| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2008/6/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:50284 Activity:high |
6/17 Obama the Marxist
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3qxoqt [wsj.com]
"Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of
workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure
that wealth is distributed more equitably.
\_ Highly unequal wealth is generally considered bad. In the past
the government of the united states WAS concerned when regular wages
stayed stagnant or dropped while the upper 1% gained a higher
percentage of the pie. That's not Marxism, no matter what your
Libritarian echo chamber says.
\_ Grive me Librity or grive me Dreath!
\_ Thank god, I can't wait to see tax rates go to pre-Reagan
era. Fuck globalization and trickle down to China economy,
it was a dumb idea in the beginning, and a complete
disaster in practice.
\_ Sorry but you're either incredibly stupid or ignorant if you
want to go back to the Carter era economy. Compared to then,
this is a golden time for the economy for rich, middle class,
and poor. Or wait, there's a third option I forgot: you're
a troll which is why you keep mentioning Reagan; you're looking
to draw someone out on how great Reagan was or something.
\_ Real average hourly wages peaked in the early 70s.
\_ Real average hourly wages peaked in the late 70s.
\_ You gonna support the shit you just made up from
your ass, liberal?
\_ What shit? That in the Carter era we had double digit
inflation, we voted in prop 13 to save people from
outrageous property taxes and that the country was
headed downhill in a huge way as stated by Carter
himself in a major speech? If you don't know those
things then as I said you're either ignorant, a troll,
or just plain dumb. I'm pretty sure you're a troll.
\_ Facts are such bitter things when you are a Conservative:
\_ Facts are such bitter things when you are a
Conservative:
link:preview.tinyurl.com/3w79k5
From article at:
http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm
\_ "Public programs that enrich..." Looks like a
socialist advocacy group. Try the Cato Institute
web site if you want to convince me. -pp
\_ Yes, the BLS is such a biased org. So you only
accept facts authorized by the Authorized
accept facts approved by the Authorized
Conservative Statistical Institute? How Stalinist
of you. An overwhelming body of evidence points to
three decades of stagnate wages for the middle
three decades of stagnant wages for the middle
class. Amazing that you have somehow missed it.
\_ Cato Institute > Heritage Foundation, but not by
much.
\_ So, what, you are against technology and automation?
Let's all go back to stone age tech. Let's redistribute all
resources equally to everyone! Actually no, fuck that.
Poor people should have fewer kids.
\_ You're entitled to your extreme thought processes and
belief as do I. -fuck Reagan
\_ You're entitled to your extremely bad grammar.
\_ I'm entitled to have 100 kids because I'm winning
the genetic pool race. PS my kids have US
citizenship, nah nah nah nah nah -fuck Reagan
\_ Believe it or not the world isn't binary. Marxism is one
extreme, yes. However that doesn't mean, say, Pell
grants are Marxist. But Pell grants do have a good track
record of increasing social mobility and in doing so
decreasing the inqequality of wealth. A large, desperately
poor, increasingly hopeless segment of the population is
something any government wants to avoid if it wants to
prosper.
\_ I don't want the government to prosper. I want the
people and the country as a whole to prosper. Providing
some education assistance (or a more reasonably priced
educational price at each institution would really be
more helpful) is helpful. Raising taxes on everyone
and flushing more money down the drain is not helpful
to anyone unless you're one of those government employees
sucking the life out of the rest of us who earn our living
the traditional way: working.
\_ duhhh what? hmmm your dumb
\_ thank you for adding zero content.
\_ Raising taxes on everyone is not good. Raising taxes
on the wealthiest as the income gap continues to
grow makes a lot of sense. Hint: no one earns $1bn
strictly through "working."
\_ No. The folks making tens and hundreds of millions
are mostly hedge fund manger and other NYC financial
types who are taxed at the cap gains rate instead of
the income rate where they belong. That is the only
place you need to change the tax code if you want a
fairer tax on the truly rich. But slamming people
who make $100k in this area with a higher tax rate
because they are 'rich' is just stupid and harmful
to the economy. Raising taxes across the board is
not going to cause economic prosperity.
\_ Agreed. Making income>$1m level pay their fair
share, though, might. $100k is not filthy rich
anymore. --pp
\_ Obama wants to raise taxes on people who make
over $250k, not $100k. If he means family
income, I am screwed, but if he means personal
income, I am still under that.
\_ Screwed? Just how exactly are you "screwed"
if you pay more tax on your $250k?
\_ The dead hand of The State will force me to
quit being productive, drink cheap wine and
die of alcoholism.
\_ I agree, my grandfather worked hard so his descendants
could have the best of everything. Why should I let the
mean old government, at the point of a gun, take away
everything he sacrificed for, just so some truck
driver's son can get some education he will just throw
away anyway.
away anyway. -truck driver's son
\_ Hey, Obama wants to eliminate capital gains taxes on start-ups!
Now that's a Marxism I can get behind.
\_ What is his definition of "start-ups"? |
| 5/25 |
|
| preview.tinyurl.com/3qxoqt -> online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121366164848479237.html MORE PAGE ONE Obama Plans Spending Boost, Possible Cut in Business Tax By BOB DAVIS and AMY CHOZICK June 17, 2008; Barack Obama shed new light on his economic plans for the country, saying he would rely on a heavy dose of government spending to spur growth, use the tax code to narrow the widening gap between winners and losers in the US economy, and possibly back a reduction in corporate tax rates. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, the Illinois Democrat said that he was trying to put together tax and spending policies that dealt with two challenges. One is the competition from rapidly growing developing countries, like India and China. The other: the US becoming what he called a "winner-take-all" economy, where the gains from economic growth skew heavily toward the wealthy. Obama cited new economic forces to explain what appears like a return to an older-style big-government Democratic platform skeptical of market forces. "Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably. He spoke aboard his campaign bus, where a big-screen TV was tuned to the final holes of the US Open golf tournament. Obama's nod to lowering corporate taxes comes as Republicans have been attacking him for proposals that would raise the cost of doing business, such as his pledge to raise the tax rate on capital gains, and his vow to increase the top income-tax rates, which are often used by small, unincorporated enterprises. He didn't say how deeply he would cut the rate, but said it could be trimmed in return for reducing corporate tax breaks, simplifying the tax system. With existing loopholes, he said, "How much you pay in taxes as a corporation a lot of times is going to depend on how good your lobbyist is." With "a level playing field," he said, the rates could be reduced. McCain has argued that tax cuts -- particularly on business -- spur growth, Sen. would actually boost the economic growth and productivity," he said. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, chief economic aide to Republican candidate Sen. John McCain, dismissed the Obama strategy as "classic industrial policy which shows a lack of faith in private markets." He was skeptical of any potential Obama corporate-tax cut, noting a lack of details. "It's like being for kittens, puppies and sunshine," he said. Clinton Deficit Hawks The overall Obama economic approach echoes the 1992 presidential platform of Bill Clinton, who also launched his bid for the White House seeking a big expansion in infrastructure spending. But those plans were quickly shelved once he reached the White House. Congress rejected a proposal to steeply increase energy taxes, which could have been used to pay for the spending. Clinton deficit hawks, especially then-White House economic adviser Robert Rubin, successfully argued that slashing the deficit would have a bigger impact on growth than boosting spending because markets would react favorably to a shrinking deficit. "Rubinomics" became the reigning Clinton economic strategy, and many labor leaders backing Sen. Obama worry that the 46-year-old senator ultimately will turn to Mr Rubin, as Mr Clinton did. Mr Reich, has long championed infrastructure spending to boost jobs and the economy, and is a favorite of labor. He frequently and famously feuded with Mr Rubin early in Mr Clinton's term over the administration's ideological direction. The chances of pushing through an infrastructure spending program are greater now than they were in 1992, Sen. Many alternative-energy projects -- clean-coal technology, wind-power generators and the like -- could be packaged as infrastructure. "The difference I would suggest is that there is a strong recognition in the public mind that we can't continue on our current energy path," he said. That means "there's a bigger opening to bring about change." McCain disagree sharply on economic issues, with the Arizona Republican promising to cut the corporate tax to 25% from 35%, retain all of President Bush's cuts in personal income taxes, and push for a host of free-trade agreements. Obama has proposed a variety of measures that would raise taxes on individuals at the top end and provide tax relief to middle- and lower-income households. Under his plans, those in the middle would see their after-tax income increase by 24%, or $1,042, according to a nonpartisan analysis by the Washington-based Tax Policy Center. The Democrats' 2008 standard-bearer laid out a series of large-scale spending plans during a speech earlier on Monday in Flint, which has been a symbol of economic decline since the anticorporate movie "Roger and Me" was released in 1989. Obama has made the proposals before, he wrapped them together for the first time in what he called a "competitiveness agenda." Obama's spending program is his plan to spend $15 billion a year for 10 years on energy technology. It would be funded by revenue collected from a separate Obama proposal to cap greenhouse emissions through a system of trading pollution permits. Obama would auction those permits to producers of carbon dioxide, such as electric utilities, and figures the sales would yield about $100 billion a year. Most of that would go to consumers as rebates on utility bills, he said. He also would fund an "infrastructure reinvestment bank" that would finance $60 billion in high-speed railways, improved energy grids and other projects over a decade. He would double spending on basic research, subsidize investment in high-speed Internet hook-ups, and offer $4,000 a year in tuition credits for students who later perform public services. To "capture some of the nation's economic growth," he said in the interview, "and reinvest it in things we know have to be done like science, technology, research and fixing our energy policy, then that is actually going to spur productivity." McCain argues for as little government spending as possible and paints his opponent as a liberal who would tax more, spend more and drive the country into deficit. He backs a cap-and-trade system that would be used to fund energy technology, but Mr Holtz-Eakin said the scale would be far smaller than the Obama plan. And, Mr Holtz-Eakin said, a "green technology fund is plain silly. Silicon Valley has piles of money devoted to clean technology." Obama made the case in the interview for large-scale government intervention in the energy market, saying that although venture funds are investing heavily in energy technology, there was a gap in funding that should be filled by Washington. He called it supporting the "middle stage" between innovation and commercialization. "You have this point in time when things haven't quite taken off yet and still entail huge risks," he said. Under President Clinton, the Commerce Department put together a broader-based commercial technology program aimed to fund projects at a similar stage. But it never grew beyond fairly small-scale projects, because of fights with a Republican Congress over whether the government was wasting money on projects that ought to be funded by the private sector. Obama likened his proposal to a venture-capital fund, with the government seeking private investors to contribute. He lauded a Central Intelligence Agency project which helps fund technologies the CIA finds important, but which lack long-term capital. Obama regularly compares the energy effort to President Kennedy's project to rocket a man to the moon in the 1960s. But the record of using government funds to produce big breakthroughs in commercial technology is spotty at best. The few projects that have succeeded were often small and aimed at limited research goals. ") Plans to build commercial nuclear reactors that would produce more nuclear material than they consumed also failed, and a half-century of government investment in commercial hydrogen reactors haven't produced the necessary breakthroughs. Obama called for government spending to spur growth, including an energy-technology investment program and infrastructure financing. More recently the Clinton administration, at the urging of ... |
| www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm Piketty and Saez) Between 1979 and 2005, the top five percent of American families saw their real incomes increase 81 percent. Over the same period, the lowest-income fifth saw their real incomes decline 1 percent. EPI Snapshot, March 28, 2007) Unprecedented levels of capital income are fueling inequality in the current business cycle. In the third quarter of 2006, the share of corporate income going to capital (profits and interest) hit an all-time high of 23 percent, with the remaining 77 percent going to employee compensation. Since capital income disproportionately goes to the top of the income scale, this shift towards capital income increases the income gap. Download high resolution TIF Wealth In 1962, the wealth of the richest one percent of US households was roughly 125 times greater than that of the typical household. Download high resolution TIF Source: 1989-2004: Arthur B Kennickell, "Currents and Undercurrents: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth, 1989-2004," Federal Reserve Board, Jan. Download high resolution TIF Source: White: Brian K Bucks, Arthur B Kennickell, and Kevin B Moore, "Recent Changes in US Family Finances: Evidence from the 2001 and 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances," Federal Reserve Bulletin, vol. Executive Excess 2006, based on Business Week and the Wall Street Journal). Top executives in the US now make about twice the pay of their counterparts in France, Germany and the UK, and about four times that of Japanese and Korean corporate chieftains. Download high resolution TIF Source: United for a Fair Economy, Executive Excess 2005, based on annual CEO pay studies conducted by Business Week (1990-2004) and the Wall Street Journal (2005). Download high resolution TIF Data Banks Topic Type of Data Source Years Link Income Thresholds, averages, and shares by quintiles (fifths of the population) and top 5%. html Income Pre- and after-tax income thresholds, averages, and shares by quintiles (fifths of the population) and for top 10%, 5%, and 1%. Congressional Budget Office: Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates 1979-2004. xls Income Income averages and shares, including and excluding capital gains, for bottom 90% and top 10%, 5%, 1%, 01%, and 001%. Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez analysis of tax return data 1913-2005. |
| wsj.com -> online.wsj.com/public/us DELL'S EARNINGS ROSE 22% last quarter on a 21% jump in revenue. Overseas sales beat expectations, helped by a weak dollar and sales to big corporate customers were strong. Consumer prices in China rose 38% in April, the sharpest increase in seven years. Beijing took further measures to curb bank lending that is fueling inflation. Sonia Gandhi's party won an upset victory in India's elections, as millions of impoverished voters threw out the Vajpayee government. She is likely to become India's first foreign-born leader. Terrorism Fears Crush Plans for LNG Many coastal towns around the US and in parts of Mexico are rejecting plans for liquefied-natural-gas terminals, despite the substantial economic benefits they would bring, out of fear of terrorism. Photos Key to Defense in Prison Case The photos of prisoner abuse are key to the defense of at least one of the guards who claims he was following orders from intelligence personnel and interrogators. Defendants have attracted a dream team of attorneys who could thwart Bush's plan to win quick convictions. Workers Chafe at GPS Tracking As employers increasingly turn to GPS technology to keep track of their fleets, more workers are balking at having the boss constantly looking over their shoulders. Hitting the Green With the economy continuing its comeback, a profitable wind was at the back of many corporations in the first quarter. Leadership As companies have sought to slash expenses, plenty of fat has been cut -- and plenty of mistakes have been made. Now comes the good news: Executives may finally be learning from their mistakes. What to Believe About 'The Day After' The upcoming disaster flick, "The Day After Tomorrow," is hitting theaters at a pivotal moment in research into whether the current global warming caused by the greenhouse effect could, paradoxically, trigger a deep freeze in some regions. May Economic Forecasting Survey See individual forecasts from 55 economists for GDP, inflation, unemployment and interest rates. Plus, just how fast is a "measured pace," how would the stock market perform if Kerry is elected and who is most likely to succeed Greenspan at the Fed? |