Scrooged by the Democrats: Will the Rich Ever Pay Their Fair Share?
| Wed Dec. 24, 2008 2:46 PM PST
All of us who have been taught the Biblical story of Christmas (since my grandfather was a Methodist minister, that certainly includes me) will remember that Jesus is supposed to have been born in a stable because there was "no room at the inn." Less often repeated is the reason why his parents had hit the road in the first place, despite the fact that Mary was nine months gone at the time. According to the Book of Luke, "it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed." The Romans ordered all people to go to their home towns to register for a census, which was needed in order to institute the new tax system. That's why the holy family was schlepping the 90 miles from Nazareth to Bethlehem when Mary went into labor.
The Bible never tells us how much Joseph—an impoverished carpenter with two dependents, one of them a kid who wasn't even his—ended up having to pay in taxes. But it's safe to assume that the local Romans, and the wealthy Sadducees who supported them, got off easy in comparison to working stiffs like Joseph. Maybe they even got off as easy as rich Americans have, under the tax cuts passed by the Bush Administration in 2001 and 2003.
During the Democratic primary campaign, Barack Obama, along with all of his Democratic contenders, promised a swift repeal of these tax cuts. A rollback of tax cuts benefitting only corporations and the wealthiest individuals was supposed to provide the financing for Obama's policy proposals, from education and health care to infrastructure and green energy. But by September, the Democratic nominee was already backpedaling on his pledge, and within three weeks of his election, Obama's economic advisors confirmed that, after all, the new president might just let the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule in 2011, rather than eliminating them two years earlier. The decision is based on the premise that it is unwise—in economic as well as political terms—to raise taxes during a recession, since lower taxes stimulate the economy.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
At the same time, New York's Democratic governor David Patterson has refused to consider instituting a temporary "millionaire's tax" to address his state's desperate financial needs, choosing instead to slash vital social programs. Patterson claims that such a tax will drive businesses and wealthy individuals out of New York and further depress the economy. (This despite billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg's declaration that among his rich friends, he'd "never heard one person say 'I'm going to move out of the city because of taxes.'")
But an analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, released earlier this year, debunks the myth that tax cuts for the rich more than "pay for themselves" by fueling economic growth.
There is no evidence that the tax cuts caused any increase in economic growth, let alone growth sufficient to offset their cost. In fact, the 2001-2007 economic expansion was among the weakest since World War II with regard to overall economic growth. Moreover, revenue growth was very poor during 2001-2007. Real per-capita revenues fell deeply in 2001, 2002, and 2003 and have since risen to barely 2 percent above their 2001 level. Over the course of other postwar economic expansions, they grew by an average of 12 percent.
Capital gains taxes, CBPP found, have the effect of lowering revenue in the long run. And tax cuts financed by deficit spending—as they were under Bush, and undoubtedly will continue to be under Obama—are especially harmful.
Brookings Institution economist William Gale and now-CBO director Peter Orszag concluded that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are "likely to reduce, not increase, national income in the long term" because of their effect in swelling the deficit. [The Congressional Budget Office's] recent study of a deficit-financed extension of the 2001 and 2003 income-tax cuts found that "real [Gross National Product] per person would decline by 13 percent in 2050" relative to an extension that was financed through a balanced mix of revenue and spending changes effective immediately.
Even the Bush Treasury Department's analysis of the cost of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts "estimated that they would generate only enough economic growth to cover less than 10 percent of their long-term cost. Furthermore, that estimate was based on a best-case scenario; it depended on the assumption that the cost of the tax cuts would be fully offset by spending cuts."
Likewise, on the state level, a recent study looked at a much stiffer "half-millionaire's" tax that went into effect in New Jersey. While the study found a tiny increase in the "out migration" rate among wealthy residents, it detected no damage to the economy. In fact, it found that overall, the state's tax revenue increased by $26 for every $1 lost.
Especially during a recession, if we put more money in the pockets of the rich, it is likely to stay right there—in their pockets. On the other hand, if we put more money in the hands of low- and middle-income workers through tax cuts, and in the hands of the poor and unemployed through increases in government programs (food stamps, TANF, unemployment benefits), that money is virtually guaranteed to go directly into the economy, since its recipients have no choice but to spend it on their basic needs—food, clothing, gasoline, doctor's bills. A few of them might even be able to afford a room at the inn.
This post also appears on James Ridgeway's new blog, UNSILENT GENERATION: "Information and commentary for pissed-off progressive old folk (and future old folk)... because we're not dead yet."
Comments
What seems to be missed in the discussion in regards to taxes and government spending or what is more commonly called finance policy is the overriding constraint that is forced upon all nations due to the system of currency exchange rates. The ability of any given nation to use finance policy is severely diminished if the agreed upon system of world currency exchange is floating. Why? If taxes are increased then the currency will increase in value. If the value of the currency increases then such things as the balance of trade will worsen because our goods will become more expensive?as more money flows into the treasury then the dollar goes up. (the US is a bit weird here because if the dollar goes up a great many commodities on the world exchange will go down in price because it is the dollar that these goods are priced in?most notably are oil and gold) If the treasury has more money to blow then this will also bring down the interest rate and as this occurs then expansion can occur. (today we do not have any degree of freedom because there is no reason whatsoever to employ the services of a bank?zero interest means there is no bank?it is for this reason that the bailout is a farce?those who should have been "bailed out" are those who are paying for their houses?that way the banks would become state owned or under state control but the conditions by which they operate are not really altered?their debt remains unaltered but the means by which interest rates are set remains intact?this would have meant the interest rate would have not gone down at all and the very reason for having banks would remain strong. Still the most effective means of policy are via mechanisms that lie outside of the congress and the president?it is why the role of the central bank has been so powerful since the 1980's and why the independence of the bank has become so great. This is why we have had this so-called Supply Side system of economics?or rather it is what supply side means because in truth the most important tool of statecraft is via the FED. Similarly cutting taxes will simply weaken the value the of the dollar and this will make our goods cheaper abroad. When the US went to war it did two things which are anti-supply side economics. It decreased taxes and it increased government spending. So our economy has experienced a double wammy effect in regards to flawed policy. If the government wanted to go to war then it first must create a surplus budget. Then that surplus (which in reality Clinton had given the president) sets the economic constraint on just how much money it can spend on a war. In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan this was in the neighborhood of 100 billion dollars. When war had broken out in Afghanistan that sum of cash had already been spent?we might ask on what? In fact before war has broken out it is interesting to ask why so much money had been spent and on what. How could two people who did nothing their 1st 9 months in office except chase after Russian spies, aggravating China and recreate an estranged world reminiscent of the Cold War? How did that sort of action swallow up 100 billion dollars. I think that to see if war was not already planned before 9/11 one must follow the money! I am quite sure that anyone who investigates this would discover that 9/11 is the trigger mechanism for something that was already decided upon. We were going to war and that decision was made independently and prior to the election in 2000. I think that this giant spending is what makes 9/11 so suspect.
If Obama wants to run a progressive system of government then he must first collect the nations of the world and adopt a new system of fixed exchange rates?it is this upon which the politics rest. The world of fixed exchange rates is the world of Keynesian economics?which is the world Ridgeway seems to hint at, while the world of floating exchange rates is the world of Supply Side economics and that world has collapsed under the weight of its own greed.
Will the Rich Ever Pay Their Fair Share?
Depends on who gets to define what's fair, doesn't it?
There were some posting here during the campaign who warned that Obama was going to end up looking like Bush Lite, but most of the readers and writers here at MoJo didn't want to hear that, so they didn't.
They won't want to see it as it unfolds, so they won't..., and for a while, they'll be in denial.
We keep supporting the Democratic nominee, thinking we can effectively nudge him towards the Progressive point on the compass map, but it hasn't happened, and it won't happen.
We've got to break away from the betrayers and throw our support behind a candidate with real, honest-to-God Progressive Credentials, or we're going to keep getting guys who talk liberal as they campaign, and govern like a Bush when they're elected.
MoJo could have fought for the one real Progressive in the Democratic field during the primaries (Brave Dennis), and possibly create a Real push within the party towards Progressive politics. Even if he wasn't the eventual nominee, with enough support, he could have had a sizeable impact on the next administration's direction.
Alas, MoJo didn't have the courage to step out from the Democrat's Party Line, and chose instead to follow the party's "leadership", get behind "someone who could win", and they helped make sure we got Bush Lite for the nominee. Giving us, effectively, a choice between Bush Lite, Bush Clone (some choice!) or a third party or independent vote (the only real vote for "Change").
I just hope they're proud of what their Smart, Fearless Journalism helped bring this Nation (same-old-same-old).
Submitted by TexasCowboy (not verified) on Thu Dec. 25, 2008 9:59 AM PST.
I think it a bit too early to judge a man who has not even taken office. Of course this is common to the naysayers and negative views which beat up anyone in office. George Bush literally lied to Americans hundreds of times and his illegal regime will not doubt be recorded in history. Before too many zealots jump to premature conclusions, let us hold our judgment until such a time real judgment is needed based on actual governing.
If Obama doesn't cut the tax breaks for the rich within a year of taking office - he lied, plain and simple.
this would represent a victory for the Rubin-CLinton machine, and total loss of initiative on the part of Obama.
it would be unexcusable and despicable.
Progressives have amazing fantasies. Obama won 53% to 46% for McCain. What do you think Kucinich's numbers would have been? And even he's not progressive enough. How about McCain vs McKinney? What makes you think a "real" progressive as you want them to be would ever get more than 2-3%?
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Fri Dec. 26, 2008 5:21 PM PST.
Nader has had the Dem's number for years.
Actually, he has identified the systemic collapse of our political system by collaboration of the two entrenched parties and the corporation interests (actually, it's really not the corporations, it's the top 1% of Americans who actually control them).
But I digress.
I have complained here before that the press blacked out Nader and the other candidates. That is a failure of their responsibility to our citizens.
Now we are going to live the results of that failure for the next 4 years. It starts with $3 trillion given to corporations in the last 3 months or so, and another $1 trillion on the way. More will follow. To paraphrase Naomi Wolf, we are on the site of a multi-trillion dollar crime scene.
The tax givaway to the top 1% is a continuation of the same robbery. It's all happening in plain sight.
Our congress did not respond to millions of emails and phone calls against the first bailout. There is a name for that, it is "Taxation without representation."
Our founders threw the British off of the continent for that reason. What are you prepared to do?
-Wexler
PS I voted for Nader.
Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet, and already he's acting like a Republican! So much for change, eh?
If Obama can't cut it, and there's plenty of evidence that he won't, then I recommend a federal tax revolt. Next tax filing season, everybody pay their federal taxes to their home states. Let Washington and the Federal Reserve starve to death while we will have all the money in the world to keep our own wheels turning. It's the money, people! Your votes don't count for squat. Your tax dollars do. Stop waiting for some messiah candidate to come along and wave a magic wand. It won't happen. It's gonna be a DIY this time and we are the "Y".
more of the same
economy has to get much worst before americans are willing to throw out both parties.
much worst.
americans deserve both parties and wash.
we elect these folks.
sad to watch a country fold like america but fold it must. universal law demands it.
few will understand the universal law part.
You left wingnuts( redundant) are a trip.
The top 20% of income earners already pay more than 80% of income taxes and the bottom group pay nothing - in fact they are given someone else's money.
Sure, raise taxes - if you really want a depression!!!!
First the bad news:
Most of the Biblical story you recite is factually wrong. (Or, maybe its not such bad news . . . )
People did not travel to inns to have their children.
The census was more of a threat to Jesus parents then the tax. The Roman subject taxes had been in place for 150 years by then and the Jews paid higher (per deim) then others.
But the census would eventually reveal the whereabouts of all Hebrews who qualified to become the Biblical king, a fate which Mary and Joseph could not risk. They tried to become lost in a larger population and at the same time, where aware of the astronomical importance of that time-frame, as the 40 year repeating Venus cycle was soon to provide the heavenly light which has since been coined as "The Star of Bethlehem". This was part of the ancient king-making tradition and had originated in Egypt.
"impoverished carpenter . . "
There was no such thing in existence. Wood was extremely expensive. Woodworkers were well-off, the same way that today, oil producers are well off, and there is no way to impede their profits.
So, either Joseph was a well off woodworker or a less affluent stone cutter. Maybe even some of both. My guess, they were doing just fine financially, given the conditions on the ground. This was no ordinary family. They were one of very few who were genetically qualified to bring forth the messiah. They were a distant form of royalty, albeit long deposed. This premise is supposed by the fact that historians have reported that Mary's (his babe's) family were very affluent fisherman. Rich married rich in those days.
" . . .. one of them a kid who wasn't even his"
It was his. Jesus had to be Joseph's blood son or else he could not qualify for the genetic throne, as Joseph came from the line of Abraham.
The fact is that (just like today) no one could afford the Roman taxes. It was bankrupting everyone. The poor were in a way better off because they had little to be taxed.
"But it's safe to assume that the local Romans, and the wealthy Sadducees who supported them, got off easy in comparison to working stiffs like Joseph. . . "
The foregoing is misleading and is a vast oversimplification. Just as today, we would not say that Mayor Giuliani and Fred Thompson are politically identical, your sound bite takes liberties. There were three major and several minor Jewish factions. The Sadducees (whom the Greek Bible distains), the Pharisees (who the Greek scriptures hates) and the Essenes, whom the Greek Bible ignores. This is a very long story which I won't bore the readers with further, except to say that these are my family members you are speaking of.
There were no "local Romans". They were garrisons of the Roman government and the entire Roman empire (about 1/3rd of the planet) was supported by pillaged assets and raped women.
Now the worse news:
If Obama does not change the moral compass by which we as a society are motivated (and the jury is not seated yet on this question) then our government will go bankrupt and our currency will be worth less then Indian Rupees.
Lastly, it was a Christian evalengist idealog (Bush-W) and his pilgrim father, grandfather and great grandfather who did more to create this mess then anyone else.
Whomever believes in voodoo, voodoo shall visit upon you.
Finally, my message to all my troll subjects in this joyous season:
Wisdom is the only true wealth ~
It can be handed down through successive generations-
and no one wants to steal it.
Prof. C.D. Trollstein
The top 20% of income earners already pay more than 80% of income taxes
Posted by: fred t on 12/27/08 at 9:26 AM Respond
Why does nobody in this whole god damned forum but me cite their sources?
For this one, I'm gonna go with "It's factually incorrect"
"Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR200706...
And to Prof Trollstein (really? if this isn't a bad joke, you have a terribly unfortunate name for an internet commentator): I'm not going to bother looking up your claims about the Roman Empire, but what's your source on the blood relationship between Joseph and Jesus? I'm pretty sure that the whole reason that 1000's of people have been slaughtered and 1000000000000's of dollars have been pumped into churches is because Jesus is the blood son of god, and therefore not joseph? (unless you would like to enlighten me on genetics as well) Oh, and also, since Judaism is matrilineal, why do we always list names of fathers? Why doesn't Mary have to be a descendant of Abraham?
To Ridgeway: no, of course not. The only thing that the rich don't have the power to control is a seething armed mob. Unfortunately, as long as you can afford some McDonalds on minimum wage, we will remain too complacent of a population to ever cast off the chains of the rich. Oh well, my life as an indentured servant to Citibank isn't all that bad.
Ms. Godless Heathen:
The stories which were ultimately retained as 'Christian Gospel' were a hodge-podge of:
a) Politically corrected materials (to suit the Roman temperment)
b) Factual recounts
c) Ancient (Hebrew) prophecies, which pre-dated Jesus
d) Pagan traditions from many places, mainly in the Mid East.
Lastly, the stories were embellished and explained creatively through modifications which attempted to make plausible sense--in the environments where they were being told--to encourage pagans joining the movement. They did not necessarily make plausible sense to the Hebrews of Jesus' time-frame or to modern-day people either, as we now have the benefit of much by way of historical evidence, (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls) and other sources. With specificity to Jesus' blood line:
In modern times, Jews use the maternal lineage to identify one's inherited religion. That was not always the case. In ancient times, women were all but irrelevant.
From Matthew-1 (The Genealogy of Jesus) in pertinent part:
"(1) A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
(2) Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, . . . . . . . . .
(15) Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob,
(16) and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
The above is a declaration of Jesus' biblical qualifications as a direct descendant of King David, as required by the Old Testament.
You will note the slight-of-hand in the last statement (16). Mary's parents are not mentioned. Only Joseph's. For good reason, without this paternal qualification, Jesus had no biblical claim to the Messaiahship. Its actually ASTOUNDING how many well educated Christians have read this same passage hundreds (some thousands) of times and can't (or more likely won't) get it.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201
Sweetie. . . . Did you REALLY intend to get me started?
Need I remind everyone that he HASN'T BEEN IN OFFICE YET? Or that we are IN A GLOBAL RECESSION and those cut backs, although sounds great, possibly wouldn't spur the economy as much as we think it would. As tax cuts for the rich is already horrible, tax cuts for the middle class would also dive in our national debt. So its damned if they do and damned if they don't; except the fact that a larger percent of Americans would benefit from such tax cuts and now they appear to be liars.
I suggest for further reading, R. Joseph Hoffman "Celsus on the true doctrine" & "Jesus outside the gospels". Out of print but available. Then as now the church detroyed any works (and later people) they didn't agrree with. Its all a myth as is our "free society" and 2 party system.
Submitted by Ames Tiedeman (not verified) on Sun Dec. 28, 2008 7:30 AM PST.
Of Course! All the left is getting mad and I just love it. I said over a year ago it will be the LEFT that gets mad. No Change you stupid fools...
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Sun Dec. 28, 2008 8:12 AM PST.
The "left" hasn't taken control of the government, the Democrats have.
If you don't even understand the difference between those two groups, why are you wasting keystrokes posting here? You need to be doing some studying, instead.
-Wexler
Ames:
Your above comment warrants a reply:
Name calling is a traditional passion of the right-wing, transformed into an art by the king of all deficit spenders, Ronald Reagan. Just as your group often feels entitled to own and control all the assets of society, you also feel empowered to label everyone else as you so please.
Communism is a system whereby there is extremely limited (if any) personal property. None of the 2008 candidates have advocated that system and the last time America had any such candidate on its radar, it was during the height of the Vietnam War. (BTW: At that time, Reagan was vocally advocating the use of atomic weapons to expedite the mass murder, as napalm was no longer drawing enough box-office.) Also, LBJ, another Texan who, like Bush-W assumed the presidency unelected and like Bush-W was an unabashed advocate favoring corporate oil and so-called 'defense', became the first U.S. President to preside over a federal debt. But I digress . .
Socialism is a system whereby some property is shared among everyone and most else is held private. Whether you like to accept it or not, we already live in a semi-socialist system, enjoying such benefits as Public Schools, National Forests (Thanks to the Republican T. Roosevelt) and the big kahuna of all social welfare programs, Social Security.
The duly elected representative government of the United States has the legal authority to impose any sorts of income taxes it wishes. This requires no change in our system of government. Not one molecule. Obama is a left-leaning, some might say 'liberal'. That does NOT make him a Socialist, a Marxist, A Stalinist or any other such insults. If faced with the fiscal collapse of our economy, as brought forth by the insatiable deficit spending of Reagan, Bush-1 and Bush-W, Congress has the authority to legally confiscate as much of what it deems as 'excessive wealth' as it chooses. If we the people are lucky, Obama will do what he promised. If we are unlucky, we will all go down the drain together and on that day, the economically all-powerful will be wishing they were not so.
But there will still be hoo-dads like you who believe that "In God We Trust" printed on the U.S. currency provides everyone with the requirement to worship the money as God and equally worship those who control it as "Cardinals" of hyper-Capitalism.
Give the man a chance, he's not even President yet.
BULLSHIT
He gave immunity to the tele-coms for illegal spying on the American people.
He's "already" loaded his cabinet with the very people who got us into not only the economic mess we're in but also this damn so-called war on terrorism.
And worst of all, he hasn't so much as lifted a finger to hold anyone accontable for what has happened in these past eight years.
Cut the man some slack, you say?
Yeah, just like he did the Rev. Wright. At least the Rev. didn't sell his soul to get where he is.
Although I too want Obama to end the tax cuts for the rich, I am more interested in seeing his more far reaching programs enacted. He is a politician and everything he does and says is politically calculated to get results. I think the calculation he is making is to pick his battles carefully and not base his decisions on making the left feel vindicated. The Democrats do not have a filler buster proof majority in the Senate. To win anything Obama will need some Republican votes. The calculation he is making (which I do not totally agree with) is that taking on the tax cut issue right out of the gate would be sticking a sharp stick in the eye of the people he will need to enact his bigger green agenda and healthcare. The fact is the tax cuts will expire. Two years after they should but with no political cost. We have to think in longer terms and not just what we want in the first 30 days or even the first year.
When interviewed by (I think) Charley Gibson, Jimmy Carter stated that the biggest mistake he had made was to anger his own party leadership in the U.S. Senate and House--by cancelling their pork. While I have little by way of respect for Mr. Carter or his leadership skills, when he admits to a mistake, at least then, I will opt to agree.
Mr. Obama is a Senator, not a Governor and therefore not a CEO. The last time we had a president assume office from the Congress, it was JFK (48 years ago).
Senators are professional concensus builders. Obama may shift too far with the prevalant winds. It is too early to know. So far his actions seem somewhat contrictory to his promises. But the political cards he is holding may not be that strong. I think it is too early to pass final judgement.
I don’t really think it requires Albert Einstein to deduce that if the bank held on to the mortgages they issued they would have been very thorough in their screening of would be applicants for housing loans, but when the loan gets the Orwellian name ‘securitized’ and is sold on the market as an asset what they mean is the whole system gets turned into a bunch of Bullwinkle’s trying to pull a rabbit out of their hats and get lions instead who bite off their arms and then their legs until they’ve been devoured whole. Well at first there is growth because the broker manages to find that perfect little dude out there in appraiser heaven who is willing to appraise the property magically to the value the broker desires and presto magical there is an upward movement in property values—but unfortunately not according to any real criteria other than “desire” or is that called fraud or is it embezzlement? Then some clever manager whose head is in the clouds brings home the argument that the reason things are booming is because of the improved transactions technologies—and not because there is a total negligence in the screening process of issuing loans—well until the whole shebang implodes and we find a market flooded with rubbish securities and nobody knows what is what.
Nothing like oversight on behalf of the FED—thanks Al. (instead of Alan Greenspan his real name is Alan Flimflam or was it Green Eggs and Ham) You would think that if the central bank is “targeting inflation” and in the course of a decade houses have tripled in value that whoever is targeting inflation isn’t targeting inflation at all but is undermining the financial security of the nation under the delusions of a bonanza—had we seen in the course of the 90’s and the beginning of this millennia a large number of houses and apartment complexes that had become totally passive(self sufficient in terms of heating and cooling) or even better a large number of houses that had been renovated so that they were energy producing then I think we could actually say with a high degree of certainty that housing prices had risen due to investment—but of course nothing was done to these overinflated properties other than a game of let’s pretend they are always worth more until they are worth less than they were before the game began. Gee what a bunch of Sadducee geniuses. These financial wizards are on par with the president when comes to who will win the Herbert Hoover lookalike contest—I think I’m going to get in the wheelbarrow market—which will very soon be replacing wallets and plastic credit cards—“Honey get the shovel and fill up the wheelbarrow with “money” I’m off to buy a loaf of bread.”
Still who is ultimately responsible is us, the American Public, who have failed to devise a means to organize ourselves so that we achieve a certain minimum’s degree of influence on our wages because that is what “Supply Side” means in terms of our lives. The FED when it targets inflation in truth targets wages, but there is no representative of the wage earner fighting for their wages. We live in an oligopoly not a free market and that means the wage must be won by the Teddy Roosevelt concept of “speak softly but carry a big stick.”
The minimum wage in society must be determined by using the Consumer Price Index and other price indexes so that the real minimum cost of living can be determined. The minimum wage must equal the minimum cost of living and the average wage equal to the average cost of living (under the idea that maximization of profits occurs when the price equals the marginal cost—the average worker must sell their wage at this price). The best means to achieve a powerful apparatus in society to achieving this end would be to take over the labor corporation Manpower.
kirilovslogic:
Interesting post. Well composed and for the most part, sufficiently reasoned.
I make two comments:
1. Alan Greenspan was a coppo for the real button-pushers, the giant banks. While he deserves some negative attention, there was really little in his power to alter the course of history. Had he been too ethical to assume that position, some other fancy-Dan (probably Jewish--just in case things went bad) would have had his job.
Secondly, the real root cause of our collective lack of ability to control (organize) our own destinies is that the primary weapon of the landed gentry has always been to splinter their possible opposition--on phantom tangents, such as who is a Democrat and who is a Republican. The compelling proof of this claim is the bizarre way in which a significant segment of the lower-middle-class fears (and loathes) food stamps being given to single mothers, more so then a couple-few trillion dollars being dolled out to the banks and their patrons. So in that respect, it is our fault because we bite the hook every single time. And we shall get what we deserve. We do not have Saddam Hussein to blame and Alan Greenspan is a woefully inadequate substitute villain.
The article is about what the democrats are doing to meet the crisis we are facing or rather what they aren’t doing. They seem to be following the same policies which have steered the nation for some time now.
A major purpose of the FED is to regulate inflation and this is done by the central bank’s ability to control the interest rate. Interest rates on housing loans should have skyrocketed during the 1990’s—to keep the 30% inflation rate on property values in check. But nothing was done—well the central bank increased the supply of money thus exacerbating the problem we are now in.
In other words you seem to view the role of the central bank in what appears to be nihilistic terms—it doesn’t matter or Greenspan could do nothing, while to me he it was his job to deal with this—it is a direct responsibility of the central bank to regulate and control inflation—he failed to this and yet if any institution could control this it is the FED. (Well there is also SEC as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac)
I do not look at things in terms of some scapegoat for all of human ills but I do view that when society felt the need to create institutions such as the FED, Fannie Mae or SEC they did so with an eye towards fending off certain kinds of undesirable trends—like the havoc the depression of the 1930’s unleashed or when the central bank was created at the beginning of the 1900’s it was because the decentralized banking system failed continuously. Since the 1930’s there has been a strong and coordinated effort by private enterprise to undermine the financial centralization created by the consequences of the 1930’s and we see the success of the mission starting with Reagan. Today we now know why we created the system of the 1930’s. In this sense supply side economics has suffered as thorough a defeat as communism.
Sorry MoJo ... your twisting doesn't add up to the scenario you describe:
1) "The Promise" (do you actually get your Obama info from USA Today? A direct source is better.)
During an hour-long talk, Obama promoted eliminating some of the income tax cuts enacted under President Bush, but resisted characterizing them as a tax increase.The Illinois senator said that as president, he would roll back income tax cuts for higher incomes to pay for his policy proposals....But Obama defended as a general principle the idea of reversing income tax cuts enacted during Bush's first term."One of the things I think we are going to have to do is reverse some of those Bush tax cuts that went to the wealthiest Americans ... and invest in infrastructure, invest in education, invest in health care for all," he told the group in Onawa.
2) "The Backpedaling" (wow. HuffingtonPost.com. Straight from the horse's mouth, eh MoJo?)
Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday."Even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts," Obama said. "That's my priority."What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?"I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now," Obama said on "This Week" on ABC. "The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we're fragile."
3) "The Confirmation" (all of these from your links, MoJo. Sleep well at night, do you?)
When asked if the tax cuts might be allowed to expire on schedule, Mr. Axelrod replied: "Those considerations will be made."
So:
(1) No "promise" was made in this regard. If it was, then how about providing a link to the "promise" part, MoJo?
(2) "Backpedaling" when blind-sided by an economic implosion? Some might call it "prudent".
(3) When an advisor says that there is consideration going on about something, that doesn't mean that a decision has been made, does it?
FUD isn't only spread by conservatives, apparently. MoJo is holding up their end of it with this article. Better research and better links, please. This article only holds up to the scrutiny given it by people who would rather think ill of the President-elect. Anyone who actually cares will see right through it.
Lastly, when was the first time a President had the ability to increase or decrease taxes? Oh, that's right ... they never have had that ability. It's up to Congress to make those kinds of changes. So what Obama could do, after he takes office, is to attempt to sway Congress into making changes to the tax code. That's all he can do. Let's try to remember the limits of his power as an individual, shall we?
What seems to be missed in the discussion in regards to taxes and government spending or what is more commonly called finance policy is the overriding constraint that is forced upon all nations due to the system of currency exchange rates. The ability of any given nation to use finance policy is severely diminished if the agreed upon system of world currency exchange is floating. Why? If taxes are increased then the currency will increase in value. If the value of the currency increases then such things as the balance of trade will worsen because our goods will become more expensiveas more money flows into the treasury then the dollar goes up. (the US is a bit weird here because if the dollar goes up a great many commodities on the world exchange will go down in price because it is the dollar that these goods are priced inmost notably are oil and gold) If the treasury has more money to blow then this will also bring down the interest rate and as this occurs then expansion can occur. (today we do not have any degree of freedom because there is no reason whatsoever to employ the services of a bankzero interest means there is no bankit is for this reason that the bailout is a farcethose who should have been "bailed out" are those who are paying for their housesthat way the banks would become state owned or under state control but the conditions by which they operate are not really alteredtheir debt remains unaltered but the means by which interest rates are set remains intactthis would have meant the interest rate would have not gone down at all and the very reason for having banks would remain strong. Still the most effective means of policy are via mechanisms that lie outside of the congress and the presidentit is why the role of the central bank has been so powerful since the 1980's and why the independence of the bank has become so great. This is why we have had this so-called Supply Side system of economicsor rather it is what supply side means because in truth the most important tool of statecraft is via the FED. Similarly cutting taxes will simply weaken the value the of the dollar and this will make our goods cheaper abroad. When the US went to war it did two things which are anti-supply side economics. It decreased taxes and it increased government spending. So our economy has experienced a double wammy effect in regards to flawed policy. If the government wanted to go to war then it first must create a surplus budget. Then that surplus (which in reality Clinton had given the president) sets the economic constraint on just how much money it can spend on a war. In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan this was in the neighborhood of 100 billion dollars. When war had broken out in Afghanistan that sum of cash had already been spentwe might ask on what? In fact before war has broken out it is interesting to ask why so much money had been spent and on what. How could two people who did nothing their 1st 9 months in office except chase after Russian spies, aggravating China and recreate an estranged world reminiscent of the Cold War? How did that sort of action swallow up 100 billion dollars. I think that to see if war was not already planned before 9/11 one must follow the money! I am quite sure that anyone who investigates this would discover that 9/11 is the trigger mechanism for something that was already decided upon. We were going to war and that decision was made independently and prior to the election in 2000. I think that this giant spending is what makes 9/11 so suspect.
If Obama wants to run a progressive system of government then he must first collect the nations of the world and adopt a new system of fixed exchange ratesit is this upon which the politics rest. The world of fixed exchange rates is the world of Keynesian economicswhich is the world Ridgeway seems to hint at, while the world of floating exchange rates is the world of Supply Side economics and that world has collapsed under the weight of its own greed.
I'm a Mimai Dolphins fan and I am INCENSED that we did not run the ball more next Sunday. What? What do you mean the game hasn't even been played yet?
After all, if we're going to put the FAIL! tag on Obama WEEKS before he even takes office...shouldn't I be allowed to criticize the coaching of a game that hasn't been played yet.
I used to like Mother Jones.
Now I just alternate between rolling my eyes and laughing. This was the most pointlessly pathetic article I've read in a once-great but now worthless magazine that has all but cornered the market on pointless and pathetic.
Even the conservatives aren't THIS dumb.
Submitted by Let's Wait Till We've Been Thoroughly Screwed (not verified) on Fri Jan. 2, 2009 9:06 AM PST.
Fish Fan, who suggested you can't criticize the Dolphin's coach for not calling more running plays next weekend?
There's little doubt that poor play calling on offense is the reason they'll be out in one, so why not tell it as you saw it?
But you know, if you were watching their practices this week, and happened to notice that:
A - the running backs weren't on the practice field
B - the run-blocking squad wasn't working together on the field
C - the running backs coach wasn't at practice
D - the only plays being practiced were pass plays
... then, as a knowledgeable fan, you MIGHT not be out of line to ask just what the hell was going on with this team you'd been backing all year. Don't you think?
In case anyone hasn't guessed
by now, Wall Street and the
UN (WB/IMF) are the government, or at least the
government that counts.
Look. Wall Street and Israel
hold the lien on Soetoro/
Obama's birth certificate.
The country is under the
impression that Obama will
not support Israel quite as
much as Bush did. Just
check into the Jerusalem Post
once and a while and you'll
understand differently.
In fact, they are quite
arrogant and blunt about
Obama being pro-Israel.
Just look into Governor Lindle's visits to Israel
along with other UN leaders.
WB and IMF hand Israel money
while the security counsel
scolds them for using it as
planned. Can anybody say:
THEATRE? Anyways, now we
have a better understanding
of just where those tax-
dollars go. IRS falls under
US Treasury which falls under
IMF (94-564) which falls
under the UN. Parish the
notion that Wall Street pay
for the terrorism they seek
from Hamas.
When are you guy going to stop bitching about how much someone makes and gives away. If I made more money I would give it to my favorite charities, but it just ends up in some illegal spick' hands. Send them back to Mexico, and lets lock them out. California can't afford illegals anymore. How stupid can a rag get.
I'm a Mimai Dolphins fan and I am INCENSED that we did not run the ball more next Sunday. What? What do you mean the game hasn't even been played yet?
Posted by: Matthew on 01/01/09 at 10:14 PM Respond
I'm sorry, but the fact that Pennington threw like 5 interceptions and the running game was underused in the game, I just have to commend Matthew on his astute predictions.
I love when snark backfires.
