There is one, single, pivotal, economic issue that will be decided in 11 days. It isn't healthcare, unemployment or taxes yet, in a sense, it is all of those and more.
McCain has brought the issue to the surface and he and Palin have been hammering away at it for several days. In the process, McCain has charged that Obama's plan to cut taxes for 95% of the population and to cut back on corporate welfare represents a redistribution of the wealth and, as a result, Obama is promoting socialism and he is therefore a "socialist."
The accusation has evidently made headway among some of those on the right side of the political spectrum. I was surprised last weekend to hear a relative, who I know to be quite brilliant, say that she wouldn't vote for Obama because he's a socialist.
The only trouble with McCain's and Palin's repetitive rhetoric is that, in this respect, it is blatantly false. Socialism is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as "A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community."
Nothing Obama has proposed comes anywhere near the definition of socialism.
And as for the redistribution-of-wealth charge, just what does McCain think has been going on for the last thirty years.
A few months ago, Time Magazine reported that the bottom 99% of our wage earners experienced a growth in real average income since 1980 of just 8%, while that of the top 1% jumped 177%.
Furthermore, between tax cuts that favored the rich, friendly legislation and the absence of regulations, the wealth gap between the upper and middle classes has particularly widened during the first decade of the 21st century.
And, it has become clearer than ever that the "trickle-down theory," concocted by the right wing in the 1980's, and still alluded to by McCain, is about as valid as cold fusion.
A quick look at the Bush tax cuts reveals how completely unfair they were.
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy calculated the benefits in four different ways last year, comparing the impact on the top 1% of earners with the impact on the bottom 40%, through the year 2010. This is what they reported.
The cuts will produce an aggregate benefit of $130 billion for the bottom 40%, versus an aggregate benefit of $719 billion for the top 1%.
The bottom 40% will receive 6.1% of the total cuts. The top 1% will receive 33.3% of the total cuts.
The bottom 40% will receive an average aggregate benefit of $2,300. The average benefit for the top 1% will be $522,000.
And finally, the tax cuts as a percentage of income, will be 1.2% for the bottom 40% versus 3.9% for the top 1%.
The growth of the wealth gap over the past thirty years, and particularly during the George W. Bush years, has not only penalized the middle class but it has also contributed to the current economic crisis. In the early 1930's, the Brooking Institution, as a result of Hoover's previous tax cuts that favored the rich, and other legislative measures, labeled the resulting wealth gap as one of the reasons for the Great Depression. It is only a matter of time before the same charge is leveled with respect to the current meltdown.
It is apparent, therefore, that Obama's economic plan is no more than an attempt to correct the imbalance that the past decades have brought and pull it back out of foul territory.
Time Magazine was so profoundly affected by the greed on the part of many in the upper class, it ended a recent analytical article with the following: The situation "looks just awful. To be specific, they look like pigs. Worse, they look like unpatriotic ingrates who won't share with their country even a fraction of the blessings that it has bestowed so spectacularly on them."
Make no mistake about it, the appropriate distribution of this nation's wealth is the major economic issue at stake on November 4th. And the people will be up against a powerful and greedy minority that will stop at nothing to succeed.
Dave McGill, News Correspondent
Dave's column, "The Contrarian," generally published every Friday, to Gather Essentials: News will sometimes present a contrary view to various aspects of the news, or an alternate take on the conventional wisdom of the day, and will often appear on other days of the week
Dave has been a senior officer of an eastern insurance company, involved in economic projections and investment strategy, president of a Midwestern mortgage banking company, and a financial consultant in Southern California, serving clients in the field of commercial real estate development.
You can find all of Dave's "The Contrarian" columns at: http://gather.com/thecontrarian...... Keep up with Dave's other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network - just click here: http://atadaskew.gather.com........ You'll find Dave and other News Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other News experts at News.gather.com.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 108
Good for you, however, I'm tired of the tax and spend and SORRY, but I know well who does and who doesn't raise taxes on me- GET IT- YOUR SADLY MISTAKEN AND TRYING TO MAKE WORKING POOR MIDDLE-INCOME believe you- well, forget not this one, not anymore!.
advocate creating a society where the wealth and power are more evenly distributed, but there are many methods to achieve this end. So, if that's what socialists do and want, it appears that Obama and all of his followers are leaning towards socialist values. The Marx quote also comes to mind: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Is that where we're heading? It sure seems that way.
The people making more money already pay a higher percentage of taxes than those who pay less. We've already seen what happens when the economy is already bad and taxes are raised on the "rich" and on businesses. Our own history shows that doesn't work. Why would Obama want to try it again?
There is such a divisivness going on, and there is such hatred towards those who have something or towards businesses. But those "haves" and those businesses are the ones who employ people. I've heard that Ireland is a great place for businesses to move these days - with only 12.5% business taxes. I wonder if that might be where some of our businesses will end up if their taxes are raised.
I read an article the other day about the wealthy in our country and it made an excellent point. Some people think of the "rich" and of businesses as being stable entities. But wealth is fluid in our society. Companies in the Fortune 500 today might not be there in 5 or 10 years. Small businesses fold every day. Top executives lose their jobs too. And...the neighbor next door could be working in his garage on an invention that would propel him to the ranks of millionaire in the next few years.
And that seems to be the difference in our two parties. The Republicans believe that anyone still has the ability to make it to the top. We see ourselves or our children or grandchildren making it there one day. And because of that, we're also wary of overtaxing people we already know, the businesses where we're employed, or even our own future incomes.
But if there is another group of people who cannot ever see themselves "getting there", it has to be easier for them to want to take everything they can get from the ones who already made it.
"I've got mine, you're on your own. "You can pull yourself up by your bootstraps like I did. Needy people are just lazy". etc.
One of the purest forms of Socialism was the Native American form of government as practiced by Six Nations. They shared the wealth in the form of food and game with the disabled people in their villages. Some tribes were better at sharing than others. I have read that some concepts of their governments were incorporated into the American constitution.
Those of you who support the slave state are like all the people who did not care who they were taking advantage of with these predatory loans or credit practices better blink your eyes, slap yourself, and think whether you make over 250K a year or not.
Nothing in this country smacks of anything like socialism.
I remember the figures you had issued a few months ago, on the differences between the 80s and now, in terms of growth (or not) of income for the bottom and the top.
Every single person feels this.
Let's hope for the best. Let's hope it is Obama.
Regardless, I do feel as if a global depression is coming. The machinery is swinging wildly and is out of control.
"And as for the redistribution-of-wealth charge, just what does McCain think has been going on for the last thirty years."
I'd say more like 75+ years. And just because we've been doing it that long, doesn't make it either good, prudent, or (most importantly) constitutional.
"The bottom 40% will receive 6.1% of the total cuts. The top 1% will receive 33.3% of the total cuts."
The bottom 30+% of our working class hasn't been paying ANY taxes for quite some time. So it's kind of tough to cut zero. The only reason what you're saying seems unfair is that you don't mention the starting point. Our income tax system is VERY progressive, the rich pay a lion's share and the poor pay nothing. There's a great example of how our tax system works written from the point of view of 10 friends at the pub. I'll see if I can find it and post it here later.
"Make no mistake about it, the appropriate distribution of this nation's wealth is the major economic issue at stake on November 4th. "
The "appropriate" distribution of wealth is NOT something the government has the authority or the good sense to decide. That's why we (theoretically) have a free market economy, although again we haven't really seen that for 75+ years either, and the trend is highly disturbing.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. 'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25%savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22%savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16%savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the$20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
If the fact that the top 1% is controlling more and more of the assets in the U.S. with the help of those they influence in government isn't apparent to you then you haven't been paying attention. The rich don't all deserve to be rich (organized crime figures for example and the executives at failing major companies for example). There needs to be some counterweight against the influence of the rich. I don't believe for a moment that you thing that the rich don't try to get as much money as they can. You do know about Donald Trump I am sure. I also can't believe that you think that the poor have as much influence as the rich. Don't those two facts, taken together, indicate to you that if anyone has too much influence in our government it isn't the poor?
I am not sure this is the best tax, anything to complicated I am suspicious of.
My take is the tax collection should be easier, certain amount of profit must be invested back in this country, more of the dollars should go to the states versus the feds...cause they waste it and give away rather than benefit the nation as a whole.
The other question is production and consumption.
Ford back when the first car was built found himself with few buyers, and decided the best way to address the problem was to raise his workers wages and sure enough they bought his cars.
There are certain social issues that any civilized society needs to address and if that represent socialism so be it.
One is health, second is social security for those millions of people who work menial jobs, at low wages with no benefits and keep the economy running.
I would charge a tax, maybe lower to all for S.S. but only pay it for those under a certain income level.
Education is a must to invest in, so more of us have the opportunity to contribute to the nation and achieve our goals.
Education will also lower teen pregancy, and criminal activity and for other social ills.
I found this discussion kind of strange both for the academia,'' the economist'' who has a secure job paid by the public in defense of the so called high tax payer.... and for those who have adopted the strategy of looking at a single issue to reject a candidate.
Creating a problem that does not exist for one.
We will have nothing to tax and more people loose their jobs if the buyer stops buying.
The ideology of the right does not show any benefits today and the ideology of the left has not been depicted clearly enough for me to understand.
A tax cut for 40% of the workers who have not received a raise in a while seems necessary since we need them to spend money.
A complete overhaul of the tax system would be welcomed.
A Take way from the 10% of so called high producers in this country will not be unconstitutional since they have chosen to take their money overseas and acted irresponsible as far as I am concerned... by taking companies ,and buying over seas.
You cannot be greedy,have a failed ideology, be a capitalist or be a crook , a wall streeter using fiat money and wrap yourself in the american flag.
If the economist thinks we are worried about them going overseas there are plenty of people who care more about the country and its people than we care about money and many have proven that, we will stay right here and build new companies.
My goal is socialistic, I would like to have a cooperative where those who work for the company own a piece of it as long as they work hard and adhere to ethical standards and they will be paid according to their contribution not need.
That is what the founders expected,.... those who have much to contribute to their communities and make them prosper...for everyone's benefit.
They certainly did not expect for America to send arms and money to countries around the world to dictators while our children lack health insurance.
If you are afraid of socialism do not worry, the only people that have endangered the constitution are the Bushes and Cheneys of the neocon group....fasctist by defination.
But that's not the root cause of our deficits. Our deficits are caused by irresponsibility of our elected officials. In their attempt to be everything to everyone, and to secure their re-election, they have a lot more pressure (from interest groups, lobbyists, bureaucracies, constituents, etc) to spend more than they do to cut. And both parties are guilty of this, no mistake.
But the base fact remains that when you talk about tax cuts, you have to remember that the baseline you're starting from is skewed towards taxing the rich more and the poor less. So if you say the lowest 30-40% of the population are getting 0 gain from a tax cut, it's because they pay 0 already, and you can't pay less than that.
The other moral of the story is once again proof that you can twist numbers and statistics to say whatever you want them to say.
People OUGHT to be scared of the word "socialism". It rewards, breeds, and engenders mediocrity and sloth. It encourages inaction and corruption, it increases the creeping encroachment of government bureaucracy into the nooks and crannies of everyday life, and all the waste and inefficiency that go with it. It depersonalizes and dehumanizes; it turns individuals into numbers and strips civil liberties.
It is, in a word, evil.
Socialism is a very bad thing because it concentrates too much power in the hands of a few people. But that is also true of a capitalist society in which a few of the rich have acquired most of the power. Any time too much power is concentrated in a few hands the society / nation will suffer. For the last 30 years, the rich have gained considerably in comparison to the middle classes and the poor. That imbalance needs to be addressed.
Can any of the conservatives out there who read this tell me how the concentration of power in the hands of the rich (with the help of government) can be corrected? Because until the poor and middle class get more money and more assets the economy will continue to "tank" and that hurts everybody.
Fable: Once there was a monkey in the forrest who came upon a large earthenware jar with a narrow neck. The monkey could smell the nuts that were in the jar so he reached in and grabbed a handful of nuts. But with his hand full of nuts he could not get his hand back out of the jug. The jug was too heavy for the monkey to move it so he stood there, trapped, until the hunter came and killed him. The rich have their hands full of nuts (money) and their natural human greed blinds them to the fact that if they hold onto that money they will end up with nothing.
If we will adopt some system in some area that seems socialist like coop, we have them already it is only to those who lack the brain stamina to think through how to survive in a global economy and do it well not socialistic or otherwise.
American has allowed its government to own businesses and banks for a short time, what do you call that?
I believe in property rights and ownership, that will never change.
What I am saying here you have nothing to fear unless you have a dictator in the white house and senate that does not abide by the constitution and even then that would be a revolution or a civil war if anyone began than kind of change.
We need balance ,we need honesty and we need brilliant people in charge not puppets.
Now Tad you will always have a minority of people who will leave off the gov....but that is a minority and those people are of all race and creed.
I am worried this huge bureaucracy has created the opportunity for many to scam the goverments legally, those are worse, they still millions to buy boats rather than bread.
What I see is people with lower education who work two jobs to support their families.
Wages are low, companies are overseas exploiting the next generation of poor people and justice is lacking.
Tad search a highly educated country with a democratic socialist government and bring a good report.
There is no pure socialism that works we know that already...so you need to differentiate.
There is no pure capitalism that works either, there is no invisible hand, there are too many hands in the government pockets.
Balance Tad....we need balance.
Next the corporation with all the bank money grew and grew around this banks and they have brought us wall street and investment so now they can steal our pension and few retirement dollars we have....
Be smart, buy a piece of land to retire with and build a cottage, rent it and overtime it will be paid for and at least you will have a roof over your head in time like this.
Nice article Dave. 10.
Somehow it feels and smells funky to me when I hear complaints or wild labeling of what Obama does yet the silence is deafening about Mc Cain and his ilk who do opr propose the same. Those poor filthy rich folks who made obsene money from us poor working stiffs need protection from us. How utterly absurd.
BOTH major parties are guilty. BOTH need to go. It's time to vote Libertarian!
Obama's tax plan obviously cannot cut taxs on people who do not pay taxes, when he says 95% of those who make under 250K he means those who pay taxes, not everyone, like non-wagearners, foreigners or children, or farm animals? What are you people thinking?
By the way, in the 70's on William F. Buckley's show "Firing Line" Ronald Reagan came out in favor of a negative income tax to streamline both the IRS and the social safety net.
These socialist comments are truly ignorant.
I am convinced that we are seeing a lot of Gather people who have set up a history of being slightly to the right, as most Americans, and indecided, like Tad, whose comments pretend to ask innocent questions all fall to the right of center as the election closes in.
Conspiracy or stupidity, I don't waste my time discussing lies with liars anymore.
How can I have "bought into" ads that I haven't seen? I don't know what ads you're referring to, I haven't seen them. As I said, BOTH parties are guilty of socialist-leaning policies - individual candidates aside.
My own personal view on income taxes is that they should be eliminated, and replaced with nothing. We could afford that if we returned government to the size it was in 1990. Do you honestly believe the Federal Government wasn't big enough in 1990? That there wasn't enough Federal bureaucracy and red tape at that time? We just need to get serious about spending cuts.
"I am convinced that we are seeing a lot of Gather people who have set up a history of being slightly to the right, as most Americans, and indecided, like Tad, whose comments pretend to ask innocent questions all fall to the right of center as the election closes in."
I make no bones about my position being "to the right of center". That doesn't make them wrong. :)
"Conspiracy or stupidity, I don't waste my time discussing lies with liars anymore."
And I apparently need to stop trying to rationally discuss issues with those who continually resort to personal attacks. I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion while you insist on attacking me repeatedly.
"Tad does not seem to know that Libertarians are closest to the worst scum that is in Washington with now, they are the right-wing or the right-wing. They talk about liberty to interest the stupid, but they are all about privatization with 0 social responsiblity."
There's no need to get personal (again). I happen to favor privatization in most cases, it's the opposite of nationalization, which I'm against (hence the socialism discussion). As for responsibility, Libertarians are champions of personal responsibility.
When you said "Obama's tax plan obviously cannot cut taxs on people who do not pay taxes, when he says 95% of those who make under 250K he means those who pay taxes, not everyone, like non-wagearners, foreigners or children, or farm animals? What are you people thinking?"
I agree with that. I said so. A direct quote from my first post here was "The bottom 30+% of our working class hasn't been paying ANY taxes for quite some time. So it's kind of tough to cut zero."
I understand a lot of people at the bottom pay zero, and I don't have a problem with that.
I will gladly take responsibility for my own actions, but I expect others to do the same. What's so controversial about that?
As for the Republicans, they talk a good game, and some of them (Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater) actually come close to living up to it. But for the most part, they really stand for the "nanny state" big government as well.
I know because that's how I raised my kids and my daughters' kids. Now I'm on SS and McCain wants to cut my $840 pension. Bush already cut the cost of living raises on SS while increasing the costs of Medicare insurance so while I got $800 in 2000 I had it all to spend and now my $840 is cut by more to insure myself. Co-pays have doubled also.
Cost of living is an important issue. A study of povery level rates, both federal and state, shows the real truth of inflation over the last twenty years. And governments have started providing services to those who have income of 125% of the poverty levels. Why? Because income is effectively shrinking to provide 55 million dollar salaries for CEOs
of mega corporations. Those in the top 10% of our population.
Is any one person worth 55 million per year to make decisions that can obviously be just as wrong as the min. wage guy's decisions? I think they have proved not. But they will not get jail, they will not lose all the loot they've stashed offshore, they will not even be kicked out without their bonuses and Golden parachutes.
Yet they complain about paying their fair share of the bailout, as the rest of us will have to do. Nope, I don't pay taxes now, but I raised, on my own, 5 children/grandchildren who do pay and pay and pay. I also paid into my SS fund for 42 years, and the legislators and presidents skimmed off the interest on MY money to give away on Sarah Palin's phoney bridge and many such programs. I do not begrudge the Planetarium projector (which McCain ignorantly calls an overhead projector) because it is used by over a million school children per year, and we need educated children. It's good for our entire society.
So don't anyone call my pension a "give-away", "entitlement", or "welfare" because not only did I pay into it but SS reserve funds have supported this phoney baloney government through many crises of failure to govern correctly. Now our reserve funds has a fistful of IOU's from this government and wants to say they can't pay. Well, if you can waste trillions on war and bail out Wall Street and Main Street you can darn well pay our earned SS pensions. Why not take all those retirees who have unearned income of $100,000 a year or more off the SS roles? They don't need that pension. Or pay them until they've reached 100% of what they paid in.
This system is fine for items "consumers" (THAT should be a bad word) want and can choose to buy or not; but should profit be made off illness, or low income shelter, or education, or food production? Small family farms are non-profit, everything beyond salaries(food and clothing for the family) is put back into the production and distribution of the food and the assets such as equipment, land, and buildings.
There is a great place in this nation for not-for-profit corporations to supply essential private services (food, shelter, and health), just as there is a time and place for government (either federal or state) departments to supply and maintain infrastructure, emergency, and social services. These two types of suppliers can operate on less of our personal and tax dollars than can private, for-profit mega corporations. Change is needed.
Actually, Obama's tax and welfare proposals should be called Communism, since they are faithful to Karl Marx's principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
If you believe the government can provide goods and services better than the private sector, you could try France where that is popular. It is called socialism.
All of France runs pretty much like our Post Office.
The issue here is very simple. Yet there are those, presumably who are not in the top 1%, who believe that tax policies, legislation and the lack of regulatory controls that favor the very rich are ok. In fact, let's give them more of it, except for maybe the lack of regulatory controls, they say. One of the mysteries of our system, to me, is that so many people espouse theories and beliefs that are actually concocted by others and that are for the benefit of those same others.
But when it comes to the non-wealthy getting a break - like when Obama proposes tax and social programs that favor the non-wealthy, suddenly these same people swallow and promote subtle definitions of the soundbites and catchwords du jour, like "socialism," or they give oversimplified examples which suggest that they know what's going on but that others are too unsophisticated to understand, or they fixate on the segment at the very bottom of the ladder that pay no taxes, and whip up animosity at a program that might benefit more like them. Of course we hear little from this group about the wealthy that pay little or no taxes or the many corporations that pay no taxes at all.
Again, the issue is simple. Should the wealth gap, which has been growing for many years (someone said 75, and that therefore, apparently, like common law marriage or a long-used right-of-way, it should be made permanent) continue to increase, or should steps be taken to reduce it?
That is the question, although it should also be noted that the non wealthy constitute the bulk of the consumers that account for 70% of our GNP.
"And, it has become clearer than ever that the "trickle-down theory," concocted by the right wing in the 1980's, and still alluded to by McCain, is about as valid as cold fusion."
And Greenspan as much as said so himself Thursday when he testified before congress. A change in our civilization socialogic is coming because we've arrived at an impass. I've been talking anout this for years. The circulation of money is just as or even more important than "growth." The Republican trickle down economics has caused a bottleneck at the top as Dave's article so elequently demonstrated. Today it has gotten so bad that the flow of money has ground to a halt. There's only one direction left to go and that's the other way. But the private sector will never go for it so... just like in 1933, the government will have to step in and do it for them.
Some enlightened companies and probably some cooperatives have chosen to become transparent. I am looking forward to micro-grids in power production, to buck this service down to a scale where people can know what is going on, and as a way to curtail government-protected CEO-greed.
Transparency in anything that calls itself public is a direction we can ask governments and corporations to go in. Some of the unemployed can help check out the figures on governments and corporations.
When we support healthful things and withdraw money and attention from harmful things, we will improve, over time.
I just had coffee with a reporter who covered courts for some time and came to respect juries. He said he could recall a few cases where he thought they had made the wrong decision, but mostly they caught on to what the real issues were.
A neighbor chose a local bank because he could walk to it. During the panic, he walked to the bank and had a worried look on his face. He said the teller laughed and said, "Were you worried we would not be here?" He confessed yes, and the teller said "We are OK."
Not all local banks are OK, or credit unions either. Whoever is President can't change the fact that we need to figure out ways to check up on the goods and services we let into our lives.
I left a credit union that was exposed in a local paper as having succumbed to CEO-greed. I went to a bank that had better rates and customer service. That bank got in trouble, and now I'm back in a credit union where the guy told me to check them out on Bankrate.com.
If you ask corporate officers how to check up on them in relation to others in the industry, the good ones will have answers because they will have been asked it before.
You often can't get that from government, sad to say. You have to organize to a point where they start to be concerned about the number of votes and money you might have. The private parties at the conventions were a testimony to this.
Locations where there people organize around neighborhood issues are in a better position to affect political corruption and concentration and to see neighborhoods develop personalities that attract creatives, who then attract wealth.
Jane Jacobs described this in a book called The Death and Life of American's Great Cities (I think this was the exact title.) Many neighborhoods in Portland, where I live now, have followed her descriptions of how neighborhoods can be interesting and alive.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the Congress in this election. That will affect things more than who is President, perhaps. We may get some wild new voices. I hope so. The same ones are worse than tiresome, many of them. I continue to love to hear Ron Paul.
Why do those who do not have money just go out and produce and create enough value for others to purchase. It's still a (somewhat) free country.
This vision of taking from the rich and giving to the poor is what has all but destroyed our sense of self-worth.
I don't want the fruits of anyone's else's labor - just of my own. And if I believe I am being under-appreciated and not paid enough, I will go look for another job, or better yet, start my own business.
People should turn their brains on and become Producers! It's quite rewarding, both spiritually and financially. This "nanny" state will be the ruination f this country!
This is a great point, if the free market system is not picking out the meritorious people for reward, and for the last 30 years we have lazily been funneling money to criminals and incompetents used by criminals, then the free market system as been corrupted and does not work.
The idea of the market is that people are rewarded for their social serivice, in their own interest ... this is obviously dysfunctional.
So talking about it like it does is a lie.
It - "what you call works" - better than the US. Do you see them in an energy crisis without a path out of it? When is it going to occur to that these socialist/anti-socialist statements you make are nonsense?
Linda ... whatever it is that you "produce" ... we already get enough of it from the millions of head of cattle we ranch all over the country.
The problem is that the only incentive for workers to produce is basically death threats. Many Americans work 3 jobs just to survive, and they can have no life.
That is now because we have a nanny state, but because these people have no representation or opportunity.
Great writing Dave !
BTW ... the capitalists are like the right-wingers ... they insist that anyone at all to their left is a problem, either a socialist or a liberal lefty, usually both. The right makes the charges and we are supposed to dance ... no middle ground allowed for cooperation ... polarization of the financial strong against the weak ... the rich get richer and the rest get dead ...
The business deals took forever because of numerous bureaucratic government reviews, and delivery dates were never met because of employee absenteeism.
Many of the people I did business with (great technically and all round good guys) were interested in job opportunities in the U.S. because advancement was limited in Europe.
Fortunately, the U.S. doesn't have a fixed class system, so the poor can move to the middle class with education and determination. I have worked with many successful middle class people who have done so.
BTW, According to Wikipedia, "Trickle-down economics" is a term of political rhetoric that refers to the policy of providing tax cuts or other benefits to businesses and rich individuals, in the belief that this will indirectly benefit the broad population. The term has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who never claimed to be an economist.
Will did claim to be political though. He said, "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
Unless you have a specific example of successful central planning by the French government, I wouldn't go out on that limb.
Simply taxing people IS NOT SOCIALISM, no matter who you are taxing, even the "rich."
What IS SOCIALISM, is when you play the Robin Hood game--- you tax the rich, and GIVE MONEY to those that DON'T PAY TAXES.
As I explained repeatedly elsewhere on gather, 41% of all taxpayers DON'T PAY A DIME in federal income taxes. Under Obama's plan, this 41% would receive "rebates" -- or-- better stated, they would receive money back, even though they paid NOTHING ! ! !
This is in fact, "redistribution of wealth," and is in fact COMMUNISM-- not merely socialism.
Obama does NOT have to FULLY EMBRACE SOCIALISM to practice socialist tenets. Obama's tax plans are socialist in concept and nature, as they do in fact REDISTRIBUTE wealth in a manner inconsistent with American ideals.
What kind of a simpleton refers to a dictionary to prove anything so complex ???
Apparently, Demagogue David, and millions of other misinformed, misguided Americans.
On October 16, 2008, just a few weeks ago, the COLA for 2009 was anounced at 5.8% -- with the average SS recipient to receive about $63-$64 more per month. This represents the largest COLA increase since 1991.
In addition, you state your SS check is for $840 --- again, this is misleading, as it is ONLY THE AMOUNT YOU RECEIVE, and not what your benefits (SS benefits are NOT "pensions" dear) actually represent---- you see, your Medicare premium is deducted from your benefit check before you get it. This premium ranges in price depending upon what plan you have, but averages out to about $100 for most recipients.
Your knowledge of how the system works is woefully lacking.
Obama may not be a "socialist," but his tax policies are straight out of the Marxist handbook, making his tax policies SOCIALIST in concept and nature.
ne?o?con?serv?a?tism? ?/?nio?k?n?s?rv??t?z?m/ [nee-oh-kuhn-sur-vuh-tiz-uhm]
–noun
moderate political conservatism espoused or advocated by former liberals or socialists.
When was Bush, or any other president a "moderate conservative" that used to be a "liberal or socialist?"
You people don't even know how to use the words you think you know, properly. I'll bet you have NO IDEA when the word was first used, or who first used the word to SELF IDENTIFY themselves as FORMER LIBERALS/SOCIALISTS, now hawkish on national security.
Do you ???
The word has been around FAR LONGER than you simple minded liberals have been misusing it in an attempt to NEGATIVELY SMEAR people you simply disagree with.
Talk about the kettle calling the pot black *ROFL*
> why don't I see the same argument about Gov. Palin and the oil
> companies being taxed and sending a protion to every citizen in Alaska.
If socialism is good enough for Alaska, and why shouldn't all Americans
get something as owners of the country, and they mean to do the
same thing in Iraq, building over from scratch ... so what is so bad
about Americans.
The answer is we do not demand loud enough, and those who are
loud are stupid.
eh loser ??? *ROFL*
If you check I believe that you wil find that Obama does not wish to nationalize the health care system! Nor does anyone else as far as I know. However, the move is to nationalize the insurance industry and Medicare has already established the ability to do it more efficiently. The real problem is that the insurance companies have proven to be poor stewards of the nations health care financing.
I'm not sure at all that I like Obama's plan but I know for fact that McCain's plan is no plan at all. It is hope and wishes and theories of the right wing. Bush 1 said it right when he called it "voodoo economics."
This nation and every civilized nation on earth has a certain amount of socialism. I'll acknowledge that a national health care insurance plan is a modest socialism step. But capitalism is still the moving force in the American economy and will continue to be. It is the source of innovation, development and productivity. But pure capitalism, alone and unfettered, is barbarianism at its finest!
Our nation was prone to government regulation from the git go because of the ability given to control international commerce and the patent clause in the constitution. Regulation was there from the start, but was usually intended to increase the wealth of the wealthy. Over the years, and particularly following the great depression, some of the socialism was directed to benefit the working class.
Obama is not a "socialist" but certainly does believe in certain needed socialist concepts. Just because a system is not for this nation does not mean that there can be nothing good in that system. We certainly don't have to jettison capitalism and go full socialist because of certain programs.
I want to reiterate that this country needs its capitalism to innovate, energize and reward. We are noa about to give that up, but in the meantime, some socialist programs are necessary.
Not to mention there is no requirement to insure people ... you still have to find a company who will insure you. Take if from me, if you are 5'9" tall and weight over 170 you are a risk that insurerers will not take.
This is what those who founded this country said, that we should help our communities when we do well and that we should not send money to other countries unless it is for defense of our country.
Bet you haven't seen that word lately...
I've said repeatedly, Obama doesn't have to be a full blown socialist to initiate socialist policies.
Do you people not listen ??? Do you just skip what I say, forever assuming I'm just the arse ?? Please--- don't tell me it's so....
Answer these questions---
Do you believe Obama will give a tax cut to 95% of the taxpayers ??? I know I do.....
Do you understand, currently, 41% of all workers that file federal income tax returns, HAVE NO LIABILITY???? I know I do.....
Do you understand that if Obama is to carry out his word, the 41% that currently has no liability, will instead receive a "payment" similar to the current Earned Income Credit (EIC??) I know I do....
Do you understand such activity is literally a Robin Hood manuever, giving moneydirectly from the taxed, to the untaxed ??? I know I do......
Do you understand "redistribution of wealth is a Marxist philosohpy, and as such can easily be referenced as a tenet of socialism??? I know I do......
Can ANYONE refute that line of logic ???
Anyone ???
Or will name calling for the "known arse" suffice for your needs???
I can play either game, easily....
Wow, I'm amazed at how I can agree with this so much and then you say this:
> rather than give it to the rich jews, Pakistanies, Gana,Iraq and few other blood sucking leeches
Racist, hater, stupid, uninformed, prejudiced, moron, insulting, and for what reason? None, you are just plain stupid.
wow--- aren't one of you good liberals going to say something about that ???
You know, Jews by and large are liberals, and cling to their democrat ticket in much the same way black Americans tend to vote as democrats and hold liberal beliefs.
Ironically, it was American Jews that began the "neocon" movement as well. These were Jewish liberal intellectuals, greatly influenced by WWII and the Holocaust. They remained liberal in all of the social, individual liberty issues, but on foreign policy they became hawks, and many of them economic conservatives as well.
These "neocons" proudly self identified as such, but over the years the term has been denigrated by the left, and used in ways that led to the word having no real meaning at all, until it meant, simply, "I hate bush and cheney."
I'm always amazed at the open hostility to Jews, and doubly puzzled by the lack of condemnation.
Like I said, wow......
The "wealth gap" is not something that the Federal Government should have the authority or ability to adjust. Their job is to ensure equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Outcome should be left completely to the individual. It's when we allowed them to start trying that we started down this path to get ourselves into trouble.
And, I don't mean "formal" education. Follow the lead of any successful business person. READ READ READ! Ever hear of the book, "The Millionaire Dropout"? I could list dozens of books and websites which could turn your brain back on and get you to think again.
So quit posting your negative opinion all the time when I want to encourage those to make things better for themselves and society.
You are a BAD example of those who should lead this society into prosperity.
Your victim attitude; "it's not my fault; don't blame me; I'm just unlucky; I deserved it more than...; I'm smarter than [insert name here], why did [...] get it". and on and on. Happy you were not my mentor!
If anyone is practicing Socialism, it's Wall Street, the bankiing industry, the mortgage business, and the auto industry, who all need a government share to survive.
YOUR main trend in encouraging the "downward". Even in times like these, if we think about what is going on and not only turn things around, but make a profit at the same time.
The OLD saying it takes money to make money is a myth. But, I'd be wasting my time to help YOU get it when you don't have a clue. How does your partner survive your negative and demeaning, and yes, mean attitude?
Before I inform, I'll wait for some guesses. Then I'll give details.
Hey Bruce, since you know it all, what is it?
The facts on the Obama plan are as follows: Obama, on his Web site, promises to "cut taxes for 95 percent of working families." He and his campaign officials have, at times, inaccurately described his plan as a tax cut for "95 percent of Americans." His economic policy adviser Jason Furman told CNN that the figure applies to working people and leaves out retirees.
Obama is offering a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500. Furman says the credit will go to 95 percent of American workers. It is designed to offset payroll taxes, which are different from federal income taxes. Payroll taxes include the fees the government takes out of paychecks to supply funding to Social Security and Medicare. Approximately 40 percent of Americans do not pay federal income taxes, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. But many of those people do pay payroll taxes. Those who pay federal income taxes would have the tax credit come out of what they owe the government; those who don't pay federal income taxes would receive a check in the mail.
Obama, on his Web site, describes the tax credit as a means to "cut income taxes … for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay." So, when McCain refers to Obama as promising to "cut income taxes" through those tax credits, he is on firm ground.
Furman told CNN that funding for the tax credit would come in part from the tax increases Obama is calling on couples making at least $250,000 and individuals making at least $200,000. So, when McCain says the tax credits given to people who don't pay income taxes would be funded by "taxing other people," that is accurate.
McCain has tax credits at the center of one of his economic proposals as well. His health care plan calls for taxing the amount that Americans spend on employer-provided health insurance, while offering a $5,000 tax credit for families, and $2,500 for individuals. McCain has said he will fund those credits in part through the tax collected on for employer-provided health insurance. His campaign has said it would also cover some of the costs through cost-cutting in the Medicare program.
McCain has not called for raising taxes on some people in order to pay for his health care tax credits for others. According to the Tax Policy Center, McCain is offering across-the-board tax cuts — though, for lower- and middle-income Americans, his tax cuts would be smaller than Obama's. Also according to the center, McCain's health care plan would be a net tax cut for virtually all Americans through 2013, and for the middle class through 2018, which is as far as the center projected.
But the Tax Policy Center estimates that McCain's health care plan would effectively increase taxes for a sliver of Americans — the wealthiest 1 percent — by 2013, and for more Americans by 2018. If that estimate is accurate, McCain would effectively be raising taxes on some in order to carry out a program that includes tax credits.....
....hmmm, sounds like "socialism"...