Taking On Inequality

In December, I wrote about Robert Greenwald's attempt to mobilize outrage against Gilded Age-like inequality and the hedge-funders with his War on Greed series of short films. Now, another creative effort is being led by the Service Employees International Union, with July 17 protests scheduled in 100 cities in twenty-five countries.

Stephen Lerner, the director of the SEIU's private equity project, told the New York Times, "We think the buyout industry and the way it operates are systematic of what's wrong in this economy. We want to make them responsible corporate citizens."

The SEIU is focused on the Carlyle Group and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, and how they game the system to take over companies with little of their own money, lay off workers, reap the profits when they resell, and pay a lower tax rate than their own secretaries do.

I called closing this tax loophole that allows mega-billionaires to be taxed at 15 percent--lower than most working Americans--a litmus test for Democrats on whether the party stands for working people, and leading Senate Democrats failed.

The good news is that Democratic presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama, quickly spoke out against the decision by Democrats not to take on the loophole after more than twenty lobbying firms worked to preserve it. At the time the campaign issued a statement saying, "If there was ever a doubt that Washington lobbyists don't actually represent real Americans, it's the fact that they stopped leaders of both parties from requiring elite investment firms to pay their fair share of taxes, even as middle-class families struggle to pay theirs. When I'm President, the American people won't have to spend record amounts on lobbying to get their voice heard in Washington. I will close tax loopholes for big corporations...."

But it will take a lot more than closing an obscene tax loophole to reverse thirty years of tax cuts for the rich, union-busting, and deregulation that promoted corporate interests at the expense of consumers--all of this bankrolled by conservatives and corporations to instill blind faith in the market as a magic elixir that can solve any problem.

The result is that we now live in a Second Gilded Age. (And The Nation will hold a name Name Our Epoch! contest starting next week. The winner will be selected by our all-star progressive panel of judges--historian Howard Zinn, journalist Barbara Ehrenreich and novelist Walter Mosley.) The richest 1 percent of Americans currently hold wealth worth nearly $16.8 trillion, $2 trillion more than the bottom 90 percent. According to the Center for American Progress, since 1979 the average income for the bottom half of American households has grown by 6 percent. In contrast, the top 1 percent of earners have seen their incomes rise by 229 percent during that same period.

With less money available, Americans are forced to make tough choices on how to spend diminishing disposable incomes. The largest increases in consumer spending between 2006 and 2007 was on necessities: fuel, food staples, and medical bills. Medical bills now account for almost one-fifth of average family income. The divide is so huge, the Wall Street Journal now dedicates a full-time reporter to cover what the reporter calls "Richistan."

In January 2007, Congressman Barney Frank said dealing with income inequality was his top priority as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. He summarized the impact of conservative, free-market ideology run amuck this way: "The rising tide lifts all boats has always been a problem. If you think about that analogy, the rising tide is a very good idea if you have a boat. But if you are too poor to afford a boat and you are standing tiptoe in the water, the rising tide goes up to your nose."

Next week, The Nation will publish a special issue on income inequality, exploring how rising extreme inequality is undermining our common good. It will include a 12-step blueprint for action for citizens and smart elected officials who care about reducing concentrations of wealth, reducing poverty and rebuilding our infrastructure.

Those who believe in the promise of this country--that more perfect union--need to advance, unflinchingly, a program that explicitly aims to reduce concentrated wealth and power. Early this spring, a national coalition of organizations put forward a bold set of proposals to cut poverty in half over the next decade. But this effort may well go nowhere so long as concentrated wealth defines our nation's political and spending priorities. Until we seriously tax the holders of that extreme wealth (the upcoming issue reminds people that under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower the highest marginal tax rate was 91 percent, compared to the current 35 percent) we'll lack the funding resources necessary to undertake any bold poverty-fighting, middle-class promoting, initiative.

Be sure to read The Nation's special upcoming issue. And on July 17, be a part of SEIU's Take Back the Economy effort.

Comments (176)

1. Nice post, Katrina.

   Thanks.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/08/2008 @ 10:57am

2. income inequality? here's a remedy. bring back the 90% top tax bracket.

   and watch the money roll in.

   Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 11:39am

3. "But it will take a lot more than closing an obscene tax loophole to reverse thirty years of tax cuts for the rich, union-busting, and deregulation that promoted corporate interests at the expense of consumers--"

   Well, frankly Ms vanden Heuvel, you better gird yourself because, even with Obama and a Dem Congress....

   you aren't going to ge "a lot more".

   Posted by Mask at 06/08/2008 @ 11:49am

4. Hi Katrina,

   Check out the website www.irs.gov

   Download data for tax revenue by income distribution.

   You will find the wealthy pay most of the tax!

   I understand you believe they should, but that is not the issue. The issue is the false promotion by those on the left that they don't. The promotion that they either pay no tax or do not pay their fair share.

   You mention "less money is available". You see the resources of this country as a fixed thing, that can not grow. If somebody does not have enough, it is proclaimed that it has been taken from them by somebody who has more than their fair share.

   Here's an idea - instead of promoting class warfare and envy among people - why not promote growth and opportunity for all people instead?

   How about improving public education in this country - not by "investing" as called for by John F. Kerry, but by fixing the quality of education we have now.?

   How about stopping the teaching of kids that 2+2 = 5 is OK because you tried?

   Since kids will be kids, and they do misbehave sometimes, how about letting schools discipline kids when necessary, which is practically forbidden now?

   How about teaching kids that the country they live in is a land of opportunity and progress, instead of "educating" kids what a lousy unjust country this is, which seems to be the case now?

   How about paying teachers by merit, instead of by union seniority rules, so that good teachers are rewarded? And why not allow schools to fire bad teachers, which is next to impossible now?

   What the heck, if kids got better education, kids who are growing up in poverty now would have a much better chance to be able to pull themselves out of poverty and achieve what the promise of this country was and still is?

   Maybe that approach would work, rather than the approaches you promote, which seem to accomplish nothing but keep people in poverty.

   Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2008 @ 12:00pm

5. You will find the wealthy pay most of the tax!

   this does not mean they are paying their fair share.

   let's say they pay 51% of the taxes. that means they pay most of the taxes. but their fair share could be say 90% of the taxes. income tax used to be known as the rich man's tax. I wonder why?

   and your strawman education.

   the way to educate children is to spend a lot more money. smaller class size, decent school infrastructure etc.

   how about GIVING every child a college education? other countries do it. you qualify and you're in.

   Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 12:09pm

6. "how about letting schools discipline kids when necessary, which is practically forbidden now?"

   if you mean hitting kids, that's assault, and should be punished by jail time.

   Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 12:11pm

7. How about teaching kids that the country they live in is a land of opportunity and progress,

   to catapult the propaganda? sure. keep feeding them the Horatio Alger myth.

   Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 12:15pm

8. Hi Katrina,

   Check out the website www.irs.gov

   Download data for tax revenue by income distribution.

   You will find the wealthy pay most of the tax!

   Posted by sjchermak at 06/8/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

   Considering that the "wealthy" own and control 95% of the productive assets of this country, your simplistic argument is specious and ludicrous.

   Proportionately, by individual income bracket, who really pays more measured by actual tax returns filed, not IRS tax tables? And lets use unadjusted total gross income versus taxes paid as an alternative and appropriate measure of proportionality. We all know what loopholes do to the measure of proportionality based on taxable income only.

   Posted by OneVote at 06/08/2008 @ 12:33pm

9. let's also remember that unlike plain folks, the rich do not get their wealth from income subject to income tax. they get it from investments, which is taxed far lower than income.

   the Whigs love to trot out the envy and class war argument.

   it's the same with every bully, the trouble started when the victim started to fight back.

   Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 12:44pm

10. The issue goes far, far beyond the tax burden, though "fixing" it would go an awful long way. But American workers--i.e. their unions--made an agreement after World War II/the Depression: provide for us, give us fair wages and a piece of the pie, and we won't engage in dramatic social revolution. Industrial workers got better wages, health care & accident insurance, unemployment insurance, and opportunities for advancement.

    But "capital," or the establishment, if you will, is renegging on that agreement, or at least not extending it to service workers, teachers, and the like. Industrial workers are making decent wages, sure, but their jobs are being cut dramatically every year in a country that produces less & less every year. The government and corporations are going to have tens of millions of angry workers on their hands, who cannot afford basic necessities like food, gas, and heating/cooling. They will not be distracted forever...they literally cannot afford to be.

    No, the megarich are not paying their fair share. They pay "more" in taxes, but it's less of a percentage than workers & the so-called middle-classes pay of their annual incomes. They get rich off the backs of workers, and by using loopholes & tax breaks stay rich, and get richer, while the masses have to choose between feeding their kids or heating their homes. There are workers who sell them their gas, wait on them at fine restaurants, take care of their parents in nursing homes, and clean their mansions. Minimum wage remains criminally low, and there are 47 million people that have no health insurance. Sure, things are going really well!

    Posted by juls1975 at 06/08/2008 @ 1:39pm

11. SJC you have all these lofty education goals, now are you willing to pay for them? No? Guess what? Neither are the top 5%.

    Posted by yutsano at 06/08/2008 @ 1:47pm

12. And finally, a word to the rank & file of any company ready to vote on unionization. PAY the union dues. They are the best investment you'll make. The company argument that pay is equivalent to unionized firms is bogus. The unionized firms set the STANDARD. When there are no unionized firms, ALL wages will go down. And that's happening now! And yes, close the tax loophole. Congress should use the Cask of Amontillado loophole closure technique, that is, with bricks! When corporate thieves are "contained", those remaining will be very anxious to cooperate.

    Posted by Sorelish at 06/08/2008 @ 1:56pm

13. Dear Katrina,

    You've dared to touch the heart of the matter here.

    But the illusion (aka the great american dream of getting rich, regardless) is as persistent as the flu. Or salmonella. Or VD.

    It's going to be a long hard slog before the US majority realizes that it's being consistently deluded, cheated, short-changed ... and that this doesn't have to be so.

    Any presidential nominee (vide Edwards, RFK) who seriously makes inequality a centerpiece in campaigning is tempting Fate.

    Once he's in office, however, given a large enough majority in both houses, Obama can accomplish a great deal. Look how much the GOP has accomplished (admittedly with Clintonian aid) in undoing the New Deal.

    We can reverse that process only if we expose its criminality & bankruptcy. A special prosecutor, an accountability investigation in the senate & house, both starting Feb '09.

    Otherwise, it will be business as usual. With impunity.

    Posted by sloper at 06/08/2008 @ 3:00pm

14. not pay teachers by seniority? how about army officers? or cops? or firemen? should we not pay them by seniority?

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 3:07pm

15. Continues to work out nicely for Cheney & neocons:

    "Vice President Cheney disclosed a portfolio worth as much as $94.6 million in 2005"

    "According to a book entitled "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, Rush Limbaugh signed a contract in 2001 for $297 million dollars to broadcast through summer 2009, which would make the answer, $33 million per year.. This, of course, does not include any additional money he is paid for speaking engagments, book residuals, or earnings in the stock market.. "

    Posted by winyahn at 06/08/2008 @ 3:32pm

16. Still Making Blacks do the Dirty Work

    or

    African American Patriot Sells Out to Highest Bidder

    or

    Puppet Lessons

    Powell pisses lies (per http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html )

    We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities.

    Numerous human sources tell us that the Iraqis are moving, not just documents and hard drives, but weapons of mass destruction to keep them from being found by inspectors.

    Iraq did not meet its obligations under 1441 to provide a comprehensive list of scientists associated with its weapons of mass destruction programs.

    The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world. Let me now turn to those deadly weapons programs and describe why they are real and present dangers to the region and to the world.

    There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling.

    blah blah....

    Posted by winyahn at 06/08/2008 @ 3:36pm

17. Miscellaneous comments:

    emile duBois says:

    "the way to educate children is to spend a lot more money. smaller class size, decent school infrastructure etc. how about GIVING every child a college education? other countries do it. you qualify and you're in."

    emile, why should a kid who learns 2 + 2 = 5 is OK because you tried be given a free college education at taxpayer expense? Would it be so they can learn that 2 + 2 = 5 is the correct answer because it shows creativity?

    You say spend more money for decent school infrastructure - how come when Kansas City did this it totally failed and made things worse:

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html

    This is a tough situation - the arguments of the leftists - all these lofty ideals and engagement in class warfare - do not solve the very problems the leftists claim they care about - yet the leftists persist and condemn those who do not agree.

    Is there no responsibility among you leftists - if you truly care about what you say you care about - to find out if what you promote actually helps people or not?

    Now, yutsano comes in with:

    " SJC you have all these lofty education goals, now are you willing to pay for them? No? Guess what? Neither are the top 5%."

    yutsano, why the assumption that what I was saying requires money? How does it cost extra money to give a child an F if he or she says 2+2 =5, rather than saying it is OK because you tried?

    The things I was talking about are not money issues and not solvable by extra money - what kind of money do you think is needed to stop leftists educators from promoting leftist education?

    emile comes back with:

    "not pay teachers by seniority? how about army officers? or cops? or firemen? should we not pay them by seniority?"

    Huh? emile, why should anybody be paid by anything other than merit? Especially people whose income is being paid at taxpayer expense?

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2008 @ 3:38pm

18. You're not arguing anything near a solution other than "blame the leftists". Need I remind you that No Child Left Behind was a (bad) bipartisan idea trumpeted by Bush that resulted in a huge federal intervention in education and no results? Blaming the teachers (of whom I am related to three) when the real problem is administrative-heavy districts that interfere in the classroom as much as Bushie's NCLB is counterproductive. And yeah, when there are schools that can't afford up-to-date books for all their students, that requires money. Besides which, what is a leftist education anyway? The 2+2 = 5 is anecdotal.

    Posted by yutsano at 06/08/2008 @ 3:55pm

19. "not arguing anything near a solution"- exacto

    Libs set up the pins, neocons knock 'em down -

    Dat's been the rules, forever and ever.

    Neocons, sjchermak -- any neocon poster not in Iraq: what's YOUR solution for the mess- start with, let's say a 11 year old kid with immature, dumb alcoholic parents, ones's in prison, has a history of neglect and abuse, brings a gun to school, says it's his 2nd Amendment Right?

    What if he threatens someone with the gun? Claims that he needed to protect himself?

    Do you intervene? How? What if the kid initially goes to counseling but drops out? Can't get a ride? Then what do you do when it happens again at age 13 and 15 and 17?

    If you incarcerate, does he get access to any education or job training?

    Step up and explain your vision for typical social, NS such as this?

    Posted by winyahn at 06/08/2008 @ 4:44pm

20. Posted by lvliberty1 Thank God the government didn't impose a bunch of ridiculous regulations restricting New Orleans citizens' freedoms and liberties after the hurricane. Thanks to God and Cheney and FEMA, they were free and unencumbered to drown and loot as they pleased.

    Posted by winyahn at 06/08/2008 @ 4:55pm

21. Didn't you more or less prove Ms vandenHeuvel's point there Mary? Looking at those numbers, I see a HUGE jump in the highest bracket with gains becoming more modest as you go down. Now I'll be the first to admit I'm not the best with numbers, and analyzing your post took some work, but if there has been indeed a gain in that gap does that not suggest income disparity is rising and therefore needs to be addressed? You can't suck the middle and lower classes dry forever. Oh and there was nothing in your stats regarding those that file other than 1040(n). Which leaves out the tax returns of the super wealthy.

    Posted by yutsano at 06/08/2008 @ 5:10pm

22. Posted by lvliberty1

    you are a nutcase. hopeless. homeschooling high school math? you would not last a day.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 5:47pm

23. Posted by marybretbrad at 06/8/2008

    MBB/Darin, the first post has solid fact-based NUMBERS...what can I say against them?

    Second post goes back to Jack Kennedy and reduciing top rates.

    It's not like your typical "Dems are lousier peopel than Repubs" screed.

    Got no problem with either.

    Posted by Mask at 06/08/2008 @ 5:52pm

24. There was a time when a great majority of Americans either farmed

    that was over a hundred years ago, and your "ideas" are even older than that, you fossil.

    this also goes for Maasch.

    pretty nifty the way you changed the subject from income inequality to education. nifty, but stoopid

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 5:56pm

25. Posted by marybretbrad at 06/8/2008 |

    Although...in the last one, you can't credit just us Americans with expanding lifespans.

    We had SOME help.

    Posted by Mask at 06/08/2008 @ 6:00pm

26. .they are (Germany) are slowly sinking into deeper welfare state with immigrant issues, higher taxes, and their health care system is cracking.

    it's actually the opposite. with you that is always a safe bet.

    compared to the US their immigrant issues are minor. their health care system too is so far more inclusive than ours. I speak to Germans all the time. I read german newspapers.

    one thing Germany has done is absorb the eastern part, a kaput economy, and many many people on welfare. it is as if we took over the northern half of Mexico, made them all citizens, pay for their social services etc.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 6:25pm

27. 50% grad rates is reason to have all public schools closed and the system scrapped..start over.

    it is you who is the Mao ist.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 6:26pm

28. On the other hand...all those in Cuba and the old Soviet Union had no ineaquality problems....they are and were equal...equal in their misery.

    Posted by JOMAMMA

    this is just nonsense.

    Communism and socialism is alive and well, in China for instance. the soviets, too are doing well, due to their huge natural resources, not just oil but gas.

    it is you who cling to dated paradigms.the 1950 are futuristic with you. your economic clock stopped with Adam Smith. you are a fossil.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 6:29pm

29. how is the dollar doing against the Euro? if their system doesn't work, why are they doing so well?

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 6:30pm

30. http://www.fugue.com/pics/goodnews.html

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 6:42pm

31. Hello emile duBois,

    You said above:

    "Communism and socialism is alive and well, in China for instance. "

    emile, you are joking! Really, you are kidding, aren't you? Did you mean what you said?

    In China, unfortunately political communism is alive and well, but otherwise the country has been moving, especially during the past decade, towards free markets, involvement with global/international corporations, i.e, a much more capitalistic economy. They have been doing so at breakneck speed.

    So even POLITICAL COMMUNISTS know that communism doesn't work!!

    You, on the other hand, think it does!

    Go talk to some communists and have them tell you how lousy communism is!

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2008 @ 7:05pm

32. Posted by lvliberty1

    very few people home school all the way through high school. to recommend this for everyone is unbelievably stupid. just your style.

    you, I said you would be toast were you to try it. have you?

    my high school senior has been taking college level math.

    t in the real world, both parents work, sometimes two jobs. are they going to home school?

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 7:34pm

33. You, on the other hand, think it does!

    Go talk to some communists and have them tell you how lousy communism is!

    Posted by sjchermak

    I never said that. what I said is that communism is thriving in China. it is after all a country ruled by the communist party. thass all I said.

    you clowns break me up. careful with the straw men, straw is flammable.

    no one said anything about achieving income equality. what has been said is to ameliorate the in equality. big difference.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 7:37pm

34. and the dreaded WALMART revenues are greater than the entire Russian economy..

    er, not exactly:

    walmart revenue 378 billion

    Russian GDP 2 TRILLION.

    you really are dumb John. dumb for repeating junk facts, and especially dumb to think I wouldn't look it up.

    game set and match to duBois.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 7:43pm

35. here is what it is like to try to discuss with Liverty. I say home schooling high school seniors is rare and extremely difficult. he comes with eighth grade financial statistics. eighth grade is NOT high school, last time I checked. this how they argue a point.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 7:46pm

36. entire high school. sorry

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 7:47pm

37. scratch that last one. I was right the first time.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 7:48pm

38. Maasch, you are right there, in revenues, and I am wrong.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 7:51pm

39. Thank you Ms. Vanden Heuvel. My retort to "The rising tide lifts all boats", is "When you drain a fresh water lake to fill a swamp you end up with two swamps". I don't give a damn how you define "is". I still can not believe how easy it was for Corporate America to steal all the sweat equity of our fathers and mothers to line their own pockets. We even elected and keep electing the idiots that let them do it. We seem to think that if we are nice to these people that they will let us into their private little clubs, instead they create gated communities and shun us at every opportunity.

    Posted by julien38 at 06/08/2008 @ 8:07pm

40. the free market conservatives here must absolve themselves of the question of how the united states can erase its current debt and current deficit w/out the options of:

    a) finding existing tax revenue streams w/out raising taxes

    and/or;

    b) creating new tax revenue streams or raising current tax revenue streams (e.g. capital gains)

    how can we effectively find more and/or new revenue to do erase/diminish the debt and deficit?

    it does no good to criticize socialism or communism in china, venezuela or russia at a time when the united states is clearly suffering under current tax policy.

    it also does no good to avoid taking a closer look at tax policies governing other western democracies like canada or england. canada has a strong middle class, thanks primarily to higher taxes across the board. you don't see a great deal of poverty OR extreme wealth in canada. why is that?

    Posted by darladoon at 06/08/2008 @ 8:09pm

41. "I believe in personal drive and NOT govt "protection"...I seek protection FROM govt, not always for it..."

    though nice on paper, this advice has absolutely nothing to do with tax policy. and it is more evidence that the person who uttered it has no idea how to solve the current crisis, other than uttering vague pronouncements against socialism (which, btw, is kicking our little ass so hard right now, but i digress)....

    "personal drive"? can someone describe what this means? what good is some vague, celestial idea when you are busting ass 80 hour weeks, and getting nowhere?

    what we need is: more tax revenue, and fast. we need to rescind the most egregious bush tax cuts, and fast. we also need to find existing revenue streams that aren't being taxed. as a final resort, we need to think about raising taxes on those making over $200,000/year.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/08/2008 @ 8:14pm

42. to those who are more interested in protecting those making more than $200,000/year, than in protecting those who are making less than $15,000/year, i have some advice for you: you will continue to starve our towns and communities of the funds needed to provide basic necessities. i am not even talking about the fun stuff, like national parks and public pools and libraries. i am talking about food and shelter, health care, etc.

    is this amusing? is it amusing to people that the so-called "leftist" movement in america is actually (gasp!) asking for higher taxes on people making more than $200,000/year?

    Posted by darladoon at 06/08/2008 @ 8:19pm

43. .and this fellow could was a Fluchtmeister...

    unless he was a master of fleeing, he was a Fluch-meister

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2008 @ 8:23pm

44. Posted by marybretbrad at 06/8/2008

    Darin, of the top 10 pharmaceutical companies...

    4 are American.

    (Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Merck, and Abbott)

    Posted by Mask at 06/08/2008 @ 9:33pm

45. Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/8/2008

    Again, you are either negative or dismissive. Again, you don't put forth your own positive argument.

    Here AGAIN are your two opportunities, which you've already used once (to respond negatively or dismissively).

    Can you change your behavior? C'mon lets see something from you that's not completely lame and predictable.

    1- What's YOUR solution for a common social ill... Let's say a 11 year old kid with immature, dumb alcoholic parents, ones's in prison, has a history of neglect and abuse, brings a gun to school, says it's his 2nd Amendment right.

    What if he threatens someone with the gun? Claims that he needed to protect himself?

    Do you intervene? How? What if the kid initially goes to counseling but drops out? Can't get a ride? Then what do you do when it happens again at age 13 and 15 and 17?

    If you incarcerate at some point, does he get access to any education or job training?

    2- Would you agree or disagree that your Cheney-federal government did not impose a bunch of regulations restricting New Orleans citizens' freedoms and liberties after the hurricane?

    Respond honestly LV! Or don't.

    Your deregulation, Ayn Rand infatuation is but a half-truth.

    Posted by winyahn at 06/08/2008 @ 9:39pm

46. "as a final resort, we need to think about raising taxes on those making over $200,000/year."

    Posted by darladoon at 06/8/2008

    DD, you do know that $200-$400K is middle class, right? Quite frankly, I wouldn't give the gov't any more money then what I give now.

    Posted by ACook at 06/08/2008 @ 10:17pm

47. $200 grand a year is middle class? Maybe in Manhattan, but not in the USA.

    "The most commonly cited figures from the Census data are from all households mixed together. Median income among all U.S. households in 2006 was $48,201. The middle 20 percent ranged from about $38,000 to $60,000; and the middle 60 percent--the "Baucus middle class"--stretched from about $20,000 to $97,000." http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22600.html

    Posted by OldUncleDave at 06/08/2008 @ 10:49pm

48. And what would my wife and I do if our taxes were raised to 90% or even 60%?

    Well...I'd stop working and my wife would severely curtail her hours until our income was under the threshold. No point in working for less than we are worth.

    Of course, with me staying home, what would happen to the nanny? Out of a job. The lady who cleans (sort of) the house? Out of a job. The guy who cuts the grass? Out of a job. The handyman? Out of a job. The dry-cleaners? Out of a job. The Dinners-To-Go folks? Out of a job. And on and on...sounds like a lot of unemployment and reduced revenue to the government to me...until someone who understands the real world gets back in the WH.

    Posted by usc1 at 06/08/2008 @ 11:11pm

49. I salute The Nation for dealing with this. Up until now the whole strength of the US has been its strong internal market, the consumers. Consumer spending always supported this capitalist economy. But now the real salaries have gone down so much that our market is not what it used to be. As for the first 10% of the population, they don't really need to buy anything excepting stocks. Behold that when the internal market breaks, our economy will be doomed forever. Just see what the house bubble did to our economy.

    Companies that pay 7 to say 14 $/hr need to understand that that citizen or family is not viable in this society, will not consume but hold to a surviving econcmy and that type of "job opportunities" is happening more and more. Take fast food for example. Any combo there costs about 7 bucks, the poor Mexican - or not- lady that prepares it earns 8 bucks an hour, she does it in five minutes ($ 0.70)probably sharing time with another burgers or duties. The cost of the food is probably less than half a dollar out of the bargaining power of the company. Result: net margin of 6 bucks out of 7 and several not viable citizens (or not citizens). This is an example of a net transfer of wealth from the whole society to a big company that slowly but certainly curtails what should be America's power: the market.

    If these kind of "services companies" don't want to pay more to the people, the only thing that occurs to me is to create a tax to companies that should be inversely proportional to the average salaries they paid to their less fortunate workers. Take for example health care, these people can't afford it even with 3 jobs, so when they have problems guess who is paying: the taxpayers of course. Ain't that a clearer example of transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top?

    Is this only a problem of migrant workers or minorities? Yes and no. More minorities are involved but it is a problem for all races and creeds. It is a problem for all non-professional workers, and it is at the root of our survival as an economically viable society. After all, the affluent are from all walks of life but mainly some professionals: doctors, lawyers, bankers, and entrepreneurs. Whom are the doctors going to cure if the viable population shrinks to half? Whom are the lawyers to sue when an important fraction is on bankruptcy?, whom are the bankers to lend (yes, they can participate in another sub-prime scheme), or where into the USA are the investors to put their money if companies are failing because they just don't sell as they used to?

    We need much more equality to keep ourselves healthy as a nation. This needs to be enriched with serious contributions from economists and sociologists.

    Posted by Frank42 at 06/08/2008 @ 11:14pm

50. Limbaugh on Katrina :

    "What did we have in New Orleans? We had 60-plus years of unchecked, unfettered liberalism. We had an entitlement community. We had a group of people, a population, the vast majority of which had no idea how to fend for themselves, because they haven't had to. There's always been a government program for this or for that. There was even a government program to maintain them in their poverty."

    --- --- --- --- ---

    Hmmmmm, so unchecked, unfettered liberalism needed more REGULATION?

    The entitlement community - what? Turned away help?

    There's always been a government program for this or for that, this Levy, that flooding?

    Posted by winyahn at 06/08/2008 @ 11:48pm

51. Posted by usc1

    who is talking of raising your taxes by 90%? strawman.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 12:38am

52. until someone who understands the real world gets back in the WH.

    Posted by usc1

    certainly not you, understand the real world that is.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 12:39am

53. Posted by usc1

    I can only assume that you don't understand the 90% top tax bracket.

    you are too small a fish to concern yourself. the top tax bracket kicks in, let's say after the fifth million. the first five are taxed as they are now. after the fifth million, the gov't, that is all of us, takes a big bite.

    again if you make more than five million, chances are that you also get a lot of investment income. so I won't cry any tears

    of course it's absurd to assume that this would rob folks of incentive to strive etc.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 12:44am

54. When T. Boon Pickens can claim an 800% profit from domestic investment, no, not 80%, 800%, when 10% of the Americans own 80% of the American wealth, we have a situation that can't be sustained. America has become, "TWO AMERICAS", as Mr. Edwards stated. When we have an America where gluttony dictates its values and people can't heat their homes, because the one per centers want to fly their corporate jets around the world shopping for suits and shoes we have a problem. When oil leaves the well at 14.00 a barrel and gets to the refinery at 130.00 a barrel we have a problem. We now have an America where 36 million people go hungry and 47 million have to choose between health care and shelter. We now have an America where the answer to job displacement is retraining to be a greeter at Walmart. Yesterday I saw several elderly gentlemen collecting returnable bottles by the road. I suspect that people are intentionally throwing bottles out their car windows for the poor to collect. at least their is a shred of dignity in collecting bottles to eat. For those who think that this is the America they want to fly over, I challenge them to live this kind of life for a week.

    Posted by julien38 at 06/09/2008 @ 08:44am

55. julien38: you are, alas, correct.

    On each of my semi-annual visits to the US for about the past 25 years, this divide appears to have grown wider & deeper. The Reagan revolution's legacy, Clinton's "reform," CheneyBush's plundering. It all adds up.

    Although US pundits & pols have been lecturing EU nations for years to get "flexible" & imitate the US model, most western Europeans are not that stupid. They see the results and do not wish to share the misery, baffled that so many Americans behave (e.g. vote) against their own interests.

    Posted by sloper at 06/09/2008 @ 09:01am

56. "They see the results and do not wish to share the misery, baffled that so many Americans behave (e.g. vote) against their own interests."---Posted by sloper at 06/9/2008

    That's because they haven't been convinced it IS in their interests. That their lives are going to be improved by "taxing the rich" and "new programs".

    So, maybe a little self-reflection is necessary on the Left to figure out what THEIR problem is in selling it...rather than what "THOSE people's problem" is in buying it?

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2008 @ 09:10am

57. po folk? who cares? what really counts is for the rich to be unfettered.

    unions? god forbid. when the worker gets a crumb, which he has to fight for, that is the way to mediocrity.

    workers banding together for their own benefit? why that would make our economy uncompetitive, and force those patriotic bosses to ship the jobs overseas.

    in a rational world, the consumers of those products produced by cheap workers overseas, would rebel, and boycott those products.

    but no, cheap goods are what counts, see Wall-mart, damn the consequences.

    the bosses are skating on very thin ice. there will come when the consumer will no longer be able to afford even the cheap goods, and the whole thing will collapse.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 09:26am

58. Well...I'd stop working and my wife would severely curtail her hours until our income was under the threshold. No point in working for less than we are worth.

    whatta crock. in a time of spiraling prices for food etc you'd find a way to make less money. yeah right.

    and you have the noive to posit this as what everyone would do? you, Sir, are a joke.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 10:33am

59. "Communism and socialism is alive and well, in China for instance. "

    emile, you are joking! Really, you are kidding, aren't you? Did you mean what you said?

    In China, unfortunately political communism is alive and well, but otherwise the country has been moving, especially during the past decade, towards free markets, involvement with global/international corporations, i.e, a much more capitalistic economy. They have been doing so at breakneck speed.

    well, first you confirm my statement. how fast have the Chinese moved away from state control of the means of production? give us some facts.

    braindead Whigs assume by my statement that I prefer communism to the mixed system of socialism that most of the first world, including the US, enjoys. stoopid no?

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 10:36am

60. Share of Adjusted Gross Income and share of total taxes (1%) 21.20% & 39.38% (5%) 14.55% & 20.29% (10%) 10.70% & 10.63% (25%) 21.08% & 15.69% (50%) 19.65% & 10.94% (total average) 12.83% & 3.07%

    So the 5% of people between 5% and 10% paid the highest rate at 26.24 (including OASDI) but they paid their fair share of income by earning 10.70% of income and 10.63% of income taxes.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 06/8/2008

    Here we go with the "adjusted gross income" comparisons again which are baloney. What about doing your comparisons with "unadjusted gross income?"

    Posted by OneVote at 06/09/2008 @ 10:40am

61. "not pay teachers by seniority? how about army officers? or cops? or firemen? should we not pay them by seniority?"

    Huh? emile, why should anybody be paid by anything other than merit? Especially people whose income is being paid at taxpayer expense?

    Posted by sjchermak

    so a guy who works at his job for twenty years should be paid the same as a guy who put in one year? yeah right.

    we also need to look at how this merit will be judged? with teachers should it be test scores? that means the teacher who works with the real difficult kids should get a lot less than the teacher whose kids have all the advantages at home? yeah that'll work.

    how about cops? by what standard do you measure merit?

    your entire post is just absurd. and the kid who is taught 2+2= 5 is a figment of your imagination. the real world is far more complex than that.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 10:45am

62. LvLiberty-As always,you turn the entire left into the far left even though the far left,like the far right,is the minority.Unions are not Marxist and do not promote mediocrity.When I was young most everything was union made and it lasted forever.My grandkids play with the same union made toys that I played with,but they won't be able to hand down their non union made toys because those toys are cheap crap some of which kills them.My union made tools have outlasted my non union made tools by decades.Most of the cheap crap that we buy these days comes from non union workers.In an ideal world getting rid of the IRS and the public school system would be nice,but home schooling for all is not practical and isolates kids from one another.Not everyone should have kids let alone teach them.Public school teachers do not promote a socialist agenda.You really need to get beyond the massive Marxist,communist,socialist plot thing.It does not exist.Where do you plan on getting the money to help Israel and to fight these wars in the middle east?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/09/2008 @ 11:34am

63. Minnesotans Claiming Itemized and Standard Deductions, Tax Year 2005 2.2 million resident returns

    Adjusted Gross Income % claiming federal standard deduction % claiming federal itemized deduction % benefiting from federal itemized deductions at state level, after state income tax add-back

    Less than $10,000 93.7 6.3 5.9 $10,000-$19,999 86.1 13.9 13.2 $20,000-$29,999 78.2 21.8 18.6 $30,000-$39,999 63.3 36.7 30.8 $40,000-$49,999 47.6 52.4 42.8 $50,000-$74,999 34.3 65.7 51.3 $75,000-$99,999 14.6 85.4 64.9 $100,000-$149,999 4.4 95.6 78.5 $150,000-$249,999 2.0 98.0 81.9 $250,000-$499,999 2.2 97.8 79.2 $500,000 and more 2.1 97.9 64.0 Total 54.3% 45.7% 37.0%

    The third column is percentage of taxpayers in Minnesota availing themselves of federal itemized deductions - one state as an example. Further, for the wealthy, the opportunity to shield income from reporting or delay in recognition of income as per IRS guidelines and definition is not available for lower income taxpayers who must recognize and report every penny of their wages, salaries, etc., which is generally their only source of income.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/09/2008 @ 11:45am

64. Post did not keep column alignment. Statistics show that for those taxpayers in MN with gross incomes above $100,000, over 95% of them avail themeselves of the benefits of federal itemized deductions.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/09/2008 @ 11:50am

65. Congress knows how to fix the problem. Problem is Congress is and always has been the cause of the problem. Congress and past and present administrations worked hand in hand to assure their rich friends could get richer at our expense.

    * Who got tax cuts? The rich.

    * Who looks the other way while our jobs are given to illegal immigrant or exported to India and other countries? Congress.

    * Who used tax breaks to build the world's largest corporation yet pays below the poverty level? Wal-Mart.

    * Who helped destroy labor unions? Regan & Republicans.

    * Who let unregulated lenders drag us into a real estate crash without a net? Congress

    * Who disemboweled bankruptcy laws to favor the rich? Congress.

    * Who ignores the public once they have our votes? Congress.

    We have to replace them all. Keeping the same people in office is a vote for more abuse of the American people. Many have been there for years spouting the same crap while doing the best they can to undermine our futures for the benefit of their wealthy friends. I have ample reasons on my site to demonstrate our downfall. http://www.reelectnoone.com I hope you will visit me.

    I hope you will take me up on the idea of replacing Congress.

    Posted by reelectnoone at 06/09/2008 @ 11:54am

66. Post did not keep column alignment. Statistics show that for those taxpayers in MN with gross incomes above $100,000, over 95% of them avail themeselves of the benefits of federal itemized deductions.

    Posted by OneVote

    so? what's wrong with that?

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 12:01pm

67. Posted by reelectnoone at 06/9/2008

    More Naderistic silliness....

    or a GOP manuever.

    (as if they're a operational difference!...heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2008 @ 12:10pm

68. <i>whatta crock. in a time of spiraling prices for food etc you'd find a way to make less money. yeah right.

    and you have the noive to posit this as what everyone would do? you, Sir, are a joke.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/9/2008</i>

    Read the whole post. You could surmise that I'm not talking about the average Joe. We could curtail our earnings and still be fine. The problem you have is the effect punitive taxes will have on the middle and lower classes. I have already given you my examples. For another, look at the luxury yacht builders. Years ago taxes were increased on these yachts which caused the wealthy to stop ordering them, and the ship builders (and their employees) suffered. Fact is, the more you tax, the less people spend. Why else does government continue to raise taxes on cigarettes? Because people then buy fewer cigarettes.

    Posted by usc1 at 06/09/2008 @ 12:25pm

69. BTW, do you really think that inceasing tax rates will affect the mega-millionaires? They are the ones who can afford to find the loopholes. All you'll accomplish is crush the small business owners.

    Posted by usc1 at 06/09/2008 @ 12:30pm

70. usc1

    nonsense, they already have tax attorneys to find the best deal for them.

    you cannot keep one thought in your mind.

    small business owners, of which I am one, have many deductions available. if they make INCOME which is subject to income tax, they should be treated like everyone else.

    profits in a business are not taxed as income the way an individual's income is.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 12:43pm

71. <i>nonsense, they already have tax attorneys to find the best deal for them.</i>

    Exactly...so I'll take it that you agree that increasing tax rates on mega-millionaires won't affect them much. Inevitably, your punitive taxes end up hurting the "hard-working" rich folk (mainly small business owners) and ultimately, the middle and lower classes who find themselves out of work...hmmmm...maybethat's been your goal all along...more unemployed Americans means more power for you and your socialist friends.

    Posted by usc1 at 06/09/2008 @ 1:29pm

72. usc1

    oh please, you have lost it.

    the mega millionaires have had their taxes reduced for some time now.

    and I obviously do not agree. let them pay 90% at least while we're at war. that is how it was before.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 1:33pm

73. let's see now, the gov't takes in money and no jobs result from that? is that your claim? if we invest that tax money in say infra structure, no jobs result from that. if we make sure the lower classes have more money to spend, no jobs result from that?

    you are seriously out of your depth here, pal.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 1:35pm

74. BTW, do you really think that inceasing tax rates will affect the mega-millionaires? They are the ones who can afford to find the loopholes. All you'll accomplish is crush the small business owners.

    Posted by usc1 at 06/9/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    Ah yes...at least ONE of the usual cast or cons finally admits that the mega-rich routinely use their wealth to "find the loopholes"...

    ...in order to pay LESS than their fair share of taxes.

    Now, if only the rest of them would accept this obvious fact, we could begin to have a valid conversation about how to best insure the end of that ongoing practice.

    Posted by Lillian at 06/09/2008 @ 1:51pm

75. When it comes to neocon/hate radio noncompetition, you cite pure capitalism. In ACook's words, lefties have no alternative to Clear Channel because they're "dull and listening to the host is like having an allergic reaction"...

    When it comes to the decades old neocon foundational assertion that the domination of ABC, NBC, CNN, PBS are all super biased, the 'liberal media' which all the Clear Channel mouthpieces repeat day in and day out, WELL suddenly it's not capitalism. It's just some vague mix of socialist / Hollywood / elitists - I know I know... over-regulation!

    When it comes to FOX, well it's back to the first claim. Success based on merit/talent.

    Limbaughian all the way - - - anything good, Bush-Rush/Cheney get credit, anything bad, blame the libs.

    Katrina? "60 years of liberal policies"... Let's see there's been 8 of Bush, before that 8 of Clinton, before that 8 of Bush, 8 of Reagan...

    Maybe third grade "rationale", middle school at best?

    Posted by winyahn at 06/09/2008 @ 1:54pm

76. Woops, 4 Herbert Walker... Beyond this, are we really blaming Carter for Katrina? Limbaugh was addicted not only to prescriptions but to blaming Clinton for the longest time after Bush was in. Years. He's a little cagey about this now, as 1- it's patently, hilariously absurd, and 2- he's been trying so hard to get Hillary nominated.

    Posted by winyahn at 06/09/2008 @ 1:59pm

77. ..in order to pay LESS than their fair share of taxes.

    Posted by Lillian

    every legal "loophole" is fine with me. I would do nothing less.

    I believe the problem lies instead with the tax code, which has been changed over and over again to benefit the rich and the super rich.

    so, even if they neglected to scour the tax code for benefit, they would still not be paying their fair share.

    that is why I favor the resumption of the 90% TOP tax bracket. it worked before, we actually paid for the war then, it will work again.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 2:04pm

78. 90% top tax rate? Emile, I think you should have spent less time in college studying romance languages and more time studying economics.

    Posted by jimmylove at 06/09/2008 @ 2:35pm

79. jimmylove

    my field of study was German literature. since then, I have been a student of history, musicology, dance history etc.

    as far as the 90% tax bracket is concerned, I am reporting what was US tax policy during WW2, in the post war era and again during the Korean war. these were temporary measures, dictated by war. afterwards the rates were lowered, though not to the absurdly low rates we have now.

    I will leave it to you to provide an economist's analysis of our past tax policy. a drive by such as your will not suffice.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 3:05pm

80. ...such as yours...

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 3:06pm

81. BTW, ED

    "who is talking of raising your taxes by 90%? strawman."

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/9/2008

    "that is why I favor the resumption of the 90% TOP tax bracket."

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/9/2008

    Posted by usc1 at 06/09/2008 @ 3:08pm

82. usc1

    as I said the top tax bracket is and was for multi millionaires, a group I am sure you are not a member off, guppy

    you're not so bright, are you?

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 3:17pm

83. in the 50s ELVIS was in the top tax bracket.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 3:20pm

84. lvliberty1

    my subject and the thread here is taxing the rich and super rich. pay attention.

    they're called MILLIONAIRES, capish?

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 3:40pm

85. I'm so sick of this myth that the right uses to try to prop up their belief that the rich are so oppressed. The right always like to say they are paying more in taxes than the poor. If you do the math the rich pay less of a percentage of their incomes than the poor. The reason they pay more money, not a higher percentage, is because they make 200 times more than everyone else. It follows that if the top 1% have 2 trillion dollars more than the bottom 90% then they would be paying more total cash into the system. That still does not mean they are paying a nearly similar percentage. The top 1% could pay .2% of their total yearly income and still would pay more than 60% of America. Hell the could pay .05% of their income and still be paying more. Why? Because they make billions of dollars a year. If they were paying the same percentage as everyone else they would be paying their fair share. If you want to make the income tax fair then make everyone pay a fair percentage of their income. Don't taper the system so the rich pay a smaller percent of their income. While the poor and especially the middle class pay large percentages of their income every year.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/09/2008 @ 3:40pm

86. Liverty, your math too is faulty. the top tax bracket is what 35%? when we raise them to the 90% bracket, that is not an increase of 90%.

    am I surrounded by idiots today?

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 3:42pm

87. when the gov't takes in more taxes, jobs are also created. well paying gov't jobs, jobs with health care and a pension.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 3:51pm

88. when we give tax cuts to the poor, they spend more money, and jobs are created.

    when we give tax cuts to the middle class, same thing.

    the rich and super rich do not need tax cuts, they are already rich and super rich.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 4:01pm

89. JOMAMMA

    what is the national debt of France? what is the national debt of the US?

    France 750 billion

    US 9.4 TRILLION

    no problem?

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 4:12pm

90. WHAT THE FUCK IS A WIND FALL PROFIT?

    ..By what economic law will this lower the pump price? How? The increase will be passed onto the final cost to the consumer...

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/9/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    Sort of begs the question...'If you have no idea what a 'windfall profits tax' is, how do you know it will raise the price to the consumer?

    In reality, I beleive ther term would more acurately be described as an 'excess profits tax'...which, be definition, CANNOT be passed on to consumers (any attempt to do so simply results in a larger 'excess profit' and a greater tax burden to the manufacturer.)

    Posted by Lillian at 06/09/2008 @ 4:45pm

91. So, now we need to hear more about the cause of this particlular ramping up of oil prices. It is NOT a problem with refining capability...or with supplies (both of which are at all-time highs.)

    While John seems to think the problem is with increased demand, every actual expert on the subject has been writing for months how the upsurge in oil prices is due to increased activity by SPECULATORS.

    Will an 'excess profits tax' lower prices at the pump. No, of course not. But, it WILL create a disincentive for continued price increases AND capture for alternative energy programs, dollars that would otherwise simply line the pockets of the oil execs.

    Posted by Lillian at 06/09/2008 @ 4:51pm

92. Now we've also been hearing the constant drumbeat from the right that we should be drilling everywhere....ANWR, off our coasts, in the Gulf, etc. Increased production is their mantra.

    But let's examine that, shall we?

    First they need to explain how increasing production fixes a problem caused by speculation.

    Then they need to explain just how much oil they think is there to be found...because any sane person will know that it's not going to be enough to suddenly control the market.

    Then they need to explain whether they think the Saudis, and other big oil producers like the higher prices or not.

    Then they need to explain how this new supply is going to cause a downturn in prices...considering that, in response to any effort we can mount to increase supply as a way to lower prices, all the Saudis need to do is turn their own supply dial down just a smidge to compensate and keep the price exactly where THEY like it.

    While we're at it, I'd love to hear what happens to our vital defense infrastructure, that requires copeous amounts of oil to keep the tanks running and jet fighter flying, once all we've drilled and pumped all of OUR oil into the SUVs and Hummers of those now demanding cheaper pump prices.

    Please...explain.

    Posted by Lillian at 06/09/2008 @ 5:14pm

93. ED

    1) You need to differentiate between rich, super-rich, and other groups, just so we're clear.

    2) You can't give tax cuts to people that aren't paying taxes...call it what it is...wealth redistribution.

    3) I hope you aren't naive enough to believe that the marginal tax rates are going to jump from 30%ish for the "well to do" to 90% for the super-rich. Nope...there will be a incremental increases in the rates as income increases...I believe you like to call it "progressive taxation." So, yes, the hard-working Americans that you think you are sparing will be hammered with higher tax rates...and the effects will (gasp!) trickle down to the lower class groups.

    4) As has been told to you before, the fastest growing group of millionaires are the small business owners...you know, the ones who provide most of the jobs in this country.

    5) You have already agreed that the multi-millionaires can afford to find the necessary loop-holes in the tax laws, so you should also understand that any increase in taxes will affect the people you should be protecting...small business owners. The big fish won't be affected to any measurable degree.

    6) History has shown on multiple occasions that lower tax rates lead to increased revenue to government...that is after all the point of taxes isn't it? Why do you persist in a line of thinking that has been proven time and again to decrease revenue to government? (Actually, I loved it when Barak Obummer was blind-sided with a similar question during the debates...seeing him struggle to come up with somethin meaningful before changing subjects was priceless.)

    Posted by usc1 at 06/09/2008 @ 5:17pm

94. refinerys have not been added since 1976..might be the cause of some of the higher prices...

    .

    Oh sure, that **might** be the case...except it's not. Let's at least try to keep the discussion based in reality OK?

    Speculation IS the culprit. Not 'also' the culprit. Again, let's try to keep the discussion reality-based.

    Posted by Lillian at 06/09/2008 @ 5:17pm

95. Actually, let me give a wonderful example. John Edwards wanted to increase taxes to make sure everyone was paying their "fair share"...whatever that means. What he didn't say was that, as a multi-millionaire, his income was protected from any increase in SS tax by his S Corp...so he would have been exempt from this increase while millions of hard-working Americans took the hit.

    (Did anyone really buy into his "2 Americas" BS anyway? Never mind... already answered.)

    Posted by usc1 at 06/09/2008 @ 5:38pm

96. I will leave it to you to provide an economist's analysis of our past tax policy. a drive by such as your will not suffice.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/9/2008

    Emile, why don't your fields of study surprise me? A starry-eyed idealist who thinks that the solutions to our problems is a matter of simple arithmetic...like most liberals.

    I do economic analysis for a living, and I could write pages and pages about how complicated the matter of taxation in a society really is, but 1) I have a job and don't have time to sit here all day, and 2) it would probably bore everyone to death.

    Instead, I'll offer some brief statistics on the reality of the tax burden in America:

    * The top 1% of wage earners pay 37% of taxes * The top 10% pays 68% * The top 25% pays 85% * The top 50% pays 97% * The bottom 50% pays 3%

    As a very bright man once told me very astutely: the facts always get in the way of a good story.

    Posted by jimmylove at 06/09/2008 @ 5:52pm

97. Posted by jimmylove at 06/9/2008

    So it's more important, dipshit, to buy a luxury car, than a loaf of bread?

    Posted by Sorelish at 06/09/2008 @ 5:59pm

98. Sorelish,

    If your sophisticated analogy was directed at me, could you please explain what you mean? I'm not smart enough to figure out what part of my email you're referring to, and how it relates.

    Posted by jimmylove at 06/09/2008 @ 6:09pm

99. Posted by jimmylove at 06/9/2008

    Simply put, what do YOU think the outlay should be? I've met too many who think those convenience clerks aren't paying their fair share.

    Posted by Sorelish at 06/09/2008 @ 6:18pm

100. I know of three instances where the US charged the richest citizens the 90% tax. if it's so counterproductive, why did they do it three times?

     I'm taking all the heat here, but I'm not the one who instituted that tax. during WW2 I was not born. in the post war era and during the Korean war, I was respectively a toddler living in Vienna and a teen going to school in Germany.

     you people make me laugh. not a single one has a thoughtful answer. and not a single one acknowledges that this was US policy.

     a little context. Bush is spending as much as a trillion on the wars in the mid east. money that he's borrowing. I don't need an economics degree to realize this is a ruinous policy.

     you can ALL kiss my ass.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 6:28pm

101. Posted by Sorelish at 06/9/2008

     I assume when you say outlay, you mean distribution.

     The reality is that we have sufficient tax revenue in this country. The problem is how we manage our affairs. When operating a business that's having financial problems...what is the first thing you do? Raise prices on your largest customers? NO! The FIRST thing you do is look for opportunities to eliminate waste and inefficiency. Perhaps streamlining the bottom half of the income statement can restore profitability. The federal government works on the same principle. There is a budget and income statement. There are revenues and expenses. At the end of the period you're either in the black or in the red.

     The other basic problem about redistributing wealth through tax policy is that there is no value creation. Let's say there is a pool of $10. You could give one person all $10, 10 people $1, 5 people $2, or any other combination you wish, and at the end of the day, there is still only $10. The U.S. economy is about wealth creation, not wealth distribution. Some people will get ahead, and some will fall behind, as in all aspects the human experience. It doesn't mean that we don't have an obligation to care for the truly need in our society. We do, and we should. But whether you like it or not, capitalism is the system we chose. Everyone born in this country knows the rules. It is that relentless pursuit of financial security, and the rugged individualism that it requires, which has made our country what it is. To this day, people risk their lives to cross our borders in dream of a better life. They are not coming for a guarantee -- they are simply coming for an opportunity. That's all they ask...and they're happy and eager to fight for the rest. It often seems that the people who are not born here understand the rules better than those that are.

     Posted by jimmylove at 06/09/2008 @ 6:47pm

102. JOMAMMA

     psst, they are talking about the oil companies, not gas station owners. you must learn to pay attention.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 6:54pm

103. I do economic analysis for a living,

     and you haven't had a single relevant thing to say about the tax policy of the US which included a 90% top rate.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 6:57pm

104. Posted by jimmylove at 06/9/2008

     Think I'll sign off with a hearty KMA myself. Take your argument to the nearest charter school.

     Posted by Sorelish at 06/09/2008 @ 6:59pm

105. That is because a 90% tax rate IS irrelevent...and criminal, no matter when they bhad it..

     Posted by JOMAMMA

     and you call yourself a patriot?

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 7:15pm

106. Emile,

     That 90% top pay rate concept is clearly your go-to argument in how we fix the economic challenges in this country. As I've said before, this is not a matter of simple arithmetic.

     While you continue to harp about historical examples of a 90% top marginal rate, what you may not know is that less than 100 years ago, we had virtually NO income taxes in this country. In 1913, I believe we started at 1% of income and capped it at 7% for people making $500k...a massive sum in 1913.

     What you also either don't know, or are conveniently omitting, is that we've had onerous top marginal tax rates during peacetime post WWII. The maximum rate in 1954 remained at 87%. In 1981, Reagan's historic tax cut of 25% still kept the top rate at 50%. Moreover, over the aforementioned 100 years of history, we've had all sorts of other taxes piled onto our bill. We also have the second highest corporate tax rates in the world.

     We pay enough. We need to run our business better. That includes George Bush; it includes Congress. It includes our entire representative government comprised of both parties. The government needs to be run like we run our businesses and how we run our households. When we're in the red, we make sacrifices. We are not Denmark. We are not Sweden. We are the United States. It is part of our philosophy to minimize the tax burden in this nation and let people realize their successes in direct proportion to the sacrifices they pay for them. In the words of Thomas Jefferson:

     "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

     But if you really want to believe that a 90% top marginal rate is the answer to our problems, go on. Simple arithmetic for simple minds.

     Posted by jimmylove at 06/09/2008 @ 7:17pm

107. "It is that relentless pursuit of financial security, and the rugged individualism that it requires, which has made our country what it is."

     tell it to the financial firms that just got a huge bail out from the dreaded gov't.

     can you believe this crap? I can't. "rugged individualism"

     hahahahahaha.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 7:18pm

108. "While you continue to harp about historical examples of a 90% top marginal rate, what you may not know is that less than 100 years ago, we had virtually NO income taxes in this country. In 1913, I believe we started at 1% of income and capped it at 7% for people making $500k...a massive sum in 1913."

     what I may not know? are you nuts?

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 7:22pm

109. But if you really want to believe that a 90% top marginal rate is the answer to our problems, go on. Simple arithmetic for simple minds.

     Posted by jimmylove

     right, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and their respective congress, simple minds all.

     you are a joke, kid, and yes an immature boor. and bore.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 7:23pm

110. What you also either don't know, or are conveniently omitting, is that we've had onerous top marginal tax rates during peacetime post WWII. The maximum rate in 1954 remained at 87%

     what I don't know? you impudent puppy. this what I've been talking about all day.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 7:26pm

111. "We pay enough."

     yeah you and the multi millionaires.

     hahahahahaha.

     you guys are sheep who don't realize that you're being fleeced.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 7:29pm

112. On the surface...the oil is there..how much?

     Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/9/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

     .

     So your argument...on the surface...appears to be attempting to make the claim that, if all restrictions on exploration and development were removed, the US could dominate the Saudis and other big producers in the oil market....is that what you really **meant** to say?

     Because I don't think that even the **most** optimistic US oil execs are trying to make that one, John.

     Posted by Lillian at 06/09/2008 @ 7:43pm

113. Please...one more time...can we at least **try** to keep the discussion 'reality-based'?

     Posted by Lillian at 06/09/2008 @ 7:44pm

114. Emile, You are nothing but an angry partisan. It's so ironic that the left in America claims to be the party of tolerance, inclusion, and respect for other points of view. Perhaps the blogosphere is your opportunity to take out your failures and frustrations in life on other people. Perhaps you didn't get enough hugs as a child. If you're ever in Los Angeles, drop me a line. I'll give you a hug.

     Posted by jimmylove at 06/09/2008 @ 7:44pm

115. Speculators...they only move into and out of certain arenas due to fears..to show we are willing to reduce any amount of dependence on foreign oil will go a long way to get them moving out of oil,...

     Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/9/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

     .

     Really? Explain how.

     See, in addition to the actions of speculators (those would be **global** speculators BTW, John...dealing in **global** oil markets not just American ones), the current price spike is also tightly coupled to the devaluation of the dollar against pretty much every other currency...but particularly the EUro.

     And there lies the difficulty with your argument John...and the arguement of all the'why-don't-we-just-drill-our-way-out-of-these-high-gas-prices' crowd.

     It's a global market. And it's controlled by the Saudis. And our power to influence it is rapidly declining, as the value of our money declines.

     And obviously, the **best** way to reduce our dependancy on foriegn oil...is to reduce our dependancy **on** oil. Hello?

     And once we do reduce our dependancy on oil, what do you think will happen to the worldwide **demand** for oil, John? Yes, I know...China, India, other developing nations. But the US STILL consumes the most oil...and that consumption continues to rise...even as the consuption of oil in those other nations also continues to rise. But what would happen to the **worth** of oil should the US suddenly double our efficience use of the stuff...and cut our oil consuption in half?

     And what would happen to the notion of speculators trying to make a fast buck on it?

     Posted by Lillian at 06/09/2008 @ 7:58pm

116. And LIL,

     What do you think windfall taxes and $ 1.00 gallon tax Obie wants to add to a gallon of gas will do to todays high prices..who will that hurt?

     Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/9/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

     .

     Wow, I notice you are still trying to cling to the 'windfall' thing even after I explained the differnce between that and an 'excess prfits' tax. See, if it's an excess profits tax of $1.00, and the oil companies try to just pass that on to consumers, their tax obligation just goes up by that same amount. So, you tell me...why would they raise their price if it results in their own tax obligation going up by an equal amount?

     Posted by Lillian at 06/09/2008 @ 8:03pm

117. My friend owns 4 Cheveron stations...his gas profit?

     Less than 4 cents..CENTS a gallon...his money makers? Beer, Cigs, candy....

     Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/9/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

     .

     See, now you've wondered away from the reality-based conversation again, John.

     We were talking about oil companies...not gas stations owners. Remember? (There's a pretty significant difference.)

     Please try to focus.

     Do a quick google on profits of the top 4 or 5 oil companies over the past 8 years, John.

     Then let's resume the reality-based conversation.

     Posted by Lillian at 06/09/2008 @ 8:07pm

118. Winyahn, have you ever heard of this new fangled thing called state and local government?

     Posted by marybretbrad at 06/9/2008

     Good, sarcastic point. You cherry pick, then hit and run. You're often more classy...

     I was a being one-sided to underscore certain problems. For one, neocons claim to be for laissez-fair & states rights. Blaming Louisiana / NO therefore is a cheap deflection. Shall we then just assume that any given state in a states rights neocon nation may fail its population in a time of disaster?

     IMO, there's no getting around the problems -poverty, massive incarceration, AIDS, infantile mortality that result, here, Africa, S. America wherever there's weak / corrupt / inefficient government. And the state/local dodge or Ayn Rand libertarian as cool as it is on paper, just doesn't cut it. I wish Ayn Rand's world translated better, but in my experience and travels cycles of problems, involving children and health, arise and grow, self-perpetuate where there's a lack of rule of law, proper business/growth, health, education regulation - yes, bureaucracy. The name of the game is balancing small govt goal with the goals inherent to the major domains: environment / safety / health / education, etc.

     Katrina was essentially like a foreign attack. IMO, it is less efficient for individual states to be responsible for mass-scale disaster management. It's more efficient for this to fall under homeland security, same with massive wildfires, and disasters of this magnitude.

     Anyway, you may be with Limbaugh and Barbara Bush on this one?

     Posted by winyahn at 06/09/2008 @ 8:12pm

119. It's a global market. And it's controlled by the Saudis.

     Lil, that is certainly not true. you don't believe that the saudis control non Opec countries, who are big players. while they may have a great influence, I don't think you can say they control OPEC.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 8:19pm

120. C

     o

     n

     s

     e

     r

     v

     a

     t

     i

     o

     n

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 8:20pm

121. and as far as higher gas prices on the way...no doubt about it.

     the guys in charge of the last 8 years are in no way responsible. yes? but look out for the next pres. is that your position Maasch?

     "You and JR may well get your wish in Nov...and your desired policys will be put in place.."

     say whaaat?

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 8:23pm

122. Get real.

     Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/9/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

     .

     Oh sure John. Why, there is just NO WAY we could ever get by unless we continue to BE dependant on oil...so lets not even try to reduce consumption.

     I mean, what we we all do without our Hummers and SUVs? How could we possibly deal with the sheer....inconvenience!!

     OK, let's get real John. We could easily reduce our dependance on oil...if we tried.

     Turn of my heater? How about solar heat?...you know...that big HOT ball in the sky? We can use that to heat our water...and store the energy for later use...like at night. Cool huh?

     And get this John...they have this new technology that can take that energy from the sun...and convert it into...air conditioning!! No oil burned at all! Isn't that amazing?

     And please explain how our economy would 'drop like a rock' if we cut our oil use in half. I'm just not buying that load of BS...sorry.

     For every 'ceiling wax' and 'buggy whip' manufacturer that goes out of business, theres some other industry 'mover and shaker' who will take his place. And many industries are seeing the light...as they say. Remember all of those incadnescant light bulbs GE used to make?...now they are making a killing on fluorescents.

     It's time to move on from our dependance on oil. You admitted yourself that the price of oil would drop like a rock.

     Our economy doesn't HAVE to be oil-based. Simple fact.

     Posted by Lillian at 06/09/2008 @ 8:35pm

123. every 'ceiling wax' and 'buggy whip'

     with your permission:

     it's sealing wax, used with a seal, to seal something, a document usually. nothing to do with your ceiling.

     of course you knew that, but there may be impressionable young minds here.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 8:50pm

124. Profit is not a dirt word..it is what creates ALL the jobs, taxes, and govt boondoggles you love....

     Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/9/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

     .

     OK John...back to google for you.

     Once you get those figures on the obscene amounts of profits the oil companies have raked in over the past 8 years, next you google the figures on unemployment to see if these oil company profits actually translated more jobs as you are claiming.

     Posted by Lillian at 06/09/2008 @ 8:52pm

125. Lil, just do what I do. just believe the opposite of what Maasch posts. it's amazing how well that works.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 8:55pm

126. it's sealing wax, used with a seal, to seal something, a document usually. nothing to do with your ceiling.

     of course you knew that, but there may be impressionable young minds here.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/9/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

     .

     Ok Emile...you're right. (Thats what I get for trying to rush that post and get home to the family.)

     Thanks for keeping me honest.

     Posted by Lillian at 06/09/2008 @ 8:56pm

127. The leftist answer:

     Steal all of our earnings to give it to the government. That is because the left believes that people are too stupid to make decisions on their own.

     Unionize the nation so that mediocrity becomes the norm

     Force every child into a government run school program so that you will be indocrinated into the socialist agenda that the teachers promote.

     How about instead of KVH's formula:

     Abolish the IRS-get rid of government control over our income and our privacy.

     Abolish the public education system and the heavy property taxation to fund it. Home schooling costs about 80-90% less than public schooling.

     Abolish the unions with their maxist led leadership.

     Promote home gardens and community gardens so as to provide quality foods at affordable prices

     Encourage entrepeneurship-we have about 50 million Americans who are trying to build home based businesses to take control of their lives. This can be expanded by easing all of the rediculous ever expanding government controls over what you can do from your own home. There was a time when a great majority of Americans either farmed or ran businesses from their homes. Go to Asia-it is the normal practice in countries like Taiwan and the Philippines.

     With the government out of the business of stealing through taxation, a side benefit will be the elimination of all the credits and subsidies to corporations. This will help to level the playing field in bringing new technologies to market.

     posted by LVliberty

     So, no public schooling, that would equal no education for any who can't afford private schools. Which in todays post industrial ecomomy, basically means no opportunity for economic advancement. Also, last I checked, most history classes in public school don't teach from A Peoples History of the United States, but rather a much more pro European/American POV. Painting Columbus as a hero, skipping over or briefly mentioning the Trail of Tears, presenting the Mexian-American war as a just war as opposed to a land grab, ignoring how brutal the American occupation of the Phillipines was during the Spanish-American War etc. Also, I'm sorry, most parents aren't qualified to teach their kids, it's not how our specialized economy works.

     As to your other points. I'd LOVE to see a home and community garden plan that could feed a city the size of New York City, New York, or hell even Portland, Oregon. If you in your infinite wisdom can come up with one, I'll be floored. As for the encouraging of entrepreneurship, well such things are usually encouraged by government with either tax incentives or subsidies. since we've already eliminated both of them, I fail to see exactly who would do this encouraging, or what form it would take. Please enlighten me.

     Your plans having to do with the economy don't really show me a reason why a mega corporation would ever give up it's inherent advantages in man power and resources. Indeed in order to keep profits as high as possible I see every reason for them to squish potential competition. After all, why take part of the pie, if you can have all of it? This would actually lead to a situation where being an entrepreneur was harder, as government wouldn't be doing anything to stop a mega corporation like Viacom or Sony from either buying out entrepreneurs or else driving them out of the market.

     Posted by shadow master at 06/09/2008 @ 9:17pm

128. "Once you get those figures on the obscene amounts of profits the oil companies have raked in over the past 8 years"

     This has already been covered. They make huge profits because...well...the world keeps using lots and lots of oil. If you look at their profit margins you will find that they make, on average, less profit per dollar than most US companies...BTW, the oil companies have been "investigated" for price gouging, etc. by Congress something like 30 times since the '70s.

     How many times have they been found guilty?

     ZERO

     Posted by usc1 at 06/09/2008 @ 9:17pm

129. And another thing...Google posted a 25% profit in its last quarter. Where are all the calls for a windfall profit tax on them?!?

     Posted by usc1 at 06/09/2008 @ 9:19pm

130. Kudos to Jimmy, MBB and JM. When you reduce the libs' retorts to "kiss my ass"...I say job well done.

     Posted by usc1 at 06/09/2008 @ 10:38pm

131. "So your argument...on the surface...appears to be attempting to make the claim that, if all restrictions on exploration and development were removed, the US could dominate the Saudis and other big producers in the oil market."

     "And there lies the difficulty with your argument John...and the arguement of all the'why-don't-we-just-drill-our-way-out-of-these-high-gas-prices' crowd.

     It's a global market. And it's controlled by the Saudis. And our power to influence it is rapidly declining, as the value of our money declines."

     http://www.huliq.com/55773/massive-oil-deposit-could-increase-us-reserve s-10-times

     http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

     So...yes, we could actually have a markedly higher influence in the global energy market if your kind would get out of the way...and please take note that the GIGANTIC oil reserve discovered in the upper Plains states started with a well in ND that was going to provide only 700,000 barrels. Imagine what might be hiding under ANWR. Actually, you wouldn't have to imagine it if you myopic libs had signed on to drilling up there 10 years ago when the issue was brought up. And what was your argument back then??? Why, it would take ten years before we could use that oil!!!

     HMMMMMM...

     Posted by usc1 at 06/09/2008 @ 11:02pm

132. To all conservatives advocating tax cuts:

     Where is the evidence supporting your claims. By evidence I mean data comparing economic growth with tax rates. The US economy managed to have high growth during the post war years while at the same time having high marginal tax rates. Historically, there is little evidence to support the assertion that lower taxes lead to increased economic growth. More details can be found at http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm. What the tables in this article show is that the US economy has grown under both high and low marginal tax rates. According to this article, tax rates have very little impact on the economy. So unless you can demonstrate that the data presented in this article is incorrect or its interpretation is wrong, stop promoting tax cuts as a panacea for our economic woes. All you are doing confirming that you are nothing more than right wing idealogues.

     Posted by timdor at 06/09/2008 @ 11:35pm

133. And what was your argument back then???

     Posted by usc1 at 06/9/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

     Actually, my argument back then was the exact same as it is now.

     We can conserve more oil than we can pull out of ANWR...at absolutely zero risk to the environment.

     Too bad you all didn't listen...and bought gas-guzzling SUVs instead.

     Posted by Lillian at 06/10/2008 @ 12:32am

134. So...yes, we could actually have a markedly higher influence in the global energy market

     Posted by usc1 at 06/9/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

     Oh sure...and there were WMDs...and they were going to greet us with roses as liberators...and victory is just around the corner.

     See, that's the problem with this tactic where you look at what people actually say...and replace their "could be" and "has the potential to" and replace it with certainty.

     Others have a tendance not tobeleive your BS after that.

     Posted by Lillian at 06/10/2008 @ 12:37am

135. So now let's pretend that the oil guys are perfectly accurate and this new discovery in ND will yield all of the cheap oil they say it will.

     Sort of leads to an inescapable concllusion...

     ...drilling in ANWR isn't needed...and was never needed.

     Man, I'm so glad we cleared that up.

     Posted by Lillian at 06/10/2008 @ 12:42am

136. "We can conserve more oil than we can pull out of ANWR...at absolutely zero risk to the environment."

     Sorry, numbers please. If you can't produce any...I'll be forced to believe that what your spouting is just BS.

     Considering everything that petroleum is used for...we still need (and needed) to drill in ANWR. Oil reserves do little good sitting in the ground...and conservation does little good for the people who are suffering NOW from gas prices. If we had drilled in ANWR ten years ago (and all the other places that (mostly) liberals have prevented), there would be considerable relief from the prices. (I forget the numbers somebody else posted, but I'll let you look them up).

     Posted by usc1 at 06/10/2008 @ 07:55am

137. "See, that's the problem with this tactic where you look at what people actually say...and replace their "could be" and "has the potential to" and replace it with certainty.

     Others have a tendance not tobeleive your BS after that."

     You're floundering...you realize that the oil reserves in the US now rival that of Saudia Arabia, don't you? Do you honestly believe that won't have an effect on the global market AND our dependence on foreign oil?!?

     Posted by usc1 at 06/10/2008 @ 08:00am

138. "So now let's pretend that the oil guys are perfectly accurate and this new discovery in ND will yield all of the cheap oil they say it will.

     Sort of leads to an inescapable concllusion...

     ...drilling in ANWR isn't needed...and was never needed."

     I've already resonded to this somewhat in my previous post, but...let me get this straight...drilling across three states where people actually LIVE is preferable in your mind to drilling in some northern corner of the world where nobody goes?!?

     Posted by usc1 at 06/10/2008 @ 08:02am

139. Lil,

     At some point you're going to have to come to grips with the fact that we are suffering in our current oil/gas situation due to the liberal do-gooders and their restrictions and regulations that have prevented us from extracting our own oil and left us dependent on (and at the mercy of) foreign governments that may or may not play nice. There's no denying that.

     Posted by usc1 at 06/10/2008 @ 08:07am

140. And just for good measure...

     "We can conserve more oil than we can pull out of ANWR"

     "See, that's the problem with this tactic where you look at what people actually say...and replace their "could be" and "has the potential to" and replace it with certainty."

     Et tu?

     Posted by usc1 at 06/10/2008 @ 08:09am

141. I am so sick and tired of listening to people defend the greed and the disparity that exists in America today. All of this started with jobs being shipped overseas, and politicians that allowed that to happen unchecked...Addressing that would be a start in the right direction, to begin the economic cycle circulating in our own country again versus our corporations bolstering other economies(India, China).. Everyone sees it as a black and white issue...like you're either a capitalist pig or a communist...somewhere in the middle lies the truth and the answers. It has to start at the top with regulations on eg. shipping jobs overseas..Tax the companies heavily for the priviledge of doing that. Explain how it's justified to lay people off and ship their jobs overseas, meanwhile paying the CEO and board of directors exorbitant salaries...That is where the inequity begins and won't be addressed until that is addressed

     Posted by ErinD at 06/10/2008 @ 09:04am

142. GM is closing the SUV factories. what does that tell you?

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008 @ 09:12am

143. jes' one more thing, Maasch: you are an employee of your business. you neither own the business, nor are the the boss.

     just for comparison. I invented my job and I have been operating as sole owner for thirty years. during this time I have had my ups and downs. recently my clients have been large educational and cultural institutions, such as the Library of Congress, the New York Public Library, Montclair State University etc.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008 @ 09:17am

144. timdor

     this is good.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008 @ 09:18am

145. JOMAMMA

     as always I look forward to your new york visit. we may disagree, sometimes vehemently, but I have never found you personally disagreeable, and I have often defended you against uncalled for attacks.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008 @ 09:44am

146. apropos the 90% top tax rate. not a single one of my critics was able to state why it was a good idea then, and isn't now. how do I know it was a good idea then? well three presidents and congress obviously thought so ,as they resorted to this no fewer than three times.

     all I get is posturing about how I don't know anything and they are such eminent economists, which produced much mirth on my side.

     as for those wishing to throw out our educational establishment and starting over, that is the most preposterous idea. how about we throw out the entire military establishment and start over. their success rate hasn't been so good lately.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008 @ 09:59am

147. USC

     re: oil reserves ... you seem to be dreaming. We have nowhere near the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. (Unless you are counting oil shale, and even then it is questionable.) As to ANWR, if we used only ANWR oil it would last about a year. And the poster who stated we could save more in efficiency than we could get from the AK fields is correct.

     As oil gradually goes away over the next few decades we will see a cascade in other peripheral industries - like the recent 20% price hike in plastics. Oil is the backbone of many other products and is much too valuable to burn.

     Sadly we seem to be stuck in the "frontier mentality" which assumes that resources are infinite and our environmental impact is negligible. Neither, however, holds true these days and it seems that only something truly dire and perhaps even catastrophic will cause the needed shift to a more sustainable world.

     To stay in the vein that some have wandered around here, my position: Asst. Prof of Earth & Env. Science ...

     Posted by leftofcenter at 06/10/2008 @ 10:31am

148. leftofcenter

     I hope you get tenure, should you wish it.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008 @ 10:42am

149. emile ...

     Me too, although my position, while permanent, isn't a tenure track at present. Indiana is kinda funny about tenure and unions in higher ed.

     Saw you mention Montclair .. my former PhD advisor is an Assoc Dean there...

     Posted by leftofcenter at 06/10/2008 @ 10:49am

150. Montclair has a decidedly avant garde performance series. I wanted the job to document that. I walked right up to the producer and shamelessly pitched him. and I got it.

     one advantage of age is that you know almost everyone in your field, and almost everyone knows you.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008 @ 11:06am

151. Posted by OneVote at 06/9/2008

     I don't have the data.

     Posted by marybretbrad at 06/9/2008 |

     I not sure anyone but the Internal Revenue Service has the data to make the comparison of unadjusted gross income to actual taxes paid. A public records request would likely be stonewalled.

     Flat tax proponents recognize that adjusted gross or taxable income comparisons to taxes paid is an unfair and misleading comparison.

     Many states have adopted taxes based on a flat percentage of undadjusted gross as the only viable means out of the quagmire. While not proportionate, it is likely a step in the right direction to more equity and larger tax revenues. These issues will be front and center in coming years as the need to retire debt before we default becomes paramount. I think it safe to say, that we will all be paying higher taxes in the future.

     Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2008 @ 11:25am

152. Once you get those figures on the obscene amounts of profits the oil companies have raked in over the past 8 years, next you google the figures on unemployment to see if these oil company profits actually translated more jobs as you are claiming.

     Posted by Lillian at 06/9/2008

     Goggle all the figures on the fine job the education system have prepared our future workers to do..you know, lawn mowing, clerking, work for govt.(all unionised, of course)...

     Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/10/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

     .

     See John...you made the claim that oilk profits are **a good thing** because profits create jobs.

     The I asked for the simple proof...compare the oil company profits with the employment rate.

     Instead of doing that...you changed tack, made a whole bunch of stupid assumptions about me, and pretended like you know oh so much more that everyone else (school's out?)

     See, the fact that oil costs (and profits) have gone so obscenely high has resulted in ALL KINDS of problems for the economy...including DECREASED employment John...the exact opposite of our claim.

     Which is why you changed tack.

     .

     You make my point..to you profits are obscene...

     Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/10/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

     .

     See, you try to make your point by lying about what I actually said. I didn't say that 'profits' were obscene...did I. I said that the profits that the oil companies have been raking over the past 8 years have been obscene. They've been setting records for profits year after year, not just here but in Europe, while driving the economies of this and other countries into the tank. Lots of people are being hurt, loosing jobs, having to pay more for everything, being forced into 'obscene' decisions about what to sacrifice to make sure they can heat their homes...or get to work.

     Apparently that's the difference between you and I. While I have no problem AT ALL with profits per se, I DO think it's ENTIRELY possible for profits to become 'obscene'. Here's an extreme example...you have a water well and people are dying of thirst. You want to sell your water and make a profit. I have no problme with that. You want to charge people everything they own for a drink...that's obscene.

     But apparently, you think profits cannot ever become obscene.

     Posted by Lillian at 06/10/2008 @ 11:34am

153. LIL,

     After reading your responses to real life situautions I can only conclude that you ...

     not in business, but just "know" how business SHOULD be run....

     that you are not in any financial enterprise, but you just "know" how that industry SHOULD be run....

     Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/10/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

     .

     John, you have literally NO idea who am I am or what I do or how much money I make or how many people I employ or quite literally ANYTHING ELSE about me or my life...

     ...but you just **know** all that stuff about me?

     I won't claim (as you do) that this explains the entire thought process of whatever group I have you pegged into...

     ...but it certainly speaks volumes about YOU and YOUR thought process...doesn't it.

     Posted by Lillian at 06/10/2008 @ 11:44am

154. Emile, It's unfortunate that wisdom did not accompany any of that age.

     Posted by jimmylove at 06/10/2008 @ 12:06pm

155. Emile,

     It's unfortunate that wisdom did not accompany any of that age.

     Posted by jimmylove at 06/10/2008 @ 12:10pm

156. A lot of idiots commenting here. Only someone blinded by some ideology would fail to see that the gross inequality of income is destroying the middle class and pushing the poor into even deeper poverty.

     When I speak of the disparity in income I am not just talking about absolute numbers, all though those are pretty bad, but also relative purchasing power. $5 dollar gas has a lot less impact if you make $250,000 a year than if you make $40,000 a year (which not that long ago meant a comfrotable middle class life but not now) This is rapidly becoming a nation of "haves" and "have-nots".

     If you want to see where current trends lead read this article on India, supposedly a country with a great success story in the modern global economy. It is an excellent example of what happens when the few prosper and the many suffer.

     Inside Gate, India's Good Life; Outside, the Servants' Slums

     http://www.nytimes.com/ 2008/06/09/world/asia/ 09gated.html?scp=1&sq=june+ 09+2008&st=nyt

     Posted by wilsonhow at 06/10/2008 @ 1:16pm

157. LOC

     According to the links previously provided, the new discovery in the Plains states could contain up to 500 B barrels of oil...considered the largest discovery of oil since Saudia Arabia. On a separate link, it was estimated that S.A. had ~250 B in proven oil reserves.

     http://www.iags.org/n0331043.htm

     I don't accept the premise that we are "running out" of oil. It's the same scare tactic that's been used since the '70s. Every time you guys say it, we seem to find more...Our discvoery in the Plains, Brazil just discoverd a large oil formation, a few years ago Mexico did the same in the Gulf, I think even Canada has more oil in its tar sands than S.A....you guys never take into consideration advances in technology that incease our supply.

     That is not to say I'm against conservation or even renewable resources...but right now oil/gas are the cheapest, most accessible we've got. When other sources are just as affordable (or even close), you will see the shift away from oil that you so desire. However, when you try to force the issue and place prohibitively expensive regulations on its retrieval, you get the situation that we are in now.

     Posted by usc1 at 06/10/2008 @ 1:43pm

158. LOC

     According to the links provided, the new discovery in the Plains states could contain up to 500 B barrels of oil, considered the largest discovery of oil since Saudia Arabia. On a separate link, it was estimated that S.A. had ~250 B in proven oil reserves.

     http://www.iags.org/n0331043.htm

     I don't accept the premise that we are "running out" of oil. It's the same scare tactic that's been used since the '70s. Every time you guys say it, we seem to find more...Our discvoery in the Plains, Brazil just discoverd a large oil formation, a few years ago Mexico did the same in the Gulf, I think even Canada has more oil in its tar sands than S.A....you guys never take into consideration advances in technology that incease our supply.

     That is not to say I'm against conservation or even renewable resources...but right now oil/gas are the cheapest, most accessible we've got. When other sources are just as efficient and affordable (or even close), you will see the shift away from oil that you so desire. However, when you try to force the issue and place prohibitively expensive regulations on its retrieval, you get the situation that we are in now.

     Posted by usc1 at 06/10/2008 @ 1:44pm

159. Something's going on here...won't post my reply...sorry if this is triple posting somewhere in the ether...

     LOC

     According to the links provided, the new discovery in the Plains states could contain up to 500 B barrels of oil, considered the largest discovery of oil since Saudia Arabia. On a separate link, it was estimated that S.A. had ~250 B in proven oil reserves.

     http://www.iags.org/n0331043.htm

     I don't accept the premise that we are "running out" of oil. It's the same scare tactic that's been used since the '70s. Every time you guys say it, we seem to find more...Our discvoery in the Plains, Brazil just discoverd a large oil formation, a few years ago Mexico did the same in the Gulf, I think even Canada has more oil in its tar sands than S.A....you guys never take into consideration advances in technology that incease our supply.

     That is not to say I'm against conservation or even renewable resources...but right now oil/gas are the cheapest, most accessible we've got. When other sources are just as efficient and affordable (or even close), you will see the shift away from oil that you so desire. However, when you try to force the issue and place prohibitively expensive regulations on its retrieval, you get the situation that we are in now.

     Posted by usc1 at 06/10/2008 @ 1:47pm

160. Where, oh where is my reply to LOC?

     Posted by usc1 at 06/10/2008 @ 1:52pm

161. Emile, It's unfortunate that wisdom did not accompany any of that age.

     Posted by jimmylove

     you are incapable of reading for comprehension, and carrying on a cogent argument. grow up.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008 @ 2:33pm

162. John, what do you think of flabby whiney do-gooder tree-hugger wackos who want you to feel guilty about the exploitation of the otherwise worse-off impoverished uninsured brown-skinned poor folks working in grueling, dangerous conditions to find you all those precious rare rocks that make you so many hundreds of thousands of dollars so you can do all the important trickle-down good you do?

     Posted by winyahn at 06/10/2008 @ 2:51pm

163. I'd LOVE to see a home and community garden plan that could feed a city the size of New York City, New York, or hell even Portland, Oregon.

     Posted by shadow master at 06/9/2008

     Organopónico is the Cuban term for any urban garden. (It seems that before the special period began, the country had a few demonstration hydroponic gardens, much bragged about in official propaganda and quickly abandoned when the crisis hit. The high-tech-sounding name stuck, however, recycled to reflect the new, humbler reality.) There are thousands of organopónicos in Cuba, more than 200 in the Havana area alone, but the Vivero Organopónico Alamar is especially beautiful: a few acres of vegetables attached to a shady yard packed with potted plants for sale, birds in wicker cages, a cafeteria, and a small market where a steady line of local people come to buy tomatoes, lettuce, oregano, potatoes--twenty-five crops were listed on the blackboard the day I visited--for their supper. Sixty-four people farm this tiny spread. Their chief is Miguel Salcines López, a tall, middle-aged, intense, and quite delightful man.

     http://harpers.org/archive/2005/04/0080501

     talk to the commies.....

     Posted by frosty zoom at 06/11/2008 @ 01:32am

164. Cool. I think I follow your logic, just not sure what decades-old local policy you believe resulted in --- "the people didn't have cars or access to realtives with cars". Specifics are better than buzz words/phrases: liberal, help themselves, dependency, entitlement... but I do get clearly that specifics or not, you agree with the claim. Cool.

     Posted by winyahn at 06/11/2008 @ 11:18pm

165. why is it so easy to impeach clinton getting a b l o w j o b from a willing participant which impacted nobody else in the entire world but so hard to impeach bush and cheney when their actions have singlehandedly led to perhaps the end of our modern society??? if US leads by example, you better buy a horse now......or start learning how to raise a barn.....because oil will be gone soon....and I hope oil CEOS have to live on the street....

     both bubba and dubya were in the white house when they have committed their atrocities (I assume a b l o w j o b is an atrocity to neocons by their reaction)....but because bush never won the presidency, he cannot get impeached??? we can have vagina monologues but no talk of b l o w j o b s!!!!!! that is just going too far!!!!!we have to take a stand!!!

     I know there is a backlash against neocons right now, but it needs to be even more pronounced.....if you let their actions become status quo or merely unsatisfactory, our children's future will be extremely negatively affected...

     send a strong message to impeach bush NOW!!!!!! don't pull a (scottie)mcllellan and do it later after all the damage is done...that is cowardly, everybody needs to grow a pair, hillary had big brass ones, I am supporting Obama...I will support kermit the frog singing about green things while trying to sell a ford explorer before I vote for mccain.....call your state legislater, attorney, local rep or congressperson.......time and time again, I have heard superdelegates voting w/constituents...if you are apathetic, they will be too.....DON'T BE!!!!!

     Posted by jrs112 at 06/12/2008 @ 12:03pm

166. You are so right jrs112! I really hope wholeheartedly that people finally realize what's at stake here with power and wealth gone amok. When I read some of these blogs and the biggest reason that people fear an Obama presidency is their fear of higher taxes, I'm alarmed. You are in thhe top 5% of Americans if you even can be concerned about capital gains. I too would vote for any Disney character over McCain..What's truly amazing is they still find some magical way to blame the left for all the woes when their regime has been in power for practically the last decade..., and what good have they done for the people, remember them, the people, who government is supposed to be for,,,Unbelievable

     Posted by ErinD at 06/12/2008 @ 12:49pm

167. Posted by marybretbrad at 06/12/2008 |

     Isn't this just an undebatable truism?: all governments fall short of perfection. The sky's blue. Anyway, oddly enough I'm with neocon McClellan not neocon Limbaugh on the appropriateness of Bush's response Katrina.

     Posted by winyahn at 06/12/2008 @ 12:50pm

168. And New Orleans is a perfect example of the power gone amok on a smaller scale...The city has a history of political corruption(I know people that have lived there and they all concur with that) with money going into the pockets of a select few entitled people and the levies are what suffered in the long-run.(no money got invested back into the infrastructure)..They should be an example of what can happen if greed super-rules....

     Posted by ErinD at 06/12/2008 @ 12:57pm

169. The point is why is he even being penalized in the first place,,,and it affected noone other than him, and his wife....

     Bush's actions have a domino effect of screwing up the economy, killing innocent lives, etc etc.... i think the comparison is obvious

     Posted by ErinD at 06/12/2008 @ 1:35pm

170. Lil,

     At some point you're going to have to come to grips with the fact that we are suffering in our current oil/gas situation due to the liberal do-gooders and their restrictions and regulations that have prevented us from extracting our own oil and left us dependent on (and at the mercy of) foreign governments that may or may not play nice. There's no denying that.

     Posted by usc1 at 06/10/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

     .

     Actually this is a bogus argument and I deny it uncatagorically.

     To turn things around (to reality, actually) I would say that at some point YOU will need to come to grips with the fact that oil is a finite resource. We WILL run out at some point. There's no denying that.

     You will also need to come to grips with the fact that the reason we are suffering in the current situation we are in is because YOU cons have been fighting every attempt to conserve what oil we have left. You kept saying the market would take care of it. Well, you got your wish...the market is taking care of it. There's simply no denying THAT either.

     Posted by Lillian at 06/12/2008 @ 8:52pm

171. MBB ... how ignorant. Obviously trees can grow, coal reserves have long been projected to last for a couple centuries, but oil is created on geologic time scales and used up in human time scales. Will the they find some more ... sure, but finds are decreasing as Hubbert projected over half a century ago. Demand is increasing while the resource is decreasing. No amount of blind technological optimism will sway the facts.

     http://www.energybulletin.net/2544.html

     http://info.energyscenariosireland.com/Overview

     Posted by leftofcenter at 06/13/2008 @ 11:06am

172. The oil/gas crisis that we're in is being driven largely by futures speculation(greed), people betting on the future price of it.....This isn't a suppply/demand issue strictly speaking..It's not like the demand or supply has 'dramatically' gone in either direction in the last six months...We need to regulate this out of control behavior that drives the price of commodities upwards

     Posted by ErinD at 06/13/2008 @ 12:31pm

173. MBB ... two things then, A) can you posit a safe way to deal with nuclear waste? (As no one else sure has been able to yet) and B) uranium is diffusely distributed and its gathering, extraction, and purification are indeed among the most "impactful" of mineral ventures. This and the necessary redundancies built into nuke plants is why the energy they produce is on par with wind and solar thermal on a Kw/hour cost basis.

     On a sadder note. A moment of silence please as NBC's Tim Russert died this afternoon, June 13th 2008. A forthright journalist, he was 58 and died on the job....his political candor will be missed.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 06/13/2008 @ 4:02pm

174. People said the same thing about trees (the primary source of energy) at the end of the nineteenth centrury...

     Posted by marybretbrad at 06/13/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

     .

     Darin, seriously, if ever there was a time for you to admit that you occasionally say REALLY STUPID things that you should not have...

     ...THIS IS IT!

     Posted by Lillian at 06/13/2008 @ 9:08pm

175. My point is that technological advances will reduce the cost, and increase the safety of nuclear fission and nuclear fusion over then next century.

     Oil as a source of energy will become obsolete long before we risk running out of it.

     Posted by marybretbrad at 06/13/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

     .

     This i sbased on...what exactly.

     Nuclear power generation has been around for 50 years or so. Since the beginning, they've been trying to figure out how to make it safer.

     Since then, we've had 3 Mile Island...Chernoble...several submarine disaster...etc.

     We've also been warned that spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste could very well represent, if they fell into the hands of 'bad people' and got mixed with say, diesel fuel and nitrogen, a very simple and effective way to kill tens of thoussands of people. Not to mention what would happen if the "bad people' actually gain access to a nuclear power facility and cause a melt down.

     And see,we haven't even got CLOSE to figuring out how to make the stuff NOT be dealy for 10 thousand years.

     In 50 years of trying.

     But you can blithly say we'll figure it out...no problem.

     So what, we just build away and trust we'll figure the whole 'safety thing' out eventually?

     Posted by Lillian at 06/13/2008 @ 9:23pm

176. And somehow that is supposed to make MORE sense than conserving what oil we have, making everything more fuel efficient to stretch what oil we have even further,

     putting solar panels on our roofs to stretch what oil we have even further,

     putting windmills up to strecth what oil we have even further,

     using biofuels to stretch what oil we have even further,

     and converting to clean-coal technology to stretch what oil we have even further?

     Posted by Lillian at 06/13/2008 @ 9:27pm