2 Mountanman... Its is the fault of both Bushes, Bill C, &
Barry. Those Ivy League schools are breeding grounds for Fabian Socialism.
Economic freedom to me means I can quit my well paying job for another if my
boss is a jerk. It means I can work my my out of debt without 2 jobs.That's just a dream for the lower half and a fleeting memory for the rest
except the top few percent.
Come on, Jay, stop playing so breathless about the Heritage Foundation. You know
their answer to any question is totally mind-numbingly predictable. IMHO people
are far freer economically than they used to be, for good or ill. We're
moving back into Medieval times where it's every man for himself, i.e. Wall
Street gets to sell endless "tranches" of worthless mortgages with total
impunity. It's not freedom that's been lost, it's TRUST.
I disagree with this article, but have concerns about our economic freedom. We
are getting ourselves into deaper debt and that has to potential to put us into
bondage for many years. I also disagree with President Reagan who said that
"deficits don't matter." I believe they do.
I am not sure how they scored or weighted their results, but Singapore, greater
economic freedom for who? Not individual citizens. I work from Singapore a
handful of times a year. I have had offers to relocate there. The
"Heritage" foundation reports these fifty little tax number - income tax
- as support of their economic freedom index, and yet they forget little thing
like all the other taxes and fees citizens pay to live there. You can't
buy even a basic car in Singapore for under 75,000 use, Something that cost 30
or 40 k here to drive, your talking 70 to 100k there - mostly in taxes. Same
with homes or apartments.Yes, the unemployment rate is low -
because they import all their manual labor jobs in. The bring hundred of
thousands in from the islands and India to do their blue color jobs... like
construction... then when the job is done... they ship those people back out of
the country.Singapore - more economically free than here. No way.
For banks like HSBC, (recently admitted money laundering ivia its Singapore
branches). But average joe. That is laughable.Nice try
Heritage... but this is raw and pure propaganda... based on myths.
Most of the nations ranked above us are far more socialized and their
governments consumes more in taxes than does ours.
I wish we had all that money back we blew in Iraq.
In other words, Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal and the increasingly
hard right wing Heritage Foundation don't like President Obama, but they
can't really offer specifics as to why. In other news, water is
Reading this article, I was hoping to find some concrete, specific or actual
information about the effect of National Debt, the loss of freedom or the loss
of stature of America in the world. I am again disappointed in my effort. The main problem of accepting the information from publications like
“the Index of Economic Freedom, an annual publication of the Wall Street
Journal and the Heritage Foundation”, is the extreme bias toward
commercial business and very little if any concern for ordinary people. The only hint of the loss of freedom comes from the 100 new government
regulations statement. Colored by the writer’s descriptive words, the
regulations imply something detrimental. Regulations are mainly
detrimental to business but for the most part are freedom givers to ordinary
people. So when conservative institutions and individuals use the word
“people” they actually mean “businessmen”.If
the economic freedom of business is slipping away in the favor of ordinary
people, it is a good thing.
from a practical standpoint I would say low interest rates are THE most
important thing for the middle class
So what were the specific factors that led to the US dropping on this scale?
What criteria are used to judge economic freedom? What exactly is an upstart
like Mauritius doing to jump into the top 10? How are countries whose economies
are socialized, like Sweden, Denmark, and Canada, moving ahead of the US? Other than some vague appeals to Adam Smith, some tangential references
to very recent Sandy and gun-control spending measures, and requisite references
to Big Government -- there's not much substance to this without more
Invasion of Iraq was expanding government. Why can't we say if big
government is bad, so is big military; we can't because they are faces of
people we know (in military). In the 1990's, taxes were raised and we got
out of debt. In the 2000's, for the first time in our nations history, we
went to war and cut taxes at the same time. First time. Nation building is
costly. The two parties just disagree which nation we should be building.
The WSJ and the Heritage Foundation aren't exactly renowned for their
unbiased opinions. Those two organizations made a biased ranking of countries
based on biased criteria. The result is just an opinion that should not be
interpreted in any way as scientific evidence.
Is it still Bush's fault?
By the way, the Heritage Foundation is funded by The Coors family, and the Koch
family. Do you think that the study could possibly be right wing biased?
Two conservative organizations use several criteria to decide that the United
States is less economically free than it was 4 years ago and that several
socialist countries are more economically free than the US. And this
is cause for concern, but the author is not going to tell us the criteria or why
we should be so concerned, nor is he going to offer solutions other than
indicating that it might be because our government is too socialistic and we
can't afford to care for our fellow citizens. Alrighty then!