Jackson Free Press

Previous Commentsshow

Hope you guys aren't childish enough to buy into this piece. People here seem to call themselves 'intellectuals'. Prove it. Go read 'economics in one lesson' by Henry Hazlitt. It's an undisputed economics rundown. Then ask yourself, if taxes on corporate items (jets/cars/etc) increase how many private sector jobs are cut because of declining sales of such items? It's not rich against poor. It's government against everybody. Government does NOT create jobs. They shift jobs/resources from one area to others, minus a fat percentage that goes to keep themselves alive. Government distorts markets. Ask the poor people in Mexico how much more they are paying for corn torillas because of some stupid ethanol mandate in the US for fuel. Actually go read about some of the great businesses. Read how they brought better goods/services to the public w/o any government help. Read how the founders gave away most of their fortunes the further the public good, how they founded great universities, how they funded medical research that you and I both now enjoy the fruits of. Start with: The Myth of the Robber Barons Titan: biography of John D. Rockefeller Governmental shift of resources from higher productivity people to lower productivity people results in a lower standard of living for BOTH groups. When is the last time you got a job from an unemployed person?

turbodog

Aug 10 2011

turbodog, I hope you're not childish enough to call people you disagree with childish. And the words "Myth of the Robber Barons" is about all I need to see where you're headed. Only two things from me: 1. Corporations are (a) moving our jobs to other countries where they are paying disgusting wages and (b) they are sitting on cash and laying off people to please their shareholders even when they don't need to. 2. All of the massive government cuts that tea-partiers want all at once are JOBS. Guess what that, in turn, does to the national, state and local economies? As a moderate progressive who doesn't like any party, I'm all for intellectual, gradual cuts even as we raise tax revenue from the individuals and corporations that benefit from taxpayer largesse. Fair is fair, and balance is balance. And, yes, indeed it is rich against poor. Look at all the studies showing the gap widening due to "trickle down" economics and the idea that we're supposed to drown government in the bathtub. People have short memories about how we got so super-powerful and wealthy in the first place.

DonnaLadd

Aug 11 2011

Oh, and indeed Hazlitt (a favorite of the drown-government crowd) is disputed. Here's a review of "Economics in One Lesson" by economist Brad DeLong. He calls the book "very dangerous to a beginner in economics": We all know that the market system is an amazing decentralized social planning and allocation mechanism if externalities are small, if returns to scale are in general diminishing, if we are happy with the distribution of wealth and the concommitant distribution of economic power it gives rise to, and if Say's Law holds--if supply does indeed create its own demand, and we don't have to worry about large-scale unemployment and deep depressions. Hazlitt doesn't recognize any of these ifs. And that is what makes his book very dangerous indeed to a beginner in economics, because the ifs are, all of them, important qualifications and caveats. I gather that Tyler read it relatively early, and I am amazed that he has escaped with so little permanent neurological and ideological damage. I find it astonishing that Haslitt doesn't recognize any of these ifs. I find it especially astonishing that he doesn't recognize the last of them. The 1930s were the era of the Great Depression--the time when Say's Law was most irrelevant. Hazlitt lived through them. Yet the Great Depression years seem to have had no impact on Hazlitt whatsoever. There is one other big problem with Hazlitt--a problem that he shares with many of his successors on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, on the Weekly Standard, and on the National Review. His quotes cannot be counted on to be in context. His summaries cannot be counted on to be honest. Go to the link for one example of him lifting Keynes out of context.

DonnaLadd

Aug 11 2011

Where is this myth of "government does not create jobs" come from? Do people in the State of Mississippi understand that the largest employer in the State of Mississippi IS the "State of Mississippi" and large government cuts are going to affect our unemployment rate drastically? People don't realize that, do they? I have to think that they cannot. So, why turbodog is worried that taxes on corporate jets might affect the twelve people that work on them and sell them, I'm worried that government cuts will not only hurt the poor but ALSO have a second backlash against the people who are employed in providing services to the poor. So, do we do something that hurts ONE group of people who are already wealthy and can absorb a hit, or do we screw the "working poor" (most people in gov't jobs) and the ACTUAL poor that they help? I'd also like to blow that myth out of the water that government jobs are "cushy jobs" with great benefits. In fact, they are mostly low paying jobs at the all levels but the federal level. Now I'm going to go scream into an empty room, as that seems to have about the same affect as trying to talk rational sense into these people.

Lori G

Aug 11 2011

turbodog - I have often been hired by an unemployed (or poor) person. Whether it was a sole proprietor hiring me to work for him or someone hiring me to fix their computers when I was running my own business. Rich people do not create jobs. Government can't create private sector jobs. You seem to have the idea that a rich person will just go out and hire someone for no reason. That is ridiculous. The only thing that creates a job is Demand. Someone has to have a need that requires someone be paid to fill that need. Many times a business - which doesn't need to have any rich people in it, nor rich people to start it up - will have to hire someone to meet extra demand for their goods or services. The problem right now is that the top 10% have leeched ludicrous amounts of money out of the economy and into their vaults. A construction worker could support a household of 4 on his salary alone in 1970. Today, the construction worker makes pretty much the same thing he did in 1970, but the cost of everything has gone up 400%. So, the construction worker has had to get his wife to get a job and both go into debt to maintain a lesser lifestyle. Well, we are now maxed out on the household debt, so we can't spend any more. The rich have leeched all the money and profit out of the economy. There is not much more left. So, the only real solution is for big businesses to cut absurd CEO and Executive compensation and raise worker pay. This will put money back into the economy and create a sustainable economy instead of the boom & bust economy we have had. Read about Henry Ford and Kenneth J. Douglas. Basically, its "the Rich" and corporations against everyone - including themselves. Capitalism requires a robust, free flow of money to sustain itself, and they have been leeching funds out of the economy, slowly killing it. Obviously many are not going to self-regulate to maintain a healthy economy. Therefore, government has to intervene in order to "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." (see http://bobbyshead.blogspot.com/2011/02/business-leaders-agree-i-am-right.html and http://bobbyshead.blogspot.com/2011/03/success.html for more)

BobbyKearan

Aug 11 2011

"I'd also like to blow that myth out of the water that government jobs are "cushy jobs" with great benefits. In fact, they are mostly low paying jobs at the all levels but the federal level." ~~~~ Lori G. Oh dear lord, this is the truest statement ever. Not to mention that the benefits (if you want to call it that) are terrible. There are people in government jobs who are making a killing financially, but they will be the last to take a hit. The ones who work two jobs to make ends meet and the ones who work tirelessly for the poor (while being poor themselves) are the FIRST ones to loose their jobs. And while I'm chiming in, CUSHY is the most offensive word possible to describe the jobs of the majority of government employees. Cushy only applies to the ones at the top who cake up all the dough.

Queen601

Aug 11 2011

I support any cuts begin at the top. Lower excessive salaries, reduce redundant administrator positions, etc. long before cutting people from the "front lines." The big attraction to state government employment was the pretty decent retirement package - which Barbour is now targeting and Bryant will follow suit.

BobbyKearan

Aug 11 2011

Turbodog, your last question is about as silly and binary as anything I've ever seen. Hazlitt's book, written in the 1940s, is a classic only if you buy into the myth that a completely "free" market (free of price controls, regulations and any other type of "interference") is the holy grail of economics. If you do, then you simply haven't been paying attention. Corporations, left to their own devices, have proven themselves to be horrendous global citizens. In large part, they seem to be unable to care for their environments, their employees or their communities. With the primary mandate of "shareholder value," they are amoral and will do anything to raise stockholder prices, including exploit people, pollute the land, air and water, and destroy entire economies (see any African or Middle Eastern nation where oil or diamonds have been found). Yes, many of the founders of our multinationals were also great philanthropists, but that was a very long time ago. Rockefeller died 74 years ago, and there are few corporate magnates today who are philanthropic to any great extent beyond what giving will lower their tax bill. Let's also not forget that the pre-Depression era robber barons, with their penchant for monopolies and enormous amounts of market speculation also had their greedy little fingers in the causes of the Great Depression (which only ended, btw, through massive input from the federal governmental to fund and fight WWII). Trickle-down economics has never worked, and America has given it about 30 years to prove itself. Our bleak global economy today is the result of blind allegiance to the free market fairy tale. What you call a "governmental shift of resources," I call caring for the least among us (you may recognize the concept from your faith tradition). Asking those who pull down $250,000 a year to pay a little more in taxes will barely put a dent in their standard of living, and those in the very top brackets won't feel it at all. Lowering assistance to children, the disabled or senior citizens may mean they don't eat five days a week, hastening their deaths. I don't believe that's an equivalent comparison.

Ronni_Mott

Aug 11 2011

Ronni-You always lower my blood pressure. My heart thanks you.

Lori G

Aug 11 2011

Ronni, as a small business owner who does make more than $250K I assure you I would feel a tax increase. And how much of one would determine my ability to keep a part time employee or two, an intern, etc.

independent

Aug 11 2011

Independent, I'm not saying you wouldn't feel it. What I said is that it wouldn't put much of a dent in your standard of living, in response to the argument that turbodog was making. There's a huge difference in feeling "a difference" for someone pulling down $250,000 a year and not being able to eat every day which is a reality for many. In a new report out today, one in four American households with children can't afford enough food. In Mississippi, it's more like one in three. Let me repeat that in case you missed it: One out of every three Mississippi families with children can't afford enough food. On the other end of the spectrum, about two-thirds of American corporations don't pay any income taxes whatsoever, including some of the most profitable public multi-nationals. In fact, our taxpayer dollars subsidize many of them. These huge companies pay their top executives millions on their billions in profits, yet they're not hiring. Look at Verizon, for example. It's top five executives received compensation of $258 million over the past four years. The company's annualized 2011 net profits will be around $6 billion, yet they're going to cut jobs and benefits to thousands of workers. America (and the world) simply cannot sustain its huge inequalities between haves and have nots. We are grossly overextended at every level. If you're not in debt to your eyeballs, good for you. Most people and businesses aren't debt free; many are a paycheck away from being homeless. That's the reality for millions of Americans today. I'm lucky to have a job. Millions of Americans don't. Many of them don't know where their next meal is coming from. Go talk to them about the difference in their standard of living when the unemployment checks stop coming.

Ronni_Mott

Aug 11 2011

My standard of living may decline depending on the size of the tax hike. So would the employees who may lose their job because of it. No sane person would argue the need to feed our children. But why only attack revenue streams and not entitlement programs? I for one would love to see something radical like a flat tax, abolishing of all state taxes,and other non-traditional methods tried as opposed to the ones continually thrown at us which causes polarization of the extremes. If not, then why can't we also take a government employee who makes $105 and lower their salary to $100 instead of continually trying to punish others for their hard work and good fortune because they're above some arbitrary number?

independent

Aug 11 2011

Why would your employees lose a job because of a marginal rate increase on the net profits booked by the owner? Your employee costs are pretax expenses. The only reason you'd have to cut an employee is if you felt you had to in order to maintain the "standard of living" afforded you by that extra, say, $3900 on each $100k above $250k or so. (That's assuming we're going back to Clinton-era tax rates.) In that case, your selfishness might well trump your business savvy if that person was actually a productive employee.

Todd Stauffer

Aug 11 2011

But why only attack revenue streams and not entitlement programs? To be clear, independent, I don't know many people who don't think that any kind of what you call "entitlement" program can't cut cut, managed better or streamlined. However, there are a bunch of y'all who don't one one dollar in taxes raised to bring in more revenue. So let me ask it this way: "But why only attack entitlement programs and not revenue streams?" Second, as a business owner, I'm not seeing your argument about why your employees are going to lose jobs if you have to pay a bit more of your profits over $250,000 in taxes. Could you explain to me when that would be? And are you sure there any factors that might help offset those increased taxes? I sense you're not looking at the whole picture here. Clue: It involves hiring people. And no one is talking about punishing anybody -- except maybe you. You're the one who seems to only want to go after "entitlements" without raising any revenue from those with more than $250,000 a year in profits.

DonnaLadd

Aug 11 2011

(I cross-posted with Todd; he provided some more clues before I asked my question. We are small business owners, independent. We've thought a lot about the anti-tax rhetoric that is going around about how businesses will supposed be devastated if revenue is raised.)

DonnaLadd

Aug 11 2011

This is always the same tired either/or argument that comes up when you try to talk about inequality in America. I'm attacking revenue streams, Independent, because the U.S. Congress is already doing a damn fine job of attacking so-called entitlement programs. (Including those that people have paid into all of their lives like Social Security and Medicare. If you want to lump every program that pays individuals as "entitlements," where do you put all the corporate welfare?) The entire tax system is completely FUBAR, and the current Congress is making it all much worse instead of better. If you want to lower every salary that governments pay, who would be hurt the most? It's a highly regressive argument. Are you saying that every executive who makes millions works that much harder than every government employee and therefore "deserves" their millions? That just doesn't make sense. Even a flat tax is regressive in that someone making a very small salary who can only afford to buy the basics is affected much more than someone with a very large salary who may have to give up a luxury or two. People seem to have lost all sense of proportion about this subject. Why is paying a fair share "punishment," but taking benefits from seniors, children and the disabled not punishment? Why do we think that our social safety nets are expendable (along with, I suppose, the disposable people they support), but that our tax dollars should continue to support the defense industry, big oil and factory farming, for example, all of which are hugely destructive forces across the globe? No one's punishing you personally Independent, by asking that those who can afford to pay more do so instead of constantly lowering the tax rate. Honestly, people. Try to see a bigger picture than just your own 3/2 and the quarter acre it sits on. The world really doesn't revolve around you, or America for that matter. Our tax revenues are the lowest they've been decades, despite two (arguably three) wars. We need to lower spending AND increase revenues. Can we try to not do on the backs of those who can least afford it? Geez, Louise!

Ronni_Mott

Aug 11 2011

Feel free to read my comments again. I said it depended on the size of the increase. I did not say go after entitlements only. I did not say let's punish anyone. I did offer that I'm for alternatives to what seems to be the either/or attitude our government has as well as the posters here. And Donna, please don't include me in whoever you seem to be trying to attack with the "ya'll" comment. Attacking me and my benign comments with that or trying to paint me as selfish makes you and Todd seem as intolerant as the right wing extremists that you all despise.

independent

Aug 11 2011

Ronni, what is the definition of fair share? Believe me, I'm all for fair share. But shouldn't we all get a say in it and not just those from one of the two parties?

independent

Aug 11 2011

And where do you suggest we lower spending? What areas would that be in that would not cause job losses?

independent

Aug 11 2011

I did read your comments again, independent. I appreciate that you're trying to soften them, but I'm not seeing this new largesse in the comments above. Maybe I should read closer between the lines? Attacking me and my benign comments with that or trying to paint me as selfish makes you and Todd seem as intolerant as the right wing extremists that you all despise. Who has "attacked" you, independent? I disagreed with the argument with specifics that you were (or sure seemed to be) making. There was no personal attack there. But it seems that you had no substantive response so you decide to proclaim Todd and me as "intolerant" -- is that because we pointed out that as small business owners, we don't buy what we believe is a misinformed argument that businesses with more than $250,000 profit are going to tank based on the proposed tax increase? (Todd explained why that argument is faulty in detail just above.) Or, are we "as intolerant as the right wing extremists" because we believe that the federal government should not hang its own citizens out to dry (and take away their jobs) without a common-sense revenue increase? Right. That's makes us intolerant. Come on. You can do better than that.

DonnaLadd

Aug 11 2011

Also, this is not a statement by a man taking time to think: I did offer that I'm for alternatives to what seems to be the either/or attitude our government has as well as the posters here. Really? *We* have an either-or attitude. First of all, it's simply deaf and dumb to argue that everyone posting here believes the same thing. (I, for instance, am more conservative than Ronni, but don't tell her.) Secondly, *we* are the ones saying that there needs to be a balance between cuts (which is a jobs issue, as much as a bleeding-heart issue, I assure you) and revenue increases. I honestly haven't seen you make any argument indicating that you believe a tax can go up on someone with more than $250,000 a year in profits. Did I miss something? I have a suggestion: Just keep discussing the issues and stick with specifics. You insult people here; I will sass you back. Otherwise, we can have a good conversation if you want to not stoop to making it personal rather than making a cogent argument.

DonnaLadd

Aug 11 2011

And where do you suggest we lower spending? What areas would that be in that would not cause job losses? Well, it's good to see you admit that these cuts are jobs that people across America hold -- many of them jobs that, in turn, help people who need it, thus giving us a double benefit. But don't twist the logic here: Obviously, most cuts would mean job losses. THAT helps my argument, not yours. That's why you balance it: You choose programs (and earmarks) that aren't as necessary and gradually phase them out so they don't turn the economy upside down overnight by leaving so many more people jobless. At the same time, you raise revenue in an intelligent way -- which includes a way that encourages companies that are now sitting on cash to HIRE (see how the balance thing works) in order to get that tax benefit/offset. And you sure as hell don't bend over backwards to kiss the ass of corporations that sit on cash and refuse to hire until they milk everything they can get out of the American taxpayers -- or take our jobs overseas where they pay non-Americans peanuts to do them. You reward good corporate citizenship. And if you disliked partisanship as much as I do, I suspect you would be making a similar balance argument without regard for what either extreme thinks (both of whom are mad at Obama, and neither of whom I'm agreeing). People can worry about taxes all they want, but it is plumb ignorant not to realize the benefits that individuals, businesses, states and municipalities (especially Mississippi) reap from the federal government. Sure, shrink it, but don't be stupid about it, and get selfish tunnel vision, or you'll tank the whole thing. And you don't elect idiots like George Bush who started a war in Iraq (check them numbers) instead of focusing efforts where it ought to have been. You take off your partisan glasses and understand that we actually have a president who is looking for intelligent balance even if you don't agree with everyone he does (and I don't, but I don't have to get stupid about it, and I'm adult enough to know that he ain't gonna please everyone).

DonnaLadd

Aug 11 2011

Ronni, what is the definition of fair share? Believe me, I'm all for fair share. But shouldn't we all get a say in it and not just those from one of the two parties? Sure, Independent. That's the basis of a participatory democracy. But more than 60 percent of Americans say they want taxes raised on the top income brackets. Unfortunately, our Congress is not in touch with what the polls are saying the people want in this case. 82 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing. Look, someone is always going to be unhappy if taxes get raised. Pick an number, any number. Someone's going to be pissed. And where do you suggest we lower spending? What areas would that be in that would not cause job losses? Good God. Where do I start? How about ending our decade long war in Afghanistan and the eight-year long war in Iraq and our bombing Libya? We spend billions on wars EVERY DAY, driven by our relentless military/industrial/Congressional complex. Imagine what we could do with even a little of that money by putting into schools and roads and alternative energy development and other projects at home instead? And then, let's end the 40-year-old "war on drugs" that has contributed so mightily to having one out of every 100 Americans incarcerated (giving us the most people in prison per capita than any other country in the world). That "war" alone costs us more than $75 billion a year, not to mention the huge costs in keeping all those people locked up, building new prisons and paying the (now mostly) private companies running them. We have to think in terms of a bigger picture. Would our stopping to spend those dollars cost some jobs? I don't know, maybe. But what we're spending isn't sustainable. What we have now is a government that is so entrenched in "the way we've always done it" that few can see beyond their noses. It's either our way or the highway, everyone's saying. That's inane and insane. I did not say let's punish anyone. No, but you did say why can't we also take a government employee who makes $105 and lower their salary to $100 instead of continually trying to punish others for their hard work and good fortune because they're above some arbitrary number? So somewhere in there, you introduced the notion that "you" feel taxes are punishment. All I'm suggesting is that there is at least one other way to see it.

Ronni_Mott

Aug 11 2011

Donna, may I suggest you lose the condescending attitude? Most people I know (myself included) stop reading at that point. I agree Bush's wars were beyond reasonable. But, you don't elect an idiot like Obama who obviously is in WAY over his head and added to the huge deficit by giving more handouts, like the few hundred dollars I even got. And Ronni, I'd love to see some defense budget cutting, but that too would cause many jobs to be lost. And I agree that the "way we've always done it" attitude is continuing to kill this country. My point exactly, even if I did not state it so well above.

independent

Aug 11 2011

Attacking me and my benign comments with that or trying to paint me as selfish makes you and Todd seem as intolerant as the right wing extremists that you all despise. What did I do? I just offered a response to your tax argument that you haven't really answered. (It seems like every time I bring that one up the subject gets changed.) If you get taxed on net profits, then the only way it could really affect your ability to have an employee is if you're going to fire that employee because you're now not happy with the profits you're making after taxes. But if you fire the employee, presumably your business' profits will go down if that employee is productive. The argument -- which is pervasive and probably persuasive to the majority of people out there who don't run small businesses -- is a red herring. That's all I'm saying.

Todd Stauffer

Aug 11 2011

Like a lot of business owners, I run on a razor thin margin. You tax my net profits more, and there will very likely be negative consequences is all I'm saying Todd. I'm not dumb enough to fire someone if they're helping the bottom line. But if I have a few employees that don't (and believe me, I do), then they may feel the "trickle down effect" to use the phrase of the day. I have people that I've hired because they needed work and I could afford to help some. You hurt my ability to help some, and what choices do I have left?

independent

Aug 11 2011

And what do you all think of a fiscal conservative with a track record of job creation like Rick Perry now running for Prez?

independent

Aug 11 2011

Donna, may I suggest you lose the condescending attitude? Sure you can, independent. But you need to look at your own posts before trying to tell me what to post on my own site. You above characterize me and others here and lump us all into a group and then tell us what we think. Think that's not condescending? (And that's a kind word for it even if that's the way they roll on conservative blogs where people are too cowardly to use their real names.) You do that to me, and I respond anyway I want. And I've already said it: YOU stop making it personal and ad hominem instead of sticking with information-based arguments, and I won't treat you in kind. That is, take responsibility for your own actions rather than spending your time complaining because people dare to treat you the way you're acting. That's quaint, at best. Most people I know (myself included) stop reading at that point I can tell. ;-) I'm just trying to figure out your logic about firing people because the government taxes your profits over $250,000. Now *this* is funny to me: But, you don't elect an idiot like Obama who obviously is in WAY over his head and added to the huge deficit by giving more handouts, like the few hundred dollars I even got. "an idiot like Obama" -- nice. I bet money you voted for Bush twice. I also bet money that you have no idea what spending Obama actually increased, do you? As for Rick Perry, we can talk about him another day. I have a Storyteller's Ball to get to.

DonnaLadd

Aug 11 2011

Like a lot of business owners, I run on a razor thin margin. You tax my net profits more, and there will very likely be negative consequences is all I'm saying Todd. If your net profits put you over $250k as a small business then (a.) you've got some serious volume to make up for those razor thin margins, so congrats and (b.) you're still doing *fine*. Nobody is taxing your revenues, and I get sick of the two being conflated. (Not a specific jab at you, just an expression of my frustration with Grover Norquist-quality thinking.) My larger point is that tax policy can easily be set up to take into account what small business people -- S-Corp, sole practitioner, LLC -- folks have to deal with, and it should. And returning to Clinton-era taxation is really not going to be all that painful. ... So pivot for a moment and now let's look at this statement: I agree Bush's wars were beyond reasonable. But, you don't elect an idiot like Obama who obviously is in WAY over his head and added to the huge deficit by giving more handouts, like the few hundred dollars I even got. Pet peeve number two... define handouts. Stimulus? Tax incentives? Are you telling me you're getting food stamps?

Todd Stauffer

Aug 11 2011

BTW, you completely lose me when you called Obama "an idiot." Even smart conservatives know that is not true, and know that calling him such a thing in public undercuts their arguments, and just makes them look hateful or worse. You may disagree with his philosophies, but our current president is most certainly not an idiot. Any fool can see that. Or should be able to.

DonnaLadd

Aug 11 2011

Ronni, I'd love to see some defense budget cutting, but that too would cause many jobs to be lost. Once again, an example of binary thinking: We can't stop the wars because we wouldn't have jobs for the soldiers or defense workers. Well, we brought the soldiers home from WWII and created the most prosperous era known to mankind. We turned most of our "swords into plowshares" and put men on the moon, created the American dream, had the lowest unemployment ever—all with the highest marginal tax rate of up to 90 percent. Post-war Americans were, for the most part, did really, really well for a few decades. (There were glaring exceptions, of course, including African Americans in the South.) It was also the time that we created our unprecedented standing army, unfortunately, and we've been feeding that beast ever since. And of course, we were the only industrialized country not bombed to smithereens, so that helped, too. My point is this: If we had spent the war trillions in the last decade on projects that actually increased our national treasure instead of just dumping it down a rathole of human misery, we would have a much stronger economy today. We could have been increasing educational opportunities, for example, or adequately maintaining our infrastructure or providing medical care to everyone who needed it, thus growing a healthy population instead of one of the most obese and sickly ones in the world. Instead of the trillions spent on wars for oil, we could have put an alternate energy plan in place, for example, like most of Western Europe did, and be well on our way to being weaned off our oil addiction (and the foreign wars to grab more). We didn't create that reality (shame on us) but we can start today instead of just digging our economic hole ever deeper. It's not an either/or solution to do something entirely different. We have to wake up to our own greed and choose a better way.

Ronni_Mott

Aug 11 2011

The overall case with government budget problems is that there's no end to it. Entitlement programs grow and grow. It is impossible to tax enough to pay for it all. It is impossible to grow the economy enough to pay for it all. The rate of entitlement growth is much higher than the rate of any possible revenue growth. It's a simple math fact. Period. Look at the charts folks. To further compound it, it's already got a very good head start on revenue. Boomers are starting to retire. Some are delaying that due to tough times, but will eventually be forced into it due to health/etc issues. This alone forces us to make some tough decisions. I do agree that our military is a little too ambitious. The war on drugs has some serious problems as well. These are tiny compared to entitlement spending. Every time we talk of cutbacks people trot out grandma and speak of her going hungry. The numbers are on a collision course. We either deal with it now, or eventually people will be worse off. Go read those books I mentioned. Don't look up a review of them. Man up and actually read them. Entitlements destroy incentive. They enslave people. I don't want people to starve either, but the free money spigot has to be turned down some. It's a mathematical fact. There is no way, or combination of ways, to get revenue to match expenses. That said, we do need infrastructure. The US needs a wider, better data network. Roads, bridges, etc should be maintained properly. Jackson's got collapsing sewer pipes. But before you tag me as a 'to hell with people' and 'spend money on anything but people' realize that these items are fly specks on the wall of the budget. They are spending that generates a good return on investment. They are necessary if we want to try and grow our way out of this (which we can't. Resolving the budget will require population growth, revenue growth, better educated workforce, closing some tax holes, lowering entitlements of some types, eliminating entitlements of some types, and work, work, work.

turbodog

Aug 11 2011

Should all watch this video. This is a problem that has been brewing for 40+ years. http://www.kpcb.com/usainc/ On youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnD0daTCcbg&feature=player_embedded

turbodog

Aug 11 2011

Corporations make and sell what people will buy. It's a true democracy. They didn't send jobs overseas, you and I did when we opted for the foreign-made cheaper version of X at the store.

turbodog

Aug 11 2011

And this is just to BALANCE the budget. It says nothing of repaying the multi-trillion dollar debt.

turbodog

Aug 11 2011

Must be feeling frisky tonight... *** The problem right now is that the top 10% have leeched ludicrous amounts of money out of the economy and into their vaults. A construction worker could support a household of 4 on his salary alone in 1970. Today, the construction worker makes pretty much the same thing he did in 1970, but the cost of everything has gone up 400%. So, the construction worker has had to get his wife to get a job and both go into debt to maintain a lesser lifestyle. *** Into their vaults? Common misconception you have there. Rich people put their money to work. It's invested into companies you buy from everyday. It's invested into companies you work for. If the rich really did 'cash out' we would have _horribly_ bad problems. And back in the day, buggy whip mfgs did well also. Nobody is guaranteed a job. That construction worker's family (CWF)... well they had 1 car and 1 black and white tv, no cell phones, no computers, etc. I wonder, if the CWF was willing to forego modern items, would your budget still balance? And also... the CWF mother cooked each and every meal. Dishes were washed by hand. They lived in a 1000 sq ft house.

turbodog

Aug 11 2011

*** And, yes, indeed it is rich against poor. Look at all the studies showing the gap widening due to "trickle down" economics and the idea that we're supposed to drown government in the bathtub. People have short memories about how we got so super-powerful and wealthy in the first place. *** Our poor are raising their standard of living pretty nicely. It's that the rich and just doing a better job. The rich keep doing the things that made them rich.

turbodog

Aug 11 2011

*** Oh, and indeed Hazlitt (a favorite of the drown-government crowd) is disputed. Here's a review of "Economics in One Lesson" by economist Brad DeLong. He calls the book "very dangerous to a beginner in economics": *** And 50 years from now nobody will know who DeLong was but people will still be studying Hazlitt. Even *if* DeLong main criticism is correct, that's not a problem for us on this site. We're smart enough to solve all the budget problems (and otherwise) of the US from the comfort of our keyboards so we're obviously not beginners.

turbodog

Aug 11 2011

*** Where is this myth of "government does not create jobs" come from? Do people in the State of Mississippi understand that the largest employer in the State of Mississippi IS the "State of Mississippi" and large government cuts are going to affect our unemployment rate drastically? People don't realize that, do they? I have to think that they cannot. *** Myth? No. Fact, yes. That government job was paid for by taxes, taxes which took money from someone's pocket (likely mine and yours), money which would have been spent or invested, thereby creating jobs. The government didn't create a job. It moved one from a productive person to someone who is likely not as productive. Get it yet? There's little government does to 'create' value. They take a dollar in taxes and produce $0.50 in production. Compare and contrast that to a normal business that takes $0.50 in raw material (be it components in mfg or labor in a service business) and turns in into $1.00 We've got too many takers and not enough makers. It's simple math.

turbodog

Aug 11 2011

*** So, why turbodog is worried that taxes on corporate jets might affect the twelve people that work on them and sell them, I'm worried that government cuts will not only hurt the poor but ALSO have a second backlash against the people who are employed in providing services to the poor. So, do we do something that hurts ONE group of people who are already wealthy and can absorb a hit, or do we screw the "working poor" (most people in gov't jobs) and the ACTUAL poor that they help? *** I hope you're kidding. The 12 people? Would that be the people that work at Goodyear making tires, Alcoa making the aluminum for the frame and skin, Exxon making Jet-A fuel, AdCamp paving the runways, engineers designing the plane, Rolls Royce making engines... Careful... the tax you raise may cut the job you enjoy.

turbodog

Aug 11 2011

*** I'd also like to blow that myth out of the water that government jobs are "cushy jobs" with great benefits. In fact, they are mostly low paying jobs at the all levels but the federal level. *** Be sure to add about an additional 10-15k a year to compensate for job security of that government job. That's worth a lot.

turbodog

Aug 11 2011

*** Rich people do not create jobs. Government can't create private sector jobs. *** Really? Tell that to Steve Jobs (haha) that created the iphone and the crapload of jobs and money that flowed to Apple. Yes, he created an item, which made demand, which make jobs. But, no demand w/o the item.

turbodog

Aug 11 2011

*** So, the only real solution is for big businesses to cut absurd CEO and Executive compensation and raise worker pay. This will put money back into the economy and create a sustainable economy instead of the boom & bust economy we have had. Read about Henry Ford and Kenneth J. Douglas. *** A lot of the boom and bust has been at the hands of the government. Housing boom and collapse caused 2008 problems. Was also loose credit and housing boom in the 1920's... Government distorts markets. They underwrote these 'toxic' mortgages. You think normal investors would have given cash to finance those shady home sales? Get real. They opened the floodgates. Banks took part, real estate agents took part, sellers took part, buyers took part.

turbodog

Aug 12 2011

*** Corporations, left to their own devices, have proven themselves to be horrendous global citizens. In large part, they seem to be unable to care for their environments, their employees or their communities. With the primary mandate of "shareholder value," they are amoral and will do anything to raise stockholder prices, including exploit people, pollute the land, air and water, and destroy entire economies (see any African or Middle Eastern nation where oil or diamonds have been found). *** Excellent writing, you just need to change the first word to "people". Yes, PEOPLE are horrible. There DOES exist a valid and limited role of government.

turbodog

Aug 12 2011

*** Trickle-down economics has never worked, and America has given it about 30 years to prove itself. Our bleak global economy today is the result of blind allegiance to the free market fairy tale. What you call a "governmental shift of resources," I call caring for the least among us (you may recognize the concept from your faith tradition). Asking those who pull down $250,000 a year to pay a little more in taxes will barely put a dent in their standard of living, and those in the very top brackets won't feel it at all. Lowering assistance to children, the disabled or senior citizens may mean they don't eat five days a week, hastening their deaths. I don't believe that's an equivalent comparison. *** It's working just fine. Infant mortality is dropping globally. AIDS is under control (mostly). Literacy is rising globally. The 'outsourcing' of jobs... that's doing more to lift 3rd world people from the sewage-infested gutter than you know. And also... so w/o the government people starve? Really? Too bad friends, family, and neighbors could not help.

turbodog

Aug 12 2011

*** Ronni, as a small business owner who does make more than $250K I assure you I would feel a tax increase. And how much of one would determine my ability to keep a part time employee or two, an intern, etc. *** Exactly. Resource shifting, minus the gov't inefficiencies.

turbodog

Aug 12 2011

*** There's a huge difference in feeling "a difference" for someone pulling down $250,000 a year and not being able to eat every day which is a reality for many. In a new report out today, one in four American households with children can't afford enough food. In Mississippi, it's more like one in three. *** While sounding simplistic, since MS is the fattest state in the nation maybe our notion of enough food is skewed.

turbodog

Aug 12 2011

*** America (and the world) simply cannot sustain its huge inequalities between haves and have nots. We are grossly overextended at every level. *** I'm _sure_ you mean this to apply to taxes as well, right?

turbodog

Aug 12 2011

*** I'm lucky to have a job. Millions of Americans don't. Many of them don't know where their next meal is coming from. Go talk to them about the difference in their standard of living when the unemployment checks stop coming. *** I agree, I really do. We're close to the point that this will all be academic. We eventually will run out of money.

turbodog

Aug 12 2011

*** My standard of living may decline depending on the size of the tax hike. So would the employees who may lose their job because of it. No sane person would argue the need to feed our children. But why only attack revenue streams and not entitlement programs? I for one would love to see something radical like a flat tax, abolishing of all state taxes,and other non-traditional methods tried as opposed to the ones continually thrown at us which causes polarization of the extremes. If not, then why can't we also take a government employee who makes $105 and lower their salary to $100 instead of continually trying to punish others for their hard work and good fortune because they're above some arbitrary number? *** Exactly. Maybe a sales tax. That way we'll bring drug money and all other off-the-books revenue into the tax stream. We will ALL contribute since we ALL benefit.

turbodog

Aug 12 2011

*** we don't buy what we believe is a misinformed argument that businesses with more than $250,000 profit are going to tank based on the proposed tax increase? *** He didn't say 'tank'. He mentioned possibly having to tighten the corporate belt to offset too many hands in his pockets.

turbodog

Aug 12 2011

*** I honestly haven't seen you make any argument indicating that you believe a tax can go up on someone with more than $250,000 a year in profits. Did I miss something? *** Yes, I believe you did. It's called marginal tax rate. By the time income rises to that level federal taxes are, what, 40%? Who the heck wants to continue to work harder when you're losing that much to an inefficiently-run system? Read: http://blogs.hbr.org/fox/2010/09/tax-plight-of-250000-crowd.html

turbodog

Aug 12 2011

*** At the same time, you raise revenue in an intelligent way -- which includes a way that encourages companies that are now sitting on cash to HIRE (see how the balance thing works) in order to get that tax benefit/offset. And you sure as hell don't bend over backwards to kiss the ass of corporations that sit on cash and refuse to hire until they milk everything they can get out of the American taxpayers -- or take our jobs overseas where they pay non-Americans peanuts to do them. You reward good corporate citizenship. *** I hear you. You're forgetting we ARE in a global economy. People vote with their wallets much more than with a ballot. Raise costs (taxes/etc) too much and that cash-rich company you rail on will be bankrupt. And to be explicit, that means ALL its employees will be jobless. Its suppliers will be missing a customer... Capitol is mobile. Tax it too much and it'll move overseas and not come back at all. I say again... we mathematically CANNOT simply tax our way out of this. We CANNOT grow our way out. We CANNOT cut our way out. It will take all 3, if not more.

turbodog

Aug 12 2011

*** Once again, an example of binary thinking: We can't stop the wars because we wouldn't have jobs for the soldiers or defense workers. Well, we brought the soldiers home from WWII and created the most prosperous era known to mankind. We turned most of our "swords into plowshares" and put men on the moon, created the American dream, had the lowest unemployment ever—all with the highest marginal tax rate of up to 90 percent. Post-war Americans were, for the most part, did really, really well for a few decades. (There were glaring exceptions, of course, including African Americans in the South.) *** You say that like it's wrong. Often there are 2 choices. We also had large families, a growing population, and medicare/medicaid had NOT been passed yet (1965?). We also kicked the crap out of the rest of the world. There was a LOT of mfg capacity that was destroyed worldwide, leaving the US in a very good position. Compare and contrast that to now: Stagnant population growth. That makes it mathematically (whoa, there's that word again!) hard to grow your way out of this mess. Medicare/medicaid has grown was beyond its original, intended role. Our mfg costs are too high for consumer items. China, mexico, india are eating our lunch. Next time you're are wal-mart looking at electronics, ask the person next to you if they care about pollution in India. What would they be willing to pay for a US-made Wii? Yes, tax rates were around 90%. But guess what happened when they were lowered? Overall gov't receipts increased. Can you say Laffer curve?

turbodog

Aug 12 2011

*** My point is this: If we had spent the war trillions in the last decade on projects that actually increased our national treasure instead of just dumping it down a rathole of human misery, we would have a much stronger economy today. *** I'm confused... you're talking about entitlement programs, right?

turbodog

Aug 12 2011

We live in a blessed nation. Our poor have things today that the rich could not even dream of. You can take a $300 laptop and a $30 internet feed and watch tv, movies, etc. You can learn k-12 or college-level material for FREE from http://www.khanacademy.org/ anytime, day or night. You can make free phone calls worldwide. We have all this and still people say 'do more for me'.

turbodog

Aug 12 2011

Poor in America, US vs India poor, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread582316/pg1

turbodog

Aug 12 2011

Thank you turbodog for adding clarity and context to my point of view. I simply tried to give my point of view of what may happen to me and my employees depending on what size tax increase may happen. What I got for doing that was words I never used were attributed to me, my logic and point of view was completely twisted into me not willing to pay more and only wanting to cut needed benefits, attacked as selfish, and condescended to like I was a child, including the calling of our previous president an idiot and when I do the same to the current president I get the "it's my blog…" justification. And Todd, that "stimulus " I think you're referring to, how'd that work out? Consumer spending is still nonexistent, unemployment is high, growth is stagnant, and the housing market is dead. Ronni, you refer to a poll (which I thought was taboo here ) that a majority want taxes raised. A majority also want spending cut. Not enough spending cuts and a leader that took this country to within 10 hours of default (which is totally irresponsible and unfathomable) is what led to the downgrade. And. Donna, I'm disappointed you made this personal, as I did not.

independent

Aug 12 2011

Thanks. I *was* busy last night wasn't I. Am paying for it today... can you say 'red bull'? You and I should eat lunch sometime. How can we pass contact info privately?

turbodog

Aug 12 2011

independent, if you can't see that stereotyping other people's views and telling them what they think and belittling them for it is a personal attack, then I can't help you. You will also note that turbodog set the tone of this comment thread with his first "childish" comment way above. So y'all hold the personal if you don't want me to respond in kind. On that note, I'm tired of the superficial attacks; we will allow no further posts on this thread that contain a personal attack on anyone. (I didn't open one from turbodog that was all about how we suck, for instance, and I've deleted two or three above that were just attacks on other people here.) Please stay on topic, provide specific arguments and be respectful of others with different opinions, and they/we will respond in kind. As for you, turbodog, you are being especially disagreeable: telling people to "man up" and read books that supposedly bolster your ideological claims; calling people "childish"; spending hours filling the thread with comment after comment. Please read the user agreement, and come here and act respectfully of others or move on. You are not disagreeing without being disagreeable, and you are making others defensive and pulling them into the sewer with you. This isn't that kind of site. Play by the rules or take it somewhere else. We also invite you to use your real name as most of us here do; that typically encourages people to be more agreeable and less belligerent and insulting of those they don't agree with. Thus, I challenge you to make your screen name your real name. Willing? How about you, independent?

DonnaLadd

Aug 12 2011

[Comments in violation of User Agreement deleted] ... All that said... the people who post on here are great. You're passionate and motivated. We have the same goals, you and I. We want to see all those who suffer helped. We want to see all boats rise with the tide. Problem is that the methods must change. Social welfare has enslaved an entire segment of society. Generations have been lost. Either agree with this fact or not. That's the idealism part of this. However, be aware the idealism aside, reality will eventually take hold. There is not a limitless supply of money. As far as I can tell, nobody has addressed my comments concerning this. Nobody has taken this seriously. When expenses are rising at 5% annually and revenue is rising at 3% annually eventually debt grows to unserviceable levels. It's a mathematical fact. Or you you believe 2+2=5 ;) If given proper weight, admitting this simple fact forces one to admit that whether our current path is working or not (and I believe not) it must be changed.

turbodog

Aug 12 2011

(Again, turbodog, the personal back and forth is done. If we allow our conversations to devolve into that, we all get defensive, and we are then no better than idiots out there who just blog to tear down people they don't like. We will let through your comments on the topic, but not ad hominem statements—thus what I just opened and didn't. Your viewpoint is welcome, but not personal attacks of those you disagree with, and derailing threads by complaining about the moderation policy is against the user agreement. Please stay on topic to get your comments on the site.) User Agreement

DonnaLadd

Aug 12 2011

Problem is that the methods must change. Social welfare has enslaved an entire segment of society. Generations have been lost. Either agree with this fact or not. I disagree. (And I certainly don't stipulate that any of that is "fact." Calling your opinion "fact" does not make it such.) I say again... we mathematically CANNOT simply tax our way out of this. We CANNOT grow our way out. We CANNOT cut our way out. It will take all 3, if not more. I agree. Please call your congressman and help him to understand that, as it is exactly what President Obama has been trying to tell the public and the GOP in Congress for quite some time. Corporations make and sell what people will buy. It's a true democracy. That fits no actual definition of the word "democracy." Democracy is a political system, not an economic one.

Todd Stauffer

Aug 12 2011

Todd and Turbodog: Re: TurboDog: Corporations make and sell what people will buy. It's a true democracy. Todd: That fits no actual definition of the word "democracy." Democracy is a political system, not an economic one. I am not disagreeing with either of you but would make the following observation: Neither free market nor capitalism describes the American economic system very well. All markets are regulated to a greater or lesser degree; we have never had and never will have completely free markets. Capitalism is a bad word to describe our system because not everything requires capital. Todd is of course right in saying Democracy is a system of government not an economic system. However the phrase "economic democracy" might be a useful way of describing our system. Our system or at least what we are trying to perfect is a system that maximizes free choice in economic decisions, i.e. democracy in the economy. Part of economic democracy is making sure no one has an unfair advantage (protected markets, fraud, monopoly etc. Another goal is to make sure money or other resources don't give one party an unfair advantage over another (e.g. small claims court) The phrase is a working concept, so I am open to other phrases that we can agree on as an ideal. Richard A. Sun CFA

RichardASun

Aug 12 2011

Rich: I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that our economic system fits broadly into the category of "capitalism." cap·i·tal·ism noun /ˈkapətlˌizəm/  An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state While some argue that *this* or *that* is "socialist," they generally miss the point that there are certain services that can be provided by government, for the common defense or to promote the generate welfare, that don't enter into the equation of "trade and industry." Likewise, we have very few industries or sectors where the government owns the "means of production." In a broader sense, you could have said that while the U.S. government held stock in G.M. that was "socialism," but even then the administration took some pains to distance itself from voting rights or from profiting from that transaction. By necessity some things might be heavily regulated (pharmaceuticals, utilities, "natural" monopolies) even if they're operated by for profit companies. Other services (advocacy, education, religious institutions) can be offered by non-profit organizations, which are afforded certain privileges by the tax code and by the way we structure companies, but those still aren't owned by the state. I'm sure what Turbodog was trying to say is that there's something utterly fabulous (my words, not his) about a financial transaction between two parties where each gets what they want. It may well be a beautiful thing, but that's not "democracy."

Todd Stauffer

Aug 12 2011

Todd: Capitalism is an accurate but increasingly incomplete and increasingly somewhat archaic description of our system. You are certainly right by definition as far as it goes and are of course free to be comfortable with it. Archaic: the phrase actually predates Marxism; it has been in use since the 1800s, perhaps even the 1700s. Incomplete: a review of the Wiki entry lists numerous forms of capitalism, raising the issue of which form we have. There are only a handful of countries where economic property (other than natural resources such as mineral rights) is government owned and they are essentially irrelevant economically (Cuba, North Korea, Myanmar). The private sector of the Chinese economy exceeded 70% by 2005, so even the Chinese could be described as capitalist, but their economic system (put aside the political system) is very different than ours. So the phrase capitalism by itself has limited informative value. Because the phrase focuses on the importance of ownership of property, it has also become somewhat misleadingly incomplete. As our economy has moved away from a manufacturing economy where ownership of the plant is primary toward a service economy and knowledge economy, ownership of fixed assets has become less important. When you can build a company like Facebook off intellectual property and the network effect, the phrase becomes increasing incomplete. This difference is significant. The number of billionaires in the US went from just over 40 in 1998 to over 200 in 2002; I have not traced the source of wealth back, but I suspect they are primarily the cashed out internet and ICT entrepreneurs. So yes Todd, you are right, we are capitalist, but that is a partial and limited description of our system. Note also that I was suggesting a more precise phrase for what we wanted our system to become. As we moved toward an economy where more value is based on service and knowledge, what are the desirable elements of classical capitalism that we want to preserve? Since the concept evolves, the description probably should also. Richard A. Sun, CFA

RichardASun

Aug 13 2011

Just caught these comments from independent out of the corner of my eye: And Todd, that "stimulus" I think you're referring to, how'd that work out? Actually, I was asking you what "handouts" you had gotten; you didn't answer. But, here's how stimulus worked out: New CBO Report Finds Up to 3.6 Million People Owe Their Jobs to the Recovery Act How Great Recession was brought to end http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-gdp-growth-rate.png Was stimulus perfect? Enough? The picture of efficiency? No. I'd still like to see a WPA, a massive infrastructure program, and an Apollo Project for renewable energy. But burying your head in the sand and saying stimulus did nothing isn't an option. Consumer spending is still nonexistent, unemployment is high, growth is stagnant, and the housing market is dead. These things are true, but there are some broader trends at work that simply "whether stimulus worked." First a massive housing bubble collapsed, which took with it a great deal of perceived wealth. Because real wages had gone up for relatively few wage-earners in this country, many people borrowed extensively to maintain their standard of living, something that was propped up by a financial system that was corrupted by a lack of oversight and regulation that might be attributable to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that deregulated many of the practices implicated in the financial crisis. Since then, we've had an economic recovery -- a jobless one. "American" corporations are sitting on unprecedented amounts of cash, a huge percentage of everything we buy is outsourced -- and we don't even want to talk in this country about investing in education or new markets or technologies that could create the next era of American jobs. Not enough spending cuts and a leader that took this country to within 10 hours of default (which is totally irresponsible and unfathomable) is what led to the downgrade. What a breathtakingly self-serving read of what led to the downgrade. Was it really all Obama? Are we sure that GOP leadership didn't walk out of the negotiations repeatedly? Change their positions because they couldn't pull together their own caucus? Couldn't put ANY revenue on the table -- even when Obama had discretionary cuts and entitlement reforms on the table, to the horror of his own base -- because everyone is scared to death of "drown government in a bathtub" Grover Norquist and their ridiculous ideological tax pledges. And let's not forget the GOP leadership's flatly stated goal of one-terming Obama. The GOP held the American economy hostage in an absolutely unprecedented way -- we have to have a Constitutional amendment in order to get you vote to pay for programs that have already been passed by Congress? Really? -- took us to the brink, and S&P downgraded us. Which is a joke anyway from the same S&P ironically complicit in the mortgage backed securities mess that got us here in the first place. (Is Obama to blame at all? I think so, but not for not implementing ridiculous austerity measures in the midst of a deep recession -- I blame him for the chess... he should have gotten the debt ceiling taken care of as part of the deal when Bush tax cuts were extended at the end of 2010.) ...

Todd Stauffer

Aug 13 2011

Here's the bottom line. Federal taxes as a percentage of GDP haven't been this low since 1950. By contrast, one almost never hears that total revenues are at their lowest level in two or three generations as a share of G.D.P. or that corporate tax revenues as a share of G.D.P. are the lowest among all major countries. One hears only that the statutory corporate tax rate in the United States is high compared with other countries, which is true but not necessarily relevant. Interest rates are low. Inflation is coming, but slowly. Still the U.S. economy is stagnant, and what we're going to find is that front-loaded spending cuts to discretionary programs are not going to help, they're going to hurt. The trickle-down experiment has gone on for 30 years, and the result is an economic elite and unprecedented income inequality. While wages are dropping for 90% of Americans, about 30% of Americans fight vigorously to ensure that we raise no taxes EVEN on the top 1% of wealth ("millionaires taxes," estate taxes, etc.) of who are categorically experiencing unprecedented increase in their wealth, and just as often without the hardwork, innovation or utility that we like to ascribe to the Horacio Algers hero (and the modern Geek-Done-Good equivalent). Why? How come the elite are off limits, even as the empirical argument becomes clearer and clearer and clearer? Why this blind adherence to "voodoo" trickle-down economics even in the face of decades of evidence that it doesn't work? I'm not sure -- but I think this resonates: In both policy and political terms, nothing can be achieved under these circumstances, except at the expense of the top 1 per cent. This is a contingent, but inescapable fact about massively unequal, and economically stagnant, societies like the US in 2010. By contrast, in a society like that of the 1950s and 1960s, where most people could plausibly regard themselves as middle class and where middle class incomes were steadily rising, the big questions could be put in terms of the mix of public goods and private income that was best for the representative middle class citizen. The question of how much (more) to tax the very rich was secondary – their share of national income was already at an all time low. The problem is that most policy analysts and commentators grew up in the world of the 1950s and 1960s, or at least in the mental world created by that era. So, they are busy fighting about tax expenditures, barber licensing and teachers unions, and the implications of these things for a hypothetical working class mobilisation. Meanwhile, most of the anger created by the collapse of middle class America is being directed not at the rich but at those who don't look, sound or pray like Americans of the vanished golden age. That's an Aussie saying it, and I'm tempted to say he might have some insight given his distance from this thing. I've experienced it in my own family -- people afraid that as the American Pie shrinks, their piece is going to people who don't deserve it -- people who don't work the same jobs or worship the same way or who haven't "paid in" or aren't American enough. But there's another place to look... the whole concept of "trickle down." Yes... we'll need to live within our means, reform entitlements, reign in healthcare costs -- and raise revenues. We might even learn some things from those economies (Germany, France, Canada) that S&P still rates at AAA (oh... and who all have socialized health care and rather high top income tax rates and/or high capital gains rates). It's going to take a balanced approach, and probably a "new reality" for this country, including a hard look at income inequality and how we got here.

Todd Stauffer

Aug 13 2011

Todd, you didn't ask me what handouts I was receiving. You asked me to define what I meant by that. I did. You then asked me if I received food stamps. I don't. Obama and the Dems are equally to blame for the near default. It's a two -way street.

independent

Aug 13 2011

turbodog, if "the rich" top 10% put money back into the economy at anywhere close to the rate they are leeching it out, then the middle class would be spending it right now and the bank accounts of those top 10% would not be as large as they are. And you are missing a LOT. Steve Jobs was not rich when Apple was created (and his salary - income - is $1.00 per year). He was an inventor or innovator whose product created demand, which created jobs, which led to him being rich. Bill Gates was not rich when he started Microsoft. Now both are calling, along with Warren Buffet, to have their taxes raised. Why? Their own self interest, of course. Paul Krugman puts it like this "Lack of corporate cash is not the problem facing America. Big business already has the money it needs to expand; what it lacks is a reason to expand with consumers still on the ropes and the government slashing spending." The only way to get our economy going again is to put money into the hands of people who spend it. I don't think Government is the one that should be doing that, but the ones who should be simply are not doing so. In the end, big business will only wind up hurting itself by destroying it's consumer base. Henry Ford and Kenneth J. Douglas, both successful and rich, said that it was 'indecent' for a CEO to make more than 40 times what an average worker was paid. They turned down raises for that reason. Because it hurt business in the long run. It hurt their bottom line in the long run. Math, History and Economic reality are not on the side of cutting taxes more.

BobbyKearan

Aug 15 2011

Leeching? To steal Todd's line, "What a breathtakingly self -serving read."

independent

Aug 15 2011

Obama and the Dems are equally to blame for the near default. It's a two -way street. Is that what you meant to type?

DonnaLadd

Aug 15 2011

I don't understand your question I guess. Is that what I typed? Did I misspell something?

independent

Aug 15 2011

Independent - how would you describe a group that requires another group to survive but is slowly draining the other group of the very item the first requires? In this case, money is being drained at a faster rate than it is being put back into the economy. The Rich must have the middle class in order to survive, but they are draining the very resource they require. The middle class doesn't need rich people any more than a host needs a leech. Maybe the relationship is a tad bit more symbiotic than a leech, but the end result is looking to be the same. "The top 20 percent of American earners -- those making more than $100,000 annually - received 49.4 percent of all income generated in the country, compared with the 3.4 percent earned by those below the poverty line. That translates to a ratio of 14.5-to-1, up from 13.6 in 2008 and almost double the low figure of 7.69 recorded in 1968." 20% of the country can not support a healthy economy. Going from 7.69 to 1 ratio of income to 14.5 to 1 is, by any definition, leeching money from the other 80%. We do not really have an infinite supply of money, so when one group's share grows, another one's must decline. "Leeching" is the only term for it, because it has become destructive to the national economy. Its not a matter of jealousy or 'being fair' or anything like that. It is a matter of a healthy economy. The transfer of wealth from the bottom and middle to the top can't go on at this rate forever. Its going to crash and burn. The only hope is to put a stop to the greed and create a more healthy circulation. I.E. Pay workers more, CEOs less. Government cannot (should not) correct this, it has to be the market, the business leaders. We need more Henry Fords.

BobbyKearan

Aug 16 2011

"The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980." - from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html The bottom 90%'s income drops by .6% (per household) while the top 1%'s income rises by 14%. That is not sustainable. Its destructive and we are seeing it now.

BobbyKearan

Aug 16 2011

How do you convince someone to work just as hard or harder as you take away some of their pay? Especially if they're an expert in their field and on of the tops in their industry worldwide? I'm afraid doing that would start a domino effect that would have negative consequences among high paid hard working people that your comments seem to have such disdain for, and who may actually help certain charities with large gifts because of their lofty salaries.

independent

Aug 16 2011

Wow. You just miss the whole point, don't you?

BobbyKearan

Aug 16 2011

I wish I could let that go, but ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?! We have millions of hard working men and women working 40, 50 hours a week, little to no vacation days, can't afford to get sick and still can't make a decent living and you are worried about a few overpaid CEOs making $8 million instead of $10 million?? You seem to have a lot of disdain for people who actually work hard for a living - construction workers, factory workers, food service industry workers, computer technicians, data entry clerks. Why do you hate us so much? It is us who does the actual work for them to get paid their salaries. We work harder and they get the credit for higher productivity. We treat customers well and they get the credit for higher customer satisfaction. We build quality into every product we forge or assemble and they get the rewards of higher sales. You have a very different idea of 'hard working' and 'earning' your salary than I do. "We believe in making 20,000 men prosperous and contented rather than follow the plan of making a few slave drivers in our establishment multi-millionaires," Henry Ford said, quoted in The La Crosse Tribune on January 6, 1914.

BobbyKearan

Aug 16 2011

I promise you, independent, that the money I get from the government in the form of grants has ALWAYS been larger than ANY donation made by someone with a "lofty salary" to my "charity". In fact, most donations from individuals come from middle class people writing out a $500.00 check of their hard-earned money because they believe in what we do. I need to know what Fox News has done to engender such good faith in "hard-working highly-paid job creators" by the completely f*&Ked over middle class. Its really quite astounding. I USED to be amused by people voting against their best interest. Now, I'm beginning to see this as all out brain-washing WAR. People, THIS IS SCARY. Also, we are not "taking away some of their pay". We are asking them to be fairly taxed. There is a difference.

Lori G

Aug 16 2011

Wow. You just miss the whole point, don't you Bobby? And you didn't answer any of my questions, did you? You did seem to get away with stereotyping all high wage earners as leeches, didn't you? And no, I'm not worried about CEO's. I'm all for any hard working person getting all they can ( execs, teachers, et al). I don't watch Fox news, Lori. I do feel your frustration though.

independent

Aug 16 2011

Independent, do you really imagine that a company will loose any good talent by reducing it's CEO salary and upping it's worker salary? And for answering your questions: "How do you convince someone to work just as hard or harder as you take away some of their pay?" It happens all the time to us hard working people. You want this job? Well, you're not going to be paid as much. If you want to quit, fine, we will find someone else - better yet, we'll promote from within. Perhaps those charities wouldn't have to exist if the income inequality was not as large as it is. You think about that? Yes, I suppose I did 'get away with' stereotyping all high wage takers (cause you can't possibly 'earn' as much as the top 10% take home) as leeches - mainly because they are behaving as such - some to a greater degree than others.

BobbyKearan

Aug 16 2011

I thought stereotyping on this site was strictly forbidden and violated the user agreement? And what if execs leave a company and now its stock crashes due to weaker management? Might lead to job cuts, a growing trade deficit, weaker dollar, etc? You think about that?

independent

Aug 16 2011

It's press day for us, independent. Thus, not watching as closely. Bobby, please don't stereotype high wage takers. Everyone behave, and talk substance, not each other, please. There's always *something* to learn from the other; look for it. And again, independent, why don't you use your real name? We are gradually moving away from fake names; we encourage everyone to step up and own your opinions. It keeps things more civil. Carry on.

DonnaLadd

Aug 16 2011

Thanks. Donna! Out of fear of more personal reappraisals I'll continue to remain anonymous. Unfortunately I've had colleagues harassed at their homes by fanatics on more than one occasion. And my point in the above Bobby is that it's not as simple as telling Mr. Big "we're cutting your pay from $10MM to $8MM, take it or leave it!" If it were, I'd be first in line demanding it. Unfortunately it's a lot more slippery slope than that in reality.

independent

Aug 16 2011

ROFLOL!! You mean, pretty much what we have going on now in the country? That is the RESULT of Trickle Down Economics and the income and wealth gaps it creates, not a result of fixing it. One man holding up a company's stocks is a cult of personality - which we do not need. Your arguments are growing thin.

BobbyKearan

Aug 16 2011

My arguments are growing thin? And you think the aggressive redistribution of wealth is the one and only panacea. ROFLOL!!

independent

Aug 16 2011

Harassed at their homes by fanatics!?! That sounds so 1975; I've having visions of telephones with dials! And if someone is showing up their homes to harass them about stuff like supporting trickle-down economics, they really should call the police.

DonnaLadd

Aug 16 2011

And you think the aggressive redistribution of wealth is the one and only panacea. "Redistribution of wealth"? OK, now you're sounding circa 1950 with McCarthy peering over your shoulder. Do you really honest-to-God think that the only alternative to failed trickle-down economics is "redistribution of wealth." Good golly, man, that makes it's hard to have an intelligent conversation with you with you fearfully locking yourself into that little right-wing corner. Why not let the political labels go for a minute and just consider some of the gray area between two such created extremes. I mean, hell, no one here but me knows who you are; try a less-than-binary approach on for size. Use the conversation to explore possibilities even if you don't ultimately believe in one. It's called brainstorming, and it's where much innovation comes from -- not immediately shooting other people's ideas and letting them help shape new ones. And it's sadly missing in our public square.

DonnaLadd

Aug 16 2011

They did call the police, actually, after receiving threatening phone calls and voicemails against them and their children for gods sake! What kind of country do we live in where it was that easy through technology and a phone book to track someone down and treat them that way (anonymously, I might add) because they disagreed with their political choices? And my comments regarding the redistribution of wealth was merely an attempt to point out that Bobby's implication above for such is not the answer. I strongly believe in the gray area, hence my login name. I don't vote right or left. I vote based on my beliefs in certain topics. Pro- choice, low taxes on middle class and below, strong military at home and not in some pile of rocks in the desert protecting big oil interestes ( I've been there and done that ). Hell I'd love to see a HUGE cut in the space and military programs and use that money on a big infrastructure project that would employ thousands of people all over this country for years to come just by fixing the damn roads!

independent

Aug 16 2011

You think you know me by incorrectly inferring from my comments some false image of who I am. Pointing out the gray area is all I've been trying to do Donna. And for doing that I get labeled (again incorrectly, I might add). Hell, I should run for POTUS just to try to make people think about more than their view!

independent

Aug 16 2011

I'm also for raising taxes on the wealthiest of America, I'm for coming down hard on companies hiding cash in accounts offshore and in Zürich. I'm for this state paying teachers more, raising the alcohol % in beer so we can expand and develop new brewaries, and for gods sake get in shape and stop eating such crap and maybe buy some locally grown produce! I'm for legalizing and taxing marijuana, ending this ridiculous war on drugs, and for the porn industry to stop using actors and go with more amateurs and hand held cameras for authenticity! Hallelujah and amen!

independent

Aug 16 2011

Actually, I know who you are from your email address, but trust me when I say I don't care. ;-) Talking about "redistribution of wealth" in this context isn't actually seeking middle, gray ground ground, independent. You're falling back on talking points and the language of the red scare. As for being harangued and harassed due to your viewpoints, I sure know how that feels. It's remarkable how many lies I've seen on the Internet about myself and my company. The little-minds who are afraid to use their real names better be glad that I'm not litigious. But the truth is, none of that really matters. These days, it is unusual for them to call -- it's too easy to trace, so that part surprises me. Most anonymous rebels hide behind computer screens these days. BUT, I took us off topic and I apologize. You just wrote that you believe in "low taxes on middle class and below" -- explain how that is so difference from what others are saying here (the ones you're accusing of being for "redistribution of wealth"). We obviously can't debate this issue if we don't at least try to figure out what the other is really saying and not jump to these absurd conclusions. (Im not speaking for Bobby, by the way; he's probably to the left of me, although I haven't seen anything he's written that seems like it merits a shot of McCarthyism.) So take a breath, stop thnking we're your enemies and start from the premise that you want low taxes on the middle class and the poor and explain to me how that differs from Todd's original post. Let's get some clarity here.

DonnaLadd

Aug 16 2011

I'm also for raising taxes on the wealthiest of America, I'm for coming down hard on companies hiding cash in accounts offshore and in Zürich. I'm for this state paying teachers more, raising the alcohol % in beer so we can expand and develop new brewaries, and for gods sake get in shape and stop eating such crap and maybe buy some locally grown produce! I'm for legalizing and taxing marijuana, ending this ridiculous war on drugs, and for the porn industry to stop using actors and go with more amateurs and hand held cameras for authenticity! Hallelujah and amen! Well, hell, independent, then why in God's green acre are you so blazing mad at everybody here!? The bolded part is my favorite part, by the way. I'm startin' to like you a little despite yourself. (smile)

DonnaLadd

Aug 16 2011

Not mad Donna. Just saddened that you play a little devil's advocate here with an alternate point of view and you get painted as the devil incarnate. How about a little open minded free thinking people? Cmon now!

independent

Aug 16 2011

"Saddened"? Come on, independent. There is no need to be saddened, and I think it's safe to say that no one here is going to lose sleep over an anonymous commenter being saddened about factual challenges. You know that everyone can scroll up and read your posts, right? You keep sliding into meaningless, hackneyed sloganeering like "redistribution of wealth" when you can't seem to meet the challenge of fact-based discussion. I even seem to recall you declaring that everyone here all agreed on some or another radical premise because everyone didn't pop up to agree with you. Now. Back to the TOPIC. Again, I ask you why you think you disagree with others here on the topic of low taxes on the middle class and the poor? Talk about the substance of this issue: Exactly what part of the president's ideas are you disagreeing with and why? Leave the rhetoric aside and be specific. And don't go all huffy and name-calling if someone disagrees or responds with an additional fact. That is how good conversations are built. So try again. And please nothing else about me, him, her or that guy over yonder. Talk issues and specific facts please. Base your opinion on substance. Let's roll.

DonnaLadd

Aug 16 2011

As for the topic Donna, I honestly don't care either way. I Just wanted to illicit a reaction. And boy what a reaction it was! I'm actually only interested in human nature and if the Saints will make a deep run into the playoffs!

independent

Aug 16 2011

"Aggressive Redistribution of Wealth" IS occurring - its being redistributed from the poor and middle class workers into the coffers of the already wealthy. THAT is the whole problem with the economy. That is what I am against. Look at the charts and graphs and you can see the redistribution. I am in favor of Correcting the redistribution and saving the economy. http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/commentary/classwar/classwar.htm http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001908.htm Maybe a reduction from 10mil to 8mil (20%) would be too much, but a 2% cut to the Executives' salaries could give a 10% raise to just about every other worker and go a long way to re-energizing our economy. Note that Government can't and shouldn't be the one doing that. I don't think its the only solution, but I think a voluntary shift to a more reasonable wage distribution would be the absolute best solution. Raising taxes on the top earners is the best government-based solution, but not as desirable. I prefer a sustainable free market solution - but we need a solution implemented soon or everybody goes down. And, Independent, not counting the porn thing, you could be quoting from my platform. (http://bobbykearan.com) "We believe in making 20,000 men prosperous and contented rather than follow the plan of making a few slave drivers in our establishment multi-millionaires," Henry Ford said, quoted in The La Crosse Tribune on January 6, 1914.

BobbyKearan

Aug 17 2011

Here's one for you: 1 in 3 Mississippi children now live in poverty. The Northeast Miss Daily Journal reports: Nationally, one in five children is living in poverty - with incomes below $21,756 for a family of four. In Mississippi, that number is nearly one in three, based on Kids Count data formally released today by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The annual look at the well-being of children and families found that child poverty rates were up by nearly 20 percent compared with 2000. Since 2007, the economic downturn has hit children with families particularly hard. Foreclosures affected some 28,000 Mississippi children since 2007, and 89,000 kids in the state had at least one unemployed parent in 2010. "The big picture is that it has wiped out much of the early 1990s gains for low-income families," said Laura Speer, Kids Count national coordinator. Families living in poverty have less secure employment, fewer resources to handle daily living and the children are at higher risk of getting off track on the road to becoming successful adults. There is some good news, too: Even though Mississippi's been in 50th place for the last decade doesn't mean that there hasn't been some progress," Southward said. "Mississippi is generally not improving at the same rate as the rest of the nation and we're already behind." Notably, Mississippi has moved from the bottom to the middle of the pack by significantly reducing the number of teens 16 to 19 who are not in school and don't have a high school diploma based on 2008 and 2009 data. "That's what can happen when there's a concerted effort," as there has been with high school dropout prevention campaigns, Southward said. "Things like the tuition guarantee programs in Northeast Mississippi have really given families hope that the future can be brighter for their children."

DonnaLadd

Aug 17 2011

What I would really like to see is a good sense of Personal Responsibility in all aspects of society. Not just responsibility for one's self, but for the well being of those around you, the environment and future of your city/state/country. I suppose "Personal and Social Responsibility" would be more accurate, but perhaps not. It is in one's own self interest to make sure they do their part to encourage others around them to do well. It creates a fertile environment for prosperity - a sustainable prosperity that works for all, not just an individual working against everyone else. That is why I like Henry Ford and others like him. The Zappos corporate model and work environment. There are lots of examples out there that prove it works.

BobbyKearan

Aug 17 2011

Ok, I'll bite... Bobby, I can agree with you that to save our middle class we need better worker salaries but if not by government force how do you propose to make that happen? I don't expect CEO's will volunteer to cut their pay to give workers a raise. At least they haven't up to now.

WMartin

Aug 17 2011

Steve Jobs only takes $1 salary. There is hope, lol! I would propose a publicity campaign to make clear the benefits of lower CEO to Worker pay ratios. I would probably market this more to the Corporate Boards and shareholders than the CEOs themselves. Ultimately, this will result in higher dividends and better performance. I would provide a seal of some sort, like a BBB accreditation seal for companies that meet certain pay ratios. The public would then give those companies more business. Government could give a small tax break to those who have a seal as an incentive, not force. Feature quotes from successful business owners who meet (or met) those standards - like Ford's quote about how it is indecent for a CEO to make more than 40 times a worker's salary or Kenneth J. Douglas' quote about how a high ratio hurts company morale. Will it work? Maybe.... maybe not. But I think it is worth a try before government having to step in and requiring lower ratios simply to save the national economy. (The average ratio in 2009 was 263 to 1, down - mostly due to the TARP and ARRA bailout agreements - from 2000's 525 to 1 but still way past 1980's 42 to 1, but many are compensated with bigger retirement plans and 'golden parachutes.')

BobbyKearan

Aug 17 2011