness for the DoJ to address actual anticompetitive behavior, preempting sensible business strategy by successful companies in the name of thwarting some vaguely-defined, potential behavior because of the caterwauling by self-described 'open source advcates' (whatever-the-heck that means -- how does one become an open source advocate?) is absolutely insane.
This is the kind of nonsense that sometimes results in US companies having to compete in global markets with one hand tied behind their backs.
Just becoz u dont know what open source is does not make u a smart-ash..It s the only reason today ur mac is not worth more than 10k bucks.t
Go get a life kid
The same Warren Buffett who takes the bulk of his wealth from investment income which carries a low capital gains tax rate? If he was so concerned with the rich not paying their fair share, he can start with his own tax avoidance policy. The treasury will take his check if he'd like to send them one.
http://www.www.istockanalyst.com/fin...-his-secretary
Those were my thoughts on that as well. Ditto on Gates with his charity foundation, which is a huge tax write off.
If those two want to pay higher taxes, it's a lot easier to do than setting up the various deduction schemes they're currently doing.
All the evidence points in the other direction. An important aspect that you're overlooking is that the wealthy are not just trading their time for money. They are risking their capital. Risking one's capital may be a good bet if you get to keep your winning. But when the government steals most of your winning, that risk often becomes a very bad bet. That means the rich don't fund so many risky new ventures, we all enjoy less innovation, and there are fewer jobs for the working stiffs.
Socialism has produced poverty and misery everywhere it's been tried.
Making the rich pay a fair share in supporting the society they live in isn't socialism, it's fiscal responsibility, as opposed to the irrational policy of endless tax cuts for them without benefit that this country has engaged in over the past 30 years.
An important aspect that you are overlooking is that most people aren't Daniel Dancer, interested in money for money's sake. Most of them are either doing what they are doing for its own reward, or chasing money for what they can get for it. Raising taxes isn't going to change those motivations, and we'll still have just as much innovation as we have today. Maybe more as the rich can't depend on easy money and have to work even harder to get what they want. nd why shouldn't they, everyone else does.
Sorry, could you be more specific and try to elaborate. If you mean them going to court defending their in-house portfolio, nothing's wrong with that. For bought IP, maybe...
That's exactly was what I was going to comment on.
given the iPhone maker's legal track record.
Does Apple have "legal track record" of something that would make this a dubious purchase?
Well, I was hoping for an economic reference, not a psychological one. I'd categorize swapping out economics for psychology as "original research" on your part.
Economics as theory applied by politicians has become worthless. The economic policies of this country over the last 30 years, including tax policy, have failed spectacularly, and shown to be utterly wrong in every detail, yet the right and others are unwilling to let go of their cherished beliefs. That's not science. It's superstition.
Economics as theory applied by politicians has become worthless. The economic policies of this country over the last 30 years, including tax policy, have failed spectacularly, and shown to be utterly wrong in every detail, yet the right and others are unwilling to let go of their cherished beliefs. That's not science. It's superstition.
All well and good, but still original research on your part.
Can you provide examples where your ideas have succeeded financially? Because I'm looking at the places where they've applied liberal economics, California, New York, Detroit, the U.S. Federal Government, most of Europe, and all I see is debt piled on top of debt. I see a left wing in America who hasn't even produced a budget in 2 years.
In a nutshell, the problem with giving a government an extra $10.00 to spend in new taxes is it just means that they'll actually spend an extra $15.00. And all we get for is reduced production or reduced consumption.
Making the rich pay a fair share in supporting the society they live in isn't socialism, it's fiscal responsibility, as opposed to the irrational policy of endless tax cuts for them without benefit that this country has engaged in over the past 30 years.
An important aspect that you are overlooking is that most people aren't Daniel Dancer, interested in money for money's sake. Most of them are either doing what they are doing for its own reward, or chasing money for what they can get for it. Raising taxes isn't going to change those motivations, and we'll still have just as much innovation as we have today. Maybe more as the rich can't depend on easy money and have to work even harder to get what they want. nd why shouldn't they, everyone else does.
If you took every single penny of income from the rich after they paid taxes for last year, it wouldn't be enough to cover even last year's deficit.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ert-verbruggen
So damn easy to raise taxes on them, and push any need to make a hard choice the problem for some other administration. Isn't that always the answer? How about our politicians having the balls to tell us the truth and give us some solutions? Instead it's more *f*ing important not to the tell seniors, or the military, or the liberals or the conservatives the truth and risk not getting re-elected. Put and end to career politicians and maybe we could actually solve some of our problems instead of covering them up with band-aids. Have some balls and tell the naked truth for a change. Who the hell cares if someone doesn't like the facts? If it's honest it doesn't matter.
So don't tell me you want more of my money and not show me a light at the end of the tunnel. What the heck do you plan to do when there's no more to give but the Social Security recipients still depend on a check to survive? When the US really does find itself in need of defending it's citizens. When hospitals and health care providers expect Medicaid to come up with more or forget treating patients that depend on it.
Pure stupidity to think taking more from those that still have something makes the problems go away. Asinine. . . Yeah, just tell the rich to pay some more this year. Perhaps a bit more a couple years down the line and even more 10 years from now. That'll solve everything and no hard choices ever have to be made, right?
Just becoz u dont know what open source is does not make u a smart-ash..It s the only reason today ur mac is not worth more than 10k bucks.t
Go get a life kid
You really should take the trouble to read before you post.
What is it about my saying 'open source advocates' (as opposed to 'open source') that you don't understand?
Can you provide examples where your ideas have succeeded financially? Because I'm looking at the places where they've applied liberal economics, California, New York, Detroit, the U.S. Federal Government, most of Europe, and all I see is debt piled on top of debt. I see a left wing in America who hasn't even produced a budget in 2 years.
You are selectively quoting facts and overgeneralizing, perhaps to serve your political point of view. Much of Europe -- Germany, France, Northern Europe -- are less indebted than the US. Moreover, the debt in the US went up as badly, if not worse, during Republican administrations and Congresses as it did during Democratic. Republican states -- e.g., Texas, Florida -- are as badly off as those that you mention.
Aside: I care about neither party and its abilities to run the government well.
I think Apple already own enough patents to guarantee assured mutual destruction in any patent case against them... Google, not so much.
I'm sure Google want them more as a defensive measure. If Apple buy them it's going to be an offensive move, either to go after someone like Google, or prevent Google from defending themselves.
So to me, they seem more valuable to Google than Apple.
Apple is more than likely interested in the 3G and 4G patents, not because of Google, but because of Nokia. Nokia is currently trying to sue Apple for "taking" their IP without licensing it, all of which is related to 3G tech that Nokia holds patents over. Apple is merely trying to build a patent portfolio of 4G tech so they can avoid this type of attack in the future.
If you took every single penny of income from the rich after they paid taxes for last year, it wouldn't be enough to cover even last year's deficit.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ert-verbruggen
So damn easy to raise taxes on them, and push any need to make a hard choice the problem for some other administration. Isn't that always the answer? How about our politicians having the balls to tell us the truth and give us some solutions? Instead it's more *f*ing important not to the tell seniors, or the military, or the liberals or the conservatives the truth and risk not getting re-elected. Put and end to career politicians and maybe we could actually solve some of our problems instead of covering them up with band-aids. Have some balls and tell the naked truth for a change. Who the hell cares if someone doesn't like the facts? If it's honest it doesn't matter.
So don't tell me you want more of my money and not show me a light at the end of the tunnel. What the heck do you plan to do when there's no more to give but the Social Security recipients still depend on a check to survive? When the US really does find itself in need of defending it's citizens. When hospitals and health care providers expect Medicaid to come up with more or forget treating patients that depend on it.
Pure stupidity to think taking more from those that still have something makes the problems go away. Asinine. . . Yeah, just tell the rich to pay some more this year. Perhaps a bit more a couple years down the line and even more 10 years from now. That'll solve everything and no hard choices ever have to be made, right?
Sorry, but if you're rich, you have 30 years of back taxes you owe the rest of the American people, plus interest. You've been getting a free ride, and then some, with the Republican redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle-class to the wealthy plan, also known as voodoo economics. So, no, we don't want more of your money, we want our money back, and we want it now, because the tax cuts and breaks and loopholes you got are the whole reason we're in this mess.
But the DOJ chooses to look at Apple. Let's go after one of the few companies trying to grow and make jobs while ignoring all the job killing policies going out, yes?
Whatever they're putting in the water at the DOJ, I think they've had enough.
You are selectively quoting facts and overgeneralizing, perhaps to serve your political point of view. Much of Europe -- Germany, France, Northern Europe -- are less indebted than the US. Moreover, the debt in the US went up as badly, if not worse, during Republican administrations and Congresses as it did during Democratic. Republican states -- e.g., Texas, Florida -- are as badly off as those that you mention.
Aside: I care about neither party and its abilities to run the government well.
Well, no. What I was asking for were examples where liberal financial systems succeeded.
France, Germany, and Northern Europe all had their banking systems bailed out by the U.S. via our bailout of AIG. http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/07/news...tune/index.htm
As to other states having budget troubles, that is true. But they tend to be due to Medicaid and Education budgets, which are both liberal systems. And none are in as bad a shape as California and New York.
Texas Budget Analysis (See "Structural Deficit" section):
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Texas_state_budget
Florida Budget (See "Medicaid Reform" and "Union Protest" sections) :
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/...a_state_budget
As to Republicans screwing things up, you're right. George Bush was a terrible President, especially at finance. He created federal medical systems we couldn't pay for and ran huge deficits thinking it would improve the economy. Instead, it ruined the economy.