What Will New York Do?

Now that thirty years of deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy have failed so spectacularly, creating an economic catastrophe in its wake, the American people are beginning to recognize conservative economic policy for what it is: a disastrous recipe for privatizing profits and socializing costs, and shifting the economic burden to the poor and middle class.

But with 46 states facing budget shortfalls it is clear that conservative orthodoxy is still alive and holding sway in too many statehouses. Too often, the emphasis isn't on change we can believe in -- but on the same old cutting of services that people need rather than raising taxes on the rich who have disproportionately benefited from fiscal policy over these many decades.

We certainly see this short-sighted and proven wrong approach being pushed in New York. The state is confronting a budget deficit of $15 billion, and Governor Paterson has proposed $9 billion of harsh cuts in education, healthcare and social services, and $5 billion in new taxes that would hit the struggling poor and middle-class the hardest -- making an already regressive tax system even more so.

If you asked most New Yorkers what income level qualifies for the highest tax bracket you would get a range of answers -- from $250,000 to $1 million to $5 million. In fact, an individual making just $20,000 pays the highest income tax rate of 6.85 percent. So a teacher -- perhaps one of thousands who would be laid off under Paterson's proposal -- currently pays the same rate as Bernie Madoff, Donald Trump and the hedge funders. Equally troubling, Paterson's proposed revenues would be generated through taxes and fees on items such as sodas, transportation, cable tv, college tuition … things that would hit the already struggling poor and working class the hardest.

Fortunately there is a great alternative proposal gaining momentum in the New York legislature and with constituents. Democratic Senator and Nation contributor Eric Schneiderman has introduced the Fair Share Tax Reform Act of 2009 which would raise $6 billion in new annual revenues by slightly increasing the taxes on the wealthiest 5 percent of New Yorkers.

"Over the last thirty years the combination of policy changes in New York State have resulted in a severely regressive tax system," Senator Schneiderman told me. "The richest 1 percent of New Yorkers now pay 6.5 percent of their income in state and local taxes. While the middle-class, the poor -- everybody else -- pays over 11 percent of their income in state and local taxes. The poorest New Yorkers -- the bottom quintile -- actually pay 12.6 percent…."

Schneiderman's bill would address this inequity by creating three new tax brackets for the wealthy: tax rates for households earning over $250,000 would rise to 8.25 percent ; over $500,000 would pay 8.97 percent; and over $1 million would be taxed at 10.3 percent. Schneiderman said that this structure would not only create a fairer system, it would also be more in line with neighboring states.

"The long national nightmare of supply-side economics is coming to an end and we're trying to hasten its departure in New York by reintroducing the concept of progressive taxation to the actors in government and to the public," Schneiderman said. "And it's getting a great response."

That response includes a broad coalition led by the Working Families Party (WFP), joined by a network of human services groups, unions, and community action organizations. The coalition acknowledges that some cuts will need to be made. "But we should temper those cuts by asking the rich to pay their fair share of taxes," WFP spokesman Dan Levitan said. "Governor Paterson has proposed devastating cuts to classrooms, hospitals, the elderly and disabled, and everything from mass transit to zoos. Fair Share Tax Reform would stop those cuts and make our tax system more progressive."

Part of what the coalition is focused on is illustrating just what those cuts would mean in local districts -- especially districts with swing Democratic Senators. Currently, Schneiderman's bill has the support of 20 out of 32 Senate Democrats. (There are 30 Senate Republicans who seem to be marching lock-step with the national GOP model of watching the economy crash, people suffer, and supporting nothing but tax cuts and cuts in services.) Next week, a companion bill will be introduced in the Assembly with strong Democratic support and the party in control of 109 out of 150 seats.

"We hope the Governor comes around, and we hope the legislature can help show him there's a better way," Levitan said. "It's a battle for their hearts and minds."

That battle is a tough one. As Schneiderman writes in an upcoming piece for The Nation, "There is a great deal of work ahead of us before America can break free of thirty-five years of virtually unrebutted propaganda, echoed in both parties, teaching us that less regulation means more growth, and that raising taxes kills jobs."

Part of that work involves responding to local editorial boards that often write of "binge spending" and the need for cuts in services without reporting on what those cuts would actually mean to local constituents.

"There's a big disconnect between these bland calls for cutting spending and what the cuts the Governor is talking about would really mean to working families," Levitan said.

That's why the coalition is on the ground, in the districts, documenting the consequences of the proposed cuts. They are organizing with service providers, healthcare workers, teachers, parents and families; holding events and press conferences; finding compelling stories.

Schneiderman and Levitan are both pleased with the progress of the campaign. Schneiderman points to polls that show New Yorkers favoring progressive tax brackets over the proposed cuts by a margin of five-to-one. "The public has wised up to the fact that during this era of supposed tax-cutting, the size of government expanded very rapidly," he said. "We just shifted the cost from the wealthy to the working class…. A lot of [legislators] are willing to consider progressive taxation. I think we just have to show them that the public doesn't jump to the supply-side tune the way they did in the 1980s and 1990s."

Levitan also sees the people ahead of the politicians on this issue. "As people realize the severity of the cuts the Governor has proposed, more and more voices are calling for the wealthy to pay their fair share," he said. "We'll keep pushing until we save our communities."

On March 5, New Yorkers will have the opportunity to build the momentum for a sane budget by rallying in support of fair share tax reform and in opposition to the proposed cuts. Levitan expects tens of thousands of people to attend. It's also critical that residents tell the legislators now where they stand on this issue. Schneiderman said the next few weeks are critical since the budget is scheduled to pass in the end of March.

"We have to do our work," he said. "People who favor a more balanced approach, a more equitable distribution of wealth, have to overcome thirty years of supply-side propaganda…. Because our fiscal year is early, because of the size of our budget gap, I think that what goes on here -- as in California -- has important implications for other states. This is an important moment in our efforts to redefine how the public thinks about the economy. The supply-siders have failed. They drove us into a collapse of historic proportions, and its now important for us to present a reasoned alternative. Progressive taxation has to be a part of that alternative.""

Schneiderman is absolutely right. Across the country, cities and states, governors and mayors, and citizens, are needing to decide -- will we close hospitals? double the size of classrooms? close homeless shelters? lay off teachers? raise tuition costs? Or will we begin to undo the damage of thirty years of tax cuts for the wealthy and rebuild an economy of shared prosperity?

The choices we make now will go far in determining the strength of our long-term economy as well as our pluralistic democracy. In the next few weeks, the nation will see how New York responds.

Comments (103)

1. "In fact, an individual making just $20,000 pays the highest income tax rate of 6.85 percent."

   Californian's can only dream of that kind of tax rate. For us, middle class families pay 50% higher tax rates than NY.

   And I love this statement...marx would be so proud

   "We have to do our work," he said. "People who favor a more balanced approach, a more equitable distribution of wealth, have to overcome thirty years of supply-side propaganda"

   Balance=take from those who work,create, and produce, and give to those who don't.

   Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 2:39pm

2. Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 2:39pm

   Again, keep in mind, that anti-socks/lvlib believes that almost everything done since 1932 is "socialism"....so he's hardly an accurate barometer.

   Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 2:48pm

3. Who remembers the tax rate when Rockefeller was governor? I know it was much higher.

   Posted by NYCartist at 02/23/2009 @ 2:55pm

4. Yeah of course, people who make less than 250,000 a year don't work. Ha, we work more than most people. Why should I have to pay higher taxes when I don't make a lot of money? All I can say is spoken like a true man. Women are hit hardest in economic times are bad. But so much for family values. The people we elect are there to represent all of us not just those making the most money. This country can not run with moguls alone. It's hard working Americans that do menial but much needed jobs. So Antisocialist get a grip.

   Posted by nhdjlady at 02/23/2009 @ 2:56pm

5. Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 2:39pm

   BTW, Larry in anticipation of the inevitable "Raise taxes too high and the rich and entrepeneurs will flee" comment sure to come...

   why haven't you? Nevada, Arizona...real close by. Yet you are sticking around in the People's Republic of California?

   Could it be because your job is created by a GOVERNMENT mandate? (auto insurance)????

   Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 3:07pm

6. why haven't you? Nevada, Arizona...real close by. Yet you are sticking around in the People's Republic of California?

   Could it be because your job is created by a GOVERNMENT mandate? (auto insurance)????

   Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 3:07pm

   No, the law is the same in Nevada. I moved back because my children asked me to be closer to keep a relationship with my grandchildren.

   As much as I love the outdoors here, I am no longer a fan of California.

   As to the whole mandate. How many middle and lower class income earners can afford to pay damages or repairs today, much less the threats of lawsuits?

   Or, just the city charges in my town for replacing a light pole is $28,000. How many have that kind of cash on hand?

   Or how about the fact that the average law suit award in 2005 in California against a vehicle owner is $406,000. The average Homeowner liability award was $541,117 and averaged over $700,000 during the decade.

   I help people keep their lives whole Mask. And I do so by trying to get them the best value for their dollars. I'm proud of that and how many people I have helped save money.

   Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 3:33pm

7. Mike Bloomberg thinks the poor aren't suffering enough, that's why they stay poor. That's why he has declined free federaql food stamps.

   But tax cuts for the wealthy? You won't hear a peep of demurral from multibillionaire Bloomberg. Why should the wealthy have to cut back on private planes ... just so the poor can eat, have housing, health care, educate their children decently. Where's the motivation?

   Ask Mike the Mogul, he'll tell you what makes this nation great. People like him.

   Posted by sloper at 02/23/2009 @ 3:36pm

8. " The American people are beginning to recognize conservative economic policy as a disastrous recipe for shifting the burden to the poor and middle class. Will statehouses coast to coast get the message? "

   Really? KVH thinks this is the message America "gets"?

   I think America will get another message in about 2 years...especially when they currency is tanked, and the debt is so large that without govt spending there will be no economy...in the private sector...

   this will not end well for th US...or KVH.

   But we will be the Socialistic Peoples States of America to our detriment..and we will have lost the FF dream and legacy altogether..

   Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 3:54pm

9. I help people keep their lives whole Mask. And I do so by trying to get them the best value for their dollars. I'm proud of that and how many people I have helped save money.----Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 3:33pm

   But again, the state government MANDATES that those people MUST seek out the help of insurance brokers like you....right?

   Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 4:01pm

10. The left is starting to live its dream of an elitist governmental ruling class handing out government jobs to the "deserving" followers; that is after they create a truely equal poor class of peasants who will willingly beg for their political crumbs to elevate themselves after destroying any and all economic incentive in the nation!

    KVH wants to further that dream, but say haven't there been dozens of failed governments around the world that have already tried that? Now where have we read about this before?

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/23/2009 @ 4:02pm

11. Poor conservatives! How you twist and shout in pain! Your core ideas have screwed things up so incredibly badly that you are oblignated to contemplate the horrifying possibility of wealth moving in a downward direction.

    Hey chicago school kneeltothemarket types: How's that one-legged built world economy working out for you now that the credit spigot has been turned off on the american consumer. And would you mind explaining how in the name of thirty years of stagnant wages is he suppose to go on sustaining the international economy?

    Posted by AkMachinist at 02/23/2009 @ 4:05pm

12. Machinist,

    "..Your core ideas have screwed things up so incredibly badly .."

    The truth is the core values worked for 2 hundred years and built this into a nation that was the envy of the planet...and then came the "experts" in govt....

    and here we are...racing towards California and then 3rd world...

    Examine every state that has had complete Dem control and dig into their budgets and see where the money is going....

    and then follow the people who make the system work by inventing, produce jobs, build wealth and generate the economic growth...and see where they are headed...and it ain't into govt...

    they are heading for the hills and away from tax and spend states...

    I spent 2 hours last night with our company on overseas calls...and we are looking at doing the same thing..we are looking for business friendly places where we can grow.

    Cause it aint here ..it is hard to find a place where there isn't as govt hack hand demanding ...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 4:23pm

13. Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 4:01pm

    you didn't answer my question Mask. Even without a mandate:

    "As to the whole mandate. How many middle and lower class income earners can afford to pay damages or repairs today, much less the threats of lawsuits?

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 3:33pm"

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 4:23pm

14. " Why should the wealthy have to cut back on private planes ... just so the poor can eat, have housing, health care, educate their children decently. Where's the motivation? "

    Good question....where is the motivation coming from if not from someone who is poor? Someone who doesn't want to remain poor for 50 years? Poor life style fired me up.

    Being poor is a condition in life that does not have to be permanent..muchless generational...today with free schools, free housing, free food, free heat, free clothes, free college, ...how can someone remain poor...unless it has become the life style..

    Take the handicapped, retarded, crippled, sick, elderly, the infirm out of the equation...

    I am talking about the healthy ..the woman in Obamas press conference types and her son...so much available with those with a drive to improve..with the sense to stay in school and go further...sometimes poverty for those are the best motivation....

    but the libs and govt would rather rob from those who do have drive and give it to those who have not prepared for life on ANY level without the nanny state.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 4:31pm

15. And in these cases..the free enterprise system is useless to them.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 4:32pm

16. Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 4:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You can't expect much from a public (such as Mask) that considers any kind of insurance with the same mentality as they do "gambling". Neither do they understand that pricing once driven by "risk analysis" is now driven by legislative "gifts" to the bloodsuckers of the ABA which is not only the richest, biggist lobby, but the largest contributor to the Undemocrat party. They refuse to make the connection!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/23/2009 @ 4:34pm

17. Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 4:23pm

    How many of them can afford long-term medical expenses, Larry?

    Now, shall we discuss your views on the Government MANDATING that people purchase HEALTH CARE insurance???

    Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 4:38pm

18. today with free schools....---Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 4:31pm

    So again, along with your previous comments on public education, MAASCH...

    you're a ....PRE-1870 Conservative?

    Back to the "school if you can afford it" days of pre-Horace Mann?

    Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 4:42pm

19. Back when I was working hard, making some money and paying high taxes, I resented those who didn't work hard. I can remember driving to work on Saturdays and Sundays while many laid in bed.

    Now that I am retired, I find I like the idea of getting handouts every month financed by those who work.

    Funny how my attitude changed!

    Posted by jsens at 02/23/2009 @ 4:43pm

20. How many of them can afford long-term medical expenses, Larry?

    Now, shall we discuss your views on the Government MANDATING that people purchase HEALTH CARE insurance???

    Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 4:38pm

    Same answer I just posted on the GM thread

    2. As I said, even without govt mandates my business would succeed just as well, because only a fool would put everything they have at risk including their auto.

    Most people actually care more about their future and their families. would some not participate? Sure, but in a state like California that still leaves 10's of millions who aren't that stupid.

    Most responsible people are not irresponsible with their families and their possessions.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 4:42pm

    But health insurance is another game altogether. I can't be sued by someone else if I get sick and don't go to the hospital. The only potential loser is me. My family won't lose their home, college fund, retirement or future earnings if I don't have health insurance.

    If I die, they collect my life insurance.

    Your equivalence question doesn't hold up.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 4:45pm

21. Katrina Vanden Heuvel,

    Please take a sabbatical from The Nation and take some economics courses from Dr. Walter E. Williams of George Mason University.

    Your article overlooks:

    1. The wealthy pay most of the tax in this country. (www.irs.gov)

    2. When we have "tax cuts for the rich", some of the rich actually wind up paying more in actual tax, even though their rate is lower, because of the growth of their business, made possible because of the tax cut.

    3. Government is bloated, accounting for a good part of these budget deficits in state governments. Beyond the question of what government is doing, when it does anything it does it in an inefficient manner, wasting money along the way. Nobody seems to want to weed out the inefficiency in government, it seems the only way to stop it is not give government the money to begin with.

    4. People would no longer "need" services if people received help when they needed it with the goal being that they become self-sufficient and capable of making their own way in life - thus able to go through life with dignity and also able to help others who may need it. People are in continual "need" of services because the "services" seem to be designed with the goal of making people life long dependents on the "services". That is cruel and wrong, and is what is promoted by those on the left side of the political spectrum.

    I have a more productive idea than what you have come up with. How about laying off 50% of those white collar employees working in state government offices in the Albany, New York area? One of the best places to start would be the New York State Department of Taxation offices. What say we give that a try, and see how it works.

    Posted by sjchermak at 02/23/2009 @ 4:54pm

22. Katrina Vanden Heuvel,

    To really see what I am saying, take a trip to two State Capital cities.

    Go to Albany, New York, and see the monuments (office buildings) that Nelson Rockefeller built for himself, and also think about how many government bureaucrats those buildings are able to hold, all busy shuffling paper and dreaming up new regulations, requirements, taxes, etc etc, to burden people with.

    Then go to Carson City, Nevada and ask yourself, if it (the massive government monstrosity/city/infrastructure/bureaucrats) are not needed in Carson City, why are they needed in Albany?

    Posted by sjchermak at 02/23/2009 @ 4:59pm

23. KvH: . Schneiderman said..."People who favor a more balanced approach, a more equitable distribution of wealth, have to overcome thirty years of supply-side propaganda…. Because our fiscal year is early, because of the size of our budget gap, I think that what goes on here -- as in California -- has important implications for other states."

    Here we go, the same mantra over and over...."more balanced", "more equitable"........I'm sure this line has been used forever in the great big BLUE states of New York and California for quite some time......funny thing is, neither states have become the promised land of milk and honey.......go figure!

    But, hey, I applaud your keep on trying....and you're right, your unceasing calls for "more balanced" and "more equitable" sure do have "important implications for other states."

    Hey, New Yorkers and Californians, if you have the capital to create jobs, come on down to Texas! You know you're NOT welcome, so, why stay???

    Posted by Happy at 02/23/2009 @ 5:13pm

24. as a progressive conservative i cringe at the labelling of satano-aynrando economic mumbo jumbo ideology...for that matter i cringe at labelling modern american CATO instuitute anarcho-ideology as "conservative".

    true conservatives like security and boring continuity. we do not fear change in and of itself, but rather fear fast, poorly thought out change. those who kneejerkingly react counter to any and all change are reactionaries and not conservatives, fearful, limitted, small minds, and all too representative of the modern republican party and, unfortunately modern american "conservatism".

    anything that leads to societal tranquility and well understood parameters in which we can operate without too adversely limitting creativity, freedom, and rational risk taking is fine by me, and all real conservatives.

    change is all fine and dandy, but PEOPLE NEED SOME STABILITY AND FAMILIARITY, some continuity as well. stability and familiarity are all fine and dandy too, but ossification and reactionary nostalgizing ultimately result in more and faster change than would have come had those holding the floodgates prudently opened them a bit to relieve the pressure before the dam bursts...

    hey look, reactionary rightwing ideologues...

    THE DAM'S BURSTING!!!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/23/2009 @ 6:17pm

25. THE DAM'S BURSTING!!!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/23/2009 @ 6:17pm

    Correction! The Dam's already busted!

    The Stock Market is back to 1996 level......The late 90s' Clinton boom is melting! Soon, even Welfare Reform will `burst'!

    Posted by Happy at 02/23/2009 @ 7:02pm

26. Working Families party - a great grassroots party - I know someone personally who worked for it in NY State. They have real power and clout, working for the rights of working people (like the Dems used to, or used to to a greater degree).

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/23/2009 @ 7:29pm

27. Fdr,

    What, exactly, do you define as a "WorkingFamilys" party member?

    I have a family, my wife works as does my 27 year old middle son. What is in that party for me? How will that party help the chances to move my family forward on income, security and towards the American dream where one is self sufficient? And in the process end up not wanting anything from or near the govt?

    Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 8:04pm

28. Sorry, 17 year old son.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 8:07pm

29. I keep seeing these posts claiming the wealthy pay the bulk of the taxs in this country. The fact is that is patently false. The wealthy always are going to have deductions that esentially maintain their life style tax free. If you take Sarah Palin as an example when she released her tax returns it showed on an income of $166,000 she and her husband paid just 15% or the lowest current tax rate. That in part due to a $9000 loss on Todd's snow mobile racing business in spite of 17,000 in earnings. That of course does not include the perdiem of $17,000 she got for eating at home and still claims is not taxable.

    The higher your income is; the more likely it is you pay no tax at all. Should you reach the lofty income of Rupert Murdock whose income was $900 million you could expect to pay the same tax he did, Zero, Nada, not one dime. People like Patterson are setting tax policy to serve themselves first.

    Posted by ROinReno at 02/23/2009 @ 8:49pm

30. Everyone wants lower taxs regardless of their economic status. But the fact is; and it applies to Patterson and most of these tax cut fanatics. Taxs are going up just to maintain the services we expect from government and certainly to deal with the huge deficits. But it takes a brave person and certainly a very patriotic one to raise taxs on themselves and their friends. People like Patterson and the tax cut fanatics do not meet this criteria even if they do wear flag pins.

    Posted by ROinReno at 02/23/2009 @ 10:01pm

31. My family won't lose their home, college fund, retirement or future earnings if I don't have health insurance.-----Posted by antisocialist at 02/23/2009 @ 4:45pm

    I'm sorry...are you kidding?!??!???

    How many stories would it take before your "That's just an isolated incident"?....cuz I'm sure we can beat that number by a couple hundred.

    Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 10:09pm

32. The neocon's solution for the common man? Twenty bucks!

    John McCain's gas-tax holiday... If the 18.4-cent federal tax is suspended as McCain wants, the average motorist might save about $20 over three summer months.

    Posted by winyahn at 02/23/2009 @ 10:28pm

33. Posted by ROinReno at 02/23/2009 @ 10:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Try looking at the statistics published every year that shows the top 10% pay over 90% of all tax revenue. Where have you been?

    Sure if someone makes $10million raise their rate 10 to 20% and see just how much they spend to create new jobs, buy new equipment, open new branches of their business etc. They want to keep money for their OWN resourse just like you so why should they try to expand their business if you promise to tax them more? Don't sit on your brain use it!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/23/2009 @ 10:29pm

34. Posted by comancheamerican at 02/23/2009 @ 10:29pm

    So if Bill Gates pays an extra million in INCOME taxes....he'll stop hiring people at Microsoft.

    Is that the theory?

    And why exactly will Bill decide that losing more of his personal fortune means he can't expand his business?

    Posted by Mask at 02/23/2009 @ 11:02pm

35. Bill Gates is a rather poor example for your purposes! He doesn't pay much taxes anyway.

    He doesn't draw much of a salary and his own wealth has mostly been set up in the Gates Foundation where interests, dividends & and gains will NEVER be taxed (nor any estate tax will ever be paid).....good for philanthropy but bad for the Gubbers!

    Outside of acquisitions, MSFT hasn't added headcounts in the US in years....in fact, it has let go thousands of contractors in Redmond & Bellevue. It has, however, very deliberately expanded in China, India & Europe!

    Most of you don't pay enough attention other than perhaps the market is down (by ~31% since Nov. 4th). But, any guesses as to which sector of the market has been hammered the most? Small caps! That's the Russell 2000, down almost 35%!

    Where do most job growth comes from? And what do most of those who grow jobs need? Higher taxes on the investor class....yep, that's the ticket to the New Deal......pass the bong!

    Posted by Happy at 02/23/2009 @ 11:17pm

36. Seems to me Microsoft laid off about 5000 workers because of an 11% downturn? You know, so Bill could keep MORE of his own money and preserve his foundation and business! But, I guess Mask does not consider such things before making cutting remarks.

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/23/2009 @ 11:58pm

37. Obamanation is such a pessimist since election because he KNOWS that the reason the stockmarket is "tanking" is its reaction to the Undemocrats porkulus spending bill and his and Geithers lack of leadership in the banking and finacial sectors.

    He also knows that the new 8% increased trillion dollar budget with its 9000 earmarks will depress the economy even further on top of the 787 billion and 700 billion already pledged.

    What the leftist don't get is he and the congress really could care less how the rest of american taxpayers are going to foot the bill they are running up to build their new socialist kingdom!

    There is NOTHING to stimulate the consumer to spend, NOTHING to assure that businesses will expand and hire, and NOTHING that can force anyone to incur greater personal and business debt than they can afford just to pay those future bills! They pretty much have doomed us to 3rd world totalitarian ruled socialistic status!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/24/2009 @ 12:24am

38. From what I have heard of trickle-down economics, job creation goes down the $35,000 toilet.

    Why would the rich take the tax savings and invest in American job creation, when they can build factories overseas or across the border, spend chump change on wages and operate with little or no environmental restrictions?

    When Reagan took office the top rate was 70% on income over $400,000. Not only did Reagan cut the top rate down to 28%, he lowered the top bracket from $400,000 to $29,750 (Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003; Truthandpolitics.org). Reagan made up for the lost revenue by deficit spending. Reagan's own Budget Director, David Stockman was fired for calling the policy "…a "Trojan horse," a scam intended really to funnel more money to the already rich" (Freeman, 2003).

    Just keep telling me why supply-side economics is so great when the richest 400 people in America have increased their wealth from $662 billion to $1.2 trillion in the last eight years alone. At the same time the deficit skyrockets, banks go belly-up and the trickle-down job creation leaves millions without work. Give me a break!

    There is a more important reason than generating revenue by taxing the rich and it is to limit extreme wealth. Extreme wealth=consolidated power=tyranny and corruption.

    "Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its [sic] necessary consequence" (Thomas Jefferson)

    Some things never change...

    Posted by Wiser19 at 02/24/2009 @ 04:29am

39. There is NOTHING to stimulate the consumer to spend, NOTHING to assure that businesses will expand and hire, and NOTHING that can force anyone to incur greater personal and business debt than they can afford just to pay those future bills! They pretty much have doomed us to 3rd world totalitarian ruled socialistic status!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/24/2009 @ 12:24am

    This is because the national treasure has been stolen and moved out of the counrty. Why? To get at what natural resources are left in the USA without the pesky environmental restrictions now in place (small price to pay for progress; right?)

    Just a thought I had, no proof yet.

    Posted by Wiser19 at 02/24/2009 @ 04:46am

40. Posted by Happy at 02/23/2009 @ 11:17pm

    The theory should hold the same regardless, shouldn't it, HAPP? Cut Gates taxes even more and he'll hire more people at MS. BTW, why is it Warren Buffet actually WANTS his taxes to go up? Suicidal or hates all those people he's just itching to fire, but won't because his taxes are so low????

    BTW...care to try my "WHY EXACTLY did WW-2 end the Depression" question?

    Posted by Mask at 02/24/2009 @ 07:34am

41. Posted by Wiser19 at 02/24/2009 @ 04:29am

    Keep in mind a bit of history that the Reagan "Messiah" folks like to edit out...

    Reagan eventually "fell from the True Faith" and agreed to corporate tax hikes in 1986.

    And this isn't some DaVinci Code/Jesus married Magdalene claim....it happened.

    Posted by Mask at 02/24/2009 @ 07:35am

42. ROinReno,

    You said above:

    ".....I keep seeing these posts claiming the wealthy pay the bulk of the taxs in this country. The fact is that is patently false. ......"

    The fact is that is patently TRUE.

    Go to www.irs.gov, find the section about historical tax revenues, pull down data about tax revenue by income distribution. Crunch the numbers with a calculator or put it into a spreadsheet on your computer.

    Once you calculate the percentages, you find that the "claims" that the wealthy pay most of the tax in this country are not claims. They are simply statements of fact.

    Posted by sjchermak at 02/24/2009 @ 08:21am

43. "The truth is the core values worked for 2 hundred years and built this into a nation that was the envy of the planet...and then came the "experts" in govt...."

    "and here we are...racing towards California and then 3rd world... "

    Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 4:23pm

    It is sheer ignorant fantasy to equate the machinations of the present right (Imperial), with the "core values" instituted by the founders (Republic).

    You are in no way the ideological or intellectual heir of that core tradition, you are quite to the contrary very much an anathema (a death of its soul) to it ...

    "today with free schools, free housing, free food, free heat, free clothes, free college, ...how can someone remain poor...unless it has become the life style.. "

    Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 4:31pm

    On the other hand, when you get serious let us know, or would you rather this vacuous crap be taken seriously?

    Posted by V at 02/24/2009 @ 08:59am

44. Posted by sjchermak at 02/24/2009 @ 08:21am

    SJ, if that's true, then why is a proposal for a hike in their personal income taxes always called "Democrats wanting to raise YOUR taxes", by your friend Mr Limbaugh?

    Or is Rush's audience solely consisting of those who make over $200,000 a year?

    Posted by Mask at 02/24/2009 @ 09:03am

45. Further complicating the debate are grand standing little creeps protecting their BMW plants at the expense of the rest of the country. We can no longer afford parochial economics if we are going to climb our way out of this. I was listening to Bloomberg news late last night and they had an economist on that really shed some clarity on what we have done since the 60's. We have turned our country into a consuming population while turning China into a producing giant and borrowing from China to fuel out consumption, which worked for a while but was obviously not sustainable. I

    Posted by julien38 at 02/24/2009 @ 09:13am

46. Further complicating the debate are grand standing little creeps protecting their BMW plants at the expense of the rest of the country. We can no longer afford parochial economics if we are going to climb our way out of this. I was listening to Bloomberg news late last night and they had an economist on that really shed some clarity on what we have done since the 60's. We have turned our country into a consuming population while turning China into a producing giant and borrowing from China to fuel our consumption, which worked for a while but was obviously not sustainable. I believe the best description is voodoo economics. I truly wish that I could remember the name of the man, but his prediction was that we were going to be a relatively long time climbing our way out. Also Robert Reich gave an address to the, I think commonwealth, club tracing the history of the middle class being dismantled since the sixties. According to Reich, people are tapped out. Jaimie Galbraith was saying that bank liquidity wasn't the problem, people can't afford to borrow. The giant ponzi scheme has come crashing down around our heads.

    Posted by julien38 at 02/24/2009 @ 09:23am

47. "today with free schools, free housing, free food, free heat, free clothes, free college, ...how can someone remain poor...unless it has become the life style.. "

    Posted by YourJomamma at 02/23/2009 @ 4:31pm

    On the other hand, when you get serious let us know, or would you rather this vacuous crap be taken seriously?

    Posted by V at 02/24/2009 @ 08:59am

    Maybe you should do a little digging yourself...no not the whole you are already in..

    but check out the help available...

    Hint: Try a free house in Ft Meyers FL

    Try heat, food, clothes in Minnesota..so much so, that for years Chicago would put people from the ghettos on a bus for Minneapolis, pick up all kinds of food, staples, and a CHECK,...and the bus would return to the projects in Chicago...they used to call it Moneyapolis...

    you have no idea, if one is awake, one can get over $30,000 of help...now it might take a little effort, get up by 9 am and few monemts of research, but one can get free everything today. Free college...many minoritys can do exactly this...even in business we get asked if we have minority company..as they HAVE to burn up a percentage of cash..

    and at the rate we are going, as a white male who is taxed to pay for everything...I will be a minority before long...think there will be a special program for me?

    Affirmative action for a white christian, married employed male? I am an endangered species..when my types go, then we will be bankrupt for sure.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 02/24/2009 @ 09:29am

48. "Economics is complex. It takes place in the real world where many factors are at play and we can't control for them all. Still, we've had four major tax cuts since 1913. None of them have led significant, sustained growth. Two them were followed by instant recessions (Reagan and Bush) and three of them, when they were sustained, were followed by bubbles which were then followed by the three worst crashes and sets of bank failures in modern times. It's time to throw out the theory. Accept the facts. Come up with new ideas to fit them" (Larry Bienhart,November 17, 2008).

    Posted by Wiser19 at 02/24/2009 @ 09:47am

49. Affirmative action for a white christian, married employed male? I am an endangered species..---Posted by YourJomamma at 02/24/2009 @ 09

    Uptil January 20th of this year, MAASCH....how many non-white Presidents have there been? Including today, how many non-christian? How many non-married ex James Buchanan?

    How many non-males?

    Yep...we (yep, I'm one too, less Christian) are sure powerless, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 02/24/2009 @ 09:49am

50. "I believe the best description is voodoo economics. I truly wish that I could remember the name of the man, but his prediction was that we were going to be a relatively long time climbing our way out."Posted by julien38 at 02/24/2009 @ 09:23am

    It was George Bush I that coined the term voodoo economics during the Republican primary race against Reagan.

    Posted by Wiser19 at 02/24/2009 @ 09:56am

51. Mask,

    Taxes will go up for everybody under Obama, which is probably what Rush meant about "Democrats wanting to raise YOUR taxes"

    1. Obama will let the Bush tax cuts expire. These "tax cuts for the rich" lowered taxes for people at all income levels. Letting a tax cut expire is effectively a tax increase, that will affect all income brackets.

    2. Obama wants to rais the cap on Social Security payroll tax. This will affect all income brackets.

    3. Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax percentage. Many people who are NOT "wealthy" own stock, and they will see an increase in taxes if they sell their stock.

    4. Obama wants to raise taxes on business, who will build the extra amount in the price of products people, including people who are not wealthy, pay.

    What does the makup of Rush's audience have to do with this?

    Where does Rush even enter into this, other than being correct when he says that Democrats want to raise YOUR taxes, no matter who the income level of the person is that he is talking to?

    You are fixated with Rush, that must be because despite your apparent liberal political beliefs, you have a nagging feeling in your mind that those beliefs REALLY ARE wrong, whenever you hear Rush say so!

    Posted by sjchermak at 02/24/2009 @ 10:42am

52. Keep in mind a bit of history that the Reagan "Messiah" folks like to edit out...

    Reagan eventually "fell from the True Faith" and agreed to corporate tax hikes in 1986.

    And this isn't some DaVinci Code/Jesus married Magdalene claim....it happened.

    Posted by Mask at 02/24/2009 @ 07:35am

    Mask, you persist in telling half truths...did Reagan then lower them the following year....Yes,

    and when Reagan left office, isn't it true that corp tax rates were 25% lower than when he took office?

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/24/2009 @ 10:44am

53. you have a nagging feeling in your mind that those beliefs REALLY ARE wrong, whenever you hear Rush say so!---Posted by sjchermak at 02/24/2009 @ 10:42am

    Odd sort of projection, from a guy who can't or won't name ONE policy matter that Limbaugh has been wrong about.

    And you are the self-confessed ditto-head, SJ...so don't blame me for bringing it up.

    As for taxes, remember what your mentor said back in 1992 and Clinton's "massive tax hike" and how it would "hurt the middle class and stunt economic growth"?

    You DO remember stuff from more than a few weeks/months back, right?

    Posted by Mask at 02/24/2009 @ 11:00am

54. Posted by antisocialist at 02/24/2009 @ 10:44am

    History and facts aren't so kind to your secular saint, LVLIB-

    "Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business."

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0301.green.html

    Posted by Mask at 02/24/2009 @ 11:02am

55. Mask,

    You do remember, as I do, that a lot of the boom during the 90's was the "dot com" boom, not due to any Clinton tax policy?

    And you do remember, as I do, that the economy was going into recession at the end of Clinton's term?

    So my memory is quite good, wouldn't you agree?

    What I remember in the here and now is that you, as always, are switching arguments on the fly to avoid being pinned down.

    Such as how you pose questions about the income level of the audience listening to Rush Limbaugh, after he says Democrats will raise YOUR taxes - and after being refuted on that one, as you were, you fly away to another topic or maybe even another thread altogether for a while, with more idiotic questions for people to answer as you, as always, avoid questions put to you!

    Posted by sjchermak at 02/24/2009 @ 12:01pm

56. Posted by sjchermak at 02/24/2009 @ 12:01pm

    Okay, let's take these one at a time-

    1. Clinton "got lucky" with the dot-com boom...otherwise Rush would have been right, which he was because it was just a lucky break on Clinton's part.

    2. Clinton's economy was going into recession as he left office...which despite the previous years of boom (which were caused by the dot-com boom, of course)...his tax hike from SEVEN YEARS EARLIER had finally kicked in (as Rush predicted).

    3. And the question remains, if Rush says "YOUR taxes will be raised if Obama puts forth a plan to tax the top 2%"....doesn't that mean that "you" would have to be part of the top 2%....and does his audience consist of that or....is Rush not telling the truth (but will be proven right...unless Obama "gets lucky"...in which case it could be delayed 6-7 years!)

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 02/24/2009 @ 12:12pm

57. BTW, SJCHER...speaking of Maha-rushi's statements from back in the Clinton days...

    was he right about this?

    "What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law.

    The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."-- Rush Limbaugh show, Oct. 5, 1995

    Posted by Mask at 02/24/2009 @ 12:15pm

58. Posted by sjchermak at 02/24/2009 @ 10:42am

    2. Obama wants to rais the cap on Social Security payroll tax. This will affect all income brackets.

    3. Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax percentage. Many people who are NOT "wealthy" own stock, and they will see an increase in taxes if they sell their stock.

    I have to take issue with these statements. #2 is simply wrong. Raising or eliminating the cap ($102,000 for 2008) would only DIRECTLY affect those making more than $102k. You could argue that everyone is effected because the tax is paid 50/50 by company and individual, thus making companies pay more overall, but since most companies have a relatively small percentage making over $102k this argument isn't all that persuasive.

    #3 is only half true. Yes, many people who are not wealthy own stock, but they own it through IRAs or other retirement plans that offer tax incentives. These people wouldn't be affected by a capital gains tax increase. I would go further to say that anyone playing the market as an individual outside these retirement funds while making under $40k is as destined to lose money as a guy walking up to a roulette table. Frankly, a disincentive for that sort of gambling by people who can't afford it might be a good thing.

    Posted by CrepesOfWrath at 02/24/2009 @ 12:16pm

59. Is Gov Paterson aware of these tax issues? Which wealthy corporate attorneys are advising him? I had thought we could expect a more worker/family-friendly administration from Paterson, but I guess I was fooled again.

    This country is populated by people who believe that they too will someday be rich, and are concerned they'll have to pay high taxes on their ship when it comes in. This explains why hillbillies are opposed to "the death tax." I don't recall the numbers, but a survey done a few years back found that a high percentage of Americans expect to be in the luxury class someday. If nothing else, the coming Depression will shake that pipedream out of our hands.

    See you at the March 5 rally.

    Posted by Citizen54 at 02/24/2009 @ 12:37pm

60. Mask,

    Your last question is not compatible with the subject of this thread.

    Posted by sjchermak at 02/24/2009 @ 1:09pm

61. Posted by YourJomamma at 02/24/2009 @ 09:29am

    That is what I thought, one had to ask in any case.

    "Being poor is a condition in life that does not have to be permanent..muchless generational..."

    So (somewhat ahead of myself) you take one incident and extrapolate it as a nationwide solution, eh?

    "today with free schools,"

    So exactly when where schools, not free? Again, watered down "new-speak," spoken (for all intents and purposes) by a low level grunt, front, for those who wish to privatize all (that's left of ...) education.

    "free housing, free food, free heat, free clothes, free college, ...how can someone remain poor...unless it has become the life style.. "

    Based on your (pretty much anecdotal, borderline feral) response, the above is simply B.S.

    Posted by V at 02/24/2009 @ 1:24pm

62. Your last question is not compatible with the subject of this thread.

    Posted by sjchermak at 02/24/2009 @ 1:09pm

    No. My last question, whenever I pose it, embarasses and confuses you...because it means BOTH "Rush was wrong" at some point in time in the past and he is NOW a hypocrite.

    and so, as before, you will go away and avoid the question.

    Posted by Mask at 02/24/2009 @ 2:03pm

63. Katrina, exactly who is getting the message. I do not see it happening fast enough. Certainly, Republican elected officials are not getting it, many of whom are governing states with huge economic problems. Both Mississippi and Louisiana need significant assistance for the chronically unemployed. The majority constituency who elected them do not get it. State governors on the whole do not get it, since some key changes in economic policy have not changed.

    One example is the state lottery systems. In Indiana, several years ago its Republican governor, Mitch Daniels, attempted to sell it to private interests with the funds going to higher education and medical hi-tech industries. Effectively, these funds would have enriched the top 5% of the population, although it's known that the bottom 50% of the population play the lotteries. The salaries of lottery executives are also distorted relative to what they do. I expect they also get bonuses at the end of the year like bank executive for revenue they had little to create, since all services are paid for by the taxpayers. The way prizes are dispensed also needs evaluation as too much goes to a winner, rather than more of the prize money being spread around among more recipients, say those who missed the big prize by one or two numbers.

    Then, there is also the 800-lb gorilla still in the room, the continuing pockets of white privilege that exists not only at the top, but in labor unions, particularly construction, and small business. Without appropriate safeguards, much of the stimulus funding will not reach all populations at a rate that it should be broadly effective.

    If there is change, it certainly is not happening at a speed that is necessary to assist all segments of the poor and middle class in the country.

    Posted by afrothetics at 02/24/2009 @ 2:45pm

64. How will New York City die, you ask?

    Several terrorist detonated particulrly "dirty" nuclear devices will likely get the job done, and sooner than we think.

    These terrorists come across our southern border and originate from just about every country on the planet.

    Each brings a little piece of the devices to be used. Patience is their ally. Inattention to our southern border, to our sovereignty and safety, is their silent partner.

    Posted by tucanofulano at 02/24/2009 @ 3:22pm

65. Mask,

    Your question does not embarass or confuse me.... it of course is not the subject of the current thread.

    But you keep fixating on things and circling back to them and so .... I might be tempted to ask... gee I think I will... .what happened to your answer to my question the last time you plowed this ground?

    You remember... because you remember everything... I asked YOU what was wrong with Rush's statments (because of your implication that they were wrong).

    You imply this again now... so I will ask you again on a thread that has nothing to do with this subject.... Mask, what is wrong with putting more white illegal drug users in jail?

    And what is wrong with putting more whites who sell drugs illegally in jail?

    AND... you know full well as I do.. that Rush got addicted to painkillers... and he is now off that addiction......

    What we do know out of this is that you fish and troll these blogs making comments and conducting surveys for the sole purpose of being a leftist pain in the ass, with no productive knowledge much less action coming from this.

    In the thread about Sean Penn I told frosty zoom (after about the umpteenth millionth anti-US comment) to do something productive and go over from Windsor to Detroit and do something productive to help Detroit rather than chronicle all the American wrong Frosty perceives.

    If Frosty does that, join up, and that will keep you off of the computer for a while.

    Posted by sjchermak at 02/24/2009 @ 3:43pm

66. What I don't get is how anyone can legitimately think that if your employees are doing all the work, and being paid far less than they can live on, while you, not doing anything to earn your living, gets to live high on the hog, that you get to keep all that money for yourself? If you're not earning it yourself, it's not your money, it's your employees'. Merely owning the building shouldn't give you the right to usurp the wages your employees deserve. If corporations was a slice of the profits, they should be forced to get down to that sales floor and work for it just like everyone else. And yes, it's a fact. On paper, the wealthy pay a lot. But if you follow the money, the middle class have to absorb it all because the rich get break after break after break. The only time the middle class gets a break is when their body shuts down from being forced to overwork for unacceptably poor pay. Not that the middle class can afford to go to the hospital without a mortgage first, anyway.

    Posted by Kristev at 02/24/2009 @ 3:49pm

67. Let's get some new policies in place that do something beneficial to all. Global poverty's a great place to start. It'd take so little to end it right now, but instead we do things like give money to the banks and other industries that are insolvent.

    The Borgen Project (www.borgenproject.org) has some interesting insight into addressing the issues of global poverty, something we can remedy easily and sustainably.

    Some interesting figures to ponder: $30 billion USD: The annual shortfall to end global poverty. $550 billion USD: The annual US defense budget.

    Posted by MotivatedCitizen at 02/24/2009 @ 4:53pm

68. Before ENRON, before the Mortgage Fraud, what about the Healthcare Finance Fraud?

    JULY 10, 2007 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ohsn SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT CHARGES FORMER EXECUTIVES OF HEALTH CARE FINANCING COMPANY WITH CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, MONEY LAUNDERING "...superseding indictment charging eight former executives of National Century Financial Enterprises (NCFE) with conspiring to defraud investors by diverting millions of dollars in investors' funds, fabricating data in investor reports, and moving money back and forth between accounts in order to conceal investor fund shortfalls. NCFE, based in Dublin, Ohio, was one of the largest healthcare finance companies in the United States ..." before FBI raided the office in Dublin, Oh.

    "This case is one of the largest corporate fraud investigations involving a privately held company headquartered in small town America," said Assistant Director Kenneth W. Kaiser of the FBI Criminal Investigative Division.

    JPMORGAN CHASE and CITI PAID GOVERNMENT SETTLED AGREEMENTS FOR FRAUD in National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc. (NCFE), the "LARGEST ‘PRIVATE' FINANACIAL FRAUD CASE "in our nation's history

    February 3, 2008- THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH By the numbers All defendants, except for James K Happ, were initially indicted in May, 2006. United States District Judge Algenon L. Marbley will preside over the case which is scheduled for trial on November 5, 2007. National Century Financial Enterprises (NCFE)

    Friday, February 8, 2008- Business First of Columbus - Business First Poulsen isn't the only National Century executive scheduled for a trial apart from the five now in court. James Happ is scheduled for trial in October because "he wasn't charged in connection with the company's failure unti

    Posted by sasha2008 at 02/24/2009 @ 6:41pm

69. "the American people are beginning to recognize conservative economic policy for what it is: a disastrous recipe for privatizing profits and socializing costs, and shifting the economic burden to the poor and middle class."

    Wow. In the Bizarro World of the left, socialism, the inspiration for a uniform record of failure, is a big success, while capitalism, which created the most successful economy in history (including KVH's trust fund), is a big failure. I can only say, wow.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/24/2009 @ 7:23pm

70. Government is federal, but the biggest player is the national government with a loop-holed tax hole for the rich ... wonder if Vanden Huevel ever read Perfectly Legal by David Cay Johnston of the NY Times -- or if she had if she can connect the dots. Seems like she may be a de facto apologist for a pseudo populist president who may trim around the edges, but is seemingly afraid at this point to confront that as a country we have the greatest disparity of wealth of any nation on the face on the face of the earth with what amounts to socialism for the rich which was true even in the heady Bill Clinton status quo ante days. Think that's good enough?

    Posted by SFDave4U at 02/24/2009 @ 8:05pm

71. Kristev,

    You waxed eloquent above as follows "......What I don't get is how anyone can legitimately think that if your employees are doing all the work, and being paid far less than they can live on, while you, not doing anything to earn your living, gets to live high on the hog, that you get to keep all that money for yourself? If you're not earning it yourself, it's not your money, it's your employees'. Merely owning the building shouldn't give you the right to usurp the wages your employees deserve. If corporations was a slice of the profits, they should be forced to get down to that sales floor and work for it just like everyone else. ....."

    Ah, yes... this is an oldie but goodie....

    Starting and maintaining a successful business is not work! The person or people who have done or are doing that are DOING NOTHING!!!

    The workers are the only ones who do anything. The people who created the business (without which the workers would have to go somewhere else to work) are sitting around twiddling their thumbs all day.

    But.... wouldn't the oppressed workers be surprised if one day those lazy money grabbing wealthy people really did start doing nothing... and all of a sudden there were no places for the workers to work at!

    Posted by sjchermak at 02/24/2009 @ 9:06pm

72. If the constituencies of our Nation's state-houses have failed to recognize the facts of the robber-baron philosophy that is so frequently aggrandized by the abstruse title "conservative economics" after these several decades of their recurrence, then they are every bit as culpable as their select-persons. I'd guess that they even know why that is so: Many are quite well off from the occasional by-blow of those eras. Guilty wealth stimulates silence (Approval inferred therefrom).

    Posted by chasnat at 02/24/2009 @ 10:32pm

73. Of course there would. A job in proper order creates more jobs, not fewer.

    Posted by Kristev at 02/25/2009 @ 12:15am

74. What I mean is that business are supposed to get bigger, not kick people out.

    And yes, I believe it's quite clear that most people at the top who 'create' business have never worked a day in their lives. My point may be old, and easy to ridicule, but only because it's still true.

    Posted by Kristev at 02/25/2009 @ 12:20am

75. Posted by pontificus at 02/24/2009 @ 7:23pm

    "In the Bizarro World of the left, socialism, the inspiration for a uniform record of failure"

    The Socialism "scare" is top down affair, it is a response to the sinking feeling some (of a decidedly oligarch bent) are getting from the feeling that one slipped through. They fear.

    "is a big success, while capitalism"

    Ignorance, no matter how deep (numerically) the bench it can draw from, is still ignorant. U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, did not think he was a capitalist the system he and the founding fathers thought they were putting in place was "The American System of political-economy." Capitalism to Alexander Hamilton was an imperial, ultramontane rule, by a financier oligarchy. Of and against which they had fought a war.

    For completeness sake lets throw in some Friedrich List (1789-1846) ... (emphasis mine)

    His first "Letter from Reading to the General Convention at Harrisburg," in 1827, List stated that he would concentrate on ``the refutation of the theory of Adam Smith and Co., (everything the right stands for reduced to essence) the fundamental errors of which have not yet been understood so clearly as they ought to be."

    "It is this theory, sir, which furnishes to the opponents of the ... American System ... the intellectual means of their opposition.... Boasting of their imaginary superiority in science and knowledge, these disciples of Smith and Say are treating every defender of common sense like an empiric whose mental power and literary acquirements are not strong enough to conceive the sublime doctrine of their masters.''

    "I can only say, wow."

    I am not surprised.

    Posted by V at 02/25/2009 @ 12:39am

76. The Socialism "scare" is _a_ top down affair. It is not by accident the anti FDR rhetoric and Socialism as new WMD have become the major fronts defined by the high priests of the right.

    Posted by V at 02/25/2009 @ 12:47am

77. Congress questions corporate fat cats:

    http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-02-25/

    Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 08:13am

78. Posted by V at 02/25/2009 @ 12:39am

    "it is a response to the sinking feeling some (of a decidedly oligarch bent) are getting from the feeling that one slipped through."

    And socialism is the manifest expression envy of those who cannot or do not, for those who do.

    "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

    Winston Churchill

    But of course, failure, ignorance, envy and misery have their adherents as well, as you so amply demonstrate.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 08:16am

79. The Borgen Project (www.borgenproject.org) has some interesting insight into addressing the issues of global poverty, something we can remedy easily and sustainably.

    Some interesting figures to ponder: $30 billion USD: The annual shortfall to end global poverty. $550 billion USD: The annual US defense budget.

    Posted by MotivatedCitizen at 02/24/2009 @ 4:53pm |

    This is sooooo funny. This is rib splitting humor. Hey motivatedcitizen, do you even know that since LBJ's Great Society in the mid 1960's (the war on poverty) we taxpayers have fork over somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 trillion to end poverty in the U.S. Last time I checked, we still have poor people here in the states. And you think $30 billion will end world poverty??? HAHAHAHA!!!!

    Posted by fram at 02/25/2009 @ 08:17am

80. Posted by sjchermak at 02/24/2009 @ 3:43pm

    So should somebody who "doctor shops" for drugs go to jail or just the doctors?

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2009 @ 08:59am

81. All of the whining from our right wing friends here amazes me.

    If Obama was the true liberal you accuse him of being he wouldn't be waiting for the Bush tax cuts to lapse, he and congress would repeal them now...which is what they should do anyway.

    Here's another one. Why is it that after $100k there isn't any money taken out of peoples' checks? The whole idea of social security was and is to provide a safety net for those who worked but were not able to save for retirement due to reasons such as, pension plans being cut; 401k's values decreasing in value faster than a rethug can hide their money in offshore accounts; and losing their jobs due to offshoring jobs and technology to slave labor countries.

    The wealthy who've invested in this country have been given a free ride far too long. They've raided public coffers and black mailed cities in order to get tax breaks, free property, city, county and state money and other lovely charities for the ultra rich to dip their mits into.

    Once all of the jobs are gone, and the technology is sold to the highest bidder, we might as well turn off the lights, because the party is over. You can thank Reagan and all of the presidents who followed him and his mentor Milton Friedman for the situation we are presently in....along with a lot of smelly rich folks wetting their beaks at present soaking up the remainder of money. All of the wealth of the U.S. didn't evaporate, it went somewhere....right into the hands of the bastards who need it the least.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/25/2009 @ 10:38am

82. Posted by fram at 02/25/2009 @ 08:17am

    fram, curious...where do you get that "$10 trillion" figure?

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2009 @ 10:46am

83. .....since LBJ's Great Society...we taxpayers have fork over...$10 trillion to end poverty in the U.S....we still have poor people here....

    Posted by fram at 02/25/2009 @ 08:17am

    Motivated's intellect can't handle numbers like $10 trillion....maybe he/she can `study' just one state--the 6th largest economy in the world on its way DOWN:

    February 25, 2009

    Should We Let California Go Bankrupt?

    By Steven Malanga

    A New York Times story about the budget deal that California legislators struck last week to close the state's monstrous deficit noted that, "California is an example of what you will see across the country" as state budgets come under pressure from the declining economy.

    Hardly. While many states are grappling with budget problems, none are nearly as large as California's relative to its size--$41 billion in a state of 37 million, or $1,108 per resident. Even New York, the next most fiscally pressed state, clocks in with a mere $13 billion for 19 million residents, or $685 per capita....

    The similarities between California and the auto companies are especially striking. Neither can afford their workforce. California schools pay their employees 35 percent more on average in wages and benefits than the national average....A public employee in California with 30 years of service can already retire at 55 with more than half of his salary as pension, and public-safety workers can get 90 percent of their salary at age 50.

    Another budget buster is California's spending on social services, clocking in at about 70 percent more per capita than the national average. Leading the way is state spending on cash assistance programs (that is, welfare), where the state expends nearly three times more per resident than other states....

    Posted by Happy at 02/25/2009 @ 10:49am

84. Killing California 101....continued:

    The rich program of social service benefits is also burdensome because of the state's large low-wage immigrant population. As Milton Friedman observed in the mid-1990s, you can't have porous borders and a welfare state. The incentives are all wrong. California has become a case-study in that notion. A report by economists working for the National Academy of Sciences in the mid-1990s concluded that the average native-born California household paid about $1,100 in additional taxes because of government services used by immigrants whose own taxes don't come close to covering their cost to society. It would be very interesting to see what the numbers are today.

    But California doesn't just have a spending problem. Increasingly it also has economic and revenue problems. Even as I write this other neighboring states are running ads in local newspapers inviting California businesses to move their headquarters out of the state.....Development Counsellors International, which advises companies on where to locate their facilities, tabbed California as the worst state to do business in.

    .....California has become toxic to business, ranging from the highest personal income tax rate in the country...to an environmental regulatory regime that has made electricity so expensive businesses simply can't compete in California....even...Google, which built a server farm in Oregon, to Intel, which opened a $3 billion factory for producing microprocessors outside of Phoenix.

    In the race for the exits, residents are accompanying businesses.....

    Posted by Happy at 02/25/2009 @ 10:54am

85. Posted by Happy at 02/25/2009 @ 10:49am

    Okay, HAPP....where DOES the "$10 Trillion" figure come from? What does it entail?....SPECIFICALLY?

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2009 @ 12:53pm

86. Posted by pontificus at 02/25/2009 @ 08:16am

    "And socialism is the manifest expression envy of those who cannot or do not, for those who do."

    Perhaps, but who cares? For as I said, "Socialism" is simply the new "WMD" created for the 12%'ers ...

    "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

    "Winston Churchill"

    Winston Churchill? Makes sense you would quote that Imperialist (therefore ... rabidly anti American) Jack Ass, you being his spiritual heir, as it were.

    But of course, failure, ignorance, envy and misery have their adherents as well, as you so amply demonstrate.

    LoL, Dude the only thing I demonstrated was your concomitant, limited reading and comprehension, and lack of erudition. As only a child (and that only at play) can pull Socialism from the following;

    "Ignorance, no matter how deep (numerically) the bench it can draw from, is still ignorant. U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, did not think he was a capitalist the system he and the founding fathers thought they were putting in place was "The American System of political-economy." Capitalism to Alexander Hamilton was an imperial, ultramontane rule, by a financier oligarchy. Of and against which they had fought a war."

    Posted by V at 02/25/2009 @ 4:25pm

87. Posted by V at 02/25/2009 @ 4:25pm

    Actually, what's interessting...as I noted in other threads...

    is how "liberal" apparently just "isn't scary enough" for these guys and they've had to switch to "socialism"?!?!??!?

    Why ol' Ronald Reagan didn't need to drop the H-bomb of "socialist"...he used "liberal" and "liberalism"...

    but apparently, that's just not good enough anymore...or has gotten a bit threadbare.

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2009 @ 4:41pm

88. Posted by Mask at 02/25/2009 @ 4:41pm

    I believe it to be in part the (spiritually, anti FDR) "Kansas effect ..."

    How does one get a people to (at first I said vote, then act) in essence, think, against their own best interests?

    Kansas and the 28%'ers share the same malady.

    Lincoln is ok, almost every president somehow in the end gets around to mentioning him.

    So, I also believe that some heads have not rested well at all ... since this President mentioned Alexander Hamilton.

    If you never really liked our Preamble?

    You just got (opps ... anyone?) bitch slapped ...

    Posted by V at 02/25/2009 @ 9:33pm

89. Happy: .....California has become toxic to business, ranging from the highest personal income tax rate in the country...to an environmental regulatory regime that has made electricity so expensive businesses simply can't compete in California

    And by the same line of reasoning, the whole USA is toxic and 3/4 of our manufactured goods need to come from China with cheap labor, hardly ever taxes and cheap electricity.... Excuse me, but stupid Republicans, it is all about the supply side, about giving advantages to capital. That imbalance has led us to weaken our own internal market transferring more and more wealth from the public to the investors.

    Yes, we should take care of costs, but that should not be the highest priority. The priorities are innovation and quality. We will never win China in a costs war, but surely we can win in creativity and the technological edge. You want to impoverish ever more the American People? Go ahead and continue forbiding unions and placing industries in the deep south were they can get almost as much advantages as in China. Environmental regulations are for the people and my state California has the honor of being a leader state. And even with this big turmoil, few will dare to abandon the fabulous experiences one can live here.

    Posted by Frank42 at 02/26/2009 @ 01:35am

90. As Milton Friedman observed in the mid-1990s, you can't have porous borders and a welfare state. The incentives are all wrong. .... Posted by Happy at 02/25/2009 @ 10:54am

    Happy, it figures you'd be quoting Miltion "the effing jackass Friedman for support of your neocon bullshit.

    The basis for Friedman's economic was pure greed. If you don't believe me, read up on him. Therein lies the root of the problem our nation is dealing with. The greed of corporate execs, international tycoons, and investers believing there should always be increasing profits....you can't squeeze blood out of a rock. Businesses have tried, but once the profit margin flattens out and your product has basically saturated the market, you can't increase your profits unless you either come up with a new or improved product. The wallstreet assholes have not come up with new products, they just buy and sell assets, liquidate companies, and streamline factories to make them look more profitable than they are to sucker the highest bidder to come in and buy them.

    Greed of the businessmen of wallstreet, the banking industry and also of international corporations has been the root of the problem. Their greed wasn't to protect their companies, which Friedman's basis was on, but rather that their greed was to line their own pockets and then dump the company or abandon ship before anyone could catch them with their hands in the cookie jar and also prove them to be incompetant.

    So, go ahead an keep quoting Friedman. It just proves that you evidently haven't been paying attention to what has been going on for the last 30 years or so.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/26/2009 @ 05:00am

91. few will dare to abandon the fabulous experiences one can live here.

    Posted by Frank42 at 02/26/2009 @ 01:35am

    Good post Frank. I had the good fortune of living a suberb of San Diego (La Mesa) and loved California. It's the prettiest state in the U.S. and has a lot to offer. That is also the reason it is so expensive to live there. Everyone wants to live in CA. I wish I could afford to live there myself.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/26/2009 @ 07:42am

92. ....but stupid Republicans, it is all about the supply side, about giving advantages to capital. ....

    ....we should take care of costs, but that should not be the highest priority. The priorities are innovation and quality....

    ....my state California has the honor of being a leader state. And even with this big turmoil, few will dare to abandon the fabulous experiences one can live here.

    Posted by Frank42 at 02/26/2009 @ 01:35am

    Thanks for letting on that Repubs are stupid!

    Capital is mobile, labor far less so!

    Innovation takes risk-taking, pushing the envelope...that sort of thing...and usually takes CAPITAL to commercialize and produce! As a Capitalist, I see far less reason to risk my money in an environment of Magic!

    You can enjoy your "fabulous experiences" of living in Cali, question is, why should us poor Texans subsidize you as you head to DC for handouts?

    Posted by Happy at 02/26/2009 @ 11:13am

93. Innovation takes risk-taking, pushing the envelope...that sort of thing...and usually takes CAPITAL to commercialize and produce! As a Capitalist, I see far less reason to risk my money in an environment of Magic!

    You can enjoy your "fabulous experiences" of living in Cali, question is, why should us poor Texans subsidize you as you head to DC for handouts?

    Posted by Happy at 02/26/2009 @ 11:13am

    Happy, What exactly have you produced, designed, or invented? Do you produce some type of tangible goods or service or do you merely place your bets on something someone else does to profit off it? If so, the rest of the nation doesn't wish to allow your ilk to bend and break the laws in order to maximize your bottom line...and I repeat, your bottom line.

    Insider trading at the high levels was evidently perfectly fine under W's helm and manipulating markets for profit was also something not frowned upon under the rethugs corrupted reign of terror to working folks.

    Just remember this supply and demand folks. The working poor may not be able to control folks in D.C. to get what they want, but, if we ever got organized well enough to do national or even international labor strikes, you people earning your bread off others' labors would be in a serious pickle.

    See, that's the problem. Investors have no yield, no profits, no anything, without having laborers, engineers and so on to produce the goods for them.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/26/2009 @ 11:50am

94. Katrina, I have a simple question I've yet to hear anyone on the pro-business group have to address.

    Why are republicans so anti-union yet believe that the chamber of commerce is a good thing and that businesses grouping together against workers is just dandy?

    Doesn't anyone see the hypocracy in this? People who have to work every day to make their payments don't have lobbyists acting on their every whim whereas corporate America and international corporations as well as other countries are allowed to have a voice in our government? Isn't there something wrong with this picture?

    Unions are the only friend working people have. If big business were to eliminate all unions tomorrow, the weekly working hours would immediately go up, the wages would go down, benefits would disappear. They will continually want more for less, cutting here and there until finally the task master is standing over workers with a whip. It's been done before, what's to stop it from happening again?

    That's the world I envision the republicans wanting us to live in.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/26/2009 @ 12:10pm

95. I woke up this morning and decided that the clock has run out, and the glorious new day of Socialism that The Nation has hoped for for so many years is on its way. So I went in to my business this morning, and simply decided to shut it down. We will cease business on April 1st, and I will sell off all assets and inventory, the building and property, and of course, stop paying wages to the 37 people we employed. No more taxes to feed the machine.

    Posted by sntauri at 02/26/2009 @ 12:51pm

96. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/26/2009 @ 07:42am

    "Everyone wants to live in CA. I wish I could afford to live there myself."

    If it wasn't for the liberal/socialists running California, you COULD afford to live there. That's the connection you bottom-rung lefties never seem able to grasp.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/26/2009 @ 1:31pm

97. If it wasn't for the liberal/socialists running California, you COULD afford to live there. That's the connection you bottom-rung lefties never seem able to grasp.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/26/2009 @ 1:31pm

    Nice try Ponti. The reason it is so expensive to live in CA is because rich people throughout the world have moved there and driven property values through the ceiling to run off your average Joe. The only people who can afford to live there now already have paid off their homes or inherited them, or have a lot of wealth. The rest of the folks living there are screwed and probably in debt up to their ears. By the way, if you hadn't noticed, Southern CA isn't too liberal. Now, they aren't bible thumping wackos either, but there's folks with a lot of money down there who don't want to pay taxes so CA isn't some leftest librul state......

    ...April 1st, and I will sell off all assets and inventory, the building and property, and of course, stop paying wages to the 37 people we employed. No more taxes to feed the machine.

    Posted by sntauri at 02/26/2009 @ 12:51pm sntauri, You sound like one of my friends who was complaining about having to pay taxes and that he would probably have to lay off his workers with the same reasons you state. Here's the catch with the guy I know. His business is still doing well enough to purchase properties for a song via foreclosures, and he and his partners are still able to take multiple cruises and live quite high on the hog.

    My point is that a lot of small business owners don't pay their employees that well nor do they have benefits for their employees. Don't bitch about the liberals for this. You can blame the big corporations who outsource jobs and use their monopolies to destroy small business.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/26/2009 @ 2:03pm

98. There are two arguments that really bother me. One is the ticking bomb stupidity to justify some of the worst criminal behavior done to other human beings. The second argument statement that really annoys the crap out of me is that the poor don't pay taxes. They pay; fica, real estates, federal gas, fuel, state fuel, state gas , state sales, excise etc.... The well off can avoid most of these by getting in their private jets and shopping in China, France, Germany Japan, Brazil, and deduct the price of the jet on their schedule C. Look the class war is over and the well off have won. 10 percent of the top wage earners own 80 percent of the wealth and 40 million go to bet hungry. 47 million of us don't have health care. A buddy of mine who had been working for Wal Mart died of sugar diabetes simply because he could not afford his medication.

    Posted by julien38 at 02/26/2009 @ 9:02pm

99. A buddy of mine who had been working for Wal Mart died of sugar diabetes simply because he could not afford his medication.

    Posted by julien38 at 02/26/2009 @ 9:02pm

    julien, sorry about your friend who died of diabetes. That insulin is very expensive indeed, and with a lame insurance policy, diabetes can be a death sentence.

    The rethugs posting here remind me of Ebenezer Scrooge. Their position on your deceased friend would be, "if he may day, then he'd better do it to decrease the surplus population."

    In short, if treating someone isn't profitable, then I guess that person doesn't warrant treatment. Real compassionate people we're dealing with here.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/27/2009 @ 06:47am

100. "We will cease business on April 1st, and I will sell off all assets and inventory, the building and property, and of course, stop paying wages to the 37 people we employed."

     Posted by sntauri at 02/26/2009 @ 12:51pm

     It is indeed appropriate that you do so on a day reserved for fools ...

     Posted by V at 02/27/2009 @ 09:54am

101. Posted by V at 02/27/2009 @ 09:54am

     "It is indeed appropriate that you do so on a day reserved for fools ..."

     Boy, the socialists sure get pissed when the sheep refuse to be sheared. What's the matter, does that endanger your dream of getting something for nothing? LOL

     Posted by pontificus at 02/27/2009 @ 11:27am

102. Yeah, What WILL New York (city & state) do when employment on Wall St. drops back to early 1990s' level, in line with the stock market and dramatically reduced trading & investment banking?

     Posted by Happy at 02/27/2009 @ 6:55pm

103. Posted by pontificus at 02/27/2009 @ 11:27am

     For the record, and just so you know ... I only consider you marginally rational. Also, I do not think that even you know what you are saying, let alone mean, (most of) sometimes. And calling me a Socialist after my posts above only makes you look dumb, so you should stop, I say that as a friend.

     "Boy, the socialists sure get pissed when the sheep refuse to be sheared."

     Please ... actually, I was thinking about the imaginary thirty seven employees. Ergo; in order to be "pissed" I would probably have to think the story actually real, as you did ... and not made up immature reactionary excreta, as you so obviously did not.

     "What's the matter, does that endanger your dream of getting something for nothing?"

     Oh, don't worry, there is more than one way to shear a sheep ... I haven't been slipped just yet. Plus, as I said, it would actually have to be, you know, real ...

     "LOL"

     No, no you're not. Perhaps you should go and work out the need for attention (negative seemingly being better than nothing) with whatever passed for authority, parser of worth and value ... as a child.

     You have had enough from yours truly, (more than you deserve) in any case.

     Posted by V at 02/28/2009 @ 03:16am