Sunday, November 28, 2010

Bush Tax Cuts - Part V

by Mindsweeper

                                                         ‘Welfare for the Wealthy’

                      As % of GDP     DowJones Industrials   Unemployment      Defense Spending  
          Revenues         Outlays      (year-end close)         Rate (%)             (FY2009 constant$)
1980     19.0                   21.7                      964                      7.1                           $385 bln
1981     19.6                   22.2                      875                      7.6                           $428 bln
1982     19.2                   23.1                    1047                      9.7                           $470 bln 
1983     17.5                   23.5                    1259                      9.6                           $502 bln
1984     17.3                   22.2                    1212                      7.5                           $522 bln
1985     17.7                   22.8                     1547                     7.2                           $557 bln
1986     17.5                   22.5                     1896                     7.0                           $536 bln 
1987     18.4                   21.6                     1939                     6.2                           $519 bln
1988     18.2                   21.3                    2169                      5.5                           $508 bln
1989     18.4                   21.2                    2753                      5.3                           $502 bln 
1990     18.0                   21.9                    2634                     5.6                           $492 bln
1991     17.8                   22.3                    3169                      6.8                           $447 bln
1992     17.5                   22.1                    3301                      7.5                           $443 bln 
       
2000     20.6                   18.2                  10788                      4.0                           $387 bln
2001     19.5                   18.2                  10022                      4.7                           $426 bln
2002     17.6                   19.1                    8342                      5.8                           $448 bln
2003     16.2                   19.7                  10454                      6.0                           $547 bln
2004     16.1                   19.6                  10783                      5.5                           $570 bln
2005     17.3                   19.9                  10717                      5.1                           $565 bln
2006     18.2                   20.1                  12463                      4.6                           $605 bln
2007     18.5                   19.6                  13265                      4.6                           $660 bln
2008     17.5                   20.7                    8776                      5.8                           $709 bln
2009     14.8                   24.7                  10428                      9.3                           $687 bln

Sources:

 The Reagan and GWBush tax cuts took effect in years 1-3 after their respective elections, leading to a sharp drop in revenue during years 2-5.  Most of the benefit went to the richest Americans, who put their windfall into the stock market and NOT, as Republicans and conservatives allege, into creating jobs and opportunities for the rest of Americans.  After the cuts of 1981 and 2001-3, stocks entered a bull market phase and tax revenues began to gradually increase, although never returning to pre-tax cut levels.   While unemployment spiked up in 1982-3 and then back down from 1984-1991, by the end of of both Republican tax cut eras, it was actually higher than it was at the start.

To summarize what actually occurred:
1. the wealthiest Americans received huge tax cuts early in the terms of Reagan and GWBush
2. the Dow rallied from Dow 875 at the end of Reagan’s 1st year(1981) to over 2740 in Aug 1987 before crashing and then resuming the rally to new highs in 1992
3. the Dow rallied from 10,022 at the end of GWBush’s 1st year(2001) to over 13,850 in Dec2007 before crashing and then rallying back to 10,400 at the end of 2009
4. those most able to invest in and benefit from a bull market in stocks received a “tax windfall” and then paid a lower tax rate “post-windfall” than “pre-windfall”
5. the nation’s unemployment rate at the time of the stock market peaks in late- 1987(6.2%) and 2007(4.6%) was little-changed from what it was when Reagan (7.1% in 1980) and GWBush(4.0% 2000) took office


Now let’s look a Measure of Income Dispersion
Source:

                Mean Household Income by Quintiles (in 2009 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars)
                                Lowest 20%            Second 20%          Third 20%              Fourth 20%            Top 20%
                1980        10,682                     26,586                     43,870                     64,631                     115,236
                1981        10,414                     25,942                     42,975                     64,061                     114,432
                1982        10,223                     25,868                     42,820                     63,683                     116,800
                1983        10,342                     25,980                     42,954                     64,457                     118,343  
                1984        10,689                     26,624                     44,120                     66,429                     122,148
                1985        10,672                     27,046                     44,893                     67,528                     126,139                                  
                1986        10,781                     27,734                     46,410                     69,914                     132,332
                1987        11,076                     28,148                     47,060                     71,133                     135,278
                1988        11,264                     28,428                     47,548                     71,875                     137,218
                1989        11,681                     29,063                     48,311                     73,076                     142,851  
                1990        11,400                     28,684                     47,379                     71,433                     138,627
                1991        11,098                     27,875                     46,302                     70,582                     135,349
                1992        10,868                     27,233                     45,711                     71,038                     136,470                  
% Increase            
1980-1992               1.74%                      2.43%                      4.20%                      9.91%                      18.42%
% Increase
1992-2000               16,41%                    15.99%                    15.08%                    15.11%                    29.85%

                2000        12,651                     31,588                     52,603                     81,774                     177,203                  
                2001        12,280                     30,855                     51,647                     80,978                     176,848
                2002        11,911                     30,284                     51,032                     80,271                     171,382
                2003        11,658                     29,947                     50,834                     80,463                     171,527
                2004        11,633                     29,765                     50,431                     79,518                     171,965
                2005        11,707                     30,057                     50,871                     80,014                     175,335
                2006        12,077                     30,614                     51,301                     81,201                     178,904
                2007        11,949                     30,457                     51,691                     81,839                     173,763  
                2008        11,612                     29,405                     49,942                     79,457                     170,408  
                2009        11,552                     29,257                     49,534                     78,694                     170,844  
% Decrease
2000-2009               -8.69%                    -7.38%                    -5.83%                    -3.77%                    -3.59%
% Increase
1980-2009               8.14%                      10.05%                    12.91%                    21.76%                    48.26%


Overall, for the 30 year period since 1980, income for the top 20% increased at nearly 6X
the rate at which it grew for the lowest 20% and at nearly 5X the rate of the second 20%.

During the Reagan years, income for the top 20% increased  at more than 10X the rate at which It grew for the lowest 20% and at nearly 8X the rate of the second 20%.  Under GWBush, all incomes dropped, but for the bottom 40% it dropped at a rate more than 2X greater than it did for the top 20%.   

During the Clinton years (1993-2000), tax rates were raised slightly for the wealthiest Americans.  The economy and stock markets boomed and incomes for the bottom 80% rose equally on a percentage basis.  The top 20% still did nearly 2X better than everyone else, but American prosperity was shared, however briefly, for the only time period of the last 30 years.


None of this is to say that higher tax rates were the driving force behind the economic boom of the Clinton years.  However, the data presented here clearly shows that the Reagan and GWBush tax cuts CLEARLY are regressive in their effect upon income growth.   During the income growth period from 1980-1992, the top 20% saw their incomes grow at 8-10X the rate of the bottom 40%.  During the income decline period from 2000-09, the bottom 40% saw their incomes decline at more than 2X the rate of the top 20%.  Those who “needed it most” got the least in upturns and lost the most in downturns.  

A truly progressive tax system is one in which those who can least afford it share on a proportionate percentage basis of income  during both times of economic growth and contraction.  A system of tax cuts for the wealthy which enables the rich to earn disproportionally greater income increases in good times and to experience disproportionally smaller income declines in bad times is nothing but WELFARE FOR THE WEALTHY and is truly SHAMEFUL!!

At least Warren Buffett and Bill Gates agree!

Friday, November 26, 2010

Bush tax cuts IV-WELFARE for the WEALTHY

‘Welfare for the Wealthy’

As % of GDP DowJones Industrials Unemployment
Revenues Outlays (year-end close) Rate (%)
1980 19.0 21.7 964 7.1
1981 19.6 22.2 875 7.6
1982 19.2 23.1 1047 9.7
1983 17.5 23.5 1259 9.6
1984 17.3 22.2 1212 7.5
1985 17.7 22.8 1547 7.2
1986 17.5 22.5 1896 7.0
1987 18.4 21.6 1939 6.2
1988 18.2 21.3 2169 5.5
1989 18.4 21.2 2753 5.3
1990 18.0 21.9 2634 5.6
1991 17.8 22.3 3169 6.8
1992 17.5 22.1 3301 7.5

2000 20.6 18.2 10788 4.0
2001 19.5 18.2 10022 4.7
2002 17.6 19.1 8342 5.8
2003 16.2 19.7 10454 6.0
2004 16.1 19.6 10783 5.5
2005 17.3 19.9 10717 5.1
2006 18.2 20.1 12463 4.6
2007 18.5 19.6 13265 4.6
2008 17.5 20.7 8776 5.8
2009 14.8 24.7 10428 9.3

Sources: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/sheets/hist01z3.xls
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

The Reagan and GWBush tax cuts took effect in years 1-3 after their respective elections, leading to a sharp drop in revenue as %of GDP during years 2-5. Most of the benefit went to the richest Americans, who put their windfall into the stock market and NOT, as Republicans and conservatives allege, into creating jobs and opportunities for the rest of Americans. After the cuts of 1981 and 2001-3, stocks entered a bull market phase and tax revenues began to gradually increase, although never returning to pre-tax cut levels. While unemployment spiked up in 1982-3 and then back down from 1984-1991, by the end of of both Republican tax cut eras, it was actually higher than it was at the start.

To summarize what actually occurred:
1. the wealthiest Americans received huge tax cuts early in the terms of Reagan
and GWBush
2. the Dow rallied from Dow 875 at the end of Reagan’s 1st year(1981) to over 2740
in Aug 1987 before crashing and then resuming the rally to new highs in 1992
3. the Dow rallied from 10,022 at the end of GWBush’s 1st year(2001) to over 13,850
in Dec2007 before crashing and then rallying back to 10,400 at the end of 2009
4. those most able to invest in and benefit from a bull market in stocks received
a “tax windfall” and then paid a lower tax rate “post-windfall” than “pre-
windfall”
5. the nation’s unemployment rate at the time of the stock market peaks in late- 1987
(6.2%) and 2007(4.6%) was little-changed from what it was when Reagan (7.1% in
1980) and GWBush(4.0% in 2000) took office



Now let’s look a Measure of Income Dispersion
Source:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/taba2.pdf

Mean Household Income by Quintiles (in 2009 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars)
Lowest 20% Second 20% Third 20% Fourth 20% Top 20%
1980 10,682 26,586 43,870 64,631 115,236
1981 10,414 25,942 42,975 64,061 114,432
1982 10,223 25,868 42,820 63,683 116,800
1983 10,342 25,980 42,954 64,457 118,343
1984 10,689 26,624 44,120 66,429 122,148
1985 10,672 27,046 44,893 67,528 126,139
1986 10,781 27,734 46,410 69,914 132,332
1987 11,076 28,148 47,060 71,133 135,278
1988 11,264 28,428 47,548 71,875 137,218
1989 11,681 29,063 48,311 73,076 142,851
1990 11,400 28,684 47,379 71,433 138,627
1991 11,098 27,875 46,302 70,582 135,349
1992 10,868 27,233 45,711 71,038 136,470
% Increase 1980-1992
1.74% 2.43% 4.20% 9.91% 18.42%
% Increase 1992-2000
16.41% 15.99% 15.08% 15.11% 29.85%

2000 12,651 31,588 52,603 81,774 177,203
2001 12,280 30,855 51,647 80,978 176,848
2002 11,911 30,284 51,032 80,271 171,382
2003 11,658 29,947 50,834 80,463 171,527
2004 11,633 29,765 50,431 79,518 171,965
2005 11,707 30,057 50,871 80,014 175,335
2006 12,077 30,614 51,301 81,201 178,904
2007 11,949 30,457 51,691 81,839 173,763
2008 11,612 29,405 49,942 79,457 170,408
2009 11,552 29,257 49,534 78,694 170,844

% Decrease 2000-2009
-8.69% -7.38% -5.83% -3.77% -3.59%
% Increase 1980-2009
8.14% 10.05% 12.91% 21.76% 48.26%


Overall, for the 30 year period since 1980, income for the top 20% increased at nearly 6X the rate at which it grew for the lowest 20% and at nearly 5X the rate of the second 20%.

During the Reagan years, income for the top 20% increased at more than 10X the rate at which it grew for the lowest 20% and at nearly 8X the rate of the second 20%. Under GWBush, all incomes dropped, but for the bottom 40% it dropped at a rate more than 2X greater than it did for the top 20%.

During the Clinton years (1993-2000), tax rates were raised slightly for the wealthiest Americans. The economy and stock markets boomed and incomes for the bottom 80% rose equally on a percentage basis. The top 20% still did nearly 2X better than everyone else, but American prosperity was shared, however briefly, for the only time period of the last 30 years.

This is NOT to say that higher tax rates were the driving force behind the economic boom of the Clinton years. However, the data presented here clearly shows that the Reagan and GWBush tax cuts are REGRESSIVE in their effect upon INCOME GROWTH. During the income growth period from 1980-1992, the top 20% saw their incomes grow at 8-10X the rate of the bottom 40%. During the income decline period from 2000-09, the bottom 40% saw their incomes decline at more than 2X the rate of the top 20%. On a PERCENTAGE BASIS, those who “needed it most” got the least in upturns and lost the most in downturns!

A truly progressive tax system is one in which those who can least afford it share on a proportionate percentage basis of income during both times of economic growth and contraction. A system of tax cuts for the wealthy which enables the rich to earn disproportionally greater income increases in good times and to experience disproportionally smaller income declines in bad times is nothing but WELFARE FOR THE WEALTHY and is truly SHAMEFUL!!

At least Warren Buffett and Bill Gates agree!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/21/warren-buffett-paying-more-taxes_n_786516.html

Thursday, November 18, 2010

BUSH TAX CUTS III

THE MAIN REASON WHY WE NEED TO KEEP THE BUSH TAX
CUTS FOR THE WEALTHIEST AMERICANS (and why it’s
complete-and-utter GREEDY bullshit)

The top 3% of earners already pay a huge proportion of their hard-earned income in
Federal taxes. Raising the current top Marginal tax brackets on those making over
$200,000 from 33% and 35% to 36% and 39.5%, respectively, is punishing them for
their hard-earned success. After all, they pay more than 51% of the total taxes collected.

Bullshit!
The average tax rate paid by the top 3% of earners in 2008(Adjusted gross
income in excess of $204,000) was 21.88% of Adjusted gross income(“AGI”).
Recall from the recent blog “TAX BASICS” that AGI is income AFTER all the
allowable deductions AND that capital gains and qualified dividends receive
special tax rates much lower than those for ordinary income. 21.88% is a far cry
from the 33%,35%, 36% or 39.5% brackets the GREEDY scream and whine about.

By way of contrast, the 2008 tax owed by a single filer with an AGI of $46,000
was $7,850 or 17.06%! An individual who made 22.5% of what the wealthiest
Americans made paid at a rate equal to 78% of the average top rate! While a
married couple filing jointly with the same $46,000 AGI paid at the lesser rate of
13.26%, do the wealthiest Americans work so much harder and contribute so
much more to our society that they deserve to pay at only a slightly higher average
tax rate than those who earn much, much less? If that married couple with the
$46,000 AGI can afford to and does pay 13.26% without whining, can’t
those making over $204,000 afford an average rate of 26% or even 39.5%
without bitching and moaning about “big government” and “being punished”?

Haven’t the wealthy already ‘gamed’ the tax system through capital gains, itemized
allowable deductions, qualified dividends, special trusts, tax shelters, inheritance
provisions and high-paid accountants and attorneys whose sole purpose is to ‘push
the legal envelope’ to ensure their ‘patriotic’ clients pay as little as possible in taxes?
GREED GREED GREED!!!

SOURCES: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/o,,id=133521,00.html
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040tt--2008.pdf

Sunday, November 14, 2010

TAX BASICS

SOME TAX BASICS

A general understanding of how our tax system works is critical for informed voters to reach their own considered opinion about US budget priorities, deficits and tax rates. Very simplistically, the IRS collects taxes on individuals and households as follows:

Ordinary income + Capital Gains + Dividends=Gross income
Gross income – Capital losses - allowable deductions= Adjusted gross income

The adjusted gross income is then taxed in a ‘progressive’ manner, meaning that the higher the
amount, the higher the tax rate(commonly referred to as the ‘marginal tax bracket’).

As the terms, definitions and explanations below explain, different types of income are taxed at different rates. While the specific treatment of various forms of income and deductions can be quite complex, the big picture is essentially as above.


Ordinary income: “Income received that is taxed at the highest rates, or ordinary income rates.
Orindary income is composed mainly of wages, salaries, commissions and interest income (as from bonds). Ordinary income can only be offset with standard tax deductions..”
http://www.answers.com/topic/ordinary-income

Adjusted gross income (“AGI”): “A United States tax term for an amount used in calculation of an individual’s income tax liability. AGI is calculated by taking an individual’s gross income and subtracting the Income tax code’s enumerated deductions..”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjusted_Gross_Income

Capital Gains and Losses
Almost everything owned and used for personal or investment purposes is a capital asset. Examples are a home, household furnishings, and stocks or bonds held in a personal account. When a capital asset is sold, the difference between the basis in the asset and the amount it is sold for is a capital gain or a capital loss. If you received the asset as a gift or inheritance, refer to Topic 703 for information about your basis. You have a capital gain if you sell the asset for more than your basis. You have a capital loss if you sell the asset for less than your basis. Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, are not deductible.
Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term. If you hold the asset for more than one year before you dispose of it, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term.
Capital gains and deductible capital losses are reported on Form 1040, Schedule D (PDF). If you have a net capital gain, that gain may be taxed at a lower tax rate than the ordinary income tax rates. The term "net capital gain" means the amount by which your net long-term capital gain for the year is more than the sum of your net short-term capital loss and any long-term capital loss carried over from the previous year. Currently net capital gain is generally taxed at rates no higher than 15%, although, for 2008 through 2010, some or all net capital gain may be taxed at 0%, if it would otherwise be taxed at lower rates. There are three exceptions:
1. The taxable part of a gain from selling Section 1202 qualified small business stock is taxed at a maximum 28% rate.
2. Net capital gain from selling collectibles (such as coins or art) is taxed at a maximum 28% rate.
The part of any net capital gain from selling Section 1250 real property that is required to be recaptured in excess of straight-line depreciation is taxed at a maximum 25% rate. http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409.html
Current (and future) Capital Gains Rates

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/2088.html


Dividends
The IRS classification of qualified dividends generally leads to a lower tax liability for most tax payers. Although there are a number of additional steps involved in calculating your total tax in light of the impact of qualified dividends, doing so reduces the amount you owe.
Definition of Dividends
Dividends are paid by corporations to its investors, and they may be paid as cash, stock or other property. Dividends represent a share of the profit earned by a corporation over a set time period. Dividends are considered income by the IRS and taxed accordingly. Ordinary dividends are the most common type of payout and are taxed as regular or "ordinary" income at your normal tax rate. Unless a corporation specifies otherwise, dividends are considered to be ordinary.
Qualified Dividends
Some dividend payments fall into a "qualified" category and are subjected to a lower tax rate. According to the IRS, "Qualified dividends are the ordinary dividends that are subject to the same 0% or 15% maximum tax rate that applies to net capital gain." There are restrictions that must be met for dividends to be considered "qualified." First, the dividend must be paid by a U.S. corporation or qualified foreign corporation. Secondly, the dividends must not fall into the IRS's "not qualified" category, and lastly, they must meet the specified holding period.

Tax Rate
Qualified dividends that normally fall into the 25-percent tax-rate bracket are taxed at 15 percent. If the regular applicable tax rate is less than 25 percent, qualified dividends are then taxed at 0 percent.
Holding Period
You must own the stock that earns the dividends for more than 60 days of a prescribed 121-day period. That period begins 60 days prior the "ex-dividend date." The IRS defines the ex-dividend date as "the first date following the declaration of a dividend on which the buyer of a stock will not receive the next dividend payment. Instead, the seller will get the dividend." The holding period effectively requires tax payers to commit to longer-term investments ensuring any dividends earned fall into the qualified category.
http://www.ehow.com/about_5162787_definition-qualified-dividends.html

Marginal tax bracket: “The highest tax rate imposed on your income.”
Average tax rate: “This rate is a person’s total federal tax liability divided by his or her total
income.”
Obama's Proposals for Changing the Marginal Tax Brackets
Currently there are six tax brackets: 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%. Those tax brackets were implemented in 2001 and are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. If Congress does not pass a new law, the marginal tax brackets will revert to their pre-2001 levels, which were five tax rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36%, and 39.6%.
Instead of reverting to these tax rates, President Obama has proposed to continue using six tax rates: the 10% through 28% tax rates would remain the same and the top two rates would of 33% and 35% would be replaced with 36% and 39.6% rates, respectively. How income is measured in determining the tax bracket would also change. The 36% bracket would begin at $200,000 minus the standard deduction and one personal exemption for single filers, and at $250,000 minus the standard deduction and two personal exemptions for married filers. How tax rates are determined remains unchanged for the other tax brackets. The beginning of the 39.6% bracket was not explained in the administration's Greenbook. The new tax rates would begin in 2011, but requires Congressional action to implement these legislative proposals. http://taxes.about.com/od/preparingyourtaxes/a/tax-rates.htm


SOME 2008(most recently available) BASIC TAX FACTS

FOR THE TOP 3% OF TAX RETURNS (those with an AGI in excess of $204,000)
Number of returns: 4,198,817
Total Adjusted Gross Income(“AGI”): $2.43 Trillion
Total Income Tax Paid: $530.1 Billion
Average Tax Rate: 21.88%

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html

Bush Tax Cuts - Part II

 The Evidence:

10 Republican Lies about the Bush Tax Cuts

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Bush Tax Cuts

Mindsweeper writes:
 
If the Bush tax cuts for wealthy get extended, even temporarily, I'm through with dems for good; no more contributions, no more votes for democrats or Obama.  DONE!
 
Very discouraging. Dems did nothing to investigate Cheney/Bush and now Issa is going witchhunting starting in Jan: (Repugs are ruthless, they ALWAYS take a stand together).  Dems are wimps... they NEVER take a stand on anything together and always cave ... 
 
It's such a no brainer for Dems to refuse to extend tax cuts for wealthy... if the Repugs want to hold extending middle class cuts hostage to cuts for wealthy let 'em!
 
 I'll try to keep blogging but I'm choking on my puke...  Sarah Palin is Obama's only hope.
 
My response:
 
I think you have a friend with Michael Moore.  From:  http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/today-day, on election day he wrote:
 
Finally, we must let the Democratic politicians know that our vote comes with one big condition: If they do not straighten up, get a spine and do what we expect of them, we will find alternate candidates to run against them in 2012. And we mean it. Go vote today, but also sign this petition that I'll deliver to every elected Democrat -- the "I'm Voting Democratic But I Will Work to Defeat You Next Time If You Don't Do Your Job" petition, aka "The Democrats on Probation" petition. Let's publicly put them on notice that we'll give them just two more years to start doing the things we elected them to do. If they move one more inch to the "center" or to the right, they will never get our vote again. And we mean business.
 
I guess we have to put Obama on that list.  Incidentally, he's not looking as good as he used to on the:
 
       The Obameter
 
Also, Michael Moore was on 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' on 11/9/10: 
 

The Corporatocracy Speaketh

Our government is run by a corporatocracy - a few big global corporations.  It doesn't matter whether  Democrats or Republicans are in power.  Or so claims John Perkins author of , 'Confessions on an Economic Hitman'.  I found a three part speech his gave at the Veterans for Peace National Conference, Seattle, WA on August 11, 2006:

    Part I
    Part II
    Part III

Also, here is a recent article he wrote for the Huffington Post:
  
     John Perkins: Disappointed in the Elections? Or Not? Think Again!

Basically, the CIA will go into a developing nation, corrupt and in-debt the government.  Then, when the government can't pay, we restructure their debt and force them to cut their social programs, desecrate their economy and force them to sell out their country on the cheap.

Sound familiar?  Yesterday, Obama's bipartisan deficit commission was leaked.  It included massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, eliminating the mortgage interest deduction and increasing the retirement age - all which primarily benefit middle-class Americans.

The days of our government acting in the best interests of the middle-class are long gone.  Most primary and manufacturing jobs have been moved out of country, the labor unions have been decimated, minimum wage had been frozen for many years and is now pathetically below the poverty line.  Did I mention that income tax decreases will make the Bush Tax Cuts look like chump change.  Oh, but broader reaching taxes on the middle class.
 
Yes, the Corporatocracy has turned on their own country.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Liberal Elitist

What is that? A liberal who's elitist. An elitist who's liberal? Both sound like oxymorons. Turns out that it's a derogatory term for a person of affluence who cares about the interests of the working class. To conservatives, that truly is an oxymoron. They surmise that you can't trust the motives of a liberal with wealth or power because they are out of touch with the working class. It is true that everyone is supposed to act in their own best interest to make the free enterprise economy work efficiently. You know, 'Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.' But since when is altruistic behavior a bad thing?

'Comparing MSNBC to Fox News Keith Olbermann said:

    ...sticking up for the powerless is not the moral equivalent of sticking up for the
    powerful.

Keith Olbermann was back on television after a two day suspension for making political donations. I watched his return show. He doesn't pretend to give you the news from anything other than the progressive point of view. In his defense, he said that it wasn't in his contract and any such rule would probably be illegal anyway. Along with Jon Stewart, Michael Moore, Bill Maher and countless others, these anti-corporation, anti-elitist, anti-establishment progressives are nothing short of heroes.

Yes, we need a grass roots campaign to free political donations from the Democrats and the Republicans and not Corporate backed Tea Partiers.  MoveOn.org is such an organization.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Senator Ted Kaufman on 'The Daily Show'

Senator Ted Kaufman was on, 'The Daily Show' on Oct. 26th, the day before President Obama was on the show.  He was Joe Biden's Chief of Staff for 22 years, appointed to take over Biden's seat.  He explained that, 'The House is close to the people, elected every 2 years'.  The Senate was designed to be the place where legislation goes to die.  Kaufman acknowledges that money was the most corrupting influence in the Senate.  Jon Stewart sums up, 'The system is corrupt and broken.  Exactly how it was designed to be'.

See the 5 minute interview here:
Interview with Ted Kaufman on 'The Daily Show'

The next two years should be interesting.  House Speaker-elect John Boehner has tempered his "mandate" to say:

     While our new majority will serve as your voice in the people’s House, we
     must remember it’s the president who sets the agenda for our government.

Is is going to be two years of posturing for the next election and little more?  Should be interesting to see...

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Information and Misinformation

   True genius resides in the capacity for evaluation of uncertain, hazardous, and
   conflicting information.
      - Winston Churchill

You can be sure that for every study there is another to contradict it.  Who to believe?  Well, you can stick your head in the ground and believe whatever you want to believe or you can look to see who has an incentive to make that conclusion.  For example, if a study came out concluding that apples are good for you then I would want to know if some Apple Growers Association funded that study.  On the other hand, if someone concluded that apples are bad for you then I would be more inclined to believe it.  Who would want to discredit the healthiness of apples - Orange Growers of America?

We live in an era of disinformation.  Corporate interests work very hard to say that Global Warming is a hoax.  They have a vested interest in saying so.

I find it very hard to believe anything pertaining to food.  Especially manufactured food and/or supplements.  (ref:  Everything You Wanted to Know About Nutrition but Were Afraid to Ask by David R. Reuben) You can't even believe the American Food Guide. (ref : The China Study "Why you haven't heard this before" by T. Colin Campbell). Or just watch 'Food Inc. or 'The Corporation'.

One last quote:

   In a capitalist society, it is very hard to trust anyone.
      - Jacque Fresco in the documentary 'Zeitgeist Addendum'  
      (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com)

 We have an ally:  http://www.blogtorestoresanity.com

We have a foe:  http://NewsBusters.org

Friday, November 5, 2010

Keeping Fear Alive

The Democrats got their shellacking on Tuesday but really it's politics as usual for congress.  The Republicans have the rural counties and the Democrats have the urban counties.  The Republicans have 60% of the seats in the house but the Democrats have the Senate and the White House.

For the past two years, the Republicans in the House and the Senate were contrarian and obstructive. On some key bills they voted unanimously against them - unprecedented in US history.  If the Democrats were able to get their members to 'tow the line' then we'd have universal health care paid through general taxes and no one would be unhappy that they are being forced to buy something they don't want.

If the party of 'No' wants to get anything done, then they are going to have to work together with the Democrats.  But it doesn't look that way.  They've come out strong with the rhetoric saying they have a
mandate from the people and Obama better step aside or else.  They plan to repeal health care and make sure Obama is a one term president.

A little thought experiment.  Let's just pretend for a moment that only party keeps getting elected and the other one gets completely wiped out every election.  What would happen?  The lobbyists would only lobby the one party in power.  With two parties taking turns in power then lobbyists would try to influence both parties fairly equally.  The big corporations with their lobbyists certainly have their hand in policy to benefit themselves versus consumers and small businesses alike.  In that sense all big corporations act like one in the same way that if there were a third political party that both the Democrats and the Republicans would want to squash it.  However the big corporations do have to compete with each other in terms of profit, share price, raising capital through share issues, etc.  It does seem that different industries have cozied up to the two main parties unequally.  It seems that the finance industry has more influence over the Democrats than the Republicans.  When I think of Republicans, I think of big oil and big pharma/health insurance companies.

So maybe it's all for the best.  With congress split, all the different interests will be split.  At least the interests that have influence over the politicians.  But that's another story.

Charge of the Right Brigade

The Charge Of The Right Brigade

Morons to right of them,
Morons to left of them,
Morons in front of them
Morphing like chameleons;
Storm’d at by Fox,Will,Parker and McConnell,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the 310 millions.


George F. Will, Nov4, 2010: “This election was a nationwide recoil against
Barack Obama’s idea of unlimited government.”
Kathleen Parker, Nov4, 2010: “This election was a referendum on policies that
are widely viewed as too overreaching and ultimately, threatening to
individual freedom.”
Mitch McConnell, Nov4, 2010: “…. if our primary legislative goals are
to repeal and replace the health spending bill; to end the bailouts; cut
spending; and shrink the size and scope of government…. We can hope
the President will start listening to the electorate after Tuesday’s
election. But we can’t plan on it.”


What idiocy,arrogance and hypocrisy it is to maintain that people vote for or against “big government” ! Since 1946 when Gallup began polling, the President’s party loses an average of 14 seats in the US House in the midterm elections if the President’s approval rating is above 50%, 36 seats when that approval rating is below 50%. With Obama’s most recent approval rating at 44.7%, it comes as little shock that the Dems dropped 60+ seats.

So why is Obama’s approval rating so low? Duh, it’s the economy, stupid!
Unemployment has been hovering at or near 10% since May 2009. Tens of millions of Americans have lost their jobs while many more tens of millions of
Americans are worried about their jobs or have relatives and friends who’ve lost
theirs. What concerns virtually every voter (outside of the DC beltway)? Economic survival/well-being or the right-wing ideological campaign scare term “big government”?
Some brief history of the unemployment rate:
It rose sharply from under 4% in 1948 to 7.9% in 1949; Dems lost the
White House in 1952. It rose sharply from 2.5% in 1954 to 7.5% in 1958;
Repubs lost the White House in 1960. It rose sharply from under 4% in 1970
to 9.0% in 1975; Repubs lost the White House in 1976. It rose from under 6% in 1978 to nearly 8% in mid-1980; Dems lost the White House in 1980. It rose from 5% in 1988-89 to over 7% in 1991-92, Republicans lost the White House in 1992. It rose from under 4% in 2000 to 6.2% in early 2008; Republicans lost the White House in 2008.

Virtually every major uptick in the unemployment rate during the past 60 years has led to the Party in power losing the White House at the next election(Gore won the Popular vote in 2000). To maintain that a larger-than-average midterm loss in the House by the Dems in the midst of the worst economy since the Depression is some kind “rejection of big government” is absurd. It represents “inside-the-beltway” right-wing conservative ideology and campaign-speak:
self-serving, elitist propaganda which ignores the ample historical unemployment data.

It is idiotic and arrogant that “respected” conservative columnists can’t be bothered to do some simple research, preferring instead to mouth the “anti-big government” Republican campaign platitudes. It is hypocritical of Republican candidates everywhere to maintain that they are (or will be) the party of “making government smaller” when the two biggest post WWII increases in US government spending occurred under Ronald Reagan and GWBush.

What’s even more astounding is that there is no mention in McConnell’s
legislative goals of ‘job creation’. And indeed, as always, there is no Republican
plan for job creation except for the magically wishful “keeping the Bush tax cuts
for the wealthiest 2%”. “Shrinking the size and scope of government” is a
tried-and-true campaign red herring; it really means “bullshit ‘em and scare ‘em into voting for us and hope the economy turns around after we get in or we’ll be out just as quick”.



Some final comparisons between the Depression era and today.
After the stock market crashed in 1929 with Republican Herbert Hoover as President, the Dems picked up 53 seats(and the majority) in the House in the 1930 midterms (there is no readily available unemployment data prior to 1948, although Wikipedia says it rose from 3% in 1929 to 25% in 1933).
As the Depression worsened, in 1932, FDR won the Presidency in a landslide as the Dems added another 97 House seats to their majority. Were the voters voting for “a big government liberal” or was their economic survival perceived to be at stake? Was the rise of left-wing parties in the 1930’s a desire for “big government” or an anti-status quo reaction to the tremendous economic fear so prevalent at the time? Wasn’t McCain polling ahead of Obama after his announcement of Palin as his running mate until the stock market collapsed in mid-September 2008 and the panic that ensued? Isn’t the “tea party” of today (whether or not it’s already been co-opted by the Republican establishment) just an angry anti-status quo reaction to the tremendous economic fear caused by the current historically high unemployment rate?

So what’s in store for 2012? If the unemployment rate comes sharply down,
Obama will get re-elected and the Dems will gain in Congress. If the unemployment rate changes little or moves higher, we’ll likely see the Republicans gain control of the Senate and the Presidency as well as adding to their House majority. It’s all about jobs, stupid! Spare us the tiresome “tax cuts/anti-big government” scare tactics bullshit, enough already!!


MINDSWEEPER