99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth (Part 19) (“Free to Choose” episode 3 – Anatomy of a Crisis. part 5 of 7)

Milton Friedman was born on July 31, 1912 and he died November 16, 2006. I started posting tributes of him on July 31 and I hope to continue them until his 100th birthday. Here is another tribute below:

MCKENZIE: Ah, well, that’s not on our agenda actually. (Laughter)
VOICE OFF SCREEN: Why not?
MCKENZIE: I boldly repeat the question, though, the expectation having been __ having been raised in the public mind, can you reverse this process where government is expected to produce the happy result?
LEKACHMAN: Oh, no way. And it would be very foolish of the public which is on the whole more sensible than academic, to come to this conclusion. They look around them, what do they see? They see a whole collection of visible hands attached to EXXON, other large corporations. These are not small, independent competitors jostling with each other for the patronage of the public. These are large organizations, with substantial influence on their markets. Government’s interference, clumsy as it often is, is an almost unavoidable response to the very visible manipulations of large organizations.
FRIEDMAN: If there again, you’re an academic, we’re talking about fact in history. Now the history is that the growth of government has not been as a result of the things you’re pointing out. It isn’t the large corporations. It isn’t the large unions. It isn’t the technological development that has produced the major growth of government. The major growth of government in our time has come in the redistributive area. It’s come in the area of designing programs which take from some people and give to others. We’re not going to go into those here, because we discuss those in our next two programs which deal with exactly the question of whether the government intervention that was stimulated by The Great Depression has been a success or a failure. But to your point, the grounds that you give for greater government intervention have almost nothing whatsoever to do with the actual factual growth of government. Now at the end of the war, immediately after World War II, it was thought that government was going to get involved, especially in Britain, in France, in central economic planning on a large scale.
JAY: Partly because of the war experience, too, when government was very much involved.
FRIEDMAN: Partly.
MCKENZIE: In Germany and Japan as well.
FRIEDMAN: Germany and Japan as well, it was a war. It created a myth just as the, as The Great Depression created myth.
MCKENZIE: Or rather reinforced the myth of government responsibility.
FRIEDMAN: Yes, but it created a different myth. This is a subject we don’t discuss much in the film. We’ve discussed it in a book that we’re bringing out with the same title to go along with it but __ but the great, but the great myth that was created by the war, was the myth that government was inefficient. And it was.
MCKENZIE: We won the war.
FRIEDMAN: For wartime purposes in, at least in Britain and the United States. It wasn’t so inefficient in Germany and the losing countries. But why is that a myth? It was a myth because it is one thing for government to plan and to control an economy for a single overriding objective. One solitary objective __ win the war. It’s a very different thing for government to control the economy for the many numerous tastes of all us, of a very large number of people in a complex world. And I __ you ask the question of whether people’s opinions can be changed.
MCKENZIE: Yes.
FRIEDMAN: I can’t change their opinions. You can’t change their opinions, but experience is changing their opinions. Is there anybody, anywhere now who believes that government is an efficient way to run an industrial enterprise?
JAY: I think your question, can you get the genie back into the bottle, is a very important one. It is undoubtedly true that in democratic countries there will be a public urge expressed through the political process, for something to be done about anything that seems to be wrong. The one thing that inhibits that is the belief that it can’t be done. There is not politically expressed desire for the government to do something about the weather because it is widely believed that the government does not control the weather. It was widely believed under the gold standard and pre-Keynes that there was nothing the government could do about the kind of economic traits I call in depressions that we had before that time. Since then it is very widely believed, Milton may believe, I may believe wrongly, but nonetheless, it’s very widely believed that is now a manageable thing, and therefore the demand is expressed that unemployment should not rise too high, inflation should not rise too high, and so forth.
MCKENZIE: That we keep a war on want or a war on poverty.
JAY: If you believe, as Milton does, and on this issue I agree with him, that in fact government cannot handle this issue, and you want to get that genie back into the bottle, you can’t simply do it by authorities, or pundits, or academics, or others saying, “Here is a new rule. The government will do nothing. It will not intervene; it will not perform, but will just be a simple monetary rule.” You’ve got politically to persuade people that this is part of a system which they can understand, which will, in fact, deliver for them the minimal economic objectives that they have, which are basically high employment __ high employment and stability of prices, and one of two other things. Now in order to do that you’ve got to describe a political economic system which will in fact deliver that result. And they will not believe, and in my opinion they will rightfully not believe, that simply going back to where we were, or where we imagined that we were in 1930 or 1870, by withdrawing the government form the game and doing nothing else, will produce that result. And they’re right not to believe it.
TEMIN: The kind of pristine view that you appear to be putting up of no government isn’t really a consistent view because if you __
FRIEDMAN: I’m not putting up a view of no government. I’m putting up a view of a limited government. Limited __
TEMIN: Just how do you, how do you impose the limit?
FRIEDMAN: Note __ note that today the budget of HEW is one-and-a-half times the whole defense budget. That is not where the major growth of government has come. Whether we spend too little of too much on the military is very a arguable issue which I’m not competent to discuss.
TEMIN: Okay.
FRIEDMAN: But it is not the cutting edge of the dispute that we’re engaged in. That cutting edge is on all these other functions which government has increasingly taken on its shoulders.
TEMIN: Yes, but the question __
VON HOFFMAN: How do you get from here to there?
FRIEDMAN: By persuading people to do it, and by doing it gradually. You do not get it overnight. CAB was a very, very persuasive element on __ on getting rid of one branch of regulation. The failure of government to produce the full employment and the stable prices that was promised is another. You know what is __ who are we kidding? Is there anybody around any more who really believes that government knows how to prevent by its present methods inflation or unemployment? We’ve had increasing inflation. We’ve had increasing unemployment. Not only in the United States __
VON HOFFMAN: Well we __ we know that this government doesn’t __
VOICE OFF SCREEN: Wait, wait.
LEKACHMAN: It seems to me that we’re talking about at least four kinds of government intervention of different popularity among the public. One is redistributive __ via the Social Security System and so on __ and lots of that is popular. Welfare is unpopular, but Social Security is quite popular. Medicare has a mixed reputation, Medicaid a bad reputation. The redistributive system is a mixed bag from the public’s standpoint. Another kind of intervention deals with unemployment; a third kind deals with prices; and a fourth kind deals with regulation. Now, again, there is a cry about regulation which itself breaks down, it seems to me, into two parts: Partly a safety kind of thing, partly an economic kind of thing. I doubt that the public is prepared, for example, to eliminate the Food and Drug Administration.
FRIEDMAN: Take the way of trying to smooth out the business cycle.
LEKACHMAN: All right, now wait on that. I think that the record of doing this, in its clumsy way, Republicans, Democrats, assorted administrations in England and elsewhere, between 1945 and 1973 was quite good. Average unemployment during this considerable span of years was lower than had been probably in any previous spell of modern economic history. Inflation was not a persistent problem in this. Now I would say, putting the claim at a very modest one, that Keynesian intervention, if we use that as a label,
November 2, 2011 – 12:06 am Categories: Milton Friedman | Post a comment

My four favorite movies that James Garner starred in!!!!

I have always loved James Garner and especially in the Rockford Files TV series that ran from 1974-1980.

James Garner 1928-2014

Back
Next

  • “The Rockford Files”

    James Garner as private eye Jim Rockford in the series “The Rockford Files” (1974-80), and returned to the character in several TV movies in the 1990s.

    Garner won the first of his two Emmy Awards for “Rockford Files,” and received 12 other acting Emmy nominations.

    CREDIT: NBC

  • ______________________________

My four favorite movies that James Garner starred in are these four below:

James Garner 1928-2014

Back
Next

  • “Support Your Local Gunfighter”

    James Garner and Jack Elam returned in 1970 with the comedy “Support Your Local Gunfighter,” co-starring Suzanne Pleshette.

    CREDIT: United Artists

James Garner 1928-2014

Back
Next

  • “Support Your Local Sheriff”

    Joan Hackett and James Garner in the western comedy, “Support Your Local Sheriff” (1969).

    CREDIT: United Artists

James Garner 1928-2014

Back
Next

  • “The Great Escape”

    James Garner (as “The Scrounger”) and Donald Pleasance (“The Forger”) take part in a daring break from a World War II prisoner of war camp, in the 1963 adventure, “The Great Escape.”

    CREDIT: United Artists

James Garner 1928-2014

Back
Next

  • “Darby’s Rangers”

    James Garner starred in the 1958 World War II actioner “Darby’s Ranger,” directed by William Wellman.

    CREDIT: Warner Brothers

______________

James Garner 1928-2014

Back
Next

  • SAG Lifetime Achievement

    Actor James Garner, pictured at the Walt Disney Studios in Burbank in January 2005.

    James Garner 1928-2014

    Back
    Next

    • “The Notebook”

      James Garner and Gena Rowlands in “The Notebook” (2004). Garner received a SAG Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor for his performance as an elderly man relating the tale of a wartime romance.

    James Garner 1928-2014

    Back
    Next

    • “Space Cowboys”

      Tommy Lee Jones, Clint Eastwood, James Garner and Donald Sutherland are the aging pilots who will save the world in the 20o0 sci-fi flick, “Space Cowboys.”

      CREDIT: Warner Brothers

    • James Garner 1928-2014

      Back
      Next

      • Commercials

        In the late 1970s and early ’80s, Garner teamed up with Mariette Hartley in a series of popular TV commercials for Polaroid cameras. Their comfortable banter led many to believe they were actually married.

        CREDIT: Polaroid

    • James Garner 1928-2014

      Back
      Next

      • “Tank”

        James Garner in the 1984 comedy, “Tank.”

        CREDIT: Universal Pictures

    • James Garner 1928-2014

      Back
      Next

      • “Murphy’s Romance”

        James Garner received his first and only Oscar nomination for Best Actor for the 1985 romantic comedy “Murphy’s Romance,” playing a pharmacist whose courting of a divorced mother (Sally Field) is interrupted by the return of her ex-husband (Brian Kerwin).

        CREDIT: Columbia PIctures

    • James Garner 1928-2014

      Back
      Next

      • “My Fellow Americans”

        Ex-presidents Jack Lemmon and James Garner confer with sitting president Dan Aykroyd in the comedy “My Fellow Americans” (1996).

        CREDIT: Warner Brothers

    Back
    Next

    • “8 Simple Rules”

      In 2003, following the death of John Ritter, Garner joined the cast of Ritter’s TV series “8 Simple Rules,” playing the grandfather of Kaley Cuoco.

      CREDIT: ABC

James Garner 1928-2014

Back
Next

  • “Marlowe”

    As Raymond Chandler’s private eye Philip Marlowe, James Garner knew when to get the draw on Bruce Lee, in “Marlowe” (1969).

    CREDIT: MGM

Book review: ‘The Garner Files’

At 83, James Garner pulls no punches in this candid account of his acting care

By Mary McNamara, Los Angeles TimesNovember 1, 2011

Many actors have breathed life into a memorable or even iconic role but only a few are capable of reconstructing an archetype. In “Maverick” and then again “The Rockford Files,” James Garner stepped into two of TV’s most calcified genres — the western and the detective series — and set a new standard that others have been chasing down since. Bret Maverick and Jim Rockford were different in many ways — Maverick was a fast-talking con man in the Old West, Rockford a modern L.A. private investigator with motivation issues — but they shared an important trait: They were reluctant heroes. Each would much rather wisecrack his way out of a jam, but if you pushed him hard enough, you would invariably find yourself counting angels on the ceiling.

So it’s not surprising that it’s taken Garner, now 83, this long to write a memoir. But having made up his mind to write it, with the help of Jon Winokur, Garner follows his own heroic dictum: Plenty of self-deprecating, humor, a general air of live-and-let-live, but when it comes down to it, no pulled punches.

For Garner fans, “The Garner Files” is catnip; Winokur perfectly captures and sustains the actor’s voice, which includes a penchant for digression, intentional understatement and occasional declarations of war (against bullies; against studio bookkeeping; against certain directors, certain actors and certain studio heads). For industry aficionados, it is a candid accounting, sometimes literally, of a process that is too often over-glamorized and under-chronicled. Two of the most fascinating chapters involve his suits against Universal over syndication of “The Rockford Files” and a description of the physical damage caused by being an action star (he eventually had to have both knees replaced).

For the rest of the world, including and especially those too young to remember even “The Rockford Files,” Garner’s memoir offers a rare glimpse of a certain type of man, an archetype in itself. In her introduction, Julie Andrews describes Garner as a “man’s man,” but that has too brutish a connotation. Garner, like his characters, is first and foremost a gentleman, the sort who lives by a personal code that preaches patience and tolerance, up to a point. “When I’m pushed, I shove,” Garner writes, quoting one of his own characters, Murphy Jones of the movie “Murphy’s Romance.”

There are more than a few fistfights in “The Garner Files,” as well as thrown furniture and golf clubs, but usually there’s a reason, as when costar Tony Franciosa actually punched stuntmen during fight scenes: “… he kept doing it despite my warnings to stop … so I had to pop him one.”

Garner comes by his voice and his persona naturally enough. Born James Baumgarner in Norman, Okla., he lost his mother when he was 4; he and his two brothers were split up among relatives. The Baumgarners survived the Depression better than many Oklahomans, but when James’ father, Weldon, remarried and reunited the family, the result was disaster. Weldon drank and his new wife Wilma beat the children viciously. Finally, James fought back. The marriage fell apart, but Weldon left again. James was 14.

After working a series of jobs, he joined the Merchant Marine; undone by chronic seasickness, he headed to California to live with his aunt, Grace Baumgarner, and enrolled at Hollywood High, where he was recommended for a Jantzen bathing suit ad. “I wasn’t interested until I heard they were paying $25 an hour. That was more than the principal made!” He was soon kicked out of high school (“There was a slight problem: I never went to classes”), drafted into the Army and headed to Korea, where he was wounded twice and developed an antiwar mentality that would later make Charlie Madison, the dog robber in “The Americanization of Emily,” his favorite role.

Garner became an actor the old-fashioned way — a soda jerk he met while working at a Shell station once told him that with his good looks he could be a big star. By the time Garner returned from Korea, that soda jerk was a stage producer, who quickly gave him a non-speaking role in the stage production of “The Caine Mutiny Court Martial.” There, Garner sat as part of the jury, night after night watching Henry Fonda and learning how to act.

“The Garner Files” tells the story of Garner’s career with many entertaining backstage stories and Garner’s opinion of his luminous costars, but the kid who survived his own childhood is always present and accounted for. After falling in love with Lois, his wife of 55 years, at first sight and marrying her almost as quickly, he accepted a contract with Warner Bros. at a less than commensurate salary because he had a family to support.

That contract took him off the big screen and into “Maverick,” a move he was not thrilled with, partly because it was so ill paid. When it became a hit, he dug his heels in and after he was laid off because a writers strike shut down production on “Maverick,” he dug them in further. He and his lawyer, a young man by the name of Frank Wells (who would eventually run Disney), sued Warner Bros. for breach of contract. The judge ruled in his favor and despite all the predictably dire warnings, he did work, and sue, in this town again.

Garner is a self-described curmudgeon and there are times when “The Garner Files” wobbles dangerously toward the querulous. But it never topples because he is unfailingly candid about his own desires — which are to make money and do the roles he believes he is best suited to do.

By those standards, he is a wildly successful man, and by more ephemeral ones as well. Thirty pages at the end of the book are titled “Outtakes” and filled with anecdotes, memories and testimonials from Garner’s friends, family and colleagues, including Lauren Bacall, Doris Day, James Woods and David Chase (who got his start on “The Rockford Files”). Although there is an air of Tom Sawyer creeping back to hear his own funeral about this chapter, it is a fine, frank and fun collection.

More than that, it provides proof that the man the reader has just spent several hours listening to does actually exist outside his own narrative. Just in case you were wondering. Like James Garner knew you were.

mary.mcmamara@latimes.com

November 1, 2011 – 12:38 pm Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Tagged |

THREE TELLING ARGUMENTS AGAINST EVOLUTION by Adrian Rogers (Part 1 of series on Evolution)jh57

The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 1 of 6

Uploaded by on Aug 30, 2010

http://www.icr.org/
http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2
http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASG
http://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog

_____________________________________

Photo of Pastor Adrian Rogers Memorial Tribute

Do you think the theory of evolution is true? Check out this short article by Adrian Rogers:

“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen” (1 Tim. 6:20-21).

One of the most important questions to face our generation is this: “Are human beings simply the product of millions of years of mindless, evolutionary mutations and adaptations, or are we the creation of an infinitely wise, powerful, and loving God?”

The answer to that question is critical. Why? Because it determines your attitude toward God in heaven and mankind on earth. The debate over human origin is one of the most critical issues of our times.

THE DAMAGE OF EVOLTION

It’s hard to measure the enormous damage inflicted by Darwinian evolution, the teaching that life arose from a spontaneous spark in a pond of primordial ooze. The amazing thing is that influential scientists themselves are now denying Darwin’s theory as impossible. Yet its destructive effects remain.

For instance, if man is an accident of nature, then there is no fixed standard of right and wrong. So what the Bible calls sexual perversion is now a “lifestyle.” And a human life can be readily destroyed, whether in the womb or partially delivered.

Worst of all, evolution has helped destroy belief in God for millions. Denying biblical creation, evolutionists have “changed the truth of God into a lie” (Romans 1:25).

Should we be surprised that euthanasia is gaining widespread acceptance in our society or that the tide of abortion cannot be turned? Is it any wonder that sexual perversion is received as a valid alternative lifestyle? We have taught our children that they are just another species of animal – and they are finally beginning to act like animals! And our children and grandchildren are still being fed this lie today.

THE DECEIT OF EVOLUTION

What is behind this whole idea of evolution? Why is it such an emotional issue? Why can’t the world simply agree that there is no creation without a Creator, and out of nothing, nothing comes?

Humanist Aldous Huxley expressed the answer to those questions in his book, Ends and Means. Huxley said he and his contemporaries did not want government or morality. So they chose evolution in order to shut the mouths of those who believe in special creation.

For more than 100 years, the evolutionists have succeeded in convincing people that evolution is the only logical, scientific, and intelligent theory of human origin.

But this campaign has been carried out amid deceit and slight of hand on the part of many evolutionists. We’ve all seen the creative drawings of supposed ancestors of mankind, built on a few teeth or a piece of a skull. And the fossil hoaxes perpetrated over the last century are well known.

No wonder in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, the Swedish embryologist, Soren Lovtrup, suggests that he believes that some day Darwinism “will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.”

THE DEFEAT OF EVOLUTION

Despite its lack of credible evidence, evolution holds sway in our schools, the courts, and the public mind. What can we do?

We can preach, teach and defend the truth! We can set our children free from the devil’s lies by giving them the Truth of God’s Word (John 8:32) And we can point lost, confused and dying souls to Him who is the Way, the Truth and the Life!

______________

Dr. Rogers on Evolution

 

With the steadfast support of friends like you, Love Worth Finding will continue to hold high the banner of Jesus Christ.

THREE TELLING ARGUMENTS AGAINST EVOLUTION

1. The fossil record. Not only is the so-called missing link still missing, all of the transitional life forms so crucial to evolutionary theory are missing from the fossil record. There are thousands of missing links, not one!
2. The second law of thermodynamics. This law states that energy is winding down and that matter left to itself tends toward chaos and randomness, not greater organization and complexity. Evolution demands exactly the opposite process, which is observed nowhere in nature.

Dr. George Wald of Harvard:

“When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility…Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion — that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God…I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” – Scientific American, August, 1954.

3. The origin of life. Evolution offers no answers to the origin of life. It simply pushes the question farther back in time, back to some primordial event in space or an act of spontaneous generation in which life simply sprang from nothing.

________________________________

I actually had the chance to correspond with George Wald twice before his death. He wrote me two letters and in the first one he suggested that he was just using hyperbole when he made the assertion that is quoted by Dr. Rogers. He also suggested the religion of Buddhism although he said he was not a Buddhist himself, but he thought that would be closest to the truth which he thought was atheism.

During the 1990’s I actually made it a practice to write famous atheists and scientists that were mentioned by Adrian Rogers and Francis Schaeffer and challenge them with the evidence for the Bible’s historicity and the claims of the gospel. Usually I would send them a cassette tape of Adrian Rogers’ messages “6 reasons I know the Bible is True,” “The Final Judgement,” “Who is Jesus?” and the message by Bill Elliff, “How to get a pure heart.” I would also send them printed material from the works of Francis Schaeffer and a personal apologetic letter from me addressing some of the issues in their work.

 The famous atheist Antony Flew was actually took the time to listen to several of these messages and he wrote me back in the mid 1990’s several times. Carl Sagan wrote me back in Dec of 1995  and he passed away about a year later.

November 1, 2011 – 12:43 am Categories: Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Post a comment

“Tip Tuesday” Advice to Gene Simmons part 17

Shannon Tweed

I really hope that Gene Simmons and his wife Shannon Tweed really do have a successful marriage that lasts forever. However, when people live together statistics show it is usually an uphill battle to have a marriage that lasts. Take Kim Kardashian for instance.

Here is an article that I found helpful below:

Cohabitation Confusion: What does the Bible say?

By Hal Lane – Aug 9, 2007 – 76 –   Email

The fact that many couples live together without the legal commitment of marriage surprises few in our morally dysfunctional society. What is surprising is the number of professing Christians who choose to live together without the benefit of marriage.

Churches and families are increasingly faced with the question of how to respond to these individuals who believe their personal commitments to one another are morally equivalent to legal marriage.

Every moral issue is fundamentally a biblical issue. Genesis 2:18-25 describes marriage as a divine institution. God presented Adam with Eve and established the first marriage.

Genesis 2:24 is the basis for all future marriages: “This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh.” When Jesus was asked about grounds for divorce, He quoted this verse with regard to a legal, binding marriage relationship (Matt. 19:5).

When God revealed the law to Moses on Mount Sinai, there were many regulations regarding marriage. A man who seduced a virgin and had sexual relations with her before marriage was required to pay the father of the girl and was required to marry her if the father permitted (Ex. 22:16). Sexual relations with a virgin betrothed to another resulted in death by stoning of both parties (Deut. 22:23-24). These laws revealed the importance of marriage and the sin of premarital sex.

Malachi 2:13-16 speaks against the abandonment of wives by husbands. They are accused of breaking faith and abandoning their marriage covenants (v. 14). God’s intention was that sexual relationships between a man and a woman should occur only after a legal covenant was established. The covenant was to provide security and a formal obligation that could not be easily abandoned. Governmental regulation of marriage recognizes the importance of protecting the rights of marriage partners and children.

The New Testament also forbids sexual relations outside marriage. Hebrews 13:4 commands everyone to honor the institution of marriage. In 1 Timothy 4:3, Paul warned that a sign of the end times would be an abandonment of the divine institution of marriage.

Despite the arguments of some, the odds of a successful marriage do not increase because a couple lives together before marriage. In fact, studies reveal the opposite is true.

Where do professing Christian couples find justification for living together without marriage? Their own desires and an immoral culture provide support, but God’s Word is neither vague nor confusing on this point: A personal commitment between a man and woman is not the moral equivalent of a biblical marriage.

Weekend to Remember-Family Life…Fireproof your marriage

 

Tim Hawkins 70’s music in 6 minutes

November 1, 2011 – 12:17 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , |

99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth (Part 18) (“Free to Choose” episode 3 – Anatomy of a Crisis. part 4 of 7)

Milton Friedman was born on July 31, 1912 and he died November 16, 2006. I started posting tributes of him on July 31 and I hope to continue them until his 100th birthday. Here is another tribute below:

The massive growth of central government that started after the depression has continued ever since. If anything, it has even speeded up in recent years. Each year there are more buildings in Washington occupied by more bureaucrats administering more laws. The Great Depression persuaded the public that private enterprise was a fundamentally unstable system. That the depression represented a failure of free market capitalism, that the government had to step in to perform the essential function of stabilizing the economy, of providing security for its citizens. The widespread acceptance of these views, sparked the enormous growth in the power of government that has occurred in the decade since and that is still going on. We now know as many economists knew then that the truth about the depression was very different. The depression was produced or at the very least, made far worse by perverse monetary policies followed by the U.S. authorities.
Far from being a failure of free market capitalism, the depression was a failure of government. Unfortunately, that failure did not end with The Great Depression. Ever since, government has been attempting to fine tune the economy. In practice, just as during the depression, far from promoting stability, the government has itself, been the major single source of instability.
DISCUSSION
Participants: Robert McKenzie, Moderator; Milton Friedman; Robert Lekachman, Professor of Economics, City University, New York; Nicholas Von Hoffman, Syndicated Columnist; Peter Temin, Professor of Economics, MIT; Peter Jay, British Ambassador to the United States, 1977_1979
MCKENZIE: And now we join the invited guests here at the University of Chicago, as they discuss Friedman’s interpretation of those events and their implications for today.
LEKACHMAN: The 1929 crash, the succeeding calamities, were not the first of their kind. Capitalism has been subject to severe depressions since the beginning of the industrial revolution. This was the first time, however, government tried to intervene seriously. It did it very badly. The lesson I would draw is a very simple one: Government is unavoidable; the expectations of the public are proper; government ought to do better oddly enough the government did do better until very, very recently. Until, I would say, October 1973, even, government did reasonably well in fulfilling the expectations of the public. I’m an unrepentant proponent of government intervention, intelligent government intervention. But I would describe much of the intervention which has followed the great 1929 crash as quite intelligent.
MCKENZIE: Let’s take a further look, though, at this argument that just as during the depression, far from promoting stability, the government has itself been the major single source of instability.
VON HOFFMAN: I_I don’t think there is any stability this side of the graveyard. I mean, I think __ I don’t think it matters what system you’re working under, you are not going to __ you are not going to have a level and hold it under any system with living human beings.
TEMIN: Governments are larger now and therefore more of a source of an influence for good and for bad. And I think like Mr. Von Hoffman that you can’t get perfect stability, given that you’re going to have governments, given that there are legitimate functions of governments, there are also risks in having the government be as active as it is.
MCKENZIE: Peter Jay.
JAY: I think that government is a god that has failed. I think that we have too much of it and need less of it. I think it has failed to prevent both the modern forms of economic instability and the prewar ones. I do not, however, think that government is the original or primary source of that instability, and I do not think that simply getting rid of the government, or greatly reducing it, which I’m in favor of, will, by itself, remove the instability.
LEKACHMAN: I would put it this way: There was __ there was a great economist, with a suitably esoteric doctrine, which could nevertheless be translated as Dr. Friedman did in the film, into simple English, at the same time as there was the widespread hardship of The Great Depression and the natural yearning of human beings not to repeat anything like it. So you have a coincidence of an appropriate theory, with an appropriate public sentiment, and I suppose the symbol in the United States was the passage of 1946 of the Employment Act of that year. Which, it was a weak measure, but it was nevertheless a public declaration of an obligation of government to do something about employment, and economic prosperity, and a good thing, too.
MCKENZIE: Now that’s the __ really the crux of the matter. Do you agree it was a good thing too, that obligation was accepted by government at that stage?
JAY: I think it’s very important here to distinguish two completely different issues. There is the rather narrow issue as to whether Keynes was right or wrong in believing that you could stabilize the economy with regard to really one essential variable _ unemployment _ by a certain technique which he talked about. We may now think that he was wrong, but that’s a quite separate issue from the broad political philosophical issue associated with socialism, associated with social democrats, and many other so-called left wing political thinkers, that the duty of government, so far as it can, is to concern itself not only with defense and law and order and the traditional things, but also with the social welfare and the economic welfare of a society. Now that’s a broad philosophical __
MCKENZIE: Is that a disaster, as Milton seemed to be implying, or was it a good and helpful, useful thing to happen?
JAY: Well, that is one of the great __ perhaps the greatest of all debates in political philosophy, as to whether or not it is right or is not right to believe that a society, collectively, should concern itself with these things and has the right, having concerned itself, through law and through government and in other ways, to move to try to correct these things.
VON HOFFMAN: Well I just __ it seems to me that Americans have believed that for the last century. I mean William McKinley ran on the slogan of a full dinner pail, so that the notion that this is a government responsibility for prosperity dates from the 1930’s I think is erroneous. What I wonder about after having seen that film is this: We have in 1929 __ we have the man who could have saved it dead two years and in 1946 we’ve got the man who might have saved it dying. So what I have to ask is: Are we doomed to find out the right answer only too late? Is it possible that our __
TEMIN: Or should we just look for somebody who’s recently died.
VON HOFFMAN: Exactly. Rummage the morgues. (Laughter)
MCKENZIE: Well, you asked the question __
FRIEDMAN: No, and I think the question is a very different one. And it goes to much of the discussion to this point. Everybody looks for the right man. You say, “Government __
VON HOFFMAN: You brought’em up.
FRIEDMAN: Those men at that time. Quite right. But a system which depends on the right man is a bad system. The Federal Reserve was a bad system because it depended on the right man working it. The idea of demand management, of the kind of thing we’re talking about where Keynes’ death mattered, was a bad system because it depended on a particular man working it. The notion that the problem that Bob Lekachman brought up, that the problem is not the government interferes, but it does it unintelligently, is again a demand for the right man, the man on the white horse who will know what to do. My whole view is very different. It is that it’s the system that’s wrong, and that we’ve got to have a system that the right way to accomplish these objectives is to have a system which doesn’t depend on whether you happen to have the right man pushing the buttons at the right time.
TEMIN: The problem is somebody has to __
FRIEDMAN: Which relies on the __ on establishing a framework within which an invisible hand, within which the activities of people all over are jointly to produce the kind of result. It won’t produce perfect stability; but it’ll produce a far higher degree of stability, a far greater level of freedom, and a far greater level of prosperity than the kind of thing we’ve had with these governmental interventions.
TEMIN: Somebody still has to design the system. You can’t take the people out of it entirely.
FRIEDMAN: Of course.
TEMIN: Unless you’re in the grave as it says.
FRIEDMAN: Of course, but the __ that doesn’t __
TEMIN: But the question is __ I mean it’s said that generals always fight the last war. How do we know that the system won’t fight the last war? We probably won’t have another depression exactly like 1929 to ’33.
MCKENZIE: But, but __
TEMIN: But that doesn’t say we won’t have another depression or another stagflation or another crisis of some other source.
MCKENZIE: But is this process reversible? Because you argued that the public, having been appalled by The Great Depression, in effect demanded of government that they accept responsibility for wellbeing of the economy, for management of the society and so on. Now, that expectation having been raised, can it be reversed?
VON HOFFMAN: Let me answer a question you didn’t ask and say that it seems to me that what we’re getting here is the question of sort of social astrophysics. And that is, do we have an unseen hand, or are we on the war star where we are trying to design a computer that is going to take care of the navigation of this thing. In other words, it seems to me that’s our central question. Is there a mechanism that you can put right in the center of the spaceship that will operate regardless of who is the captain on the quarterdeck at any one moment in time? I don’t think that’s an economic question. I think that’s a question that goes to religion.
November 1, 2011 – 12:05 am Categories: Milton Friedman | Post a comment

New song released by Amy Winehouse

I have posted a lot about Amy before.

Despite her death in July, Amy Winehouse will be releasing a new album: “Lioness: Hidden Treasures” this year.

This is not a posthumous album of unheard hits. The only new song will be “Between the Cheats,” recorded for her third album, which she did not survive to finish.
Amy Winehouse (Shaun Curry /AFP/Getty Images)

If not to gain access to new material, what exactly is the point of demanding an encore from the departed?

There is the money (there is always money) and it’s not insignificant: Tupac released more albums after his death than he did during his lifetime, as did Notorious B.I.G. Michael Jackson has earned over half a billion dollars since his death in 2009 — yes, that is billion with a “b.” In the year he died, he sold 8.3 million albums.

Like all commerce, though, this exchange is two-sided: someone else wants to sell it, but they wouldn’t even bother unless we did not want to buy it.

Denial is famously the first stage of grief; we’re supposed to move on down the five-stage trail to acceptance. But en masse, we never seem to get beyond stage one when it comes to our pop heroes. Perhaps it’s that we can’t believe that even extraordinary talent has an expiration date. We don’t know how to say goodbye, so we just keep bringing the artists we love out of the ultimate retirement.

_________________

Related posts:

Amy Winehouse died of alcohol poisoning like AC/DC lead singer Bon Scott

There is a truth that many people know. You can die from drinking too much alcohol at one time. I remember like yesterday when AC/DC lead singer Bon Scott died while on tour in England in 1980. According to Wikipedia: On 19 February 1980, Scott, 33 at the time, passed out after a night of […]

Janis Joplin joins “27 Club” three weeks after Jimi Hendrix (Part 6)

Recently Amy Winehouse joined the “27 Club” when she died of a drug overdose. The “27 Club” is a group of rockers that died at age 27. Unfortunately Jimi Hendrix died at age 27 in 1970 and Janis Joplin did the same three weeks later. Today we are going to look at her life and […]

Jimi Hendrix one of first members of the “27 club” (Part 5)

JIMI HENDRIX : FINAL INTERVIEW . The other day when Amy Winehouse died she joined the “27 Club” which includes other famous rockers who died at age 27. Most of them died because of drugs. Unfortunately Jimi Hendrix joined the club for the same reason. Something special for all music and Beat Club-Lovers on YouTube: […]

Pete Ham of Bad Finger (Part 4 of series on “27 Club”)

Amy Winehouse died at age 27 and unfornately joined the “27 club” which is made of famous rockers that died at age 27. Pete Ham was a member of Bad Finger which was one of my favorite groups that I followed. “Come and get it” was my favorite song of theirs. ___________________________________ Badfinger perform a […]

Brian Jones’ futile search for satisfaction (Part 3 of series on 27 Club)

Brian’s Blues, Brian Jones on guitar in the early stones years. unreleased track Brian Jones died at age 27 just like Amy Winehouse did. I remember like yesterday when I first heard the song “I can’t get no satisfaction” by the Rolling Stones. I immediately thought about Solomon’s search for satisfaction in the Book of […]

Kurt Cobain’s spiritual search started in a Christian home but ended in Buddhism (Club 27 series part 2)jh41

The Rise And Rise Of Kurt Cobain part 1/3 Amy Winehouse joined the “Club 27 the other day with her early death. I am going through the others one by one. Today is Kurt Cobain.   7. Kurt Cobain very rarely does an artist come along and not just upset the “apple cart” but drops […]

Jim Morrison spiritual search comes up empty (Part 1 of series on “27 Club”)

Jim Morrison – Feast Of Friends – (The Doors Documentary) (1969) (Paul Ferrara) 1/4 I was saddened by the recent death of Amy Winehouse and her inclusion into the “27 Club.” This series I am starting today looks at the search that each one of these entertainers were on during their lives. Today I look […]

Amy Winehouse’s death was expected by her family

Amy Winehouse’s family speaks out Parents, Public Braced for Amy Winehouse’s Death Through Five-Year Fade Posted Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:13pm PDT by Chris Willman To Amy Winehouse’s family, the singer/songwriter’s death was not unexpected. It was “only a matter of time,” her mother, Janis Winehouse, was quoted as saying in the Sunday Mirror. She’d […]

 

October 31, 2011 – 4:41 pm Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , |

Steve Jobs’ last words and his spiritual views

Steve Jobs’ 2005 Stanford Commencement Address

Uploaded by on Mar 7, 2008

Drawing from some of the most pivotal points in his life, Steve Jobs, chief executive officer and co-founder of Apple Computer and of Pixar Animation Studios, urged graduates to pursue their dreams and see the opportunities in life’s setbacks — including death itself — at the university’s 114th Commencement on June 12, 2005.

Steve Jobs leans against his wife, Laurene Powell Jobs (Lea Suzuki/San Francisco Chronicle/Corbis)

Steve Jobs last words are in this article below: 

Jack Arent/Palo Alto Daily News/AP Photo

Steve Jobs’ sister Mona Simpson shared in the eulogy she delivered at the late Apple CEO‘s memorial service that his surprising final words from his deathbed were, “Oh wow, oh wow, oh wow.”

In the eulogy, which was printed in The New York Times on Sunday, Simpson describes Jobs’ final days and moments in a Palo Alto hospital, which was spent surrounded by family as his breathing gradually became shorter.

His breath, she said, “indicated an arduous journey, some steep path, altitude.”

Delivered at the October 16 service for Jobs at Stanford Memorial Church, Simpson, an accomplished novelist, began by describing her initial meeting of her brother for the first time when she was in her mid-20s. Simpson was born in 1957, two years after Jobs, who was given up for adoption as an infant.

“Even as a feminist, my whole life I’d been waiting for a man to love, who could love me. For decades, I’d thought that man would be my father. When I was 25, I met that man and he was my brother,” Simpson said.

Simpson went on to describe her strong relationship with the man now know for the revolutionizing computer world, while explaining Jobs’ work ethic and capacity for love — particularly for his wife Laurene and as a doting father to their three children.

“Steve was like a girl in the amount of time he spent talking about love. Love was his supreme virtue, his god of gods. He tracked and worried about the romantic lives of the people working with him,” she said.

In describing his illness from pancreatic cancer, which Jobs was diagnosed with in October 2003, Simpson paints a picture of Jobs as an enduring, “intensely emotional man.”

She concluded her eulogy by sharing Jobs’ final moments, which were spent staring lovingly at his family, and his final three monosyllabic words as he stared into the distance past their shoulders: OH WOW. OH WOW. OH WOW.

Simpson is currently a professor of English at the University of California, Los Angeles and was a finalist for the PEN/Faulkner Award. She has written five novels, and won the Whiting Prize for her debut, “Anywhere But Here.”

________________

Here are the spiritual views of Steve Jobs:

Steve McConkey, president of 4 WINDS, a website also known as christianinvestigator.com, and minister to track and field athletes (www.trackandfieldreport.com): “From all indications, Steve Jobs was a Buddhist. The college dropout started Apple Computer with friend Steve Wozniak in the late 1970s. By 1980, he was a millionaire. Jobs was born in San Francisco. His favorite musicians were the Beatles and Bob Dylan. The San Francisco counterculture had an influence on Jobs. He experimented with psychedelic drugs. The name Apple was inspired by the Beatles’ Apple Corps. Like the Beatles, Jobs went to India to seek spiritual truth. He eventually converted to Buddhism. Buddhist monk Kobun Chino presided over his wedding. Also, Forbes magazine is publishing a comic book about Steve Jobs. The book focuses on Steve’s travels to Japan. The [comic] book re-creates the relationship with his mentor, Kobun Chino Otogawa, a Buddhist priest. Ö Steve Jobs’ mission was to understand Buddhism better. Steve Jobs was the Einstein of our time with advances in technology that shape everything we do. Because of his Buddhist beliefs, our concern is about this worldview. Buddha was a prince in India and founded Buddhism. Buddhists do not believe in a Supreme Being. Seven percent of the world’s population are Buddhists. Buddhists believe suffering comes from desire. In order to remedy the situation, they believe a person should have right thoughts and do good things. They follow the ‘Eightfold Path’ and ‘The Four Noble Truths.’ Many Buddhists believe in reincarnation. When a person becomes enlightened, reincarnation ceases. Christianity counters Buddhism. Christians believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. There is one God who reveals Himself eternally through the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Christians believe that all people have sinned and need salvation through Jesus Christ. Good works cannot save a person. Christians believe that Jesus Christ died for man’s sins so that those who believe in Christ will be saved. Once a Christian, a person will spend eternity with Jesus Christ.”

Related posts:

The many sides of Steve Jobs

Another look at Steve Jobs. Best Bits From the Steve Jobs Bio By Sadie Bass | The Daily Beast – 1 hr 0 mins ago The Profound Effect of Being Adopted What’s the key to understanding Steve Jobs? According to his biographer, Walter Isaacson, it starts at the beginning—literally. Jobs was born to unwed parents and placed […]

Steve Jobs to the President: “You’re headed for a one-term presidency,”

I have posted a lot about Steve Jobs and I have the links below after this fine aricle: Steve Jobs to Obama in 2010: ‘You’re Headed for a One-Term Presidency’ Lachlan Markay October 21, 2011 at 12:04 pm   Steve Jobs, the late Apple founder and digital pioneer, told President Obama in a 2010 meeting […]

 

Steve Jobs left conservative Lutheran upbringing behind

Steve Jobs was raised as a conservative Lutheran but he chose to leave those beliefs behind. Below is a very good article on his life. COVER STORY ARTICLE | Issue: “Steve Jobs 1955-2011″ October 22, 2011 A god of our age Who was Steve Jobs? A revered technology pioneer and a relentless innovator, the Apple […]

Occupy Wall Street vs. Steve Jobs

COUNTER-DEMONSTRATION: At Kappa Sigma house in Fayetteville. The Drew Wilson photo above went viral last night — at least in Arkansas e-mail and social media users — after the Fayetteville Flyer posted it in coverage of an Occupy Northwest Arkansas demonstration in Fayetteville. The 1 percent banner was unfurled briefly on the Kappa Sigma frat […]

Steve Jobs’ Father

(If you want to check out other posts I have done about about Steve Jobs:Some say Steve Jobs was an atheist , Steve Jobs and Adoption , What is the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life? ,Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs? ,Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible has to say about it ,8 things you might not know about Steve Jobs ,Steve […]

Steve Jobs at Stanford

(If you want to check out other posts I have done about about Steve Jobs:Some say Steve Jobs was an atheist , Steve Jobs and Adoption , What is the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life? ,Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs? ,Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible has to say about it ,8 things you might not know about Steve Jobs ,Steve […]

Steve Jobs depicted at pearly gates with Saint Peter

It is strange that the New Yorker Magazine did no research. (If you want to check out other posts I have done about about Steve Jobs:Some say Steve Jobs was an atheist , Steve Jobs and Adoption , What is the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life? ,Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs? ,Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible […]

 

___________________________

Some say Steve Jobs was an atheist

According to published reports Steve Jobs was a Buddhist and he had a very interesting quote on death which I discussed in another post. Back in 1979 I saw the film series HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? by Francis Schaeffer and I also read the book. Francis Schaeffer observes in How Should We Then Live: The Rise […]

Steve Jobs and Adoption

Steve Jobs’ 2005 Stanford Commencement Address Uploaded by StanfordUniversity on Mar 7, 2008 It was a quite moving story to hear about Steve Jobs’ adoption. Ryan Scott Bomberger (www.toomanyaborted.com), co-founder of The Radiance Foundation, an adoptee and adoptive father: “As a creative professional, [Jobs’] visionary work has helped my own visions become reality. But his […]

What is the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life?

I have written several posts on Steve Jobs and they are listed below. Today I want to look at the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life. Below are the words of – R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.: “Christians cannot leave the matter where the secular world will […]

Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs?

I loved reading this article below. (Take a look at the link to other posts I have done on Steve Jobs.) David Boaz makes some great observations: How much value is the Post Office creating this year? Or Amtrak? Or Solyndra? And if you point out that the Post Office does create value for its […]

Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible has to say about it

Steve Jobs’ 2005 Stanford Commencement Address Uploaded by StanfordUniversity on Mar 7, 2008 Drawing from some of the most pivotal points in his life, Steve Jobs, chief executive officer and co-founder of Apple Computer and of Pixar Animation Studios, urged graduates to pursue their dreams and see the opportunities in life’s setbacks — including death […]

8 things you might not know about Steve Jobs

Things you may not know about Steve Jobs: Steve Jobs leans against his wife, Laurene Powell Jobs (Lea Suzuki/San Francisco Chronicle/Corbis) For all of his years in the spotlight at the helm of Apple, Steve Jobs in many ways remains an inscrutable figure — even in his death. Fiercely private, Jobs concealed most specifics about […]

Steve Jobs was a Buddhist: What is Buddhism?

Steve Jobs passed away on October 5, 2011. I personally am very grateful to him for helping the world so much with his ideas and I have written about that before. Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute noted: He’s built a $360 billion company. That presumably means at least $352 billion of wealth in the […]

  Did Steve Jobs help people even though he did not give away a lot of money? (I just finished a post concerning Steve’s religious beliefs and a post about 8 things you may not know about Steve Jobs) Uploaded by UM0kusha0kusha on Sep 16, 2010 clip from The First Round Up *1934* ~~enjoy!! ______________________________________________ In the short film […]

October 31, 2011 – 9:26 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

“Music Monday”:Coldplay’s best songs of all time (Part 8)

Coldplay

“Music Monday”:Coldplay’s best songs of all time (Part 8)

This is “Music Monday” and I always look at a band with some of their best music. I am currently looking at Coldplay’s best songs. Here are a few followed by another person’s preference:

My son Hunter Hatcher notes:  “The Scientist”
Great piano rift. And the music video will make you tear up. This is my selection for the 13th best Coldplay song of all time.

Coldplay

Coldplay has further whetted fans’ appetites for its highly anticipated fifth album, “Mylo Xyloto,” by debuting the set’s second single, “Paradise.”

The piano-heavy track, which Coldplay premiered on its website Monday morning, falls in line with the stadium-sized pop rock the British band is known for. Like most things Coldplay, it sticks within a very specific sonic realm; it’s immediately identifiable as a Coldplay song; Chris Martin croons about a woman longing to escape her life for paradise, and it features one of the band’s instantly sticky choruses. 

“Paradise” is the follow-up to summer single “Every Teardrop Is a Waterfall.” 

Coldplay will further tease the album at the upcoming iHeartRadio Music Festival in Las Vegas on Sept. 23. 

“Mylo Xyloto” was produced by Markus Dravs, Daniel Green and Rik Simpson, “with enoxification” (yes, their word) and additional composition by Brian Eno. Pop tart Rihanna also lent her vocals to a track on the album, “Princess of China.” Fans can currently preorder the album on the band’s website.

October 31, 2011 – 7:37 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , |

Liberals like Brantley think taxing the rich will solve our problems

President Obama and other politicians are advocating higher taxes, with a particular emphasis on class-warfare taxes targeting the so-called rich. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video explains why fiscal policy based on hate and envy is fundamentally misguided. For more information please visit our web page: www.freedomandprosperity.org.

_________________

President Obama really does stick to his view that the wealthy need to rescue the rest of us on everything, but that view does not work. There are not enough rich people out there to solve our budget woes. Actually what has happened in the past when the government wants more money it starts off going after the rich, but when that does not bring in much money then the only alternative is to go after the rest of us.

Max Brantley argues on the Arkansas Times Blog that most of us are taxed too much so we must tax the rich more but that will not come close to bringing us to a balanced budget. However, it will destroy job creation.

Rob Bluey

October 30, 2011 at 11:46 am

Democrats on the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction last week floated a proposal that includes massive tax increases on wealthy Americans. While their plan would also include some cuts to entitlement programs, the tax-code changes make up a significant portion, according to press reports.

The Los Angeles Times reported: “Revenue would be raised mostly by bumping up the high-end tax bracket and limiting deductions for upper-income earners, those familiar with the talks said.”

This isn’t exactly a surprise. President Obama and his liberal allies in Congress are waging a war against successful Americans. House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) spoke at Heritage last week about the divisive nature of Obama’s scheme.

The so-called Super Committee, of course, could be an opportunity for Congress to reform the tax code. Writing in the Washington Times last week, Heritage’s J.D. Foster observed:

But if tax reform is part of a deficit-reduction exercise because the language of tax reform has been co-opted to disguise a tax hike, then both the hike and the reform should and likely will fail. Be very clear — tax reform is revenue neutral as traditionally scored. If a tax proposal is shown to raise revenue, then it’s not tax reform, it’s just another big-government tax hike.

As for that proposal floated by Democrats this week, it’s simply not a viable solution. This chart from Heritage’s 2001 Budget Chart Book reveals that Congress would need to increase tax rates on wealthy Americans to mathematically impossible levels to close future deficits.

October 31, 2011 – 7:29 am Categories: Taxes | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , |

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 119)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:

Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:

Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner.  I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.

Therefore, I went to the website and sent this email below:

Here are a few more I emailed to him myself.

Senator Rand Paul on Feb 7, 2011 wrote the article “A Modest $500 Billion Proposal: My spending cuts would keep 85% of government funding and not touch Social Security,” Wall Street Journal and he observed:

Here are some of his specific suggestions:

End TARP: Saves $4.5 billion
Originally described as a $700 billion bailout, TARP never approaches the capped price. Following the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform Act, TARP was restructured. Within this restructuring, the cap was lowered to $475 billion, and
the Secretary of the Treasury no longer had the authority to reuse paid back TARP funds or sold assets.
The September 2010 Outlay of TARP funds report put out by Treasury comparing committed amounts and actual
disbursements, shows a $87.39 billion savings if no more money was disbursed.

October 31, 2011 – 12:45 am Categories: spending out of control | Post a comment