PDA

View Full Version : The Third Depression



Buzz
06-28-2010, 09:30 AM
While we're posting articles from the NYT today, I thought this one might be of some interest.


OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Third Depression
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 27, 2010

Recessions are common; depressions are rare. As far as I can tell, there were only two eras in economic history that were widely described as ďdepressionsĒ at the time: the years of deflation and instability that followed the Panic of 1873 and the years of mass unemployment that followed the financial crisis of 1929-31.

Neither the Long Depression of the 19th century nor the Great Depression of the 20th was an era of nonstop decline ó on the contrary, both included periods when the economy grew. But these episodes of improvement were never enough to undo the damage from the initial slump, and were followed by relapses.

We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression. It will probably look more like the Long Depression than the much more severe Great Depression. But the cost ó to the world economy and, above all, to the millions of lives blighted by the absence of jobs ó will nonetheless be immense.

And this third depression will be primarily a failure of policy. Around the world ó most recently at last weekendís deeply discouraging G-20 meeting ó governments are obsessing about inflation when the real threat is deflation, preaching the need for belt-tightening when the real problem is inadequate spending.

In 2008 and 2009, it seemed as if we might have learned from history. Unlike their predecessors, who raised interest rates in the face of financial crisis, the current leaders of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank slashed rates and moved to support credit markets. Unlike governments of the past, which tried to balance budgets in the face of a plunging economy, todayís governments allowed deficits to rise. And better policies helped the world avoid complete collapse: the recession brought on by the financial crisis arguably ended last summer.

But future historians will tell us that this wasnít the end of the third depression, just as the business upturn that began in 1933 wasnít the end of the Great Depression. After all, unemployment ó especially long-term unemployment ó remains at levels that would have been considered catastrophic not long ago, and shows no sign of coming down rapidly. And both the United States and Europe are well on their way toward Japan-style deflationary traps.

In the face of this grim picture, you might have expected policy makers to realize that they havenít yet done enough to promote recovery. But no: over the last few months there has been a stunning resurgence of hard-money and balanced-budget orthodoxy.

As far as rhetoric is concerned, the revival of the old-time religion is most evident in Europe, where officials seem to be getting their talking points from the collected speeches of Herbert Hoover, up to and including the claim that raising taxes and cutting spending will actually expand the economy, by improving business confidence. As a practical matter, however, America isnít doing much better. The Fed seems aware of the deflationary risks ó but what it proposes to do about these risks is, well, nothing. The Obama administration understands the dangers of premature fiscal austerity ó but because Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress wonít authorize additional aid to state governments, that austerity is coming anyway, in the form of budget cuts at the state and local levels.

Why the wrong turn in policy? The hard-liners often invoke the troubles facing Greece and other nations around the edges of Europe to justify their actions. And itís true that bond investors have turned on governments with intractable deficits. But there is no evidence that short-run fiscal austerity in the face of a depressed economy reassures investors. On the contrary: Greece has agreed to harsh austerity, only to find its risk spreads growing ever wider; Ireland has imposed savage cuts in public spending, only to be treated by the markets as a worse risk than Spain, which has been far more reluctant to take the hard-linersí medicine.

Itís almost as if the financial markets understand what policy makers seemingly donít: that while long-term fiscal responsibility is important, slashing spending in the midst of a depression, which deepens that depression and paves the way for deflation, is actually self-defeating.

So I donít think this is really about Greece, or indeed about any realistic appreciation of the tradeoffs between deficits and jobs. It is, instead, the victory of an orthodoxy that has little to do with rational analysis, whose main tenet is that imposing suffering on other people is how you show leadership in tough times.

And who will pay the price for this triumph of orthodoxy? The answer is, tens of millions of unemployed workers, many of whom will go jobless for years, and some of whom will never work again.

caryalsobrook
06-28-2010, 11:10 PM
You are right in the article is interesting. The problem is that he ignores not only the present but the past. His arguement for deficit spending, higher taxes and I will assume trade tarriffs were tried in the Great Depression both during the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations. People fail to look at the severe downturn of 1920(you can't call it a depression since it did not last long enough). Harding lowered the marginal tax rate from 77% to 25%. He cut the federal budget from aproximately 6.5 billion to aproximately 2.5 billion in just 2 years. The socalled depression(a severe drop in GDP extremely high unemployment) ended in a year. That is when the roaring twenties started. Krugman says set the same policies of the great depression and the policies of Greece and Spain and you wil have a long and extended depression. All you have to do is look at history. CAn any sane person believe that with a yearly fiscal deficit of 15% of GDP possibly believe that we are going to have a deflationary ecconomy?? I think not.

depittydawg
06-29-2010, 12:41 AM
You are right in the article is interesting. The problem is that he ignores not only the present but the past. His arguement for deficit spending, higher taxes and I will assume trade tarriffs were tried in the Great Depression both during the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations. People fail to look at the severe downturn of 1920(you can't call it a depression since it did not last long enough). Harding lowered the marginal tax rate from 77% to 25%. He cut the federal budget from aproximately 6.5 billion to aproximately 2.5 billion in just 2 years. The socalled depression(a severe drop in GDP extremely high unemployment) ended in a year. That is when the roaring twenties started. Krugman says set the same policies of the great depression and the policies of Greece and Spain and you wil have a long and extended depression. All you have to do is look at history. CAn any sane person believe that with a yearly fiscal deficit of 15% of GDP possibly believe that we are going to have a deflationary ecconomy?? I think not.

You have some good points. I think both the Great Depression and the current mess (whatever you want to call it) is the result of not only worker displacement, but also the huge wealth gap that now exists. In fact, the gap between the highest .5% or so and the median is higher now than even before the Great Depression. Or so I have heard many times.

Why is this important? This is were the controversy comes in. In large we have two major economic theories. Supply side and demand side. Without going into major detail suffice to say that the middle class today, which is the spending engine of the economy, is not healthy. Real wages and discretionary income per household have been in decline since the 1980s. The loss of wages was replaced for years with artificially low interest rates and the ballooning of public and private debt. We hit the debt ceiling in 2--8 and crashed. Therefore demand for goods and services is down.

Running deficits will do nothing to solve the problem of this cycle in itself. The reason the New Deal worked is because it put money into the hands of consumers. This created demand and eventually drove a robust recovery that lasted what, 40 years or so. You want to fix America's economic woes? I say start supporting the working men and women instead of attacking them, which is what the policies of our Government have done for years (NAFTA, CAFTA, attacks on labor etc. Bring industry back to America by switching the table and creating incentives for business to set up shop here instead of leaving. Support wage increases for workers to match productivity increases. This puts money where it belongs. In the hand of consumers.
http://www.truth-out.org/031609A

Gerry Clinchy
06-29-2010, 06:43 AM
The reason the New Deal worked is because it put money into the hands of consumers.


Bring industry back to America by switching the table and creating incentives for business to set up shop here instead of leaving.

Both of these seem to imply the need for lower taxes, rather than raising taxes?

Buzz
06-29-2010, 10:29 AM
You are right in the article is interesting. The problem is that he ignores not only the present but the past. His arguement for deficit spending, higher taxes and I will assume trade tarriffs were tried in the Great Depression both during the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations. People fail to look at the severe downturn of 1920(you can't call it a depression since it did not last long enough). Harding lowered the marginal tax rate from 77% to 25%. He cut the federal budget from aproximately 6.5 billion to aproximately 2.5 billion in just 2 years. The socalled depression(a severe drop in GDP extremely high unemployment) ended in a year. That is when the roaring twenties started. Krugman says set the same policies of the great depression and the policies of Greece and Spain and you wil have a long and extended depression. All you have to do is look at history. CAn any sane person believe that with a yearly fiscal deficit of 15% of GDP possibly believe that we are going to have a deflationary ecconomy?? I think not.


I did not see in the article where Krugman was suggesting an increase in taxes. He seemed be saying that austerity measures in Europe of increasing taxes and cutting spending are counter productive. The interesting thing is, in the 1920's taxes were cut after the recovery began, and the top rates were cut first while lower earners waited another couple years for their tax cuts. The top rate didn't go down to 25% until 1925. The shaded areas are economic downturns.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RPTAaOI4RN8/S8XdC4XMcHI/AAAAAAAAAvY/6HLcn-ShyhE/s1600/topmarginalrates.bmp

It looks like this is more nonsense that Glenn Beck has been peddling which originated with Thomas Woods. http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1322&theme=home&loc=b For a guy with a high school education, it astounds me that Beck has become such an expert on the constitution, religion, economic policy, foreign policy, history, and military policy.

depittydawg
06-29-2010, 02:01 PM
Both of these seem to imply the need for lower taxes, rather than raising taxes?

I don't think lower taxes will do it. Taxes are already very low on business. In my state the total revenue (as a percentage of total) from from Corporations has dropped from about 17% to 6% in the last 30 years. In fact some of the biggest most profitable business' in America don't pay taxes at all (except for AMT) GE, IBM come to mind.
NAFTA needs to be shelved. Companies need to be taxed if they manufacture their wares overseas and sell them in the US. They can combine that with incentives to set up shop here. Loopholes need to be taken out of the tax code that allow Corporations to Incorporate in places like Bermuda to avoid US taxes.

We just missed a HUGE opportunity to ease the cost of labor in the US by failing to pass national health care reform that would relieve business of this expense. Thank you Mr Senators.

huntinman
06-29-2010, 02:29 PM
I don't think lower taxes will do it. Taxes are already very low on business. In my state the total revenue (as a percentage of total) from from Corporations has dropped from about 17% to 6% in the last 30 years. In fact some of the biggest most profitable business' in America don't pay taxes at all (except for AMT) GE, IBM come to mind.
NAFTA needs to be shelved. Companies need to be taxed if they manufacture their wares overseas and sell them in the US. They can combine that with incentives to set up shop here. Loopholes need to be taken out of the tax code that allow Corporations to Incorporate in places like Bermuda to avoid US taxes.

We just missed a HUGE opportunity to ease the cost of labor in the US by failing to pass national health care reform that would relieve business of this expense. Thank you Mr Senators.

The reason tax revenue from corporations has dropped in the great NW is because ya'll tax them into leaving the state. Boeing was in Seattle for what, 100 years or so. They finally got sick of the ever increasing tax burden and the anti-business climate and moved their headquarters to Chicago of all places. Drop taxes and be a little more business friendly and maybe some business will come back.

ducknwork
06-29-2010, 02:31 PM
Drop taxes

Why don't you say something nice instead of being a smartass all the time?

-Joe Biteme

troy schwab
06-29-2010, 02:32 PM
Taxes are low on business?????? Dawg, please pass what your smokin......... I hope you mean state revenue is low on business taxes...... the business tax in our state is apporaching 10% and climbing..... driving most good businesses OUT! This is the same reason that state revenue is decreasing from business tax..... they are moving or shutting their doors.

As far as that excuse for a health reform bill...... well, lets just say it would have lowered the quality of healthcare, and passed the bill to the taxpaying majority (middle class)..... Thanks but no Thanks!!!

Setting dawg's bong down now....... regards.

huntinman
06-29-2010, 02:32 PM
Why don't you say something nice instead of being a smartass all the time?

-Joe Biteme

Care for some custard??;-)

ducknwork
06-29-2010, 02:44 PM
Care for some custard??;-)

Got any ice cream instead?:p

depittydawg
06-29-2010, 04:47 PM
The reason tax revenue from corporations has dropped in the great NW is because ya'll tax them into leaving the state. Boeing was in Seattle for what, 100 years or so. They finally got sick of the ever increasing tax burden and the anti-business climate and moved their headquarters to Chicago of all places. Drop taxes and be a little more business friendly and maybe some business will come back.

Makes a nice sound bite, but you couldn't be further from the truth. Oregon is an At Will employer, which is sweet for Giant Corporations and not so good for workers. I would also guess that Oregon is a net winner in the movement of Big Business around the country. Cheap power, no sales tax, lower housing costs, which translates to lower wages and a lot of incentives from state and local governments have swayed a lot of Business' to set up shop here. (including the firm I currently work for).

huntinman
06-29-2010, 05:02 PM
Makes a nice sound bite, but you couldn't be further from the truth. Oregon is an At Will employer, which is sweet for Giant Corporations and not so good for workers. I would also guess that Oregon is a net winner in the movement of Big Business around the country. Cheap power, no sales tax, lower housing costs, which translates to lower wages and a lot of incentives from state and local governments have swayed a lot of Business' to set up shop here. (including the firm I currently work for).

Well if everything is so good there, quit whining!

depittydawg
06-29-2010, 05:03 PM
Taxes are low on business?????? Dawg, please pass what your smokin......... I hope you mean state revenue is low on business taxes...... the business tax in our state is apporaching 10% and climbing..... driving most good businesses OUT! This is the same reason that state revenue is decreasing from business tax..... they are moving or shutting their doors.

As far as that excuse for a health reform bill...... well, lets just say it would have lowered the quality of healthcare, and passed the bill to the taxpaying majority (middle class)..... Thanks but no Thanks!!!

Setting dawg's bong down now....... regards.

Sorry, but you're the one drink'n the Kool Aid. You just regurgitated the same sound bites the corporate media has been showerng us with for a generation. While productivity has skyrocketed, real wages have declined, and CEO and Sr executive compensation are out of this world.

I'm not against lowering taxes on Corporations, although I think the middle class rates need to be lowered first. But I am a deficit hawk. I won't support lowering taxes unless spending is lowered first. And the place to start is the military budget. We could slash a half trillion off that and still spend more then the rest of the world. Next is probably corporate welfare. We can only guess as to how many billions are given away with little to nothing in return to the beneficiaries of that army of lobbyists in DC. And while we are slashing the budget how about medicare? After all, isn't that socialized medicine?

depittydawg
06-29-2010, 05:09 PM
Well if everything is so good there, quit whining!

I have only one question for you. What is the last year of school you completed? Just curious.

huntinman
06-29-2010, 06:06 PM
I have only one question for you. What is the last year of school you completed? Just curious.

6th grade...hardest 12 years of my life!:rolleyes:

depittydawg
06-29-2010, 07:11 PM
6th grade...hardest 12 years of my life!:rolleyes:

Ok, that is funny! :-P

caryalsobrook
06-29-2010, 07:34 PM
I did not see in the article where Krugman was suggesting an increase in taxes. He seemed be saying that austerity measures in Europe of increasing taxes and cutting spending are counter productive. The interesting thing is, in the 1920's taxes were cut after the recovery began, and the top rates were cut first while lower earners waited another couple years for their tax cuts. The top rate didn't go down to 25% until 1925. The shaded areas are economic downturns.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RPTAaOI4RN8/S8XdC4XMcHI/AAAAAAAAAvY/6HLcn-ShyhE/s1600/topmarginalrates.bmp

It looks like this is more nonsense that Glenn Beck has been peddling which originated with Thomas Woods. http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1322&theme=home&loc=b For a guy with a high school education, it astounds me that Beck has become such an expert on the constitution, religion, economic policy, foreign policy, history, and military policy.

I don't know what kind of nonsense you thing Glen Beck peddles because I don't watch him. I see you higlighted my statement that President Harding cut the marginal tax rate from 77% to 25%. Do you care to dispute that???? Your own chart verifies that. Maybe that is the nonsense you refer to. I feel certain you know that a recession is defined as 2 consecutive quarters of falling GDP(not absolutely sure- it may be 3). So if GDP fell lets say 20%(conservately) the last 2 quarters of 1920 and rose 1% the first quarter of 1921, then by definition, the recession has ended. Would you call that "recovery"?

You are right that Krugman does not talk about raising taxes but do you think the government can run a deficit of 15% of GDP and not raise taxes? You can't talk about the 1920's in terms of recession or depression because the initial downturn was so brief. What is acknowledged is that the 1920"s was a period of sound prosperity. Take a look at your graph during the depression of 1930. Don't you see a period of high tariffs, increased marginal tax rates and deficit spending? How many years did the depression last? Years and years?

I paid 18% interest of loans in the 1980's afer Johnson's great society program which ws supposed to eliminate poverty. I will not do that again. My solution is not to borrow and invest as I have done in the past.The saddest part of the great society program is that after trillions of dollars spent on the program, look where we are.

I don't know what kind of education Glen Beck has and really don't care. My father quit school in the 11th grade. He read the world book encyclopedia twice. I have a high school education, a BS in math and economics, and a degree of Doctor of Dental Surgery. I only wish I was as smart as he. "SPEND LESS THAN YOU MAKE" "IT IS NOT HOW MUCH YOU MAKE, IT IS HOW MUCH YOU SAVE" "IF YOU HAVE MONEY IN YOUR POCKET AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY ANYTHING THEN PUT IT IN THE BANK THEN YOU WON'T SPEND IT" "NOT EVERYBODY CAN RIDE IN THE WAGON, SOME PEOPLE HAVE TO PULL IT"

Wiser words than any I have heard from BO.

If you think the economy is bad now, I suspect that far far worse is yet to come. As to my nonsense, your graph only goesw to support what I said so I guess you will have to spell it out for me.

troy schwab
06-30-2010, 08:35 AM
Sorry, but you're the one drink'n the Kool Aid. You just regurgitated the same sound bites the corporate media has been showerng us with for a generation. While productivity has skyrocketed, real wages have declined, and CEO and Sr executive compensation are out of this world.

I'm not against lowering taxes on Corporations, although I think the middle class rates need to be lowered first. But I am a deficit hawk. I won't support lowering taxes unless spending is lowered first. And the place to start is the military budget. We could slash a half trillion off that and still spend more then the rest of the world. Next is probably corporate welfare. We can only guess as to how many billions are given away with little to nothing in return to the beneficiaries of that army of lobbyists in DC. And while we are slashing the budget how about medicare? After all, isn't that socialized medicine?


Dawg,
Why is it that you seem to lump all corporations in the class of GE, IBM, etc. Most businesses in any state are SMALL businesses, that these taxes cripple...... I actually agree with you on many of your points, particularly govnt spending...... Please remember that the entrepeneur is what made America what it once was....... and most of those cant compete with the BIG DOGS..... I should know, my family owns a business. I havent had a raise in ten plus years, our margins are shrinking, and guess what, TAXES ARE UP! Making it harder for us to do business every day. Our unemployment rate in our county (Erie, the fourth largest city in PA) is at ten plus percent...... and its not getting any better. I agree with the tax cuts you say you would like, but if you cut business taxes you can get the same result, as many companies would remain, rather than close their doors or move. Which in turn, would generate more paying jobs, and even allow existing businesses to expand. Think about it from that angle once.

Passing the kool aid regards.........

Marvin S
06-30-2010, 12:30 PM
6th grade...hardest 12 years of my life!:rolleyes:

:) :) :) :) :) that's the quota, but I had a really good laugh when I read that!!

depittydawg
06-30-2010, 12:46 PM
Dawg,
Why is it that you seem to lump all corporations in the class of GE, IBM, etc. Most businesses in any state are SMALL businesses, that these taxes cripple...... I actually agree with you on many of your points, particularly govnt spending...... Please remember that the entrepeneur is what made America what it once was....... and most of those cant compete with the BIG DOGS..... I should know, my family owns a business. I havent had a raise in ten plus years, our margins are shrinking, and guess what, TAXES ARE UP! Making it harder for us to do business every day. Our unemployment rate in our county (Erie, the fourth largest city in PA) is at ten plus percent...... and its not getting any better. I agree with the tax cuts you say you would like, but if you cut business taxes you can get the same result, as many companies would remain, rather than close their doors or move. Which in turn, would generate more paying jobs, and even allow existing businesses to expand. Think about it from that angle once.

Passing the kool aid regards.........

I should be more specific. When I talk about "Corporations" I'm usually referring to the Giant ones that lobby congress and pretty much run the nation now, and have for the last 20 years or so. I also have no problems giving tax breaks and other incentives to large Corporations, or small ones, to build factories in the US. In fact I currently work in one that is here for that very reason.
But here's the difference. On the one hand you are rewarding a desirable action (building a factory in your neighborhood) buy providing incentives, tax breaks or otherwise. On the other hand, you are rewarding a bad behavior, giving wholesale tax relief to multi-nationals who use that money to go build factories in Mexico, China, or otherwise as far away from your community as possible.
To me the solution is simple. Raise taxes overall. Start charging a tariff for imports. And Use both as negotiating instruments to woo business into your back yard. Sound like a new idea? It isn't. Most every other country in the world is doing it. And the US did it for most of our history also.

huntinman
06-30-2010, 04:22 PM
:) :) :) :) :) that's the quota, but I had a really good laugh when I read that!!

I stole that quote from Jethro on the Beverly Hillbillies. He was the first in his family to graduate, you know.

Clint Watts
07-02-2010, 12:04 AM
I don't know what kind of nonsense you thing Glen Beck peddles because I don't watch him. I see you higlighted my statement that President Harding cut the marginal tax rate from 77% to 25%. Do you care to dispute that???? Your own chart verifies that. Maybe that is the nonsense you refer to. I feel certain you know that a recession is defined as 2 consecutive quarters of falling GDP(not absolutely sure- it may be 3). So if GDP fell lets say 20%(conservately) the last 2 quarters of 1920 and rose 1% the first quarter of 1921, then by definition, the recession has ended. Would you call that "recovery"?

You are right that Krugman does not talk about raising taxes but do you think the government can run a deficit of 15% of GDP and not raise taxes? You can't talk about the 1920's in terms of recession or depression because the initial downturn was so brief. What is acknowledged is that the 1920"s was a period of sound prosperity. Take a look at your graph during the depression of 1930. Don't you see a period of high tariffs, increased marginal tax rates and deficit spending? How many years did the depression last? Years and years?

I paid 18% interest of loans in the 1980's afer Johnson's great society program which ws supposed to eliminate poverty. I will not do that again. My solution is not to borrow and invest as I have done in the past.The saddest part of the great society program is that after trillions of dollars spent on the program, look where we are.

I don't know what kind of education Glen Beck has and really don't care. My father quit school in the 11th grade. He read the world book encyclopedia twice. I have a high school education, a BS in math and economics, and a degree of Doctor of Dental Surgery. I only wish I was as smart as he. "SPEND LESS THAN YOU MAKE" "IT IS NOT HOW MUCH YOU MAKE, IT IS HOW MUCH YOU SAVE" "IF YOU HAVE MONEY IN YOUR POCKET AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY ANYTHING THEN PUT IT IN THE BANK THEN YOU WON'T SPEND IT" "NOT EVERYBODY CAN RIDE IN THE WAGON, SOME PEOPLE HAVE TO PULL IT"

Wiser words than any I have heard from BO.

If you think the economy is bad now, I suspect that far far worse is yet to come. As to my nonsense, your graph only goesw to support what I said so I guess you will have to spell it out for me.

I agree, some of the smartest people I have ever met lacked even a HS education. My Dad dropped out at 16, but has educated himself by reading and he is one of the smartest people that I have met. Buzz's comment is elitist and shows a lack of true understanding of the real world. Or he might just be blinded by his hatred for Beck.

Clint Watts
07-02-2010, 12:06 AM
I have only one question for you. What is the last year of school you completed? Just curious.

Look another one, and they say that they are for the common man. BS, True socialist believe they are smarter than the rest and that we need them to take care of us. Listen long enough and it will come out.

Buzz
07-02-2010, 11:33 AM
I agree, some of the smartest people I have ever met lacked even a HS education. My Dad dropped out at 16, but has educated himself by reading and he is one of the smartest people that I have met. Buzz's comment is elitist and shows a lack of true understanding of the real world. Or he might just be blinded by his hatred for Beck.


Yes, I am elitist and you'll have to help me out on how the real world works. When I hire an accountant, I feel that person should have extensive background in accounting. If I hire a lawyer, doctor, engineer, etc. same deal. But apparently it's not an important consideration if I'm thinking of hiring someone to pontificate to millions about constitutional law, history, economics, foreign policy, military policy, etc, it's not really important.

caryalsobrook
07-02-2010, 02:29 PM
Evidently we did not pay much attention to extensive background when we elected BO president. He is running the executive branch of the US Government and I am not sure he has ever run even a lemonade stand.

Clint Watts
07-02-2010, 04:03 PM
Yes, I am elitist and you'll have to help me out on how the real world works. When I hire an accountant, I feel that person should have extensive background in accounting. If I hire a lawyer, doctor, engineer, etc. same deal. But apparently it's not an important consideration if I'm thinking of hiring someone to pontificate to millions about constitutional law, history, economics, foreign policy, military policy, etc, it's not really important.

Where were they educated? The blind leading the blind. Now I know that you feel you are better than the rest of us.

I will ask this question and will not get an answer, Will you please dispute any facts that Glenn Beck has stated on his TV show concerning these issues? Liberals attack Glenn Beck on a personnal level because they can't argue his facts. If they could then he wouldn't be on the air. Also I do not believe you work for Fox or ever could because you wouldn't hire a Glenn Beck type and your ratings would suck. Go figure.