Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditI was watching Charlie Rose on Wednesday night during the GOP confab, when Senator Orrin Hatch appeared and took this recurring shot used by the Republican attack dogs: "In all honesty the two Democrats are very fine people but they both are extremely left. They are both to the left of Bernie Sanders, who is the socialist from Vermont, if that doesn't tell you something I don't know what does. If you use the term liberal it really means something here."
What does it mean exactly Orrin? Nothing like a little tried and true red-baiting to distract attention from the issues and distort people's records. This isn't the first time the line has been used either – it's been used by Pat Buchanan, Bill Bennett, Haley Barbour and Candidate McCain himself.
I had a conversation last week with Senator Bernie Sanders – the only true Independent in the Senate (in contrast to Joe Lieberman whose "independence" is a matter of political expedience) – about what he makes of this tactic, his own political values, and how the 2008 campaign is playing out.
Q: So, tell me what you think about this GOP line of attack, you know, that ‘Obama and Biden are to the left of the socialist from Vermont'?
A: Well, that started a couple months ago with McCain himself, and then it's picked up a number of front people, and that's what it is – it's what the Republicans do very well. It's dishonesty, it's part of their fearmongering, and it's directly part of a red-baiting effort. Obviously, I should say that as somebody who is strongly supporting Obama and Biden – both of them are good friends of mine, I like them both very much… But the truth of the matter is, for better or worse – whatever the word "liberal" might mean, I don't exactly know what that word means – they are not more liberal than I am.
And as you know, where all of this comes from, is it comes from a tally by National Journal which tabulated some votes and reached their conclusion. Interestingly enough, do you recall who the most liberal Senator was four years ago? It was John Kerry. I think just on the surface most people would not have believed that four years ago Kerry was the most liberal person in the Senate, and I don't think anybody really believes that Obama is in the Senate today. Generally speaking, people would think that Kennedy, Boxer, Feingold, Brown, Harkin, myself… on almost all the issues would be far more progressive than Obama or Biden.
But, for the record, if we talk about – deal with the whole issue of what does it mean to be progressive? What does it mean to be liberal? How do you determine that? That's not easy stuff, that's pretty subjective. But just, for the record, I have the strongest pro-worker voting record in the United States Congress. After 18 years it's a 100% record. I doubt very much that Obama or Biden's environmental record, or record on consumer issues, or women's rights – you know, mine is in most cases 100%. So I think the more important issue is not tabulating votes because most of the votes that take place in the Senate or for that matter in the House, they deal with pretty perfunctory stuff. What is the liberal voting position on an assistant secretary of commerce? Or some process issue? So many of these votes don't mean a helluva lot. But, as it happens if you look at people who have the most anti-Bush voting record in the United States Senate, that's me, it's not Obama and it's not Biden.
More importantly, getting beyond votes, because most of the votes don't really get to the heart of what one believes philosophically or politically. I mean, if you ask for hard questions regarding the kinds of legislation that we introduce, the kind of fights that we are struggling for… I think on economics, if the struggle is for a more egalitarian society which says that there's something wrong with the richest 1% owning more wealth than the bottom 90%, well this is something that I have been fighting for – a more egalitarian society for my whole political life, I'm not quite sure that you're hearing Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden speaking out on those issues. On the issues of healthcare, you know I believe in a single payer national healthcare system. Certainly Obama and Biden do not. I've introduced the strongest global warming legislation – which, by the way, both Obama and Biden are on [as cosponsors]. The bottom line is that both Obama and Biden are very decent people. I think that they are gonna turn this country in a very different direction from where Bush has led us. I am strongly supporting them. But to suggest that they are quote-unquote "socialists" is totally absurd and part of the scare tactics of the Republicans. I think their worldview is certainly not socialist, it is solidly liberal, which I think is a helluva lot better than the right-wing extremism we have in the White House right now.
Q: As far as this redbating goes, what do you think Republicans are trying to scare people about – about you?
A: First of all, is they assume that when people hear the word socialist what they are talking about is the Soviet Union and communism. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders wants to renegotiate permanent normal trade relations with China – and George Bush just loves it by the way, and corporate America loves and is very proud of investing tens of billions of dollars in China, rather than in the United States, which is an interesting irony. And the Chamber of Commerce is very upset that the Chinese government wants to liberalize labor law in China, interestingly enough. You know, clearly what they are trying to do is what they always do, is confuse the social democratic policies which have been very successful in countries like Finland, Denmark, Sweden, other European countries – which guarantee healthcare to all people through a national healthcare program; which make sure that preschool education is available to all working families regardless of income; where in most cases college education is free or very inexpensive; where workers have more vacation time than they do in the United States; where unions are stronger… So, instead of looking at what goes on in some of the social democratic countries, which have virtually eliminated childhood poverty, while we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world – instead of looking at those policies, what they do is say, "This is socialism." Socialism we equate with communism, or authoritarianism, and lack of democracy. So, it's not a new tactic, it's been going on for about 40 or 50 years.
Q: So, I think it wouldn't be hard to make the argument that those things that you're standing for – probably are things that at this point most Americans want?
A: Exactly. And you know, The Nation was there at that town meeting we had with the Finnish Ambassador. If you tell the American people, "What do you think about making sure that we can have free preschool education for all kids in this country, rather than the desperate situation that working families are in right now?" What do you think people would say? I think they would be for it. What do you think about a national healthcare program guaranteeing healthcare to all people? People would be for that. What about free or virtually free college education? People would be for that. What about a more progressive tax system which asks the wealthy and large corporations to pay their fair share? People would be for that. What about investing in sustainable energy rather than giving tax breaks to oil companies? People would be for that. But, you know, obviously the Republican tactic is to simply use the word "socialist" which they have equated for years with authoritarian communism and Stalinism, and hope that that works and that's what this tactic is about.
Q: What do you think about the charges of elitism? You know, they say Obama is an elitist, Biden is an elitist… you probably….?
A: I'm an elitist, right. Uhm… the wealthiest people in this country – and candidates like McCain – who own 10 homes and are worth tens of millions of dollars, are not elitist… People like McCain who receive more funding from the oil companies and have as their advisors the heads of large multinational corporations are not elitists… But young people who grow up in middle class or lower-middle class families who work their way through college, are somehow elitist. Literally – alright – the truth is that once again what the Republicans are very good at is spin. And [they] are able to turn around the reality that the big money interests in this country, that the largest corporations, that the real economic and political elite of this country are working overtime in support of the McCain ticket, while working families and unions and lower-income organizations are desperately trying to elect Obama and Biden.
Q: And why do you think they are so good and so successful at their spin? Because you'd think we'd all have seen through it by now….
A: Well, for example, I watched the Republican convention for the last two nights and what is absolutely astounding is – and what they do very well – is they take advantage of the lack of political consciousness in this country. The media does an atrocious job in reporting what goes on and why it goes on, and then they take advantage of [it]. So they have the absolute temerity to announce as McCain's campaign manager said the other day, " This election is not about issues." I mean, that is just an absolutely astounding remark – it's about personality. And what they have successfully done is made politics into a soap opera, or an academy award ceremony, or a football game. "Who do you think is gonna win the Super Bowl and why? Who do you think is gonna become President and why? How do they figure out who can win Virginia?" Rather than saying what are the problems facing America and how do we solve those problems? They don't even choose to engage in that debate because in truth they have nothing substantive to say other than 4 more years of Bush policies which clearly have been a disaster. So then the debate becomes about – "Was John McCain a heroic and brave person while he served in a prison camp in Vietnam?" The answer is yes, and that should be enough for you to elect him President. We don't have to know his views on the economy, on healthcare, on global warming, on foreign policy, that's not relevant. It's just whether or not he was a brave person in captivity and that's all that we should know, and that's what this campaign should be about. And, I think, you know unfortunately we see this every day and they have managed to deflect attention away from real issues and make politics into a personality contest and often they do well in that approach because we don't talk about real issues and real solutions.
Q: Right. And the mainstream media's not forcing that conversation….
A: It sure is not. So, I listened last night – the middle class in America is in a state of collapse, there was not a minute of discussion about that reality and how Bush's policies have contributed to that. [The gap] between the rich and everybody else is wider than since the 1920s – no discussion. 7 million more Americans have lost their health insurance since Bush has been President – no discussion. We are trailing virtually the entire world in addressing global warming because of Bush's policies – no discussion. Our standing around the world is lower now than it has been in the modern history of America – no discussion. So they managed not to discuss the real issues, talk about over and over again the suffering of John McCain in the POW camp, and want that to be the major issue of this campaign.
Q: Right. Is there anything else on your mind you want to add?
A: The other thing that I would say about the Republican convention is four years ago the same exact cast of characters – the Republican leadership – were telling us how absolutely imperative it was to reelect George Bush and Dick Cheney. And now they do not even allow Bush to be on primetime television, and they send Cheney off to the Ukraine or Georgia. His name has not been mentioned. Meanwhile, the policies that they're advocating are exactly the same. I think the antidote for what they are doing is simply to keep banging away at the real problems facing the American people, the Bush record and the degree to which McCain will be emulating those policies, and to actively engage working people and young people in the political process.
Also, what we have got to do is understand that politics is not just 30 second TV ads. We have got to do a helluva lot better job in political education than we have done over recent years. Not just through the campaign – but after the campaign. Rush Limbaugh is campaigning, and Sean Hannity, and Fox television, and much of network news are engaged in politics 365 days a year. And [progressives] have not done that. And it pains me very much that we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on 30 second ads, and yet at the end of the day, probably a majority of Americans don't even know who their member of Congress is or what they are doing in Washington. We need to engage in an ongoing effort to educate the American people about what is going on in this country, why it is going on, how the United States compares to many other countries in terms of healthcare, in terms of the well-being of the middle class, the well-being of our kids… which most Americans don't know. So that these guys are able to get up and say, "The United States has the strongest economy in the world." Well, we don't for the middle class. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty. We're the only [industrialized] country without a national healthcare program, etc., etc. So we need to engage – and I know The Nation, of course, is one of the institutions that tries to do it. But we've got to greatly amplify that effort. I think progressives are beginning to catch onto that understanding, but we've got a long way to go.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
smart man.
Posted by dexter666 at 09/07/2008 @ 10:23pm
I went out for dinner with a wealthy friend who makes roughly between $500k and $1M a year. He was trying to convince me that increasing taxes on him is unfair and that he's paying taxes for more than 50% of others that aren't paying any taxes.
Now, he's so worried that a family making less than $30K doesn't pay taxes while he owns multiple properties, goes on multiple cruises every year, will be able to retire waaaay before 65 and will have money coming out of his ears for the rest of his. Yep, my heart really aches for him. Screw the rest of the people by God. He figures he works harder than everyone else.
The hardest working people in this country make the least, work the longest hours, have the smallest benefits if any and in a lot of cases never get to retire. The wealthiest work the least and benefit the greatest. Not because of great intellect or hard work, but because of positioning and in most cases they were born into money.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/07/2008 @ 10:45pm
I am so excited! KVH managed to get another quote about the Finland meeting into a post.
Posted by sntauri at 09/07/2008 @ 10:48pm
The wealthiest work the least and benefit the greatest. Not because of great intellect or hard work, but because of positioning and in most cases they were born into money.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/07/2008 @ 10:45pm
I forgot to add one small item in that least. A lot of the poeple in this country with great wealth came into that wealth through non legal methods. Why else would there be such tax evasion at the higher echelons? If there wasn't anthing to hide, they probably wouldn't fret so much. But, on the other hand, if you are dealing in illegal business practices, it's a wise decision to hide those profits elsewhere.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/07/2008 @ 10:48pm
KVH,
Thank you for the great article. I don't know how the term liberal was turned into socialist, or communist.
I also don't know how the term conservative is the equal to patriotic, tough and righteous when the conservative party is anything but any of the above.
Sanders hit the nail on the head. The best thing the GOP has to offer is it's complete lack of conscieness to the truth. They are the best liars in history. They have no equal.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/07/2008 @ 10:52pm
(calmly awaits Sntauri's smarm for daring to mention Finland)
It's thoughts like this that make me just want to give up and move to Canada. I don't think we've suffered enough. We haven't collapsed to the point where the American people are forced to realize that the agents against change (the very definition of conservative) are not the ones who should be in charge of governance. Our education needs to get worse, our health system needs to totally fall apart, people need to lose more homes and lives and, well, hope, before they will wake up. It hasn't happened yet. The wealth disparity needs to be a gaping wound, young men and women need to be dying in more and more wars, it just has to get much worse before it gets better. And sorry, but I don't have a lifetime to wait for that to happen. Frosty, make room on the couch for me!
Posted by yutsano at 09/07/2008 @ 10:53pm
"– and what they do very well – is they take advantage of the lack of political consciousness in this country."
shut up!
i'm watching chicago bruise the colts....
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2008 @ 10:55pm
"The media does an atrocious job in reporting what goes on and why it goes on, and then they take advantage of [it]."
shut up!
i'm trying to watch nancy grace.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2008 @ 10:56pm
It's thoughts like this that make me just want to give up and move to Canada.
Posted by yutsano at 09/07/2008 @ 10:53pm
well, viceroy harper called an election today.
we've got one evanhellical party: his, the international republicans.
and three opposition parties.
if he gets a majority, the raping and pillaging will be full-greed ahead!
the moron took a budget surplus, cut taxes and now we run a deficit.
"A weaker economic outlook, coupled with the aggressive tax cuts contained in the government's October 2007 Economic Statement, has constrained the ability of the federal government to introduce significant budget initiatives. Reflecting lower planning surpluses, the federal government has allocated only $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2008–09 and $1.7 billion in 2009–10 toward new measures. Even with this prudent approach, the fiscal outlook for the next two years is tighter than in previous budgets. With only a small contingency reserve, there is heightened risk of the federal fiscal position tipping into deficit should the economic situation worsen."
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/budget/
sound familiar?
and now, he's saying the other parties will run a dirty campaign.
i'll tell you what his campaign will be, lies and fear.
sound familiar?
i'm moving to mars.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2008 @ 11:07pm
shut up!
i'm watching chicago bruise the colts....
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2008 @ 10:55pm
shut up!
i'm trying to watch nancy grace.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2008 @ 10:56pm
Allrighty then Frosty. We've hit upon a sore spot. You're afraid both yutsano and I will move to Canada. I've been to Vamcouver and Lethbridge. I think Vancouver wins though I must say the family I stayed with in Lethbridge was cool.
We played in a baseaball tournament there (I think it paid for by the CJOC network) Anyway, the family took one of my teamates and I around to Japanes Gardens, which neither of us had ever seen before, and showed us the town. It was great sport.
Canada is looking better day by day.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/07/2008 @ 11:07pm
and mr. sanders,
you are a TRUE hero.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2008 @ 11:07pm
Canada is looking better day by day.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/07/2008 @ 11:07pm
actually, canada is looking worse everyday.
if harper gets a majority, that's five years of evanhellical greed.
help!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2008 @ 11:09pm
Vamcouver...woops, Vancouver B.C.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/07/2008 @ 11:09pm
if harper gets a majority, that's five years of evanhellical greed.
help!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2008 @ 11:09pm
OK, How about you, yutsano and I move into LR's home in the great outback. Sure, they might all be rednecks, but the population density there is about the same as Alask but the weather is a hell of a lot better.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/07/2008 @ 11:11pm
Nice clarification there Wolf, as there IS a Vancouver, WA!
It kind of encouraged me to see the NDP doing rather well in polling in BC. I think Harper is just getting himself into a snit but will end up right back where he was, especially since the Libs were on track to win four ridings. I also think Duceppe is feeling a touch betrayed since his role in the coalition has been more or less assumed and not question, gotta watch BQ! At the end of the day, Conservatives pick up maybe five more seats. If only it were enough pressure to get Harper out of a job!
Posted by yutsano at 09/07/2008 @ 11:14pm
In the late 1700s, a Scottish history professor, Alexander Tyler, studied the democracies that had existed until that time. He had this to say about democracy in general, "A democracy is always temporary in nature: it simple cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.
Posted by sntauri at 09/07/2008 @ 11:37pm
Nice clarification there Wolf, as there IS a Vancouver, WA! ...Posted by yutsano at 09/07/2008 @ 11:14pm
That's why I did it. I used to live in Seattle
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/08/2008 @ 12:00am
the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.
Posted by sntauri at 09/07/2008 @ 11:37pm
We're there already. Didn't you catch the memo?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/08/2008 @ 12:05am
Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/07/2008 @ 11:49pm
JM, My friend, intellectually wise, couldn't keep do my job. Physically speaking, I could outwork him easily. He was born into money plain and simple. I wasn't. I'm not envious of his money nor his greed. I was actually quite surprised of his positions. I always thought he was a relatively liberal fellow until he started rambling on about how he was paying "other peoples' taxes". I bigger line of shit I"ve never heard. I have another friend with approximately the same wealth and also who inhereited most of it with exactly the same views. Sounds more like they know they couldn't rebuild their little card house if the odds were even.
Poor people are used to fighting and clawing and have nothing to fear. It's the rich who are the cowards and think everyone is coming to get them.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/08/2008 @ 12:10am
couldn't keep do my job. Sorry,
couldn't keep or do my job. I could do his easily.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/08/2008 @ 12:11am
every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.
Posted by sntauri at 09/07/2008 @ 11:37pm
CONGRESS RAISES DEBT CEILING TO $∞
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 12:12am
*Poor people are used to fighting and clawing and have nothing to fear. It's the rich who are the cowards and think everyone is coming to get them.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/08/2008 @ 12:10am*
I have a good friend, born into extreme NY wealth, chose to become an EMT and basically see how the other half lived. (He's in medical school now, but before that earned his way in the blood and guts of firehouses.) Have another good friend, also born into wealth, chose to become a New York state trooper and then to become, of all things, a Marine. Both are characters I must say, but neither one has ever complained about having to pay taxes. I honestly think for the really wealthy it's a matter of disposition. Some choose to actually see what it's like to work for a living, and end up fulfilled beyond their wildest expectations. I think it's more about what you're expected to do with your life that decides how you end up.
Posted by yutsano at 09/08/2008 @ 12:25am
I think it's more about what you're expected to do with your life that decides how you end up.
Posted by yutsano at 09/08/2008 @ 12:25am
Valid points. Maybe it's that some wish to take part in life, while others merely would rather sit back and watch.
Take W for example. He was born into money, think he's smarter than everyone else and is deserving of his wealth. He's proven time and time again that he can't run anything and yet is arrogant enough to think he's doing things in a grand manner.
My hat is off to your friends who chose to do something with their lives. For every one of them, there are 100 like W who think they are deserving and let their money do their talking for them.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/08/2008 @ 12:32am
*My hat is off to your friends who chose to do something with their lives. For every one of them, there are 100 like W who think they are deserving and let their money do their talking for them.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/08/2008 @ 12:32am*
Actually they're both pretty insane, but I have to admit their choices make me respect them even more (I'm just a lowly grunt at a telecommunications company). I really do think it's an outlook of whether it's all about you or whether there is a sense in yourself that maybe we're not meant to bear all our burdens alone.
Posted by yutsano at 09/08/2008 @ 12:38am
Senator Sanders is in my opinion the only totally sane and reality based politician in the Senate. A true American and a national treasure. I have had the pleasure to get to know him on Thom Hartman's "Brunch with Bernie" for a few years now. The scary thing is, he is the only one. Just one voice in the wilderness of an ignorant and digustingly sick country. But that one voice is enough for now. Enough to keep me from going insane for another day. And enough for me to hold a small bright spark of hope for this republic. God Bless Bernie Sanders..
Posted by chaoszen at 09/08/2008 @ 05:53am
A democracy will continue to exist up until the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.
Posted by sntauri at 09/07/2008 @ 11:37pm |
I simply must respond to this drivel.
First, may I remind you that the public treasury belongs to the "public". In a Democracy they are free to elect by majority whomever they wish, and that way the the "public" can decide how their monies are distributed. They are not "generous gifts" bestowed by some benefactor or King. These funds are the hard earned sweat and blood of the working class.
Second, When the ruling class of predators finally manages to fool the public by dumbing them down through lack of education, war, facism, poverty and fearmongering. They are free to raid the "public" treasury and steal the "public" treasure. They break the bank then point to government as the culprit. They change this free society into a Dictatorship for a time by subverting the laws and freedoms that the former "public" enjoyed.
Third, The "public" eventually wakes up to the fact they have been "had". A bloody revolution usually ensues which results in the slaughter of many people. Usually the ruling class are the first to go. Then the cycle begins anew. Sound familiar?
Fourth, This process can be stopped midstream if the ignorant wake up before the second step is complete.
Fifth, Get active, Get involved in your community. Vote. It may seem paltry but it's the only chance we have.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/08/2008 @ 07:16am
The numbers vary depending on which economists or tax experts you choose to listen to, but one overarching theme surfaces in every analysis of the respective candidates' tax plans.
Barack and Michelle Obama would get to keep much more of their money under the proposed McCain tax plan, but choose to sacrifice in the name of making our tax structure more equitable for the average American.
McCain's tax plan would save him and Cindy hundreds of thousands of additional dollars in tax liability.
Just let that sink in for a little while...
Posted by drhammer at 09/08/2008 @ 08:45am
Bernie Sanders is a champion of the middle class, and was a patriot before little magnetic ribbons were even invented.
And those of you who automatically conflate socialism with communism or authoritarianism have at best been conditioned by right-wing propaganda, and at worst are just stupid.
Try doing a little research beyond the haunted fish tank, and learn the difference between those who would actually look out for your interests, and those who would pick your pockets while butt-fucking our Constitution into oblivion.
Posted by drhammer at 09/08/2008 @ 08:57am
Well, I agree with Sen. Sanders that it's stupid to conflate socialism with "communism and authoritarianism" (and hence a lot of Right buddies will do just that...heheh)
There IS a case to be made that socialism is a failure....from the high unemployment of Germany to the French protests by young adults seeking a "no firing" policy to the basic fact that America is NOT Europe and that any cradle-to-grave social safety net WOULD be abused and be as costly and wasteful as...well...an occupation of Iraq.
Regardless, he and Ms vanden Heuvel's politics are 30-40 years off from mainstream acceptance in this country...barring a Second Great Depression....and despite claims (by Left AND Right) a "President Obama" isn't going to accelerate that.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 09:08am
Katrina vanden Heuvel, Nation editor and prime troll-target, comes from a wealthy background.
Ivy League-educated and politically knowledgeable, she spends the bulk of her time advocating policies that would leave other wealthy people apoplectic, and that would certainly cost her family as well.
I may not always agree with her, but I admire her nonetheless.
Albeit not in a PollyannaGrits kinda way...
Posted by drhammer at 09/08/2008 @ 09:34am
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 09:08am
I think there's a case to be made that there are no political systems that are without their failures.
I think there's also a case to be made that this democratic republic-cum corporatocracy makes some socialist policies look better every day, flaws notwithstanding.
Posted by drhammer at 09/08/2008 @ 09:51am
A cradle to grave Social Democracy assuredly has its own set of problems. And the Europeon experiment may well not work smoothly here. But the social democracies in Europe are light years ahead of our lazier faire capiltalist, dog eat dog, screw you as long as I get mine system. The social democracies in Europe constantly tweak their systems by seeing what works and what doesn't.
They learn from one another. They share information on policy. They work towards perfecting a system of government that works for the majority of their citizens. It is amazing how much money is freed up for social programs when you reign in the military industrial greed machine and cease imperialist policies.
I have lived in many of those countries. France, England, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Norway. (No Finland yet..)
None of us are any stronger than the weakest link in the chain of society. Civilizations are judged by how they treat the disadvantaged. Most people are highly productive and inventive when given a high quality education. And want to contribute. Only a small minority seek sloth, or to take advantage.
All of those countries have a large middle class and strong unions. We should seek to learn from their example. Instead of conflating these systems with totalitarian, militaristic, authoritarian systems. Like China, the former Soviet Union and others like the U.S.A. Peace.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/08/2008 @ 09:59am
and despite claims (by Left AND Right) a "President Obama" isn't going to accelerate that.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 09:08am
only a fool on the "left" would think that.
i mean, with so much debt, the u.s. dollar IS the ultimate faith based initiative.
as to those on the "right", well.........
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 09:59am
when you reign in the military industrial greed machine and cease imperialist policies.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/08/2008 @ 09:59am
but the muslims will eat your children!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 10:12am
but the muslims will eat your children!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 10:12am
Then that gives us the opportunity to lead by example in refusing to snack on otherwise tender and juicy little muslim tots..
Posted by chaoszen at 09/08/2008 @ 10:27am
Posted by drhammer at 09/08/2008 @ 09:51am |
Of course, which is why a LESS ideologue-style government is best.
A radical capitalist (laissez-faire) government runs the risk of "Great Depressions" or actual socialist revolutions. We escaped that with Roosevelt charting a more moderate course. (Actually BOTH Roosevelts).
A totally socialist government runs the risk of dictatorial take-over if it gets too corrupt, too bloated, or simply collapses under the weight of its excessive benefits. The reason being that the governmental controls are "locked in" and rarely capable of strong reform. SO when the disaster strikes, the inevitable "solution" is to KEEP the government controls, but flip it so that personal freedoms are squelched to try to "save the social safety net".
So neither "Hard Right" nor "Hard Left" (even democratic) governments are very stable, since they BOTH have limited flexibility in changing their ideological stances.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 10:32am
only a fool on the "left" would think that.----Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 09:59am
Do we need to reference the interminable METTEYYA "Obama will become the progressive Reagan" posts?!?!?!??
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 10:34am
In a true social democracy with untainted elections, that situation would never occur. In times of crisis a people will always come together and unite to make the necessary sacrifices to stabilize the group. Then normality will resume. Unless some asshole tries to take advantage of the crisis. Thats why a parlimentary system hybrid is necessary to quickly remove the bastards from power.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/08/2008 @ 10:44am
Thats why a parlimentary system hybrid is necessary to quickly remove the bastards from power.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/08/2008 @ 10:44am
but what if the citizens of said parliamentary country are dumbed down and afraid?
i can think of one example........
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 10:47am
but what if the citizens of said parliamentary country are dumbed down and afraid?
i can think of one example........
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 10:47am
In the model that I have outlined in my posts the citizens are well educated and informed from jump street. I don't know which country you are referring to as we here in Amerika did not adopt a Parlimentary system. If you are talking about some other model, I did say "parlimentary system hybrid".
Posted by chaoszen at 09/08/2008 @ 11:00am
Red baiting? Horse ca-ca!
Sanders is a self-proclaimed Social Democrat. In Europe they're called socialists, why in heavens name would it be otherwise here? If they'd called Sanders a communist there'd have been some point in writing this article. I mean really.
Posted by john lowell at 09/08/2008 @ 11:18am
In Amerika Socialist=Communist. Or worse to most people. Thats why most "Socialists" in this country call themselves "Progressives". Our country is politically retarded..
Posted by chaoszen at 09/08/2008 @ 11:29am
Posted by john lowell at 09/08/2008 @ 11:18am
But that is precisely the point, John. Our inadequately educated citizenry has been (mostly) subtly conditioned to equate socialism with our various cold-war bogeymen. Most right-wing talkers and politicians mouth the word "socialist" with a barely concealed sneer and/or some degree of alarm. Sanders, who cares more about the common man than almost any other pol, has been reviled repeatedly, simply by virtue of a misconceived or even distorted definition. Most Americans are completely unaware of his beliefs or policy recommendations. And that's sad.
And bloody ignorant.
Posted by drhammer at 09/08/2008 @ 11:32am
Posted by john lowell at 09/08/2008 @ 11:18am
Actually drhammer, what's ironic is ...
that this is the same john lowell who presumes to tell progressives (whom he'd term as "just a little bit less than socialists", I'm sure)...
who they MUST vote for for President to be "good progressives".
JL is a wackadoodle!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 11:45am
Bernie Sanders doesn't lift a moistened finger into the air to test the foul draught of reactionary counter to people's needs. That's why he's a hero.
Posted by Sorelish at 09/08/2008 @ 11:54am
I am sure we will have some local righty come on to tell us about how the rich pay more most of the taxes in this country completely forgetting the fact that the top 1% make more than the bottom 90% combined so it only makes complete sense according to math and logic that they should pay the most in taxes. So many of the truly wealthy were born into their wealth. They don't work hard. It is doubtful they have ever worked a day in their life. A great example being Paris Hilton. Does she deserve her money?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/08/2008 @ 1:01pm
Posted by chaoszen at 09/08/2008 @ 11:29am Posted by drhammer at 09/08/2008 @ 11:32am
Egad, men, why, then, would you want to lay there passively and accept that usage? If most of the world identifies the term socialist with democratic socialism, and it most certainly does, then why shouldn't you? You have no choice but to conform yourselves to boogeyman usage? Come on. Hatch certainly is sophisticated enough to know the difference. Red baiting is an absurd charge in this instance.
Posted by john lowell at 09/08/2008 @ 1:04pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 11:45am
Cross your legs, your breathe smells.
Posted by john lowell at 09/08/2008 @ 1:06pm
as McCain's campaign manager said the other day, " This election is not about issues."
Okay. Help me understand. If an election is not about issues that Americans are being faced with then what is it about? How can you run for president and expect to get elected if you don't address or minimalize issues affecting the very people who you want voting for you? How can you vote for someone who admitted they knew very little about economics when the economy is, IMO, the most important issue in America right now?
Posted by k330k at 09/08/2008 @ 1:37pm
CPUSA (Communist Party) has endorsed Obama. The Dem Socialist Party has endorsed Obama. Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/08/2008 @ 1:20pm
I will bet the KKK endorses McCain. Does that make McCain racist?
The CofCC, the KKK without the sheets, actually has endorsed McCain.
So by your very example McCain must be a racist.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/08/2008 @ 1:41pm
Okay. Help me understand. If an election is not about issues that Americans are being faced with then what is it about? How can you run for president and expect to get elected if you don't address or minimalize issues affecting the very people who you want voting for you? How can you vote for someone who admitted they knew very little about economics when the economy is, IMO, the most important issue in America right now? Posted by k330k at 09/08/2008 @ 1:37pm
Because you have to make sure Americans remember that he was a POW, which means he knows more about being President and dealing with national economy, foreign policy, military strategy and everything than most sitting Presidents.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/08/2008 @ 1:43pm
Posted by john lowell at 09/08/2008 @ 1:06pm
Huh-huh, huh-huh...you're pretty cool sometimes, Beavis!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 2:24pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/08/2008 @ 1:20pm
Just so we all know, LL....
can you name a few politicians you consider a "moderate"...not a good, honest conservative nor a pinko, Marxist leftist.
Who do you think of as a "centrist"?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 2:26pm
If homosexuals endorse McCain, does that make him gay?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/08/2008 @ 1:43pm
That's right. I forgot that POW to McCain is like 9/11 to Guiliani. My bad.
Posted by k330k at 09/08/2008 @ 2:28pm
Sorry, the question is not attributed to CCC. I was posing the question. I should have put more space between the question and my response to CCC's post. Here's how it should look:
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/08/2008 @ 1:43pm
That's right. I forgot that POW to McCain is like 9/11 to Guiliani. My bad.
On a side note: If homosexuals endorse McCain, does that make him gay?
Posted by k330k at 09/08/2008 @ 2:32pm
On a side note: If homosexuals endorse McCain, does that make him gay? Posted by k330k at 09/08/2008 @ 2:32pm
According to LVL it does.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/08/2008 @ 2:57pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/08/2008 @ 2:57pm
Well, it's even better than that...just a hunch, but willing to bet LVLIB in the camp that think that "all this talk of man-made global warming is just more socialism and promoted by socialists!!!!"
and then forgets that MCCAIN in onboard for man-made global warming!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 3:36pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/07/2008 @ 10:45pm |
Let me ask you a specific question. Let's assume I were a surgeon making $500,000. Let's also assume that I had to spend four years in undergrad, four years in medical school, one year interning, four years medical residency in my speciality and then three years in a surgical fellowship - for a total of 16 years of training. Much of this training is quite expensive. Let's also assume that in order to make the $500,000 salary, I had to work five years doing progressively more difficult surgeries.
What exactly is your justification for an effective tax rate for this person that reaches upwards of sixty percent - when you include income taxes, state taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and the various and sundry other taxes they pay?
In your example, you assume an economic parasite. I'm more interested in how you justify this example where someone is providing a service that requires a great deal of training and is assuming significant responsibility - on call half the year, days that frequently are between 10-16 hours, etc.
You see, I'm all for policies that address inequities in our society, but unfortunately, frequently these policies punish the people that are socially necessary. Imagine your world without surgeons. With few economic incentives - relative to alternatives - to spending the time to become one, you think enough people are going to spend the time to do it if they don't think there is a payoff for all that effort in the end?
Wouldn't it also gall you to know that you were bringing in $500,000 but apparently the government thinks it is your partner and takes more than $300,000. Yes, that still leaves $200,000, but I could go to law school for three years and work for five and make that.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/08/2008 @ 3:41pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/08/2008 @ 1:20pm
Interesting. Why do the endorse Obama?
"Barack Obama is not a left candidate. This fact has seemingly surprised a number of progressive people who are bemoaning Obama's "shift to the center."...If Obama's candidacy represented nothing more than the spark for this profound initiative to unite the working class and defeat the pernicious influence of racism, it would be a transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term. The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path will not end with Obama's election. But that step will shift the ground for successful struggles going forward."
It just shows how scared everyone is of ultra-right politics. Congradulations LVL, mission accomplished.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/08/2008 @ 3:54pm
I see where you're coming from but isn't this position a double-edged sword? What about a world with no trained police officers? They make a hell of alot less than surgeons and they put their life in danger everyday. The same goesfor teachers. Both are paying the same taxes. The only difference is in the amount. The surgeon's take home is 200,000 on a 500,000/yr salary whereas a teacher/officer's take home is 28,000 on a 36,000/yr salary. I guess a question is who can afford a raise in their taxes? or given the economic times, who benefits more from a tax cut? The fact remains that not everyone will be satisfied. The key could be to try and satisfy the majority of Americans. Hell, I don't know. I do know that 200,000 aint a bad take home though.
Posted by k330k at 09/08/2008 @ 4:07pm
When I used to be an evil capitalist many years ago, I always marveled at my R&D teams. We would be several years behind the competition, and yet they would toil away without diminishment of enthusiasm. They would always calm my fears by saying, "Our ideas are much better than their products. Just wait".
Thus so with the apologists for various flavors of socialism.
Posted by sntauri at 09/08/2008 @ 5:21pm
Posted by k330k at 09/08/2008 @ 4:07pm
The relevant difference is the universe of people capable of doing that work and the level of training involved.
Police officers in the U.S. have some college and go to a police academy that is generally 12-14 weeks long. It's a job most people can do.
Teachers, generally, have an undergraduate degree in an approved teachers program. It is a job most people can do, and it is also a job people pick because they get copious time off and no one dies if they score a test paper wrong.
Surgeons, on the other hand, go to school for 12 years beyond their undergraduate degree. It's a job most people can't do. Most people can't be physicians, and most physicians don't have the qualities to be a surgeon. Surgeons work incredibly long hours, get calls all hours of the day and night, and generally work like hell. That's a fact.
It is also a fact that teachers and police officers aren't as skilled, don't work nearly as hard, and don't have anywhere near the level of responsibilities.
The problem is you are asking the wrong question. I couldn't care less whether everyone is satisfied. Nor do I think it is the role of government to satisfy everyone.
The question is what is the government taking the money for and do the justifications for government taking a share of people's income by force - such as increasing equity in our society - actually doing what they advertise? What is actually happening?
I submit that equity is not actually happening. I submit that $2.5 trillion in receipts for 2007 should have been more than enough to run the government - the government paying the salaries of those police officers and teachers, whose contribution back to the government essentially amounts to free labor.
But instead of looking at the expense side and asking why the hell the government is cooking the books and not separating trust funds from the federal budget and why there is not clear accounting for Iraq, Vietnam, the expense debt from both. You'd rather talk about taking money from your fellow citizens, because they can "afford to pay", so you can pursue a government of satisfying everyone without factoring in what they bring to the table and what is actually happening to all the money the government is already collecting.
Why don't you advocate that police officers and teachers should hang outside hospitals and hold surgeons up at gunpoint? Because there isn't much difference - except this option might be a tad more honest.
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos160.htm#training http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos069.htm#training http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos074.htm#training
Posted by srjenkins at 09/08/2008 @ 5:39pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 09/08/2008 @ 4:58pm
Your post was more succinct and to the point - and we are in complete agreement.
Posted by sntauri at 09/08/2008 @ 5:21pm
Socialism is quite effective. All you have to do is look at the most advanced form of socialism in our country - the U.S. military. To the degree it has been privatized, it is corporate socialism - see Blackwater. To the degree that it is kept in government, it is a state-controlled, centrally planned entity that lies somewhere between communism and market socialism.
I don't have anything against socialism, per se. It has a place just as capitalism has a place. But if you are going to advocate taking money from people that are essential to our society - like surgeons - so that you can give money to Blackwater, then there will be a price to be paid - in the number of surgeons and in the justifications used for collecting taxes.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/08/2008 @ 5:57pm
but come on, who needs a 4-yr degree to teach elementary school? or even Jr. High? Any top quartile HS grad can easily teach one or two subjects.
Posted by 2HAPPY at 09/08/2008 @ 4:58pm
you attitudes are well reflecting in the voting population's choices.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 11:24pm
Senator Sanders is in my opinion the only totally sane and reality based politician in the Senate. A true American and a national treasure. I have had the pleasure to get to know him on Thom Hartman's "Brunch with Bernie" for a few years now. The scary thing is, he is the only one. Just one voice in the wilderness of an ignorant and digustingly sick country. But that one voice is enough for now. Enough to keep me from going insane for another day. And enough for me to hold a small bright spark of hope for this republic. God Bless Bernie Sanders..
Posted by chaoszen at 09/08/2008 @ 05:53am
hear! hear!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 11:25pm
I don't know which country you are referring
Posted by chaoszen at 09/08/2008 @ 11:00am
canada.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 11:28pm
Posted by lvliberty1
anachronism.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 11:32pm
How can you run for president and expect to get elected if you don't address or minimalize issues affecting the very people who you want voting for you?
Posted by k330k at 09/08/2008 @ 1:37pm
it's worked before......
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 11:33pm
You see, I'm all for policies that address inequities in our society, but unfortunately, frequently these policies punish the people that are socially necessary. Imagine your world without surgeons. With few economic incentives - relative to alternatives - to spending the time to become one, you think enough people are going to spend the time to do it if they don't think there is a payoff for all that effort in the end?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/08/2008 @ 3:41pm
perhaps surgeon isn't the best example. most doctors i know became doctors because they like to help people.
an alternative system would be to train the doctors for free and then have them work in low income areas for a few years in return.
aren't farmers more important than doctors?
no sense going to the doctor if you don't eat. and not just anybody can farm.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 11:41pm
Thus so with the apologists for various flavors of socialism.
Posted by sntauri at 09/08/2008 @ 5:21pm
you mean like most of these folks:
High Human Development
Iceland Norway Australia Canada Ireland Sweden Switzerland Japan Netherlands France Finland United States Spain Denmark Austria United Kingdom Belgium Luxembourg New Zealand Italy
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 11:44pm
Police officers in the U.S. have some college and go to a police academy that is generally 12-14 weeks long. It's a job most people can do.
by srj.
i disagree.
maybe that's why we have so many incompetent/bad cops.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 11:45pm
It [teaching] is a job most people can do
by srj.
hahahaha
good luck.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 11:50pm
Surgeons, on the other hand, go to school for 12 years beyond their undergraduate degree. It's a job most people can't do. Most people can't be physicians, and most physicians don't have the qualities to be a surgeon. Surgeons work incredibly long hours, get calls all hours of the day and night, and generally work like hell. That's a fact.
by srj.
the undergraduate degree is a waste of time.
ask a doctor.
you know, i've met a quite a few bad doctors.
maybe they passed all the tests but they just weren't good at it.
but yeah, they work hard. however, much of that isn't the job itself, but the system within which the job exists.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 11:54pm
It is also a fact that teachers and police officers aren't as skilled, don't work nearly as hard, and don't have anywhere near the level of responsibilities.
by srj.
again, i disagree.
the responsibilities of a police officer can turn from the mundane to the critically important in an instant.
and teachers bear the responsibility of opening up minds so that people can one day become surgeons.
and i posit to you that farmers are more important to our society as a whole than surgeons are,
for as you must know,
prevention is much better than cure.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 11:58pm
It is also a fact that teachers and police officers aren't as skilled, don't work nearly as hard, and don't have anywhere near the level of responsibilities.
by srj.
again, i disagree.
after all,
which is more important,
your brain or your pancreas?
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 11:58pm
Surgeons, on the other hand, go to school for 12 years beyond their undergraduate degree. It's a job most people can't do. Most people can't be physicians, and most physicians don't have the qualities to be a surgeon. Surgeons work incredibly long hours, get calls all hours of the day and night, and generally work like hell. That's a fact.
by srj.
and imagine how much better our society would be if our teachers and police officers had the same level of training.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2008 @ 12:00am
But instead of looking at the expense side and asking why the hell the government is cooking the books and not separating trust funds from the federal budget and why there is not clear accounting for Iraq, Vietnam, the expense debt from both. You'd rather talk about taking money from your fellow citizens, because they can "afford to pay", so you can pursue a government of satisfying everyone without factoring in what they bring to the table and what is actually happening to all the money the government is already collecting.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/08/2008 @ 5:39pm
now, this is very true.
the point i think i may be trying to make is that salaries often have little bearing on the skills necessary to perform many of the tasks necessary for our society to prosper.
you may say that anybody can farm.
perhaps.
but how many farmers have the skill to feed thousands, if not millions, of non-farming people, including surgeons.
i try to pay my pancreas and my brain equally.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2008 @ 12:06am
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 11:41pm
For the vast majority of human history, just about everyone did farm.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 11:54pm
Actually, plenty of doctors have cake jobs. There is a reason I'm using surgeons as my example, because most surgeons work a lot of hours. And while there are bad surgeons, there are a lot fewer of them, per capita within the set of surgeons, than there are bad cops or teachers - in their respective sets.
Further, cases can go for more than 18 hours. There aren't many surgeons to do cases. So, yeah, I think you have to do some more work to say that the problem isn't a function of the work itself but of the system.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2008 @ 11:58pm
The responsibilities of a police officer can turn from mundane to critical in an instant once or twice a career - as opposed to daily for a surgeon. Let's be real for a moment shall we?
And teachers? In an ideal world, they would be instrumental in opening minds. In the real world, their job is to make sure that the people they are teaching are properly socialized - as practically anyone who has attended public high school in the U.S. can tell you.
And farmers are more important in society? Maybe that's a function of the fact that fewer and fewer people are doing, or need to do, that kind of work - which suggests the opposite.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2008 @ 12:00am
Because it requires less skill and training to fire a weapon than it takes to repair the damage that weapon does. That's a function of the work.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2008 @ 12:06am
Which brings me to your last comment, and where we can actually agree. My point in bringing up this line of reasoning is that the maid that comes and cleans the home of a surgeon, the teacher that got them excited about science, the farmer that feeds the surgeon, etc. all play a part in the success of the surgeon. So, I have no problems with the idea of equity and sharing the success - so to speak.
I do, however, have a problem when it is claimed that taxes are necessary to create a more equitable society, and then those taxes are used to pay Blackwater and Halliburton to do things the military used to do themselves, are given as farm subsidies to agribusiness (the new farmers) and ultimately lines the pockets of people like Monsanto, that leaves medical students with more than a hundred thousand dollars of debt because the rising costs of tuition for teachers salaries and benefits are not being covered by tax dollars, etc.
I particularly don't like it when people that didn't run any of the risks of taking on the debt of a medical student, didn't spend 16 years in medical training, don't have to make command decisions that may result in life or death, and don't run the legal risks and liability that comes with that responsibility - and who try to equate the surgeon's work to that of a cop, teacher or farmer. Or even worse, people who think it is okay to hold surgeons up to pay for better "teachers salaries" that somehow - in the process - ends up making Blackwater's or Monsanto's bottom line raise up a tick.
We need to wake up to the fact that government is an effective mechanism for redistributing wealth to the wealthy. Observationally, that is what it does. So, when we get all excited about all the progressive programs government has or could implement - such as a Social Security or a national health care system - we need to recognize that the U.S. don't have effective mechanisms in place to make sure that lawmakers and lobbyists don't find a way to make these programs work in their interests rather than the public interest. Do some research on the discussion of privatizing Social Security and the near universal trouble in state employee pension plans as illustrations of the point.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/09/2008 @ 12:59am
Senator Sanders is a hero to all the working stiffs of this country, that would blue collar .He will fight to the death for the blue collar of this country.He believes in the Employee Free Choice Act and what it will do for the unionization of Americans who work for a living no matter what you do to earn your pay check.He knows a single payer health care system is needed and will work.He knows we need to reevaluate all trade agreements and to reinvest in this country`s infrastructure and industry.He would make a great president, don`t you think?
Posted by crease at 09/09/2008 @ 01:07am
Posted by srjenkins at 09/09/2008 @ 12:59am
thanks as always for your thoughtful response.
i'll try to get back to you on some points.
i can say this rapidly, however. of course taxing people to give to monsanto and kbr is insane.
and i would be for a flat tax if there could be some way to level out salaries in a equitable fashion. but how?
after all, the farmer works 18 hour days, too.
and he's got something more important than a human's life in his hands.
he's got to care for the earth.
and we are made from that.
anyhoo, after reading about monetary policy for the last while, i'm tired.
and scared.
oh, well.
at least it's raining.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2008 @ 01:52am
Posted by srjenkins at 09/08/2008 @ 3:41pm
Not the best analogy. Most people of wealth are not surgeons.
A great many are CEO's and the like who, while college educated, acquire positions where they can make millions independent of their performance.
Many have never had to work for their fortunes.
All the while there are many more times as many people who toil exhaustively, even working more than one job, while everything they need or maybe aspire to becomes harder to afford. These people have to listen to wealthy people complain about a tax liability whose increase alone represents more money than they can make in a year. Yet they still have to pay taxes, in a proportion that certainly puts their ability to make ends meet to a much greater test than that of the hypothetical surgeon.
Over 45 million of us can't afford the surgeon anyway.
Macro up, cowboy.
Posted by drhammer at 09/09/2008 @ 07:53am
"Many (others) have never had to work for their fortunes. "
Posted by drhammer at 09/09/2008 @ 09:50am
Posted by drhammer at 09/09/2008 @ 07:53am
I'm not trying to make an analogy. I'm trying to bring out an example that we all agree on where a high salary is being earned and where we can also agree that taxing these individuals like people that live of trust funds has a negative social impact.
I am also interested in this assumption that most people never work for their fortunes. Take a look at this chart:
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/ 032006/perinc/new03_028.htm
Of the 7.9 million people making an income over $100,000 a year in this country, 6.1 million of them have less than a bachelor's degree. This means they aren't a professional like a surgeon, proving your point. However, if we assume that most C-level executives have bachelor degrees, then who are these people? Celebrities, heirs, business owners? I don't know. I would think most heirs would get an ivy league education.
I also find the section on extreme affluence interesting from the Affluence in the United States article in Wikipedia:
"Today there are approximately 146,000 (0.1%) households with incomes exceeding $1,500,000, while the top 0.01% or 11,000 households had incomes exceeding $5,500,000. The 400 highest tax payers in the nation had gross annual household incomes exceeding $87,000,000."
Anyone making $87,000,000 isn't working for that money. Erik Prince, chairman and CEO of Blackwater, might be making that kind of money. But, we need to make some distinctions between them and someone making $500,000 or less in a professional capacity - even as CEO.
And as a counter-point: All the while there are many more times as many people who made choices - such as having children - that makes everything they need or maybe aspire to harder to afford. These people support increasing the tax liability of wealthier people than them because they hope that means more money in their pocket - when more often in not it doesn't mean that either.
"Yet they still have to pay taxes, in a proportion that certainly puts their ability to make ends meet to a much greater test than that of the hypothetical surgeon."
I grant the discretionary income argument. People that make more should pay more taxes. They are benfiting because of the structure of society, and they should contribute a greater portion to support it. No argument there.
I also agree that taxes shouldn't apply below a level that interferes with people ability to satisfy their needs and even some of what they aspire to.
My objection is this idea that government can just take and take from whomever can afford it and have the government taking more than 60% of people's legitimately earned income - such as someone that works 10-16 hours a day as a surgeon. That's a bad idea, because it means less surgeons and it sets a bad precedent where government can just take whatever it wants from the citizenry.
It is also a problem because it does not look at the expense side of the equation. The problem with most conservatives is they want to pretend the expense problem is social entitlement programs, ignoring the fact that government diverts funds from these social programs to fund other projects - such as wars, corporate subsidies (Fannie Mae, airlines after 9/11 - if we are going to have this kind of corporate welfare it raises the question of what these industries are doing in private hands in the first place) and the like.
The state employee pension problem illustrates the larger issue. The Pew Center on the States Report, "Promises with a Price," put it this way:
"In some states, retiree benefits have been vulnerable to a buy-now, pay-later mentality. In bad budget times, retirement benefits become easy substitutes for salary increases because states can put off the bills."
Proving the point that legislatures (federal or state) will dip into any funds to which they have access, particularly if they can't find it with existing revenues. Same goes for Iraq and other programs where the federal or state government can shift the tax burden to debt, so they can pass the burden on to the next administration and to future taxpayers.
"Over 45 million of us can't afford the surgeon anyway."
Yet, all 45 million can go to a state or public university hospital and get treated on the public dime - and have the surgeon perform the service gratis. Not much of an argument there.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/09/2008 @ 09:54am
That's a bad idea, because it means less surgeons
Posted by srjenkins at 09/09/2008 @ 09:54am
i try to let grammar slide, but you are srj so i can't let it go:
less is for non-countable nouns: less time, less air.
fewer is for countable nouns: fewer surgeons, fewer minutes.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2008 @ 10:30am
hey srj, this is a conversation with my son (8 years old) this morning (we'll call him CAN DO ANYTHING -- long story, same origin as frosty zoom):
FZ: hey, who is more important, a doctor or a mechanic.
CDA: a mechanic.
FZ: well, that depends. a mechanic is more important if your car breaks down in the middle of nowhere.
CDA: yeah, especially if you are on your way to the doctor.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2008 @ 10:36am
Correct grammar and funny story, Frosty. Thanks!
Posted by srjenkins at 09/09/2008 @ 2:06pm
It is also a fact that teachers and police officers aren't as skilled, don't work nearly as hard, and don't have anywhere near the level of responsibilities.Posted by srjenkins at 09/09/2008 @ 12:59am
I disagree wholeheartedly with this assumption/opinion. You obviously don't know any teachers or police officers at all(I have both in my family). I also am offended by your denigration of the people who work hard in these positions. Teachers carry huge amounts of responsibility. Besides, how do you think those surgeons become so skilled? From reading other comments you posted it seems that you have a problem with how funds are distributed so that the teachers, police officers, and such can be properly compensated for the highly stressful jobs that they perform. I will agree that the method of distribution is a problem. It is a shame, however, when monies deservedly going to teachers or policemen are rerouted to entities like BlackWater and Halliburton. Maybe if "friends/former employees" of those companies, in high positions, weren't in control of said monies then maybe workers, who are the backbone of this country, will be compensated justly. Oh well, one can dream.
Posted by k330k at 09/09/2008 @ 3:05pm
As to McCain, I believe he is wrong on this issue and will fight to keep him from doing any damage to our economy and govt on this issue.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/09/2008 @ 1:59pm
oil's well that ends well.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2008 @ 3:16pm
Posted by k330k at 09/09/2008 @ 3:05pm
real money would be a good place to start.
then inflation wouldn't slice'n'dice their income nearly as nastily.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2008 @ 3:18pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/09/2008 @ 1:59pm
LVLIB, you say I'm "wrong" that you put global warming all down to "socialists"...
and then you say "it's supported by socialists as an excellent vehicle to further socialism".
So what was I "wrong" about??!?!!?!?
As for "fighting McCain"....with what allies?
He'll be President, the Dems will control Congress, and the public doesn't share your view on man-made GW.
Plus it lets him seem "maverick" without pissing off that many people (Most like you, aren't going anywhere in 2012 even if he decides to run for a 2nd term).
Face it, McCain or Obama?....the war against science is lost!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 3:43pm
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/09/2008 @ 3:53pm
Just so we know, Darin...what IS your job?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 4:11pm
Posted by k330k at 09/09/2008 @ 3:05pm
I grew up around cops. I know exactly what kind of people do that work and what the job entails. It's also not a denigration to state the fact that it ain't surgery. Same goes for teachers.
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/09/2008 @ 3:53pm
Exactly. And 55-60 hours is probably below the median.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/09/2008 @ 4:16pm
Just to correct John Lowell, many socialists all over the world, including in Europe, are also called social democrats. In countries such as Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the Social Democrats are among the largest of political parties. Social Democracy is a 19th Century term, applied to both a set of principles and some of its parties (the "Social Democracy" in Germany, for instance).
To be a classic social democrat is to be a moderate, non-revolutionary socialist who believes in managing capitalism in a semi-socialist way (i.e., significant public welfare programs and regulation of a still largely privately owned economy) and in pushing capitalism to evolve into socialism (via elections and other non-violent means). Some parties with social democratic principles or a history of supporting such principles go by other names such as Labor Party, Labour Party or Socialist Party, among others.
Whatever their names, many social democratic parties no longer even pretend to be moderately socialist and have become no more than liberal capitalists. More than a few presided over waves of privatizations and budget cutting that have slashed the incomes and living standards of their working classes.
Some notes on U.S. social democrats in my next post.
Posted by cka2nd at 09/09/2008 @ 5:18pm
In the U.S., there are three social democratic groups worth mentioning. The Socialist Party (SP) is ideologically social democratic and the closest thing we have to a modern descendent of Eugene V. Debs' Socialist Party. It runs a few candidates for political office and is usually on the ballot for the presidential election in about a dozen states. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which I'm pretty sure is by far the largest social democratic organization in the U.S., believe it is necessary to work within the Democratic Party to achieve pro-working class reforms and move the country towards socialism.
The third group started out as the rump of the old Socialist Party after a number of splits in the early 1970's. The old SP was re-named by the so-called "right socialists" who controlled it as Social Democrats USA (SD USA) and, unlike most of the world's social democrats, supported the U.S. war in Vietnam. While the SD USA supported workers rights and some liberal policies at home, in foreign policy it was not just anti-Soviet – common among most of the world's social democrats – but rabidly so. SD USA members controlled the AFL-CIO's international affairs department, ensuring that the AFL-CIO backed only labor unions and federations with no connection to the Soviet Union, even if it was the only labor orginization in its country with mass support or actively fighting for the interests of workers. In fact, some neo-conservative used to be in the SD USA. SD USA is now apparently defunct, but a party I never heard of before, the Social Democratic Party of America, claims to be its successor, according to Wikipedia.
Posted by cka2nd at 09/09/2008 @ 5:25pm
Last thing, John Lowell. The red-baiting Ms. vanden Heuvel described was the red-baiting of Obama and Biden as being to the left of "Socialist, Bernie Sanders." Sanders wasn't the subject of the red-baiting, he was being used to red-bait Obama and Biden.
Posted by cka2nd at 09/09/2008 @ 5:28pm
I'm not saying teachers and cops don't work hard; however, I work 55 - 60 hours every week not including travel time.
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/09/2008
if time equals money,
does money equal time?
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2008 @ 12:44am
No it is more like:
"Time is money"
and
"Time is short"
therefore:
"Money is short"
which we all know is true!
Posted by sntauri at 09/10/2008 @ 11:19am
Posted by sntauri at 09/10/2008 @ 11:19am
how about you, socialist?
how does your fannie feel this morning?
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2008 @ 12:40pm