In the hours after the Democrats resoundingly won control of the House and, narrowly, the Senate, the great spin debate on the meaning of the election opened up. Did the Republicans fall because of the war in Iraq? Corruption? The economy? Bush? How about “all of the above”? Understanding the voters’ motivations is critical for understanding how Democrats can build on… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (84)Page 1 of 1 pagesWell written article. If the Democrats can steer a politically centered course, keep taxes low and manage to accomplish something useful in the next two years they can win the presidency. But the Democrats will do well until they raise taxes and veer somewhere left of Stalin. Its inevitable. They just can’t help it. Why not a legitimate third party that takes the best ideas from both. The Republicrats or the Democans?
Posted by texasindependent on Nov 11, 2006 at 4:03 AM My goodness…
in the midst of the shift of American power, and the global prognostications, and Reichter scale type media silliness, and the anxious miasma that surrounds much of our day to day dealings…
I still want to thank Mr Vonnegut for his struggles with defining sanity, and his writings, and ongoing efforts to remind people about our potential for peace.
What a beautiful writer, such a humane philosopher.
Happy Birthday Mr Vonnegut
Posted by minerva_jones on Nov 11, 2006 at 12:37 PM Oh, look at that, it appears that terrorism wasn’t a figment of George Bush’s imagination afterall!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061110/ts_nm/security_britain_dc
Tolerant old Britain, tracking at least 30 jihadist plots on their own soil, that religion of peace is hard at work indeed. But, but you’ll stammer, “George Bush made the terrorists angry!” Well, not only are they angry now, but they’re real damn happy that the democrats are in power.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid= =2006-11-10T140135Z_01_L10266591_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-ELECTIONS-IRAN.xml&src=rss s&rpc=22
http://cbs4boston.com/topstories/topstories_story_314120450.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747
So, when will Jimmah Carter head to the ME to negotiate our surrender? When will that tub of traitorous lard Murtha “redeploy” us to Okinawa and give this scum exactly what they want. I suppose we’ll abandon the vast majority of the Iraqi population to a fate at the hands of a brutal minority. I guess that what ‘liberal’ humanitarianism has come to these days, as practiced by the Dhimminicrats.
Iran couldn’t love this disaster anymore. They thought they were seeing appeasement from the Euros and Condi, well they haven’t seen nothin’ yet! “But, but we should just TALK to them!”, the rejoinder around here will be. Well, Carter tried that and we had some hostages taken. They’ve sponsor terror attacks on our troops and Iraqis daily, so why the HELL would they help us succeed in Iraq? They KNOW it is there end if Iraq succeeds.
Thanks moonbats!
Posted by Hyjinx22 on Nov 11, 2006 at 4:53 PM Oh, Dems - Muqtada Al Sadr doesn’t want you to forget your campaign promises to pull us out of Iraq!
“The vote shows the Iraqi and American people are of one mind about withdrawing U.S. troops. ... We hope the Democrats don’t forget their campaign promises.’” “If they don’t, we will deal with them in a brotherly way once the last American soldier pulls out from Iraq.”
HELLO?! THIS IS THE SAME PERSON RUNNING SHIA DEATH SQUADS!
How did it come to be that the Dem message is also the hope and dream of jihadis everywhere?
I think we all know the answer to that one, although many here will never admit it.
Posted by Hyjinx22 on Nov 11, 2006 at 7:31 PM Harm to the economic interests of most Americans?! What kind of crack is the author of this article smoking? What the hell is 4.4% unemployment?! Doesn’t that mean the vast majority of people have jobs?! DOW over 12,000, the “little people’s” (your elitist view of individuals) 401ks and S&Ps; booming! Corporate profits being re-invested in more job creation. The “workin’ man” (only seems to apply to unionites in your parlance) is fat, happy and lazy as ever.
I just cannot believe the propaganda you people try to sell everyone else and yourselves. The tax cuts were instrumental in maintaining this level of economic activity, and the Dems want to throw’em out. It actually reminds me of the Libs fleeing the high taxes of the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts going to NH, only to elect Libs who promise more of what they fled. When will you people learn?!
Posted by Hyjinx22 on Nov 11, 2006 at 7:36 PM Hijinx you are a real moron. How did you find this site? The tax cuts didn’t make jobs. We had a jobless recovery remember. During the comparitively high tax Clinton era millions of jobs were made and growth proceeded at an annual average 3.5% between 1995 and 2000. The recession began in the first quarter of 2001 and ended in the last quarter of that year. Domestic average monthly job creation has been lower in the last five years than in any of the early recovery periods of the other post WWII recession. This is an established fact. Most of the few jobs that are now produced are related to massive federal spending, most of it military related, not to the trillions in tax cuts. These cuts only add to the deficits and national debt. In the 1960s high taxes coincided with record profits, wages, and GDP growth all at once. It was a golden economic age!! Where is you right wing market dogma now Hijinx? BTW, the official unemployment rate is about 5.5% but the real rate is probably closer to 7%. The median wage has never been lower. The DOW fluctuates all the time and means little to most people. The only elitists are morons like you and those you support!! Corporate profits are NOT being invested in more job creation but in the global savings glut and niche markets. The housing market is slowing way down and the economy with it. The final two quarters of ‘06 will bring the average annual growth rate for the last three years down below 2% according to many economists. Most working people’s 401ks are in the crapper and I really don’t think that workin’ folks would appreciate being called “fat, happy, and lazy” by what is certainly a slacker like yourself!!
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Nov 12, 2006 at 5:23 AM Who has ever said that there are no terrorists? Reagan certaintly knew a lot of terrorists in Afghanistan and Nicaragaua back in the 80’s but he called them freedom fighters. Bush is also harboring a terrorist in the United States called Posada. Since those who harbor terrorists are as bad as terrorists then Bush must be a terrorist as well. The Iranians did not take hostages because Carter tried to negotiate but because the U.S. harbored the murderous Shaw who the Iranian people wanted to put on trial. Also every year from 1999 to 2004 the U.S. median income dropped. It dropped a total of 4%. Also, how is Al Sadr a death squad leader? Is that just because he opposes the goverment set up by the occupiers? Was Ethan Allen a death squad leader as well?
Posted by seanm on Nov 12, 2006 at 7:52 AM How anyone could cite the economy as an issue in this election is beyond me. The economy, is going gangbusters! Get serious! This is a direct result of the Bush Tax Cuts (it always happens when taxes are cut, as John F. Kennedy and Ronald W. Reagan knew).
Unemployment is at a 40 or 50 year low (which means there are more jobs ... hmmmm how can that be; I thought Bush destroyed jobs?)
Mortgage interest rates are still extrememly low (lower than when I bought my first home in the early 70’s, just prior to Jimmy Carters double digit home mortgage rates).
Anyone who thinks the economy is poor must have there eyes closed, or is not even looking for a job.
It will be interesting to see how the Democrats think they can improve on this, other than reducing government spending, which must be done, and it will be to their credit if they can do it, but history tells us otherwise.
The Democrats will raise taxes and increase spending further; this is what they always do.
Of course, they say they are for tax cuts. But by that they mean so-called “targeted tax cuts” which are not tax cuts at all. They are “transfer payments”. Giveaways. Behave in a certain way, and you get a tax credit. If you don’t pay taxes, you get the money anyway. Free.
We’ll see, but I suspect that the Democrats will not change their stripes (or spots ... what was it Al Gore said?). Democrats are liberals (and many of them socialists: Nancy Peloci, Sherrod Brown, et al) first.
Posted by W Otis on Nov 12, 2006 at 3:22 PM Actually, cabdriverinchicago, the Clinton recession began in the summer or early spring prior to Bush taking office, so if he had something to do with it, I don’t know how he did it. Perhaps you forgot about the so-called dot.com crash and the stock market taking a dive back in those days.
Posted by W Otis on Nov 12, 2006 at 3:27 PM Hyjinx22, they won’t learn. They never have and never will, and their leaders in high places want to keep them uniformed so that they will continue to elect them.
I have to admit I was surprised at the outcome of this election; I had no idea just how stupid so many people were. I thought the great economy would be the main driving force. Shows you just how effective the Democrat propaganda machine was. They are wolves in sheeps clothing. We will have to be extremely vigilant in this 110th Congress and watch every move they make, and expose them for who they are.
Posted by W Otis on Nov 12, 2006 at 3:32 PM There was no Clinton recession only a Bush recession. It is official that the recession began in the first quarter of 2001. True there was a dot.com crash and NASDEQ meltdown but these events didn’t cause a recession. The recession in the early years of Bush II resulted from a stimulus package that created then aggravated the new Bush deficit and failed to focus on the working and middle classes who tend to spend a greater proportion of their disposable incomes. Also corporations invested heavily overseas through outsourcing and FDI. You reactionaries never address these questions. Niether do you examine free vs. fair trade like Sherrod Brown does. You just name call and repeat stupid mantras hoping to provoke people who DO think. BTW, it is pretty established that the Bush tax cuts for the rich haven’t helped the middle class or poor. Job creation has been very modest to low!! And of course the maldistribution of income plays a great role in this problem. There are many people working full time jobs that are below the poverty line.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Nov 12, 2006 at 7:45 PM I don’t know what you’re smokin’, cabdriverinchicago. Where do you normally get your news? This website? Ha, ha. Hilarious! It is quite common knowledge that the economy was quite in recession by the end of 2000 (however it was described as a weak recession at that time, I believe), and I’m willing to bet if you do some searches on the Internet for economic news from back then, you will find there was deep concern as early as the summer of 2000.
Of course, I understand that you Democrats and liberals like to Blame it on Bush, even though the recession was well underway by the time he took office! My, must be just the smell of a Republican coming into office causes the economy to go in the dumpster. Please explain how that happens?
But, that’s the way it is. My former insurance man, a Democrat says that things are always bad here when a Republican is in office. Doesn’t matter how good things are, it’s bad for him! At the time he told me that, we, in our business (ceramic tile contracting) were busy as hell and were having a good year! Go figure.
How do you figure the so-called “working class” (who the hell doesn’t work? Even Bill Gates works, for cryin’ out loud!) didn’t benefit from the Bush Tax Cuts? They got a tax reduction to 15% (I think that’s the figure for the lowest bracket now…I can check it out) and many who were paying tax are now paying no tax at all! That’s a plain fact! Those at the top, the ones creating jobs for YOU, the top 1% of income earners, are paying 34.27% of all taxes, and the top 50% are paying 96.54% of all taxes. So, who’s not paying their “fair share”, as you libs like to say? If you paid your “fair share”, you’d be paying a helluva lot more!
What do you mean by “maldistribution of income”? One earns, based on his own effort and dedication to make a better life for himself and his family. Maldistribution of income? What the hell does that mean. If that isn’t a socialist term, I don’t know what it is. Do you want someone to take some of YOUR income and give it to someone who didn’t earn it? Someone to whom it doesn’t belong? Well, that’s what our tax system does. And you think you deserve what you didn’t earn??? Why? You deserve something you didn’t work for but someone else did, just because he worked hard and achieved?
You have bought the lies of the left hook, line and sinker. They WANT you to be uniformed so you will keep voting for them. You are what they would call, a “useful idiot”. Sorry, I’m not trying to offend you, I’m just telling you how they see you.
Open your eyes, man!
Posted by W Otis on Nov 12, 2006 at 11:26 PM Forgot to ask you, cabdriverinchicago; just WHO has “pretty well established that the Bush “tax cuts for the rich” (again, you got a tax cut too) haven’t helped the middle class or poor”?
How have they NOT helped, when many are now PAYING NO TAX AT ALL?
Job creation “modest or slow”? You’re not paying attention. Unemployment is at 4.4%.
I can tell you for fact, I am having my best year ever, as a self employed person in the construction industry (and I’m in Ohio, which they say is behind the rest of the country) I’m doing well, and I’m happy.
There’s all kinds of job creation going on. Climb on the wagon, man, and get yourself out of the doldrums. There is opportunity out there like never before in our history!
Posted by W Otis on Nov 12, 2006 at 11:34 PM You are rightwing fascist scum. Surely you must know that the Bush tax cuts from 2001 shifted the federal tax burden to the middle class from the richest quintile and in particular top 1%. According to the CBO the top quintile’s share of total contribution to federal tax revenues declined one percent from 65% to 64% while those who earn between an average of $34,000 and $51,000 increased their share of the contribution to the federal income tax revenues by 2%. The poorest tax payers recieved less than an average of $300.00 annual tax savings while the richest 1% recieved an average of about $180,000.00 per household. The rich increased their incomes through the tax cuts by far more than the poor and middle class. The upper income groups saw a larger proportional after tax increase in their overall income. For the upper 1% it was between 20% and one third while for the lower three quintiles it ranged 5% to 10%. This is unjust. And it didn’t spur the economy. It bloated the financial markets. Much of the resulting savings glut wasn’t used productively. The tax cuts only skewed the overall distribution of wealth in this country by increasing the average after tax incomes of the rich by so much more proportionately speaking than the poor. The after tax wealth gap has its roots in the 1998 Clinton tax cuts and became worse after the 2001 Bush tax cuts which spurred the “jobless recovery” resulting in one of the biggest job deficits in US history.
The distribution of wealth is not just a “socialist” concern but a mainstream social democratic one which concerned such luminaries as J.M. Keynes and FDR. These guys SAVED the capitalist system, something for which rightwingers have failed to show adequate gratitute. The overall stagnation of the US economy has its roots in the current deepening maldistribution of income and overproduction crisis. The lack of effective demand in the US economy, which has decreased still further over the last two quarters of this year, has been bouyed by easy credit and consumer debt mostly through home equity loans which have pumped far more money through the domestic economy than the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Tax cuts for the poor have not added much income to their households as the net effect for the poorest workers is a real income decline due to low wages and increased regressive local taxes to make up for the missing federal tax contributions from the rich and corporations. The distribution of wealth and rise in real wages and incomes of the poor and middle class is the key to ending poverty not playing little games with taxes. Most knowledgable economists would agree.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Nov 13, 2006 at 6:23 AM First, please refrain from your name calling. I didn’t call you a leftwing fascist scum, so treat me with respect also.
Secondly, one who EARNS more and PAYS more in taxes, of course, is going to see more in dollars. If you are only earning $25,000/year or less, you are paying little or no taxes anyway. So quite naturally, you’re going to receive a smaller amount in dollars. What you people want is sombody elses money! You don’t WANT to work for it.
Besides, you forget that the child tax credit increased, the personal deduction increased, the “earned income credit” increased (and that is an example of a “transfer payment”...receiving money that you did not earn)
You people resent anyone who has worked hard and made a good life for themselves and has become wealthy. You think that somehow they have done it by cheating YOU. You disgust me.
America was built by an entrepreneurial spirit, and rugged individualism; people with a vision of making a better life for themselves and their families, and willing to work hard to achieve it. Did you know that Bill Gates didn’t even finish high school? Microsoft was started in his garage! He is a perfect example of what America is about. He was just a computer geek kid!
The problem with people like you is that you think you should have some of his wealth given to you by the government! Why? What, in God’s name, do you think gives you the right?
You have no right to someone elses property. You have no right to expect the government to give you anything, but it does.
The only right you have is to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness (and I’ll include property, which was originally to be included). That’s all. You have to do with that the best that you can. You have no right to ANYTHING that belongs to or was EARNED by someone else. What makes you think you do?
You are a sad person, but unfortunately I think you characterize most of the people who write this filthy rag.
Posted by W Otis on Nov 13, 2006 at 1:27 PM Let me say one more thing; then I’m through with this:
I think it’s absolutely OBSCENE that the government should take more than 10% of ANYBODY’S income. Some people are forking over up to 50% on some earnings. Do you think that’s right?
I also think it’s an outrage that the government should tax (again) the inheritance one receives from his family. Whatever a parent earns and socks away for the future rightly belongs to his heirs, if he so chooses to leave it to them. The government has NO RIGHT to any of that money or property. That is THEFT. Further, that money was already taxed once.
I’d like to know how many times our government taxes the same dollar! Over, and over again. That’s wrong.
At one time, we had no income tax. It was originally supposed to be “temporary”. I’m for eliminating it altogether once again. For one thing, some of these arguments would vanish, and everyone would have the right to EVERY DOLLAR he earns and not have the Federal Government looking over his shoulder to try to determine if he cheated on his taxes, and there wouldn’t be any of this expectation from you socialist to receive a piece of someone elses wealth.
Get out of that cab, and go find a better job if you want to improve your lot in life, but don’t expect someone else to hand over what they have earned to you. That isn’t what America is about.
You CAN do it! Now get out there, go to work, be a proud American, and figure out what you can do to improve your situation. There is a way. That’s one thing we have in this country; tremendous opportunity!
DO IT!
Posted by W Otis on Nov 13, 2006 at 1:46 PM cabdriver,
“The tax cuts didn’t make jobs. We had a jobless recovery remember. During the comparatively high tax Clinton era millions of jobs were made and growth proceeded at an annual average 3.5% between 1995 and 2000. The recession began in the first quarter of 2001 and ended in the last quarter of that year.”
Win some — lose some:
Tax cuts are only of value to those making money. The more you make the better they are for you.
Yes we had (are having) a jobless recovery.
Jobs during the Clinton era were a figment of the tech roulette being played on the exchanges and blessed by Greenspam as the new productivity miracle.
The recession began in the second quarter of 2000, not in 2001 and has not ended except in the minds of stock sales jocks and incumbent politicians. Job quality is lower, benefits are disappearing and the movement overseas is now devastating many white collar segments. (banking, accounting, radiology, engineering, architecture to name a few)
Middle income Americans have had a net loss in earning power for more than a decade.
The Dow is not the market, GDP is not the economy and the idea that the deficit has been lowered is smoke and mirrors. According to the U.S. Comptroller General on C-SPAN last week, the annual median family income is a bit over $40,000. Their share of the REAL U.S. indebtedness comes to over $400,000. He said, “Each child born immediately owes $150,000+. No wonder they cry a lot.”
——————————
W Otis,If you believe and act on the government data, you are on borrowed time. Look at what the bond market is telling us. Look at the falling dollar and the rising gold prices.
Of course, none of the above will matter — until the major players decide to exit the game.
What has been happening is a joint effort — Republican and Democrat — Government and business —with the blind reporting of major media. It is quite simple since all that is reported is in sound bites, New Dow Record, Falling Interest Rates, Inflation Under Control, etc.
Anyone who cares to can go to the websites of the US Census Bureau and The Bureau of Labor Statistics and check on the long term data. Even then be sure to take in to account the elastic yardsticks which have been used.
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 13, 2006 at 6:47 PM While I can agree with many of Moberg’s assertions, there is one point which I believe is crucial and cannot be overstated.
He brushed against it, but this is a gross understatement — “It was a vote against Bush and the Republicans, more than a vote for the Democrats.”
I am an independent voter and fiscal conservative. As such I have voted most often AGAINST one candidate and FOR the lesser threat to freedom and economics.
While Moberg’s following observations may be true… WHY are they true is important.
1. “There was a straightforward correlation between income and votes: the poorer people were, the more they voted Democratic.
(What other real alternative was there?)
and —
2. “Americans rejected not conservatism but party politicians who acted corruptly and incompetently.”
(Republican or Democrat corruption thrives on centralized power.)
First, let be say that neither Bush 41 nor Bush 43 is a “conservative” in any real sense of the word. It is next to impossible for anyone who has always been rich to know what it is to truly conserve. In varying degrees the non-rich must make daily spending choices between what they would like to do or to have and what they need.
Those who govern, if truly conservative, will do the same as a national policy.
• It is better economics for people to have decent jobs than to depend on social programs.
• A nation’s security—both economic and physical—should never be traded for the securing of the votes of any “special interest” group.
• A flood of low-cost consumer goods is a poor substitute for enough earning power to allow freedom to buy quality products.
• Outsourcing of jobs will NOT encourage people to pay for increasingly expensive higher education.• A nation’s attitude is crucial to its performance and survival and now…
“A plurality of voters—40 percent—think that life will be worse for the next generation, and two-thirds of them voted for Democrats.”Democrats are as responsible for our current malaise as are Republicans — there are at least as many wealthy in each party who have pushed NAFTA.
(“It will only take the low-end jobs.” Remember?)Both allowed stock options for the elite. (They need the added “incentive” — A six-digit salary is not enough?)
They’ve voted tax benefits for big business. (The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 — which guarantees nothing will be spent here.)
All have ignored our soaring debt and deficits and covered the pilfering of the treasury through phony government accounting procedures and the elastic yardsticks which measure GDP, PPI, CPI and all the other camouflage which passes for economic data.
Both parties are more in touch with the 36,000 lobbyists in Washington than with their constituents.
I recently voted for a Green party candidate and a write-in. Neither won— but the Greens will be on the primary ballot next time and a formerly unchallenged incumbent may have gotten a message that all is not well back home. (Well, I can hope anyway.)
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 13, 2006 at 6:53 PM I totally rebutted all of the irrational, nonthinking premises of W Otis
and Hyjinx22 on The Dueling Democrats thread and the Fear and Voting in the US thread. W Otis is just resurfacing under yet another monicker, he was “Scorp” on the Dueling Democrats thread. It’s the
same old rightist bilge that the only enemy is government and that if
we all just got it out of the way, all would be well. Except it won’t be.
Historically, laissez-faire capitalism has failed to the extent that it’s
been tried. Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalism and Rand’s so-called limited
government wouldn’t last five minutes in the real world. There are too
many problems that are not suspectible of a market solution.
I invite the conservatards to read Robert Kuttner’s Everything For Sale
wherein he discusses the few areas where the markets work and the many areas which require government intervention, either regulation usually, though rarely, nationalization in some limited cases.We can ignore Hyjinx22 entirely. His comments are insane. The trouble with the Dems is not that they are too anti-war but not nearly anti-war enough. Every sane person realizes that US foreign policy in the Mideast brought on 9-11 and the terror willevaporate when our bad foreign policy does.
It might be hard writing from within the confines of a straightjacket so
we can just pity Scorp and move on.
“W Otis” or whoever he/she/it is this week amkes the familiar conservaturd argumentum by assertion. A motormouth loudly proclaims these self-evident truths, except they are not self-evident
or established truths and if he can “forcefully” prsent he thinks he can
roll over his adversaries, except he can’t.
The people who were paying no tax under Bush in the very poor category
also paid no tax under Clinton. It’s the very rich who are paying far less tax under Bush that are the public policy concern. Chicago Cab Driver
actually rebutted most of Otis’s assertions. The recession of late 2000
greatly worsened under Bush and in 2004 Bush was the first President
since Hoover to HAVE NO NET GAIN OF JOBS.
“Otis” did Rush forget to put that in your talking points package ?
Posted by blondemike on Nov 14, 2006 at 1:55 AM Social Security takes the biggest bite from the average paycheck. 12.4 n;d 1.5% for Medicare. As baby boomers retire the amounts the rest of us pay will only increase. Federal, State , and sometimes local income taxes take a another bite. Including property taxes, school taxes,phone taxes. cable taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes and registration of vehicles the government takes around half of the average persons salary for various, sundry, and repetitive taxes. With the average American in debt up to their eyeballs that half won’t go very far.
WIll raising the minimum wage help anyone? Doubtful. Prices will increase across the board to compensate leaving all of us with less money than today. Of course the “new congress” will try and effectively screw the working man one more time.
Posted by texasindependent on Nov 14, 2006 at 2:01 AM Hey, look: I’m just a tile guy. I’m not rich. I live in an 1860’s farm house, and we run our business out of that house.
I don’t know how to interpret a lot of these figures, but I can look at a graph. And when I see the graph that shows how much in taxes the well off are paying, compared to me (the top 50% are paying 96.54% of all taxes), I can understand that.
I haven’t owed income taxes because of the Bush Tax Cuts (I do pay “self employment tax”, of course)
I look around me and I look at how many jobs I’m booking against previous years as an indicator. Construction is going on all around me (Ohio, mind you); new homes, malls, everything, and I have to ask myself, “How bad can it be? Look at all this growth”. Somebody isn’t telling the truth. There is all kinds of opportunity, even here in Ohio, which the Dems that won have been saying is “lagging” behind the rest of the nation. I say it’s B.S., so that they can get elected, because this is a heavy union/Democrat area, and most people don’t know any better. Their parents were Democrats, and there grandparents were Democrats, and by God THEY are going to be loyal Democrats as well. These people aren’t real bright. They have no clue (perfect for the Democrat party, because they can lie to them, and they won’t know the difference!)
When we were involved in 4-H, one of the men arranged a tour of the GM Lordstown plant. What an eye opener that was! Here are all these people standing around along the assembly line in a well lighted, CLEAN, totally automated plant, waiting for the next vehicle to come by. When it does, they might hook up a couple of wiring harnesses, or perform some other task, then step back and wait for the next. They make about $40/hr PLUS benefits to do this. As for me, I’m busting my rear end installing ceramic tile every day and making a fraction of what these people do, with NO benefits. Am I crazy, or what?
These people do virtually NOTHING, and they have all the benefits, huge hourly wages, new cars, and they retire early WITH RETIREMENT BENEFITS!!!!
Yet, when contracts come up for renewall, they whine and moan and may go on strike, because they think they aren’t getting enough!!! They don’t live in the real world!
These idiot Democrat politicians defend this stuff day in and day out. They aren’t for the average American. They are for the UNIONS! No wonder, the Unions take the dues from the employees and support the Democrat Party with them!
Democrats disgust me. They are liars and hypocrites!
I voted for George McGovern years ago (I was a hippie then). Then I became enlightened. I’ve been a conservative Republican ever since.
Posted by W Otis on Nov 14, 2006 at 2:03 AM The economy is in serious danger, not only is there a jobless recovery but bush has destroyed over 1/3rd of American industry in less than
six years, the high paying manufacturing jobs are disappearing and
the low wage service jobs where people like you work at are taking its
place. People in some instances have to work multiple jobs to keep
afloat. When crooked CEOs’ get billions for slashing jobs while the minimum wage hasn’t been raised in ten years THAT IS SERIOUS MALDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED
BY GOVERNMENT.
Your not “John Galt” Otis, you’re not even “Eddie Willers” you were lucky
to make it through Atlas Shrugged and Rand had the most contempt
for conservaturds of any segment of the population. You are a beneficiary of the minimum wage, OSHA, overtime pay act, air &
water pollution laws, food & drug laws, health & safety laws, the
space program, Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance,
Child Labor Laws, USPS, TVA and too many other government programs to list at the moment.
You need to give thanks every waking moment to the New Deal, the
Fair Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 14, 2006 at 2:08 AM Look, Otis, you have bought into a total rightwing propaganda lie.
That you were a hippie showed that you never had much on the ball
intellectually, they contributed nothing of the caliber of Chomsky or Zinn
to leftist thought. Let me be blunt, your a typical ultra-rightist motormouth who attemps to overwhelm your oppoents with assertions that always arguable and usually wrong. Why not just go to rightist sites and talk with your fellow reactionaries ? The unions gave us the weekend thanks to their organizing under the New Deal. Prior to WW2 my grandfather was an engineer with the Pennsylvania Railroad in DC
and worked seven days a week. That wasn’t ended by Ayn Rand but
by mass leftist movements pressuring FDR. For every corrupt union
you can find 100 corrupt businesses.
The minimum wage raises have helped millions of people and they are
not the cause of price rises, Texass,I notice you didn’t blame swollen
corporate salaries and profits for price rises ! Actually there are other causes, go to the Dollars and Sense magazine website for many studies on how the minimum wage has helped millions of workers.
I’m glad your economy is FINALLY booming in Ohio because that state
was a huge loss under Bush for five years and much of the industrial
sector was destroyed. When the real estate building does collapse, then you’ll see there’s a bigger picture.
Social Security does not take 12.4 % and it has been the greatest boost
of the elderly from poverty of ANY program in history.
The modern assembly line is depersonalizing but AT LEAST THERE
WAS THE COMPENSATION OF HIGHER WAGES SO PEOPLE WOULD DO EXCRUCIATNGLY BORING JOBS. They do a lot, you are just incapable of understanding the bigger picture of what it takes to make
an automobile.
Okay, Otis and Texass I gotta go for tonight. I’ll give you another public
spanking if you post any more rightist lies here in my absence.
Your GOP LOST BIG TIME !
Who cares about your work situation ?
Posted by blondemike on Nov 14, 2006 at 2:56 AM One of the core considerations in the tax cut issue is equity. There is a deep sense that in this country since the Reagan era, the rich and the big corporations have not been shouldering their fare share of the burden. Reagan sold the middle class on the skewed tax cuts on the basis of trickle down supply side economics. In 1980, the American middle class which was created by a system of progressive taxation, trade unionism, which at its peak organized one third of the US labor force, and a host of federal programs, trusted Reagan to save them with tax cuts. 25 years and over $4 trillion in tax cuts later that same middle class which blamed the democratic party for their problems has now all but disappeared. Those tax cuts were for the rich and big corporations. And the economy has remained more or less stagnant over the last 35 years on a per capita basis.
The Reagan tax cuts never produced the supply side effect they were noted for producing. The dramatic post 1982 recovery was merely a reflection of the depths of the 1979-82 recession. The tax cuts didn’t produce a recovery any stronger than that of an ordinary business cycle recovery. From 1979, when the deep slump began and 1989, when the recovery began to peak, we have an annual average GNP growth rate of 3%, the very same rate of growth one finds between the business cycle peaks in 1973 and 1979. Given the trend in the 1970s, there is no reason to believe that the tax cuts contributed wholly to the 1980s growth rate. In addition, crediting the tax cuts neglects two other sources of growth in that era. One is the tremendous boost to the economy given by the sudden spurt in military spending. The other is the sudden inflow of foreign capital attracted by high double digit interest rates which bloated the US financial markets and added to the savings rate which eventually spurred much investment. The weak US dollar in the early 1980s, at a time when gold was nearing about $1000.00/ounce, also cheapened US assets and made foreign direct investment by such countries as Japan, Saudi Arabia, the UK, Canada, and many European investers cheap in dollar terms. Factories were built and growth and employment resulted. Military spending and direct foriegn investment played a greater role than did the tax cuts.
Naturally those who pay more in taxes get more back in cuts. But the rich got a greater PROPORTIONAL share making their after tax incomes increase by a larger percentage than those in the middle and lower brackets. The rich and corporate contributions to federal tax revenues slide over time with the slack taken up by the middle class. By 1989 the top 1% of earners paid only 29% of their income in federal taxes while the effective rate of taxation on the middle class was easily between 35 and 40%.
The Bush tax cuts, which account for more than half of all tax cuts since Reagan, are giveaways to the rich. In simple terms about 89 million US households averaged about $1,100.00 in annual tax cuts while the top 1% of taxpayers will recieve 42% of the fully phased in 2001 tax cuts. The 2003 tax cuts are on dividend income, which chiefly affect only the very richest households and corporations, are strictly aimed at the very rich; households with over one million annual income (about 0.13% of the population) will receive over 17% of the cuts more than the total received by the bottom 70% of households. Despite the fact that these cuts are well under way to being fully phased in, the US economy is experiencing the weakest post recession recoveries in post-WWII history both in terms of average annual job creation and GDP growth.
The US economy is experiencing tremendous stagnation and the widening distribution of wealth and income is at the core of the malaise. Deepening misery is the result. These issues must be addressed for the economy to recover. The recent Democratic sweep is evidence of working America’s disgust with much more than the Iraq War.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Nov 14, 2006 at 8:22 AM blondemike—-
I don’t know who “Scorp” is, but I can assure you I am not that person. I only discoverd this rag a few days ago.I honestly don’t know why I bother to post here, because you lib’s (and you socialists) will never “get it” anyway. For you socialists, the truth doesn’t suit your purpose. Libs, on the other hand, I think are just plain blind.
I don’t know much about economics; I’ve never taken a course, but economics isn’t rocket science either. Here are a few simple truths about economics:
High demand for a product or service that is in short supply means you will have to pay more for it if you want it. More dollars chasing few goods. Those who can afford it, will have it.
Conversly, plentyfull supply and low demand means a product or service will be cheap.
We see this in action every day. When a new product comes on the market, and everybody wants it, it is quite expensive at first. As production increases to keep up with the demand, and manufacturing processes are improved (automation, improved processes, what have you) the supply increases and the price begins to come down.
I see this in my business too. When there is a downturn in home building, everyone thinks he’s a tile setter. We run into more price competition (sometimes a price someone else gives a customer is so low as to be absolutely ridiculous). Often, we know the customers not getting the same job, but you can’t tell them. That’s just the way it works.
Another economic truth: Lowering taxes INCREASES (not decreases) Federal revenue. This is because of the increase in economic activity that results. More investment in plants and equipment, more people hired, more taxpayers and larger corporate profits equals more taxes (not less) being paid. John F. Kennedy knew this, Ronald Reagan knew this, and George W. Bush knew this. Works every time. The figures are in; Federal revenue is up, by a large percentage.
Todays Democrats don’t want you to believe this, because this truth does not get them elected.
Third economic truth: There is not some “pie” that must be divided among us all, and that those with more have it because they have taken it from those with less. (The theorey that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer simply has no basis in fact).
Wealth is something that is created. It is in infinite. When one earns, invests, or engages in anything that brings him income, it is not because someone else is giving up something. New busness results in more jobs, and more jobs means more people employed, more people earning (creating wealth for themselves) and improving their lives. Look at how many people Microsoft employs. Bill Gates started in his garage. A computer geek kid. He created wealth for himself, and brought a whole bunch of others along with him.
I notice the Democrats have consulted with Clinton’s former advisor, Robert Rubin, who is advising them (wrongly) that they may need to increase taxes! This is killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Rubin recently resigned from Ford, which is in serious economic difficulty. What does that tell you? Rubin subscribes to the debunked Keynesian theroy of economics, which involves the government medling in economics to affect trends. As long as we have a central banking system, we will never get away from this, but many think that we should (including me).
Posted by W Otis on Nov 14, 2006 at 1:16 PM Apple Computer, another great example. The two “Steve’s” (Wozniac and Jobs), worked at HP. They belonged to a club of like minded people who were interested in computers. Steve and Steve built a little computer that they called the “apple”. Everyone loved it, and wanted it.
Long story short, Woz and Jobs went looking for financing to buy parts to meet the demand. Finally, they convinced Bank of America to back them, and Apple Computer was born. The rest is history. They created wealth for themselves and a whole bunch of others, and spawned the PC industry.
IBM, focusing on small computers for the office, really blew it. They failed to see the market for “personal computers”. When they got on the band wagon, there was a tremendous amount of healthy competition that has benefitted us all.
I’m not sure where Microsoft was at this time, but Bill Gates must have been in the picture by then, I suspect.
Posted by W Otis on Nov 14, 2006 at 1:28 PM Otis, you take up more space to say less and to say the same thing over and over than anyone I know. Reagan’s tax cuts in the 80s greatly
LOWERED the Federal revenue which is why we had the first astronomical deficits since WW2.
Ergo with Bush, deficits are the highest in history. Bush took Clinton’s
five trillion dollar surplus and turned it into a five trillion dollar DEFICIT.
Both the computer and internet industries were CREATED by the Federal Government and the private sector got involved only after hundreds of billions of tax dollars made it possible for them to come in and make a profit.
Gates’ Windows actually wrecked a much better, more user friendly interface system that existed before.
Nothing is infinite, EVERYTHING HAS LIMITS.
The ONLY tax increase they are proposing is to end Bush’s tax cuts for the top 1% and restore the Reagan era tax rates. Hardly socialism.You need to read some real economists like Paul Samuelson, John Kenneth Galbraith and Robert Kuttner. Start with Kuttner’s book titled
Everything For Sale. As far as big spenders goes, the GOP is tops,
both Bush and the Congress. The Republicans are the biggest bunch
of high spending, deficit producing, government growing draft dodging
pedophile hypocrites on the planet.
Your not in the same boat with Rockefeller and Rush, Johnny Lunch Bucket. Spare us the idiotic Repug talking points !
Posted by blondemike on Nov 14, 2006 at 5:40 PM W Otis, cabdriver, blondemike, Hyjinx22,
Look, there is some truth in all of our reasoning — that’s what makes it so hard to change anything in a democracy. (Also what makes it possible to get screwed by politicians.)
W Otis said he doesn’t know economics, but as one who was also self employed for over forty years I can see from some of his comments that business has taught him some of the most basic and most important —
• supply and demand set prices
• when times get tough people will do it themselves if possibleHowever, it is not whether you can read a graph that matters — it is whether the graph tells the truth.
My oldest son is has a degree in statistics and I have drawn dozens of graphs for corporate reports. Believe me there is an infinite variety of ways to make things show what you what — not what is.
It is not even necessary to outright lie. Government numbers are not all wrong, but they are often incomplete, adjusted (or not ) for inflation, geography, age category, etc.
The media seldom investigates, they just report. Those reporting can give them only what will skew things the way they want the audience to hear.
Whether there is a “pie” to be divided can be argued either way. let’s say the U.S. consumer is the pie. At some point most of us has a limit as to what he needs and what he can afford. The seller of a product our service can expand the pie by moving into more or less expensive consumer categories. Obviously on the global level individual purchasing power is often finite.
To avoid the do-it-yourselfer which affects your tile business you could aim at the wealthiest people in your area since an economic downturn caused by outsourcing will be less apt to cut their income and will probably increase it.
blondemike pointed out the exit of manufacturing jobs. This and computerization really killed my business — illustration and graphic design.I live in the rust belt and most of my customers were medium sized industrial companies — machine tools, hardware, fasteners, foundries, consumer items — almost all are now coming in from Mexico and China where they moved their operations.
I personally know many individuals who lost their jobs or businesses both here and on both coasts. (I quit counting a few years ago when I reached 50 — photographers, typesetters, printers, an engineer, 2 architects, 2 bankers, a TV producer.)
The unemployment claim of 4.4% is one of the most blatant misrepresentaions out there — Hitler knew the power of the “Big Lie.”
What is different in our economy has not made the textbooks yet. Globalization (cheaper labor) and new technology (instant exchange of info) have created a massive job shift unlike history has ever known. The move from hunting to agriculture, agriculture to industry, took a generation or more and was regional or at most national. The move from manufacturing to service was mainly in a decade and is world wide.
At the same time this is creating a major shift in wealth. Lyndon Johnson said, “We will take from the haves and give to the have-nots.” Now the move is from middle class to the wealthiest. Their health care is not a problem.
Some CEOs are now making as much as 500 times their lowest employee’s pay. The middle class is losing benefits and paying more for nearly everything.
The claim that the wealthiest pay most taxes is one of those data games. If you want to obfuscate use percentages — it’s the easiest way.
In the mid 1970s, I actually paid more dollars in taxes than Teddy Kennedy. I found out when I read the Chicago Merchandise Mart (Kennedy owned) was sold — I paid $6000 (including self employment tax) and he paid a bit less.
If you are rich enough you set up trusts or invest in tax exempt bonds. etc. Today with the 30 year Treasury Bond paying close to 5 percent a few million would let you get by nicely.
The U.S. economy is in terrible shape.
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 14, 2006 at 6:49 PM Thanks, Chicago Cab Driver, for your contributions here. Frankly, trying to educate these dittoheads is a thankless task but I do believe in the
old American custom of setting the record straight.
After Reagan’s tax cuts donations to charity went down by the rich and
it was three years before we recovered from the Carter-Reagan Depression. Carter was a conservative too in many ways.
You can see the GOP talking points here and they are 99% bunk.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 14, 2006 at 6:56 PM I agree with most of your points, whattheheck. One historical correction I
want to make, in Mein Kampf Hitler criticized what he termed the big lie
by his political enemies, I believe he was referring to British atrocity
propaganda regarding Belgium in WW1. I’m no fan of his but he wasn’t
advocating telling the big lie, he simply said that sometimes the sheer
magnitude gets people to believe it, which is sometimes true but not
always.
All the graphic people, pre-production people, artists at the huge newspaper chain where I work in a management position are being
laid off because their work is being outsourced to India ! And that is
par for the course these days. Pat Buchanan’s The American Conservative magazine is the only source on the Right that deals
with this in a serious way. Maybe we could get Otis and some others
to read TAC and shut off that fountain of Rotarian boosterism ignorance,
Limbaugh. Buchanan has terrible positions on social issues but he’s
been better on economic ones. The unemployment rate is at least
double the official stats. The danger is not that the Dems will do too
much but too little, since many are on the corporate take too.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 14, 2006 at 11:41 PM blondemike——
The Reagan Tax Cuts DID in fact produce more revenue; but, as with the Bush Tax Cuts, the Congress spent likd drunken sailors. That is what produced the deficits.Sorry, but I disagree with you on almost every point.
About the only thing we agree on is to be skeptical of government! :)
Posted by W Otis on Nov 15, 2006 at 1:26 AM Otis, actually they didn’t produce more revenue, just the opposite.
And Reagan’s Budget proposals were HIGHER than what Congress
spent most of the time. Bush’s budget proposals have been the same,
HIGHER than Congress most of the time and he has only vetoed ONE
bill. A dismal record. Even from a conservative view your GOP talking
points are simply moronic, they are invariably false. I could make
better rightwing arguments than you are making. Limbaugh is always
wrong, turn him off and get deprogrammed.
I agree that’s a waste of time to pursue further exchanges.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 15, 2006 at 1:47 AM All economists agree that the record deficits under both Reagan and Bush 2 were produced by two factors, wild tax cuts which dramatically
reduced the revenue coming in and wild “defense” spending which broke the bank. Under Bush 2, rhetoric aside, he has had much huger
increases in nondefense spending than even Reagan, who himself
went along with the New Deal program. I shouldn’t even tell you this, just let you continue to make a jackass of yourself in public.
Several conservative friends of mine have exploded with laughter reading your nonsense, most conservatives except for the dumbest,
recognize Bush as the biggest Big Government President of all time,
making JFK, FDR and LBJ look like conservative pikers.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 15, 2006 at 1:54 AM Blondemike
The new IRS witholding schedule has 12.4 percent witholding for Social Security. Down from a record high in 1999. Social Security is a pyramid scheme. It helps the retirees now. Most scrape by and many are forced to work part time to supplement their income. As the numbers of retirees increase the amount of contributors decrease. So to sustain the fraud more and more money is witheld. Eventually the entire system will collapse. Political differences aside changes have to be made. Even the most “Progressive” members of Congress realize and admit that fact. The question then becomes one of age. This is a decision for the under 50 voter as they will be the ones affected.
Posted by texasindependent on Nov 15, 2006 at 5:11 AM “One of the core considerations in the tax cut issue is equity. There is a deep sense that in this country since the Reagan era, the rich and the big corporations have not been shouldering their fare share of the burden.” -cabdriverinchicago
Show me the facts that bear this out. The weathies Americans are paying 96.54% according to government figures. I told you this before, but you choose to ignore it. It is a fact.
“All economists agree that the record deficits under both Reagan and Bush 2 were produced by two factors, wild tax cuts which dramatically
reduced the revenue coming in and wild “defense” spending which broke the bank.” -blondemike“All” economists agree about this? Now who’s making an ass of himself? I think I can find more than a few who will disagree with this absurdity. Let’s start with Walter Williams…oooooo, I can see you cringe! I love it! Now, what are you going to say to smear him? That’s what you people do best, when you can’t win an argument.
“Otis, actually they didn’t produce more revenue, just the opposite.”
-blondemikeHa, ha…. I’m rolling on the floor laughing! Do you really believe this? What are you smokin’? Give me a break! You liberals/socialists just amaze me with your ignorance!
That tax reduction increases revenue isn’t even arguable! The Federal government has already reported that Federal revenue is up, as it was in the Reagan years. Now, how can that be?
“Several conservative friends of mine have exploded with laughter reading your nonsense, most conservatives except for the dumbest,
recognize Bush as the biggest Big Government President of all time…”
-blondemikeI’ll bet. “Conservative” friends? Right, and I really believe that.
I never said that I agreed with GW’s big spending, did I? I have only argued the tax cut issue.
blondemike , you are an ass, and you have no clue what you are talking about. All you can do is insult and spew hatred. Typical of you lefties (we saw a lot of this from the Democrats in this election cycle)
Your main problem, Miky is that you think yourself smarter than everyone else.
Posted by W Otis on Nov 15, 2006 at 1:19 PM The “rich get richer, and the poor get poorer” lie.
Just this week, Harry Reid uttered this nonsense, yet again!
I’d like to know; where’s the proof? Show me. How does this happen, and where do we see the evidence?
Prove it.
The tendancy is just the opposite, as more and more people move themselves up, not down.
Posted by W Otis on Nov 15, 2006 at 1:34 PM One last comment:
Our problems here in Ohio stem from a lousy, disappointing Governor, Taft, who is a poor example of a Republican, and a couple of others embroiled in scandal.
Secondly, and more importantly, from poor tax policies which are driving business out of Ohio. Ohio has become the third highest state in terms of taxation. Quite simply, businesses see that they are better off elsewhere.
But, Democrats have been involved in a lot of scandal too; it just doesn’t get as much coverage. Sherrod Brown, who will replace Mike DeWine, was invloved with a drug scandal in his office. He promoted the employee involved! But this got little attention. If he were a Republican, Democrats would be demanding he resign his seat in the House, and he never would have won election to the Senate.
Posted by W Otis on Nov 15, 2006 at 1:56 PM blondemike,
Thanks for the correction on The Big Lie. I have a copy of Mein Kampf, but never truly done more than skim it. (He may have been a rousing speaker, but a truly dull writer.) I might have picked up someone else’s big lie attribution through my log standing WW2 interest. Or, I may have jumped to David Ogilvy who recommends the “Big Idea” as an advertising communication tool.
There is an article at the Wall Street Journal website today by Senator elect, James Webb. I read his book, “Born Fighting” last year (half my heritage is Scots Irish) and he and I carried on a brief email correspondence. It maybe coincidence, but I see one of my favorite descriptive terms “corporate incest” in his writing here.
———————-
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009246Class Struggle — American workers have a chance to be heard. BY JIM WEBB Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
———————-
My note to the editors follows:I deeply regret James Webb’s election from Virginia — would that he be from Illinois.
In this single article he has covered everything I have tried to communicate to my “representative” since the NAFTA vote in 1993.
This is what Conservative (Yes, with a capital C.) used to mean.
Laura, please read this to W tonight.
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 15, 2006 at 3:54 PM texasindependent,
Yes, of course, you are right — “Social Security is a pyramid scheme.”
But it is OUR scheme, a long standing PROMISE and greatly in need of intelligent reform. There is NO money for either S.S. or Medicare— just IOUs. Both parties have spent it all and more. They have been decreasing the benefits and delaying eligiblity. (My two sons must wait until closs to age 70 so far.)
I never really thought Social Security would be around for my wife and me and saved big time all my working years. My mandatory switch to computers (or go out of business) cost me over $100,000 which could have gone for my retirement. (In 1993 an upgrade to my computers cost $45.50 per megabite. In 2003 it cost $0.27 per MB.) I had no choice and had to continue upgrages to software and hardware due to large graphic file sizes.
I needed two cataract surgeries before Medicare eligibility — my deductible major medical only policy was $10,000 and copay $2,500. I paid $12,500 of a $14,000 bill. Within two years my premiums were up 457 percent.
Let me tell you S.S. sure looks nice going into the checking account each month. After being self-insured for a family of four Medicare and VA prescriptions are wonderful. I still worry about a serious health probelm’s costs.
Look at it this way — Americans will never let people starve in the streets. We will not turn people away from emergency rooms. One way or another we WILL pay and as a genuine Conservative I know my Social Security Self-Employent Tax payments would have served me better if I could have invested for myself, BUT…
Some form of taxation is the only way a government has to pay for the emergency care of its population and we are committed to fund this.
Only politicians who care more for our country than their own reelection will attempt to fix this problem — tax cuts are just bribes for votes. Try cutting your own income and increase your spending… Oh, I forgot, that is just what most Americans have done with their mortgages and why the “economy” looks so good.
Taxing ALL income of ALL people (above poverty level) would fix Soc. Sec and Medicare. No exemptions. To help people to fund more of their own retirement needs the Roth IRA plan could be broadened.
IMO all government aid should be emergency only. People who choose to live below sea level, in a flood plain, on a hillside, should be rescued, but not reimbursed. Chalk it off to “natural selection” if they decide it is worth the risk to go back there.
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 15, 2006 at 4:07 PM Texass, no pyramid scheme would last and be very successful for over
70 years, that is an old rightwing canard.
Otis, the FEDGOV’s owmn figures show the rich are getting richer and
the poor are getting poorer, check out the Center For Budget and Institutional Priorities website. Get off your lazy ass and open your eyes.
Taft and Blackwell AND the whole Ohio GOP are as crooked as a
dog’s hind legs, it’s no aberration. I believe they did steal the 04 election
in Ohio after reading RFK, Jr’s lengthy expose in Rollingstone.
Whattheheck, you are full of shit about no government, throw away those
worthless ayn rand trash novels and remember that we live in a civilized
society, Bush’s nonresponse to Kartina was racist, criminal and verged
on genocide. When an exactly similar hurricane hit Havana Fidel had
two million people safely evacuated without ONE casualty.
Most people could not wisely invest for themselves, that’s why FDR was
forced to institute social security, look at the poverty rate then and now
and the liberal argument wins hands down.
Otis, I don’t believe you on Sherrod Brown, your a big rightwing liar, you probably believe Hillary had Foster murdered. Your a kook and you have
been shown your walking papers by the American people.
Otis, I came out of a rightwing Ayn Rand, Goldwater libertarian background, I am still a LEFT libertarian, not a Democrat as they are as
pro-war, pro-Israel and pro-military as most of the GOP are. The three
hardest hitting anti-Bush sites are lewrockwell.com, antiwar.com
and The American Conservative. Rightists all.
The wealthiest Americans are NOT paying “96.54” of taxes, EVEN BUSH
ADMITTED THE RICH GET OUT OF PAYING TAXES. It was at one of his
press conferences where he was trying to justify his lopsided tax cuts for the rich.
Show me your documentation, Chicago Cab Driver ignored you because he knew it was more of your Limbaugh invented talking points !
Go to another board and get a life ! I feel very sorry for you.
And spare us the selective lectures on “hatred” the whole GOP campaign since 1980 has consisted of nothing but hatred. Check out the commondreams.org website, Joe Conason has a new column on GOP dirty election tricks.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 15, 2006 at 6:18 PM I misspelled “Katrina” above but the sense of what I was stating is clear.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 15, 2006 at 6:19 PM Reuters of November 9 (see news.scotsman.com) published the
annual UN Report on the best places to live. Norway again came in first, followed by Iceland, Australia, Ireland and Sweden. US was 8th
and I was shocked that it was that high ! Per capita income, educational
opportunities, life expectancy, healthcare are the criteria.
Sorry, “Scorp” your rightist policies have been given yet another decisive kick in the behind.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 15, 2006 at 6:47 PM blondemike,
“Whattheheck, you are full of shit about no government, throw away those worthless ayn rand trash novels and remember that we live in a civilized society…”
Reread my comments to you and then the ones to texasindependent.
(The closest I have ever come to Ayn Rand is the movie Fountainhead with Gary Cooper.)
———————
“Bush’s nonresponse to Kartina was racist, criminal and verged on genocide. When an exactly similar hurricane hit Havana Fidel had two million people safely evacuated without ONE casualty.”
The Katrina mess was badly handled first by the mayor, then the governor and finally by FEMA.There is no way this country would ever have become great if earlier generations had depended on government to get them across the continent, rebuilt their cabins and generally breast fed them through life. I will stick by my opinion of emergency aid only. Throw them a life preserver but don’t buy them a new boat.
I don’t like Bush, but this was not his baby until those closest to the problem dumped it on his doorstep. (BTW I voted for Goldwater in 1964.)
———————
“Most people could not wisely invest for themselves, that’s why FDR was forced to institute social security, look at the poverty rate then and now and the liberal argument wins hands down.”
Did you read the James Webb article I recommended? You totally lack comprehension of my economic opinions.
———————
Pyramid scheme longevity:
Social Security was originally an emergency program related to the great depression. It has been expanded to include categories never intended and now there are to few workers to pay for it. Germany and Japan are in even worse shape than we are.
———————————& —————————
Suggested Globalization Reading:“Global Squeeze,” by Richard C. Longworth, of the Chicago Tribune, 1998, gives, what is in my opinion, the best assessment of how globalization is affecting to the U.S.
“The Lexus and the Olive Tree,” by Thomas L. Friedman. His goal appears to favor a one-world government. (Before totally buying into his ideas you should consider that he invested in Russian bonds. I’ll go with Milton Friedman.)
“Independently Wealthy,” by Robert Goodman. He states that the markets are not moral and we must keep that in mind.
“A Future Perfect,” by Micklethwait and Woolridge. This one seems to me to be the least well thought out view and I would have to switch the tense to “Past Perfect.”
“Maestro,” by Bob Woodward is a testimony to the media homage given to an ordinary guy in a position of extraordinary power. Chairman Greenspan’s fascination with and profound belief in increasing productivity is echoed almost daily by those who think our present economy is good and can only improve from here. (Note: Foreign labor is not expensed in these glowing gains. ie: Subassemblies produced in Asia or Mexico and installed in the U.S. count only the U.S. installation time.)
“Who will tell the people?” by William Greider A depressing account of how little an individual can do about the fate of America. A real downer, because it rings so true.
“Perfectly Legal,” by David Cay Johnston How business, lawyers and our congressmen have developed a system to favor the rich and powerful.
“Running on Empty,” by Peter Peterson — While very concerned about the indebtedness of the US and individuals, he avoids proposing any realistic solution to Social Security. (Like maybe taxing income other than just wages and salaries. How about including ALL income — stock options, bonuses, gratuities like apartments, cars, etc.
“Nickel and Dimed,” by Barbara Ehrenreich What is it like for a middle aged woman trying to get by on low end employment. Compressed in its 200 pages is a world of anxiety, embarrassment and futility. A first hand account of the American citizens trapped in a world of globalization. Every politician, economist and self-satisfied person should read it.
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 15, 2006 at 7:02 PM blondemike,
You can believe Reuters if you wish, but my wife’s cousin is a cop in Malmö, Sweden and they have big problems. It ain’t workin’ out so pretty good no more, by golly.
———————————& ——————-On Sweden, immigration, etc. 3/5/2005, Weekly Standard Volume 010, Issue 24
Stockholm SyndromeI originally hail from Sweden, but am currently teaching economics and European studies at Skidmore College. I found Christopher Caldwell’s “A Swedish Dilemma” (Feb. 28) interesting. I hope it will open American eyes to a problem that is visible all across Europe.
Although Sweden is on the extreme end of things, I do not think Caldwell’s article gives a full account of the dire situation there. Social tensions have reached alarming levels, symbolized in part by skyrocketing crime rates. Recent studies in Stockholm show that of all rapes reported to police, only one in five are investigated and only 5 percent of the cases reported lead to the prosecution of a suspect. It is estimated that violent crime is rising by 25 percent annually, and over the first half of 2004 the murder rate rose by 40 percent.
Political extremism is also on the rise. About five years ago, an estimate by anti-racist groups indicated that Sweden had more active members of Nazi movements than its neighbors, adjusted for population. Hate-crime rates are several times higher than in America. Nazis have killed and have tried to kill journalists. Recently a long-time Nazi leader was arrested and charged with trying to build an armed political movement. In a different case, a group of nationalists were rounded up for inciting and planning an “armed revolution in the welfare state,” as they called it. Nationalist-racist parties are represented in almost two dozen city councils.
——————————-Try Google for varification.
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 15, 2006 at 7:09 PM whattheheck, your grasping at straws, the story came from the UN, Reuters only reported it. To “balance” this careful, objective study
and I have read previous ones, we get some dubious anecdoctal
story from one of the resident neocon, rightist extremist hacks at
the warmongering weekly Standard ???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
Oh, please ! They have many more neo-nazi and racist gangs over
here and a much higher crime rate.
Katrina was badly handled first and foremost by Bush & the Feds,
for at least 70 years in this country these type of emergencies have
been the first priority of FedGov, whether you approve or not and even
the Founders put in the General Welfare clause. Let’s face it, things
change over time, we had slavery back then and legal segregation in
the north.
Actually we agree on Ehrenreich, Greider and most of your reading list.
What we arguing about ?
Regardless of how temporary FDR thought social security would be
and I know he DID come to think differently, he was opposed to it originally and his 32 Platform was to the Right of Hoover, he recognized
a longterm need for retirement security. That’s why it was never means
tested in contrast to AFDC welfare which morons like Scorp oppose
because they think it’s for “niggers.” And which program they stupidly
think we spent 6 trillion on !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Racist imbeciles.
I have a great comprehension of economics as such, if I’ve mischaracterized your particular I’ll stand corrected.
The local and state levels in Louisiana blew it but it was primarily a Federal responsibility, exactly like 9-11 and a Federal blunder.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 15, 2006 at 11:27 PM Any racism in Sweden is SOLELY in reaction to the unrestricted African
and Muslim immigration they have stupidly allowed and they need to restrict it totally, I agree with the rightists on this.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 15, 2006 at 11:30 PM Minerva_Jones, I am also a big fan of Kurt Vonnegut who, in a simple way knows how to talk about things thatyreally matter. As for the rest of the commentaries, all I see is the word “taxes” and no concern about the wars the USA has started or is about to start against mostly civilians in different parts of the world. No mention, either to the Kyoto Protocol and the 25% of gas emissions produced by your country, or about the way people are kidnapped and tortured. It seems as if your only concewrn is profits, taxes, and your own welfare. Believe me, there is a whole interesting beyond your navel.
Posted by Maria on Nov 16, 2006 at 1:19 AM Otis, time to close this out, you’ve been reduced to insults.
That’s ok, I am getting tired of repeating myself too so let’s
move on.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 16, 2006 at 1:55 AM Political differences aside Social Security is the best financed Pyramid Scheme in history. Forced contributions finance the meager income of today’s retirees and even without cost of living increases will not fund the system past 2020.
The social system in the United States consumes 58 percent of the gross revenue.
Social Security 586.1 billion or 21 percent.
Medicare 394.5 billion or 14 percent
UI and welfare 367 billion or 13 percent.
Medicaid 276.4 billion or 10 percent.Defense is 466 billion or 17 percent to anticipate the agitated response.
Sweden touted as a model of socialism for comparison has a GDP of 348 billion.
The crisis of Social Security is explained by basic business principles. As the system stands it will collapse under its own weight. As costs increase the amount of contributors is drastically decreasing. We are approaching a financial Malthusian crisis.
Posted by texasindependent on Nov 16, 2006 at 4:38 AM W. Otis,
You are a liar and a moron. Where do you get your BS? The richest US income quintile never contributed more than 65.7% of the Federal Government’s tax revenues according to the Congressional Budget Office and a host of other reputable sources. The upper 1% may have contributed between 25 and 36% of the tax burden over the period spanning the late 1990s to 2004 but it is commensurate with their share of the national wealth. The idea that the very rich contribute over 95% to federal income tax revenues is insanity at best and doesn’t even make logical sense considering (a) the extent to which top bracket has been brought down to 31% for individuals and 35% for corporations and (b) how many tax breaks were passed by congress over the past six years. Then there are also the loopholes. It has been estimated by the Brookings Institutie and others that US corporations contribute no more than 7% to the total federal tax pool and that most all the rest consists of taxes on income and payroll taxes. The US rich are among the least taxed of all the ruling classes in the industrialized democracies. The declining state of American society is evidence of this regretable fact.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Nov 16, 2006 at 7:47 AM blondemike,
Since you asked, “What we arguing about ?”
I guess I would say while we agree on some events, policies and info, we disagree on who should take responsibility for life’s troubles and what is more credible — news reports, “official” data, consensus thinking (group think) or individual testimony, personal experience and that of friends and relatives.
Personally, I want to check the TV and internet reporting against the claims by people I know and trust. You may note my reading includes authors who are diametrically opposed in their writing.
In my experience anecdotal news often becomes the news reporting a few years later.
My conservative bent is why I was first self employed at age 19 and with the exception of my military service and one job of three years, I was always self employed, non-union, never expected anything was “owed” to me by the country except a chance to try my best shot.
As for “grasping at straws” I don’t care if you buy my arguments — you are free to believe what you will. That’s what makes this great place to live.
Try not to take all this so personal. Life is short.
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 16, 2006 at 3:49 PM Texas Indy,
You got Social Security all wrong. Yes, we are an aging population but the workforce is growing all the time (even, as I am told, workforce participation-not employment-is somewhat decreasing) and is currently more than 142 million people. This is more than half the US population. Even the estimated 5% of the workforce that is illegal pays $6 to $7 billion into the system that they never retrieve so this helps even more. The system has trillions and is secure at least until 2040. The payroll tax is fine at 15% and doesn’t need to be raised. Perhaps the income cap could go up from $92,000 annual income to $100,000 or so in order to garner more funding. This should fix things just fine!!
The problem with SS is political not economic. The “lockbox” that was established in bipartisan fashion in 1984 under Reagan of all presidents, has been systematically breached since then by all administrations including that of Clinton. Conservatives hate it because (a) it is compulsory, and (b) it is significantly redistributive. Conservatives encouraged a higher savings rate in the 1980s with private retirement accounts which quickly bloated financial markets and added to the financialization of the US economy. This gave impetus to the idea of privatizing retirement financing altogether. The trouble is more than a third of the US retirees would actually lose money upon retirement than they would gain because they wouldn’t be able to save enough. Estimates of these losses run high from a third to half of anticipated retirement income. This would be exacerbated by the trend in real income decreases for the lower income teirs in America today. The system would also become yet more expensive because it would no longer be a single payer system. Wall Street doesn’t need poor old people’s money! The elections this year hopefully sent this message to Bush along with the other messages. SS is still less risky than the US stock market or exotic financial derivitives. Just look at the financial state of certain 401k plans from time to time. Let’s do our best to preserve the New Deal’s crowning achievement!
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Nov 16, 2006 at 6:25 PM W Otis,
You can accept what info I offer or not. But here is my view as a previous one-person business owner/worker—
Even if you have no direct foreign competitor eventually all are vulnerable.
The housing market has been strong due to low interest rates, no money down mortgages and massive refinancing — that is ending. California has been reporting increasing defaults and mortgage company bankruptcies.
Just as the globalization/technology revolution has reached the white collar people it can trickle down to you. I got me.I recently talked with a fellow graphic artist who just lost his last major customer — a travel agency. With more people booking their own trips, they needed to cut costs. Now the ads and brochures Pete used to do are being done by a secretary using stock photos and templates.
Pete’s wife lost her job a couple years back and was doing house cleaning six days a week. She had a serious health problem last year and can no longer do some of the work so he fills in. He has been able to get some handyman jobs through the housecleaning connection —
right then he had a bathroom tiling job.
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 16, 2006 at 6:26 PM Chicago Cab driver, thanks for rebutting Texass, his figures are off the
wall. They are not in the budget. “Defense” or Pentagon welfare spending is the biggest single component of the budget.
Medicaid is nowhere 10% of the Budget nor is unemployment insurance
& welfare (AFDC) 14% of the budget ! This is total crap. I don’t know
percentage social security & medicare but I’d never trust anything coming fromTexass.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 17, 2006 at 1:44 AM My figures are direct from Wilkepedia. A tad left wing for my taste but a valid and useful tool. 58 percent of our money is spent on social programs. Energy and Science get less than 2 percent. Defense gets 17 percent blondmike. Seems like butter is beating the crap out of guns.
If your consider 334.58 a month a crowning achievement try to live on it. This is a real check amount. Social Security is a cheap parlor trick. 2040 is not an acheivable goal for SSI, perhaps with drastic cuts in benefits 2015 to 2020 is the best guess using economic forecasting. That assumes no increase in benefits and a 80 year life span. The risk in Social Security is lack of funds when its my turn to retire. If I deposited the same funds in a interest bearing account, the average return is 21-35 percent. A CD strategy could offer even higher returns. With the same risk, zero, nada, goosegg, nil. Social Security has no interest for me, I have no interest in Social Security.
Posted by texasindependent on Nov 17, 2006 at 2:46 AM Hi Maria…
I agree…this site should be called “Blowing Smoke”, just like any other news media we see these days.I’ll give it another 10 years, and then I’ll open my
‘Industrial Smoked Meat Sandwich’ chain…Beautiful 19 year old girls will sell old meat sandwiches to guys with too much money and a yearning for a community..
it will be sad and exciting and familiar, in it’s own strange way, my chain restaurant of old meat sandwiches and beautiful girl waitressess. It’ll only take them 25 years or so to realize that the tender , smoked meat is a part of the human body that resembles this sad keyboard symbol:
*
Free associating…paid for in advance.
Again, happy birthday Mr Vonnegut.
Posted by minerva_jones on Nov 17, 2006 at 4:37 AM PS:
If you’re going to live on the side of the road, send your kids on the bus to the school down the street, call the cops every time someone pisses you off too much, and bring all your health problems to the local witch doctors temple, then the 25% + you pay in taxes is worth it. Not to mention the cost of armaments and cannon fodder embroiled in the international intrigues you pay for and are too busy to pay attention to.
(where do you get this 10% figure? Most people pay 25 to 40% in taxes of one sort or another….and get an extraordinary array of services and political entertainment for that fee)
Even in ‘tax cut’ America….
sheesh….
Posted by minerva_jones on Nov 17, 2006 at 4:44 AM Texas Indy,
The current Social Security program supports 48 million people over 33 million of whom are retirees over 62 years of age. The average annual payout per recipient is $10,500.00. No fewer than 66% of these retirees rely on SS for more than half their income which means that SS is keeping more than two thirds of the 33 million seniors above the conservatively established national poverty line. These figures also suggest that if SS were replaced by private retirement accounts more than half of retirees would lose income upon retirement because of their inability to commit enough savings to private funds to garner the same amount of income. In addition the risks would be much greater. Texas Indy, SS was not conceived of on behalf of the rich and upper middle class. They have always been able to fend for themselves. It is the bottom income strata in this country, the lower 60% earning less than $51,000/year with huge expenses, that can’t afford to let SS go. Most of the middle class require it as a vital supplement especially as most 401k accounts and defined contribution retirement benefits don’t pay enough by themselves. Very few pensioners receive guaranteed defined benefits at retirement. That system is nearly bankrupt as is the Government’s Guaranteed Pension Benefit Corporation (GPBC) which cannot afford to bail out the private pension programs insured by the agency with legal obligations outstanding. Many corporations have been let off the hook by the Bush Administration for their obligations and allowed to declare contribution holidays to the fund or declare bankruptcy if they go to some kind of defined contribution plan. Many CEOs of big corporations vote themselves and the board big raises and parachute packages even as their pension plans are going bankrupt. This problem is similar to SS. The more companies are allowed to go over to defined contribution plans the more the funds for the defined benefit plans are starved for capital. Bush wants to deliberately Bankrupt SS so he could shift tons of savings over to Wall Street investment brokers in order to make them money. It is said that 15 to 20% of the expenses will be brokerage fees and redundant administration with the shift from the current single payer system to a competitive private investment fund system. An increasing number of workers will not be able to afford enough to replace lost SS income at retirement. Bush seems only to care about a quick cash infusion for Wall Street not the future well being of a growing number of poor senior retirees.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Nov 17, 2006 at 7:42 AM Figures from the IRS for tax year 2004:
Percentage of Federal Income Taxes Paid
(Percentile ranked by AGI)
Top 1% 36.89%
Top 5% 57.13%
Top 10% 68.19%
Top 25% 84.86%
Top 50% 96.70%
Bottom 50% (less than $30,122 AGI) 3.3%This, according to the IRS’s own figures. End of discussion.
Anyone care to argue who’s not paying their “fair share”?
Average Federal Revenue (Tax Burden) Per Houshold by Administration (Inflation adjusted, 2005 dollars):
Bush (43) $18,057
Clinton $19.343
Bush (41) $16,157
Reagan $15,529
Carter $15,746
Ford $14,748
Nixon $14,635
Johnson $14,181
Kennedy $12,237Source: US Bureau of the Census
Posted by W Otis on Nov 17, 2006 at 1:30 PM Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable, Tex. Anyone can post anything there\and does.
Social Security is much safer than the stock market. It will be there for
you and you will be grateful for it. The conservaturds have been predicting its demise for 60 years, so far it has never been healtier.
IF we ever did have the kind of financial collapse the Right predicts,
nothing in the private sector would be there for you either.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 17, 2006 at 6:30 PM blondemike,
>>whattheheck, your grasping at straws, the story came from the UN, Reuters only reported it. To “balance” this careful, objective study…<<
If you believe anything from the U.N. is objective we have another point to debate. They are probably careful not to get caught most of the time, but the Oil For Food Program is one of the biggest ripoffs in history and Kofi can claim it with Guiness to add to his trophies.You said, “Defense” or Pentagon welfare spending is the biggest single component of the budget.” Maybe you meant compared to Social Security, but last I heard interest on the National Debt was the biggest cost and growing BIG time
———————————& ——————
“My figures are direct from Wilkepedia.”Sorry to break the news, but this is one of the least reliable sources on the net. Anyone can tinker with it.
——————————— ;——————
W Otis,I realize you are quoting “official” data, but there are a lot of issues to consider when reading it.
Check out— shadowstats.comIf they say 1% paid 36.89% it may well be true. But as Warren Buffett pointed out a few years ago his secretary’s tax is far more difficult for her to pay than his is.
The wealthiest have far more ways to invest which are tax exempt than you or I do.
The numbers you show per household for various administrations need to be considered in light of the hidden cost to each household for the increases in government spending above receipts and the artificially low interest rates under Clinton and Bush 43 courtesy of Greenspan.
———————————& ——————cabdriver,
Whether the workforce is growing is not so simple. There is so much noise about shortages in various categories it is tough to tell. Some of the “shortages” (for example machinists), are due to firing so many over the last two decades. The jobs offered now are paying so much less that replacements from other countries will probably be imported.
With us old guys not dropping fast enough and the boomers not having saved but relying on Social Security as their main retirement people may just go on working at least part time from necessity—adding supply.
People have been having fewer kids —deducting from supply.
Overall “real” income — in spite of gov/media hype has been falling for thirty years. Less income equals less paid into SS. Less paid in equals a raise in caps and percentages.
I say TAX ALL INCOME above poverty level.
I believe this is not a question of either political OR economic — it is a lot of each. To continue to pay out as people are added, more must be taken in.
The wealthiest have the most clout in Washington, so guess who will continue to get tax breaks. Guess who will pay the highest percentage of their income to cover the costs. (Clue: Social Security income is taxable when you collect it too.)
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 17, 2006 at 6:51 PM You will never convince a neo-con, what bush and his party has done to america, will put us in a world of crap for generations to come.
Unemployment - you are only counted for 18 months, because that is all the time you have for unemployment benefits. Count all the people without jobs after 18 months and you will get a true picture of unemployment. 6 million people that were in the middle class under clinton are now living in poverty today.
Tax cuts- benefit the weathy, always will they are in charge. The gov. took in 2.1 trillion in taxes last year and spent the next day 2.23 trillion. The gov. borrows 800 billion dollars a year from china, japan and other countries to stay afloat. Our economy is a borrowed economy. We have a trillion dollar trade deficit with china, not counting other countries.The Treasury Department has to borrow money to meet Congress’s appropriations. The total borrowed is more than $8,000,000,000,000 and growing. Even when government officials claim to have a surplus, they still spend more than they get in. We pay interest on that huge debt. We are 8.6 trillion in debt and borrow 3 billion dollars a day from china for interest on our loans. That is not counting 500 billion for iraq war with no end in site. How long can you go in debt without paying for the debt?
So all you neo-cons braging about the economy, if it was so good you would not have lost the house and the senate, along with all the other screw ups the repugs did.
Posted by brian28 on Nov 18, 2006 at 5:40 PM What the Heck,
There are shortages but the contributions are also growing. If the economy starts to grow (and it has just slowed these past two quarters) then SS will be in fine shape. Also, the Boomers are among the wealthiest retirees many with individual retirement accounts. The savings rate has only recently dropped to a negative rate of minus 0.5%. I say raise the income cap on payroll tax from the current $92,000 to $100,000 or more. What’s wrong with this proposal? We’ve got to save SS!! It’s the only retirement plan most people have or to which they can afford to contribute. Most people don’t have enough money to contribute to private plans which would require a lot bigger regular contributions for a reasonable return at retirement. Those plans aren’t redistributive like SS. As most people’s real income declines or remains stagnant a redistributive, single payer plan is what the country actually needs.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Nov 18, 2006 at 7:30 PM whattheheck, food for oil was a minor nothing scandal like whitewater,
way overblown by the rightist media goon squads, the real scandal was
the bush-clinton-bush2 sanctions which probably killed millions of Iraqis.
I’ll take a look at the rest of your comments later, there may not be so much to disagree there. UN is a fine organization except for the USA
and Israel, both should be expelled.
In good writing, less is often more, so I believe in being concise.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 18, 2006 at 8:00 PM cabdriver,
“I say raise the income cap on payroll tax from the current $92,000 to $100,000 or more. What’s wrong with this proposal?”
The only thing wrong is it is temporary and only effective until inflation makes $100,000 start to pinch most people when gas is $10/gal. with milk at $7.50.
Removing the cap and taxing all income would eliminate the tax dodges of those wealthy enough to hire clever accountants. It would then be possible to lower the percentage everyone pays to single digits.
The best retirement plan if you can afford it is the Roth IRA — tax free growth.
IMO, private plans as a part of Social Security are a red herring to divert and delay any action by either political party. A lot of the members of congress are lawyers. One of their most often used techniques is to delay any action. Rich people can afford to wait and to pay attorneys and others cannot — that’s one reason for so many out of court settlements.
I was able too use that method to my advantage a few years ago when a company had illegally used some of my artwork. If we had gone to court it would have taken months (if not years). I knew my legal rights and didn’t need a lawyer, (unless it went to court), but they were in the process of selling the corporation and I could have delayed the deal — so they met my price.
——————————— ;———
blondemike,I guess you believe in being concise in your reading as well. The U.N. Oil for Food boondoggle was the largest ever theft by any national or international body — and from hungry people while enriching Saddam. The U.N. has no method of punishing their members who participated. No organization without enforcement capability should issue edicts and resolutions. All mouth and no clout.
Sanctions are never a good idea. The bad guys always benefit and the poor are the ones who do without.
Whitewater holds the record for treachery, stupidity and embarrassment in a whole different category.
You seem so concerned with right versus left that you are willing to ignore right versus wrong.
“UN is a fine organization except for the USA and Israel, both should be expelled.”
We’re pretty close on the last part of this issue — you think they should be expelled — I think they should resign. Same result so I’ll accept your method.
Care to place any bets how long the U.N. would last after moving to their new home in Venezuela?
—————————
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 20, 2006 at 1:54 AM So, WTH, do you want to eliminate the cap in order to gain more money to secure the program and stop the cheating? I don’t see how this is inflationary. It sops up money and reduces the deficit while not adding to total spending. It’s using taxes to pay the government’s bills not further borrowing. Perhaps your suggestion is best.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Nov 20, 2006 at 8:52 AM Cabdriver,
“So, WTH, do you want to eliminate the cap in order to gain more money to secure the program and stop the cheating?”
Yes. As it is now there is no “cheating” necessary. There are perfectly legal (moral is not an economic term) ways to avoid taxes, including the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Like the song says, “Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.” Well, everyone wants the benefits which come from taxes — roads, schools, police/fire protection — but nobody wants to pay. Taxes are the only way government has to pay for all that.
As a fiscal conservative I have most often been a believer in Milton Friedman’s economic theories. No new programs without the funding first. I
f I don’t have the money I don’t buy. Borrowing for anything other than emergencies is a fool’s game. Credit cards are to customers what free booze is to an alcoholic. Giving a credit card to a kid would be as bad as letting congress spend money they don’t have. (Wait a minute — could that be why we have such a huge national debt?) :-)
Friedman was an advocate of Free Enterprise and the originator of “There is no free lunch.”
The trouble is we do NOT really have free enterprise and free markets. Corporations have tax legislation slanted in their favor on the pretext it creates jobs. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 is all BS to pacify the EEU by removing subsidies and giving tax breaks to US corps to compensate. The trouble is there is NO requirement the money saved must be for jobs in the US!
Our “free lunches” have turned our nation from the biiggest creditor to the biggest debtor in my lifetime. It has given us decades of infllatiion and a lifetime off debt to those still not born.
As Einstein said, “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice they are different.”
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 20, 2006 at 4:08 PM whattheheck, I read way too much. The Pentagon steals more in a day than the UN could in a decade. The real scandal is that the millions of
iraqis killed by the unnecessary US backed UN sanctions.
Whitewater WAS NOTHING, SEE THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT BY JOE CONASON AND GENE LYONS, 2000.
Do not waste my time with your rightist nonsense.
UN’s not moving to Venezuela.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 20, 2006 at 6:33 PM I think we need to be careful about the constant hijacking of these boards by rightist trolls. They have every right to their views but what
happens too often is that we all get hijacked on responding to some
outrageous Limbaughite lying assertion and we don’t move forward
in advancing a new agenda. It’s good to rebut nonsense but we all need
to cut it off much sooner. These hardcore ideologues are not open to
reason and all they do is bog you down refuting their lies. I think the
point of no return has evident here for some time.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 20, 2006 at 11:25 PM “These hardcore ideologues are not open to
reason and all they do is bog you down refuting their lies.” - BlondemikePerfect description of the left.
You people are so full of BULL!
SOMBODY needs to post some hard core truth here. If that’s “hijacking” your board; tough. I’ve never seen so much leftist propaganda (B.S.) in one place!
Posted by W Otis on Nov 21, 2006 at 12:32 AM “W Otis” you have never told one truth yet. No one asked for your ignorant presence here, everything you wrote has been debunked
and usually several times over. You don’t like this leftist board, then
go somewhere else.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 21, 2006 at 1:57 AM Don’t waste your time with whattheheck, w otis, scorp, redhorse, et al,
it’s all the same gnarly rightist dude.
Check out the current American Propspect site, see Cant & Recant by
Robert Kuttner, a rebuttal of Friedman and The Right’s Denial by Harold
Meyerson, a debunking of the idea that the Right didn’t lose the election.
Also “Everything For Sale” a great defense of the social democratic mixed economy by Robert Kuttner, totally rebuts all the market fundies
and Randroid clones on this board including “Texas” another Scorp alias.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 21, 2006 at 6:35 PM BlondeMike,
Let me see if I have this right…
If the US does something bad — we are to blame.
If the UN does something bad — we are to blame.
If the UN agrees with us (Resolution 1441, sanctions against Iraq, etc.) they are NOT to be blamed— just the US.
I guess I get your point, but kind of makes me wonder why you stay here in this terrible country with such a dreadful track record.
Could it be you like being blamed for the ills of the world?
That’s sick!
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 22, 2006 at 3:48 PM WTH, everyone in the world EXCEPT YOU knows that the USA was the main one who pushed for the genocidal sanctions to begin with in 1991
during Bush 1’s first Gulf Massacre, mislabeled a war.
Everyone in the world EXCEPT YOU knows that the USA was the sole power pushing to retain the sanctions because our foreign policy is owned lock, stock and barrel by the AIPAC Lobby.
Why should I leave ? Let the fascists like you and the neocons leave.
How do you managed to get dressed in the morning ?
Posted by blondemike on Nov 22, 2006 at 5:19 PM Gosh, Blondie, I guess if you know what everyone in the world thinks you MUST be right.
So, Iraq did nothing to deserve any outside interference from the coalition (I guess only the US went in, so we’re to blame again.) Nobody would have missed little Kuwait anyway.I have already given my opinion concerning the fallacy of sanctions, but wait — as a fascist I couldn’t have said that—it must have been when I was in my Redhorse persona.
We aren’t going to leave until we finish locking up all the leftwingnuts and reinstate the concentration camps. (We’re monitoring your phone and getting your cell ready.)
Since you asked, “How do you managed to get dressed in the morning ?”
It isn’t easy with all the swastikas and deaths heads to polish. Black does tend to pick up a lot of cat hair and dandruff too.
Auf wiedersehen dummerassel!
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 22, 2006 at 8:15 PM The discussion has become quite uncivil. Some conservatives have multiple alias’s but I think WTH and Redhorse are themselves. Scorp and Tina1 could be the same (I have often thought they were Ann Coulter) but I think that most people are honest about their identities. Maybe I’m just a Polly Anna of the left.
I don’t want to get into the first Gulf War all over again. It is painful. I do believe that the sanctions regime had a horrific humanitarian effect. Denis Halliday told the truth. I also believe that we goaded Saddam into invading Kuwait in order to invade and control the country. We could have stopped the invasion if that was really the goal. From the first quarter of 1990 until August Saddam massed troops on the border of the “19th Province” and all but announced his intention to invade. We never went to the UNSC and got a resolution to intervene in his plans. In the summer of 1990, April Glaspie basically gave him a green light to invade with her famous “the US doesn’t take a position on Arab/Arab conflicts” remark in an official state sanctioned dialogue with Saddam. The tactics used in the war itself were often discribed as a Turkey shoot. There were unnecessary violations of the Geneva Code with the slaughter of troops that had already surrendered. The use of depleted uranium was deplorable. There was the incident when over 400 civilians were killed in a bomb shelter by one such round of ordinance. There are many Gulf War vets that suffer from the health effects today as well. Gulf War I inexorably led to Gulf War II and we all know the history.
Blonde Mike, you shouldn’t get so mad at WTH. He doesn’t have the same White Male Rage Issues that Scorp, W.Otis, Hijinx, and Tina1 have. Some of his ideas are reasonable. He wants to save Social Security with higher payroll taxes on the rich. There’s progress!! Seriously!! We need a diverse pool of discussants so the ITT blog does not turn into a “lefty love in” as we used to say in Madison, WI. I do agree that some others are no fun to deal with as they just spew lies and platitudes. Chopper is OK when he sites solid facts.
I read the American Prospect myself. I used to subscribe. It is a fantastic magazine. I liked it better than the Nation or the Progressive because it was more substantial and sophisticated in their argumentation. I still like the other two, however. To these I would add the Monthly Review, the New Left Review, and Z Magazine. The first two of these are fairly Marxist but pretty sophisticated. Regular reading of these will definitely put hair on your political chest ( is that sexist, I mean is it genderizing certain things which should remain gender neutral?)
The important thing is to keep on reading both philosophical and topical (daily events) sources. The far right makes fewer fine distinctions in their reasoning than the left. As one well published political science professor on the left once remarked, “they assume too much of what needs first to be explained or proven.” This is what I see as one of the key differences between the left and right. Keep reading and discussing. Cabbie.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Nov 22, 2006 at 9:46 PM None of the Arab Street would have missed Kuwait. The Al-Sabah family
are the main ones who missed running their family dictatorship. The
90% of the population that were non-Kuwaitis and had no voting rights
would not have missed the old Kuwait.
The rest of your wordsalad is unintelligible.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 22, 2006 at 10:28 PM Your views on Kuwait are out of line. It is one thing to have preferred a diplomatic solution to the Iraqi invasion and to decry the Kuwaiti regime as a dictatorship. It is quite another to wrongly assert that no one would have objected to the Iraqi (Saddamist) digestion of Kuwait on the grounds that it is not a real country. BM, frequent, irresponsible statements like this are one reason more people are not drawn to the left.
In the first place, the current, highly diverse, population of Kuwait is just under 3 million most of whom are Muslims. Only one third are actual citizens (more than the 10% you claimed) and most are there voluntarily in order to earn the relatively high salaries associated with the oil industry that dominates the entire economy and society. Kuwait relies on mostly foreigner labor, professional, and technical experts of all kinds to run and service its highly complex petrolium industry. This has long been the case. This doesn’t delegitimate its status as a sovereign state with rights.
The human rights abuses of the occupation were exaggerated. The story about the 312 premature babies dumped from their incubators on the cold floor of a hospital in Kuwait City appears to have been a fabrication and one which apparently produced the slim US congressional five vote margin in favor of the war. The traumatized young girl, who testified before a stunned US Congress, was misrepresented as a random witness to the alleged Iraqi atrocity. She was in fact the daughter of the Emir of Kuwait. The Kuwaiti Royal Family refused any post war investigations and disallowed any post war interviews with any Kuwaiti royals or anyone close to the situation in Kuwait by foreign journalists, human rights organizations, or political or military officials.
Clearly our objective was to save a source of over 10% of the worlds known oil resources and not to save a model democracy. Other options were availble such as negotiations. Saddam clearly wanted a face saving way out of Kuwait. The US didn’t want to give him one (a) because they didn’t want to “reward aggression”, and (b) because they wanted Saddam gone! Many lives were needlessly lost. The Gulf War was wrong. But so was the invasion of Kuwait. Why give the likes of Saddam all that extra territory, population, wealth, and oil? Saddam got his just deserts. The real problem is that the US doesn’t distinguish between the people and their leaders. That is why there is torture and murder of so many Iraqi Sunnis today. The US occupation is gradually morphing into a genocide!! This is hardly a way to “liberate” people.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Nov 22, 2006 at 11:55 PM You are wrong. When it was “liberated” in 1991 80% of the population in
Kuwait was non-Kuwaiti. Unless they have done a hell of a lot of ethnic
cleansing that never made the media over here, your figures are out to
lunch. They did massively kill and expel Palestinians on the false grounds that they backed Saddam’s invasion, which was not true.
They wanted a negotiated settlement and if Kuwait had conceded the
two stolen oil fields they got illegally through slanted drilling that would
have ended the crisis. The fact is that those boundaries were not sacred
and it was not a bad thing to be rid of the Al-Sabahs. Contrary to you this
was not a general Left position because most of the soft Left stupidly accepted the Bushian premises which were wrong.
From most of your comments I think our disagreement here is narrow
and our differences more apparent than real. I was aiming them at WTH
and his rightist brainbrothers. I agree with you on oil and the absolute
desirability of a negotiated settlement.
Goddamn Saddam’s invasion totally queered up the story on John Hull-
North Contra Drug Connection that Nina Wax and I were trying to sell to 60 Minutes, Nightline, et al.
See the April 1990 Z for the print version. After Saddam invaded all the
media wanted to talk about was Kuwait.
The baby incubator tale was invented by Tom Lantos, Dem scumball
from here in SF.
Kuwait was never a real state, it was the 19th province of Iraq as all the
Iraqis had always proclaimed and when 80% of the population is non-
your nationality you do not have a nation, PC be damned here.
Again, we largely agree but there was nothing irresponsible or untrue in
what I wrote. I never contested that many were Muslim.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 23, 2006 at 2:23 AM BM,
You are quite correct. I don’t know how I could make such a dumb mistake. Of course, one third is currently citizens and the rest guest workers. At the time of the invasion, only 30% at best of the 215,000,000 Kuwaiti residents were actual citizens. Most of the rest were foreign guests that were there to run the oil industry. Today , there is nearly 3 million of whom one third is kuwaiti. Of that only 15% has the franchise. Kuwait was highly undemocratic. But it was not freed by Iraq. I agree with you on such issues as slant drilling and Kuwaiti financial intransigence over Iraqi debt but both were dictatorships. Iraq had no business invading.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Nov 23, 2006 at 6:19 AM Chicago, we agree. I was not for the invasion but the US Ambassador
to Iraq, April Glaspie, gave Hussein the green light. But he was stupid
to do it because of US-UK oil interests. Since Carter and Ronald McDonald Reagan gave him the green light to invade Iraq he got
unbearably cocky. He did kill thousands of leftists during the Reagan
years without one peep from DC. Only when he threatened Israel in
April, 1990 did he replace Noreiga as the major villain.
Appreciate your learned and thoughtful contributions here.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 24, 2006 at 5:37 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Moberg
- Labor’s New Leader
The AFL-CIO stakes its future on Richard Trumka. - The Retail Devolution
Two new books explore corporate evil. - Who’s Got the Power?
Progressives find themselves outmaneuvered on healthcare reform. - Not Your Parents’ Labor Movement
Why the Republic sit-in failed to inspire other worker actions. - Solidarity Reunited?
Unions rally around shrunken UNITE HERE as it takes on its former ally. - Can a Union Divided Stand?
UNITE HERE dissolves in conflict ... with a little help from SEIU.
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
