Martin Feldstein – AEI Annual Dinner 2011 | ARCHIVES

Alex J. Pollock: Ladies and gentlemen, can I have a few
glasses clinked? Ladies and gentlemen, can I have a few more
glasses clinked? Thank you very much. Good evening. We are going to start the evening with the
singing of “America, the Beautiful,” two verses. The verses are printed in your program here
a couple of pages back. And now that you’ve been seated, will you
please stand, and we’ll join in singing “America, the Beautiful.” Oh, beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain, For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain. America! America! God shed his grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood From sea to shining sea. Oh, beautiful for pilgrim feet,
Whose stern, impassioned stress A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness. America! America! God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control, Thy liberty in law. Thank you. Arthur Brooks: Thank you very much. Alex Pollock, AEI’s very own singing banker. And thank you to all of you, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the 2011 Annual Dinner and Irving
Kristol Lecture of the American Enterprise Institute. I’m Arthur Brooks, president of AEI. And it’s a thrill to see so many of our friends
here at the dinner. I’m so appreciative to all of you for coming. It would take at least an hour to list every
prominent individual in this room and you’ll appreciate the fact that I’m not going to
do that, but I would like to pay a little bit of special attention to one special group
who is with us here tonight. We all have great appreciation for America’s
Armed Forces. Sunday’s victory in Pakistan reminds us what
we’re up against in the war on terror and the many who sacrificed to keep us safe. It also gives us an opportunity to express
our admiration to the members of the AEI Community, Vice-President Cheney, General Jack Keane,
and our national security advisors, among others, who’ve devoted their careers to keeping
America safe and strong. But we also have with us here tonight, a group
of wounded warriors, service men and women who were wounded in the line of duty for America
and our conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. I’d like to tell you who they are, Sergeant
Major Rocky Cipolla, Master Sergeant Laura Pas, Staff Sergeant Stephanie Mason, Hospital
Corpsman Max Roan, and Hospital Corpsman Edward Bonfiglio. Thank you. Thank you. It’s an honor to have these patriots with
us here tonight as a reminder to all of us what true courage really means. This evening’s program will center on AEI’s
Irving Kristol lecture, delivered by Professor Martin Feldstein, the winner of this years’
Irving Kristol award, which is AEI’s highest scholarly honor. Martin is a longtime friend of AEI, a member
of our Council of Economic Advisors, and one of America’s very most distinguished economists. James Q. Wilson is going to introduce Martin
Feldstein here in a moment, but first I want to give you a new addition to this year’s
annual dinner program. Many of you have been involved with AEI for
years and years. Some of you are new to what we do. One question that I get quite frequently is
whether or not we should say something about not just the what of AEI, but the why of AEI. Why are we doing the work that we do every
day? And so, before I turn the podium over to Jim
Wilson, I’d like you to watch a short film with me that we’ve just completed, a film
about how AEI’s community of scholars and supporters are making a real difference in
the world of public policy. The founders of our country believed that
they were creating the freest country in the history of the world. That actually meant creating a system where
people could practice liberty. It wasn’t just a theoretical concept. We need a system that rewards freedom, that
increases individual opportunity, that makes it easier and better and more fun to be an
entrepreneur. Well, that system is the free enterprise system. We need institutions that can protect the
ideas of our founders in our work lives, and AEI Is that place. AEI is a community of scholars and supporters. Since 1938, we’ve been dedicated to three
principles, maximizing liberty, increasing individual opportunity, and strengthening
the free enterprise system. We’re gonna hear from three scholars now that
are living every day, the vision of AEIs founders to have impact on the policy debate in a way
that truly expresses their values. Frederick Hess: One of the easiest areas to get people
talking to you about it that we do at AEI is education. You’re doing K-12 education, you’re doing
colleges, people have got a million things they wanna say to you. This hits everybody every day, right where
they live. And I just am lucky enough to get to spend
my time thinking about it and writing about it and engaging in efforts to improve it. Raj Vinnakota: This is more than just Rick Hess. This is more than just AEI. This is about true education policy, reform. Kaya Henderson: Rick Hess has been an incredible asset
to the work that we’ve done here at DC public schools. He just is so easy to talk to, is open and
is willing to consider whatever it takes for kids. And he’s helped me see the other side of many
issues and I think that is what is necessary if we’re going to move forward with education
reform in this country. Heather Harding: There’s no other place that’s getting
this kind of work done. Andrew Biggs: We’re at a crossroads in America,
where the federal budget is out of control. There are the problems around the world and
Americans need the tools and the information to decide what to do about that and that’s
the role that AEI plays. Paul Ryan: Andrew Biggs is a real geek, but
he’s a geek who knows what he’s talking about. Andrew Biggs: I’m trying to help Americans understand
a lot of things that are very difficult to understand. How does social security work? Are public sector pensions really underfinanced? Are public sector workers really overpaid
and if so, by how much? Paul Ryan: But he’s one of those people that
we, who are policy makers in Congress, look to for ideas and advice on how to fix these
country’s problems. Andrew Biggs: We only get one chance to get this
right. David Walker: No question that the work that he’s
done is helped to inform a lot of the changes that will end up happening coming forward. And I hope that they come sooner rather than
later because our debt clock is ticking. Paul Ryan: Andrew Biggs is one of those trailblazers
who is at the forefront of what is necessary to fix our social safety net and in particular
fix social security. Fred Kagan: My goal is very simply to do everything
that I can to help America prevail in its ongoing wars and to help promote American
national security against enemies who are thinking about how to kill us every single
day. Gen. Jack Keane: You’d be surprised how many people
are not willing to win a war that we’re prosecuted and Fred is all over it. If we’re gonna fight a war, we should win
it. Fred Kagan: This is an organization that is determined
to have an effect on policy and to help guide American policy in the direction of guaranteeing
freedom throughout the world, guaranteeing free enterprise, guaranteeing the American
way of life as we have seen it and have defended it for more than half a century at this organization. Gen. Jack Keane: There’s 25 million people in Iraq,
in Afghanistan, who owe the existence they have now in part to Fred Kagan. That’s an extraordinary saying in of itself. Marsha Blackburn: The one that I turn to make
certain that I know exactly what the approach should be and have all of the information,
I’ll go to Fred. Gen. Jack Keane: What I’ve discovered about Fred
is I know he was an intellectual but I didn’t know he was a man of courage. He’s deceptive is all get out because he’s
one of the toughest guys that I’ve met in my life. Arthur Brooks: AEI is made up of about 50 fulltime
scholars, 150 staff, and approximately 800 donors. This thousand or so people is small enough
that we all know each other, but powerful enough that we can change the debates. What we’re trying to achieve and effectively
what is the promise of AEI and the free enterprise system is self-realization through earned
success. It is service to others by creating jobs,
opportunity and growth and having the wherewithal to be charitable people through our private
means and not just with other people’s money. And basic fairness, which is rewarding merit
as opposed to simply to redistributing resources through the government. Those are the moral promises of free enterprise
and those are the moral promises of AEI. James Q. Wilson: Thank you, Arthur, for that very interesting
video about the work of AEI with which I and so many people in this room had been associated
for so long. Professor Martin Feldstein, who ought to have
won the Nobel Prize in economics by now, will have to settle, for the moment, with the Kristol
Lectureship at AEI. As you know, Marty is a professor of economics
at Harvard, and for many decades was president of the National Bureau of Economic Research,
and he chaired the Council of Economic Advisors during part of the Reagan administration. You know that. Let me tell you now a few things that you
may not know. When he arrived at the Council of Economic
Advisors, he brought with him the three young and unknown economists to work on its staff. They were Larry Summers, Larry Lindsey, and
Paul Krugman. By that act, Marty became the king of intellectual
diversity, or if you’re a Catholic as is our president, perhaps the pope of intellectual
diversity. No, Pope Feldstein doesn’t sound quite right. You may be impressed with the intellectual
honesty with which Douglas Elmendorf, has directed the council…the Congressional Budget
Office, has pursued that agency’s mandate. Doug was Marty’s student. If you are inclined to take a conspiratorial
view of politics, you will be relieved to learn that Marty is a member of the Trilateral
Commission and the Bilderberg Conference. As you conspiracy lovers know, these groups
meet secretly to run the world. It would be nice if they actually did. To me, it would be helpful if Marty Feldstein
ran the world. I don’t really mean that we should have a
contest for that job to somebody who ran the world would probably come from the United
Nations. Marty often thinks as I do. I love a statement he wants made. “When it comes to monetary policy, I want
to think that there is someone with sound judgment at the controls for the same reason
I want pilots on the planes that I fly.” Since Marty does not much like what economists
call QE2, the effort by the fed to inject more money into our system, it is possible
that he might not settle for having any pilot flies the plane. He would want a good one. But that is about as far as his skill at macroeconomics
will take him. When it comes to financial markets, he once
said that, “Science cannot replace judgment because no matter how good the science gets,
there are problems that inevitably depend on judgment, on art, and on a feel for these
markets.” That sad history of a firm called Long-Term
Capital Management testifies to the limits of science and the absence of judgment. Marty Feldstein combines deep wisdom, clear
thought, and practical experience. I am delighted to introduce him to you as
the 2011 Kristol lecturer. Martin Feldstein: Thank you very much. I’m very honored by this award and by the
opportunity to deliver this year’s Kristol Lecture. I knew Irving Kristol for over 30 years and
I admired him as a public intellectual who is devoted to the development of ideas that
could shape public policy in favorable ways. Irving also played an important part in my
own life. I met him when I was a first-year assistant
professor at Harvard. Someone had told him I had some novel ideas
about reforming health insurance and he encouraged me to write about them for the Public Interest. Over the years, the Public Interest had a
small, but influential group of readers who shaped conservative thinking inaction about
domestic policies. I think we should all be grateful to Irving
for creating the Public Interest and for his devotion to maintaining its relevance and
its impact. I’m also honored to be standing here tonight
because of my admiration for the American Enterprise Institute. Many years ago, at a time when conservative
ideas were scarce, particularly in the academic community, AEI brought rigorous debate to
public policy issues. I saw a many of those ideas come to fruition
when I was in the Reagan White House. AEI continues to be a major contributor to
public policy. We are all better off because of what AEI
has done and what it continues to do. Let me begin now with an important, and to
many people, disturbing economic fact. Sometime in the next 15 years, China’s economy
will be bigger than that of the United States. That presents a major economic challenge,
military challenge, and political challenge. Those challenges and America’s response are
my subject this evening. China is still a very poor country with real
per capita income less than one sixth of the U.S. level. But China’s population of 1.3 billion people
is more than four times ours and its per capita income is growing rapidly. That makes it inevitable that the real value
of China’s total GDP, the total value of goods and services produced in China, adjusted to
U.S. prices will soon exceed America’s. China’s real GDP is now about two-thirds of
ours. Over the past three decades, China has been
growing at a 10% real rate while we’ve been growing at a rate of about 3%. If that continues, China’s GDP will exceed
hours within just six years. But even if China’s growth rate slows substantially
while ours accelerates, China’s GDP will catch up within 15 years. So China’s future place as the world’s largest
economy is virtually inevitable. I wouldn’t have believed that when I first
visited China 30 years ago. China was then a desperately poor country
in which the heavy hand of its communist government reduced productivity and prevented growth. It was illegal to hire employees or to own
production equipment. Agriculture was still collectivized. But all of that was about to change as the
Chinese government began to recognize property rights and to welcome entrepreneurship. Today’s China is a strange mixture of entrepreneurial
capitalism and state-owned enterprises. China’s real GDP is now about 20 times what
it was when I visited there in 1982. The Chinese people have taken seriously the
advice of Deng Xiaoping when he said, “To get rich is glorious.” It’s too bad that that sentiment is not shared
by some of our own senior leaders. But here is my important point. China’s imminent overtaking of America’s GDP
does not diminish our ability to grow and to raise our standard of living even when
China’s total GDP catches up to ours, our per capita income will be much higher than
China’s, and the United States can continue to have the highest standard of living in
the world if we pursued sound policies here at home. But China’s total GDP does have important
implications for America’s military and trade policies. United States in China now have relatively
good political relations and China is not a current military threat. Today’s leaders in China are focused on achieving
economic growth, raising domestic living standards, and preserving internal stability. Tensions over Taiwan, Tibet in the South China
Sea are being dealt with diplomatically, but China is building a serious military capability. China is already a nuclear power, developing
a navy with global reach, acquiring an aircraft carrier, has anti-ship missiles, has demonstrated
a stealth fighter plane, and clearly has sophisticated ability in cyberspace. The strength and quality of China’s military
is not currently up to U.S. standards, but no one doubts that China’s defense budget
will grow with its GDP. While the U.S. political system has forced
defense spending to shrink from 9% of GDP in the Kennedy years to less than 5% now,
China doesn’t face the same political limits on its defense spending. What are the implications for America’s defense
policy? The key is to focus on the future generations
of Chinese civilian and military leaders. The United States should maintain a military
capability such that no future generation of Chinese leaders will consider a military
challenge to the United States, or using military force to intimidate the United States or our
allies. China’s future military spending and weapons
development will depend on China’s perception of what the U.S. is doing and what we will
do. If we show a determination to remain invincible,
China will not waste resources on challenging us in an arms race. It is important that our Asian friends like
Japan, Korea, Singapore, Australia, see the commitment of the United States to remain
strong and to remain present in Asia. Their relations with China and with us depend
on what they can expect of America’s future military strength. The navy has a particularly important role
to play, including the navy’s presence, to enforce freedom of the seas, naval visits
to Asian ports, and joint exercises with other navies. We cannot postpone implementing a policy of
future military superiority. We have to work now to develop the weapon
systems of the future. We have to maintain the industrial and technological
capacity to produce those weapons. We have to make it clear by our budgets and
by our actions that we are the global force now and will continue to be that in the future. While reducing fiscal deficits is very important,
that task should not deflect the federal government from achieving its primary responsibility,
defending this country and our global interests both now and in the future. President Obama’s proposal to shrink defense
spending to less than 4% of GDP in the current decade threatens our capabilities and sends
the wrong message about our future strength. As we think about our military role in Asia
and elsewhere, we have to ask ourselves whether we have a moral obligation to defend our allies,
or is our appropriate military policy just limited to protecting our trade, our foreign
investments, and our access to oil. There are those who say the United States
should not be the global policeman, but if not us, who? As the only democratic super power with the
ability to defend and to punish, do we not have a moral obligation to be willing to use
that power? There were also those who say we cannot afford
to be the global policeman, but should we really be deterred when the cost of our entire
military budget, including the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan is now less than 5% of
our GDP. There is no danger of bankrupting ourselves
by so called imperial overreach when we spend less than 5% of GDP on defense. And while there is certainly waste in military
procurement, that is, unfortunately, inherent in the congressional appropriation process. Cutting the defense budget would reduce our
military capabilities rather than just removing waste. Let me turn now from military issues to the
challenge that China’s growth poses for America’s trade and investment in policies. China has become the major customer for companies
around the world. It’s a striking fact that General Motors now
sells more vehicles in China than in the United States. Global companies also want to produce in China
to be close to potential buyers and also to hire employees at more favorable wages than
they can in the United States or Europe or Japan. This will remain true even though rising wages
in China will erode some of that cost advantage. The increasing size of the Chinese market
creates a challenge for U.S. trade policy and for our foreign policy. China will inevitably want to leverage its
trade and investment relations in pursuit of its political, economic, and military aims. The best way to prevent Asia becoming a close
trading block and a China-centered political coalition is for the United States to expand
free trade agreements and other trade arrangements with the countries of Asia. Recent experience shows some of the risks
that could lie ahead for American firms in China. One example is the Chinese policy to require
foreign firms that manufacturer in China to transfer their technology to Chinese partners. American CEOs with whom I spoke about this
were outraged, but felt they had no choice since they wanted to produce and sell in China. Pressure from the United States and other
governments eventually caused a modification of this policy, but frankly, it’s not clear
how this will evolve. Although China is bound by WTO rules, policies
of limiting access for government purchases and requiring technology sharing are not technically
prevented. As China flexes its economic muscles, the
United States and other countries will have to develop a strategy to protect the rights
of our firms in China. I’ll turn now to the challenge at home. At the beginning of my remarks, I emphasized
that China’s eventual overtaking of U.S. total GDP does not diminish America’s ability to
grow and to remain the greatest economy in the world, the country in which people around
the world want to come, the country that is the global leader in science, in culture and
creative industry. Our growth and our standard of living depend
on what we do and not on what the Chinese do. Although our economy has had its cyclical
ups and downs, our 2.3% growth rate of real per capita income during my life has been
enough to raise real per capita income more than five-fold during those years. In today’s prices, per capita GDP rose from
just over $9,000 in 1939 to more than $47,000 last year. The challenge is to maintain that rate of
growth into the future or to raise it even higher. Small differences in the growth rate can mean
a great deal. If the average growth rate of GDP per capita
had been 1% less during my lifetime, our income level today would be only half of what it
actually is. And if we could have grown at 1% more per
year, our incomes now would have twice today’s buying power. So preserving or increasing our economic growth
will have a powerful effect on our nation’s future. I fear that the current policy path will not
permit strong future growth. If we want to achieve satisfactory growth,
we need to shift to more pro-growth policies. The key to our standard of living is productivity. The quantity of goods and services produced
per hour of employee work. The faster the growth of productivity, the
faster will be the rise in real incomes and of our standard of living. The growth of productivity depends on the
quality of our workforce, the growth of our capital stock, the effectiveness of management
and the introduction of new technology and new products. Each of these is influenced by government
policies, by taxes, regulation, government programs, and fiscal deficits. While government policies cannot produce the
creative drive that generates exciting new products, products that make American ingenuity
the envy of the world, bad government policies can stifle that creativity and make it more
difficult to convert new ideas into real products at prices that millions of people around the
world can enjoy. You may have noticed that I’ve not said anything
about international competitiveness. That wasn’t an oversight. Our nation’s ability to export and to replace
imports with American-made goods and services doesn’t raise our standard of living unless
it is the result of higher productivity. Productivity is fundamental, not competitiveness. Indeed, raising America’s competitiveness
can actually depress our standard of living if it’s not the result of increased productivity,
if it is the result of a weaker dollar. If the Chinese raise the value of the renminbi
as the current and previous administrations have urged, that would increase our ability
to compete with China both at home and abroad. But the rise in the renminbi would increase
the real cost of everything we buy from China. For the American public as a whole, a stronger
renminbi would mean a lower standard of living. So let’s stop focusing on competitiveness
and focus instead on raising our productivity, the amount that we produce per worker. A fundamental source of productivity is the
quality of our workforce and education is the key to that quality. American higher education is very good. That reflects our tradition of independent
private universities and the national market in higher education in which those institutions
compete for students and faculty. The real problem with our education system
is in the primary and secondary schools. The problem is not just in poor neighborhoods
and central cities. American students, as a whole, do poorly on
standardized international tests of science and mathematics. We know the primary reasons for this failure,
the lack of choice for students and their parents, and the monopoly power of teachers’
unions. The result is that teaching doesn’t attract
talented college graduates and that schools don’t weed out for teachers. Let’s hope that the accumulating evidence
on the positive effects of school choice and the changes that computer technology will
make possible in education will bring the needed reforms. Our productivity growth also reflects the
way that the government policies, especially tax policies, influence what students do when
they leave school. High tax rates affect the occupations they
choose, the effort they make on the job, their decisions to change jobs in pursuit of better
opportunity, and their willingness to take risks in pursuit of a good idea. The entrepreneurial drive is strong in America,
but it can be suppressed by high tax rates and complex regulations. Marginal tax rates on incremental earnings
are too high. A middle-income couple making $80,000 a year
now faces a marginal tax rate of 45% on every extra dollar they earn because of the combination
of the federal income tax, the payroll tax and state taxes. But while 45% is a typical marginal tax rate,
all of the personal taxes combined collect less than 15% of GDP. The reason we have such high marginal tax
rates to collect 15% of GDP is that the tax code is full of special features that reduce
tax revenue. Those features are really forms of government
spending that have been built into the tax code. If Congress wants to reduce government spending,
it has to look beyond the outlay side of the budget to the spending that is embedded in
the tax code. Tax credits for buying hybrid cars or solar
panels are just like government spending to subsidize those purchases. The exclusion from employee’s taxable income
of employer payments for health insurance is just like government spending to subsidize
health insurance, and there are many, many more examples. These special features known as tax expenditures
add more to the deficit each year than all the non-defense discretionary spending in
the budget. And once enacted, tax expenditures do not
face annual review as part of an appropriation process. Although limiting the use of tax expenditures
would produce additional tax revenue, it is very different from other revenue increases. It doesn’t raise marginal tax rates, doesn’t
discourage work or entrepreneurship and doesn’t tax saving and risk taking. It is really a reduction in government spending,
not a tax increase. It’s clear that we need tax reform to lower
marginal tax rates and improve incentives for saving and investment. Just one example is the tax on capital gains. In the printed version of these remarks that
you’ll receive at the end of the evening, I talk about other aspects of tax reform,
but I will spare you that now. The capital gains tax though, not only discourages
saving and risk taking, but also locks investors into existing investments rather than freeing
their capital to invest in new ventures. It’s also a very unfair tax, a double tax
on retained earnings that have already been taxed at the corporate level, a tax on nominal
gains that result from inflation, and a tax on all gains without allowing a full deduction
for all losses. Reforming our tax system should be combined
with bringing our budget deficits under control. The unprecedented deficits now projected for
the current decade and beyond will absorb most of private savings, crowding out private
investment and keeping the United States dependent on unreliable capital inflows from abroad. We cannot eliminate those deficits and the
resulting explosion of the national debt by faster economic growth or by inflation. We have to slow the growth of spending, particularly
the so called entitlement programs for the future agent. The right solution is to provide a basic level
of tax finance, social security benefits, and of medical care for retirees, and then
to encourage individuals to supplement those benefits by saving more in their preretirement
years. Reducing spending also means cutting the spending
done through the tax code, limiting those tax expenditures would allow raising revenue
to reduce the budget deficit while at the same time lowering marginal tax rates. All of this is a tough political agenda, but
it is doable. It’s worth remembering that after World War
II, we reduced our national debt from 109% of GDP in 1946 to 46% of GDP in 1960. We did this by avoiding any growth of the
government’s debt during those years. That is by balancing deficit years with surplus
years. The combination of real growth and moderate
inflation was then enough to have the ratio of debt to GDP in just 15 years. We did that then, and we can do it again. And we should insist that reducing poverty,
not limiting any equality is an appropriate goal of policy. While a fair distribution of tax burdens is
important, we should reject the spiteful egalitarianism of those who would use high tax rates to reduce
income inequality. If we do these things, we do the things that
need to be done, improving education, reforming taxes, reducing government deficit, stabilizing
the government debt and eliminating damaging regulations, if we do these things, we will
unleash the rising incomes than American creativity and a free enterprise system can produce. Kate and I have a new grandson born just six
months ago. So I think about what life could be like when
young Aldo is 30 years old. Just maintaining the historic 2.3% a year
rate of growth of per capita income would, in just those 30 years, double the level of
individual real incomes in America. And when Aldo is as old as I am now, real
incomes would be five times what they are today. The average per capita GDP of $45,000 today
would be $90,000 in today’s prices 30 years from now, and more than $200,000 in today’s
prices, after 70 years. Those income levels would make so many things
possible that are not possible today. Aldo and his generation would be able to take
advantage of the remarkable improvements in healthcare that science will bring, spending
a larger share of income on healthcare while still having very large amounts left to spend
on everything else. They would be able to devote much more income
to education, to cultural activities, to the environment, to maintaining America’s security
and to virtually eliminating poverty. But all of that will only happen if we act
now to make it so. That is America’s challenge. Thank you very much. Man: Thank you very much. Man: Thank you. Man: Thank you, sir. Man: Well done. Arthur Brooks: Thank you, Marty. Thank you for your service to American public
policy, to the economics profession, to the American Enterprise Institute. This calls to close the entertainment portion
or this portion of the entertainment. This gives you an idea of what we consider
entertainment for the American Enterprise Institute. Please enjoy your dinner. After that, please enjoy the fellowship, the
music and the dancing. Thank you very much.

About the author


  1. american ideology.. = we have to be on top no matter wat in order to stave any threat no one is allwoed to be equal to us or they cud stab us in the back #cutthroatpollitics..reminds me of stalin..

  2. no i'm not some middle eastern or some commie who " hates america" i'm from the united kingdom and i ask ….. when did we all become drunk with power.. " we are the global force now and will be in the future" (seems insecure) #schoolyardbullytactics

  3. your growth american people and you standerd of living depends on weather or not your still willing to use outdated systems of econimy … the car no longer represents the power it used to.. nither does oil to which your econimy is tied just as much as the russians and has been ever since you switched to the petro dollar under geaorge bush sr

  4. the round of applause at the end of the video is disgusting.. i guess this is how democracy gives way to dictatorship.. i mean no one else could speak there mind or what they thought only the ones on stage could so.. lets talk again how that's a democracy.. a true democratic would have voted on weather u was right or wrong not applaud thee emperor into disbanding the senate ^_^ after watching this full video i very highly doubt this man is for the american people this one seems to care too much about automobile and oil sales to fund his pocket because his stocks are failing

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *