Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiMaybe the Rich Are the Problem
Gotcha! For days, the faltering Republican nominee relentlessly harangued Obama for saying such a thing, championing "Joe the Plumber," whose confrontation with Obama had provoked the remark.
Of course, many were surprised when Joe the Plumber turned out to be neither a real plumber nor a guy named Joe.
More surprising was the fact that - like the famous bridge in Alaska - McCain's attempt to vilify Obama for wanting to "spread the wealth around" ended up going nowhere.
For decades, conservatives have disparaged the notion of "spreading the wealth," relegating such economic populism to the margins of public debate. The vast pools of wealth at the top have been off-limits as a political issue - in the United States and Canada.
But a seismic shift could be underway. With the financial crisis exposing Wall Street's greedy and reckless behaviour, the public may be becoming less deferential to the super-rich. Last weekend, CNN ran a special on Wall Street called Fall of the Fat Cats - a damning take on the nation's financial elite that would have been inconceivable only a few months ago.
So far, the focus has been mostly on the misbehaviour of "fat cats," and the need, therefore, for tighter market regulations. But a more profound question lurks beneath the surface: Is extreme inequality itself part of the problem?
Some analysts are now arguing that the extreme concentration of wealth may have contributed to the crisis, just as a similarly extreme concentration of wealth in the 1920s contributed to the crash of 1929 and the Great Depression.
In his classic The Great Crash 1929, the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith put "the bad distribution of income" - the top 5 per cent of the population received one-third of all income - at the top of his list of key factors causing the disaster.
James Livingston, a historian at Rutgers University, sees strong similarities between then and now.
Livingston points out that in the 1920s there was a massive shift in the distribution of income away from wages toward corporate profits. With consumer demand suppressed by the restraint on wages, corporations had little incentive to invest their hefty profits in expanding production. So they turned to financial speculation.
Since the 1980s, there's been a similar income shift away from wages toward profits. Livingston argues that, with consumer demand suppressed, George W. Bush's massive tax cuts for the rich "produced a new tidal wave of surplus capital with no place to go except real estate," fuelling the housing bubble.
This suggests extreme inequality itself may lead to financial speculation. If so, meaningful solutions may have to go beyond re-regulation, and include a return to higher taxes on the rich.
Of course, the rich - and their think-tanks and media outlets - would insist such measures will stifle economic growth. But in the years between the Great Depression and the 1980s, financial markets were tightly regulated - and the rich were highly taxed. Yet - and this is crucial - those early post-war decades were times of great prosperity and growth.
Progressives have long argued for higher taxes on the wealthy - on grounds of fairness. But now, as the financial meltdown threatens to destroy the real economy, fairness may be secondary. Taxing the rich may boil down to a question of economic survival.
60 Comments so far
Show AllMoney trickles UP. Not down.
Capitalism invents products you don't need. Capitalism doesn't care if it ships your job overseas. Capitalism doesn't care about the environment we all must share. Capitalism doesn't care about YOU.
The wealth of this land hasn't been trickling up, it's been gushing in torrents.
McCain spits out the words, "Obama wants to spread the wealth around!" as though
Barack is advocating anthrax for everyone!
Instead of corporape crap slogan to encourage self-sacrifice :
__"there's no 'I' in TEAM"
We need to revise the slogan to reflect the ultimate end result :
__"there's no 'U' in TEAM"
As you so well say " Capitalism doesn't care about YOU. "
Namaste
Eat the rich.
"Of course, the rich - and their think-tanks and media outlets - would insist such measures will stifle economic growth."
Not true. Big Business has a major soft spot (or is it a hard on?) for Obama and the Dems right now, just as they did for Bill Clinton. They are just like us--they change their mind. They don't have a crystal ball either. They go with whatever form of government strikes them *at the current moment* as best suited for securing their place in society. If we're talking about the kind of "rich" who own media outlets and think tanks, who here really believes that they could care less about a slightly higher vs. a slightly lower tax rate? The person who owns a media outlet has already exchanged most of his money for power and influence. And you can't tax those things. At least, not using the IRS.
I love you guys and gals.
Its time we kicked these right wing, lunatic fringe, stazi police, patriot act loving, anti-American,non-patriotic,fake Christians, republican skull and bones cult,new world order, traitors out of the White House, Senate, and House of Represenatives.
Pay Back is a Bitch.
The next thirty years will belong to us.Its going to take that long to clean up the mess these greedy bastards created.And that long to spread the wealth back to the middle and lower income family's.
Save the constitution, No immunity to warrant less surveillance collaborators .
Go ACLU, send them money!
Let the billion dollar law suits fly.
BornFreeMen
Whenever the rich have had way too much power, the country where they live usually tends to be pauperized (i.e., Third World). Starting with the reign of Grandpa Caligula (Reagan), this has been the fate of the USA for close to 30 years. If not for the economic meltdown, there would even be a remotely serious national conversation going on right now to address it.
I read an article - forget where- that said the reason the rich have been actually pushing for big government is that the regressive tax system (when you consider all taxes paid) means that they pay almost nothing for the government that spends a fortune serving them. They still say they want small government when it comes to social programs for the poor.
If the rich have to pay some taxes more of them will want to reduce government.
The only thing I have ever read by Nader was a little book called "Cutting Corporate Welfare". You might want to check it out.
The Mammon Master’s Intervention
Save the tycoons
Intervene before they jump
We would be leaderless it they took the plunge
Don’t let them sweat over a little toxic debt
ain’t you never been over your head from a little bet?
Save the tycoons
We need the gilded dreams of the well to do
A little intervention and you will be gold plated too
just a few steps away from gated nests and private jets
for their dream is your dream too
Save the tycoons
save the mammon masters
for bottom feeding is never free
so please consume the cancer of their little splurge
roll over it’s time for another little purge
The rich are part of the problem; our elected and appointed officials are also part of the problem and that includes the "rest of us". Our tax system is out of kilter due to Dubya's insistance on tax cuts that benefited mainly the well to do as well as the constant use of credit to finance everything, including that aweful war. Our tax system needs overhauling big-time; I am more and more thinking a national sales tax to replace all the federal taxes might just be one way to go. Except, no taxes on food and medicine.
DeColores,
Rockerbabe1
Gotta credit Linda McQuaig for the half hearted effort to divide for the conquering. How see through is this corporate media? Commondreams is officially a sham. This to prep the argument for Obomber to tax the barely wealthy into the poor house. Or send the feds to get them when the IRS claims they're in the red. Can't have any empowered millionaires getting smart while this World Oil Production Decline Nuclear Ice Age unfolds. The semi rich are as big a target as the well historically versed. They might not be a help to anyone, and maybe they will be, depends greatly on their upbringing and life expereinces which is why the fed will pay agents to jack their cars, break into the homes and hold them up on the street at the point of whatever weapon they know the rich dude isn't prepared to counter.
rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
www.lamegame.name
Daniel Vincent Kelley
Was that a translation from the original Aramaic?
This is why the rich should be allowed to have their own cruise missiles and predator drone protection!
What reregulation?!?
The meaningful regulations put in place during the great depression, legislated away in 1999 by the Graham Leach Bliley act of 1999, have not been reenacted, quite conversely the financial system is still a tatters with 600 trillion (no joke) six hundred trillion dollars of "financial instruments" called derivatives still being traded... Derivatives might include bets against ones own collecting on a debt. They represent nothing tangible and dwarf the real economy. Insurance houses owned by banks, and the billionaires bleeding everyone dry. Reregulation... The law now is, whatever Ben Bernanke says and does with the 700 billion dollars is not to be questioned lest Bush have you detained indefinitely without charges and sent where you will be tortured. Regulation. Please...
rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
www.lamegame.name
Daniel Vincent Kelley
/begin hijack
The Wealthy control the Telecommunitcation systems, and therefore the TeleCulture, and therefore our Understanding of Ourselves and our ability to see and act democratically.
The Internets are a PARTIAL exception to this long-standing rule. But factors such as information filtration (who controls the popular search engines), information overload, information quality (both in truth terms and usefulness terms), and expense of the system(ISP fee plus initial computer purchase) hold it back as well.
The best way to build a new political party is to build a broad-based movement that that party can then Champion. The best broad-based movements start on the Local level and then expand. We now have the Internets to assist us in creating that movement. But to be most helpful the Internets need improvements, and that will require as much energy from some of us as the political changes will require from others -and BOTH will require from all.
One suggestion I have is working in your Municipal and County Governments (which we'll need to do anyway to build a movement) to Democratize Internets Access. City or Area-wide Wi-fi hotspots would eliminate the need for "infrastructure support" that helps make ISP fees so high. With this gone in a Wi-fi set up, a city-run or contract-run local ISP would be inexpensive enough to run on a "public utility" basis, though many localities may prefer to avoid direct government operation for ridiculous anit-socialist reasons..
Most telecommunication networks are set-up with "public/private" sponsorships TODAY -some bond is issued that pays for the lines to be dug and then a private company comes in and pays some tiny fee and then gets to exploit those lines for profit until the technology is out-dated and the City pays for new lines to be dug.
It works a lot like sports stadiums actually.
City-run or contract-run, "public utility"-style wireless (or wired) Internets service would do an "end-around" past the problem of ISP Fees hindering Access for the working-class.
The other problem that can be solved at a local level is "cost of device". Two ways to go about this are to improve what is already being done in School Systems and in Public Libraries, but these both have limitations.
In Schools simply allowing Students (High-School Seniors who are at or near 18 most importantly) Free periods for Internets Access, maybe after classes or as a class period would do a lot. Students already use the net in many classes in wealthier schools, this free period for Access would just give them time to use those same computers for extra-curricular activities -just like they use the track for curricular P.E. and extra-curricular Track Teams. The limitation on using Schools is that most of the Schools where the people who's access we are trying to increase live are too poor to have computers. There also would be conflict over WHAT the kids could Access on the Public Dime. This one is more for general Youth participation.
Public Libraries have some free Access, but it is co-mingled with the Libraries' other functions. Seperate rooms or buildings for general Internets Access may work but the "budget problem" that affects School Access would come into play here as well.
In the end, the cost of devices for Internets Access must come down dramatically(which is being done but requires large Corporations to make it happen) or be negated by donation (ditto) or there will have to be some sort of fee for their use.
Luckily, Internet Cafes already function as for-fee Public Internets Access Centers. "Public Utility"-style ISPs, less expensive or donated devices, public/private partnerships, not-for-profit business models, and worker- or member-ownership structures, would all help in reducing the Capital Investment and the Costs of running such a Public-Access Center -and the cost of USING one.
Once these basic hinderances of ISP fees and "cost of device" are reduced or eliminated, then Access for the poor and working class (and "middle" class and everyone else, really) will be much more widespread, and the influence of other, more passive media (like TV) will be reduced.
Once this occurs, the "On-Net" issues of filtration, overload, and quality of Information remain. But they are far less fundamental as problems than limited Access, and they cannot be as readily addessed at the Local level.
With a little bit of effort at the Local political level, and the small-enterprise economic level, the Internets have the potential to reverse the trend in Telecommunications away from control and benefit to the Wealthy and their Minions, and toward democratic control and benefit.
This goal nicely coincides with all the other Local political and small enterprise work we are going to have to be doing to solve the current crises and build a new and better political movement and party anyway.
I'm going to "get to it" in my little town.
I recommend others do the same.
Don't Panic,
-matti.
The Rethuglicans are frothing at the mouth over Obama's innocent remark. 1% of people in the USA have 23% of the wealth. Kinda lopsided isn't it.
23%?!
No way is it that low. I've read that it was 40% at the least and 60% at the most.
I had the same ???! Yeah, it is more like the top 1% own not only 60% of U.S. wealth but WORLD WEALTH! Perhaps he meant to say that the top 0.1% own the 23%.
The interesting part is why the Republicans can get more than 1% of the vote.
Its interesting to watch their propaganda, and how they use other issue to trick people into voting for their candidates that will favor just the 1%.
Then its interesting to watch the Democrats propaganda to trick other voters into also supporting candidates who also largely favor the 1%. But with the slick little trick of pretending to be an opposition to the Republicans and their support of the 1%.
If people really voted their interests, the Republicans would get like 1% of the vote, the Democrats maybe 5-10% of the vote, and then some party we don't even see today but that represents most Americans would get the remaining 90% or so of the vote.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Let's hurry up and found that goddamn 90% party already.
Basic Social Objectives:
- Only enough national defense to defend the country; and not a nickel more
- Environmental Protection; maximally effective transportation systems; maximum development of renewable energy sources
- Dignified health care, education, housing & retirement for all
- Very significant limits on income inequality
It is very odd that people who advocate the above goals should be called "Marxists" & be widely despised. Why wouldn't 90%, or even more, of the population find such a vision extremely attractive? Does it really sound so crazy?
OK, forgive me, I just lost my head there for a minute. Let's go back to bombing other countries, buying fancy cars, playing the stock market, having shit like Sean Hannity on TV, cruising the malls, & putting in 70-hour weeks at the office peddling financial services. Ah, that's more like it! God Bless America.
It's all about how you phrase it in "America".
The best way I've found in arguments for "Americans" is to use goals of Social Progress, but frame them in Tradition, with a focus on the Constitution, the Founders, and sometimes even Christian Morals.
I think all four of your Objectives could fit the bill.
The real problem we face when trying to encourage a party to represent the Majority is that our Information Distribution is so caught up in Telecommunications systems that are in turn so caught up in Advertising which has become so essential for our "consumption economy" that the Wealthy and their Minions control virtually all of it.
The Culture (of the common People) in the U.S. is for dismantling of Empire, health-care for all, protection of the environment, advancement of general living standards, a fair and flexible distribution of wealth, renewed Spiritual focus, and greater individual and creative expression.
The TELECulture (of the Wealthy and their Minions) in the U.S. is against ALL of these things.
The problem is that we use the TeleCulture to see and understand the Culture, so we are constantly fooled and prevented from unifying and taking action.
I have some ideas on how this could be addessed but I'll leave them to a seperate post to cut down on length and give people a chance to skip them since they sorta hijack the thread.
Don't Panic,
-matti.
The rethugs have allied themselves with the christians and largely took a move toward theocracy. That's how they get more than 1% of the votes.
Yes, there are many problems with the theory of capitalism, with the current economy, with our taxation and monetary policies, but it cannot be denied that the rich persons themselves are a significant part of the problem. See this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/17/executivesalaries-banking
It should be a slogan like no welfare for the rich.
People have short attention spans.
**
There are two human species:
Homo Barbaricus (who are starting to die off, thank the Almighty)
Homo Supericus (whose minds are winning the evolutionary battle)
**sounds naive to me and a bit elitist in its own way.
Humans have always divided themselves into groups-and it is difficult to see that changing. If we go around promoting humanity as the only thing that matters it leads to pollution, mass extinction etc.
Any term for human that has superior attached to it is bad news.
"Humans have always divided themselves into groups-and it is difficult to see that changing."
It's called tribalism. We still haven't evolved past that concept.
Concentration of wealth in a few hands destabilizes the economy.
An interesting concept.
Ideas such as "the common good", "patriotism", "community", "service" seems to be at odds with this concept as do conservative policies.
Will American politics debate this concept? It should.
Progressive taxation is not about economic survival, its about economic efficiency and fairness (recognizing the burdens the rich put on the commons).
I've already redistributed my wealth. Most went to liquor, drugs and loose women. The rest I spent foolishly.
I spent mine foolishly on books, reading about loose women, drugs, and liquor. I guess next time I'm going with Free Wheelin Franklin.
"The rich have become a luxury that the rest of us can simply no longer afford." (I wish I could take credit for that line, but it's not original.)
Linda McQuaig's article touches on many very important themes. It's no accident that it comes from a Canadian, rather than a US, newspaper. This is because Class Consciousness is the Great Unmentionable in American society. Any line of thought that might heighten awareness in readers of how all decisions in our plutocracy are really made to benefit the possessing classes -- that is generally verboten here. By living here, you're taught not to think about that. Except for superficial throwaway lines quickly mentioning "Wall St greed," the presidential debates steer away from the topic, as much as possible.
To most Americans (given the kinds of ideas we're generally exposed to -- or more accurately, not exposed to), it might seem striking & downright novel to discover that inequality in the distribution of wealth in the late 1920's, and now, are at similar extremes. In truth, though, it's not that no one has noticed these things before, but rather that awareness of them is so systematically suppressed by our media, culture, & educational system.
McQuaig mentions that "...in the years between the Great Depression and the 1980s, financial markets were tightly regulated - and the rich were highly taxed. Yet - and this is crucial - those early post-war decades were times of great prosperity and growth."
-- OK, that's true, but it's also misleading. The main reason for the prosperity was WWII. // On the other hand, it WAS the fact that the rich were kept under at least some degree of restraint, from 1945 until the 1970's, that allowed the US to experience its "Golden Years," where the progressive tendencies of society most strongly asserted themselves, relatively speaking. This is not to say that all was bliss in that period -- the 1950's were a time of painfully oppressive conformity, & our government was busy committing horrible crimes all over the world in the '60's, while steadily building its war machine.
Nonetheless, the point stands that when the population was able to hold the rich in check (at least temporarily, & at least relatively), this was a period of exhilarating liberation, creativity, expanding consciousness, & democracy. It was the difference between Bob Dylan, and Britney Spears.
Well, you are mostly right.
And we'll give you credit for this line...."It was the difference between Bob Dylan, and Britney Spears."
I agree.
Capitalism works best in "GOOD" times, as virulent greed still benefits overall society's growth ( but not social justice ).
Capitalism is the worse in "BAD" times, when unchecked greed & lack of regulation inflates illusionary speculative bubbles -- that must eventually collapse on us ALL.
Namaste
Actually, there are several things that need to be done.
1) Get rid of the "corporate citizen" idea that allows corporations rights like they were humans. They are not. They are artificial constructs made to generate money. Nothing else.
2) Get rid of the tax breaks that corporations get for offshoring jobs and factories. Reinstate the taxes and fines that used to be in place to prevent that.
3) Go back to the pre Reagan era tax rates for businesses. At that time, business paid 36% of all taxes paid in this country, now they pay 8%, with over 2/3 of large corporations paying NOTHING. And this includes foreign owned companies that do business here, taking money OUT of our system.
4) Repeal the Reagan era tax breaks that the rich got. They went from paying 72% over a $3 million level (adjusting for inflation) to a 27% level. They are NOT paying their share, and they benefit more from our system than we EVER did.
5) Put us back onto a track of manufacturing our own goods and growing our own food, mostly on local levels. The centralization of everything is what is destroying local economies.
6) Invest money in repairing our infrastructure. This is an investment in America and our future. FDR was right in building up a social and physical commons for this country. It's time that we got back to that ideal.
7) Reward those who do things that HELP America, not those who do NOTHING and then get rich for hurting the country. That means NO more golden parachute bonuses for those who do not increase the worth of a company, who take jobs away from Americans, and who do NOT PRODUCE anything.
8) Reinstate the tarriffs that we had for over 200 years that kept our workers on a level playing field with the rest of the world. The Chinese impose a 24% tarriff on our goods that they import into their country. WE have a 2%(!) tarriff on their goods that we import from them. Every other country in the world imposes tarriffs, it's time that we did it again, too. It's the only protection that our industries had, and it's gone. That is why our jobs have left in droves, and why we "can't compete", anymore. It's because of the destruction of our protections thanks to the neocons in this gov't. And that includes McCain, who has voted for EVERY "free" trade treaty that he could, and who thinks that "buy American" policies are "disgusting".
If these things were done, I think you'd see a large improvement in the lives of REAL Americans. You know, the kind who want to have a decent job so they can pay for their kids to go to college and do something with their lives. Not the Michelle Bachman types that will put up with any screwing they get because it's good for the rich.
All of you people make me laugh, you are temporarily so far behind the actual curve of our human reality;
Ditch the myth about tokens (money) and initiate the truth about human brotherhood and human creativity, and presto, there is no dichotomy of existence between the criminal thieves that literally speaking now own you body and soul and yourself. Because you let them.
Nobody is a victim unless they allow it to be so.
Change the paradigm of your own life, and the corporate criminals wither and die of their own accord lacking sustenance, which YOU provide them now, thanks to your temporary ignorance.
I understand, the concept of human endeavour for it´s own sake, on the merits of the activity itself, is beyond you, as yet.
You cannot find it in yourselves to grasp that the society based on human values writ in accordance to materialism as a measure, according to who has the most tokens, is a broken reed that was doomed to failure since African tribes starting carting around large rocks as currency.
There are two human species:
Homo Barbaricus (who are starting to die off, thank the Almighty)
Homo Supericus (whose minds are winning the evolutionary battle)
There is only one country, our beautiful planet.
There is only one race, human beings.
Everything else is a lie for false purposes.
Just let it go.
What are you afraid of, dying?
Everybody dies.
It is how you die that matters.
Just as it matters not a jot how long you live, but rather the content of your existence while you lived, which is your essence, your guide.
Are we learning anything...yet?
Stay well.
I wouldn't mind the filthy rich if it wasn't for the filthy poor.
Which millionaire mainstream corporate candidate do you want to support?
Vote third party, give the people some representation.
"The corporate lobby in Washington is basically designed to stifle all legislative activity on behalf of consumers." `Ralph Nader
Is it naivete' or some masochistic form of behavior? It will never matter whom occupies 1600 it will NOT make a difference, never.
BillofRights
You may be right, but what avenue are you exploring to make the change? If at all possible.
Putting someone who is not reprehensible in the White House would be just the first step of many.
If Nader is not the real deal, then I've been snookered real well (yes, I know that he owns stock in certain companies). I've seen him speak several times, had a short conversation with him, and each time I come away glad that there is at least one person who is articulate enough, knowledgeable, puts the public trust as his first priority, and persistent enough to make at least some of the changes possible.
We as humans are slowly consuming ourselves to death and the planet can't take it. And all because the corporate elite market us trinkets so that we don't pay attention to injustices that are constantly going on around the world, caused by in part by our consumption of material goods, which in turn rewards the corporate elite with obscene profits.
"I would rather vote for what I want and not get it, then vote for what I don't want and get it." Eugene Debs
www.NotOneMore.US
There's nothing wrong with earning a lot of money. The core problem is the failure to recognize the fact that Greedism is as much a "mental illness" as any other. Expecting to "get paid" for a job well done is one thing; doing "whatever it takes" regardless of the consequences in order to hoard more than you could ever possibly spend for no other reason than the hoarding is a sickness that requires treatment and some meds.
Naturally, those suffering from Greedism gravitate to the "finance industry," just as the "beautiful people" gravitate to Hollywood, or techies gravitate to Silicon Valley.
In order to help Greedism sufferers who clearly cannot help themselves, how about an income cap of, say, $50 million per year? Any earnings above that must be put back into "the system," via charity, philanthropy, or bricks and mortar investment. Any who complain that it's not enough will be required to enter Greedism rehab.
Good idea. We should have a binding popular referendum on it.
There is plenty of room for interpretation, but I tend to look at it this way - if the average adult earns about $40,000/yr then a measly $4,000,000/yr represents a fairly astounding 100 times that. You can pretty well figure the person earning $4,000,000/yr is leveraging some investments for the multiple purposes of lessening tax obligations and making capital investments for future gains, as well as setting aside for a rainy day. The person earning $40,000 is probably wondering how s/he is ever going to get ahead, and probably is accruing debt that will leave him only marginally better off in the years to come, maybe if everything stays stable that long and the person is very frugal. Even then, $40,000/yr will almost surely guarantee the person will be dependent on social security and other social programs after retirement.
In other words, I think the cap should be even lower, as I think any system that says to one person you are worth more than 100 times every other working person feeds into delusions of grandeur that in turn fosters a social psychosis.
Regardless of where the line is ultimately drawn, within reason of course, this is the only way trickle down could ever possibly work anyway.
It is elementary that concentration of wealth in a few hands leads inevitably to those few controlling, and warping, the political system, the economic system, and the culture itself for their own benefit. A billionaire is like a black hole in human society. Democracy and the polarization of wealth are fundamentally incompatible.
It would be better to be poor when everyone else is poor than to be poor in a society where there are the wealthy who will corrupt the institutions of society for their own purposes and bully everyone else in every sphere of activity.
Reuters article - Merrill Lynch was taken over by B of A.
Merrill Lynch will cut 500 jobs, more next year.
An exec is leaving with $10 million golden parachute.
www.reuters.com/article/managementIssues/idUSBNG14299120081021
nationalize walmart and redistribute the profits.
Three things need to be done.
1...Remove the Social Security cap so that ALL income is taxed for Social Security purposes.
2...Place a 100% tax on ALL income above $100,000.
3...Vote NADER if you want a fair economic system.
2...Place a 100% tax on ALL income above $100,000.
Are you serious about that comment?
#3:prove it,prove how he can get elected in 2008. Even in theory. Then how he can make the change in tax all by himself.
Nader can make changes, all it requires is a willing congress. Just like you expect to 'push' Obama, instead you can push your democratic representatives. Should be a little easier.
In theory, Nader is on the ballot of some 45 states, and if all the people started voting their conscience rather then out of fear (the lesser of two evils), you would have both conservatives and liberals voting outside of the two mainstream corporate parties. Nader can theoretically be elected president based on the electoral college, and if voting actually mattered.
And most people realize that this is just the first step. Incremental steps, first get 15% of the vote, then 25%, then maybe even get to a point where we don't have to choose between two war criminals.
so it goes,
www.NotOneMore.US
It has always amazed me that the natural truth of this doesn't just plain resonant more, with more people. It amazes me that anyone can argue for greed and self-aggrandizement as if it were an actual virtue. And is it even necessarily true that innovation and leadership are worth more than the diligent labor which in the end makes it all a reality - where the rubber meets the road as they say? In the end, everything we do requires the accomplishments and knowledge of many before us, and sales can't happen without those willing to buy, and the whole system doesn't work without all of it coming together in a fairly equitable way.
It's a lot like the monopoly board game, it is no fun and the game ends as soon as one player gets much of an advantage over the others. All seems pretty obvious to me.
When people begin to move back towards locally based economies where we make and buy things locally, then I think things will start to work better. Part of Wall Street, big banking and Washington's stratgies have been to take as much power away from local governments, local economies and local people and concentrate it all in Washington and on Wall Street. Think of all of the wealth in 401ks, Ira's, ect that goes to Wall Street for them to use as they please -vs. investment in the local economy. In the past local banks made the home loans, they knew their customers, the local industries and the local real estate markets. Now Wall street rules - knows nothing about local home lending and could care less - and now we have the mortgage crisis. Washington and Wall Street have worked endlessly to destroy America's main streets - now it is time to take them back. Buy locally produced goods!
Good article and great comment. Walk into any mall across this country and you'll see the same stores selling the same stuff. A result of the global economy. I like the idea of returning to a local economy. Main Street may be only a few blocks away, but getting there may be impossible.
Yes, the coporations need to pay their fair share of taxes.
You are right, they are moving away anyway, tax breaks aren't enough to keep them here when labor in China and Mexico is so easily exploited.
They need to pay!!
Instead, corporations throw us a crumb every now and then: give money to our universities, donate shoes to the homeless or build parks for school chidren and somehow we think that they are good corporate citizens because of it.
Boy, are we bought off cheap!!
Of course, if we had import duties for goods imported from Mexico and China, then moving to those countries wouldn't do the corporations any good.
We could easily say that we feel we as a society need enviornmental and labor laws to protect us and the world we live in. We could also say that since we require the companies that operate in our country to follow these, any goods that are produced in areas without such laws have to pay an import duty to create balance and avoid unfair competition.
Thanks Bill Clinton and the Democrats for the trade agreements that got rid of those import duties. This is what NAFTA and WTO did.
There's a lot of Democrat bull on the topic. For instance, Obama focuses on a relatively minor tax break that lets corporations count the expenses of moving jobs overseas as an expense against revenue. But, he avoids mentioning the trade agreements that Clinton and the Democrats passed that makes this all possible. This of course lets Obama create the illusion of wanting to do something about the problem without doing anything that really hurts the big contributors behind him.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Capitalism thrives on the gap between rich and poor. The bigger the gap, the richer the rich. But think of that gap as an elastic band: stretch it too far and it will snap.
"Capitalism thrives on the gap between rich and poor."
I don't believe that is true. I do believe it is true of unfettered capitalism. Unregulated capitalism like we've had over the last 20 years.
Capitalism should not be confused with free market economics.
Our wealth has always come from the pain and misery of somebody, either here in the US or abroad.
Obama will not address that root problem (and that is only one of the many root issues that he won't address because it would interfere with the corporate elite's self-professed right to excessive profit).
If you want to see unfettered capitalism, go to China. Play with their children toys that have lead paint; give the dog food to your pets. And by the way, that is all condoned by Multinational corporations because they don't want regulations.
Vote third party, don't support the corporate elite and their candidates.
"Maybe the Rich Are the Problem"
Why "Maybe"?
Progressive taxation has never worked because the rich make the rules.
Such an important issue as economic democracy can't be decided by the oligarchy. It has to be decided by popular referendum.
Why have no prominent persons here besides Senator Gravel and Noam Chomsky adopted the referendum issue? Why is it not being discussed? Where are Nader and Kucinich on this? Can we hope Obama will take it up once in office at the risk of being accused of acting like Chavez?
The left needs to redefine the debate, again, but how many times has that been said?
Instead of "spread the wealth" the left should be saying "make those who have benefitted the most pay their fair share." "Those whose trucks use the highways and bridges, should pay for that use, those who rely the most on the banks that are now getting bailed out, should invest the most in that bailout."
I have never understood why money that is not labored for is taxed at a lower rate than money that is labored for. Fix the capital gains tax, and institute a slightly graded scale on income, and fix the corporate loopholes. The right always says "but if you tax them they will just go elsewhere..." but they are anyway. They are taking the manufacturing away and auctioning it off to the lowest bidder, but they need the market, and that market is still here. If they want to do business in our market then they need to pay their share.
And I think that this stuff needs to be the argument, not the debate. We need to insist that people who think they should pay lower rates than their fellow citizens are un-American. It's as simple as that.
You listen to elites? You better stop that. You know that's bad for you.
Fair comment.
"Instead of "spread the wealth" the left should be saying "make those who have benefitted the most pay their fair share."
Amen!
"but if you tax them they will just go elsewhere..." but they are anyway. They are taking the manufacturing away and auctioning it off to the lowest bidder, but they need the market, and that market is still here. If they want to do business in our market then they need to pay their share."
Double Amen!
"And I think that this stuff needs to be the argument, not the debate. We need to insist that people who think they should pay lower rates than their fellow citizens are un-American. It's as simple as that."
Amen!