Obama's New Chief of Staff: A Fan of the Bush Tax Cuts?
| Mon Jun. 16, 2008 12:50 PM PDT
In a press release issued today, the Barrack Obama campaign announced 14 new senior staff appointments. Most notably, Patti Solis Doyle, who managed Hillary Clinton's campaign for the first half of the primary season, was named chief of staff to Obama's vice presidential nominee (whoever that might be). Doyle's Obamafication was not much of a surprise. More intriguing was the appointment of Jim Messina, chief of staff for Senator Max Baucus, as the campaign's chief of staff (with David Plouffe remaining the top dog).
Messina has been working for Baucus, the chairman of the Senate finance committee, on and off since 1995, serving as his campaign manager in 1996 and 2002. Baucus, a Montana Democrat, has been dubbed "one of corporate America's favorite Democrats." And according to The Missoulian, his Senate office has produced a high number of staffers-turned-corporate-lobbyists. Last year, Ari Berman of The Nation noted that Baucus, then the senior Democrat on the finance committee, in 2005 asked 50 lobbyists to raise $100,000 for his reelection campaign. In other words, Baucus is not about change in Washington.
But should the sins of the senator be attributed to the chief of staff? In Washington, plenty of people work for legislators without personally agreeing with all of their boss's stances and actions. But a few years ago, Messina was interviewed for a newsletter produced by the Gallatin Group, a corporate lobbying firm specializing in issues of interest to the Northwest, and he was asked to name the "most important bipartisan accomplishment of your boss." His answer: "Senator Baucus was the chief reason bipartisan tax cut legislation was enacted in 2001."
Messina was referring to the George W. Bush tax cuts of 2001 and Baucus's instrumental role in the passage of that legislation. And Messina was right. Baucus, bucking his fellow Democrats, was a key supporter of Bush's massive, tilted-to-the-rich tax cuts. His defection helped make the tax cuts happen. At that time, Messina was managing Baucus' reelection campaign.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Obama, of course, has been fiercely critical of the Bush tax cuts. "George Bush and his friends in Congress have given billions in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans who don't need them and weren't even asking for them," Obama has said. He routinely blasts John McCain for having flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts, initially opposing them and now calling for their never-ending continuation. So is there anything curious about Obama selecting as a campaign chief of staff a congressional staffer who was part of a political operation that contributed to making the Bush tax cuts a reality and who spoke of them in an apparently positive manner? I put this question to the Obama campaign and will report back if a reply comes.
As the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, Obama is now the leader of a political entity that includes idealistic, reform-seeking, public-interest do-gooders as well as corporate-minded professionals connected to the pay-to-play system deeply rooted in the nation's capital. (I'm not saying Messina is one or the other.) Unifying such a party under the banner of change will have its challenges. Obama's campaign is now being partly run by a fellow (presumably a talented political operative) who served a Democrat who helped enact major legislation Obama depicts as harmful to the nation. Is that a sign Obama can reach out to those with whom he disagrees, or is it an accommodation to the ways of Washington?
Comments
Vail Beach ? "the wealthy contribute much more to the total tax revenues." Is this based on any factual data? All I would like to see is the wealthiest 1% of Americans pay their FAIR share. If I have to pay 20% in tax, I'd like to see them pay 20%. "?taxing the rich is a vote-getter, so Democrats keep proposing it, even though it's bad for the economy and thus bad for the revenue needs of government." And the Bush tax cuts have helped the economy? I think the evidence proves otherwise. The "Trickle Down" Theory has proven to be a farce, which many Americans (apparently you among them) have clung to for many years. The money the rich have kept as a result of these tax cuts has rarely accomplished any positive results. I agree government revenues need to be optimized.
Vail Beach ? "the wealthy contribute much more to the total tax revenues." Is this based on any factual data? All I would like to see is the wealthiest 1% of Americans pay their FAIR share. If I have to pay 20% in tax, I'd like to see them pay 20%. "?taxing the rich is a vote-getter, so Democrats keep proposing it, even though it's bad for the economy and thus bad for the revenue needs of government." And the Bush tax cuts have helped the economy? I think the evidence proves otherwise. The "Trickle Down" Theory has proven to be a farce, which many Americans (apparently you among them) have clung to for many years. The money the rich have kept as a result of these tax cuts has rarely accomplished any positive results. I agree government revenues need to be optimized.
Why is it that no Democrat can mention any tax cut that's ever been enacted without attaching some form of the phrase "for the rich"?
And why is that no National Democratic office-holder has, in living memory, EVER proposed ANY tax cut for ANYBODY unless it was in response to a tax cut plan already being forwarded by Republicans?
Or can someone point me to a Dem tax cut plan put on the table when the Repubs WEREN'T forwarding one already..? Because I don't recall any such, and I've been following politics since Richard Mildew Nixon beat Hubert Horatio Humphrey, Jr. (who got MY vote)...
The reason tax cuts always help the wealthy is because the wealthy contribute much more to the total tax revenues. To be opposed to tax cuts for the rich is, simply, to be opposed to tax cuts. Which comes down to a technical question of how to optimize government revenues. Unfortunately, tax policy has (like everything else) become horribly politicized. Apparently, taxing the rich is a vote-getter, so Democrats keep proposing it, even though it's bad for the economy and thus bad for the revenue needs of government. That's where players like Messina come in, working behind the scenes to cut deals to lighten the tax burden on some of the rich, presumably the nice ones who give money to Democrats and hire Democratic operatives as lobbyists.
Bobbi C: What kind of biased RESPONSE was that?
There were actually Two questions there.
The second one is why don't Democrats ever LEAD THE WAY with tax cut proposals, tailored to fit the people They TELL us they're concerned about?
Care to tackle that part, or just question the integrity of the question?
Could it just be possible that the Democrat's constituency has been conditioned to believe that any and all tax cuts are going to benefit only the wealthy, and therefore should be opposed, regardless..? Conditioned by ALWAYS following the words "tax cuts" with the words "for the rich"?
Which negates any need on the part of Democratic politicians to ever suggest that we can reduce taxes for ANYONE?
Will I get another conditioned, knee-jerk reaction for Daring to SUGGEST such a thing?
Of course I'd like Obama to be purer than pure and only hire people with unwavering, liberal credentials, but is that even possible? Are there enough uncorrupted officials around to fill all the positions that need filling? Could someone who didn't get some pay-to-play Washington insiders on their side even get elected? I wonder. Any ideas, anyone?
Just because you work for the rich doesn't make you rich. We are going to have to trust Obama to know what he is doing. We need across the board tax cuts for the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.
Also, the State and Local Police have gotten outrageous during the Bush administration to the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, who now need the police to be in more of a "protect and serve mode", instead of the "destruction of your life-line mode".
I do not think Obama will be business as usual. Obama is going to be change. If you listen to how he currently reacts to situations, you will see change already.
To Tax Lover,
I wonder why people think tax cuts go only to the rich...
Maybe it's because in "Blue State Minnesota" people making $250,000-$1,000,000 per year pay aproximately 7% to the state and people making $50,000-$75,000 pay 14%.
Show me a tax cut that was biased toward the poor and middle class. They don't exist becuase the poor and the middle class can not afford to buy laws and lawmakers.
As to your second question: Mavbe it has something to do with $1,000,000,000 trade deficit. $10,000,000,000 in foreign debt. $100,000,000,000 in future debt to programs like Medicare and Social Security. I got another catch phrase for ya..."Borrow and spend."
The last thing this country needs is less revenue. What is does need is to make up for all the lost time since the Gipper got in and put most of the tax burden on people that can hardly afford it.
Lastly, what happens when you give a tax break to a millionaire? It goes into savings never to be seen again. What happens when you give a tax break to a middle class family? They spend it!
Personally, though nowhere near the magical $250K range, I don't mind paying taxes because I believe a fair percentage of it goes towards things that truly done for the greater good. Airports, water departments, roads, social services...these are things that we all need and assume will always be there for us to utilize. That's the "greater good" that taxes were meant to do.
Hopefully the Obama campaign and future administration, keep all this in mind.
OK Unidiotic, fair enough.
In Democrat heavy Minnesota (I used to live in the Twin Cities, and later Hibbing, myself..) the tax structure favors the rich. So obviously Democrats aren't the answer to all the things that are wrong with Republican economic schemes.
And since Democrats ALWAYS respond to the Republican tax cut schemes with tax cut schemes of their own, in SPITE of unfathomable deficits, it's obvious that Democrats aren't the answer to all the things that are wrong with Republican economic schemes.
CNN-Money sees it this way:
["Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.
The reason: neither plan would raise the amount of revenue expected under current tax policy - which assumes all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire by 2011. And neither plan would raise enough to cover expected government costs during those 10 years."]
money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm
Maybe somebody ought to consider the amounts of money our government SPENDS, while they're considering the amount of money the're taxing us...
Address THAT problem, and there COULD be tax cuts that benefit everyone. Maybe we could throw off that conditioned response of shouting "For the RICH" before we even look at the proposal.
Jeugenen...good question(s), but I gotta believe the answer is no. She's too ingrained into the Cheney/Bush regime and their way of politic and thinking. If she had bailed when Colin Powell did, there may have been a glimmer of hope. She stands to gain a lot more money and prestige by remaining the most academically degreed Black woman among the Neo-cons. If she were to crossover to be a token Rethuglican in the Obama administration, she would be way down the totem pole. Like everyone else in that administration that hasn't quit or been subpoenaed; she is all about the money. That's why she's still there.
"Taxing the rich is a vote-getter, so Democrats keep proposing it, even though it's bad for the economy and thus bad for the revenue needs of government."
I read your comment, Vail Beach, and I wondered, how bad does the economy have to get before people like you catch on to what's happening and why?
Perhaps you're one of those "Ditto Heads" who doesn't think for yourself. That's the only possible excuse for such tripe.
That was the old version of McCain. The new version wants 'more please, and and harder.' Or didn't you pay attention to that?
As for why Democrats don't offer tax cuts without prompting (and I think that's probably right), It's because they want to do all this new stuff but neither they (or Republicans) have been committed to fixing Washington's unkillable old programs - programs that don't need support anymore, but which are supported by money and interest groups more intensely interested in sustaining them than anyone is in killing them one by one. The Dems need new taxes because they can't get rid of a program that will cost them. The Repubs used to say that the only (and easy) way around that was low taxes, but Reagen and Bush II both proved that Republican dominance and low taxes jjst equals bigger deficits, which become an even more ominous line item on the budget.
Vail Beach "the wealthy contribute much more to the total tax revenues." Is this based on any factual data? All I would like to see is the wealthiest 1% of Americans pay their FAIR share. If I have to pay 20% in tax, I'd like to see them pay 20%. " taxing the rich is a vote-getter, so Democrats keep proposing it, even though it's bad for the economy and thus bad for the revenue needs of government." And the Bush tax cuts have helped the economy? I think the evidence proves otherwise. The "Trickle Down" Theory has proven to be a farce, which many Americans (apparently you among them) have clung to for many years. The money the rich have kept as a result of these tax cuts has rarely accomplished any positive results. I agree government revenues need to be optimized.
The real solution is the hard one. Get control of the existing budget, through transparency and the focusing of large constituencies on 'small' programs outrage and new blue sky and sunset mechanisms, as well as Blue Ribbon Panels offering up or down solutions (like military base closings)
Democrats tend to view taxes as being a better way to raise money to run government than borrowing. The Democrats
also tend to see the government as being a source of solutions to problems rather than being aproblem itself.
Historically taxes have been around 25% of income, and this can be seen as going back to Biblical days when there were two tithes required from every person who owned land -- one tithe for the Priests and one tithe for the poor (non-landowning people). This came out to about 20%, buit there was an additional rule against gleaning the corners of teh field and leaving this for the poor to glean. This added another 5% or so to
required expenditure.
Taxes in USA are below 25%of all income, and we might want to consider raising taxes.
W.
Teh wealthy contribute more to tax revenue because they own assets whose incomes are taxes and whose capital appreciation is also taxed when such assets are sold.
The fact that the rates at which capital gains and dividends are taxed have been cut to about 15% under Bush stilll leaves the rich paying more money in taxes, but this is because they often have so very much more and thus although their tax rates are lower than that for those who only have earnings for work they still pay more money per capita.
W.
Teh wealthy contribute more to tax revenue because they own assets whose incomes are taxes and whose capital appreciation is also taxed when such assets are sold.
The fact that the rates at which capital gains and dividends are taxed have been cut to about 15% under Bush stilll leaves the rich paying more money in taxes, but this is because they often have so very much more and thus although their tax rates are lower than that for those who only have earnings from work they still pay more money per capita.
W.
Submitted by Robert Powell (not verified) on Wed Jun. 18, 2008 12:58 PM PDT.
Tax Lover displays his bias and ignorance asking, "can someone point me to a Dem tax cut plan put on the table when the Repubs WEREN'T forwarding one already..?" And also makes the knee-jerk statement: "Could it just be possible that the Democrat's constituency has been conditioned to believe that any and all tax cuts are going to benefit only the wealthy, and therefore should be opposed, regardless..?"
Total foolishness.
Republicans want us to forget about it, but here (from the article "Response to a Conservative" on my site) are some of comments from conservatives about the Democrat's 1993 tax increase, which passed with zero, ZERO, Republican votes:
* Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM): "April Fool, America. This Clinton budget plan will not create jobs, will not grow the economy, and will not reduce the deficit."
* Stephen Moore, Cato Institute, predicted: "Clinton's plan will torpedo the economy".
* Newt Gingrich: "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit."
* Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX), economist: "I want to predict here tonight, that if we adopt this bill the American economy is going to get weaker and not stronger, the deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today and not lower? When all is said and done, people will pay more taxes, the economy will create fewer jobs, the government will spend more money, and the American people will be worse off."
* Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), economist: "a job killer".
* Rep. John Kasich (R-OH): "This plan will not work. If it was to work, then I'd have to become a Democrat."
Perfect thinking according to conservatives. But obviously, exactly wrong. It's a perfect illustration of the appalling extent to which conservatives do not understand economics.
Unfortunately for the economy and all of us, "conservatives" have used, and are still using, the same logic in pushing for Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, even though they know full well they were wrong before. Conservative ideology ignores reality, which makes them incapable of admitting when they're wrong.
What should have been done was to cut taxes for those with lower incomes and to raise taxes on those with very high incomes. The economy would again be booming had that been done.
Even some Republicans realized this. See the article: Split in Ranks of Business and G.O.P. on Tax Cuts, 11/29/02 By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Unfortunately, Obama is no liberal. He appointed Jason Furman, one of Wal-Mart's most prominent defenders who anointed the company a "progressive success story" to head his economic policy team. Obama chose Austan Goolsbee as his chief economic adviser, a University of Chicago economist on the left side of a spectrum that stops at the center-right. Now he's appointed Bush-tax-cut-lover Jim Messina, chief of staff for Senator Max Baucus, as the campaign's chief of staff.
All that can be said is that Obama's better than McCain and that Obama's supporters are primarily a lot more liberal than he is and will, hopefully pressure him to move to the liberal center (see "Explaining Liberal Principles" on my site on what's the "center").
I have to agree with you. It is so refreshing to read an opinion that takes into account just exactly we are dealing with here.
Elections are the Olympics of politics. Only in politics, one gets rewarded for hypocracy, back-stabbing, rumor starting, finger pointing, lying, denying ... the list is long but let me not forget "middle finger" waving to your opponent.
Which made Barrack (had to borrow the writer's typo) Obama's asking for respect for Hillary something akin to OJ Simpson demanding respect for the wife he murdered.
But I digress.
These are great political times. Enjoy peeps, you are participating in history.
Expect the unexpected.
Robert Powell claims: "Tax Lover displays his bias and ignorance asking, "can someone point me to a Dem tax cut plan put on the table when the Repubs WEREN'T forwarding one already..?" And also makes the knee-jerk statement: "Could it just be possible that the Democrat's constituency has been conditioned to believe that any and all tax cuts are going to benefit only the wealthy, and therefore should be opposed, regardless..?"
Total foolishness."
Then he proves to us that he has no answers to the questions by changing the subject and repeatedly fishing for hits on his site.
If my questions are as foolish as you claim, then where are your answers?
The answers should be straigtforward, direct and EASY.
Or do you ALWAYS address questions you don't like by casting aspersions on the character of the person who DARES to pose them, rather than offering direct answers?
You want to know which national politician understands the economy, what's caused it to tank?
Why our currency has gone from the World's Standard to Toilet Paper?
What problematic factors BOTH major parties' plans are ignoring and they're refusing to discuss?
Try a few of these articles on for size:
Farm Bill -www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2008/tst060108.htm
Iraq or the Economy? - www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2008/tst061608.htm
Rising Energy Prices & the Falling Dollar - www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2008/tst060908.htm
The Economy: Another Casualty of War - www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2008/tst051808.htm
Bailing Out Banks - www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2008/tst041308.htm
Money, Inflation & Government - www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2008/tst033008.htm
Making a Recession Great -www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2008/tst031608.htm
Lest you think this 'electioneering'..., let's go back and have a look at some points made in NON-election years:
Tax Reform is a Shell Game - www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst030705.htm
Deficits Make You Poorer - www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst031405.htm
The 2003 Spending Orgy - www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst030303.htm
And No, it's not MY site I'm steering you to, either.
Submitted by Robert Powell (not verified) on Wed Jun. 18, 2008 2:11 PM PDT.
Tax Lover: It is not "changing the subject" to point to a tax cut on the lower incomes and a tax increase on the higher incomes that Democrats supported and Republicans (conservatives) opposed. It responded to your challenge.
As far as "repeatedly fishing for hits" on my site. I make not one cent for hits on my site; I've no ads. I include the references for those who want more info on what's going on than can be included in a post here.
If you want to know what's caused the U.S. economy to tank, it's not by asking Ron Paul. Here's my answer ... it's primarily what's called "free trade" and other economic conservative (libertarian) policies that have led to "The Death of the Middle Class" (read it). The problem with U.S. currency tanking is a symptom of trade policy, it's not the root cause of current economic failure. It's printing money to enable the continued offshoring of jobs and conservative "borrow and spend" policies. See "The Trade Deficit and the Fallacy of Composition" and "Trade Truth #3: 'Trade' Talking Points".
And, yes, there are too many DLC Democrats who buy this "free trade", "free market is God" nonsense.
As far as "casting aspersions", everyone's ignorant about something. That you and I are ignorant about some things is a fact. I was ignorant about "trade" issues before I began researching them.
First of all, the national deficit is created by the Pentagon's crazy spending on killing machines, many of which have no bearing on our national security. Raytheon has now developed a "pain ray" that causes a wide beam to spread out and cause the water just under people's skin to boil, causing excruciating pain! I bet the Pentagon will pay some big bucks for a few thousand of those. And what will they be used for? To further undermine any protests to our economy that has become based solely on killing, and if you aren't a part of the M.I.C. you are S*** Out of Luck.
Furthermore, income taxes, according to investigation by the tax honesty movement,as well as figures released by the government accountability office, have shown that not one peny of income tax gets spent on roads, or schools, or anything like that. It all goes to pay the interest that the Federal Reserve charges Congress on the money it borrows--which is what creates the National deficit!
The government is given--and charged with--the power to coin, print, and control all money; under the Constitution all legal tender is supposed to be backed by gold or silver.
But in 1913, a group of powerful bankers like John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and Paul Warburg (the last two were also tied to the Rothchilds of Europe)tricked the people of this country (including the president, Woodrow Wilson, by using the propaganda that the Federal Reserve Act (FRA) would keep the wealth of the country from being consolidated into the hands of the few.
But it was those very same super wealthy bankers that engineered both the fear and the fix. They also got the 16th amendment, or "income tax" amendment passed in the same year--which is no coincidence. They did this during Christmas season when many Senators were home with their families, and without the neccesary Constitutional amendment.
Since then, Congress has had to borrow money from these bankers (who are the real masters and exert enormous control)and pay interest on it, when they could just print it themselves interest free.
Woodrow Wilson, after seeing what this Act had done, had this to say: "I am a very unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country..A great industrial nationis now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by the opinion of the people. We are no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority. We are a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."--President Woodrow Wilson, 1919.
Thomas Jefferson had this to say--and by the way, the "Federal" Reserve, despite its name, is actually a private central bank that, with its partner the Federal government, (it ties into the world bank), operates as a cartel. They allow no competition. Anyway, what Jefferson had to say about this: "If we ever allow private banks, and the corporations that spring up in their wake, to control the currency of our nation, they will deprive us of all wealth, until one day our children wake up homeless on the shores of the country their fathers defeated"-T.J.
Hmmm...homeless. Kind of sounds familiar, huh?
Of course, then nixon made everything even worse by destroying the gold standard.
When he did that, we adopted what's called a fiat currency--money that is essentially just paper, but forced on the people to use for barter. This way, they have an endless supply of money--even though it's not backed by any REAL money. We have gotten away with this in the past because we had a strong and diverse economy, and because OPEC agreed to only accept dollars for oil, and because of our military might.
But we have abused this fiat power, like most countries have in the past (the currency, in the end, always ends up being destroyed, and thecountry faces severe economic hardship)and now we are beginning to see the effects of this.
"Inflation" is NOT really the prices of services and items going up--it is the purchasing power of our dollars going down. That is central to truly understanding economics on a basic level. Since WW2, the purchasing power of our dollar has fallen by 90%. Our dollar's true value is about 4 or 5 cents. The Federal Reserve constantly manipulates things to keep us going, but eventually the bills will come due.
It's just like a person who lives above their means, using credit cards...(and by the way, our public debt is just as damaging as our national debt)..you can get away with it, by juggling bills and such, for quite some time--especially if you have a big gun(our military, obviously) you can go and point at people who are poor, but still have some money, and take it from them through a complex fraud scheme--
(in the real world, we use the world bank to accomplish this.)
I highly recommend watching Aaron Russo's (he produced "Trading Places" with Eddie Murphy.?)last movie he made before dying of cancer. He wanted to try to wake Americans up. Just type this into your search browser, and when you get to the page, click on where it says "watch for free on google video":"America:Freedom to Fascism."
Another good one is "The Truth and Lies of 9/11," which, from what Sibel Edmonds has said, hits closer to the truth than any other documentary. This is not speculation about bombs in the buildings or anything like that--it's presented by an ex-LAPD Narcotics Officer, who is against the "War on drugs," and shows how the CIA smuggles drugs into our country and makes sure as much drug money is laundered through the U.S. banking system as possible, in order to support Wall Street, and how this ties in with 9/11. It's fascinating. Highly recommended.
I think the extremely wealthy, these people whose net worth is in the billions, should pay twice what others pay. They don't need that much money...They have 3 or 4 multi-million dollar homes, a fleet of luxury and sport cars, several boats, the best of everything! Servants! They never have to do a thing, yet they are as "tight" as a man living on 5 dollars a day! And no, that's not how they got so rich! And then, besides all that they already have, they have another billion dollars in the bank!
These people should be forced to either contribute heavily to charities to offset their taxes, or have to pay twice what people making only 35 grand a year have to pay. Really, I believe every rich person should be forced to live in absolute poverty for a year, and then maybe they might start to care a little bit for the rest of us.
In France, Canada, Germany--most other wealthy countries--workers get between 4 and 6 weeks paid vacation every year. In America, many jobs offer no vacation at all, and even if you are able to take a week off, it's hardly ever paid. Restaurant workers have it really bad in this area, and it's a job where one's work earns the owner enormous profits per hour compared to what they pay their employees!
I know, because I worked in the kitchen as a chef, sous chef, and line cook,switching between positions because I would tire of the politics involved in being the Chef...And the places I worked as Chef, they wanted me to work the line like a reg. line cook, also handle all human resources related work, do all the ordering for the Restaurant (except for liquor), put away the inventory, do the end of the month inventory, which is a real pain in a kitchen--I mean, you have to count EVERYTHING! Plus, I was responsible for making sure every plate went out perfect, insuring food safety, keeping the walk-in coolers clean, and helping to break down and clean the kitchen at night.
Of course, I've worked jobs where the Chef hasn't had to do half of that, but I was never lucky like that. it seems the better you are, the more you are abused.
Restaurant workers never get more than five minutes every hour or so for breaks, at least in Florida. I got so I hated it so much that, if I hadn't gotten out, I think I would have lost my mind, and possibly done something harmful to myself or someone else. I was always full to the brim with anger. I used to go home and spend an hour punching a heavy bag. Then I started drinking. Luckily, I quit drinking completely when I turned about 33 or so. I might have one or two beers now, once every full moon, but that's it...and that only happens when someone invites me out for a drink, or vice/versa.
Meanwhile, the rich come in at 5 minutes before youclose and sit there for two hours! They have absolutely no idea what real work is. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever, and believe they should be made to pay out the big A. They surely don't care about US! Sending people's jobs overseas! Destroying a man's life who has worked for this rich guy for 40 years, and over-night he loses not just his job, but 40 years of loyalty, and a well-deserved pension! This should be completely illegal, but instead our beloved president encourages it, and as long as a few men are making so much money that it looks like the nation is prospering, to hell with the other 279 million people! That's their attitude! They are the ones that drive 20 miles an hour in a 45 mile an hour zone while you are stuck behind them trying to get to work. I can't believe people are not more upset at the enormous inequality in this country! It's turning into a country of the filthy rich and dirt poor.
Lookie here, Barack, if you or your staffers read this, you are ON NOTICE to deliver on change - the change we know you know we mean. Stop the privatization, stop the free market plunder, single payer for all, stop the war and don't start another, green the country, train the youth, protect the infirm, house the poor.....Barack, you know what to do -- we will hold you to it, by God, and help you do it!!
Robert Powell sez:
["Tax Lover: It is not "changing the subject" to point to a tax cut on the lower incomes and a tax increase on the higher incomes that Democrats supported and Republicans (conservatives) opposed. It responded to your challenge."]
It neither directly nor even indirectly answered either question, so basically, it didn't respond to the challenge. At best, it went off on a tangent.
Robert Powell sez:
["As far as "repeatedly fishing for hits" on my site. I make not one cent for hits on my site; I've no ads. I include the references for those who want more info on what's going on than can be included in a post here."]
I don't care WHY you were fishing for hits, but you were fishing for hits.
Robert Powell sez:
["Here's my answer ... it's primarily what's called "free trade" and other economic conservative (libertarian) policies that have led to "The Death of the Middle Class"]
We don't have truly free trade, and we haven't had for over a century. If you believe Libertarians think we're a Free Trade economy, or have been at any time in living memory, then you haven't listened to Libertarians at all.
You or I couldn't carry all the books filled with federal laws governing who can trade what with whom, and under what circumstances.
Maybe we ought to TRY free trade instead of politician-managed trade and see what happens.
Robert Powell sez:
["The problem with U.S. currency tanking is a symptom of trade policy, it's not the root cause of current economic failure. It's printing money to enable the continued offshoring of jobs and conservative "borrow and spend" policies."]
...printing money to enable the continued offshoring of jobs and conservative "borrow and spend" policies."??
You REALLY believe that is the primary motivation for our politicians spending beyond their means?
The government has inflated our money for years, while under the control of both wings of our single party (which has two nominal "wings").
Off-shoring jobs has never been a primary motivation for the politicians spending more than the government takes in, nor do I believe they are more than very marginally related issues.
Democrats are just as guilty of inflationary spending as the Republicans are, and if you REALLY study economics you'd know this.
You really should read Ron Paul's articles on the subject, but you probably won't, because "he's one of THEM".
Robert Powell sez:
"As far as "casting aspersions", everyone's ignorant about something."
So?
How does casting aspersions on the character of people who pose questions you don't care for help that?
Do you consider it "informational" to do so?
Does the fact that someone may be ignorant of some area of knowledge justify it? Does it add something to our understanding of each other's viewpoints? Or are you trying to imply that someone is ignorant of some list of 'facts' simply BECAUSE they don't share your points of view?
"First of all, the national deficit is created by the Pentagon's crazy spending on killing machines"
IS it?
According to Paul Krugman of the New York Times, speaking in his "Conscience of a Liberal" column, military spending has increased from 3.0 to 4.0% of the nation's GDP, while Medicare/Medicaid has risen from 3.4 to 4.6% of GDP over the period of 2001 to 2007.
For those that appreciated the tax cuts - I can only say that you must have benefited from them. In the last 30 years since Reagan started with cutting taxes for the rich the average persons life hasn't gotten better, as a matter of fact the park across from the White House was filled with people because that trickle effect wasn't working for them and it's not working now. And while deregulation started under Reagan it has gotten us into this massive race to the bottom.
Hopefully Sen. Obama picked this man because he was the best qualified for the job.
I do believe that part of the subject was the new chief of staff? Yes, I believe this is the beginning of the change we will be seeing. The change will be all about the other rich guys getting the money. Under Bush it was the oil gang et all but under the new Democrats it will be another set of rich guys lining up in Washington and the new chief of staff is taking names. It is called changing of the guard and that is all.
Please do not be naive by telling Obama to remember his promise of change. By the time that his tenure is up the rich folks that helped him raise all that money and who helped him get elected will be swimming in gold and diamonds. They will be Obamagone. And the rest will be writing and making comments about another candidate making another void promise about some other nonsense and spouting more numbers.
America wake up! You have become a third world country and you don't even know it. Recently, on Turkish television, they were showing a documentary on poverty in a third world country. At the end of the film they revealed that the country was United States. So, while you spend almost half of the total of the world's budget in weapons almost 40 million are without health care. You can raise almost a billion dollars for a Democratic election campaign but you have hungry children living several blocks from where your messiah Obama lives. (His mother in law still lives in poverty so how in the world is he going to help anybody else if he cannot help his own.)
America you have pinned your hopes on a man who has delivered you a secular message of salvation just like Oprah does every day and you rejoice, but you know that it is empty. You know it is a hoax because there is a black box and nobody wants to touch it. Go ahead and ask where all of this money is coming from. Go ahead and ask if you the commentators, who think you have a real say, are going to make an impact on anything that takes place. For heaven's sake there is good evidence that your last two elections have been stolen and you sit like sheep and bleep.
America, you call yourselves sons and daughters of the Republic? You call yourselves the founders of the new world? I don't think so. The founding fathers would not recognize the sheep that are have lost their independence and who are depending on 'change' from a man spouting one thing but doing something else behind their backs by hiring people who will stick it to Americans like George boy has.
America, it could have been your finest hour. It still might be.
I was visiting a car dealership last week and after half an hour the manager said to me if I would like to lease or buy. I told him: neither. Do not allow the politicians to place you in a straitjacket and give you only the options that ultimately depend on them.
"Please do not be naive by telling Obama to remember his promise of change."
Of course if you don't tie down EXACTLY what it is you're talking about as you keep chanting the mantra "Change", then any "change" can be claimed to have fulfilled the promise.
The most prominent change WE'RE likly to notice will be the name on the Oral Office door.
well said change... if you really want to shake it up write in a vote, nothing in the constitution says you have to be a demo or rep , send them a real message about how frustrated you are, it wont be any more of a wasted vote than the one thier offering you, please just do it really shake em up
Submitted by Robert Powell (not verified) on Thu Jun. 19, 2008 11:01 AM PDT.
Tax Lover: Indeed you have a poor memory. You asked, "And why is that no National Democratic office-holder has, in living memory, EVER proposed ANY tax cut for ANYBODY unless it was in response to a tax cut plan already being forwarded by Republicans?" So I told you one that cut taxes for lower incomes and raised it for the wealthy that not only did "conservatives" not "forward", they opposed it with lies. Their statements were the exact opposite of what happened.
Rather than admit this and addressing the facts, you attack my motives by saying I'm "fishing for hits" without any rationale for why I would benefit.
On "trade", you write "We don't have truly free trade, and we haven't had for over a century. If you believe Libertarians think we're a Free Trade economy, or have been at any time in living memory, then you haven't listened to Libertarians at all. You or I couldn't carry all the books filled with federal laws governing who can trade what with whom, and under what circumstances.
Maybe we ought to TRY free trade instead of politician-managed trade and see what happens."
What you ignore is that I wrote it's "what's called 'free trade' and other economic conservative (libertarian) policies that have led to "The Death of the Middle Class" (read it)." Did you? Of course not. It's why I almost always put "free trade" in quotes ... it's really "transfer of the factors of production".
The libertarian view of "free trade" is to allow corporations to do whatever they want to do, without regulation or with favorable regulations, for their own benefit. This has inevitably led to their control of government and what is essentially fascism. The "Libertarian Menace" is far more dangerous than the "Communist Menace" ever was. Search for that on my site.
You wrote: "Off-shoring jobs has never been a primary motivation for the politicians spending more than the government takes in, nor do I believe they are more than very marginally related issues."
Well, of course you don't. That requires seeing connections among issues, which "conservatives" and libertarians are loathe to do.
Here's how it works. Corporations make more profits when they offshore jobs, a portion of those profits goes to influence politicians to pass "free trade" agreements favorable to them and cut taxes for them and the wealthy who own them. Corporations love offshoring to increase profits so "conservatives" support it even though it's led to massive trade deficits. To allow this continue, libertarian Greenspan prints money.
In the U.S. this undercuts compensation even as productivity continues to rise (see the chart at The Death of the Middle Class). All this undercuts the tax base. Rather than cut spending that would lead to their political demise, economic "conservatives" "borrow and spend". To allow this continue, libertarian Greenspan prints money.
Reagan and the conservatives cut taxes in 81 by 25%, primarily for the wealthy, and gave tax breaks to corporations, all the while promising to balance the budget. But the deficit soared from Carter's $74B to $200B at the end of 83. So what they did was to raise SS taxes to, ostensibly, finance not only current retirees, but also pay in advance for future retirements. Then Reagan went on the spend the SS dollars collected and Bush continues to do so. Only Clinton was building a surplus, but the Bush/Greenspan-approved tax cuts squashed that. So the "conservative" idea was to cut taxes for the wealthy and pay for that by increasing taxes on the middle class and the poor (who pay SS tax on every penny they earn).
Now Bush, economic "conservatives", and righteous libertarians say, "Gee, these are only IOU's". And so now the "solution" is to cut SS benefits which were already paid for. This fraud, theft, criminal behavior, driven by Republicans, but in which too many Democrats colluded, is the story that won't be told by the mainstream "conservative" media. Read all about it in Greenspan's Fraud by Ravi Batra.
You wrote, "You really should read Ron Paul's articles, but you probably won't ..." I've read much libertarian nonsense and respond to it at "Libertarian Objections" on my site.
On this: "Or are you trying to imply that someone is ignorant of some list of 'facts' simply BECAUSE they don't share your points of view?" This is more than about "points of view", it's ignoring (ignorance of) data and logic. But libertarian ideology stands in the way of data and logic. Pathetic.
rfc-....you dont know me pal...dont define me...define yourself...matter of fact rush limo is a bag of wind, im saying you want change...quit doing the same thing and expect a different result...be couragious and shake em up....now that would be change
["...So I told you one that cut taxes for lower incomes and raised it for the wealthy that not only did "conservatives" not "forward", they opposed it with lies. Their statements were the exact opposite of what happened."]
You Did NOT show that the proposal was not a response to a Republican plan already being forwarded, which WAS the ROOT of the question.
Give us the Exact Dates that they were proposing this, and we can look up whether the Repubs were already forwarding a proposal, otherwise, you're blowing smoke.
Not my fault if you can't understand plain English.
["Rather than admit this and addressing the facts, you attack my motives by saying I'm "fishing for hits" without any rationale for why I would benefit."]
It was a truthful and accurate observation. If that strikes you as an attack then you need to grow a thicker skin.
I already told you, I DON'T CARE why you were fishing for hits, but you were fishing for hits.
Live with it.
["Search for that on my site"
..."respond to it at "Libertarian Objections" on my site."]
See! THERE you go Again.
The rest of your post proves beyond doubt that you have NO CONCEPT of what Libertarian principles ACTUALLY are..., such as SOUND Money that government is NOT free to inflate. Or that Greenspan's policies were in any way in accordance with them.
While early in his career he spoke of the wisdom of a solid, gold backed currency, when he got into a position of power at the head of the private banks who control the US currency supply, he abandoned it altogether.
At WHAT Time in modern history were US Corporations free to do whatever they wished, so that we could see evidence of what the results would be?
Specifics, if you please.
Thanks for trying.
Maybe some more insulting diatribes will strengthen your case.
Go for it.
thanks jerry....you know, i think the kinda change we re gonna get is like you know , when you give someone a dollar for something and they give you back like two dimes and a nickle and a few pennies, i think thats the chump change we ll get
Submitted by Robert Powell (not verified) on Fri Jun. 20, 2008 1:05 PM PDT.
Tax Lover wrote: "You Did NOT show that the proposal was not a response to a Republican plan already being forwarded, which WAS the ROOT of the question. Give us the Exact Dates that they were proposing this, and we can look up whether the Repubs were already forwarding a proposal, otherwise, you're blowing smoke."
Well, ha, ha; that's a good one! Talk about "blowing smoke." Tell me a time when Republicans & "conservatives" aren't proposing a tax cut? The economy's good ... tax cut. The economy's bad ... tax cut. They're always proposing tax cuts. That's their "borrow and spend" solution for all economic ills. "Exact dates"? Don't be ridiculous. No one has to keep track.
Republicans and "conservatives" opposed that tax package, predicted disaster, and were totally wrong. Live with it. They want everyone to forget about it now, because they've done the exact opposite and it's been a disaster ... and they continue to want even more of the same. How inconvenient it is to recall their predictions.
Why were they wrong? Because supply was, and still is, outstripping demand. That's why we need another tax package like the one "conservatives" so fiercely opposed and not one like they want more of.
Re: "The rest of your post proves beyond doubt that you have NO CONCEPT of what Libertarian principles ACTUALLY are..., such as SOUND Money that government is NOT free to inflate."
Oh I know what libertarians stand for; I show exactly what they say on my site so everyone can see their insanity revealed. Regarding Greenspan, libertarian extraordinaire, his actions show above all that libertarians have no principles when it comes right down to it. I certainly won't defend him as not being a hypocrite. Again, read Greenspan's Fraud.
On: "At WHAT Time in modern history were US Corporations free to do whatever they wished ...?" Uh, how about now, pretty much? Pay attention; they basically control government. Tax breaks, not being prosecuted for illegal wiretaps, favorable "free trade" agreements that have destroyed the U.S. economy, unchecked market manipulation, unchecked oligopolies, treasonous war profiteering ... it goes on and on.
And, instead of addressing the issues, "there you go again" implying I personally have something to gain by directing people to my site for more detailed explanations, of which it's clear you'd prefer others not be aware. And, by the way, directing others to my site means I don't hide behind a pseudonym.
["Tell me a time when Republicans & "conservatives" aren't proposing a tax cut?"]
So you admit that they were at the time of the Dem plan you keep chattering about?
Thank you for finally admitting that my point is accurate.
[""Exact dates"? Don't be ridiculous. No one has to keep track."]
Well, if one isn't interested in verifying that their alleged "response to a challenge" actually fits the criteria laid out, then they need not bother keeping track, or even looking up and providing details after the fact.
["Oh I know what libertarians stand for; I show exactly what they say on my site so everyone can see their insanity revealed."]
So, your suggestion is that we go to an avowed ANTI-Libertarian to get a full and fair description of what Libertarians espouse?
Do you also suggest we go to a KKK site to discover what the NAACP is all about?
Go to the Baptists to find out what the Muslims believe?
Same principle, you know.
I think if people want to know what Libertarians believe, they'll be able to find out from Libertarians directly.
You can go on claiming Greenspan is one, but his actions haven't fit the philosophy, and just claiming you've caught a trout doesn't turn your catfish into a rainbow.
The Libertarian-oriented Foundation for Economic Education has much to say about Greenspan, precious-little of it complimentary.
They would know.
["On: "At WHAT Time in modern history were US Corporations free to do whatever they wished ...?" Uh, how about now, pretty much?"]
Oh, so you're suggesting that US Business is unregulated?
Gee, I wonder what it is that the hundreds of federal regulatory commissions actually do? And what those hundreds of thousands of pages of regulation are actually for?
Just because you don't think it's enough regulation, or the regulation doesn't do what you think it should doesn't make it cease to exist. It doesn't translate into business being free to do whatever it wants.
I'm sure Detroit WANTED to have foreign imports stopped in their tracks, but they didn't get it. I'm sure Detroit WANTED no mileage standards for their products, but they didn't GET it. I can go on with this line as long as you can, showing that business IS bound by laws and regulations, even if some businesses sometimes ignore them, or they aren't the laws and regulations you'd like to see.
["Tax breaks"] - Have to be granted by politicians & regulators, and they are offered to get the companies to do things that POLITICIANS want, like locate where they'll benefit the Pols.
["not being prosecuted for illegal wiretaps"] - admits that there are laws and regulations in place, and in fact, this case was about them doing what the GOVERNMENT wanted.
["favorable "free trade" agreements"] - amounting to laws and regulations, negotiated by Politicians.
["unchecked market manipulation, unchecked oligopolies, treasonous war profiteering"] - Any of that illegal, or contrary to existing regulations?
What you're actually arguing here, though you don't seem to know it, is that government is INEFFECTIVE because they don't enforce their own laws and regulations, and yet you seem to think More government would be the solution to Bad government.
["And, instead of addressing the issues..."] - Don't think I've failed to address the issues at all. If I have, then what sparked all these counter arguments from you?
["there you go again" implying I personally have something to gain by directing people to my site.."] - I implied no such thing. You're just VERY sensitive about having it pointed out that you're fishing for hits. You see that statement of an observed behavior as a personal affront, for some reason.
One more time: I DON'T CARE WHY. I haven't asked about your motives and I haven't speculated about your motives, but you are fishing for hits.
["..for more detailed explanations, of which it's clear you'd prefer others not be aware."] - Really? Did I suggest somewhere that readers NOT go to your site? Because I can't find where I said or suggested anything of the sort. Just commented on a simple fact, and what's wrong with that as long is it IS a fact?
["..I don't hide behind a pseudonym."]
Bully for you.
I guess I (along with 99% of the people who voice opinions on the internet) am just a gutless coward.
Or.., maybe we just value privacy over saying "See Who I Am?!" to all the wackos on the blogosphere.
I truly hope Obama can bring some change to the tax system. I would like to see him just elimiate outright the lowest tax bracket and stop forcing the poorest of the poor from paying taxes. I don't understand how stereotypical Republicans can't see that there always are more poor consumers and the more money they have the more they spend.
I hope he also closes the loopholes that allow companies to shift their monies around in such ways that keep them from paying taxes in the localities in which they operate (like stashing it in the Caymans).
I don't think Obama will bring radical change, but shifting the tax burdens would be an immense and positive step. Americans need to DEMAND closures of foreign bases and a downsizing of the military to free up more money to invest in the economy.
Hey tax lover, why is it republicans can't balance a budget? Every tax cut we have seen in the last 7 years has been financed by debt. And yes there is interest due. The debt is 8.8 trillion and you sir are asking dems to cut taxes?!? How about leaving a budget surplus like the last democratic president did. A budget deficit is a hidden tax on future administrations. Oh and we still haven't paid for the war. So if your a true patriot then you shouldn't mind funding the troops with your money.
