This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
"There's a Huge Difference Between What is Good for American Companies Versus What is Good for the American Economy"
As I wrote last year:
Some of the top economists say that America has suffered a permanent loss of jobs:
- JPMorgan Chase’s Chief Economist Bruce Kasman told Bloomberg:
[We've had a] permanent destruction of hundreds of thousands of jobs in industries from housing to finance.
- The chief economists for Wells Fargo Securities, John Silvia, says:
Companies
“really have diminished their willingness to hire labor for any
production level,” Silvia said. “It’s really a strategic change,” where
companies will be keeping fewer employees for any particular level of
sales, in good times and bad, he said.
- Former Merrill Lynch chief economist David Rosenberg writes:
The
number of people not on temporary layoff surged 220,000 in August and
the level continues to reach new highs, now at 8.1 million. This
accounts for 53.9% of the unemployed — again a record high — and this is
a proxy for permanent job loss, in other words, these jobs are not
coming back. Against that backdrop, the number of people who have been
looking for a job for at least six months with no success rose a further
half-percent in August, to stand at 5 million — the long-term
unemployed now represent a record 33% of the total pool of joblessness.
- Nobel Prize winner Edmund Phelps and Pacific Investment Management Co. Chief Executive Officer Mohamed El-Erian say
the fallout from the deepest recession in more than five decades is
driving the so-called natural rate higher, perhaps to 7 percent.And Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote yesterday:
The
basic assumption that jobs will eventually return when the economy
recovers is probably wrong. Some jobs will come back, of course. But the
reality that no one wants to talk about is a structural change in the
economy that's been going on for years but which the Great Recession
has dramatically accelerated.Under the pressure of this awful
recession, many companies have found ways to cut their payrolls for
good. They've discovered that new
software and computer technologies have made workers in Asia and Latin
America just about as productive as Americans, and that the Internet
allows far more work to be efficiently outsourced abroad....
In addition, as AP reported last year:
"I
think the unemployment rate will be permanently higher, or at least
higher for the foreseeable future," said Mark Zandi, chief economist and
co-founder of Moody's Economy.com.***
"The linkage
between growth in the economy and growth in jobs is not what it was. I
don't know if it's permanently broken or temporarily broken. But
clearly we are not seeing the sort of increase in employment that one
would normally expect," said [Bruce Bartlett, a former Treasury
Department economist].
AP noted yesterday:
Corporate profits are up. Stock prices are up. So why isn't anyone hiring?Actually,
many American companies are — just maybe not in your town. They're
hiring overseas, where sales are surging and the pipeline of orders is
fat.
***
The trend
helps explain why unemployment remains high in the United States,
edging up to 9.8% last month, even though companies are performing
well: All but 4% of the top 500 U.S. corporations reported profits this
year, and the stock market is close to its highest point since the 2008
financial meltdown.
But the jobs are going
elsewhere. The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank,
says American companies have created 1.4 million jobs overseas this
year, compared with less than 1 million in the U.S. The additional 1.4
million jobs would have lowered the U.S. unemployment rate to 8.9%,
says Robert Scott, the institute's senior international economist.
"There's
a huge difference between what is good for American companies versus
what is good for the American economy," says Scott.
***
Many
of the products being made overseas aren't coming back to the United
States. Demand has grown dramatically this year in emerging markets
like India, China and Brazil.
And President Obama pointed out in October that tax laws are a large part of the reason that so many jobs are being shipped abroad:
For
years, our tax code has actually given billions of dollars in tax
breaks that encourage companies to create jobs and profits in other
countries.***
[Some] in Washington have consistently
fought to keep these corporate loopholes open. Over the last four years
alone, [some congress members] in the House voted 11 times to continue
rewarding corporations that create jobs and profits overseas -- a
policy that costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year.
That
doesn't make a lot sense. It doesn't make sense for American workers,
American businesses, or America's economy. A lot of companies that do
business internationally make an important contribution to our economy
here at home. That's a good thing. But there is no reason why our tax
code should actively reward them for creating jobs overseas. Instead,
we should be using our tax dollars to reward companies that create jobs
and businesses within our borders.
What's Good for the Big Companies Ain't So Good for America
We've all been taught "What's good for [the big company] is good for America".
But as Jim Quinn writes:
As
a percentage of national income, corporate profits are 9.5%. They
have only topped 9% twice in history – in 2006 and 1929. When you see
the paid Wall Street shills parade on CNBC every day proclaiming the
huge corporate profit growth ahead, keep these data points in mind. Do
profits generally rise dramatically from all time peaks?
You
might ask yourself, if corporations are doing so well how come real
unemployment exceeds 20%? The answer lies in who is generating the
profits and how they are doing it. It seems that the fantastic profits
are not being generated by domestic non-financial companies employing
middle class Americans producing goods. Pre-tax domestic nonfinancial
corporate profits are not close to record levels as a share of
national income. They exceeded 15% of national income once in the late
1940s, and repeatedly topped 12% in the 1950s and 1960s; in the third
quarter of this year, they were 7.03% of national income. I wonder
who is making the profits.
According to BEA data, financial
industry profits and “rest of world” profits — that is, the money
U.S.-based corporations make overseas — are relatively much higher now
than they were in the 1950s or 1960s. And the taxes paid by
corporations are much lower now than they were then, as a share of
national income. The reason that corporate profits are near their
all-time highs is that Wall Street corporations and mega multinational
corporations are making gobs of loot and paying less of it out in
taxes.
And as I noted
last year - paraphrasing President Obama - companies that do business
internationally do not make nearly as much of a contribution to our
economy here at home as they should:
Daniel Gross points out
that part of the reason that the American stock markets are going up
even though unemployment is rising and the real economy suffering is
because multinational corporations headquartered in the U.S. are
experiencing strong sales abroad ....
The fact that companies based in America are raking in profits from sales abroad is good for American workers, right?
No.
Gross points out that American workers don't benefit because a lot of the goods sold abroad by American multinationals are made abroad:
If
companies participated in foreign markets primarily by exporting
U.S.-made goods, this shift would be good news for the U.S. economy and
workers. But that's not how it works. In fact, in the months after the
global credit meltdown, U.S. exports plummeted. They bottomed in April,
at $120.6 billion, and though they have been rising, the August 2009
total is still 20 percent below the August 2008 total.
Globalization is changing the way we do business. It's not a matter of
U.S. companies exporting goods—burgers, soda, cars, software—made in the
United States to Beijing but rather, making goods overseas and selling them overseas...
"Based
on a Russian fairy tale and produced in Russia using local talent, the
film is the latest step in Disney's broad push into local language
production," the FT reports. As Disney CEO Robert Iger put it:
"We would not be able to grow the Disney brand … if we just created
product in the US and exported it to the rest of the world." If Book of Masters succeeds,
it will be good for Disney's American shareholders but won't do a
whole lot of good for its U.S.-based employees. Or consider American
icon General Motors. GM's sales in China are rocking. In the first
nine months, the company sold 1.3 million cars in China, including more
than 181,000 in September. By contrast, GM in the United States in the
first nine months sold 1.5 million cars in the United States, down
36.4 percent from the year before. And in September, GM sold just
156,673 cars in the United States. That growth in China is good for
GM's shareholders and for some of its executives. But since most of the
cars sold in China are produced there, with parts produced by
suppliers in China, rising sales in the Middle Kingdom won't translate
into jobs for unionized workers in the Middle West.
The rising
U.S. stock market and a weak, slow-growing U.S. consumer sector aren't
really in contradiction. Given the large-scale trends transforming the
global economy—and the role of large U.S. companies in it—it may be
possible to have a sustainable rally in American stocks without a
sustainable rally by American consumers.Don't Multinationals Pay A Lot in Taxes?
Well, at least the multinationals are paying a good chunk of taxes into the American economy, right?
Not exactly.
The Washington Post notes:
About
two-thirds of corporations operating in the United States did not pay
taxes annually from 1998 to 2005, according to a new report scheduled
to be made public today from the U.S. Government Accountability
Office...
In 2005, about 28 percent of large corporations paid no taxes...
Dorgan
and Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) requested the report out of concern
that some corporations were using "transfer pricing" to reduce their tax
bills. The practice allows
multi-national companies to transfer goods and assets between internal
divisions so they can record income in a jurisdiction with low tax rates...[Senator]
Levin said: "This report makes clear that too many corporations are
using tax trickery to send their profits overseas and avoid paying their
fair share in the United States."Indeed, as Pulitzer prize winning journalist David Cay Johnston documents,
American multinationals pay much less in taxes than they should
because they use a widespread variety of tax-avoidance scams and
schemes, including:
- Selling valuable assets of the American
companies to foreign subsidiaries based in tax havens for next to
nothing, so that those valuable assets can be taxed at much lower
foreign rates
- Pretending that costs were spent in the
United States, so that the companies can count them as costs or
deductions in the U.S. and pay less taxes to the American government
- Booking
profits as if they occurred in the subsidiary's tax haven countries,
so that taxes paid on profits are at the much lower safe haven rate
- Working
out sweetheart deals with certain foreign governments, so that the
companies can pretend they paid more in foreign taxes than they
actually did, to obtain higher U.S. tax credits than are warranted
- Pretending they
are headquartered in tax havens like Bermuda, the Cayman Islands or
Panama, so that they can enjoy all of the benefits of actually being
based in America (including the use of American law and the court
system, listing on the Dow, etc.), with the tax benefits associated
with having a principal address in a sunny tax haven.
- And myriad other scams
As Johnston documents, the American economy is hurt by the massive underpayment of taxes by the huge multinationals.
But at least the stock market helps the average American, right?
Well, as I pointed out in March:
Even Alan Greenspan recently called
the recovery "extremely unbalanced," driven largely by high earners
benefiting from recovering stock markets and large corporations.***
As economics professor and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich writes today in an outstanding piece:
Some
cheerleaders say rising stock prices make consumers feel wealthier and
therefore readier to spend. But to the extent most Americans have any
assets at all their net worth is mostly in their homes, and those homes
are still worth less than they were in 2007. The "wealth effect" is
relevant mainly to the richest 10 percent of Americans, most of whose
net worth is in stocks and bonds.
As I noted in May:
As of 2007, the bottom 50% of the U.S. population owned only one-half of one percent of all stocks, bonds and mutual funds in the U.S. On the other hand, the top 1% owned owned 50.9%.
***
(Of course, the divergence between the wealthiest and the rest has only increased since 2007.)
And professor G. William Domhoff just updated his "Who Rules America" study, showing that the richest 10% own 98.5% of all financial securities, and that:
The
top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business
equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is
what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can
say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.
- advertisements -
If you believe in the immigrant-class hero crap. There are parasites aplenty, foreign and domestic. They form cross-generational coalitions, too.
Perhaps, there's some truth to your trolling, but less than you imagine. I suspect you're a youthful troll, who's truth is defined by the narrow scope of your experience. Judging by your passion, however, the years should ripen nicely the youthful troll in you, Grasshopper.
"I hate to be such a troll but only a troll can speak the truth."
No wonder the "locals" steal from you, you're a pompas ass! Fucking karma!
Take your "truth" and stick it where the sun don't shine- like in your empty head!
(I now feel much better, thank you!)
I think that you are throwing around a whole lot of generalizations.
So - everyone in Generation Y and the millenials is lazy? Do they have any hope for redemption? Mommy and Daddy spoiled them by giving them "everything" - just like all the elite parents give their children everything?
I washed floors in H.S. - for tuition credits - ever have to clean urinals? Not much fun in that task - but so what. Try to look at people as inviduals and take them as they come - by passing judgement on two generations it seems like you are just proclaiming your own "righteousness". (and I am part of the ass end of the baby boom)
complete and utter bullshit. American workers work harder than anybody else with less time off and fewer benefits than any modern nation. They expect to be treated as your equal because they are. If you want to run a business in a third world country where you can strut around like the self-important prick you so clearly are, why don't you go and do it.
The market is going up because the FED has bought the market through their proxy member banks. Nothing else either technically or fundamentally matters with it's relationship to the economy. Bernanke some day will be either praised or hung in effigy. I vote for the latter.
Why effigy? I'd really enjoy a reality show featuring the REAL thing.
True, but we can't all hang him in person. Future generations will settle for the Personal Hang TheBernank in Effigy Doll by Mattel. Great for gifts. Get yours now while supply imbalances last.
Reactive thinking, reactive thought processes.
We need proactive thinking.
Unfortunately, reactive forces still run the show.
That's why the Fed needs to be thrown unto the scrap heap. Staus quo thinking ain't cutting it. Let bad business models die.
The Benanke is sooooooooo 1930's. Eastern establishment academic models designed to keep the Establishment in power.
Let the West Coast seize power. Stanford? UC Berkley? When are you going to step up?
You are kidding right? Why don't we just open up our borders to Mexico and let them run the country? I would prefer that. How is the West coast going to seize power anyway? With their green initiative Nazis? Are they going to drive their hybrid tanks up to the capital and demand Obama give up? Leaflet campaign Washington D.C. demanding power? Just look to the U.N. as an example to what you are wishing for from the two establishments you named.
If you hate being an American and living in a sovergn nation please feel free to endorse Stanford and Berkley.
P.S. I didn't junk you. I don't believe in it.
Then make it Boise State. Make it University of Wyoming. Make it Arizona State. Montana Teacher's College. North Dakota School of Cosmetology.
The East fancies itself as the center of the world. The West fancies its intellectual center in the S.F. region. Personally, I don't agree. All I am saying is GET IT AWAY FROM THE EAST.
New thinking; that's all I suggest. Junk me at will. What we're doing isn't working.
Crap if we go back to Hopi Indian thinking, that may be better. At least have a fucking dialogue over 2,000 miles from that shit hole in New York.
Now you are talking and we are agreeing!!!
That is why:
OBAMA=BLACK BUSH
Someone (not me) disliked the truth of your equation.
The current result is the process of the US democratic will.
Some US citizens have enjoyed adopting interests that were not theirs primarly through the American dream stuff and the likes.
It is absolutely normal that in the end, people who embody the favoured interests are winners.
Why would you want another outcome?
Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, they do not matter. US citizens identified with interests that were not primarly theirs. Why should another outcome happen?
Edward Bernays.
Ummmm, too ageing for me.
Propaganda has decreased in quality. The main misery of propaganda. Back in the days, propaganda was high quality and took a deep introspection to be debunked.
Propaganda is losing in quality because the level of reality that propagandists use to back their propaganda is growing more and more adverse to them.
Quick example: it was easy to sell USSR as a monster that would destroy anything.
It is much more difficult to sell Somalia as such. Somalia is extremely weak and could not even repell an invasion by Luxemburg forces. Yet propaganda is taking the approach. And US citizens bite the bait.
Propaganda is not panacea.It cant achieve anything. The reality is that US citizens do accept the lies because they know they might gain from it.
Propaganda exists but can not cover for every decision. The US military is professional, no longer drafted. People who've joined the military lately because they wanted advantages associated with the military like killing, raping, free tuitions, destroying another religion, free healthcare, the veteran status, not because they conceived Iraq as a threat. They knew Iraq was no a threat. And propaganda cannot cover for them.
Seer, evidently, the cowardly junkster has no clue as to Freud's relative; or, perhaps has full understanding. - Ned
It's easy - first step let the corporations know that when they get their "t-t in a wringer" abroad - they can expect exactly the same effort helping them that they have contributed to American society. That should be good for a strongly worded note of protest from the Assistant to the Assistant Undersecretary of B.S. Affairs in the State Department.
+infinity.
That, or just make a "mistake" in not protecting them, or mistaking them for an actual enemy. "Accidents" aren't just for government targets anymore.
+1000
In the US, a rise of consumption in places like China can only be conceived if it brings jobs to the US. Due to the quality of the general US environment, it is very unlikely, the US is the place for high executives, elite, shareholders, heirs to live. Them and a servant class. Not a place for production activities.
That is why Chinese increasing their consumption is dangerous for them as they will encroach on US territory. Consuming is American. It is not supposed to Chinese or Indian.
There's definitively room for growth led by China but this wont be accepted by US citizens.
Strip the US from consumption and what is it left with?
Not all, but many large corporations are the closest thing to the science fiction nightmare. They could care less about the citizens, capitalism, life or laws of any country and they're working hard at running and ruining the planet. Oh yeah, happy new year
for those who disagree, I offer a Monsanto CSA basket and Tyson modified chicken as a parting gift
<S> But... but... but... CNBC said it is all priced in and the time to buy is right now and that i have been missing out.. and that losing 420k jobs this week is better than expected and things are better than ever. </S>
there is a big difference between a government that is fair for american companies, and a government that is subsidizing american companies and picking winners.
TBTF, WTO tax breaks, Windfarm subsidies, First time homebuyer tax credits, cash4clunkers, QE, liquidity swaps, tuition subsidies, workforce development, UI, FDIC, FRB, GSEs, Fannie,Freddie, FHA, TARP, POMOs.
whatever form of freemarket destroying market intervention, take your pick.
+1
Instead of blaming the central bank and its debt-backed fiat currency for the boom and bust cycle, long-term destruction of capital, and permanent structural unemployment, people blame business!
As if doing less at higher cost is good for anyone?!? WTF!
One needs to differentiate between making a profit by producing something that customers want at a price they want to pay, vs. profiteering off handouts, bailouts, money printing, etc.
Does Washington, or anyone else, not think of what would happen to pensions, not to say employment, if profits fall?
By the way, the correct line of thinking is not to call a tax cut a "handout". Similarly, don't think for a a minute that if companies were blocked from hiring people offshore or sheltering their money from even more taxes, that they would hire more Americans. That is wishful thinking. You cannot force anyone to take a loss; they will close their doors before they do that.
Only if avoidance or closure is an option.
That, and not everyone can go offshore or afford the PR hit of doing so.
There are deep structural unemployment issues in the U.S. while large corporations enjoy record profit margins having moved their operations overseas. Your view is naive. Trade policy over the past 20+ years has not been handled in the best interest of the average citizen. Corporations own Washington politicians and obviously act in their own economic self interests. The U.S. needs thoughtful solutions, not your "I took Economics 101" defense of a corrupt system on an uneven global playing field. But then I'm guessing you are doing just fine yourself...
I think your response was fair -- at first glance. But look a little deeper at his statement: "Does Washington, or anyone else, not think of what would happen to pensions, not to say employment, if profits fall?" See the basis of what may be going on here behind the curtain? If those large multi-national corps are made to adhere to right and proper rules of business they'll be in big trouble, along with the attached retirement/pension landscape. A good point hidden there which should be considered.
Are you saying that these companies are avoiding their responsibility to the society that spawned them because the politicos of this country are being unduly influenced by other companies and are therefore looking abroad for a "fair shake"? Really?
You can't be freakin' serious.
I don't blame any company, not even goldman. they are right. if the government has a precedent to tax any group and steal and give it to any other group, its a free for all. the gig is up. im surprised we lasted this long. Once you convince the american people that we live in a democracy instead of a Republic, its game over. there is no responsibility to society. only individual self interest. that is why freemarkets work and central planning does not.
there are people who still believe in "brothers keeper"??
Tyler, can we get a post on the utube videos: ayn rand - mike wallace pt 1-3?
Why?
Do you want to make Ayn Rand look bad?
Cuz she did there.
So, those international corporations based in the US shouldn't have to pay for the military that supports them? (refer to the 800+ US bases scattered across the globe)
which corporations and what do you mean by "supports them"?
are we talking BOEING, GE, halliburton?
or are you talking about "support" as in Sarah-Palin speak: the military is fighting for your "freedom"? just to clarify...
Where have you been for the last fifty years? The sole purpose of our 1.5 trillion defense budget is to (1) Make big money for the Military Industrial Complex and their evil minions (like Congress) and (2) keep the world safe for American Corporate investment. The Muslim terrorist thing is a sleight of hand diversion.
What-Me-Worry,
One and a half trillion dollar defense budget?...over what time frame?
Congress spends that without even reading the bill that allows it...LOL...the Treasury commits half of that again in a press release around the holidays last year, to fucking criminal enterprises like FNM & FRE and no one on the left bats an eyelash.
Never mind where I've been the last fifty years, where the hell have you been for the last two?
I will bet that Exxon, Shell and BP are glad that the USN is out and about. I suppose the ships and crews and supplies should be free. What about the insurance companies that insure those cargos - do you think they are glad that the USN is around? This could go on forever...
p.s. "F" the Rethugs and the Demz
As a point of clarification...of the top ten oil importers to the US only two are middle eastern;
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
But to your other point..."I suppose the ships and crews and supplies should be free."...I agree, there is no reason to maintain a military base on european soil where alot of ME oil does go. Our military should be about defending our nations interests, not someone elses.
Let them defend their own interests...or not.
Related...during the campaign one presidential candidate said we should not "drill baby drill" because it takes too long to bring to market (seven years).
We would be about a third of the way there now...just sayin ;-)
Edit; Someones gone on a junk spree...twer'nt me.
there is no reason to maintain a military base on european soil where alot of ME oil does go. Our military should be about defending our nations interests, not someone elses.
Let them defend their own interests...or not.
That's a delusion. The US is in the ME to defend their own interests. One includes to prevent Europeans from seizing back resources areas they had control over before WWII and which helped them to grow.
The US is in this area to control the trade routes, nothing more, nothing less.
"That's a delusion...One includes to prevent Europeans from seizing back resources areas they had control over before WWII and which helped them to grow."
You're postulating that the Dutch, English, Spanish etc. have the military capability to take these places back?...LOL...delusion?
But this I agree with you on..."The US is in this area to control the trade routes, nothing more, nothing less."...that's exactly my point. Our blood & treasure should not be spent in the service of another nations trade arrangements.
The europeans have, for the most part, adopted the parasitic socialist forms of government...these entail certain costs in order to function...my point is, they should bear the total cost...one of which is the defense of themselves.
If the US leaves? Absolutely. They will field a base system just like the US, paid by the hosts.
Greed is what it is but somehow, for US citizens, a new word should be invented because they usually go beyond greed.
US monopoly on the security of trade routes has the properties of a monopoly: one is that the goods delivered through the trade routes are securitized by the holder of the monopoly.
This is a normal consequence. The US does not defend the others, the US defends its monopoly.
I don't think any of the three socialist countries I described could beat their way out of a wet paper bag right now, let alone "field a base system" whatever that is.
But you're entitled to what you want to believe...I'm entitled to mine.
SeeYa
Not that I am big on government or transfer payments or anything like that but I am trying to understand your statements. Are you saying that because taxes are imposed by the state that it is "ok" not only avoid them but it in fact "frees" you from any loyalty to said nation?
I think that taxation has been around for almost as long as the world's oldest profession. I do not think that there is a company in existence on American soil (and a whole lot of non-American companies too) that has not benefited directly and indirectly from the government. Some more than others...Goldman...yeah - that stalwart of free enterprise and free markets. Geez - lay off the Ayn Rand...
its not the taxes that free you from loyalty. its the fact that your taxes are used to subsidize your competition (or cut your profits through socialist regulation, price controls, minimum wages, tariffs, etc.) you honestly think if Goldman didn't push for and take the TARP/FED money, that noone else would? its the fact that our Congress/electorate is so stupid that they would give anyone a bailout to blame, not the banks for taking advantage of it.
im not saying its right, im saying its the laws of economics. we need to start separating morality/ethics from economics. because they are two different things. We could learn alot from Rand.
It is really a circular argument.
Campaign finance laws allow corporations and billionaires to effectively own our politicians. This leads to the largely soulless collection of scumbags in Congress. Corporations then control laws that allow them to avoid taxes, change trade laws, start wars etc. Then economic Darwinism screws the relatively powerless citizen. Educated voters could change this situation but we all know the odds that the electorate ever becomes educated in all this...
There is really only one "law" in economics - supply & demand - everything else is made up. Now, exactly how do you propose to separate morality or ethics from economics? If I can find a bunch of people stupid enough to buy contaminated food from me (or better yet - I get them to labor for me) - its ok - because I made a profit? Hey, no one put a gun to their head... How about this one - you have goods for sale - I want them - but not at your price. I put a gun to your head and give you my pennies...
Ayn Rand - she (and her thinking) were twisted by the experience of living in a centrally controlled authoritarian police state. The only difference between the USSR and the oligarchy we are heading for is the way that power is accumulated.
If you are a slave - does it matter to you if the slaver got power over you through politics or through economics?
In your world, were the Indians a group or something? Because the US government stole a lot from them to hand it over to the US citizenry.
That should void your delusional point about democracy vs republic.
But who cares? People enjoying their lies are common. Dont disturb while on masturbation.
Sounds like somebody toured a Kindergarten class!
Only in America would Indians end up with Casino monopolies on legally “sovereign” land.
Get a life.
that's right. because indians were US citizens.
oh, wait..
not that that is in any way relevant to maintaining a Republic vs. a dem(klept)ocracy.
Okay. So you cant be part of a group if you are not a US citizen.
When I state that the US was the best thing to happen to thinking...Marvellous.
Democracy or Republic - the delusional point is believing there is a difference.