I was reading about the bills this Congress has passed benefiting small businesses when I came across this article. It talks about the New York art world and the comeback it's making. Last week a painting sold for 42.6 million dollars at Christies auction house. Christies and Sotheby's grossed more than a quarter billion dollars in two weeks of sales that broke record after record for major art works. U.S. buyers dominated the sale. According to the article, 'collectors need to have at
least $50 million in the bank to bid on art of this caliber, And that’s just to get into the game.
It’s the rarefied domain of America’s elite mega-rich, who profited
handsomely from the financial free-for-all on Wall Street and the
generous tax cuts enacted during the George W. Bush years in Washington.'
As you read this post you can also refer back to what Mitch McConnell said in a previous post of mine.
"The high-end Bush-era tax cuts are contributing to our financial
ruin rather than our economic success," says Margot Dorfman, chief
executive of the U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce. "They should expire
as scheduled on December 31. We don’t need more tax cuts at the top; we
need more consumer spending at the middle."
A number of regional chambers of commerce have also broken away from
the national group on the Bush tax cuts. "Letting the Bush tax cuts
expire for the wealthiest is the right thing to do, and the responsible
thing to do," Frank Knapp, chief executive officer of the South Carolina
Small Business Chamber of Commerce, recently told Forbes magazine.
The Joint Committee on Taxation in Congress said in a recent report
that only 3 percent of taxpayers with any business income would benefit
from tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. The panel also
projected that extending the tax cuts would add $36 billion to the
deficit in 2011. As booming art sales in New York clearly show, the
recession is over, and has been over, for the wealthiest 2 percent of
Americans for some time now.
The lame duck Congress also needs to extend jobless benefits for the
unemployed, the single biggest and most effective economic stimulus; it
needs to repeal the onerous 1099 reporting requirements for small
businesses (starting in 2012); and it needs to repeal the 3 percent
withholding requirement for contractor payments. It passed in 2005, when
the economy was booming, and is set go into effect in January 2012.
The lame duck Congress won’t really begin until after Thanksgiving.
That’s when both chambers will start the legislative process. Let’s hope
they keep their eyes focused on the economy where the majority of the
nation is mired, and not the booming one occupied by the wealthiest 2
percent that write the campaign checks. Then, maybe some of those
dollars being spent on expensive art works can be put to more productive
use rebuilding the nation.
This is a small business website. THEY know what the Bush tax cuts did to our economy. We all know what those tax cuts did to our economy, so what's the problem? Do the republicans get their wish, tax cut extension for those who do not need it? Come on November 30th, I can't stand the suspense! Will the president stand with the people or won't he? Will Nancy and Harry stand strong and fight the evil GOP, do they have the votes needed to end the tax cuts to the filthy rich? The lies from the GOP are astounding, Americans HAVE spoken and they want these cuts to expire!
11 hours ago
51 comments:
It is very clear that the republicans care nothing for the average American. If they did, they would not be supporting tax cuts for the rich. They only hurt the average American, damage the country, and cause extensive suffering among the poor.
Jerry when I read this article, then went back and read again what McConnell was whining about, it's really mind-boggling what the GOP is asking for! They are such greedy bastards! You never hear the GOP talk about the middleclass, I guess they think the tax cuts for the MC are just handouts for the little insignificant people which really do nothing to stimulate the economy. They are such morons!
The one good thing - the person who sold the painting and made such a handsome profit - he/she's going to have to pay a capital gains tax on it. Hopefully, it'll go to reducing the deficit.
I wonder how many of the teabaggers and cliché-spouting blog trolls realize that while US economic growth is currently running at an annual rate of 2%, Germany with its much higher progressive taxes and stronger social safety net is running at 9%, probably stronger even than China.
While the English-speaking world is bickering about the merits of socialism vs. capitalism, the German government has been pouring investment into technology and education.
The future does not belong to ideologies that would starve education and R&D to give tax cuts to people who can already afford to spend forty million on baubles.
that's a good thing Will.
Infidel the righties hate Germany and their progressive socialistic approach. There really is nothing more we can say to them to convince them they are wrong on every issue. Not even embarrassing them will do it.
Have a great Thanksgiving everyone!
Just to clarify the rampant distortions on this blog:
1. Conservatives support tax cuts ACROSS THE BOARD for EVERYONE...not just the "filthy" rich.
2. Conservatives support education...what they don't support are teachers' unions who have ruined, with their radical leftist agenda, the good education that our students used to receive.
3. Your statement that Republicans never consider the middle class is just blatantly false...remember the tax cuts across the board thingy? I don't know how in your twisted thoughts that you consider across the board tax cuts to be TAKING money from the middle class and GIVING it to the "filthy" rich. Who is being moronic here?
4. You people need to take stock of your attitudes and find out why you are oozing such hatred for those who happen to have more money than you think they need? Who are YOU to restrict how much someone earns and gets to keep in the form of lower taxes? You act as if the rich are stealing money from those of us who are not rich. RIDICULOUS!! The real theft here are the confiscatory tax policies and the runaway spending of the federal government.
Well, LInda, your four points are really two, tax cuts and teachers.
Strange that you support education and are against the very people who do the teaching.
The current tax argument is not about tax cuts, it is about maintaining the current tax structure, the one that gave a disproportionate cut to the wealth. The Democrats simply want to restore some balance to the tax code and let the wealth pay their fair share while helping the economy and the American people get back on their feet.
Conservatives simply want to give more money to the wealthy and power to the corporations at the expense of the economy and the American people.
"Strange that you support education and are against the very people who do the teaching.'
Not against the teachers but against then raping of the taxpayer for all the free perks. Teaching has nothing to with ponying up to contribute to your own pensions and health care.
So you support health care but not the good doctors who do the treating? Because this health care bill will provide us with less good quality doctors and specialists.
The insurance companies are not the problem it's the whole system and thanks to the democrats we will see our health care system slowly deteriorate. But that's OK with you guys because it's not about the people,it's about Obama and what he got passed good or bad.
millionaires and billionaires doing the right thing for America...
NEWSWEEK’s Nancy Cook recently spoke with the cofounder of Seventh Generation, Jeffrey Hollender. Hollender talked about his disdain for the current tax code, the need for more compassion among the wealthy, and the way being rich often seems relative. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: So why do you oppose extending the tax cuts for families that make more than $250,000 a year?
Hollender: This is a time when the wealthiest Americans need to give back to the country. I know this well, as someone who has been financially successful, the vast array of benefits available to me that are not available to other people. It’s a moral question, but it’s also equally economic, because I don’t necessarily need everyone to agree with my morals and my perspectives. We can agree that the country can’t afford the tax cuts. This is the absolute wrong time, because where is that money going to be made up from? It’s going to come from social services. The government will have to reduce expenses, probably by providing fewer benefits for less affluent Americans. I can’t remember the government dealing with economic problems in a way that has inflicted pain on me, but that’s the not the case if you’re living below the poverty level.
Linda your anger towards those who want fairness in our tax code, like Jerry talked about, is off base!! Nobody says they think we should rob the rich of their money and give it to the poor. If Americans don't stand together in this economic crisis then who will stand up for us?? We are calling on Americans to HELP each other!! Where is your patriotism?? The tax rates would go back to the Clinton era and the rich did just dandy back then so fuck you! Sorry guys she infuriates me to no end!!
when the terrorists attacked us on 9/11 they thought they would damage our economy by bringing down Wall Street. Well that did not happen, what happened was the Bush regimes over reaction to the attacks and the economic disaster that followed in the 7 years after the attack. The 2 wars not paid for, the tax cuts not paid for, the prescription drug bill not paid for. These along with corporations not paying ANY taxes while shipping jobs overseas has brought us to the brink of disaster. YOUR PARTY DID THIS LINDA!
In fact, the republicans gave tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas. The republican job creation program is for jobs in other countries. They willingly sacrifice American jobs for corporate profits.
Linda:
1. Conservatives support tax cuts ACROSS THE BOARD for EVERYONE...not just the "filthy" rich.
Everybody knows that. Liberals also support keeping the tax cuts for middle and lower income levels, for the economic stimulative effect. The issue with keeping the cuts for the rich is that it has little such stimulative effect and we'd be better off raising those tax rates for the sake of deficit reduction.
2. Conservatives support education...
Advocacy of teaching ancient Middle Eastern mythology in biology classes alongside evolution is not "supporting education".
Who are YOU to restrict how much someone earns and gets to keep in the form of lower taxes?
If tax levels could be considered totally in a vacuum and had no effect on anything else, of course it would make sense to have zero taxes for everybody. In the real world, government is necessary and needs to be paid for, and it makes sense to collect most of the taxes from those who have the most money and will be least harmed by losing it. Most advanced nations have much more steeply progressive tax rates than the US does. Extreme inequality is itself harmful and corrosive to a society.
As I said in my comment above, cutting investment in technology and education would harm the country far more than letting tax cuts for the wealthy expire would do.
Linda what don't you understand about this fact:
During Bush's administration and his tax cuts for the wealthiest, America experienced the LOWEST job growth AND economic growth in post-war history. LOWEST.
Now explain to us how giving tax cuts to the very wealthy stimulates job creation and how Republicans are good for the economy.
This country has always done better economically under Democratic presidencies.
That is a fact. So please don't come here and talk about taxes and the economy under Democrats.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Thanks.
Can I at least attempt to instill some nonpartisanship here? While I don't necessarily agree with everything that Linda has said in this thread, I do think that it's important for the left to realize one thing. When a tax brake is given to the wealthy (and, no, I'm not all-together sure that $250,000 a year constitutes wealthy), it isn't a "giveaway". You're simply allowing these people to keep more of their own money......Now, having said that, the right also has to realize a few things; namely, a) the fact that we have a 13 trillion dollar deficit and b) the additional fact that budget cuts alone aren't going to make it disappear......Let it also be said that I agree with Shaw that tax-cuts for the very wealthy are a) not stimulative and b) do not in fact pay for themselves (just ask David Stockman and Alan Greenspan).
Will, of course, the wealthy do keep more of their own money with a tax cut, so do we simple folks when we get a tax cut. But is that the point? Isn't the point a fair tax code should take more from the high wage earners not the poor, poverty and middleclass? At least when we get a tax cut it goes right back into OUR economy. There has to come a time where the wealthy step up to the plate, this is their country too and we all know our country runs on taxes collected. The government has no money, its our money . Which begs another issue, entitlements. The right hates them because they consider those who partake in the programs as lazy, worthless, money grabbing....even our seniors! They call our seniors these names too! So the right would rather cut spending, which they mean entitlements, then take away the tax cuts to the richest Americans.
Sue, that's why I said that I agree with Shaw that tax cuts to the very wealthy are NOT as stimulative. We very much agree on that part. Couple that with the devastatingly high debt and I have no problem with the tax cuts on the much more affluent being sunsetted. The only compromise that I might seek is to raise the threshhold to $300-400,000. That way we can be assured of getting pretty much all of the small businesses and also taking away that idiotic Republican talking-point.
Will I know you were being agreeable, sometimes I sound like I'm shouting but I'm really not. You can be honest here, I won't bite your head off, LOL
Linda, just to clarify your own distortions, I just feel bad for you, really. How many times can you step in your own fecal pile before noticing the stench? C'mon now, you're just being one dimensional.
I agree with Will. Thing is Will, that 250,00 in places like the south and here in Missouri is stinkin' rich, trust me. The cost of living index needs to be taken into consideration and used when it comes to taxation. This way the people who reside in California that make $250,00 won't be taxed as high as those who make the same in those places I mentioned.
Linda said,
2. "Conservatives support education...what they don't support are teachers' unions who have ruined, with their radical leftist agenda, the good education that our students used to receive."
Sorry Linda, but what you consider a radical leftist agenda is an attempt to correct the propaganda from the Right which the textbooks for school children has been written in for the last 100 years.
The women's movement,the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, the environmental and peace movements, which have made history are finally getting recognized. And science is taught in the public schools, not creationism, because creationism is a religious theory, NOT SCIENCE!
That's an excellent suggestion, CDM. $250,000 is a lot different in Marblehead MA and Greenwich CT than it is in rural Missisippi, Kentucky, and Arkansas.
250,000 is rich mans money in South Jersey and just another so-so year to the North Jersey-ians.
hey Junebug, love your rant! Thanks!
Ah the phony person we call "Linda."
She is so happy to allow Derek Jeter his tax break amounting into the hundreds of thousands of dollars as long as she can afford a trip to Taco Bell on her meager tax cut.
Truth that really doesn't bother a teabagger like Linda. They don't care about those who suffer in this country because its no fault of the rich, so why should they suffer with high taxes. Let the rich have their fortunes and to hell with you other slobs, fend for yourselves!! Here Here!!
I wouldn't tax Derek Jeter at all. I would, however, tax Bill O'Reilly twice.
I get that wrong every time, it should be HEAR HEAR!!
why not tax Jeter??
It was kind of a joke, Sue. I like Jeter, but I don't like O'Reilly. So have Mr. O'Reilly pay twice.....I guess it's not that funny if you have to explain it.
And, plus, the Yankees are reaming the guy!!!
Still perfectly obvious to thinking people is your glaring hatred for those who are successful and wealthy. Where is it written that the rich MUST pay more than their fair share? I am not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't expect Oprah to pay for my health care or for my children's education. The only fair way to do this is a flat tax. If everyone (I would exempt the very poor and the disabled) pays their fair percentage based upon income (with no loopholes), then there would be enough money to pay for the things that government SHOULD do for us. We need to stop demanding that the government (taxpayers) subsidize the lazy or the non-citizens among us.
The athiests like to refer to Creationism as a "theory", but why do you suppose scientists themselves refer to the "big bang" as a "theory?" None of you can prove that the "big bang" happened either, but you cling to it as if it has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt. Consider DNA...study it and you will see how ridiculous it is to believe that the order and functionality demonstrated in our own DNA is just happenstance. It points to intelligent design, not "big bang."
Our economy would grow a lot more if we would actually manufacture something again. We keep moving all our manufacturing overseas...we need to create something here as in the past. Part of the problem is union wages and benefits as well as corporate greed.
Please stop comparing all conservatives to George W. Bush. He was a man with good intentions, but he spent way too much money. He, basically, supported big government. He is gone. Get over him.
Sue ~ I suggest that you spend less time harping about how conservatives "hate" America and how we want the poor to suffer and children to be deprived of a good education. Those are incendiary, ridiculous claims, and you know it. We simply differ in our ideas of what will be the best way to help the poor, educate children, and stimulate economic growth. You believe that Barack Obama will save the world...I do not.
"You believe that Barack Obama will save the world...I do not."
Speaking of Creationism
Linda: The only fair way to do this is a flat tax.
I addressed this point in my comment above. It causes much more deprivation to take $200 from someone who makes $1,000 per month than to take $20,000 from someone who makes $100,000 per month. Government needs to be paid for somehow. The money should come from those who can most afford it without actual suffering.
There's also the issue of the greater stimulative effect of income in the hands of the poor and middle class vs. in the hands of the upper class. These points have been brought up repeatedly; you just keep ignoring them.
The athiests like to refer to Creationism as a "theory", but why do you suppose scientists themselves refer to the "big bang" as a "theory?"
In scientific terminology, a "theory" refers to a solid explanation which has stood up to rigorous testing and shown great power to explain a wide range of data. This is why evolution, one of the most solidly-established facts in all of human knowledge, is referred to as a "theory". No scientist would refer to creationism as a "theory", and I've never heard an atheist do so either.
Consider DNA...study it and you will see how ridiculous it is to believe that the order and functionality demonstrated in our own DNA is just happenstance. It points to intelligent design, not "big bang."
Good grief. You really need to read a proper book about evolution by someone who actually knows what they're talking about. According to the theory of evolution, organic structures developed by a combination of random mutation and non-random natural selection, which is very far removed from "happenstance". DNA, like most organic structures, is a jumble of functional and non-functional elements which looks very much like what one would expect that process to produce, and nothing at all like what one would expect intelligent design to produce (read up on the recurrent laryngeal nerve sometime, too). Finally, evolution is a theory that explains the development (not origin, by the way) of life. The big bang is a theory which explains the origin of the physical universe, in which life first appeared billions of years later. One is about biology, the other is about cosmology. DNA, evolution, and other matters in biology have no relevance to the big bang whatsoever.
Aha, the truth be out, Linda is for the flat-head tax! It certainly makes great sense to get money from all those poor folks out there so that friend Linda can keep shopping at Neiman-Marcus, doesn't it? Perhaps she'll run into Lindsey Lohan, or Rush Limbaugh, or John McCain, or even Ron Paul's kid, all of whom make more than $250,000 annually, and all of whom are the small businessmen described by Mushmouth Mitch as deserving of an extension of the Republicant tax cuts so that they can create more jobs.
Linda, you and your twisted, evasive logic, simply suck.
Linda,
I bet you're all for vouchers, which only take taxpayer money away from the public schools to support private and parochial schools. If people want to send their kids to schools that support their own ideology or religion they have a right to do that, but not at the expense of public schools. Public schools are going down because of people like you who are out to destroy them.
thanks for the conversation! I'm putting up the Christmas tree, YIKES!! A liberal and Christmas, imagine that!
I don't hate rich people Linda, nor am I jealous of their wealth. I'm for fairness in our tax code and right now there is NONE!
Sometimes it's just the right thing to do, even the rich people themselves are speaking out on the unjust way the tax cuts are affecting us all. Jesus should be YOUR example. You obviously don't know the story of Jesus and the poor...
You all can say it better than I can so carry on!
Infidel ~ The "big bang" to which I referred, obviously, is considered by some to be the beginning of all the evolution we see in the natural realm. I did not say that there is not some degree of micro-evolution (finch beaks) demonstrated in nature.
It takes a lot more "assumption" for one to believe that from nothing, something exploded, sending nothing to the farthest reaches of the nothingness. From that nothing in some parts of the great nothingness (which exploded) the basic building blocks "developed" from the nothingness (which exploded) on their own. Over millions of years these building blocks, which developed from the exploded nothingness, began to change. Some exploded parts of nothingness developed characteristics which other parts of the nothingness didn't develop and vice-versa.
Those parts of nothingness hooked up with other parts of nothingness and produced little nothingnesses.
Pretty soon nothingnesses with certain compatible characteristics hooked up with similar nothingnesses and small changes were realized.
After "billions" of years of this happening, we have a human being with unfathomably complex eyes, DNA, blood which knows when to clot, fingerprints, and a brain that is as complex as a computer. Wow. That's believable.
Scientists make a lot of assumptions which at some later point in time prove to be incorrect. Your point about non-functional DNA elements is an example. Scientists are finding that some elements of DNA which they thought to be unencoded regions are merely "switches" and are necessary to regulate the expression of certain genes.
Your point about DNA not looking as expected for it to have been the product of intelligent design depends wholly upon the designer, does it not? Two people making a watch of the exact same parts, may not create the workings in exactly the same manner.
By the way, if you put watch parts in a bag and shook the bag to mix up the random parts, how long do you suppose and how many shakes would it take to dump from the bag a perfectly functioning watch? Billions of years? Would it ever happen? I think not.
Frodo ~ Neiman who? I prefer Bloomingdale's.
Linda -- You were clearly talking about biological evolution, and nobody who knew anything about evolution would say "The "big bang" to which I referred, obviously, is considered by some to be the beginning of all the evolution we see in the natural realm." The big bang has nothing to do with evolution.
It takes a lot more "assumption" for one to believe that from nothing, something exploded, sending nothing to the farthest reaches of the nothingness.
This shows that you don't know anything about modern cosmological theories, either -- only the typical gibberish spouted by other people who reject science while knowing almost nothing about it, and misunderstanding what they do know.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle and quantum physics dictate that absolute nothingness is impossible. There could never have been nothing.
By the way, if you put watch parts in a bag and shook the bag to mix up the random parts, how long do you suppose and how many shakes would it take to dump from the bag a perfectly functioning watch?
Again, you seem to think evolution is some kind of random process. As I pointed out previously, it isn't. These are just vapid creationist clichés. It's painfully obvious that you know nothing about the theory of evolution. If you're going to try to argue about it, you need to read a proper book or two about it by someone who actually does understand it.
So who created the creator? Eventually you have to come back to the same starting point, or, the fact that there was no starting point -- "it has always been".
it's like "eternal life", the thought of that gives me a stomach ache
While they may be some higher power that presides beyond our comprehension, the thought of some anthropomorphic entity (in heaven) that judges our moral actions and who also grants us our wishes....and who only let's us into this heaven if we believe in him, I agree, that does seem quite incredulous.
I'll take eternal life, Sue. But only if I can share it with Courteney Cox, Felicity Huffman, and Kristin Scott Thomas.
you have very eclectic taste in women Will. Eternal life scares me but I guess I'd feel safer in the arms of George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Paul Newman, I like the different age groups..
Infidel ~ Quote: "The Heisenberg uncertainty principle and quantum physics dictate that absolute nothingness is impossible. There could never have been nothing."
That was exactly my point. There was never nothing, because to quote Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." God had no beginning...he always has been.
You are making assumptions, yourself, if you are intellectually honest. You can't say positively that there is no Creator.
Where, from your great scientific knowledge, did all of the building blocks of life originate? You know, the "cosmic ooze" that exploded during that big bang...was it.......ALIENS???
Linda, life is theory. "Facts" change all the time. Case in point: A criminal is charged and convicted of murder when the "facts" presented were indisputable. Later, as technology improves, turns out the "facts" were incorrect and the sentence is turned over.
It always kills me how the staunch conservatives EMBRACE science when it serves their purpose then damn it when it doesn't and dismiss it as heresy or some form of liberal witch doctor nonsense.
Oh, and just for starters, some dude named Jonah living inside a whale for the better part of a week and comes out later unscathed. WOW! THAT sounds REALLY believable, especially when it comes from a word of mouth source some 2,000 years ago. Yep, sign me up. Again, that is just for starters.
All you're doing is dismissing something you clearly don't understand and are clearly afraid of investigating further as it may lead you to a conclusion that may have you reevaluating your past and coming to the conclusion that your teachings and rituals were nothing more than primal chimp chat.
I'm sure your response will do nothing but further this..."theory".
Will, I'm actually going to NOT agree with you on your assesment of spending eternal life with your choices. I see you choices and raise you eternal life with Kerry Washington, Selma Hayek, Lucy Liu and Reshma Shetty. I prefer the "Smorgasbord" approach to eternal bliss.
Cheers
CDM ~ Quote: " "Facts" change all the time. Case in point: A criminal is charged and convicted of murder when the "facts" presented were indisputable. Later, as technology improves, turns out the "facts" were incorrect and the sentence is turned over."
Obviously, the FACTS were not presented in this scenario. It was "evidence" that was presented and the evidence was obviously flawed or misleading. The "facts" were not wrong.
I guess I'm wasting my time by addressing your accusations, because you already "know" what my response will be and have pre-determined that I will be wrong or that I will become convinced of my own ignorance in these matters.
Enjoy your own brand of chimp chat. You clearly do not understand the difference between facts and "interpretation" of facts. Don't become a lawyer...btw, were you on the OJ Simpson jury????
Linda, you didn't disappoint.
My belief is based on faith Lisa.
Why are you attempting to come up with physical evidence of the spiritual. In essence, you are putting God in the category of ordinary matter which I find blasphemous.
My favorite absurdity, CDM, would probably have to be Noah's Ark. There are what, hundreds of thousands of insect species alone. And what about all of the species that only exist(ed) in Australia, Madagascar, etc.? Are we led to believe that Noah trapsed to these parts of the world and put all of THESE animals on his ark?.....Not to mention the frigging polar bears.
No, Will don't be so fucking stupid! That's when Noah parted the ocean and walked them there personally while being chased by Huns and dinosaurs! It was fucking EPIC!!! Do you expect me to beieve that you didn't already know that???
Actually, I just need 12 people to believe that. Yep, that'll do.
I'll take your Huns and dinosaurs and raise you Joe Paterno and the Rolling Stones.
Sue said... Will, of course, the wealthy do keep more of their own money with a tax cut...
I completely disagree with the "their own money" meme. A lot of it isn't their own money. It's excess money they were able to extract from the economy because the rules are rigged in their favor. A lot of "their own money" is actually money that was robbed from the working class -- which has seen it's wages stay flat for the last 30 years.
I think we should "rob" the rich and give that money to the poor. The rich have been robbing the poor since Reagan's massive tax cuts... it's about time we go back to what worked. We need to redistribute the country's wealth.
Linda thinks the only way to bring manufacturing back to the US is to kill the middle class. We need to compete with the wages paid in 3rd world nations. And eliminate all workplace saftey laws and environmental regulations. Maybe then manufacturing will return.
Or we could return to the "protectionist" policies that made the US a manufacturing powerhouse and built the middle class -- that is until Reagan started dismantling them.
Post a Comment