Forum Post: Interesting- They Allow Me to Post Sometimes
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 7, 2011, 10:47 a.m. EST by MikeInOhio
(13)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
As long as I don't point out the fact that the "List of Demands" is ridiculous, and that unions are corrupt, violent organizations. Hmmm. Must be the "spam filter" again?
First of all unions are at a record low -- only 12% of all US jobs are unionized. Corporate billionaire propaganda media wants you to think that they are the problem but they are not. Although Occupy Wall Street has no list of demands yet. I have some suggestions to deal with the real problem.
What should be on the list is the massive "wealth redistribution" that has gone on for the last 30 years. The top 1% now controls over 42% of all of our nation's wealth and the top 10% now controls over 70% of our entire nation's wealth. The bottom 50% only control a meager 2% of all of our nation's wealth. How did this happen?
The middle class spends their wealth on goods/services and the corporations have redistributed their wealth by paying their profits all out to the executives and shareholders. Middle class wages have stagnated for 30 years while executive wages have gone up 256% in since 1980. Even last year executive compensation went up another 11%. The top 1% now controls over 42% of the entire nation's wealth. We have not seen numbers like this since the great depression. The top 10% controls 70% of the entire nation's wealth. All of our nation's wealth has been redistributed into the hands of the few.
The middle class was roped into replacing wages with easy credit. So instead of paying people living wages, corporations fooled us into thinking we were doing well and could afford things by giving us easy credit instead of wages. Instead of having wages to buy t.v.'s, furniture, etc. we were given easy loans. So the middle class became a debtor class. There used to be a tax disincentive to paying out all of corporate profits at the top because in the 1950's income was taxed at 90% over a certain amount money and now that tax disincentive has disappeared. In 1950's the highest marginal tax rate was 90%. In 1960-1970's it was 70%. In 1980's it dropped to 49%. In 1990's dropped to 39%. Under George Bush it dropped to a mere 36%. We have had over 30 years of massive tax cuts for the wealthy.
There is now no tax disincentive to paying out all of the corporate wealth at the top. And there is no employee bargaining power because now less than 12% of all of our jobs are unionized. Corporate profits are at an all time high, healthcare company profits are at an all time high, and oil profits are at an all time high. We don't have a healthcare crisis we have a healthcare company profit-taking crisis that no politician will doing anything about. Healthcare and oil companies have enjoyed a decade of record profits while we have had a decade of massive premiums for little coverage and a decade of outrageous gas prices.
The problems are: 1) deregulation of the banks by the Republican-controlled congress in 1999; 2) hedge funds are exempt from regulation; 3) tax system no longer has a disincentive against paying outrageous executive salaries (highest marginal tax rate has dropped from 90% to 36%); 4) commodities market is exempt from regulation (Republican-controlled Congress exempted it in the Commodities Future Modernization act of 2000); 5) the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations can spend unlimited funds in campaign elections (thus politicians on both sides favor the wealthy/corporations) and 6) the rise of corporate/billionaire propaganda media "news." Because of the need to raise massive sums in politics today, we no longer have a party that represents the people. The Democrats have to chase the corporate and big money donors too.
What can we do about this: 1) re-instate Glass-Steagall Act regulating the banks; 2) regulate hedge funds and the commodities market (because the commodities market is not regulated speculation has caused prices for commodities to go through the roof); 3) get rid of the money in politics (have federally funded elections with clear limits on spending and no outside groups allowed to have ads); 4) get rid of 1980's laws stating that corporations' only duty is to maximize shareholder profits; and 5) regulate "news" channels and newspapers (no more "slanted opinion news" masquerading as hard news) and reinstitute the fairness doctrine across all news outlets to ensure that both sides get equal time.
Corporations should have duties to society and to their workers too. They should have to balance their duties to maximize shareholder profits against their reinstated duties to their employees and to society. The laws saying that corporations' only duty is to maximize shareholder profits have led to the destruction of long-term business plans and care for their workers and have created short-term profit monsters at the expense of workers and society.
That's great stuff, rmmo. But where do I begin?
Well, first of all, every country in the world (except one or two) has done away with the punitive 90% tax rate. It just doesn't work. I studied international tax rates many years ago in grad school and the evidence is quite compelling.
Speculation is a necessary part of any market. It helps transfer risk (like from the corn farmer to a speculator). If you do away with speculation, you do away with liquidity too. And you need liquidity in markets or they fail to function properly- remember the banking crisis?
Corporations aren't forced by law to "maximize profits". You are free to start a not-for-proft, pay yourself a salary, and give everything else to whomever you like. The vast majority of corporations act responsibly. Go ask you Attorney General's office.
Regulate new channels? Your news channel or mine? Sounds like the old Soviet way. Who gets to decide what is on the news? You?
But you are incorrect. Yale recently did a study on when the middle class fares best. It turns out the middle class fares best and is strongest when you have a high marginal tax rate. Why? Because 1) corporations then give their middle class employees a larger share of corporate profits because there is a disincentive to paying it all out to a few and 2) the government then has money to invest in the middle class through education, college grants, etc.
History actually shows that the middle class fares worst and does worst when the marginal taxes are at the lowest. In the 1950's the marginal tax rates were at their highest 90%. The top 1% only controlled about 10% of all of the nation's wealth. That meant that the rest of America got a fair share of corporate profits. Now by contrast, marginal tax rates are at their lowest in over a half of a century and the middle class have not seen any wage increases in over 30 years while executive salaries have ballooned 256% and another 11% last year.
The fact is that when there is no disincentive to pay all of the corporate profits out to executives and shareholder and employee bargaining power is nonexistent, the money the middle class spends on goods and services is redistributed into the hands of the few.
See Yale Professor Hacker's study on this. In fact, every major University has done a study on this. Harvard recently did a study on ballooning executive salaries and found that there is no rational basis for the salaries. The salaries are not tied to results even. For example, the Home Depot CEO made $250 million for producing bad results while the regular workers get paid a meager $10 per hour.
No other country in the world has executive salaries like we do in America today. In Japan, their culture could not ever conceive of paying their executive that much more than the workers.
We have an imbalance today. All of our wealth and power is in the hands of the few. Both parties cater to the wealthy and powerful and no one represents our interests anymore. Instead, the cries are to further entrench the wealthy and big business by further cutting taxes and further deregulating.
Notice how we did not have "opinion news" before the Republican-controlled congress got rid of the Fairness Doctrine? I could spend hours going through all of the billionaire corporate media propaganda that is destroying our country.
No rational basis for the salaries? What, are shareholders just giving them money for the heck of it?
The study you are referring to about the correlation between corporate CEO pay and corporate profitability was authored by Paul Krugman, I believe. It is always easy to find a range of data that fits the results you are looking for. If I recall correctly, he chose a timeframe where corporate profits were falling. I could easily produce a study showing the exact opposite. Consider your sources.
The CEO of Home Depot made $250,000,000 in one year? I think your source made a mistake. He actually made $3,5 million. Here's the yahoo finance link: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=HD+Profile
I can find numerous studies that imply exactly the opposite is true if you raise marginal tax rates to 90%. It is a commonly held belief among most economists that a punitive tax structure hurts everyone, not just the wealthy. I'm sure Paul Krugman has a study out there showing we would all be living in utopia if only the government nationalized everything.
The corporate media propaganda you are referring to is called free speech. Can't you make a judgement for yourself if the news is useful? Or do you need someone in The Federal Government to select the news for you?
Mike: Here are some links to the Home Depot CEO leaving with $210 million for poor results under his tenure. http://www.alternet.org/economy/49631/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,240987,00.html
http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/03/news/companies/home_depot/index.htm
Here are a couple of links to studies on executive compensation. I'll get you more. http://www.pay-without-performance.com/Preface%20and%20Introduction.pdfhttp://blogs.hbr.org/ashkenas/2010/06/rethinking-the-assumptions-beh.htmlhttp://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/bebchuk/pdfs/BCS-Wages-of-Failure-Nov09.pdfThis list is all over the place. What should be on this list is the
Thank you. I have to leave shortly but will look them over this evening. I really appreciate it!
I like debating you. Thanks for the debate. I could go on forever, but got to get back to real life stuff too. Maybe we'll debate again. I'm in Ohio too. You won't believe this, but I used to hold office in the Republican party.
No, it was a Harvard University study (every major university has a study). There is not one single valid study that can say when taxes are lowest, the middle class does well. The last time we had taxes this low and wealth redistribution like this was just before the great depression.
The only reason why the middle class initially seemed ok in the 1980's and 1990's with the tax decreases is because wages were replaced with easy credit. So, although the middle class was not given a fair wage, corporations starting cheaply loaning them money to make purchases. You used to have to save up money to buy a t.v. or furniture etc. You used to have to have a bigger downpayment to buy a home. You used to have to have money to actually buy your car.
The great middle class 1980's and 1990's were founded on easy credit loans. You were not paid enough money to buy tvs and furniture but companies would give you 3 years same as cash to buy them.
The middle class was given decades of fake wealth -- they went from having savings and wealth to having debt. The middle class became a debtor class. The problem is that there is only so much debt the middle class can take on in place of wages. And wealth redistribution can only go on for so long before too much of the nation's wealth rests with too few. We now make the CIA watch list because our wealth inequality has become so high.
I'l get the links for you on the other stuff.
As to the news, let's just test the accuracy of the information you believe from your media sources. Who deregulated the banks in 1999?
I'm sorry, but you really lose me when you refer to a "fair wage". What exactly is a fair wage and who gets to decide it? Should we have another Federal Department that determines everyone's salaries?
Yes, I know every major university produces studies. I attended a university and produced studies. You say there is not one credible study? Please!
Well, I guess you are right. If the East Coast left-wing intelligentsia says so, who am I to question. So is 90% the magic number? While we are at it, make it 100%, or maybe 150%.
I'm sure the middle class would be better off if we just took everything- assets, income, houses, cars- from the wealthy and sent everyone in the middle class a big fat check.
I am not leftist. Look, the problem with wages is that without employees having any bargaining power, they cannot ask for a share of the corporate profit pie. It is the middle class that uses their money to buy corporate goods and services. The middle class are the largest share of people and the driver of the economy. They spend their money, the corporation takes that money and makes a profit.
The problem is that if employees lack bargaining positions and there is no tax disincentive, companies tend to pay most of the profit out at the top. So, the middle class wealth that created that corporate profit gets redistributed to the few. Don't you think that their spending that created the profit should be be fairly distributed to all in the company and not just a few at the top? Do you want a Democracy or an Oligarchy or Plutocracy? You cannot trust people to not be greedy.
You have to have some system or disincentive for the few to take all of the money. Corporations are doing great. Corporations are flush with cash and have had great profits the last few years. Executive compensation has ballooned. Who has suffered? The people with no bargaining power and no real government representation -- the middle class. http://www.ecgtn.org/events/oxford2005/documents/bebchuk_grinstein.pdf
Of course workers can share in the profits of their employer. Most firms have profit-sharing plans or offer stock options. These plans allow the worker to directly share in the profitability of the company.
Lack of bargaining? Sure you can bargain, tell them you want $50,000 a year. If they don't agree move on to the next employer.
The bargaining you are referring to is collective extortion. You either pay me what I want or I'm going to cripple the company with a strike.
Lack of bargaining power is an age old problem. The corporate structure allows the few at the top to determine compensation for all. Unions, although like anything they have flaws, allowed workers to get a larger share of the corporate profits in income. With the demise of unions (less than 12% of all US jobs are now unionized), the removal of tax disincentives, and the massive increase of corporate money in politics, workers have no power to demand anything. There is an imbalance of power.
Why is it that corporate profits are high right now, CEO compensation has ballooned, and corporations are flush with cash while american workers have not seen a pay increase in over 30 years? There is an imbalance of power.
Your theory would be nice if it worked -- just move on to another employer, but the reality is that when all of the compensation decisions are in the hands of the few at the top and there is no disincentive or balancing power, greed reigns every time. And corporations got away with replacing wages with easy loans so people do not realize what has happened. Brilliant idea, loan the workers money instead of paying them.
Unions were created in the first place to deal with these problems.
Mike:
If you are still around, here is some more reading for you.
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties-1
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-last-two-decades-were-greatif-you-were-a-ceo-or-owner-not-if-you-were-anyone-else-5
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#and-savings-rates-are-sinking-7
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#despite-the-myth-of-social-mobility-poor-americans-have-a-slim-chance-of-rising-to-the-upper-middle-class-8
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#meanwhile-income-tax-is-getting-lower-and-lower-for-the-rich-10
countries http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-income-gap-is-not-growing-in-other-countries-like-france-13
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#if-you-arent-in-the-top-1-then-youre-getting-a-bum-deal-15
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/jeffrey-sachs-%22the-american-people-are-going-to-reach-a-breaking-point%22-yftt_536035.html?tickers=%5EDJI,%5EGSPC,MUB,TBT,TLT,UUP,SPY
THE RATIO OF AVERAGE CEO COMPENSATION AND WORKER PAY IN THE US 1965-2005 2005 - 262:1 (Av. CEO-$10,982,000/Av. Worker- $41,861) 2004 - 238:1 2003 - 181:1 2002 - 143:1 2000 - 300:1 1989 - 71:1 1978 - 35:1 1965 - 24:1 Source: Mercer Survey of 350 large industrial and service firms conducted for the Wall Street Journal as reported by Mishel, Bernstein, Allegretto
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703992704576307332105245012.html
http://heritageinstitute.com/governance/compensation.htm
Thank you. I was hoping you would get back to me. Please give me some time to review them and I'll get back to you.
Mike
http://visualizingeconomics.com/2008/07/13/income-gap-and-marginal-tax-rate-1917-2006/
You will see in this chart what people like Professor Hacker (Yale) and Professor Sachs (Columbia) have been saying: the middle class actually fared best when taxes and regulations were highest (1940's-70's). The middle class just didn't realize that they have been getting the shaft because credit was easy and easy credit replaced wages.
I promise I will get back to you, but it may be a day or so.
Thanks Again!
Here is some more evidence of the profiteering that has been going on because our government has been bought by big business and the wealthy.
We have had record corporate, healthcare, and oil profits while we all suffer. It is the result of unbridled profiteering -- see below.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/02/18/health-insurer-profits-jumped-250-in-last-decade/ http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/health-insurers-post-record-profits/story?id=9818699 http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/corporate-news/129427-health-insurance-companies-likely-to-break-profit-records-for-2010
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/09/health-care200909#gotopage1
http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/business/01cnd-exxon.html http://abcnews.go.com/Business/high-gas-prices-record-profits-big-oil/story?id=13447922 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/30/AR2009013003744.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/11/23/record-corporate-profits-are-coming-out-of-workers-hides/ http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/03/more_profits_fewer_jobs.html http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/21st-century-pacifist/2011/feb/16/2010-realizes-record-profits-us-corporations/ http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/01/business/la-fi-profits-20110401
Here are the promised links for my discussion below. I can get more support if you need.
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/homeownership/homeownership-policy-book-ch2.html
http://search.archives.gov/query-bush.html?qt=america%27s+homeownership+challenge&submit.x=19&submit.y=5&qc=bush2&col=bush2
http://www.novoco.com/homeownership/resource_files/reports/Fannie_Mae_letter_Bush.pdf
http://www.americandreamdownpaymentassistance.com/whsp12162003.cfm
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64935#axzz1aPLcZHeY
http://archives.hud.gov/news/2004/pr04-006.cfm http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/10/05/zero_down_mortgage_initiative_by_bush_is_hit/
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040315-3.html
http://archives.hud.gov/news/2004/pr04-024.cfm http://archives.hud.gov/news/2003/pr03-022.cfm
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020617.html http://archives.hud.gov/initiatives/blueprint/blueprint.pdf
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=62687#axzz1aPLcZHeY
http://banking.senate.gov/conf/
I'll give you a little more food for thought over the next couple of days. I, like you probably, believed that it was Clinton that de-regulated the banks until I went to the actual legislation. From 1995-2006, the Republican party controlled the House and Senate, the Gingrich revolution/Contract with America period. In 1999, Texas Republican Senator Phil Gramm and Republican Senators Leach and Bliley proposed a massive repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that was made law after the great depression to keep banks from engaging in wall street gambling. Banks had to just be banks.
The Republican deregulation of banks in 1999 with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act decoupled the risk of making a loan from the loan. So, banks could make a loan, take the origination fee, and then re-sell it -- often to Fannie and Freddie for taxpayers to foot the bill of the bad loans. The banks in fact pushed making more and more loans to get the origination fees and re-sell the loans.
Banks were also allowed to bundle up and sell the loans as mortgage-back securities which Moody's and the other credit rating agencies rated AAA - the most safe and secure investments. And pensions and other retirement funds were required to invest in only AAA rated funds and so our pensions and retirements invested in the sham and took the hit when everyone "discovered" that the loans were bad.
The banks got the green light to do this by President Bush through his America's Homeownership Challenge in 2001. The Republicans had an "ownership society" plan which was 1) own your own healthcare through Health Savings Accounts (really pay for your own healthcare); 2) own your own retirement account by privatizing social security and allowing people to invest their social security in the stock market through 401k type accounts; and 4) own your own home (Margaret Thatcher determined in England that as people own their own homes they tend to vote more conservative so this was supposed to help create a larger conservative base in the US).
Bush created "America's Homeownership Challenge" and "Blue Print for the American Dream" in which he asked the private sector to "loosen credit standards" and come up with more "creative loan products" e.g. interest only, 3, 5, and 7 year adjustable arms. He challenged the private sector to make 5.5 million low income and minority loans. Hence, the beginning of the housing bubble -- the risk of loans was decoupled from making the loan and Washington gave the green light to get low income and minorities into the riskiest loans.
Furthermore, Bush made it so that the risky loans would be federally taxpayer insured. Bush created a HUD policy that for the first time allowed 3, 5, and 7 year adjustable arms to be federally insured and he pushed for there to be federally insured zero downpayment loans.
Bush then went to Fannie and Freddie and told them that they were lagging the private sector and had to do more to make low income and minority loans. Franklin Raines said that he would accept Bush's challenge and increase low income and minority loans by 66%.
Bush then urged Congress to pass the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 which was designed to further fuel the housing bubble and allow banks to make even more bad loans. The Act have hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars as mortgage down payments for people with no savings and bad credit. Bush said that he was removing the "barriers" of homeownership -- the downpayment. So, taxpayers again footed the bill for risky loans. I will provide you with all of the links to the original documents.
Where is this "List of Demands"?
Organised labour is the problem? Get a clue. We live under corporate fascism,. don't you even wonder why the gov. is working to outlaw organised labour? Perhaps people united for the common good it a threat to them?
You haven't seen the list of demands yet? I guess you aren't very involved in the movement and don't read the newspapers.
Put the bong down and try to educate yourself. You're barking up the wrong tree.
No, I like my bong. <refuses to put it down> Either provide a link to this "list" or shut up.
I have to shut up? Every heard of google? It shouldn't be to hard to find.
Find it and post it then. My point is that there is no "list of demands",. and you are ill-informed. (and telling others to "try to educate yourself" showing the world how foolish you are. lol)
http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/
"Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands."
Well then what is there? I read in this morning's paper that your spokesman is advocating the destruction of the Federal Government. Somebody has to get on the ball and tell us how you folks propose to fix everything.
Walking around in silly costumes holding signs that say "tax the rich" and "corporations are evil" doesn't do much to address the problems you all purport to want to solve.
It seems to me you just want money- someone else's money.
What spokesman? There are no leaders, or official spokespeople. (a reporter quoting a random activist is not the voice of the movement)
There is a movement for justice,. there is the 99 percent of us who are done letting the 1 percent take all they want, while we do with less and less, living under an oppressive bankster/monetary system.
"tell us how you folks propose to fix everything"
Wow, no pressure there,. perhaps "everything" is a tad to broad. People are coming together to discuss what to do about many of the problems we are facing, because our elected officials are only making matters worse, by working only for the 1% instead of the 99% We are seeking a bit of justice.
"It seems to me you just want money- someone else's money" No, people are looking for a change to this system that makes life a bit more fair,. we all live here, we have just this one planet, and we can indeed structure our lives here in a more egalitarian way. The 1% control the vast majority of the wealth,. and have no limits. They capture this wealth selling what belongs to all of us,. not their private property, OUR natural resources. Oil, minerals, lumber, food, water, seeds etc. etc. these are the earth's resources not the personal wealth of the 1%. We seek a more equitable distribution of our wealth,. not "someone else's money.
There are, in fact, leaders- the unions. You are being played like a drum.
I hear the DNC weighed in today with their full support. Now that's a shocker!
lol - you really are hilarious!
Unions are groups of workers organised together to gain the benefits of collective bargaining,. not political parties or movement leaders. The unions have offered solidarity with the OWS movement,. not the other way around!
So the Dems supporting a popular movement is bad in your view? Political parties are SUPPOSED to reflect the will of the people,. you know the 99% not the 1%. There is no political party controlling this movement,. they can choose to show support for the ideas they like,. this is called democracy.
You do seem bent and determined to find fault with the voices of the 99%,. when will you realise that these voices are on your side,. and are working to improve life for all not just the tinny few 1% who just take take take more than their share. join us and have your voice heard,. don't just be a nay sayer.
Your theory on unions is certainly interesting, but I would characterize "collective bargaining" as collective extortion.
Good luck with Obama, Pelosi, and the DNC. You are helping republicans, AND I LOVE IT!!!
Keep demonstrating.
Then don't join a union. Problem solved.
Personally I don't support the dems. they are the less right wing part of a single party (fascist military corporate) system,. the two party systems day are numbered,. so don't put all your hopes on the Retugs. REAL change is coming.
I went to walmart and asked the cashier about wages and benefits: minimum wage, no benefits until full time, no full time until a large number of part time hours accrued. According to their Annual report walmart paid out a total of $18,734 million in pay and benefits in 2010. They held back disputed taxes, and earned interest on that money, paying about .87% of that interest in penalties. Dividends paid on a single share of stock=$1.21. their reported profits for each quarter of 2010 in billions of dollars: 3.4, 3.24, 4.68, 3.32. And walmart actively fights unionization. Hmmmm.
Then the cashier should find another job!
Yes, I see. Blame the woman trying to stay afloat, and then speak nothing about the fact that this company is making billions off cheap foreign labor, purposely not paying taxes because they earn more from interest on OUR countries money than they pay out in penalties, all while paying our neighbors a wage they can barely live on, and avoiding providing any benefits that we can't get healthcare without. Your true colors really are showing. By the way, Unemployment in my region is over 11%. giving up any job is not an option.
Here's another fact that might surprise you, since your true colors are showing more and more clearly:
The following is from a report "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century", created by a right wing organization called "New American Citizen" under the "Project for the New American Century" written prior to the end of the Clinton administration. It is available online. The membership includes Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Jeb Bush, as well as people representing military and corporate interests, and more than 30 of the contributors to the report were given positions in the Bush administration.
[(excerpt from Introduction, pg iii, para 1) For the first time since the 1960s the federal government is running a surplus. For most of the 1990s, Congress and the White House gave balancing the budget a higher priority than funding national security. In fact, to a significant degree, the budget was balanced by a combination of increased tax revenues and cuts in defense spending.]
The report further states that some defense spending was actually hidden within other parts of the budget by the Republican led Congress of 1994, with a net result that defense budgeting stayed flat, rather than decreasing (pg 69, Trends in Defense Spending, para 3).
In summary, the authors and publishers of the report are on the ideological right. The report clearly states that by the end of the Clinton years there was not only a balanced budget, but a budget surplus. The cited reason for these facts were the taxes put in place under Clinton coupled with a fixed level in defense spending.
There is really no point in talking about this anymore. Let's just close down Walmart and put its 2,100,000 employees out of work. I'm sure that would make you happy, right? Then the cashier would have zero income.
I'm sure Walmart would love to pay everyone $20 per hour, but their net income is around $14,000 per employee. They would be losing money and would eventually cease to exist. Bye bye jobs.
I agree with you about the Budget. Bush's wars cost us trillions.
Did I say, or in any way imply that walmart should be shut down?
Your tactic is now to redirect the focus away from the problems inherent in walmart and the amount of effort they put into suppressing union development by introducing a false conclusion to a non existent argument. Still bringing out the straw man tactics.
It was not the budget alone, but maintaining a level of defense spending coupled with the Clinton era tax levels that caused a govt budget surplus.
Mikeinohio, you expect fair and open minded conversation, yet you yourself are not fair to the truth or reality and are not open minded. When anyone does not agree with you, you insinuate your thinking, knowledge and understanding of facts is superior. This is passive aggressive and you fool no one.
PS. I don't have a PhD, but thanks...if I could afford to pay for it, I would be in grad school now...
Thank you, Dr, Truth. I'll look in to the passive-aggressive thing.
Please tell me why I am not open-minded. I chat with all sorts of folks, exchange great ideas, and generally get along with most people. There are a few, of course, who don't like to discuss differing opinions.
I really don't think I insinuated that my knowledge and understanding is greater than yours. When people are rude and condescending I try to point out the facts of the situation as best I know them. I have never been rude to anyone who has engaged me in an honest discussion. In fact, I don't think I have ever been rude on this forum. I've dealt with quite a bit of abuse, by the way.
Just to be clear, I actually do think I have better knowledge and understanding than 99% of the people in this movement (I guess that makes me part of the 1%, even though I am poor). The liberal mindset of entitlement is pathetic.
There you go again...you just admitted you do think your worldview is better, and your your mindset is the correct one. Anyone who disagrees with you is "pathetic". Your exchange of ideas is evidenced to be entirely one-sided: your ideas need to be adopted, and those who disagree are called named and insulted. No one has denied there has been union violence and corruption, yet you have not conceded to any point. Where is that open-mindedness?
By the way, one point here is that the corporate entitlement and entitlement that benefits the 1% contributes in a major way to the state of the economy and the demise of the middle class and American dream.
Unions were formed in response to repressive work conditions. People were being mistreated so they rose up and wanted to have a voice against it. To get contracts unions always have to make concessions in negotiations, but any union is better than no union at all. Before unions workers had to just endure whatever treatment they received and much of the time it was very bad.
Or, of course, you could find a different job. Was every single employer repressive and evil?
Evil no? Most of them tend to be slavedrivers though. In NY it is bad, they make one person do the work that 3 people would be needed for. People should not be forced to have to change jobs, there should be some standards that all adhere to, before unions that was loosely the situation. Even employers providing a 30 minute lunch time after 5 hours of work became a labor law, why was that necessary? Many of them must not have been doing that.
Yes, true. I think there was a different idea of work ethic back then. People before the industrial revolution understood that they had to work from dawn to dusk to get by. This has been true for thousands of years.
The revolution gave them the ability to be far more productive workers, thereby allowing them to have real "free time" because their labor was more valuable. This enabled workers to negotiate better working conditions and shorter hours. I wouldn't give all the credit to unions, but they certainly helped speed up the process. Of course, they were incredibly violent too.
Thanks, Gina!
LOL, lucid arguments my ass.
The point went so far above your head you shot it in the LEO.
I just saw your post and I miss your abuse. I was loaded for bear today thinking you would be around.
I understand, of course. You're still recovering from the beat-down.
Well you know these darn right wing racists will always trample on your freedom of speech. You should go post on a liberal message board...... wait, what? :)
Dude, sarcasm.
Everyone on the right is a racist? And my thoughts aren't allowed on "your" message board? You certainly do have an open mind!
There is a reason my posts were so popular- they inspired excellent debate, which generally improves this crazy-thing-called-a-democracy we have in America.
Calling people racists, and telling people to leave, hardly inspires the imagination.
I would reassess your "three simple rules of life".
So Mike. Do you have a history of visiting other organized sites and posting? Just yesterday Palin announced she's not running for the GOP. Have you expressed any feelings about it on FOX....or maybe some other Repulican Site? Trust me, The GOP needs stimulated with ideas right about now.
I have no interest in educating people on the right. Most of them already "get it".
Well then. If you feel people on the right are perfect than why trouble yourself in here?
Because you clearly are not part of the group mind! You still express wrong thinking. You question the thoughts that have been provided to you. You need to be educated until you agree 100% with mikeinohio.
No, that isn't what I am looking for. I'm looking to convince a few young people that they are blindly following a hollow movement. And I have been quite successful thus far. You are involved in a movement that makes absurd blanket statements. You hate the rich, corporations, wall st, etc. In other words you dislike success, and you dislike people who are successful. That is the central tenant of this movement, in my opinion
...and all this has proven to me is just how vulnerable this country has become and quickly it happened. Give the people a firm foundation and we will build our lives upon it.
Dude...my career job was not about to make me a millionaire and I didn't hate the millionaires, just as I don't now. I was a working class citizen who one day woke up and found my life turned upside down without anything I had done wrong.
Same here. That is why I think it is important to debate these issues. I am in a similar situation, but I'm not looking for scapegoats. I started my own business.
Shouldn't you be working on that business instead of posting in here?...just kidding, Mike.
Straw man argument. Try again.
You know how you can tell when you've won an argument? The opposition starts calling you names. I'm sorry for are so frustrated.
That is not a name calling, it is a style of argument in debate in which a false conclusion is used as the basis for a point. Look it up.
Ohhhhh....so I'm suppose to become a robot....programed and designed to speak on behalf of a political party who has no concern of my well being?
I'm your side...that was sarcasm in response to the comment that thinking opposed that of mikeinohio needs to be educated away...
LOL....I know. That was sarcasm from me too.
Lol!
If that's the way you look at it, there is nothing I can do for you. Ignoranace is bliss!
But that's where you lose me...I didn't ask for your help, your direction...and you top it off with "Ignorance is bliss?" Yeah, you really are predictable.
Maybe it is word count? I know sometimes I can't log in, I think it is a server overload.
You may be right. I didn't consider that.
Thank You!
2nd time around-First Comment got deleted.....
New ows working group meets monday @ 6 pm @ Charlotte Place 2 blks from OWS (User Submitted)
Posted Oct. 10, 2011, 3:22 p.m. EST (36 minutes ago) by DefendUS
New ows working group meets monday @ 6 pm
Next meeting of “State and Federal Constitutions Working Group” will be 6 PM in the conference room at “Charlotte’s Place” located at 109 Greenwich Street, New York, NY, two blocks from Liberty Plaza, the site of the OWS gatherings.
Charlotte’s Place is part of Trinity Church and was named after a women who left part of her estate to the Church for the development of a community meeting Space. It opened six months ago.
The Working Group is dedicated to developing a proposal(s) to be presented to the OWS participants, aimed at their use of our State and Federal Constitutions to remedy their grievances.
Anyone wishing to be on the Working Group should email Bob in advance and provide a brief bio, bob@givemeliberty.org
This is a test to see if this comment survives... the orignal post somehow disappeared
New constitution ows working group meets monday @ 6 pm @ Charlotte Place 2 blks from OWS (User Submitted)
Posted Oct. 10, 2011, 3:22 p.m. EST (36 minutes ago) by DefendUS
New ows working group meets monday @ 6 pm
Next meeting of “State and Federal Constitutions Working Group” will be 6 PM in the conference room at “Charlotte’s Place” located at 109 Greenwich Street, New York, NY, two blocks from Liberty Plaza, the site of the OWS gatherings.
Charlotte’s Place is part of Trinity Church and was named after a women who left part of her estate to the Church for the development of a community meeting Space. It opened six months ago.
The Working Group is dedicated to developing a proposal(s) to be presented to the OWS participants, aimed at their use of our State and Federal Constitutions to remedy their grievances.
Anyone wishing to be on the Working Group should email Bob in advance and provide a brief bio, bob@givemeliberty.org
Let's try sticking with facts instead of categorization?
Plenty of posts here about the Federal Reserve being the real enemy behind Wall St and the fact that it is privately owned.
Step up your game OP
That is what I am sticking too. If you would educate yourself properly, you might understand..
Mike
Do we have to expect more content free threads from you?
Absolutely. I see you removed all the insults you were spewing earlier. Here is my answer to your lovely comments:
You have never heard a bigoted insult from me. Only lucid arguments, my friend. I know I have made an impression on you when I hear your nasty remarks. Change is difficult, but you will eventually catch on.
Conspiracy theories are not lucid arguments. And self-defence is still not violence.
Just be glad you're not getting death threats like they do on the site you came from.
I'm still waiting to hear from you. You're pathetic, but I like still like you.
You can call them what you like. I'm just sorry you don't have anything meaningful to add to the debate
This is not a debate. I'm just making a statement of fact. There is no debate. Unions are violent and make us lose credibility? LOL, keep dreaming.
The violence was not started by us.