Is America Isolating Itself When It Comes to Global Trade?

Global trade has long been a cornerstone of economic growth and international cooperation, with the United States historically playing a pivotal role. Compared to almost all of its trading partners, the USA has nearly always had the most free and open markets. But here's the problem: after World War II, the USA allowed countries in Europe and Asia to protect their industries with high tariffs while, at the same time, letting them sell to the USA with very few trade barriers. For decades, the USA ran trade deficits with these countries as they enriched themselves with American dollars.

The WTO has 164 member nations.  Only China has been an issue.  198 complaints were filed against China, nearly half of all disputes!

At one point, manufacturing towns such as Detroit, Chicago, and Pittsburgh literally had the highest standard of living on the planet. These cities are now merely shells of themselves, as their manufacturing core—the very heartbeat that brought wealth to these cities—was ruthlessly cut away and moved to countries such as Korea, Japan, China, Vietnam, and cities like Berlin. This loss of industrial power raises an important question: Is America truly isolating itself in trade, or is it simply reacting to decades of economic policies that have hollowed out its manufacturing base?

America’s Unique Trade Position

Unlike most countries, the United States relies significantly less on trade as a percentage of its GDP. This distinct position stems from America’s vast internal market and economic resilience. After World War II, the goal of global trade was to enrich other nations and prevent another world war—a vision in which the USA played a central role. However, this dynamic has created a dependence among other nations on trade with the USA, far outweighing America's reliance on them. If the world shifted toward an isolationist model, the USA would be the least affected economically, underscoring its unparalleled ability to thrive independently.

Is it fair to maintain protectionist tariffs and trade barriers in their own countries while expecting the USA to abide by a different standard? 

Recent Isolationist Trends

The impact of globalization and shifting trade policies is evident in the decaying cities across the United States, such as Detroit and Chicago. Once thriving hubs of manufacturing and innovation, these cities were gutted as jobs were shipped overseas to countries like China, Korea, and Vietnam. Entire industries collapsed, leaving workers without the livelihoods that sustained their communities for generations. The men who once powered the manufacturing backbone of America were faced with an impossible choice—reinvent themselves in a world that told them to "learn how to code" or grapple with the harsh reality of economic displacement. These stories fuel America's pivot toward protectionist trade policies, aiming to reclaim the industries lost to globalization.

China and the WTO Spotlight

The World Trade Organization (WTO), with its 164 member nations, serves as a critical platform for resolving trade disputes. Last year, 198 complaints were filed against China, accounting for nearly half of all disputes. These complaints highlight issues such as industrial subsidies, forced technology transfers, and intellectual property violations. America has been among the most vocal critics of China’s trade practices, further straining trade relationships and influencing the global conversation around fair trade.

American military power guarantees their trade security ... yet at the same time, they shield their own markets...

Economic Implications for the U.S.

The introduction of 25% steel tariffs in 2018 marked a turning point for America's trade and industrial policies. Designed to counteract issues such as Chinese overcapacity, dumping practices, and structural barriers in other markets, these tariffs aimed to bolster U.S. steel production and safeguard national security. While critics feared long-term price hikes, the measures ensured the preservation of critical manufacturing capacities for military and infrastructure needs. However, they also reshaped trade relationships, increasing costs for certain industries reliant on imported steel. This protectionist stance highlights the trade-off between reducing foreign dependency and managing the economic impact on domestic manufacturing sectors.

Global Perception and Fair Trade Standards

While other nations may seek closer ties with one another and question America’s commitment to free trade principles, they must also confront a critical question: Is it fair to maintain protectionist tariffs and trade barriers in their own countries while expecting the USA to abide by a different standard? The United States already operates the most open markets in the world, but this openness comes at a cost. Should the American middle class be sacrificed on the altar of free trade? This discrepancy underscores the need for a more balanced approach to global trade—one that fosters fairness for all participants without disproportionately disadvantaging certain economies or communities.

One out of every three world trade dollars originates from the United States

The Question of Security

One final question that no one is talking about: Who ensures global trade routes remain safe? Years ago, when Somali pirates began attacking Chinese and EU shipping lanes, who was called in to put an end to their reign of terror? It wasn’t China, nor was it the European powers—it was the United States. More recently, when the Houthis started targeting EU ships filled with Chinese goods, did China deploy its vast naval resources to stop the attacks? Did the British Royal Navy extend its forces? Did France send the mighty Marine Nationale to dispatch the Houthi threat? Of course not! It was the United States, committing two strike groups at a staggering cost of $6.5 million per day each.

This underscores a deeper issue: Asia, Africa, and the EU rely on American military power to guarantee their trade security, yet at the same time, they shield their own markets from U.S. companies while demanding free access to American markets. Does that seem fair? While America shoulders the burden of global stability, it continues to see its manufacturing base eroded and its wealth creation opportunities hollowed out. As trade policies evolve, the question remains—should the United States continue footing the bill for global security while receiving little in return?

Conclusion

America’s trade policies have sparked debate about its future in the global economy. But as a recent Chinese TikToker pointed out, one out of every three world trade dollars originates from the United States. That fact underscores a fundamental truth—the customer is always right. For decades, nations have benefited from America’s open markets, selling their goods freely while imposing protective barriers on their own industries. The expectation that the USA should continue this practice indefinitely, even at the cost of its own economic well-being, is simply unsustainable.

More importantly, the dollars that America sends abroad do not simply fuel foreign economies—they are frequently redeployed into massive military buildups, some of which begin to challenge the United States itself. At what point does free trade cross into an existential threat? Should America continue enriching nations that, in turn, use those resources to undermine its global position? That would be an exercise in suicide. As trade policies evolve, the real question is not whether America is isolating itself, but rather whether the world is demanding an unfair and dangerous trade arrangement—one that risks America's economic and national security.

Trumps Freeze on $2B Harvard Grant Begs the Question. Why Are We Subsidizing The Rich?

Why the U.S. Should Stop Subsidizing Elite Universities with Billion-Dollar Endowments

Elite universities in the United States, such as Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, have long been bastions of academic excellence and innovation. However, these institutions also boast astronomical endowments, with some exceeding $500,000 per student. Despite their financial independence, these colleges still benefit from federal subsidies and tax exemptions—a practice that raises critical questions about fairness and priorities in funding education.

Endowments: More Than Enough Wealth

Harvard University, for example, holds an endowment of over $53 billion, making it wealthier than the GDP of some countries. These funds are generated through investments, donations, and alumni contributions, and often grow exponentially over time due to favorable market conditions. While these endowments are used to fund scholarships, research, and campus infrastructure, a significant portion is restricted to specific uses, limiting flexibility for broader spending.

Nonetheless, the sheer size of these endowments highlights the self-sufficiency of these elite institutions. They possess the resources to not only sustain themselves but thrive—making the case for federal subsidies increasingly difficult to justify.

Federal Support: Misplaced Priorities

Each year, elite universities receive substantial federal funds through research grants, work-study programs, and other initiatives, in addition to benefiting from their tax-exempt status as nonprofit organizations. This federal support is intended to drive innovation and provide educational opportunities, but it disproportionately benefits institutions that are already financially flush. Meanwhile, public colleges, community colleges, and smaller universities—often serving lower-income and underprivileged populations—struggle to secure adequate funding.

Redirecting subsidies from wealthy elite universities to underfunded schools and programs could address disparities in higher education and better serve the nation’s needs.

The Case for Accountability

Critics argue that elite universities should be treated like businesses and taxed accordingly. While the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act imposed a 1.4% excise tax on the investment income of the wealthiest endowments, this tax is far lower than what other businesses or individuals pay on capital gains. Taxing these institutions at a higher rate—or ending federal subsidies altogether—could generate billions in revenue and encourage these universities to use their wealth more responsibly.

The Ethical Debate

Elite universities often justify their federal funding by pointing to their contributions to research and societal progress. However, the question remains: Should taxpayers be responsible for subsidizing institutions that already have access to vast private wealth? The funding disparity raises concerns about equity in education and whether public dollars are being used to promote the common good.

Conclusion

At a time when educational access and affordability are growing concerns, the United States should reevaluate its policies regarding federal support for elite universities. Institutions with endowments exceeding $500,000 per student clearly have the means to operate independently and should no longer rely on taxpayer funding. Redirecting these resources to support public colleges, community colleges, and underserved populations would create a more equitable education system and ensure federal dollars are spent where they’re needed most.

The Rise and Fall of Steel Prices: The Legacy of Trump's Tariffs

On March 2018, the Trump administration imposed 25% tariffs on steel imports, aiming to boost U.S. steel production, reduce dependency on certain foreign suppliers, and strengthen national security. While critics feared long-term price increases, the tariffs led to a shift in trade relationships and a boost in American industry. But behind the economic reasoning was an even bigger concern—America's ability to defend itself in a time of war.

Why Were the Tariffs Implemented?

The steel tariffs were introduced to address several pressing issues in the global steel market:

• Chinese Overcapacity & Dumping: China was producing far more steel than its domestic market required, leading to dumping—selling steel internationally at far below production costs. This practice threatened the viability of U.S. and allied steel industries, pushing prices dangerously low and forcing plants to shut down.

• Structural Barriers in Other Markets: Countries like South Korea and members of the European Union had trade policies and subsidies that created barriers for U.S. steel exports, further disadvantaging American producers.

• National Security Concerns: U.S. planners recognized a larger strategic risk—if China bankrupted steel industries in America and its allied nations, the ability to produce warships, aircraft, tanks, and other military assets could be severely weakened in the event of a conflict.

Safeguarding Industrial Capacity

The tariffs ensured America retained critical manufacturing capabilities rather than becoming dependent on adversarial nations for essential materials. This protectionist approach prevented a potential scenario where the U.S. military might struggle to source steel in a crisis. Beyond trade policy, the initiative encouraged:

• Onshoring steel production to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers.

• Strengthening supply chains with close allies like Canada and Mexico rather than competitors.

• Boosting domestic steel investments to ensure long-term production viability for military and infrastructure needs.

A Short-Lived Price Spike

When the tariffs first took effect, steel prices rose, including the cost of steel rebar—a vital material for construction. However, these price increases were temporary, as the market adjusted to new supply chains and domestic production expanded.

Positive Impacts on Trade & Jobs

Beyond price fluctuations, the tariffs reshaped trade relationships and expanded job opportunities across multiple industries. Some key benefits included:

• Trade Realignment: Instead of relying heavily on Chinese steel, the U.S. increased imports from trusted allies like Canada and Mexico, strengthening economic ties with neighboring trade partners.

• Domestic Steel Production Growth: Many American steel manufacturers ramped up operations, leading to a stronger, more self-sufficient industry.

• Job Creation Beyond Steel: The expansion of U.S. steel production led to the creation of around 6,000 new jobs—not only in steel mills but also in trucking, logistics, warehousing, and support services. This growth extended beyond manufacturing and boosted economic activity in related industries.

A Market Correction

Despite early price increases, the steel market stabilized as global supply chains adapted. By the early 2020s, steel prices—including steel rebar—had dropped below pre-tariff levels, proving that initial inflationary fears were overblown.

Looking Ahead

The steel tariffs demonstrated the power of protectionist policies in revitalizing domestic industries and preserving America’s national security interests. While debates continue about their long-term economic impact, one undeniable result was the strengthening of U.S. steel production, job growth in multiple sectors, and ensured capacity for military manufacturing in case of future geopolitical threats. 

As trade policies evolve, the challenge will be finding the right balance between economic protectionism and global competition.

Plandemic 451 | Journalist No Longer Care About Censorship

     It's been years since I posted anything here and as a matter of fact I had to reset my Blogger account to even post this.  I say this to you guys to point out how important I thought it was that I speak out here.  
     So a few days ago, a friend of mine sent me a link to Plandemic, a  video posted on Facebook and told me to watch before it got taken down.  I thought to myself, "Yeah right, they're going to take down a video, what is this China?"

     I proceeded to watch the video and thought OK, that was a lot to digest, but immediately there were some things that she said that sounded to me like crazy talk.  Either way I decided to check for myself if some of these things were true... Later.  
     Later was yesterday and when I went to look at the video again.  It was gone.  I checked YouTube and basically found the videos you see in the above picture, mostly videos panning Plantemic.  I checked Google and found a LOT of journalist talking about how Facebook, YouTube Vimeo and Twitter were all scrambling to delete Plandemic.  They then went on to talk about how everything she said was crazy talk.  

     I really wonder what Ray Bradbury, the writer of Fahrenheit 451 would think about what's going on today with the censorship we're now living with by Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.

     There are several things that bothered me about the Journalists response to Plandemic.  The first was the fact that they were all perfectly OK with and seemed to agree with the Censorship going on at Facebook, YouTube, Vimeo and Twitter!  Journalists OK with Censorship?  Journalists AGREEING with censorship??  Truth is that removing a video from YouTube is the equivalent of a Book Burning and yet they talk about these private corporations having the right to censor what goes on.  I disagree.  If you're going to let private corporations who own a monopoly no less, decide who gets access and who doesn't at what point do you draw the line?  Can AT&T or Comcast or a regional Power Company decide that they don't like your ideas and wish to block you from disseminating your "Dangerous" ideas by cutting off your service?  This is the equivalent of Facebook cutting you off.  Can you go and make your own Facebook, YouTube or any other public utility?  

     The second problem I had with these "Journalists" is that they brushed off everything she said, not by digging into most of what she said, but by pointing out a failed research paper, because God knows that NO ONE has ever had any failures in life.  They also pointed to the fact that she was arrested and how "The case was bolstered by a Colleague admitting that he took the laptop on behalf of Mikovits".  Interesting, that the journalists wouldn't ask, "Why was the person who ACTUALLY STOLE the laptop not the one being punished?"  Interesting that the Journalist wouldn't care to question why there was a Gag order to begin with?  Interesting that the Journalist wouldn't care to find out why Mikovits was fired and what her research was at the time?  The fact that 13 researchers signed off on this study and yet somehow it took TWO YEARS later to recant?  None of that makes any sense.

     The Journalists all then go on to explain away Fauci's Profiteering on AIDS by claiming that he donated his shares of the profits.  Well isn't that nice.  Of course they didn't ask follow up questions like, "Did that reduce your taxable income with all these donations that you're giving away?" Of course not, what's the point of asking questions?  Oh right, you're a JOURNALIST and it's your job to ask questions!  They move on the the question of where Mikovits also appears to cast doubt on the official statistics regarding COVID-19 deaths, saying that doctors and hospitals have been "incentivized" to count deaths unrelated to the disease as having been caused by the coronavirus infection because of payouts from Medicare.  They claim that there is no proof of this, yet there's been several articles saying the exact opposite and agreeing with Mikovits.  Another thing that they claim is that her insistence that if someone is treated with Hydroxychloroquine a Doctor could lose their Medical license.  They go on to say that the AMA can't do this, yet doctors have been complaining that they ARE being threatened with the loss of their license if they use anything that hasn't been specifically approved by the FDA.

     Finally Mikovits points out another study that the Elite hope no one will actually read.  As far back as 2012, there have been reports that the probability of respiratory infections other than the Flu went up 5 fold in children given the flu shot, the list of OTHER infections included Coronavirus infections!  Even the British Medical Journal (The BMJ) reported the same thing earlier this year.  Yet when Mikovits points out that this could be linked to the new Flu Shot given in Italy in late 2019 and let's keep in mind that unlike the USA, Italy MANDATES flu shots, you MUST get your flu shot or be labeled a criminal!  But again, no one WANTS to ask the tough questions.  Is it possible?

     In conclusion there's lots of evidence that the government is trying to "Trump Up" the numbers on COVID-19, they've already said that "If someone dies WITH COVID-19, they're counted as dying OF COVID-19"  The truth is that just 2 years ago we had over 80,000 people die from Influenza H2N1.  There was no economic lockdown, they didn't destroy the economy in dealing with that outbreak and as deadly and devastating as C-19 has been, it's not really any more deadly than anything we've dealt with before.  Is the real agenda here profit?  Is the real agenda to get everyone to agree to get vaccinated with the new C-19 vaccine that they will SURELY come out with in the next year or two?  Considering that the Drug Industry both spends the most advertising dollars AND the most in lobbying dollars on politicians around the world, is it really so hard to believe that those dollars are investments in the control of information?  Viral vaccines are not like bacterial vaccines.  If you got a vaccine for Polio or another bacterial based disease, you probably don't ever need that again.  Virus' though, have to be boosted again and again and again.  Look at the Flu virus.  You need it EVERY year.  What if, just like Italy they're going to pass a law that says EVERYONE needs to be vaccinated from C-19 worldwide.  Wouldn't the Drug companies stand to make not Billions but Trillions of dollars?

     

How The Administration Should Negotiate with Putin

By now, everyone knows how Putin has invaded the Ukraine and threatened to annex the Crimea. Poeple are saying that the U.S. response has been weak, others are saying that we need to use Military force, but I'd like to present a response that I think Reagan himself would use, if I were the head negotiator for the U.S.

Mr. Putin, back when Bill Clinton was President, John Major headed up the UK and Boris Yeltsin was President of the Russian Federation, we all got together with the Chinese and offered Ukrainian prime minister peace and security, in order that the Ukraine to give up their sizable Nuclear arsenal along with their army.  We left them defenseless.  The world, meaning the U.S.A, promised them that their borders would not come under attack and that we would all protect them.  Additionally we even told them they would be considered for membership in the EU. Our President, Mr. Obama, reaffirmed this treaty in 2009. You Sir... Mr. Putin, are now breaking that promise, but we must keep ours. 

Mr. Putin, I say to you that you have a very short memory.  In the 1980's our President, Ronald Reagan saw the weaknesses of the U.S.S.R. and came up with a plan to destroy the Republic without firing a single shot.  The Weapon of choice was Economic in nature and it's something that the U.S. has become incredibly proficient at.  If you go against us, you die.  And we don't even have to use our formidable military might to do it.  Back then, just as today you're hard currency reserves were earned by selling Oil and Natural Gas to the Europeans.  Reagan worked both with Congress to eliminate hundreds of regulations in the Oil and Gas business, along with increased rights for mining on Federal lands, along with working with the Saudi's to increase their production.  All the efforts paid off within 2 short years of Reagan being elected to office.  By 1982 oil had Collapsed to $30.00 a barrel, around half the price it was selling for in the late 70's  and by 1986, ended up trading at less than 9 bucks a barrel!  By 1991 the Soviet Union ceased to exist.  If you think we've forgotten how to wage an Economic War, we haven't and we will use all of options to force you back to the table.

Currently, 30% of all Natural Gas consumed in the EU comes from the Russian Federation, but if you continue down this path, you will force us to take drastic action.  

As I'm sure you're well aware of, the U.S. currently has laws in place to where our companies can't drill off the Eastern nor Western Coasts.  We currently only allow drilling in the Gulf Coast, and tiny portions of Alaska, equal to less than 2% of the total land mass.  Fully 85% of all Federal Lands are off limits to Oil and Gas recovery, but that could change.

All we would have to do in the U.S. is to increase the available lands from 15% to 20% and it would create such a worldwide glut of Oil and Gas that the prices would collapse to pre 1987 levels!

We will give U.S. Oil and Gas producers the same preferential Tax treatment currently given to High Tech companies and Banks, cutting their effective tax rates in half.  We will stipulate that all of this comes at a cost.  They CANNOT do business with you!

Additionally, to help our EU allies, the U.S. will begin to build out Natural Gas Liquification facilities at all of our Docks around the country.  We will provide subsidies to our export companies to where they will ALWAYS beat your price for Natural Gas, and we will bankrupt you ALL OVER AGAIN, just like Reagan BANKRUPTED the old Soviet Union!  We will do a repeat of history and BANKRUPT the Russian Federation. We have the Economic Might to do it, and so help me God, we will do it. Now you pull your troops back, or your country will be reduced to a BEGGAR nation in a single decade!

Why The Reagan Recovery Was Much More Impressive Than Obama's

James Pethokoukis, The American Enterprise Institute Blog

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-reagan-recovery-was-much-more-impressive-than-obamas-2012-1#ixzz2jOpJoXeiMy pal Joe Weisenthal over at Business Insider just wrote a piece – in response to a post I wrote earlier today — with the delightfully provocative and contrarian headline, “Why The Obama Recovery Has Been Much More Impressive Than Reagan’s.”
Nope, I’m not making this up. See for yourself.
Let’s be perfectly clear, the Reagan Recovery (RR) has been far stronger than the Obama Recovery (OR). I think that is beyond dispute, really.
– In the first ten quarters of the OR, GDP is up a total of 6 percent. During the first ten quarters of the RR, GDP rose 15 percent.  Point for Reagan.
– In the first ten quarters of the OR, the economy created 790,00 jobs. During the first ten quarters of the RR, the economy created 7.5 million jobs  Point for Reagan, especially given the U.S. workforce is a third bigger today than it was in the early 1980s.
– In the first ten quarters of the OR, real disposable personal income rose at an annual average pace of 0.8 percent. During the first ten quarters of the RR, real disposable personal income rose at annual average pace of 5.4 percent. Point for Reagan. Game. Set. Match.
But Brother Weisenthal is making a subtler, more subjective point. He is arguing that, for a number of reasons, the Obama Recovery is more impressive than the Reagan Recovery. Not stronger, more impressive because Obama was dealt a worse hand. Among Weisenthal’s points:
1. “There are at least some economists who argue that post-financial crisis economies experience unusually slow growth for years and years.”
Me: Indeed, there are. But there are also some who disagree.  A Federal Reserve study released last November found the following:

Whether a recession is associated with a banking or financial crisis does not have a statistically significant effect on the pace of growth following recession troughs. … Banking and financial crises are associated with more severe recessions – deeper in the case of emerging market economies and longer in the case of the advanced economies – but do not appear to impose additional restraint to recoveries beyond the depth and duration.

2. “The problem is that Pethokoukis is … defining housing bust purely in terms of housing construction, while ignoring the real elephant in the room: The collapse in home prices, and the knock-on effects it has had on the economy.”
Me: I don’t disagree that the “knock on effect” such as loss of wealth may well be a drag on growth. That Fed study makes the same point:  … “recoveries from recessions associated with severe housing downturns are found to be slower.” Well, there is a difference between slow and virtually non-existent, right? Again, the Reagan  Recovery 10-quarter growth rate was 6 percent vs. 4.6 percent for the average post-WWII recovery vs. 2.4 percent for the Obama Recovery. And
And the impact of a deleveraging and a reverse wealth effect are not as clear as Weisenthal contends. Note that personal consumption as increased for 10 straight quarters and the savings rate remains extraordinarily low. But I think this chart, from the NY Times, raises big questions about the deleveraging argument:

Where is the deleveraging? It looks like debt has shifted from private to public. Let me quote a Michael Pento piece from BI, of all places: “Although it is certainly true that after decades of overly speculative borrowing, individuals and corporations are paying down debt, rebuilding their savings, and generally repairing their respective balance sheets. But these activities cannot be faulted for our economic malaise. In fact, as a country, we haven’t deleveraged at ALL. All the moves made by the private sector have been vastly outpaced by the federal government’s efforts to add leverage to the economy.”

3. If you really want an apples-to-apples comparison, it’s hard to fathom why Reagan doesn’t have to answer for a recession happening so soon on his watch, and why he only gets measured on those two years. What’s mor …  the 1984-1988 period was pretty average, so we’re really just talking about two years of really impressive morning-in-America growth.
Me: I think Paul Volcker cranking interest rates through the roof might have had a role in the recession as he attempted to squeeze out the inflation of the 1970s. The 1981-82 recession was the culmination of really 16 years of economic mismanagement. One sign of this: The Dow industrials fell by two-thirds when adjusted for inflation from 1966-1982. (From 1983-1988, the S&P composite notched a real return of 13 percent a year.) The entire previous decade marked by tremendous economic volatility, high unemployment,high inflation. Reagan inherited a mess.
As for GDP growth, it averaged 4.4 percent from 1983-1988 vs. roughly 3.3 percent since WWII. So I am pretty sure growth was markedly above average.  A recent IMF forecast, by the way, predicts sub-3 percent US GDP growth through 2016.

4. “We could of course go on, and point to several other factors in Obama’s favor, such as the fact that tax rates had already been lowered quite a bit heading into his presidency, taking away one easy form of stimulus, or the fact that a major trading partner, Europe, has been in crisis virtually the whole time of Obama’s Presidency, or the fact that Obama faced a Congress who threatened to cause the U.S. to default, or the fact that interest rates were ultra-low already, again taking away one form of stimulus from Obama.”
Me: Gosh, I wonder what U.S. GDP growth would have been in the 1980s had China been the second largest economy in the world growing at 10 percent a year, boosting global growth. Instead, it was the stagnating Soviet Union in the number two spot.  In the 1980s, one-third of the planet lived under communism sapping all that human vitality and creativity (and trade) out of the world economy. And I am not sure about JW’s point about taxes and interest rates. Is he saying that Obama has a much more constructive tax and rate environment and still couldn’t get the economy cooking?
 Bottom line: People were amazingly pessimistic heading into the 1980s after the economically tumultuous 1970s. America seemed to be in decline both economically and militarily. And corporate America was desperately in need of restructuring. (Thanks, Bain!) Obama inherited a much healthier non-financial private sector.
This is what the American people had just gone through, by the way (via MeasuringWorth):

Imagine going back in time and showing these economic statistics from the next 25 years:

Growth up, stocks up, inflation down. Oh, and the Soviet Union gone. Safer, Stronger. Better. Instead of the Soylent Green future of diminished expectations people were predicting in the 1970s, we got something more like the shiny, growthy one shown in Back to the Future II.
Obama has some big shoes to fill.

This post originally appeared at The American Enterprise Institute Blog. Copyright 2013.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-reagan-recovery-was-much-more-impressive-than-obamas-2012-1#ixzz2jOp2ldK2

Comments on Trayvon

I found this post and wanted to comment on it, but found the Comments closed (Don't you HATE when that happens...), so I decided to re-post it on MY blog, so I could comment on it....

From "The Audacity of Despair, collected prose, links and occasional venting from David Simon"

The article titled simply, "Trayvon" posted on July 13th, 2013

You can stand your ground if you’re white, and you can use a gun to do it. But if you stand your ground with your fists and you’re black, you’re dead.
In the state of Florida, the season on African-Americans now runs year round. Come one, come all.  And bring a handgun. The legislators are fine with this blood on their hands. The governor, too. One man accosted another and when it became a fist fight, one man — and one man only — had a firearm. The rest is racial rationalization and dishonorable commentary.
If I were a person of color in Florida, I would pick up a brick and start walking toward that courthouse in Sanford. Those that do not, those that hold the pain and betrayal inside and somehow manage to resist violence — these citizens are testament to a stoic tolerance that is more than the rest of us deserve.  I confess, their patience and patriotism is well beyond my own.
Behold, the lewd, pornographic embrace of two great American pathologies:  Race and guns, both of which have conspired not only to take the life of a teenager, but to make that killing entirely permissible.  I can’t look an African-American parent in the eye for thinking about what they must tell their sons about what can happen to them on the streets of their country.  Tonight, anyone who truly understands what justice is and what it requires of a society is ashamed to call himself an American.

What gets me about this article is the fact that it's nothing but raw emotion.  The Author doesn't care about justice, who is right, who is wrong or the facts about anything.  The verdict didn't go the way he wanted so let's destroy the system.

First let's look at the "Stand Your Ground Law".  About 1/3rd of all the claims on Stand Your Ground were filed by African Americans in Florida, even though they make up only about 1/6th of Florida's Population.

Second, let's look at the "Race Issue".  George Zimmerman isn't "White", he's half Peruvian and Half Jewish, hell he went to Prom with a black girl that he had dated in High School.  From the time he was 6 to 11 he lived in a Black household, his Business partner is black and so is his grand father.  To top it off, he tutored black kids for free in an after school program, after it was officially cancelled by the State.  Does this sound like the kind of guy that "hated" black people?

Finally, let's talk about Trayvon, he wasn't some little, tiny, innocent 12 year old as he was portrayed by the big media outlets.  He was a towering over 6' tall, fully developed teenager constantly getting into trouble.  He lived in Miami with his mother, but his mother sent him nearly 4 hours north to stay with his Father in Sanford, after he got suspended from School (AGAIN), for writing Graffiti on a wall in school and because they found a bag with traces of Marijuana in it.  At the time, they also found a bunch of jewelry in his backpack with a screwdriver, which Martin had said was given to him by a "friend" which he wouldn't name.

Draw your own conclusions, but from what I see, the African American community enjoys protection from "Stand Your Ground" at a disproportionate rate to the rest of the population, Zimmerman was anything BUT racist and Trayvon was anything BUT an innocent bystander.  People want to make this about race, but it's not.  It's simply a tragedy of circumstances and no amount of Bricks, Race Baiting or Punditry will ever change that fact.

Obama Administration Set to Deport Christian Family Fleeing Persecution

In 2010 a U.S. Immigration Judge granted the Romeike family political asylum, based upon the fact that the German Government was attempting to remove their kids from them.  What was their hideous crime that would cause the German Government to take the draconian measures of removing the Romeike Children from their home?  Why they were Home Schooling their children, and even worse teaching them Christian Values.  These are things that are currently illegal in Germany and will no longer be tolerated.

Fast forward to 2013, and if you listen to the Obama Administration while making the following proclamation on Religious Freedom Day, you would think they would be on the Romeike families side right?:

“Today, we also remember that religious liberty is not just an American right; it is a universal human right to be protected here at home and across the globe. This freedom is an essential part of human dignity, and without it our world cannot know lasting peace.”

“As we observe Religious Freedom Day, let us remember the legacy of faith and independence we have inherited, and let us honor it by forever upholding our right to exercise our beliefs free from prejudice or persecution…”

Yet at the same time U.S. Attorney, Eric Holder is moving to have them deported!  The Administration claims that the families fundamental rights have not been violated by the German Government's law forbidding families from homeschooling, so they've asked the courts to withdraw the families political asylum and have them deported back to Germany!

The Home School legal Defense Association (HSLDA) is representing the Romeikes family and are doing what they can to have them stay in the US.  The HSLDA issued the following statement:

“The U.S. law of asylum allows a refugee to stay in the United States permanently if he can show that he is being persecuted for one of several specific reasons. Among these are persecution for religious reasons and persecution of a ‘particular social group.’”

“In most asylum cases, there is some guesswork necessary to figure out the government’s true motive—but not in this case. The Supreme Court of Germany declared that the purpose of the German ban on homeschooling was to ‘counteract the development of religious and philosophically motivated parallel societies.’”

“This sounds elegant, perhaps, but at its core it is a frightening concept. This means that the German government wants to prohibit people who think differently from the government (on religious or philosophical grounds) from growing and developing into a force in society.”

“The Romeikes’ case is before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The case for the government is officially in the name of the Attorney General of the United States. The case is called Romeike v. Holder. Thus, the brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice is filed on behalf of the attorney general himself—although we can be reasonably certain he has not personally read it. Nonetheless, it is a statement of the position of our government at a very high level.”

“We argued that Germany is a party to many human rights treaties that contain specific provisions that protect the right of parents to provide an education that is different from the government schools. Parents have the explicit right to give their children an education according to their own philosophy.”

“While the United States government argued many things in their brief, there are three specific arguments that you should know about.”

“First, they argued that there was no violation of anyone’s protected rights in a law that entirely bans homeschooling. There would only be a problem if Germany banned homeschooling for some but permitted it for others.”

“A second argument is revealing. The U.S. government contended that the Romeikes’ case failed to show that there was any discrimination based on religion because, among other reasons, the Romeikes did not prove that all homeschoolers were religious, and that not all Christians believed they had to homeschool.”

“This argument demonstrates another form of dangerous “group think” by our own government. The central problem here is that the U.S. government does not understand that religious freedom is an individual right. One need not be a part of any church or other religious group to be able to make a religious freedom claim. Specifically, one doesn’t have to follow the dictates of a church to claim religious freedom—one should be able to follow the dictates of God Himself.”

“One final argument from Romeikes deserves our attention. One of the grounds for asylum is if persecution is aimed at a “particular social group.” The definition of a “particular social group” requires a showing of an “immutable” characteristic that cannot change or should not be required to be changed. We contend that German homeschoolers are a particular social group who are being persecuted by their government.”

If returned to Germany, the Romeike family will be torn apart by the German Government, facing fines, Jail time and the removal of the children. 

To Many Hands Out, How Will We Pay?

When we look at what's going on with our economy, one has to wonder.  How will the United States pay for so many people on the Federal Dole?
Let's consider for a moment that we have about 10,000 people per day that are signing up for Food Stamps, or roughly 300,000 per month.
On top of that we have thousands on a daily basis signing up for Welfare.
On top of that we have around 10,000 people per day retiring and collecting Social Security (which is a pay as you go program, there is no trust fund)
On top of all these handouts to non producers, we also have the Federal Government adding about 100 new employees per day.
So you might be sitting there saying, Yeah, we're a big country, what's the big deal.  Here's the big deal.  We're only adding around 150,000 jobs a month to the economy.  Yes, you heard that right.  We have around 300,000 new retirees per month collecting Social Security and over 300,000 NEW people collecting Food Stamps plus who knows how many collecting Welfare EVERY month and yet only 150,000 new jobs a month to support all of this.  How will we pay for it all?  I just don't see it happening.

Sanchez and Others Further Goals of Political Elites

Yesterday I was driving along to a Job site when I heard Rick Sanchez on the Radio talking about how Millionaires get away with only paying 10 and 15% in income taxes.  So I promptly called up WIOD and explained to him that he was mistaken, when people invest.... oops, he cut me off and hung up on me and proceeded to say "... In the Cayman Islands and other places to hide their money and keep from paying taxes".

Wow, I thought to myself.  Is this guy REALLY this misinformed or is he just trying to gain a Populist position to increase his ratings.  After all, he did just recently take up the 3PM to 6PM slot on WIOD.  I was heartened to hear that many of those calling tried to set him straight on how income earned ANYWHERE in the world, had to be paid by U.S. Citizens.  Even if that income was earned outside of this country and we are one of a very few countries that actually does this.  As an example, a French or British citizen living and earning money in the U.S. isn't subject to French or British taxes, but the reverse is not true!  We REALLY have one of the worst taxing structures in the country.  Back to the story though, next thing you know there was a guy that called and agreed with Rick.  He proclaimed that he worked for a Private Equity Fund, where the Millionaires did nothing but try to avoid taxation by "hiding" funds in other countries.

I tried calling back but of course they wouldn't take my calls anymore so I guess I'll have to rage against the machine here on MY format.

So here's what I would have said, if I had actually had a chance to talk.

First of all Rick, getting a paycheck is not the same as investing in a Private Equity Fund, Mutual Fund or any other kind of investment.  Why?  Because just as you didn't walk into WIOD and hand them over a Million dollars to invest in their operation, the average working stiff doesn't INVEST in his employer.  He's just there with his hand out at the end of the week asking to get paid for the time he put in.  You see Rick, once you get your paycheck and AFTER you've already paid your taxes on that paycheck (which for you probably averages around 30+ Percent) you can now choose to invest that leftover money in some sort of Mutual Fund or other investment that will hopefully create jobs somewhere.  Rick, are you telling me that we should tax that money which you are essentially GAMBLING in some sort of investment, at the same levels of taxation as regular income?  

Of course not, this is why we have preferential treatment for investments, because otherwise what's the point in taking a gamble, if when you win the Government is going to take half?  As for "Hiding" investments in other countries, I think that people are making business decisions based upon the confiscatory nature of our Federal Government.  If Norway is charging their companies HALF the taxes that we do, doesn't it make business sense to move some of your manufacturing there?  Ask the guys that made the two biggest cruise ships in the world, and they would probably tell you that they wouldn't be able to compete if they made those ships in the U.S. because of the tax and regulatory hurdles.  The same goes for almost any manufacturing operation.  Just look at what Canada is doing.  Even though their dollar has risen by almost 40% in the past 10 years, manufacturing in Canada is up.  Why?  They've lowered Corporate Rates to around 25% (15% Federal and around 10% Provincial).  Here's the kicker.  Even with the lowered rates, revenue is up from all the additional economic activity.  To top it off, even though we, their biggest trading partner have been mired in a deep recession, they've managed to maintain an unemployment rate of around 2% lower than we have, despite the fact that historically Canada has had an unemployment rate of around 3% HIGHER than we have!

Dial Back Spending to 2005 Levels and it will match our Revenues

So here's the thing, STOP empowering Politicians by repeating their claims as facts.  Corporate tax rates in the U.S. are higher than all G7 Nations, tax collection in the U.S. is projected to be 2.7 Trillion, a record, yet as usual they're spending a Trillion over that amount!  The real problem isn't tax collection, it's the insane levels of spending.  Does anyone even realize that since his first year in Office, Obama has spent nearly a Trillion dollars each and every year MORE than what Bush spent for 7 out of 8 years?  We RARELY see reporters talk about how cuts are NEVER cuts, the politicians create a baseline budget of 3 to 10% above the previous year and if the number is less than that it's called a cut, even though it's actually an increase.  The ONLY reason they're able to get away with this lie over and over again is because of people like Rick Sanchez and other media types that REPEAT the lie.