Why? The next four years are going to be ugly. Sometimes I think that we should let McCain win. The Republicans got us into this mess…let them take the blame and the heat that will inevitably accompany the extrication process.
And then, I think…nope…we can't do that. We simply cannot let our longings for the politics of retribution and revenge interfere with the painful but necessary process of setting this country on its proper course. We are far, far off that course at the moment, and we dare not leave the ship of state in the hands of Right Wing loonies a moment longer.
Now for a newly elected leader, there is a great deal of danger in trying to change the course of our nation. Even if you succeed, a lot of people will tell you that you did it all wrong. No matter how astute and resolute Barack Obama is, he will be mercilessly second-guessed for every move that he makes. And make no mistake, if Obama is able to implement even a portion of the needed course corrections, the next four years are going to subject everyone in this country to a great deal of pain.
Consider what happens in the corporate world if a large, publicly held corporation falls on hard times. The board of directors will often resort to drastic measures, sacking the CEO and his senior staff, and hiring a new guy with a very specific set of talents: He is a "turnaround specialist," or more accurately, an "ax man." His job is to clean house…to strip out the bureaucratic fat. Sometimes his pruning can extend down even into the worker ranks. He may eliminate whole departments, even spin off unprofitable divisions.
When he's done, if he has done his job well, what remains will be a lean and mean organization, more efficient and more responsive to its markets. But what will also remain is a festering sore that will inhibit the smooth functioning of the new organism: In performing his job, he will inevitably have made enemies, and those people will never be able to work with him effectively. And so, the ax man himself will be axed, and replaced with a new set of top management who took no part in the bloodlettings that have occurred, share no blame with the ax man, and should be able to heal the sore quickly.
Obama may find himself, whether he likes it or not, operating as an ax man. Much of the pruning that must be done that will alienate powerful vested interests. Farm subsidies are a huge albatross hanging around our neck. Many of their effects are pernicious…paying farmers not to grow crops, paying farmers fifty cents a bushel to grow corn, and another fifty cents to convert it into ethanol. The corn subsidy has destroyed or threatened peasant farmers in Central America, Africa and elsewhere. In the case of Mexico, the farmers who could not compete with subsidized corn imported from the U.S. by ADM or Cargill, abandoned their farms and came to the US looking for jobs to keep their families from starving, contributing to our illegal immigrant problem.
The ethanol subsidy is enriching agribusiness, diverting corn from food to fuel, causing worldwide food shortages, particularly in the poverty-stricken areas of Central America and Africa. It's not even sensible…production of the ethanol uses almost as much fossil fuel as the ethanol it produces. Insane policy, paid for by big agribusiness campaign contributions! Obama needs to shut off these subsidies, but the opposition will be fierce, and enemies will be made.
The Oil Depletion Allowance: Are we really paying those guys for pumping oil when oil company profits are setting quarterly all-time records for any corporation in any business? Unbelievable, but true, and every Congressional politician is on the oil company payroll through the legalized bribery of "campaign contributions." That includes Obama, but he has a broad base of contributors and should be less subservient to them. One can hope. How can he, even as President, win a power struggle with such a concentration of raw political power? He must use his bully pulpit, engaging the American people, urging them to put pressure on their representatives. He has a rare gift that enables him to communicate with the people. I think he could do this, and I hope that he will.
The War: No matter how wise and sensible his actions are to extricate us from Iraq, he will have an army of doubters and second-guessers, ready to pounce on any perceived miscalculation. Bad things are happening in Iraq now, and bad things will continue to happen as we withdraw, and after we are gone. But every single bad thing that happens throughout the process will be blamed on the President. And the criticism will come not only from Republicans…that is to be expected…but also from his own party. From everyone. It's a no-win situation for him. Damned if he stays, damned if he leaves quickly, damned even if he delays leaving.
The reason for this is simple. Once Obama is elected, it is no longer Bush's war. It's Obama's war. He can deflect some of this if he is courageous enough to make withdrawal the most prominent part of his campaign. He has to say to the American People, "If you elect me, I will get us out of Iraq, and I will do it quickly." Now, when he is elected, the people have ratified that course, and they expect it. It won't eliminate the carping, but it will lessen its impact. It would take great courage for Obama to do this, because of the "cut and run" label that Republicans have been hanging around Democrats' necks since the war started going badly. And it has been effective, intimidating most Democratic politicians into silence or muted criticism of the War.
I believe Obama must confront that "cut and run" label and debunk it. He is the only politician in the country that I think is capable of doing that, and he must, or the War will destroy him. And he must do it now, before he is elected.
There is much more "tough love" that Obama must administer to the American people. We simply must get our financial house in order. Budget and trade deficits must be attacked. That is going to cause pain for everyone. Taxes need to go up, and not just on the rich, although repeal of the tax cuts for the wealthy is a good first step. But our infrastructure is crumbling, we need to get serious about global warming and renewable energy, and healthcare for all citizens. All that is going to cost money. The American people are going to have to feel some pain. Anything else just postpones the pain and defers it to future generations. It's time for this generation…our generation…to start paying our way.
If Obama is successful in even a portion of this agenda, he is going to make a lot of enemies…and like the ax man, he may get axed in 2012. Now that doesn't worry me. Not every president should serve eight years. Certainly George W. Bush should have been replaced in 2004…or never elected in 2000. But that's a calamity that we allowed to happen and we are paying the price. Now, the concern is that if Obama is too damaged to continue in 2012…who will replace him? The danger is that an overreaction could happen, resulting in a reactionary Republican President who proceeds to undo all the good that Obama has done. Just as Reagan undid all of President Carter's ambitious and visionary alternative energy programs. Just imagine where we would be today if Carter's plan had been carried out. It is possible that we would never have been involved in any of the Middle East conflicts that have cost our nation so dearly in blood, treasure and international standing. The WTC attacks might never have happened. The world could have been a safer and happier place, had it not been for oil-dominated energy policy and its overriding influence on our foreign policy.
But all of that is hindsight speculation. What seems certain is that we are approaching a critical time in the history of our nation. Can a single, charismatic leader show us the path to safety? And if he starts us down that path, how can we prevent another "Reagan reaction" from diverting us yet again four years from now?
It is not too soon to start thinking about it.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 108
There have been many Presidents who endured national trial under duress that were elected 2 terms. Lincoln and Truman come to mind.
Sam,...good thoughts. How do we force oil down to fifty bucks? Not by government edict. We have to control demand, and that means conservation...and alternate energy programs...and conservation...and conservation...and conservation...
I don't like paying taxes either, but these people are driving our nation into bankruptcy. The dollar is crashing as a result. If we don't straighten out our financial mess, the world will do it for us by driving the dollar down to junk currency.
It would help a lot just to get rid of the War expenditures, though.
I'm glad to see that you have come around, Phyllis. It is absurd to think that we can pay off this debt without contributing. Who wants to be owned by China? A few days ago, I thought you might. Glad to see you woke up.
Bert, I think everyone with a functioning IQ understands. The more intelligent among us are even willing to admit that we know it, and the people who honestly love this country are willing to accept what is coming, even though the idiots who will neither admit nor accept are the ones who put us here.
Yeah... go communism! The state takes control of Oil Refineries (they don't produce the oil, they refine it).
Those big media corporations have an effective monopoly on the news that most people get, so they have tremendous power in molding public opinion.
Bert, you are right. Virtually every first step in Obama's presidency will be an undoing of the Bush White House. And pundits will rail Obama for doing the very thing Republicans now are saying must be done.
But perhaps the world stage, uncontrolled by DC, such as in Rio, Darfur New Orleans etc, and the many other tragedies coming at lightning speed from all sorts of places, including especially the environment, will put all that ax-swinging into perspective for the electorate come 2012. If in the next three years firm evidence comes that Manhattan's financial district is threatened in the next couple of decades by rising ocean levels, we'll likely have a different sort of election then, since we'll also be talking about Miami and most cities on the eastern seaboard. Scientists have studied many factors in the ancient past that has caused climate change. This is the first time around that humans have been a factor. But again, as you suggest, that may depend on which news media one pays attention to.
Though many of the self-destructive perks enjoyed by special interests, even out in the pastures and fields of American farmers, is an old one that both aisles are equally responsible for.
As far your general point of Obama inheriting such a mess that he may not be re elected due to the inability to right every situation...I agree. But the association of raising more income for the government by enacting higher taxes is not necessarily valid...especially in a floundering economy. Higher revenue may best be achieved by lowering taxes in order to re-stimulate economic growth. While we ARE outspending our current income, much of this expenditure is for the war and much of it is waste...plain and simple waste.
The price we pay for oil is quoted to us in dollars...which are at a very low value relative to other currency of the world. This is because we are printing money for which we have no assets. Consider the fact that if our dollar was valued at say 20% more than it is now...the price we pay for a barrel of oil would be 20% less. While a weak dollar is not healthy for any country, a few benefits can occur...one of which is foreign investment. Money coming in to the country.
At one time, the purpose of federal income tax was to finance our government...pay for the things we share. Now it has become a way to redistribute wealth.
The best approach to reducing our deficit and increasing the value of our dollar, which would lower the price we pay for goods we import..like oil.. would be to stop strangling ourselves with high taxes and to stop printing counterfeit money In fact...we should really be taxing consumption rather than productivity....but that is a whole 'nuther debate.
I am supporting Obama, but I am doing so partially because I think the Republicans offer a worse alternative at this moment in time. Everything is a tradeoff...everything is a compromise. The Republicans with their religion soaked, devious, self righteous, war mongering, lying, Constitution stomping agenda must be stopped...at all costs. Even if I will pay higher taxes to fill that void created by government waste and misappropriated funds. And even if our economy takes longer to recover.
My personal feeling is that we shouldn't care if we have one or two term Presidents, especially before they even get elected. Time will tell. However, your point is well taken, that Obama will have to spend a considerable amount of effort to undo the mistakes of the last 8 years. But he, and we, shouldn't just be focused on undoing the past. We need to be focused on moving forward to the future. Undoing (i.e., reverting) is not the answer. The answer is in finding a new way of thinking about domestic and international policy.
The same goes for taxes/no taxes. The whole concept is a misrepresentation of reality. Republicans raise taxes and Democrats cut costs, not just the other way around. The question is priorities. I can't support raising taxes to fund programs that shouldn't be funded. And we have more than a few of those (e.g., the ethanol incentives you mention). So we shouldn't assume that Democrats will raise taxes and Republicans will cut taxes. A new way of thinking will be to assess the veracity of all programs, chart a new set of priorities (which will get funded) and reduce or eliminate funding for those that are less priorities. It's called budgeting (as in, a realtor sold less houses this year so he plans a staycation instead of a world cruise).
If he does his job right (AND Congress does its job right AND the public does its job right), then we should be on a path forward.
I agree with most of your comments, Michael, but the one above puzzles me. Our income taxes are much less progressive than they used to be. And the "redistribution" that is happening now is from the poor to the rich, not the other way. Maybe that's what you meant. And even though we are NOT paying for current government expenditures...running deficits instead...shouldn't taxes pay for the costs of government? Under our last Democratic president, we had budget surpluses and a vibrant economy. Running huge deficits to do "pump priming" is okay if it is temporary, just to get out of a recession, but under Reagan, and both Bushes, the deficits were chronic and continuous, regardless of economic conditions. You can't prime the pump forever...eventually, you had better pump some water.
I guess you don't mind the huge deficits, huh? Just let our kids and theirs take care of it. Very responsible of you.
Are you in favor of drilling for oil in our country,which would increase supply and bring the price down, which is the reason these jerks in congress tell us why they want to sue the Saudis. More supply lower price.Now Bert if you are against getting our own oil huh! Just let our kids pay 8.00/9.00/10.00/-20.00 dollars a barrel/ very responsible Bert.
If you are talking about drilling in the ANWR, the amount of oil there is insignificant compared to our needs, and it wouldn't come online for ten years, so don't tell me how there is a magical oil supply in this country that will suddenly drop oil prices back to 1990 levels. That is NEVER going to happen again, micky. there are too many people in the world who are increasing their demand for oil every day. Meanwhile, Mexico, one of our major suppliers, is running out...their major oil fleld is "rolling over." Production is going down about 10% a year. Saudi Arabia and Iran are both in the same place...old fields that are drying up.
Here is an article about Mexico's big Cantarell field.
That is arguably why Bush and the Oil Patch wanted war in Iraq...it has major proven reserves that have not been tapped. But supply and demand will dictate the price of oil, and it's going nowhere but up from now on.
But this has nothing to do with my question to you, which you didn't answer, so I will repeat it. It had to do with taxes, not oil:
I guess you don't mind the huge deficits, huh? Just let our kids and theirs take care of it.
In this case most likely the Dems and that assuring the Repubs to get in the next time to continue on with what they always do to us ... enrich themselves at our expense ...
I too sometimes think that the present admin should be given more time to show their true colors, give them time (rope) enough to effectively (finally) hang themselves to death ...
To elect a Dem for cleanup is just throwing a bandaid on a nasty infection without doing anything about real healing ... a temporary patch to only "hide" the ongoing festering ... that continues to eat away underneath ...
The common thing to all government and industry is the people, and it is the people of the US that seem to be clueless lately, whether in government or in industry, the goal to which we are heading seems to be incompatible with long-term sustainability an actually maintaining a society where peoplel can stand each other enough to cooperate.
Why is this. Maybe the US is the only totally consumer-driven medias-driven society with so much crime and no safety net that substitutes commericals for education, even at the level of doctors who get their training from drug salespeople during their practice as well as our politicians who get their information from lobbyists.
The result has been the disintegration of the society in favor of just ignoring anyone who does not have tons of money or who actually believes in the country anymore.
No, my point is that continuing to rape the earth, extract the last smidgen of oil or minerals to support YOUR lifestyle is wrong. We are the first generation that actually has the ability to destroy the ecosophere of the planet with nuclear weapons, or to poison the atmosphere and the water and the soil so severely that we can literally make the planet uninhabitable. We have attained that capability through the growth of technology, and the exploding growth of human population and their consumption of the earth's resources. Many species are now threatened with extinction due to human activities. That may not upset you, but I think it is truly deplorable and immoral what we are doing to the planet.
I will have more to say about your claims of unlimited oil in the United States in a later post but I would like to return this discussion to the original topic.
You still have not explained to me why you think taxes should be reduced as deficits continue to climb. In the article above, I outlined some of the waste in the current budget...subsidies and the War. Even if Obama is able to abolish or reduce these...and I believe he will do at least some of them...we will probably still be running a deficit, partly due to the tax cut for the rich that Bush installed, and McCain wants to keep.
So if you want to keep cutting taxes, tell me how you plan to balance the budget. A huge piece of the budget goes to service the national debt which has climbed astronomically under Bush. The only way to bring those payments down is to start paying off the debt, but where does that money come from? The Easter Bunny?
Tell us your plan for the future fiscal stability and health of the US. Please.
I Googled around a little, and here are three that I found. The all suggest that the end of cheap oil is upon us, that major fields are "rolling over" and that global demand continues to escalate. Please give us a link, micky, to your web site.
Here are the ones I found, some from links in the NG site, and I wasn't cherry picking. One of them is very recent, and the news is not good about water coming up in the Saudi crude. That's a sign a field is near the end of production.
End of Cheap Oil
Tapped Out
Peak Energy
"The danger is that an overreaction could happen, resulting in a reactionary Republican President who proceeds to undo all the good that Obama has done."
Mr. Obama has not done anything. I have never in my life seen a candidate so blatantly favored by the main stream media. The "powers that be" want him to be the nominee, very much. That means one of two things, I think; either he's not the Robin Hood we dream of, or he's going to be dismantled once the nomination is final. I don't see much chance the day you imagine, will ever come to pass.
In the last debate, they spent almost the entire hour going over and over the Reverend Wright controversy, with almost no discussion of the important issues that the new President will face, like the Iraq War, global warming, womens choice, healthcare for all citizens, straightening out the fiscal mess our nation is in by abolishing tax cuts for the rich and eliminating corporate welfare scams like farm subsidies and the oil depletion allowance, and finally, subversion of the Constitution by a President who thinks he is king.
These are the issues that the candidates should be talking about...things that really affect every one of us. Instead, they concentrate on trying to claim that Obama's former pastor will control his actions as President. What a bunch of BS!
I understand the frustration with the Electoral College - I have the same frustrations. But when I read here on Gather people declaring they won't vote for Obama because he "won't wear a flag lapel pin" I wonder if things would be any better.
Forget every other issue with an Obama presidency: whoever is elected will very likely nominate 3 or 4 Supreme Court justices. We MUST not give John McCain that opportunity.
On the former, I think most people don't take that stuff very seriously, despite the efforts of the media to excalate it into a major issue.
Re the Supreme Court, if they get one more Right Winger to team up with the "Fearsome Foursome," Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito, women's choice, worker's rights and countless other personal liberties will be threatened.
It's just one more reason (if we needed any more) that a McCain presidency would be a disaster for the nation.
The remarkable thing about this strip is that the author is a Right Winger, always blasting us "libs." But apparently even he thought things had gone too far.
I wish I could scan the whole strip and display it here, but obviously it is copyrighted material. So...I will give you a description:
First panel:
Middle Aged Guy (worried looking): ""I have no job."
Mainstream Media Flack: ""Obama's scary black reverend."
Second panel:
MAG: "I'm losing my home."
Mainstream Media Flack: ""Obama's scary black reverend."
Third Panel:
MAG: "My wife found a lump but we don't have health insurance."
Mainstream Media Flack: ""Obama's scary black reverend."
Fourth Panel:
MAG: "I can't afford to feed my family."
Mainstream Media Flack: ""Obama's scary black reverend."
Fifth Panel:
MAG: "An unnecessary war killed my little girl."
Mainstream Media Flack: ""Obama's scary black reverend."
Sixth Panel:
MAG: "Obama's scary black reverend."
Mainstream Media Flack (Hand on MAG's shoulder, looking into his eyes): "You are very, very concerned."
Micky D., is this how you deal with all your debt? Do you just run out and buy/use/take what you want and then say, "So sorry, i can't afford to pay those incompetent morons who were stupid enough to grant me credit, mow my lawn, roof my house, repair my car, teach my children . . .?
I raised the same point about his demands for lower taxes in the face of huge deficits. It's an easy out to say, "Oh well, those people in our government are incompetent, so we should reduce taxes."
That's much easier than actually having to confront issues like single mothers who are uneducated and untrained, can't get a job. People like micky would like to say, "Tough s**t, honey. You shouln't have had sex and gotten pregnant, so I'm not paying for your predicament."
And then you ask the embarrassing question, "Yeah, but what about her kids? Are you going to let them freeze and starve?"
Usually (this may not be true with micky) the same people are vehemently anti-abortion too. And that raises an interesting question:
How can they be so adamant about preserving the life of the fetus, but once the child is born, oh well...that's the mother's problem.
The real agenda here is the attempt to enforce their vision of "morality," and forcing the mother to have the kid she can't support is her punishment...you're only supposed to have sex to make babies...pleasure is prohibited! And mistakes are not allowed.
I believe the only practical solution to this problem is FREE abortions and FREE voluntary sterilization. This would remove a huge burden from a lot of poor people, and also a huge burden (over time) from AFDC and other child welfare programs...plus it has the incalculable benefit of NOT bringing unwanted children into the world.
But I know this will never happen as long as the morality nazis have their say.
Unfortunately, many people believe this because of the careless (or carefully plotted, depending on how you happen to view the Republican Party) statements Bush and friends have made. It infuriates me that they take advantage of people who are either unable or unwilling to think for themselves and plant these seeds.
I believe the only practical solution to this problem is FREE abortions and FREE voluntary sterilization.
I am going to dance all the way out to the end of this limb I'm stepping on with this one. When mothers and/or fathers have been supporting their families fall on hard times (the death of one parent, the loss of a job, etc.), I believe our society should step up and take care of those families until they are able to take care of themselves.
I think we should understand that people make mistakes, once or twice. I do NOT think we should encourage or support the PARENTS of the third child born to a mother who is unable to support the two she already has. "Offering" free birth control, abortion, or sterilization doesn't seem enough to me. I think abortion and birth control should be mandatory unless these mothers are willing to put the children up for adoption. Obviously, they are not capable of learning from their mistakes so the children would be better off with parents who are able to care for and guide them.
But I know this will never happen as long as the morality nazis have their say. Ditto for my comment. I wonder how "morality" would change if the mothers didn't get free housing and food for producing more children than they should have in the first place.
I agree, but...if she doesn't have enough money for food, the kids starve or are at least malnourished. And of course, the problem is, giving her money doesn't guarantee that she will spend it on food for the kids...she may spend it on drugs, booze or whatever. I don't know what to do about that. Society can only go so far in helping people.
I won't even address the morality of it. What government should do is prevent suffering, especially of the kids. I'm not sure about mandatory abortions or sterilization...but maybe there has to be a limit as you say...support for two children maximum. And then if she has more, try to get her to put them up for adoption if she won't have an early-term abortion. It's a tough problem, and I'm not sure what the details of the solution should be. But letting kids suffer for the stupidity of their parents is not an acceptable solution as far as I am concerned.
You are not objective about these matters. You "have a dog in the fight", and are not bothering to think through the ramifications of what you're seeing unfold. Once the Rovian spin machine kicks in, you will get it, but it will be too late. The media which is in the hands of the hyper-wealthy/corpratocracy, in conjunction with an Administration which can once again bring about a state of "crisis" with their help, will easily turn Mr. Obama into an inexperienced first term Senator from Illinois, with a great future ahead of him, running against a tried and true "war hero", with vast knowledge of national security matters.
These fellows don't care about your dreams, or mine, just theirs.
I think people will be influenced by the media, but there is an abiding distrust of Republicans at the moment, and I think it is likely that no amount of disinformation can overcome that. McCain is a legitimate war hero, but he is a self-described warmonger. People are tired of the War. That is the 800 pound gorilla, and no amount of harping about Obama's reverend is going to change a lot of people's minds.
The polls show Obama with a substantial lead over McCain if the election were held today. Polls don't always tell the real story, and a lot can happen between now an November.
But I think Obama is the most likely new President. There are some new political forces emerging in this country. I will be very disappointed if they do not materialize on election day. Time will tell, of course.
Sandy, there's no need to wonder--check out any third-world country (except perhaps the Muslim ones). Remember the one I lived in? No free anything, and a large number of women keep having baby after baby with a different man each time, hoping in every case that the new one is going to stick around. Over 70% of the children are born out of wedlock, and children you know to be siblings are more likely to have different last names than the same one.... On the other hand, most European countries are begging women to have children, and offering benefits that are much more substantial than here. Still, the fertility rate in some is as low as 1.3 children per woman. Really, the number of children born seems to have very little to do with welfare programs. It's what happens to those children after they're born that makes all the difference.
Right, Bent. That's the great fallacy that Republicans keep pushing...that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. They are the party of low taxes, period, and to Hell with the budget.
"the less the government does for its people, the higher the birthrate is"
It's education, or lack thereof, that's the problem. When a government does little for its people, education is one of the main things it does little of.
The same has been true in China, but the government has been trying to change it there, decreeing a maximum of one child. However, I have read that they do not enforce that restriction in agricultural areas.
Is every capitalist alive just looking at the next quarter earnings and the other three quarters be damned? I was educated as an accountant (before Anderson gave that field a bad name) what ever happened to the five, ten, and twenty year plans? Did everyone in charge today get Cs on their report cards? the US has a bit of oil, but not enough, nor do we have anywhere near enough refineries. Not to mention the fact that in our weakened and over-extended military condition caused by Rumsfeld's war on the cheap, we are ill equiped to defend US oil fields were we to create them.
Doesn't everyone see that China is the next, big super power? They won't be after our wind power or our solar power and there's no trash to get rid of from these energy sources.
Why are we so eternally stupid and just keep doing the same ole' stuff because its making money for stockholders until the corp. goes broke? We've stopped all the funding for research, we've gutted our education system into a training school for laborers/techs of the coming economy. And the best we can come up with is taking food off the tables to stuff in the gas guzzling US made cars. Sheesh. Idiocracy is upon us.
You say..."Our income taxes are much less progressive than they used to be. And the "redistribution" that is happening now is from the poor to the rich, not the other way."
The fact that our taxes are much less progressive than they used to be in no way affects the validity of my statement. Nor did I mean that the "redistribution" of wealth is flowing from the poor to the rich.....even if your reference was meant to be exclusive our present income tax system. "The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer"...How long has this erroneous statement about economic inequality been around? Probably for almost 200 years, depending upon opinion as to origin.
Bert...if this statement were true...we would have only rich people by now as the poor would have all starved to death! In reality...and I refer to the economics of the United States only, we are all richer now than ever before. By this I mean that our overall standard of living is higher now than at any time in the history of this country. How long can one cling to the "flow of money from the poor to the rich" statement? It is simply without validity.
The US has been increasing its refining capacity enormously over the past 2 or 3 decades by upgrading existing ones. Every drop of oil that's produced is refined. The choice is to refine crude here in the USA or import refined products, letting some other country take the environmental hit. Our oil companies own refining capacity all over the world.
Whether we import crude or refined products, we're at the mercy of world supply-demand.
I have not researched this. It is based on my own observations. But it seems to me that, while the AVERAGE standard of living may be rising in this country, there is a large and growing lower economic class, and an upper economic class. The old "middle class" is disappearing...they were the blue and white collar workers that came out of returning WWII soldiers, got the GI Bill, and went on to power the great economic expansion of the 50's and 60's. They were the "baby boomers," and many of them are now retiring, but many were earlier forced into downgrades, pay cuts and layoffs by globalization and outsourcing of their jobs. Younger workers have not replaced them in the workforce because those high-paying jobs in manufacturing and technology are gone...to India, Pakistan, Taiwan and PRC. The result is a growing chasm between the upper economic classes and the chronically poor. If that isn't redistribution of wealth, then I don't know what to call it.
If you want to change our focus of conversation to the globalization and outsourcing of jobs...then yes...again we have a redistribution of wealth and yes this outsourcing of jobs is having an impact upon the balance of wealth in this country. This is a result of the changing nature of our modern economy... the evolution of all free market economies. "Every modern economy is constantly changing in technology and organization." (Thomas Sowell) No one can argue that we have "lost" about 8 million jobs in the area of agriculture for example, over the past century....changing technology and evolving organization. More than 17 million American workers lost their jobs between 1990 and 1995, but there were never 17 million workers unemployed. Unemployment rates hit new lows in the 1990s.
The current state of alarm about the changing job market is largely due to the fact that we are now part of the international economy. According to Peter Drucker, a management consultant, "Nobody seems to realize that we import twice or three times as many jobs as we export. I'm talking about the jobs created by foreign companies coming into the U.S., such as Japanese automobile plants making Toyotas and Hondas on American soil."
Drucker gives another example..."Siemens alone has 60,000 employees in the United States." (Siemens is a company whose business is global in scope...it an International company)
The notion of working in the same job or for the same company for a life time is gone...it's true. But this is because of the more quickly changing nature of technology and the expanding scope of the international economy.
Another often ignored result of exporting manufacturing jobs..to China for example, is the lower price we as Americans pay for those "outsourced" goods. Jenny's China made school outfit may cost half as much as one manufactured in the U.S. Plus, we can still employ Americans to operate the business of the manufacturing company...the sales, the warehousing, the distribution, the accounting, the management. Manufacturing is only a part of the overall part of a manufacturing concern.
Bert...I've gone long here, but I could go longer. It is a simple matter to draw conclusions about this topic of our changing economy which on the surface, may seem valid, but when investigated more completely may yield an entirely different conclusion(s).
It is my argument that the redistribution of wealth, with regards to our position in the global economy, is a necessary and valuable part of the evolution of our national economy. In short...it's free enterprise and it works.
Poor districts get poor education; the children grow up to live in poor districts so THEIR children get poor education. Meanwhile, rich districts have all the modern amenities, good teachers, plenty of books, etc. Their kids go to college, get good jobs and live in rich districts where THEIR kids get good educations.
This is a system that is not yet broken, but badly needs mending.
I agree that globalization has been a major cause of the decline of the American middle class, but if you are correct that income taxes are primarily a wealth distribution tool, they are a damned ineffective one. Given the growing gap between the rich and the poor, maybe we NEED a wealth distribution tool, so maybe income taxes should be even more progressive!
As to the flow of wealth from the poor to the rich being a fallacy, I see an awful lot of BMW's, Mercedes and McMansions around here amongst the urban ghettos and barrios.
It seems to me to be...reality. It is not CAUSED by income taxes...I didn't mean to imply that...but taxes are doing little to 'correct' it. But I gather that you don't think it needs correction anyway.
A couple other points...foreign companies that come here do provide jobs, but the profits of the corporations go back to their home countries...it is little different from foreign companies buying our businesses and real estate...this bothers me maybe more than it should...the fact that we are becoming tenants of foreign landlords, employees of foreign companies in our own country. It's ironic that we seem to be heading toward third-world status in that sense.
Free Trade is the cause of much of the decline in the economic prospects of the American workforce...foreign workers work cheaper, so jobs go where the cheap labor is, or American workers have to take huge pay cuts. But nowhere in the world is trade really 'free." We subsidize our farmers unfairly, other countries do similar things. The political pressure to protect local workers and industries is irresistible for virtually every nation. I don't think free trade works. I think we need to go back to the cumbersome old method where each country negotiates trade agreements with every other country, and every country can protect whatever domestic activities they feel are essential. I worry greatly about the loss of manufacturing capability...steelmaking, etc. in this country. In the next war, we may not be able to import all the things we need that we no longer make.
There is much more to say about this, but I must quit...can't sit here all day.
More later...and thanks for your input.
Bert...First of all, I didn't say that income taxes have become PRIMARILY a wealth redistribution tool....I said that income taxes had become A wealth redistribution tool.
If the top 1% of personal income families pay almost 40% of the personal income tax revenue, how can you argue this? Certainly income taxes are not the only measure of the redistribution of wealth...but can you honestly maintain that the overall wealth of this country is not at an all time high? Our standard of living is one of the top ten in the world. Certainly there are those who struggle to make ends meet. Certainly there is an indication that the wealth gap is widening, but what would you have us do about this problem? Are you suggesting that those who "have" give more to those who "have little"? How much should the "haves" pay to the "have littles"?
You also said "...foreign companies that come here do provide jobs, but the profits of the corporations go back to their home countries..." So what? Where do you think the profits of American companies that outsource jobs in other countries go? And, the profits companies who are based in other countries are TAXED here. (income earned by a foreign corporation is subject to US income tax under two circumstances: net income effectively connected with a US trade or business is taxed at normal corporate income tax graduated rates and US source income not effectively connected with a US trade or business is taxed at a 30% rate.) AND, the foreign companies bring capitol investment here. They build buildings and they buy other goods and services from American companies. They pay salaries to American workers. Think about this!
I think Bert, that you are afraid of the inevitable...and the inevitable is the expansion of a global economy. It really doesn't matter how we as individuals feel about this process. It is ongoing and unstoppable.
You also said, "foreign workers work cheaper, so jobs go where the cheap labor is, or American workers have to take huge pay cuts." This is an assumption on your part. The vast majority of foreign investments by American companies are in high-wage countries. (from "Manufacturing Confusion" an essay by Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Dr Sowell holds a Ph.D. in Economics)
What a wild ride on a tangent derived from your article about Obama and his chances of serving a second term..should he be elected to a first term! And I hope he is elected...on this we see eye to eye!
I always enjoy my conversations with you sir. The topic is of secondary consideration.
And I assure you the reverse is true. I always learn from your posts. Meeting people like you is the reason I came to Gather.
You are correct, I AM afraid of globalization, because I see what it is doing to our nation...to the vibrant and prosperous middle class that we used to have. I don't know the answer(s) but what is happening now...exporting of jobs, importing of cheap products, the 'hollowing out' of our nation into a rich oligarchy and a peasant class, the growing trade deficit and foreign ownership of our nation...maybe I'm just old fashioned, I dunno.
Top 1% Over $364,657 21% 39%
Top 5% Over $145,283 36% 60%
Top 10% Over $103,912 46% 70%
Top 25% Over $62,068 68% 86%
Top 50% Over $30,881 87% 97%
Bottom 50% Under $30,882 13% 3%
Let's construct an imaginary country of 100 individuals, each representing 1% of the population, and let's say the TOTAL income for all of them is $100.
So the top guy gets $21
The next four get a total of $15...$3.75 each.
The next five get a total of $10...two bucks each
The next fifteen get $22...or $1.47 each.
The next 25 get $19...or 76 cents each.
The bottom 50 get $13 total...exactly 26 cents each.
Now, I realize this is an oversimplification. The income figure for each category is an average number, and not every person gets the same amount. But bear with me for a moment, and I think you will see my point.
If the top 10 people, whose total income is $46, almost half of the $100, gave $13 to the bottom 50, it would double the income of each of those 50 people! And the top 10% would STILL have a third ($33) of the total. Would the loss of less than a third of their income disincentivise them, cause them to quit striving to make even more money? I don't think so. And just think what a vast improvement that would be for half the people in my little imaginary country!
Thanks, and I agree with you. We have to change the direction of our nation. The current course is self-destructive.
An argument can be made that by giving poor people free money to spend, we will circulate more money and thus improve our economy. In the short term, this might have some merit...in the long term, we will be advertising for more poor people for whom we can subsidize an unproductive lifestyle.
And it all is inherited from our religious viewpoints based upon competitive dualism (+/-).
It will not be until we learn that we are all one spiritual family (+=-) that we will ever solve the inherent problems of the present. IMnsHO.
Hopefully your question has been answered by now. But just for the record, here is what you said: " Michael - explain how the wealth is being redistributed. I see the most egregious use of taxpayers funds in the area of corporate welfare. We bail out too many companies as far as I'm concerned. Surely, you aren't talking about the pittance that goes out to the states for TANF."
Do you want to address the subject of corporate welfare? I think we bail our too many companies also, but I was talking about the redistribution of wealth as it relates to our tax dollars and the manner in which we support the lower income level people...by both the amount of revenue paid in at each income level, the social welfare programs, and the furnishing of government services for which the lower income levels pay very little or nothing.
By the way..TANF is a very small expenditure as a proportion of our federal budget. Frankly, I think this is a worthy expenditure. The key to my acceptance and endorsement of TANF is in the word "temporary" . Temporary Assistance for Needy Families works within a boundary of set requirements for participation, work requirements, work activities and a TIME LIMIT.
When money is taken from one group of people and spent to help support another...you have redistribution of wealth. Very simple.
Meanwhile...I am working on a new article that deals with the statistics that we have discussed above. I hope to see you there when I publish.
The question is, would that extra money give them the incentive to dig their way our of the self-perpetuating hole they are in. You have your opinion on that...and I have mine.
Michael...the question is not...would more money cause the poor to "LOSE THEIR INCENTIVE TO PAY THEIR OWN WAY". I didn't write a question...I wrote an opinion.
"No I don't think the more productive folks would lose their incentive to make money....but the LESS PRODUCTIVE WOULD LOSE THEIR INCENTIVE TO PAY THEIR OWN WAY....at least a great many of them would.
YOU posed a question..."The question is, would that extra money give them the incentive to dig their way our of the self-perpetuating hole they are in."
My answer is this...maybe it would in a few instances, but as a whole..nope. I has not...historically speaking, given incentive for self sufficiency. I fact, it has created a sense of entitlement.
Confessions of an Unrepentant Liberal
I had no idea that you "do not favor endless welfare panments to people who sit on their ass and feel entitled, any more than you do."
Why didn't you say so sooner? In your "little imaginary country" you make it appear that the money would flow from the higher income groups to the lower income groups until those in the lower groups exceeded the income level at which they no longer received free money. AND this is the flaw in the notion of giving money to the poor. What would be the incentive to work hard enough to become ineligible for free money?
Welfare payments are, by their nature, (in my opinion) the surest way to guarantee poverty.
But if you are proposing programs such as TANF...then I am with you. The only thing is, TANF is already an operating agency or group of agencies, operating as a blend of federal and state efforts and money. Should we expand TANF? Are we doing too little?
I have always favored efforts that help a person become self sufficient. This is not about giving money to the poor, it is about teaching and training and providing a safety net of security until self sufficiency can be achieved.
But...not every poor person will use programs such as those provided under the TANF effort. Those people are the bloodsuckers that hold a stranglehold on our society if we allow them to. Giving money BY INCOME LEVELS is a means by which we become enablers...we enable the lives of endless complacency and dependency AND entitlement. And that is what our current tax system is (aside from the actual purpose of income taxes...a way to fund the operation of our government and maintain our infrastructure)....a system to gather money so that we can give money to poor people. Sometimes this flow of money is in the form of welfare checks or food stamps... sometimes it's free social services....it is still taking money from one group to provide for another...a redistribution of wealth. I stand by my original statement of so many comments ago... "At one time, the purpose of federal income tax was to finance our government...pay for the things we share. Now it has become a way to redistribute wealth. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/19/scott-mcclellan-grabs-a-s_n_73386.html
Okay, to some extent, I agree with you, I think. When I said that the money taken from the richest 10% should be "given to the poor," I should have clarified it. I didn't mean that all of that money should be just handed to them. If it were, it would help some people who used it wisely...for better nutrition, education, medical care, etc. But much of it would be wasted and would accomplish nothing except to perpetuate the dependency, as you say. The kinds of things that are needed are universal medical care, free or very cheap educational programs...I'm not necessarily talking about college level here...more like vocational training. The point is, most of those people are not currently employable, and until they can get a job, no program to help them is going to work. And getting them to work and off the welfare rolls is in everybody's best interest, even if it costs a lot of money to do it.
That's basically what I said in the article I linked above.