Here is just one of the many reasons I don't feel any tension over the Obama administration and it's just one of the many reasons why I am thankful there was an end to the Bush administration's reign of error. In fact, it feels pretty good to believe this country is once again headed in the left direction, meaning we are well on our way to restoring our reputation in the eyes of the world.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_gay_rights

This is just awesome. It made my day.

Imagine sitting around worrying about the economy, jobs, unemployment, the stock market, health care and other things that aren't nearly so important. Let's get the gay thing straightened out and the enemy combatants turned loose from Gitmo first.

Don't you just love it when the President has his priorities in order.

"Imagine sitting around worrying about the economy, jobs, unemployment, the stock market, health care and other things that aren't nearly so important. Let's get the gay thing straightened out and the enemy combatants turned loose from Gitmo first."

Oh, you mean like what Bush attempted to do? As in, despite the post-9/11 issues, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and economic and domestic issues, going around and trying to implement a Constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage? Oh, and committing torture that is questionably against the Geneva Convention accords, in Gitmo?

You mean priorities like that??

Blah blah blah. More anti-Americanism by our resident hater of freedom, Deane Johnson.

If you don't like it, move to Iran. They seem to like the right wing fundamentalist viewpoints you harbor.

>>the President has his priorities in order

and he's on Leno tonight? of course he'll have the teleprompter to answer all of Jay's q's...
America, wake up...things are going absolutly crazy here everyday...hope the pendulum starts to swing back!

Broadway-

This President is using the media in ways that will reach his strongest constituency to get his message out. He has internet postings to share details of his plans. He's sharing with the American public just what he's doing and how he's doing it.

Certainly for you and Deane and others who don't hold his positions you can at least appreciate his willingness to be transparent and open to the people who put him in office. I find it refreshing compared to the secrecy of Bush's administration.

"things are going absolutly crazy here everyday..."

Now that you've got a little sense of that feeling, multiply that by some 2,920 days, or 8 years of the Bush administration, and you'll begin to realize why the 77%'ers saw the huge dark cloud hovering over this country disappear into the distance on Jan. 20th.

"Don't you just love it when the President has his priorities in order."

From your sarcasm, Deane, it's obvious human rights are not your priority. Why would that be?

Deane, part of the ongoing problem is that stubborn partisans, corporate lapdogs and other shady special interest types are still screwing things up in Congress. A good share of these dimwits have an ever shrinking "R" next to their names and others hide their stupidity behind the coattails of their now powerful "D" colleagues.

The best people on both sides of the aisle are trying their damndest to find solutions that serve the people, but sometimes obstructionist shitheels still get their way. Here we have a prime example of bipartisan Senate leadership inserting a great idea into a bill only to have it destroyed by the House:

Senator Ron Wyden said on Tuesday that the furor surrounding AIG's bonus payments could have been avoided had the Obama White House and members of Congress simply backed legislation that he and Sen. Olympia Snowe introduced more than a month ago.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, the Oregon Democrat noted that during the crafting of the stimulus package, he and his Republican colleague from Maine introduced a provision that would have forced bailout recipients to cap their bonuses at $100,000. Any amount paid above that would have been taxed at 35 percent. The language made it through the Senate, but during conference committee with the House, it was inexplicably removed.

"The reality is, had that legislation been passed it would have been a very strong disincentive to anybody paying out bonuses in the future," said Wyden. "Earlier, the President had denounced those bonuses that came at the end of the year. And when Senator Snowe and I said it is not enough for those in elected office to say it was wrong, that they have got to have a plan to have them pay it back, we were able to get legislation through the United States Senate. Not a single United States Senator was willing in broad daylight to stand up and oppose our bipartisan amendment... but it died in conference."

-- Sam Stein & Arthur Delaney for the Huffington Post

This is why our beloved American democracy is called "The Grand Experiment" and not the "Well Oiled Machine" or some other threadbare cliche. As Missing says so eloquently: Deal or kneel.

"From your sarcasm, Deane, it's obvious human rights are not your priority. Why would that be?"

Actually, Listenerpete, I am big on human rights and issues such as gays not being persecuted for being gay. What sets me off is the slobbering over Obama on this forum while he screws up the country in a manner George Bush could only dream of doing.


Littlesongs, Ron Wyden is one of the better politicians in Congress. He makes more sense than most of them, and seems to care about things more than most of them. I'm not sure his legislation was exactly on target, perhaps it should have been even stronger. I won't go further, my opinion on these Wall Street bastards is whole a 'nother thread.

How do you get the libs on this forum to support the Wall Street bunch? Easy, have me be against them.

"Slobbering"? We haven't had time to slobber yet. We're just supporting someone and something we believe in.

Is that so wrong?

What the heck do you want? Void the election and put McCain in there instead?

"Is that so wrong?"

It's hard for me to understand how someone can "believe in" something so wrong for the country.

How do you get the libs

You opened the door again.

How do we get the almost dead to die?

"What sets me off is the slobbering over Obama on this forum while he screws up the country in a manner George Bush could only dream of doing."

Oh come now, how is President Obama screwing up our country? You must watch the Faux News Channel and/or listen to the crazies on the radio.

Perhaps you can explain to me how this massive debt is going to be handled in the future.

The same way it was last time.

We are going to invest in those things we know empower people to build raw wealth. We will keep that investment up, until the rate of value production exceeds our obligations under the debt being discussed here.

That then, is progress.

It's a lot easier to make those investments, realize that progress and enjoy it's fruits, if we don't have the anti-American, facists burning through our means for their own gain.

"The same way it was last time."

I'm not sure you're grasping the total amount of the debt Obama is creating. It's greater than all of the debt from the beginning of the United States through George W. Bush combined.

By the way Deane, that is what I mean by "deal".

The alternative is to "kneel" and accept the reality that comes with these clowns gambling our future away.

When you ask that question, you really are asking if we can actually get it done.

Are you fucking nuts?

Of course we can get it done! We have to get it done, or the Great Experiment will have been resolved a failure.

I'm not there yet.

There is only one position I can take and that is there is no way we can handle this massive debt. It has to be stopped.

Hopefully, these growing public demonstrations will grow further in number and size and Congress will come to their senses and put a stop to it.

Welcome to the club!

The options are:

1. Fight about it and or over it. (creating more debt in the process with NO assurance we will prevail)

2. Settle. Meaning we all kneel to our new owners.

3. Merge. Group kneeling, comes with new currency and a loss of core sovereignty. ie: EU I'm quite sure you don't want to count your retirement dollars in Ameros. LOL!!

4. Deny. Creates more debt, decreases security in that payback is eventually a bitch.

5. Manipulate. We've seen how that goes. Financial Chaos. That's part of the problem, so we really know not to go there. Spent the better part of 30 years learning that lesson.

6. Negotiate. Maybe we can take terms? That's on the table big time. Count on it.

7. Work. That's the Obama plan, in combination with #6 and 8 below. That requires some additional debt to exercise, but has been a proven solution in the past. (New Deal)

8. Get help. Maybe others can benefit from helping us out with a loan, given good terms.

9. Pick a fight. That really added to the New Deal in the form of the World War that followed, but the difference between then and now is that we don't make anything. Wars are then a drain on us, and should be considered carefully. Also worth consideration is we had the absolute high ground on that war. Given our current position due to very, very poor leadership, having high ground is not likely.

10. Steal. The world is watching us. I don't think this would fly as everybody is running pretty tight, because of our financial largess.

So, welcome to the fucked wheel! Spin it hard Deane, there are only a few winners in the lot, stakes are high, odds are low! Round and round it goes, where it stops, only Obama knows!

Ready to deal yet? Or, are you more inclined to Kneel because you just can't stomach the idea that once again, progressive minded, strong willed, passionate Americans have it right, like they have since the birth of this nation?

I forgot litigate!

We could seek to redefine the entitlement, thus reducing or eliminating the debt. Political concessions are likely, if we pursue this course. Obama might consider this, leaving us with shitty treaties.

You see Deane, all you really need to do is simplify the problem. On my drive home, I listen to some great music, or a talk show, or sometimes just turn it all off and consider matters.

If you view this from a very elementary point of view, the options play out and it brings insight. Of course this only has value, if one can get over ideological investments...

Simple question:

What is your alternative plan, Deane?

It's hard for me to understand how someone can "believe in" something so wrong for the country.

You believed in DUHbya and Co. and they were by far the worst thing to happen to America and the world since.... Well.... NEVER....
We are in a time of WAR Deane and you should LOVE what YOUR President is doing! You should stand behind him and be happy that he is turing America around...... Anything else is just UNAmerican and UNPatriotic!

There is only one position I can take and that is there is no way we can handle this massive debt. It has to be stopped.

DA!!!!!!!
Where in God's name were you when DUHbya and Co. were piling up the debt? When Iraq was costing us 80 TRILLION a minute? Huh? WOW!
Intelligence is not strong with this one...
WOW!

So, Deane, you're the President. Your plan is:
(This is the part where you detail what should be happening, how, and why it will work.)

>>We will keep that investment up, until the rate of value production exceeds our obligations under the debt
and in the words of Rush...sycho-babble...

>> no way we can handle this massive debt. It has to be stopped.
AMEN.

>>the debt Obama is creating. It's greater than all of the debt from the beginning of the United States
you libs don't know thats whats going on here?

Psychobabble from Rush?

When I think of Rush and psychobabble, I can’t help but think of this portly, drug addled, plastic surgery mired thrice married conservative radio talk show host claiming to be going deaf but in reality was forcing his maid to go out and illegally purchase drugs from him so he could feed his irrepressible drug habit. And he gives out economic advice too? And you Broadway, a man who claims to be born again, is willing to take the word of a junkie heathen fornicator like Rush Limbaugh? What would the Rev. Lovejoy or Ned Flanders think?

We did this before.

Go through the list of alternatives. I listed the core options above. There are some more complex ones to consider still, but the root paths are there.

What do we do exactly?

We work to build value, and we do it faster than we are losing value, or we suffer. It's really that simple people.

Don't agree?

Let's hear it. Support your stuff, or deal, or kneel and be owned by whoever holds title to that debt.

LOL@Broadway!!

Wait... hold it... almost there!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Rush "Pills" Limbaugh is a fat ass, buffoon! He makes his money feeding hate and ignorance breeds a new profit center for him every single day.

P.T. Barnum would be proud indeed!

It's the ultimate side, freak show, and it's nation wide baby!!

He's as wide as your browser screen and growing daily!

Such a fat ass that when people see him they say, "God Damn! He's a big, fat, smelly, ass!" (h/t Southpark)

I gotta laugh long and hard man. The alternative is grim!

Please don't embarrass yourself and cite Limbaugh here. This is beneath you Broadway.

Most people here are! (and that is why we are great!)

---

quote:

sycho-babble...

---

"I'm not sure you're grasping the total amount of the debt Obama is creating. It's greater than all of the debt from the beginning of the United States through George W. Bush combined."

Deane, Broadway: Cool down, and try to get your heads around the problem.

Your freak-out about the absolute dollar amount of the bailout monies approved so far is similar to the freak-out your grandfather would have if he found out that you just bought a new car for the same amount of money he spent on a new house in 1960. Ya gotta consider inflation, man.

In fact, as a percentage of GDP, the bailout money approved so far is solidly below the amount spent to get us out of the Great Depression (that being the money spent on the war industries of WWII)

Here's the graph:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Now, all that said, I'm not in the least excited about our debt load. But as the graph shows, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II are primarily responsible for our huge current negative balance - obama has upticked it minimally (so far).

KSKD: Your HAHAHA was cathartic, but bunged up the pagination of the thread. You got three hours to trim it up...(thanks)

Quite simply, it's time to play hard ball with ourselves and the world, establish new wealth, protect it, build on it, and pay down our folly.

I challenge anyone to post up otherwise.

Go ahead. Do your homework. Do it well, because I'm gonna hammer you home big.

Wealth is all relative. It's about whether or not we are carrying our weight and whether or not we consume our own dog food more than we do that of others.

Talk about how the world works!

You nay-sayers are gonna get schooled on this one way or the other.

Our President knows this. The only doubt I harbor is if enough of the Congress knows this to allow it to happen.

The result of that will color the rest of most of our adult lives.

That's fair!

But you do know it breaks my "as fat as your browser screen line". I'm miffed over that. It's not often the medium is part of the delivery in that way.

Just so you know.

no way we can handle this massive debt. It has to be stopped.
AMEN.

BROADway where the HELL were you during DUHbya's 8 years??? Drunk and on Xanax like DUHbya was???

>>during DUHbya's 8 years
well, were having more of Bush economics x10...what gives?

Obama didn't create the debt, Bush did. Obama is trying to deal with it.

Trixter just doesn't catch on to the fact that Bush's spending was petty cash compared to Obama's.

And again, what would you do Deane?

You saw the list of choices. Most of them are really ugly. The debt is there, it isn't going away, so we are forced to deal with it.

Takes money to make money. You know that, I know that, everybody knows that, thus the spending we are seeing.

What's the alternative?

What would I do? I'd call in Mitt Romney for advice.

If you’re a GOP member of Congress, their only answer seems to be tax cuts. But if they were consistent, they would also be calling for massive spending cuts -- which they refuse to do. They are first class chicken shits. They have been touting this fiscal policy for years, but have never had the guts to go through with it, in total. Perhaps tinkering around the edges, but never the real deal. Even when George W. Bush was president and had both houses of Congress in GOP control, he nor Congress were willing to make the tough choices. So when it comes to credibility on the budget, the GOP is full of hot air.

As for President Obama, he has been VERY upfront about his intentions relative to the budgeting process. No massive war supplementals, no gimmickry that is generally part and parcel of the budgeting process. He wants higher income earners to pay more in taxes. What’s unreasonable about that? George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton did it and it helped create a budget surplus in the late 1990’s. Obama wants to fix a health care system that is grossly out of financial control. If we don’t get spending on health care in line, along with making necessary changes to Social Security, this country is going to be in a world of hurt. Rather than deferring the problem to the next president, Obama has said he will tackle these challenges head on. It may not be a perfect process, but at least he’s willing to do the heavy lifting. As opposed to conservatives who offer nothing except tax cuts for the rich and perhaps very modest spending cuts; nothing substantive.

Talpdx, you're such a Kool Aid drinker.

That's nice Deane, but you haven't refuted a thing I wrote. Break it down bit by bit and tell me where I'm wrong. You're good on generalities but VERY short on specifics.

Sentence after sentence of generalities and your opinions. I'm supposed to research each one and give you a rebuttal. I'd rather allow you to just bask in your glory as it is, for no matter what I posted, that's what you would do.

Then, a certain small group would jump in and attack me personally. That gets boring.

Actually, I just want to know how you would address the debt.

You said you want it stopped, and that it's your only position.

So then, how would you stop it?

The only reason I posted the other stuff was to support the idea that investing in labor is the primary path we have before us. No point by point rebuttal required. That's just reinforcing information.

Can't have it both ways man. You dodge left, dodge right, and here we are still!

If it must stop, and it must, then how?

Post it up, or deal with the plan we have going right now, which is to spend on those things we know build value and empower people to build more value on top of that until we exceed the drain our current position has on us.

This from Professor Francis Fukuyama:

Prior to the 1980s, conservatives were fiscally conservative— that is, they were unwilling to spend more than they took in in taxes. But Reaganomics introduced the idea that virtually any tax cut would so stimulate growth that the government would end up taking in more revenue in the end (the so-called Laffer curve). In fact, the traditional view was correct: if you cut taxes without cutting spending, you end up with a damaging deficit. Thus the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s produced a big deficit; the Clinton tax increases of the 1990s produced a surplus; and the Bush tax cuts of the early 21st century produced an even larger deficit. The fact that the American economy grew just as fast in the Clinton years as in the Reagan ones somehow didn't shake the conservative faith in tax cuts as the surefire key to growth.

The way to tackle the debt is to tax the shit out of the wealthy. Let's get back to the 90% tax rate for the super high income brackets.

I don't think Deane has any better, or different, ideas. Nor do I, so I'm going with the plan.

The difference is that I CAN NOT deal with the "This all really f'n sucks!" attitude every day. Mentally, emotionally, physically can't.

Apparently, others can, and if it sucks, and you don't do anything to change it, you're proven right. Every time.

Agreed!

Hey, that does cut down or probably stop debt growth too. What do you say Deane, et al. ?

And for you conservatives out there, Obama isn't there just yet. He's being CONSERVATIVE about dealing with the problem.

That prolongs it. Big mistake.

The way to tackle the debt is to tax the shit out of the wealthy. Let's get back to the 90% tax rate for the super high income brackets.

You keep bringing up "Tax the shit out of the wealthy"

WHY????

It just sounds to me like you are scared or jealous of the wealthy and you want to hurt them any way you can.

There is absolutely no good reason to single out the wealthy. (Other than the Democrats don't want anybody to be wealthy because it apparently, for some unknown reason, scares them)

To quote others on this board, Give me 5 GOOD reasons they should have the "shit" taxed out of them. (And don't repeat what you said in another post; "Because they can afford it", that is one of the dumbest posts I've ever read)

1. They can afford it.
2. The US needs the money.
3. They can afford it.
4. The US needs the money.
5. They have benefited under our society greatly and therefore have the obligation to pay their fair share.

What's your alternative? Keep raising the debt or raise taxes on yourself?

What you're seeing in these posts is the Democrat Kool Aid, over and over again. Republicans are bad, the GOP sucks, Bush spent too much, tax the rich, give it to the poor, the government can do everything for you. You need us, you need us, you need us. It goes on and on.

And he dodges up, down, left, right! Backward, forwards, and still no joy!

And your alternative to doing these things is?

Nothing!

Why?

Because we are going to have to do them, or let it all break down.

Honestly, I think this is what most hard core conservatives want. They bitch about the spending, not because it's spending, but because it's going to work and their "drown it in debt" approach won't see success because the people don't want that, and won.

Yeah, I along with most everybody else, drank the Kool-aid! We want stuff fixed, and that's very likely going to happen. It's going to happen along the lines of how it did the last coupla times we had to do this.

Looks to me Deane, like you are going to kneel. From where I stand, you look absolutely owned by the old guard.

It's this simple. Just bitching is not constructive, though it may be thereputic. Bitching, and providing alternatives is advocacy.

Failure to understand that will lead to your party losing more elections.

Understanding that is exactly why those of us who want stuff fixed, can support how and why, and debate for the best ideas, won!

When you are asked to support your bitching here, all we open minded, largely progressive people want, is for you to join the party! Let's get the place running good again.

Put ideas on the table, advocate for them, vet them, and build greater support for them. Happens one conversation at a time, rolling all the way up, through change.gov, to the President.

That's how lefties work. And, you can be a conservative and toss the stuff right in there too. Nobody cares. If it's a good idea, it's a good idea, period.

When you dodge, then add to the bitching about personal attacks, it's because you devalue the time, the forum and just generate negativity without any benefit, other than to diminish what everyone else is doing.

23 percenters mostly do that.

So which is it Deane?

Missing, if you can't figure out that spending multiple trillions of dollars, all debt, is going to create a major issue in both the near future and the long term, there is nothing I can post that will help you.

1 out of the 5 reasons you listed is acceptable. Although that's only 20%. Not so good. FAIL.

5. They have benefited under our society greatly and therefore have the obligation to pay their fair share.

I have no problem with them paying their fair share. 90% is NOT fair. EVERYONE should pay their fair share.

38% to 40% MAX for the highest tax rate.

Give me your thinking on why and how a 90% tax rate is justified.

How do the "rich" people cost public services more than you or I do that would justify them paying 90%.

What added benefit would they get for their 90% that you or I don't get for whatever our percentage is?

That's one of the things that I can't stand about Democrats. Tax the rich more than everyone else. It's the Robin Hood syndrome.

As I said above, I have no issue with their fair share, but more than their fair share is just wrong.

Oh I think 90 percent is fair, given their largess has put us in the hole.

When it's all running good, well regulated and stable, back off the rate some and everybody is happy.

Bill - I'm not saying that I agree with 90%, however I do understand the reasoning.

If you're clearing a million bucks a year, there's no way you're getting that "from the sweat of your brow". You're making your money, in part, on the backs of others. People who weren't smart enough, or lucky enough, or ruthless enough, or motivated enough, (or weren't born into the right family or know the right people) to get into the position where they are making off of the backs of others.

Because those people aren't making that money from their own sweat, they aren't entitled to as much of it. Or rather, they are obligated to give some of it back to the people who are sweating for it.

Or to put it another way, because their country needs their support, and they can afford it!

Deane and Broadway and all neoCons- either you're a Keynesian or you aren't. You can't cite Keynes when you want to cut taxes and ignore him when he tells you that you have to engage in deficit spending to help bring the country out of recession.

Keynes says that in order to cure recession, you tally up the lost economic productivity due to the downturn, and then replace that loss with government spending to get the economic engine up to speed again.

Oversimplified of course, but that's the gist. THAT is why Obama is spending all this money. Because the alternative is complete economic collapse, ala-the-Great-Depression.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and this recession is clearly the chickens of Reaganomics and neoconservativism coming home to roost. Some people had fooled themselves that they could escalate growth infinitely by infinitely increasing debt... and they were wrong.

And Deane, NOT paying what we owe now causes a problem.

Either way there is a big ass problem.

The question is do we get something out of it or not?

If we get something out of it, we have greater opoortunities to build value and improve the state of things.

Just stripping the nation bare, leaves us in a worse position longer term.

We did this before. It has worked, it will work again. Older school supply side economic theory, and the idea that deregulation, outsourcing, and selling off our value production here is old news.

Tadc nailed it.

That is where we are. Americans are aware of it, ready for it, and want this stuff done so that we get out of this mess.

90% is justified because that's what it costs to run the government. And when we run debts, we aren't collecting enough taxes. So, the obvious choice is to ask those that can pay, to pay.

One thing I can't stand about Republicans is they want to tax themselves rather than the rich. Why are you so conerned about the amount of taxes that someone who makes $3 million per year pay?

And I never said give it to the poor. The tax dollars go to things like the military, etc.

If you're clearing a million bucks a year, there's no way you're getting that "from the sweat of your brow". You're making your money, in part, on the backs of others.That's the way it works. Some are managers, some are CEO's and some are "workers"

People who weren't smart enough, or lucky enough, or ruthless enough, or motivated enough, (or weren't born into the right family or know the right people) to get into the position where they are making off of the backs of others.
So only stupid, unlucky, loser, trailer trash should as you put it " get into the position where they are making off of the backs of others."?

Because those people aren't making that money from their own sweat, they aren't entitled to as much of it. Or rather, they are obligated to give some of it back to the people who are sweating for it.
WHY are they not entitled to it???? They are giving back to the people who are sweating for it. It's call wages.

Or to put it another way, because their country needs their support, and they can afford it!
I thought Vitalogy was the only one that would make that stupid statement

Those are the most F'ing socialist thing that has ever been posted on this board. I'd say it is borderline communism.

NO. EVERYONE should ONLY pay their fair share.

So using your logic, if I start, for arguments sake, an electronic repair shop.

When I started the shop, I was the only employee.

I'm a wizard at fixing things and an honest businessman. I charge a fair price.

Soon, word spreads that MY shop is THE place to take your stuff and get it fixed.

Eventually, I have to hire a whole crew and I've opened let's say 10 shops throughout the metro area.

My business is doing great and generating 10 million dollars in revenue with profit of say 4 million.

I'm no longer a tech, but spend my days managing my "empire". My salary over the years has increased from a mere pittance to $2 million per year.
-----------------------

So then using your logic, since I'm making money off the tech that I employ I should pay 90% income tax????

If I'm going to have to pay outrageous percentages of income tax, then where is the incentive to make money?


One thing I can't stand about Republicans is they want to tax themselves rather than the rich.

I don't want to pay any more in taxes than I have to, just like you. By the same token, I don't want any one group of people to pay any more than their fair share.

Why are you so concerned about the amount of taxes that someone who makes $3 million per year pay? Because it isn't fair for one group of people to be unfairly saddled with more of a tax burden than someone else.

Yes, the rich are going to pay more just by the nature of a graduated tax system but they shouldn't be unfairly taxed.

I guarantee that if the above scenario was true (my example of the service shop) and they came along and said "well since you are rich, you have to pay 90% income tax", I'd fire ALL the employees and close the shop down.

One thing I can't stand about Democrats is that they feel that the rich should fund their socialist programs.

No one has answered my question of why wealthy people scare the Democrats so much?

I suspect it's because they can support themselves and not have to depend on the wonderful (not) government to support them.

First off, you wouldn't pay 90% tax on your whole $3 million, only on the portion that qualifies for the 90% tax rate. And I'm not saying it should be 90%, I'm using that as an example since at one point that's how it was.

"If I'm going to have to pay outrageous percentages of income tax, then where is the incentive to make money?"

The incentive is the same no matter the tax rate. The argument that higher taxes discourages people from making money is horseshit. 50% of something is always better than 100% of nothing. People should strive to pay as much tax as possible - it means they are making a shitload of money too!

"I guarantee that if the above scenario was true (my example of the service shop) and they came along and said "well since you are rich, you have to pay 90% income tax", I'd fire ALL the employees and close the shop down."

So you'd rather make less money than pay taxes and have more? Again, another horseshit argument. And, the above scenario never happens. The truly wealthy aren't making money off of wages, they are making money off capital gains and dividends, both of which are taxed LESS than wages.

And as far as socialist programs go, I'd be more than happy to take a hatchet to the largest part of the socialist budget, defense. Hundreds of billions could be saved without increasing our risk 1%.

Missing, if you can't figure out that spending multiple trillions of dollars, all debt, is going to create a major issue in both the near future and the long term, there is nothing I can post that will help you.


You EXTREME RIGHT facists couldn't figure it our when DUHbya was spending till his eyeballs fell out. OH!!!!!! That's right... It was okay then....
WOW!

What would I do? I'd call in Mitt Romney for advice.

So Deane, with trillions at stake which Mitt would you like to use as a lifeline?

A) Mitt Romney the proponent of socialized medicine?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5330792

B) Mitt Romney the overwhelmed bureaucrat who could not properly manage infrastructure projects?
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/17374-Mitts-Katrina/

C) Mitt Romney the guy with five Great-Grandmas?
http://www.slate.com/id/2140539/

D) Mitt Romney the abusive dog owner with shit on the roof of his car?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1638065,00.html

E) Mitt Romney the burrowing ostrich still in awe of Reaganomics?
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mitt_Romney_Budget_+_Economy.htm

Mitt Romney was a terrible, horrible, no good, really bad choice for President. I am really glad the G.O.P. was smart enough to derail him, his hair shelf and his magic undies in the primaries.

Solutions do not come from Monday morning quarterbacks who could not even manage a good campaign. Mitt Romney is like the low rent Billy Mays of the right wing. He can sell anything to a few shut-ins and idiots, but he will never be ready for prime time.

So, what insight does Mitt have that you do not have Deane? You are a far brighter guy. You have decades more executive experience than he does. You have a much longer track record of success in your chosen field. I bet your ideas -- no matter how far-flung -- would be better than his.

Or, are you just passing the buck?

Why not share your wisdom with us instead of barfing up talking points?

*PLONK*
LOL!

My favorite political slogan from the last cycle:

MITT - Because the GOP Deserves the Very Worst.

Man, I would draft McCain in a heartbeat ( assuming he's got one to spare ) over Romney being in charge. There's a guy I wouldn't want staying in my house.

True on that!

"Missing, if you can't figure out that spending multiple trillions of dollars, all debt, is going to create a major issue in both the near future and the long term, there is nothing I can post that will help you."

All depends upon what the money is spent on. If the money is for making bombs, in the end you have nothing to show for it. Now if that money is used to build infrastructure and put people to work, the money is an investment in the country. Put people to work and they buy stuff; creating demand for products and services. Which puts more people to work.

Duh.

We've got a debt based system. There isn't any way to make the investments needed, without creating debt.

Factor in the fact that value is a relative thing, and all we need to do is create the debt, work it off and manage it so that value is created for sure.

Not doing that is a big part of why we are here in the first place, with the other part being unregulated derivatives.

This is a core ideological divide. I realize that.

So here is how it goes:

We won. So it's gonna go down the way most of America wants it to go down. The tales of gloom and doom because we are departing from 30 years of supply side Jesus, are just sour grapes. It's over. Time to move on.

The only real question is go big, or go really big!

Skybill,
One of the challenges in setting any public policy is the concept of "fairness." What seems fair to you may seem unfair to me and vica versa. Washington State believes that better public equity (a measure of fairness) results from no income tax and a reliance on sales and gross revenue tax (business & occupation tax). Oregon seems to believe a personal and corporate income tax results in a better result for public equity. Regardless of what rate is set and system of taxation used, there will also be some segment of the public who feels they are paying more in tax than the services they are receiving.

Personally, I think that a better public equity would result from most public services being provided on a fee-for-service basis. Think of the military as a "national security insurance policy" that you pay into ... If you don't want that service, don't pay... of course if those "godless Red Chinese" storm your town....

Or is there a basket of minimal public services (a "basic cable of government") that everyone needs to purchase to remain a citizen.

The service provision model would need to have adjustments for those because of disabilities or illness could not afford to buy the "basic cable" or "basis citizenship package." If you are able to work and produce income, you pay for the basic citizenship package plus any add-ons you want to purchase (medical coverage, social security, social support programs, economic development, etc.). If you are able but choose not to pay for the basic package, the government boots you out of the country -- you lose your citizenship.

Now parties could run on a platform of what services should be included in that basic package. Maybe Republicans would include more service to the business community and Democrats would include more social services to the public... I don't know but I have a feeling that it would be a more equitable system.

Thoughts?

Well, I seriously like the phrase "public equity"

The rest of your post is interesting and new! Have to think about it. Thanks for posting it!

My first thought is that services are atomic at various levels, meaning the idea can't work for everything.

It's completely possible to make fire protection granular down to each home. We used to do exactly that with a medallion. If you have it, they are gonna do their thing. If you don't, well? Break out the hot-dogs and hope for the best.

It's not so possible to do that with police, otherwise we have a travesty of the law. Deliberate areas of "no protection" could be realized to form a kind of sanctuary for criminally minded people.

That would also mean all are not equal under the law. Violating that for civil matters is something I've considered, but not for anything criminal. And I've not yet reached a consideration that would warrant non-equality in civil matters. Only that I think that might actually be possible.

Military protection isn't very granular at all. Either we have a union, and our military serves it, or we don't. No chance to sub-divide there without seriously diminishing the whole.

And if we do make those things that can be granular, do we also then allow competition, and if so, does that actually add value to the service as a whole? If not, then perhaps exercising that granularity isn't such a good idea.

I'm there with schools actually. This is another area where we could break things up, but in doing so, the value proposition for the "public equity" is significantly diminished in too many cases that come to mind.

Edust, Interesting as Missing says.

May wortk or may not. There would have to be as you said a "core" set of things/services that everybody has to pay into.

Over and above that maybe it could be a choice.

Interesting food for thought.

What seems fair to you may seem unfair to me and vica versa.

Agreed. However, taxing any group of people more than another group "Because they can afford it" should seem unfair to everybody.

That would be akin to a store selling you something based on how wealthy you are. For me, that 52" flat panel TV costs $1500, for Bill Gates (because he's rich) that same TV costs $50,000. Pretty silly, huh?

Well, no. The TV still costs $1500 either way.

For Bill Gates to be able to sit and enjoy that TV, be who he is, love, live, laugh, build, costs money to make it all go.

In fact, paying that cost empowers him and others to make their fortunes.

It's broken right now. And the burden for fixing it means genuine sacrifice for everyone, and the reward is a significantly better public good, in the form of a robust commons where business can be done and lives lived.

Sacrifice is best expressed as something painful, something that has an impact, something that denies life choices.

To sacrifice is to go without something meaningful.

With us ordinary people, that could be a few hundred dollars!

It takes a few hundred dollars for Bill Gates just to wake up! And that's not bad, it just is.

Sacrifice then, to those more substantial people of means, is a larger sum than it is for us people of lesser means.

And that's where I see fair. If I am denied key life choices, and that's the cost of getting our house in order, I expect others then to do the same. That's fair.

...is a larger sum...

But they already pay a larger sum.

My tax rate is based on how much I make and a CEO's is based on how much he makes. (I know I don't have to tell you that, but it's part of my example)

So by that very nature if I make say, $75K per year and my effictive tax rate is 15% then I pay $11250 in taxes. Our above mentioned CEO makes $1 million and (I have no idea) but lets say his effective tax rate is the same as mine. I suspect it would be higher since he's taxed at a higher rate, but for the sake of argument we'll say it's the same.

The CEO then would pay $150,000 in taxes. So he is paying more.

It's just NOT fair to single out people and screw tax them more just because "They Can Afford It"

And you missed my point about the TV.

What I'm saying is that if you want to tax somebody more "because they can afford it" why shouldn't a store charge a rich person more "because they can afford it"? It's the same dumb logic.

Well, we differ.

When the burden is high enough that ordinary people are choosing between food and health care that keeps them alive, and the very upper percentile are deciding what investments to make and whether or not a third car garage makes sense this year, the idea of sacrifice to get our house in order isn't really hitting home at the top.

Sorry, but sacrifice means actually suffering an impact. As citizens, they've got the same burden we do --the same social contract. If it's gonna hurt, then it's gonna hurt everybody.

Then, perhaps the idea that we need to manage our society, markets and such might just hit home.

Skybill, let's give it a try. I want to see the reaction of some of the Hollywood A listers when they give up 90 percent of their next movie deal for the cause. I'm not sure Oprah would be on board with the 90 percent rate either.

I'm guessing Sean Penn would squeal just as loudly as El rushbo at tax time.


(off Track)
PS, was Life on Mars designed as a short series, or were they cancelled and just doing a wrap up finale? Some interesting songs showed up in the series, but Mott The Hoople All The Young Dudes, didn't seem like a good fit for the scene it played in.....

OK return to "tax it all".

The best think that could happen to the GOP is a 90% upper tax bracket. Half of Hollywood would change their registration.

But it wouldn't be Republican...

... The New Liberatarian Party... anyone?

Warren Buffett's effective tax rate is less than his secretary's. That's because the wealthy earn their dough off dividends and capital gains, not wages.

On a serious note what occured to me in this thread is

Should we just have a salary cap based on job category?

Who determines a fair wage?
Who's at the top of the wage scale? Teachers? Scientists?
Who's at the bottom? Atheletes? Salesmen?

Should someone who makes something get paid more?
Someone who provides service to someone?

Who makes the lowest rate?

Roger,
I think the market in terms of wages and compensation seems to work for the most part. There are some clear distortions. I believe that minimum wage is one of those distortions because it precludes some really terrible market forces shaking out the chaff from the system. The other clear distortion is the CEO pay in the U.S. I think the CEO's pay should be based on that person's performance for the corporation and its stockholders but when pension plans with faceless stockholders make most of the investments in the stock market through management firms, there is no natural market system to keep the CEO pay or bonuses reasonable.

Here's another sidetrack on this thread...
... if there are so many radio industry folks who believe the current corporations are running radio into the ground (so to speak), why don't they pool their funds through common stock sale to acquire one of the weaker communications corporations and run radio the "right way?"

.. just curious... and I know I probably should have started a new thread....

"That's because the wealthy earn their dough off dividends and capital gains, not wages."

And we certainly don't want to encourage investment, do we.

"Should we just have a salary cap based on job category?"


It could certainly be a part of our soon to be socialist country. We already have a government with all jobs being at pre-defined salary levels and we know the government works to perfection with anything it touches. All workers are high motivated, especially in the post office department.

And we certainly don't want to encourage investment, do we.

How do you figure that the purchase of common stock is an investment and not a gamble?

You're playing with words.

If people want to make money they will invest no matter what the tax rate is. That's another horseshit argument that has no basis in reality.

You're playing with words.

I'll ask another way. If you go out and buy Microsoft stock, is that an investment in Microsoft Corporation? Or just a gamble on your part that the demand for the stock will force the stock price to go higher?

You're playing with words.

And YOU don't...
WOW!

....just a gamble on your part that the demand for the stock will force the stock price to go higher....

That's how gold works. What drives the price? more buyers. Who wants you to buy? The ones that have it to sell. but you pay the premium when you buy and sell it at a discount. depending what you are buying, it's 2-20 percent at each end. More on JEWELRY.

As for radio... pooling the funds works best on a single station small market basis. Fairly easy, hell I put together 3-6 people and 200k twice for that express purpose. Amazing how much interest a station generates when a buyer steps forward. As for buying out an overleveraged, overpriced MAJOR. WAAAY too many roadblocks, you need venture capital ala Bain/Lee, golden parachutes to negotiate, and on and on, and you are right back where you were with INVESTORS WANTING INSTANT RESULTS.

Trixter just doesn't catch on to the fact that Bush's spending was petty cash compared to Obama's.

But at least Obama is spending the money HERE in America instead of PISSING it away in Iraq. COME ON MAN USE YOUR HEAD for what God intended it for. That might be asking to much of you though....
WOW!

Bush bashing still appeals to the weak minded who are unable to grasp what's going on within the Obama administration. They may not realize Obama is sending billions of this money to bail out foreign banks.

You know, I'm catching wind of that too Deane. When did you start to hear about the fact that there are some " foreign banks " involved in this?

In the past several days. I heard it on the radio news, so I don't have anything to link to. It's disturbing.

While everyone is hung up on these bonuses, other things are quietly sliding past. Don't get me wrong, I think these bonuses should have been canceled the minute they took bailout money, but I don't think they are enough money in the scheme of what is being spent to take center stage and push everything else aside.

AIG has used money borrowed from the Federal Reserve to pay debts it owes to foreign banks. I’m not sure if the money went to the banks themselves or hedge funds that have accounts at the banks; perhaps both.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10472341/1/aig-paid-us-foreign-banks-with-bailout-money.html

Deane,

If you go out and buy Microsoft stock, is that an investment in Microsoft Corporation?

If you haven't noticed, Foreign banks have been buying US banks for years. UBS picked off mine last year, The Royal Bank of Scotland, and the Big ole Bank of The Netherlands are owners here as well.Deutche Back has their fingers in our pies and others as well.... One of the biggest problems we face as a nation is, We sold everything for the cash. First manufacturing then infrastructure and banking, insurance.... That greed thing.

Deregulation and Za New Vorld Order broke our backs. Not a lib by any stretch but I point the finger at the Republicans who opened the gates to this with Regan and, initially it stopped the drain from the nixon/ford/carter era. The Dems jumped on board and passed alot of this, so spread the blame. Throw in some Clintonomics, and Booshes lack of direction and willingness to let others make the decisions, an expensive, misguided war with no cost recovery, and here we are. Dig into EXACTLY what is foreign owned, and see that while we got cash fat in the short term, now the cash is being sucked away.... We may soon become servants in our own country......

history will tell whether Obama continued the decline, but I think this would be a good time for a little more AMERICA FIRST, and less Citizens of the world mentality. We need to fix us first. Maybe we need a second INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Our own steel to fix our bridges, OUR OWN resources to fuel our economy......

Back to the basics. We can be their friend, but we can't finance their economies at the expense of our own.

The Arabs kicked out the US oil companies, years ago. Maybe we need to re regulate some aspects and force foreign ownership of VITAL interests to divest ownership of U.S. firms. We might be smaller for it, but we'd own it!

Bush bashing still appeals to the weak minded who are unable to grasp what's going on within the Obama administration. They may not realize Obama is sending billions of this money to bail out foreign banks.

DUHbya and Co. spent BILLIONS in Iraq month after month after month. What's YOUR point????
WOW!

" If you haven't noticed, Foreign banks have been buying US banks for years."

I had noticed. I was trying to sift out whether or not this is being raised in a way that just feeds the political monster ( likely ).

Fox anc CNN always resort to making some thin statement and headline but then placing a question mark after everything.

" Is Obama sending all of our money overseas ? "

It's become so common that I now just expect the answer to always be " No. " to any fake point they are trying to make.

I absolutely think we need another industrial revolution.

This time however, we do it at a systems level. Moving core, basic manufacturing back makes no real sense. The right thing to do is to just add value on top of that.

Where we can do it in-house, we absolutely should. And once we establish that, we protect it, just like other nations are doing. It also makes no sense to build up streams of wealth, only to sell them, thus diverting them to other nations, where they have health care, for example.

I'm disturbed at the still cloudy flow of dollars (and I've heard about the foreign banks too), as much as I am continuing to pump those dollars into what appears to be a very badly broken financial system.

We don't know the value of things, and the scope of damage could be quadrillions. Untangling that means re-valuing a lot of stuff. I'm ok with that, as it would be a good exercise to see where everybody stands after the gambling losses have been tallied.

However, that takes a ton of time, and buying that time directly from the financials isn't the best use of the dollars. Backing up the assets has the potential for a much greater impact.

Each house, for example, might be leveraged 30 times! Pay to keep somebody in the house, or a loan to perform and that plays out times 30; whereas, paying to make an institution liquid because that one loan failed and they are bleeding times 30 is just nuts!!

Sadly, these failed insurance credit default swap things have been bundled and sold globally, meaning that's very highly likely the root of our involvement in foreign banks.

I don't know enough to comment further. Wish I did. I'll bet a lot of people wish they did

...and investments are absolutely gambling.

Any investment carries with it simple risk. For some investments, the risk is very low. FDIC (well, maybe not now) insured savings, for example, is pretty low risk, right?

What if the currency changes due to a global event?

You lose.

Gambling.

What chaps my ass is AIG wrote insurance on all this crap, so that it could be called an asset, and therefore could be used as hard assets can be used and that was a huge ass mistake.

The word "asset" means a sure thing. It's there, we can see it, know the value of it, and trade it with some clarity.

A bundle of shit loans, insured with shit insurance is just a bundle of bets, instead of individual ones.

Gambling.

...and it appears they gamble, we lose.

We used to have laws to prevent that. Insurance companies wrote insurance, banks acted like banks and investment firms were risk based things.

Now, because the turd was polished and called an asset, it's all mixed up.

>That's the way it works. Some are managers, some are CEO's and some are "workers"
And everyone is compensated "fairly", right?

>So only stupid, unlucky, loser, trailer trash should as you put it " get into the position where they are making off of the backs of others."?
I don't follow your logic here. My point was that people who make a shitload of money due to luck (and brilliance, and connections, and etc, but luck plays a big part).

>Those are the most F'ing socialist thing that has ever been posted on this board. I'd say it is borderline communism.
And? Your point being what? Just because you've internally associated the word "socialist" with the embodyment of pure evil does not necessarily make it so. Our country, and most countries across the world, embrace some level of socialism. We do this because we've decided that it's FAIR and RIGHT to "take care of each other", to provide a basic social safety net, to not allow the "unlucky" to suffer and die due to their bad luck, while the lucky ones kick back and enjoy the fruits of OTHER PEOPLE'S labor. So yes, asking the more successful in society to help take care of the less successful is called Socialism... and it's fair.

>NO. EVERYONE should ONLY pay their fair share.
Right, so what's fair, and who gets to decide? Clearly our elected officials get to decide... that's why we elected them. To decide. "FAIR" is not automatically "15% of everyone's income". Life is more complex than that. In a perfect world, rich (and middle-class) people would donate enough to charity to take care of all the poor and unfortunates... but guess what? People are greedy, and it's human nature to distort one's view of reality in one's own favor... so that utopian view will never come to pass. The 2nd best option is SOCIALISM... or we could just go the India route... you know - where they intentionally blind children so they can make more money begging. Sound good?

>So using your logic, if I start, for arguments sake, an electronic repair shop.
>When I started the shop, I was the only employee.
>I'm a wizard at fixing things and an honest businessman. I charge a fair price.
>Soon, word spreads that MY shop is THE place to take your stuff and get it fixed.
>Eventually, I have to hire a whole crew and I've opened let's say 10 shops throughout the metro area.
>My business is doing great and generating 10 million dollars in revenue with profit of say 4 million.
>I'm no longer a tech, but spend my days managing my "empire". My salary over the years has increased from a mere pittance to $2 million per year.
>So then using your logic, since I'm making money off the tech that I employ I should pay 90% income tax????
Well, I think you're assumptions are faulty, because nobody fixes electronics anymore, and if you're charging a "fair price", you can't afford to expand on such a scale or pay yourself 2 million bucks.
But regardless, lets go with that. I already said that I don't agree that 90% is fair (if you missed it), so lets go to a more reasonable figure... say, 50%.

You're saying that the difference between taking home 50 cents of every gross dollar "earned" (and I use the term loosely... the more you make, the less you're "earning" it)... the difference between taking home 50 cents or 75 cents, when you're *already* taking home enough money to meet the needs of you and your family MANY times over, that 25 cents is really going to make the difference for you?
You ask what's the incentive? Regardless of the tax rate - tell me, what's the incentive to make more and more and more money, when you already make LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of money?

I'm just guessing... the only answer I'm coming up with is greed. The tax rate doesn't effect greed much.

>I guarantee that if the above scenario was true (my example of the service shop) and they came along and said "well since you are rich, you have to pay 90% income tax", I'd fire ALL the employees and close the shop down.
Wow. So you'd fire everyone out of spite? You know spite and greed go hand and hand!

It sounds an awful lot like the selfish child who would rather "take his ball and go home" than share.

>One thing I can't stand about Democrats is that they feel that the rich should fund their socialist programs.
No... EVERYONE WHO CAN AFFORD IT should fund the socialist programs... because THAT'S WHAT'S FAIR.

>No one has answered my question of why wealthy people scare the Democrats so much?
That's because your question is ridiculous. The Democratic party is run by wealthy people (as are both parties and the entire government).

FYI, an asset is not a "sure thing" as that asset could get written down at any time due to market forces.

Thanks!

Of course you are spot on. I struggle to differentiate these things!

Any help at all appreciated!