Obama's class warfare

[bga1]

The new administration has continued it's breathtaking changes and they are almost certain to pass (of course): (you have to sya Obama was honest about the word change- some people just interpreted it's meaning wrongly)

Here are the government actions and the reactions you will see from business:

Action:Cap and trade- raising the cost of energy for businesses and forcing the use of more expensive alternatives.

Reaction: Business will not pay the added cost so they will pass it on to the consumer. In some cases the consumer will pay it - in other cases- where possible the consumer will purchase the forweign competition. Everybody loses. This is a net tax increase for everybody.

Action: Increased taxation on the top earners. This includes the tax bracket and reduced deductions for charitable giving.

Reaction: I know first hand that we will be slower to hire added staff- much slower. Benefits will be reduced including health insurance. In my case charitable giving will be eliminated totally for secular causes and increased for faith based causes. I will let the government pay. Right now charities are much more efficient than government and better for our country, but we'lll soon see how government does with the increased load. We will look for every possible tax strategy. Businesses always adapt and the consumer always pays for it. The net will be less jobs in the long run- that is certain. The jobs will also be lower paying!

Action: Universal health care; again for the pockets of the rich Obama will fund health insurance for 48 million more people. Prepare for the lines out your doctor's office as people go for free care and fewer doctors are around to give it.

Reaction: Businesses will begin offering less health care benefits or none at all.

The end result of all of this is more burden on the government as businesses drop charity, benefits and jobs. Beautiful!

[UpnorthGo4]

You are absoulutely correct. Obama never made any secret about what he would do if elected President. These policies and programs are what the people voted for. Republican policies of the last 25 years have decimated the middle class in the U.S. and resulted in an underclass that is growing rapidly. The richest 1% of people own 38% of all wealth in the U.S., and their share of income rose from 12% to 23% in the last 20 years. Democrats are going to do what they can to prevent try to prevent Republicans from turning the U.S. into a nation of a few extremely rich people and a large amount of poor people. If you want to call it class warfare be my guest. It is what it is.

[bga1]

I believe that, as part of the middle class here in America, one lives better than just about any place on earth. Here's what is more beautiful about the America I have known: up to now, if you didn't want to be part of the middle class you had every way of earning your way out of it. This is because business and entrepenuers have succeeded so fabulously here.

But look, money is over rated it doesn't buy happiness. Being given other people's money is even less fulfilling. The incentives should be made for people to make as much money as they can and be inspired to give away as much of it as possible. This legislation runs counter to that.

Call it class warfare or not- I don't care. The bottom line is how it works. It will work somewhat short term- it will not work long term.

[Schnoodler]

i believe this country ran pretty well for 80 years with a more progressive system. It only took 20 years of that reversal to bankrupt it. If you're looking for a pragmatic solution it's the opposite of what we just had.

[bga1]

We have lived much better the last 20 years. Much.

If you look at the old progressive tax systems you have to also remember that you could write off 10 times more than you could today. There were many many loopholes and investments where you could create deductions several times faster than the cash outflows related. Back then it was possible to have a 60% tax break and pay almost zilch in taxes perpetually.

If you look at historical charts on the tax rate you will find that there is zero correlation between tax rate and tax revenue. Zero. Tax revenue is driven totally by GNP. Driving up taxes is not the way to increase GNP- I promise you. Ask your boss who owns a small business what he thinks. He is most likely strategizing right now how he can have less employees to drive the same revenue so that he can survive this.

Theory is nice and should be part of the discussion. Reality is quite another thing to deal with.

[Gopher4Life]

>>If you're looking for a pragmatic solution it's the opposite of what we just had.<<

That's just plain goofy.

[UpnorthGo4]

From todays STRIB -

"Minnesotans earning $191,000 a year and greater receive 30 percent of total state household income. The pay 8.8 percent of that income in combined state and local taxes on income, property and sales. Those earning $69,500 a year or less receive a similar 30 percent of the state's household income. They pay 12.3 percent of that income in these same combined state and local taxes."

What the f*ck is wrong with this picture?

Warrent Buffett recently asked: "Why should he be taxed at a lower rate than his secretary?" There is no good answer to that question that people like me will ever accept. If Republicans want a true revolution in this country, they should just keep advocating policies that make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The ability to express one's disapproval of the government is one of the primary reasons for the Second Amendment. Am I not correct? I know all you NRA members will agree with me.

[TruthTeller]

From todays STRIB -

"Minnesotans earning $191,000 a year and greater receive 30 percent of total state household income. The pay 8.8 percent of that income in combined state and local taxes on income, property and sales. Those earning $69,500 a year or less receive a similar 30 percent of the state's household income. They pay 12.3 percent of that income in these same combined state and local taxes."

What the f*ck is wrong with this picture?

"Warrent Buffett recently asked: "Why should he be taxed at a lower rate than his secretary?" There is no good answer to that question that people like me will ever accept. If Republicans want a true revolution in this country, they should just keep advocating policies that make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The ability to express one's disapproval of the government is one of the primary reasons for the Second Amendment - am I not correct? I know all you NRA members will agree with me.

Who is in the 12.3 bracket and who is in the 8.8 bracket?

I'll start - 12.3%

[Gopher4Life]

Upnorth,

>>"Why should he be taxed at a lower rate than his secretary?" <<

Because "he" risks his capital to create the jobs that employees (including his secretary) depend on. It's in everyone's best interest to encourage him to keep taking that risk.

>>There is no good answer to that question that people like me will ever accept.<<

If "people like you" can't accept the reality of business, nothing I can say will ever help you.

>>If Republicans want a true revolution in this country, they should just keep advocating policies that make the rich richer and the poor poorer.<<

Investment and productivity, not business-friendly tax rates, are making the rich richer.

[bga1]

From todays STRIB -

"Minnesotans earning $191,000 a year and greater receive 30 percent of total state household income. The pay 8.8 percent of that income in combined state and local taxes on income, property and sales. Those earning $69,500 a year or less receive a similar 30 percent of the state's household income. They pay 12.3 percent of that income in these same combined state and local taxes."

What the f*ck is wrong with this picture?

Warrent Buffett recently asked: "Why should he be taxed at a lower rate than his secretary?" There is no good answer to that question that people like me will ever accept. If Republicans want a true revolution in this country, they should just keep advocating policies that make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The ability to express one's disapproval of the government is one of the primary reasons for the Second Amendment. Am I not correct? I know all you NRA members will agree with me.

I'll tell you what's wrong with the picture- your understanding of it.

The person who makes 191K pays about 17K
The person who makes 69.5 pays about 8.5K or half

Meanwhile they both use the same roads, schools and government services.

If we go to a restaurant together and I tell you I'll pick up 2/3 of the bill are you going to be angry?

All of the sudden so many Dems think Warren Buffett is somehow in touch with the common man. Buffett is so far removed he has no clue. One thing he knows: It doesn't matter how much he get's taxed because he is already wealthy beyond his ability to blow it. He's jsut playing the game these days. If you take a person that has a great year and has just made $300K for the first time in their life- there's a long ways to go between there and security. Those peopel still feel the pain that Buffett hasn't felt in years.

[Omega015]

The person who makes 191K pays about 17K
The person who makes 69.5 pays about 8.5K or half


Yeah, that left over 174k must really suck.

These two crowds don't eat at the same restaurants. The dude pulling down 190k probably doesn't get his steaks at Applebee's.

[From the Barn]

You don't have a problem with class warfare bga, you have a problem with losing.

[TruthTeller]

I'll tell you what's wrong with the picture- your understanding of it.

The person who makes 191K pays about 17K
The person who makes 69.5 pays about 8.5K or half

Meanwhile they both use the same roads, schools and government services.

If we go to a restaurant together and I tell you I'll pick up 2/3 of the bill are you going to be angry?

All of the sudden so many Dems think Warren Buffett is somehow in touch with the common man. Buffett is so far removed he has no clue. One thing he knows: It doesn't matter how much he get's taxed because he is already wealthy beyond his ability to blow it. He's jsut playing the game these days. If you take a person that has a great year and has just made $300K for the first time in their life- there's a long ways to go between there and security. Those peopel still feel the pain that Buffett hasn't felt in years.

And they both should pay the same tax rate.

[bga1]

You don't have a problem with class warfare bga, you have a problem with losing.

I hate seeing America losing. I personally have no plans to lose. I don't control everything and I don't know what tomorrow holds but I plan on doing just fine.

[jamiche]

I believe that, as part of the middle class here in America, one lives better than just about any place on earth. Here's what is more beautiful about the America I have known: up to now, if you didn't want to be part of the middle class you had every way of earning your way out of it. This is because business and entrepenuers have succeeded so fabulously here.

But look, money is over rated it doesn't buy happiness. Being given other people's money is even less fulfilling. The incentives should be made for people to make as much money as they can and be inspired to give away as much of it as possible. This legislation runs counter to that.

Call it class warfare or not- I don't care. The bottom line is how it works. It will work somewhat short term- it will not work long term.

Stop whining and pay your damn taxes. I'm tired of people who have prospered acting like victims. In your mind the common good consists of the distance between the end of your nose and the mirror. That mind set has gotten this country in a helluva lot of trouble. You've done well, all power to you, now pay your fair share and stop complaining.

[bga1]

Stop whining and pay your damn taxes. I'm tired of people who have prospered acting like victims. In your mind the common good consists of the distance between the end of your nose and the mirror. That mind set has gotten this country in a helluva lot of trouble. You've done well, all power to you, now pay your fair share and stop complaining.

It's not just the taxes I pay that interest me. This income redistribution won't produce jobs. This won't inspire business. What we need is not people taking money from one bucket and giving it into another. We need an expanding economy that produces real jobs - not jobs the governement makes up.

You just refuse to get it that increasing taxes on those who make more is a contractionary move. It causes businesses to hire less.

As to the selfishness you refer to, I will match my charitable giving to yours prorata to our incomes all day long. And it's consistently true when comparing liberals to conservatives. Liberals talk about giving and like it as long as it comes from the government. Conservatives as a general rule do the giving themselves.

[bga1]

And they both should pay the same tax rate.

No they should both pay the same.

Again, are you suggesting that every business should charge according to income? Would that be fair? Of course not!

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

No they should both pay the same.

Again, are you suggesting that every business should charge according to income? Would that be fair? Of course not!

The fact that people should pay the same is the single most stupid thing ever said on this board.

No wonder conservatives want to run government like a business. That way they can screw the middle class over.

[bga1]

Ski u mah- the point was - IDEALLY they should pay the same. It's a reaction to the stupidity and ungratefulness of those who make less and are subsidized by those who make more. The remark was made that it was crazy that lower income people pay a higher percentage. In reality the higher paid person pays twice as much yet the poster was still angry. Good grief!

Every conservative I know - including me is willing to pay more when we earn more. But the current idea is that we can continue to go after the job producers for every incremental dollar from here on out and that has to stop. I promise you, ski u mah, such action will cost the middle class jobs. I'm for making the system work and that means some people paying more than their share - up to a limit.

Ideally- everyone would be ABLE to carry their full weight and no one would have to pay more. Would you not agree?

[Gopher4Life]

jamiche,

>>You've done well, all power to you, now pay your fair share and stop complaining.<<

I wish our elected officials and presidential appointees would do the same. ;)

[Gopher4Life]

If you're one of those on this thread who want to tax everyone at the same rate regardless of their investment and their track record of producing jobs, brace yourselves for what is ahead. We're about to witness the greatest exchange of power from private sector to public sector in the nation's history. I predict that those of you who are educated, motivated, responsible, and highly productive won't like it very much once we get there. Our founders set up a very limited government, not a huge, burdensome government that controls and provides everything to its citizens from cradle to grave. America was not set up as a socialist nation for good reason.

[MNSnowman]

The idea of progressive tax rates -- which bga refers to as "class warfare" -- is nothing new and was part of the underlying philosophy of income taxes when established in 1913. (source: US Treasury Fact Sheet (http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml))

Did everyone pay the same rate since then? Nope. In fact, in 1918 "only 5 percent of the population paid income taxes and yet the income tax funded one-third of the cost of (World War I)." (ibid)

bga uses a recurring theme about the effect of the tax policy upon business and typically forecasts gloom and doom if the proposed policies are passed. Yet, I presume bga would point back to the economic expansion and growth that occurred from the mid-1980s through 2005. It should be noted that:

The 1986 Tax Reform Act was roughly revenue neutral, that is, it was not intended to raise or lower taxes, but it shifted some of the tax burden from individuals to businesses. Much of the increase in the tax on business was the result of an increase in the tax on business capital formation. It achieved some simplifications for individuals through the elimination of such things as income averaging, the deduction for consumer interest, and the deduction for state and local sales taxes. But in many respects the Act greatly added to the complexity of business taxation, especially in the area of international taxation.
One other takeaway in this piece is that the United States has historically increased taxes to help pay for various wars. (Prior to the establishment of income taxes, excise taxes were largely increased or initiated to pay for the Spanish-American War, the Civil War, etc.) Yet the tax rates during the Iraqi war - or war on terrorism - have stayed flat or actually declined, despite the cost of the hostilities and aid to Iraq as a result of those hostilities.

[bga1]

Stop whining and pay your damn taxes. I'm tired of people who have prospered acting like victims. In your mind the common good consists of the distance between the end of your nose and the mirror. That mind set has gotten this country in a helluva lot of trouble. You've done well, all power to you, now pay your fair share and stop complaining.

Jamiche - let me try this one more time as this is an important point for understanding. I think you own a business don't you? If so you should get this.

I have done well and it's a blessing- no doubt. The government is not responsible for that any more than it isresponsible for a bum in the gutter being there. However the government we have had up to now has had a structure that allowed it to happen. For that I am grateful.

However, despite my good situation, the business I am in is investment intense and also very prone to suffer at times like this. We have built a lot of assets, not much debt and not a ton of liquidity. The business supports a lot of people that we are loyal to and vice versa. In times like these we make a decison to lose some money to keep them on staff. We can lose money three times faster than we can make it and the government doesn't give a rip when that happens. There are a ton of potential pitfalls between here and retirement. If we avoid them we retire in style- if not it's a nice but certainly more modest future. I don't live like a rich person, I have kids in college and certainly am not eligible for a cent's worth of help.

All of that is to say that the current living is good, the future could be good, but wealth building is far from easy even in the past environment. So the idea that a person in the top few percent making 250K or more is rich is not necessarily so - even though it may seem like a hilarious amount of money to the college students or 20 somethings on this board. With the tax rates, charitable giving and a couple of kids in college you can burn through that easily without having fancy cars, clothes or jewelry. None of those bear much importance to me.

Am I a very fortunate person? You bet. Have I given back? Plenty. My concern is that business people are going to reduce their risk posture (that has made them grow) and their loyalty to employees (which is good for the middle class) if they are perceived to be the financial target for every government program.

So when you hear Warren Buffet sing Obama's praises and say we need to pay more taxes- that rings hollow. He's not in touch, he has hundreds of billions and no amount of taxation affects the wealth he has or his future.

[bga1]

The idea of progressive tax rates -- which bga refers to as "class warfare" -- is nothing new and was part of the underlying philosophy of income taxes when established in 1913. (source: US Treasury Fact Sheet (http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml))

Did everyone pay the same rate since then? Nope. In fact, in 1918 "only 5 percent of the population paid income taxes and yet the income tax funded one-third of the cost of (World War I)." (ibid)

bga uses a recurring theme about the effect of the tax policy upon business and typically forecasts gloom and doom if the proposed policies are passed. Yet, I presume bga would point back to the economic expansion and growth that occurred from the mid-1980s through 2005. It should be noted that:

The 1986 Tax Reform Act was roughly revenue neutral, that is, it was not intended to raise or lower taxes, but it shifted some of the tax burden from individuals to businesses. Much of the increase in the tax on business was the result of an increase in the tax on business capital formation. It achieved some simplifications for individuals through the elimination of such things as income averaging, the deduction for consumer interest, and the deduction for state and local sales taxes. But in many respects the Act greatly added to the complexity of business taxation, especially in the area of international taxation.
One other takeaway in this piece is that the United States has historically increased taxes to help pay for various wars. (Prior to the establishment of income taxes, excise taxes were largely increased or initiated to pay for the Spanish-American War, the Civil War, etc.) Yet the tax rates during the Iraqi war - or war on terrorism - have stayed flat or actually declined, despite the cost of the hostilities and aid to Iraq as a result of those hostilities.

Snow-

I'd have to look at the 1986 Act to comment much on it. I think a lot of people confuse small businesses with huge ones. Yet, right now the smalls are being lumped right into the pile with the bigs. There has been greed, but it's not prevalent in the small business world. You don't survive on this level with a strategy of greed.

As to the class warfare- if you listen to Obama speak, nearly everytime he speaks of a program he wants to do he says he'll tap the top 5% to do so. He is creating a disincentive for that class and you can see on this board that the rhetoric sells quite well to most who are not in that class.
Does he intend to creat class warfare - I doubt it. I just don't think he has a clue. He's never run anything, nor taken a major investment risk or used his own cash to hire. He just sees it as an available pool of money to fund his ideology. It is extremely convenient to him that he can utilize the tools of envy and the relative small size of this targeted group.

If you are from Hollywood or you are Warren Buffet or you are in the top half of the top 1 percent, then getting taxed higher may just be a fine way of paying your social debt or to over come guilt. It's of no effect; you will remain rich and if you are an employer you most likely run a large enough enterprise such that there is insulation from real living breathing employees that you hurt when you downsize if the business environment sours.

But to those ont he margins of the top 5% it's a huge detriment to accumulation of retirement wealth and to maintain and grow a business that makes employees lives better. I just don't think this will work well and history shows that.

[MNSnowman]

But to those on the margins of the top 5% it's a huge detriment to accumulation of retirement wealth and to maintain and grow a business that makes employees lives better. I just don't think this will work well and history shows that. (emphasis added)But it doesn't, bga. We've had progressive rates since 1913 and there have been folks "on the margins" of the top rate(s) as well. So are you going to argue that we've engaged in class warfare for 95 years and we need to go back to excise taxes and tariffs as sources of revenue?

[bga1]

But it doesn't, bga. We've had progressive rates since 1913 and there have been folks "on the margins" of the top rate(s) as well. So are you going to argue that we've engaged in class warfare for 95 years and we need to go back to excise taxes and tariffs as sources of revenue?

Would we want the middle class living like it did 95 years ago? I think not. The middle class of the past 20-30 years has lived better than ever before. We have during this period hit 3 or 4 recessions - as we did when rates were higher (we've had one about every seven years on the average since the Depression). Has there been greed and fraud that needs to be dealt with? Yup. Always had it always will- regardless of the system. When we have had higher tax brackets than today there were also tons of loopholes. In those days a good accoutant could help a rich man drive his tax burden to near zero because of all the tax shelter investments and deductions available.

Also it should be noted that higher tax rates do not increase revenue. So Obama plans to pay for these programs with what? Sinking revenues? Or more debt? Look up curves on the relationship between the highest tax rates and tax revenue. There is no relationship. Tax revenue tracks with GDP not tax rates. So this whole deal may well be fraudlent if revenues do not increase as he projects. Remember this: CBO revenue estimates that he may use are static models-they do not attempt to predict the affect of the tax hike on GDP they only predict the effect of the tax hike in a static world.

So,again he speaks as though all programs in this vastly expanded government that he is subtly selling us can be funded by this top 5%. (Funny he says he doesn't believe in big government during the very speech in which he proposes it- but that's for another thread).

What I will say is that what he proposes won't work long term. In the words of Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

[jamiche]

It's not just the taxes I pay that interest me. This income redistribution won't produce jobs. This won't inspire business. What we need is not people taking money from one bucket and giving it into another. We need an expanding economy that produces real jobs - not jobs the governement makes up.

You just refuse to get it that increasing taxes on those who make more is a contractionary move. It causes businesses to hire less.

As to the selfishness you refer to, I will match my charitable giving to yours prorata to our incomes all day long. And it's consistently true when comparing liberals to conservatives. Liberals talk about giving and like it as long as it comes from the government. Conservatives as a general rule do the giving themselves.

I'm sure that you are generous in your charitable giving. I'm equally sure that it is not to the common good. People give to the organizations that are compatible (e.g. I'm pretty sure that you don't give to Planned Parenthood and ACORN and I know that I don't give to Dobson, Robertson, et. al.). That is selected interests and not the common good.

Your many comments about personal responsibility and people taking care of themselves make sense only in a perfect world. Unfortunately, we live in a country with literally millions of mentally ill people. We live in a country with millions of physically ill people. We live in a country with millions of situationally disadvantaged people. They don't have the blessed gifts and advantages that you and I have. It's emotionally satisfying to be myopic, but it tragically misses the point. A just society doesn't whine about paying a few extra bucks in taxes. A just society takes care of the millions of people who desperately need help taking care of themselves.

[Schnoodler]

you'd have to define the middle class pretty narrowly Beeg to assert they've lived better. I can tell you that the 2nd quintile which is part of the middle has been significanly worse off. I'd be inclined to believe the actual middle the third quintile hasn't been any better off, at best even. Now the 4th and 5th, yeah boom times.

Generarlly ideas such as disposable income, access to health care, length of work weeks etc. are generally measurables. You can judge disposable income by %savings, access to health care by % with health care, length of work week by... length of work week.

They're real numbers you can look up. If you actually take that time you might form a different opinion.

[Gopher4Life]

Schnoodler,

Nobody opposes "taking care of the millions of people who desperately need help taking care of themselves." Get real. We'd be a lot better off if the bleeding heart liberals would be as generous with their own money as they want to be with mine.

Any time a dollar is handed to somebody, it had to first be taken from somebody. I'm all for encouraging those with to voluntarily give to those without. I oppose government sticking its ugly nose into the picture and taking from the productive to hand out to the unproductive.

[Dr.Don]

"......promote the general welfare..........." From our Founding Fathers.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html

[Schnoodler]

As usual you pound the poor. The redistribution of the wealth over the last 10 years has not been towards the poor. If money was taken out of any pocket it was from the 20th to 60th group. All hard working folks, not on welfare roles. and where has it migrated to? Well you'd have to look at which groups expanded their wealth while all others saw a reduction. That's right G4, the upper middle and the wealthy.

the data doesn't bare out your right wing crap. The middle has taken a pounding suffering net reductions in wealth while the wealthy has increased their wealth. that is the cold hard reality. And oddly enough following reductions in progressive taxation. Hmmm.

Interesting. If one group has less wealth and another has more, in a macro sense I'd think you have wealth redistribuiton. And in the spirit of yourself and Beeg, we need to put a stop to that. So, what changes do you think we could make to return the wealth back to the middle class and move to healthier levels for this country. Getting away from the way it ought to be thinking and towards something that might actually result in a healthy economy how can we correct this unhealthy trend?

I know it hurts to think so hard and not depend on right wing sound bites, but just try a little bit. you might like it.

I'll help. The negative trends didn't really kick up until the late 80s' after the first adjustments to progressive taxation took hold, but then made an even more dramatic jump after the next round of bush tax cuts. That's a clue. Just a little help.

More help. If you reduce taxes there's more money for increasing wealth. Another clue.

If you reduce one segment of the populations tax then another group by simple math now has a greater comparable burden. another clue. tougher I know.

Now for the final piece and the toughest. Republicans of yore got this, but it's a little forgotten and real hard for the right wing folk now adays. But try. There is a point in personal finaces where you make more money than you spend. Once you go beyond that point you start building wealth. Up to that point you cannot. It gets tougher, hang with me. If your wage doesn't go up, and your expenses increase you now are unable to create as much wealth. Or if you were on that breakeven point you now are behind again. And from a macro POV, you can actually track how much of the population is able to create wealth and how much can not. It's handy stuff. At one point in US history, and not so long ago, it was thought that the more people on the creating wealth side the better off we were as a country. In fact, it guided policy. If a policy change resulted in a greater percentage of Americans enjoying the fruits of their labor then it was the right one. It really wasn't a goal to create more wealth for the already wealthy, simply to increase the overall standard of living in the country. Those were happy days. They didn't even dicker over this much, just how to go about it and what tax levels would best to it. And the tools of the trade? Progressive taxation, capital gains taxes, and to a lesser extent death taxes.

So think real hard, with your own brain even. Look up the stats. Analyze the trends. Maybe just maybe the republicans will start listneing to the data and quit yammering about what the data would look like if we only quit paying attention to that data and listen to them instead. Maybe the Republican party will actually start representing all of America again and not just the affluent and ignorant. Maybe then we can all get on board with trying to return America, All of America, not just the top 40%, back to a more prosperous time.

[bga1]

I'm sure that you are generous in your charitable giving. I'm equally sure that it is not to the common good. People give to the organizations that are compatible (e.g. I'm pretty sure that you don't give to Planned Parenthood and ACORN and I know that I don't give to Dobson, Robertson, et. al.). That is selected interests and not the common good.

Your many comments about personal responsibility and people taking care of themselves make sense only in a perfect world. Unfortunately, we live in a country with literally millions of mentally ill people. We live in a country with millions of physically ill people. We live in a country with millions of situationally disadvantaged people. They don't have the blessed gifts and advantages that you and I have. It's emotionally satisfying to be myopic, but it tragically misses the point. A just society doesn't whine about paying a few extra bucks in taxes. A just society takes care of the millions of people who desperately need help taking care of themselves.

This may come as a shock to you but I find Planned Parenthood and Acorn as being about as far from the common good as you can get. I think you'd be surprised at where my money might go - and it's not to Pat Robertson.

A just society finds balance between enabling and helping. We have crossed over that line and are taking an irreversable plunge right now. Enabling is not a blessing- it's a curse.

[Friend Of Tubby]

In 2 years, they WILL do what 50 years of the Cold War could not do. The USA will be transformed from capitalist nation to socialist nation by 2010. And they cannot be stopped.

[Schnoodler]

Stick to BB. Just a thought.

[bga1]

As usual you pound the poor. The redistribution of the wealth over the last 10 years has not been towards the poor. If money was taken out of any pocket it was from the 20th to 60th group. All hard working folks, not on welfare roles. and where has it migrated to? Well you'd have to look at which groups expanded their wealth while all others saw a reduction. That's right G4, the upper middle and the wealthy.

the data doesn't bare out your right wing crap. The middle has taken a pounding suffering net reductions in wealth while the wealthy has increased their wealth. that is the cold hard reality. And oddly enough following reductions in progressive taxation. Hmmm.

Interesting. If one group has less wealth and another has more, in a macro sense I'd think you have wealth redistribuiton. And in the spirit of yourself and Beeg, we need to put a stop to that. So, what changes do you think we could make to return the wealth back to the middle class and move to healthier levels for this country. Getting away from the way it ought to be thinking and towards something that might actually result in a healthy economy how can we correct this unhealthy trend?

I know it hurts to think so hard and not depend on right wing sound bites, but just try a little bit. you might like it.

I'll help. The negative trends didn't really kick up until the late 80s' after the first adjustments to progressive taxation took hold, but then made an even more dramatic jump after the next round of bush tax cuts. That's a clue. Just a little help.

More help. If you reduce taxes there's more money for increasing wealth. Another clue.

If you reduce one segment of the populations tax then another group by simple math now has a greater comparable burden. another clue. tougher I know.

Now for the final piece and the toughest. Republicans of yore got this, but it's a little forgotten and real hard for the right wing folk now adays. But try. There is a point in personal finaces where you make more money than you spend. Once you go beyond that point you start building wealth. Up to that point you cannot. It gets tougher, hang with me. If your wage doesn't go up, and your expenses increase you now are unable to create as much wealth. Or if you were on that breakeven point you now are behind again. And from a macro POV, you can actually track how much of the population is able to create wealth and how much can not. It's handy stuff. At one point in US history, and not so long ago, it was thought that the more people on the creating wealth side the better off we were as a country. In fact, it guided policy. If a policy change resulted in a greater percentage of Americans enjoying the fruits of their labor then it was the right one. It really wasn't a goal to create more wealth for the already wealthy, simply to increase the overall standard of living in the country. Those were happy days. They didn't even dicker over this much, just how to go about it and what tax levels would best to it. And the tools of the trade? Progressive taxation, capital gains taxes, and to a lesser extent death taxes.

So think real hard, with your own brain even. Look up the stats. Analyze the trends. Maybe just maybe the republicans will start listneing to the data and quit yammering about what the data would look like if we only quit paying attention to that data and listen to them instead. Maybe the Republican party will actually start representing all of America again and not just the affluent and ignorant. Maybe then we can all get on board with trying to return America, All of America, not just the top 40%, back to a more prosperous time.

Actually, I think we all know that the Democratic party represents the ignorant.

[Schnoodler]

i thought it might be too big a task. carry on.

[MNSnowman]

In 2 years, they WILL do what 50 years of the Cold Ware could not do. The USA will be transformed from capitalist nation to socialist nation by 2010. And they cannot be stopped.Is "Cold Ware" like Tupperware?

Schnoodler's suggestion bears your strong consideration.

[Gopher4Life]

We can argue that socialism is good or bad, but let's please not foolishly deny that we're marching toward that end.

Obama has always been a leftist, a fact that many voters naively ignored due to their extreme disgust with Bush, his GOP party, and his prolonged war. Even Barney Franks now says we always knew what Obama is and where he would try to take the country. The problem is that more American voters will admit to having been fooled each day, one of democracy's weaknesses.

[Friend Of Tubby]

We can argue that socialism is good or bad, but let's please not foolishly deny that we're marching toward that end.

Obama has always been a leftist, a fact that many voters naively ignored due to their extreme disgust with Bush, his GOP party, and his prolonged war. Even Barney Franks now says we always knew what Obama is and where he would try to take the country. The problem is that more American voters will admit to having been fooled each day, one of democracy's weaknesses.

We are INDEED headed down that path. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid all share the Socialist vision for USA. The D's control WH, Senate, and HOR because the R's sucked the past 8 years.

Credit where due. Obama hasn't lied. He's actually doing what he said he would do.

[Friend Of Tubby]

Is "Cold Ware" like Tupperware?

Schnoodler's suggestion bears your strong consideration.

Typo, sorry. Cold WAR (late 1940's to late 1980's).

[Friend Of Tubby]

Stick to BB. Just a thought.

Sorry, no. We are seeing the demise of the USA as we knew it and creation of a new USA that many of us won't like.

[Gopher4Life]

Those who are sold on European socialism will cheer all the way, but many who presently support the transition, plus many more who are merely along for the ride, will regret what they find up ahead.

[monk10]

Sorry, no. We are seeing the demise of the USA as we knew it and creation of a new USA that many of us won't like.

I have a hard time understanding what this USA you are talking about, since the USA is constantly changing, and people tend to switch between we live in a better time now, and things are worse then ever depending on whether it is convienent to their argument. Most of us who like to study the effects of things have a hard time distinguishing between your over-exaggeration, improper use of terms, and fear mongering. Which one are you using?

[Friend Of Tubby]

I have a hard time understanding what this USA you are talking about, since the USA is constantly changing, and people tend to switch between we live in a better time now, and things are worse then ever depending on whether it is convienent to their argument. Most of us who like to study the effects of things have a hard time distinguishing between your over-exaggeration, improper use of terms, and fear mongering. Which one are you using?

The USA will become much more like Europe.

[Caravan Shaker]

Actually, I think we all know that the Democratic party represents the ignorant.

And the most educated. (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html)

http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww170/Caravan_Shaker/politics.jpg

[bga1]

There is no doubt that the Dems dominate in the world of academia.

[monk10]

The USA will become much more like Europe.

One could argue that Europe is becoming much more like the USA, and your prediction would still come to.

[jamiche]

Those who are sold on European socialism will cheer all the way, but many who presently support the transition, plus many more who are merely along for the ride, will regret what they find up ahead.

What did you think would happen with the massive accumulation of debt? We've had nearly thirty years of somethin' for nothin', from the micro to the macro. You and I won't live in a socialist country but our children will. You, beej Les and a few others can rant all you want, blame Obama all you want, conveniently forget that W started the gov't intervention, but the only way our little debt party lasted this long is that the rest of the world funded it.


BTW, the Euro Socialists are doing a helluva lot better than we are. Businesses are operating, people are employed and they are laughing at us.

[Gopher4Life]

jamiche,

>>...blame Obama all you want, conveniently forget that W started the gov't intervention, but the only way our little debt party lasted this long is that the rest of the world funded it.<<

I'm not conveniently forgetting anything. How long do I need to assert around here that Bush enabled Obama's presidency? Bush is responsible for the current backlash and, with a bit of wisdom, he could have prevented it.

>>the Euro Socialists are doing a helluva lot better than we are.<<

I'll say this: I have more respect for Americans who admit that their choice is socialism than I do for those who deny that we're headed there.

Socialism is un-American and always will be.

[diehard]

It is unfair to blame the state of the Rs all on Bush. He a full house and senate spending like drunken sailors. They did it together. The Rs are as corrupt as the Ds. The Ds don't have a reason to reform, the Rs do, but aren't. See 40% of the earmarks in the omnibus spending bill just passed. We have to look for reformed leaders in both parties. Not seeing anything at this time. It's time to look for actions and ignore the words.

[Gopher4Life]

>>It is unfair to blame the state of the Rs all on Bush.<<

The buck has to stop somewhere.

Yes, plenty of other Republicans lost their way and share the blame. However, the lack of leadership shown by our stubborn president (not to mention the daily opportunities for ridicule) built a level of animosity across the country that paved the way for Obama.

>>We have to look for reformed leaders in both parties.<<

We have to look for other (more) parties instead of allowing the big two to shut out other voices and control the power, the system, and the nation.

[diehard]

>>

We have to look for other (more) parties instead of allowing the big two to shut out other voices and control the power, the system, and the nation.

There could be some truth there, but all of the sane people and most of the wackos and involved in the big two. The left overs for a third party are not an attractive option (see Bob Barr).

[Schnoodler]

There could be some truth there, but all of the sane people and most of the wackos and involved in the big two. The left overs for a third party are not an attractive option (see Bob Barr).

isn't that the truth.

I'm thinking, with the internet the future is with endorsements and not party affiliation. Just imagine getting the MTV endorsement, and the Pickens plan endorsement etc.

this opens the way for political parties without having their own candidates. The first time one of these groups put their stamp on someone and they win the endorsement because of it, everything changes. Just a thought.



If you can bring a couple million voters you have power. If your endorsement can inch the country closer to your ideals you win more than you do by running a losing candidate. As an example: the republican party is closer to the libertarian ideal than the democrats are. But by running a candidate they actually hurt the party most able to bring the country closer to their ideal. They take votes from the republicanss. They make it more likely that the dems win which hurts the libertarian cause. The dems have nothing to fear from them. Now if they are able swing those votes to the republican party, now that makes a difference.

[diehard]

I find myself totally issue oriented and unable to support any party. They are both hopelessly caught in a morass of partisanship over issues. Power and corruption over common sense and statesmanship. I have been involved in a couple 'bi-partisan' issue groups. You may remember me touting the Pickens Plan. We pretty much had our way at the Energy Summit. We will now see if we can hold any feet to the fire as it advances as legislation. There is huge work to do on the State level here, that have not made as much progress as of yet, but we will. When you make sense and are tenacious, you can make a difference (it also helps to have a billionaire bankrolling and leading the movement). I work with another group I am even more enthused about.

[Gopher4Life]

>>I find myself totally issue oriented and unable to support any party.<<

And the two-party system is just fine with that. What it won't tolerate is any initiative that levels the playng field for other parties with better people and better ideas.