The invite of the year (so far): Barack Obama’s Super Bowl watching party…elected officials break out 11 Ds, 4Rs
Senators: Bob Casey (D-PA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Arlen Specter (R-PA)
House members: Elijah Cummings (D-MD); Artur Davis (D-AL); Rosa DeLauro (D-CT); Charlie Dent (R-PA); Mike Doyle (D-PA); Trent Franks (R-AZ); Raul Grijalva (D-AZ); Paul Hodes (D-NH); Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-DC); Patrick Murphy (D-PA); Fred Upton (R-MI)
I wonder if any of the dozen lobbyists that BHO has hired so far will be there?
Those would be the lobbyists that he said would NOT be a part of his administration.
Change?
Take a deep breath “really?”. Now you know what a mandate really means.
I like corn in my chili.
wow two posts in one day, amazing considering recent history.
SWD,
A Mandate is what they do in San Francisco.
BHO’s actions are what you would call lying and slapping the citizens of the US in the face.
Really?
I think there was an error in your post. I’m sure you meant to type GWB instead of BHO but everyone makes mistakes.
Hey Really?
How’d that Hillary thing go in the primary?
Hey Really?
It’s called trolling, and it is bad etiquette.
lojasmo,
No, it is called responding to Sean and SWD.
Now that you have posted your gratuitous and irrelevant nonsense in response to me, you can go back to the basement.
I have no complaints about Klobuchar. She chooses her battles carefully, she makes here central issues ones that Centrists can back, she doesn’t put her foot in her mouth…..
If Al Franken wins this election, I sincerely hope he will humbly take some lessons from her on how to represent Minnesota well.
I wonder if Amy K. will be voting to approve another Tax Cheat in BHO’s adminstration…..
===
The White House has acknowledged that former Sen. Tom Daschle, President Obama’s nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services, had “some tax issues,” which, the administration says, have been resolved and shouldn’t bar his confirmation as secretary.
===
So, If I robbed a bank but then give it back when I am caught does that mean I am not a crook?
“So, If I robbed a bank but then give it back when I am caught does that mean I am not a crook?”
Correct, as long as you’re in the administration.
Really is projecting. If s/he used a humidifier, his/her existence would be negated.
CMan — What are you saying about the Bush administration?
I don’t recall that they gave much of anything back!
I’m not sure that addresses “Really’s” agenda.
Why does a thread about the Superbowl - and Minnesota’s senator being there have to do with any of the off-topic rants?
Really? is such a bitter & confused person. Almost hateful, from my read.
It would go a long way in his/her (Really’s) nurture therapy, to enumerate the problems experienced by his peeps.
But REALLY? Can’t we have a thread about the Superbowl be less hateful?
Since the vicious posts have already tainted this thread about chili & Superbowls:
Y’know, if Norm Coleman would selflessly give up his futile bid, we just might have had 2 senators
in the white house watching the Superbowl & interacting with the leader of the free world!
It could have been a senator on each ear. For the state of Minnesota!!!!
In the meantime, the guy who claimed he was FOR the people, is for only NORM.
We’re making Barack’s chili and Michelle’s apple cobbler for a superbowl party we’re attending.
Mockingbird,
What was hateful?
Asking if the Lobbyists in the Obama administration would be at the White House Supebowl party with Amy?
Calling a $100,000 tax cheater a Tax Cheat?
Asking if Amy would would to confirm him?
All seem to be pretty important questions for a political blog, don’t you think?
Well, wouldn’t it be nice, “Really?” to have a good ear at this party?
If Norman Coleman shut the hell up & accepted that he lost & that for the good of the state
we must move forward: we might even have had 2 senators at that party!
Why do you REALLY hate the Superbowl?
Mbird,
I LOVE the Super Bowl!
What I don’t like are the hypocrites in the Obama adminstration and his supporters (here and in the press) who believe that it is ok to break his no lobbyists policy (a dozen times and counting), and to select and confirm cabinet appointees who are serious tax cheats. Those actions are truly hateful towards the lawful tax-paying American people and the Constitution of the United States of America.
Really?
You are super effective when you repeat your talking points several times in a thread. keep up the good work. This is excellent news for John McCain!
There are plenty of people that have had tax issues and it doesn’t mean they are tax cheats….why is it necessary to post conjecture about what some people hope are the facts. Unless someone has been convicted of a crime for tax evasion, etc. why not talk about something positive…like, “do you think everyone will bring a dish to share, like a good Minnesota pot luck”!
Really and CMan are doing what everyone knew the utterly defeat GOP’ers would do. Nit and pick, smear and distract. That’s all they have for political and economic philosophy anymore. Everything they’ve been brought up to believe, from 1980 on, has been a complete disaster for the country. Reagan was in charge of the most corrupt administration in US history. Bush I, presided over a S&L collapse that netted his family billions. Bush II, well we don’t have to go into what a jackass he was, but suffice it to say, history will judge him harshly but accurately.
Define lobbyist Really. Now find a political professional in Washington that does not meet that definition. Now, once you do that, and you still have a touch of the vapors because your president hired a lobbyist, find out who that lobbyist, lobbyed for. Big oil, big pharma, big kill all yellow lab puppys? You have all the maturity of a 7 year old, but not nearly the understanding of one.
“Define lobbyist Really. Now find a political professional in Washington that does not meet that definition. ”
Richard, I 100% agree with you, and I have interacted with lobbyists in the past and many are knowledgeable resources for our public officials who bring real value to the table.
I think Really’s and Cman’s point is that Obama should have thought about that before acting as Mr. Virtuous proclaiming “there will be no lobbyists in my administration.” That was a bold statement and he is ending up having to break a promise on that one.
There are lobbyists in the administration. Heck, the Daschle household has made millions from lobbying. I have no problem with people going from lobbying to public service. I just wish Obama would have thought about all this before making that high-minded statement during his campaign.
McCain had more lobbyists working on his campaign than any other presidential candidate. How did that jibe with his rhetoric about “taking on special interests” unless by “taking on” he meant, well, “taking on” to his campaign. For some reason, Really?, I don’t remember you chastising McCain for being hypocritical.
http://mediamattersaction.org/freeride/lobbyists/
heck, McCain had two staffers who lobbied on behalf of Myanmar’s military junta.
According to Politico, today:
“Tom Daschle, under fire for not paying taxes, made nearly $5.3 million in the last two years, records released Friday show. Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader who President Obama has tapped to overhaul the nation’s healthcare system, was paid $220,000 to give speeches to outfits that have a vested interest in the result the work he would do once confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Among the companies and groups paying thousands of dollars a pop to book Daschle were some that stand to gain or lose the most depending on the results of Obama’s efforts to enact universal health.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18237.html
I’ve got a proposition:
Those of us who are accusing Obama of reneging on a promise are beholden to do two things before continuing.
1) Provide a direct quotation from Obama including a citation and date.
2) Provide the name of one current obama administration staff member who is CURRENTLY a registered lobbiest
or
2a) Provide a current staffer who’s position violates a promise made by obama as provided for in (1) above.
GO!
lobbyist database> http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/
Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm.
Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.
I await your results with bated breath.
this post is full of turds. is anyone betting the spread on the cards to try and mop up while rooting for the underdog? I opted out personally. The NFL is a bore!
Obama’s transition team rules for lobbyists
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=84793
Looks like Lynn needed a waiver, as requested by Secretary of Defense Gates.
Cheerfully conceded, though that seems to be the only one.
You’re off the hook, Really? though I think both you and dan are more or less dishonest on this issue.
The way I read it, Daschle questioned his tax filings himself last June, inquired about it, and has since made the corrections.
No smoking gun there.
Really? and Cman are obviously in that 22% that think Bush did a good job.
They represent the basement of their party.
watching The death spiral (as Nate Silver would phrase the current going ons) of the repugnant gop is not actually entertaining to witness. But it is impossible to ignore. It goes on all around us, even in these superbowl posts! c&L has a great write up on this today too!
Zach - Steelers Win. By 10 or more.
SwD, Don’t know about CMan, but I think President Bush did a great job of killing terrorists and keeping more bad things from happening in the US. Social policy, fiscal policy, and dealing with the Dems, not so much.
Also, Daschle accpeted $100K in free stuff over 4 years. When In June he thought he might have a shot at a position in an Obama admin, he started cleaning up his house. Come on, everyone knows that you need to report gifts over $10K, even from your own mother. And, if he didn’t cheat, then he was a moron. TurboTax asks if you received any gifts for crying-out-loud.
lojasmo, your talking point attempts at spinning for Obama are exactly what I was talking about in post #19. All the spin in the world won’t make Obama’s appointment of lobbyists and tax cheats/crooks/morons/uneducated not feel slimy and tarnish the sheen of the THE OBAMESSIAH. And you sound really silly when you bring up McCain. He lost, remember? Uh, let’s try to keep the focus on the current president, m’kay?
Riachard, interesting that you think that stating facts about Obama is “Nit and pick, smear and distract.” What I am doing is attmepting to hold Obama to his campaign promises, and to see that he stops appointing people with shady backgrounds to his admin. At leaset Gov. Richardson had the deceny to step aside.
It is nice out. I am going sledding.
case in point! (above)
Really? said: I think President Bush did a great job of killing terrorists
Hmm, m’kay, I bet Bush would fit fine on the ‘group W’ bench, now, wouldn’t he… killl! Killll! Jump up and down and yell Killlll!
I just love when politicans revert to their legal training and make these discussions about technicalities, rather than about the public’s general interpretation of their statements and actions.
OK, you got me. These people are not lobbyists today. They have played their cards right, and lobbied until the Presidential race, got out of the game for a year or two, and now it is paying off for them. Daschle isn’t a lobbyist, his wife is. I’m sure the fact that he and his wife are becoming very, very wealthy people able to live a “super-rich” lifestyle through lobbying income will have zero effect on his approach to governing
Seems to me Dick Cheney technically cut his ties to Halliburton before running for VP, but you all never truly felt he was disconnected from his old friends there. I am afraid that the logic that works for Cheney works for all of these people. They may not have explicit financial ties today, but influence and loyalty doesn’t always start and stop with contracts and retainers.
When you fall back on technicalities to make your case, it may pass the rules test but it doesn’t pass the common sense test.
There is real trouble in reapeatedly letting the rich and the influential indirectly make policy. It doesn’t seem that Obama is heading that way to me, though.
Really?
“All the spin in the world won’t make Obama’s appointment of lobbyists and tax cheats/crooks/morons/uneducated not feel slimy and tarnish the sheen of the THE OBAMESSIAH.”
Only in the eyes of irrelevant people like you, Really?
You represent only the fringe of American society, nobody else.
Really?
“What I don’t like are the hypocrites in the Obama adminstration and his supporters (here and in the press) who believe that it is ok to break his no lobbyists policy (a dozen times and counting), and to select and confirm cabinet appointees who are serious tax cheats. Those actions are truly hateful towards the lawful tax-paying American people and the Constitution of the United States of America.”
Ahh…the smell of desparation. Could it be more obvious?
I love it!
I hope you’re goting to continue to do comments like this for the next 8 years, Really? It just reminds all of us who’s politics we rejected and left behind.
Great Job!!
Holly and others -
What is the difference between Cheney having worked with Halliburton and Obama’s cabinet and high level officials having worked with Raytheon, Goldman Sachs, Global Crossing, US Airways, and other major corporations?
How does their judgment not get clouded in the exact same way that you all claimed Cheney’s did for eight years?
I will say this: Obama is a brilliant man. His main source of seven-figure income these days: his books. It would be a conflict of interest for people to pay him money for direct access to him, or for him to accept a speaking fee to provide an address to a group. But people can shell out $25 for his book all day long, and his pockets get nicely lined. I disagree with many of his approaches, but I never said the guy was dumb!
Hmm, what is the difference between ‘working with’ and ‘being CEO’? Ah, a lot.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton
But maybe I understand your question. I worry about money and influence on Capitol Hill, too. I hope Obama has the heart of gold he seems to have. And I hope he loves the little guy enough to help him out. And the little girl. Although no one likes to be called ‘the lesser’. I prefer to think we’re all equal, no matter our economic struggle.
DantheMan,
What about Obamas ideology vs. Bush’s ideology. Shouldn’t the direction of our country be the focus, rather than this petty political he/said she/said half truth/ spin bullcrap that we’re all sick to death of?
Do you really think continuing to play divisive games has moved America in the right directions?
Fact is, we don’t have to play the stupid ass game people like Really seem to thrive on. We don’t have to allow people like him to dictate the conversation.
Isn’t it more important, for example, to assess weather or not 25 years of trickle down economics has worked for the middle class?
Nitro, there’s no question trickle down doesn’t work. We’re saying all the money is dammed at the top, and the top let’s it trickle down. Hmm, that doesn’t sound good to me, now that you mention it. Of course the money went to the CEOs and other deep pockets rather than to the middle class. It’s human nature.
Our new problem is determining whether minimal rax increases cripple business and the average joe, or keep governments, and the mainstream folk alike, afloat.
I agree with you both, Nitro and Holly. I want Obama to be different, I would really like his administration to be different (and when I say that, I mean different from Clinton’s as well as Bush’s). And I agree the direction of the country is the most important barometer of how he is doing.
I just took a cynical view of lojasmo’s point regarding a lobbyist having to be registered to count as Obama going back on his promise. I think the influence of those past relationships is what we are all watching closely, not if someone has gone in, signed an updated form, and handed it to a bureacrat to enter in to some database.
I spent some time in Washington. There are people who you and I would consider lobbyists who are bright and get good things done. It would be silly for Obama or anyone else to deny them of that talent. But the influence of those relationships need to be monitored. They need to be monitored as closely as the controls we all agree need to be in place to combat excessive corporate greed in the private sector.
And the other point, that I didn’t make so well, was in response to Holly’s point regarding the rich making the laws. The rich are making the laws. Obama is a celebrity, millionaire author. Hillary and Bill are a seven-figures-a year couple. The Daschles make off handily inside the beltway.
I don’t think wealth or income should factor in. If someone has a good idea, let it be heard. I don’t care if it comes from the guy with $100 or the guy with $100,000,000. Just like I don’t think the kid born into the poor family should be denied of educational and development opportunities, but at the same time I don’t think the child who was born to the millionaire should be any less important to society.
Holly I agree,
There is no doubt that Americas prosperity under Republican leadership (that was and continues to be so heavily marketed by Republicans) only benefited the few. That’s where all the money went, and still continues to go.
Americans doing things that share Americas prosperity amongst everyone is not going to happen until the American people themselves start to think about where all the money went, and what the beneficiaries actually did with all their riches.
That is a conversation that has only just begun.
“What is the difference between Cheney having worked with Halliburton and Obama’s cabinet and high level officials having worked with Raytheon, Goldman Sachs, Global Crossing, US Airways, and other major corporations?”
The difference is that Cheney CONTINUED to take money from Halliburton while having secret energy meetings and helping to arrange no-bid contracts from the US government.
“make these discussions about technicalities, rather than about the public’s general interpretation of their statements and actions.”
Pesky facts always getting in the way of dishonest republicans’ arguments.
The problem is that money talks. Without it candidates aren’t elected (or even noticed, for that matter). No money = no voice = no recognition = no vote.
The majority should have the say… now, how to get there. Some of those companies pulling strings (Halliburton, for example?) don’t even seem to be held responsible to the American buyer. I wonder about the ‘global economy’ effect.
Trouble has been long lurking (and predictable) since the Savings and Loan scandal… and I agree Clinton might not have been a good help to today’s middle class. My hero is Carter, but I believe one of his faults is being too idealistic and trusting. He had no luck communicating with Congress and that is a downer.
Holly,
I think the whole “global economy” talkingpoint is a myth. It is only a global economy if we allow it to be.
Why is there a tarriff imbalance? Shouldn’t we bill China the same rate for imported goods that we get billed by them when we export to them?
What happened to “Made In America”? America is teeming with talent and eager people willing to work hard in manufacturing. Why should our wonderful working class people be unfairly trumped by people in foreign countries getting paid pitiful wages to produce poor quality, unsafe products?
Why should we give tax breaks to corporations that outsource American jobs?
Perhaps there is more to making an economy work for the people other than a race to the bottom line. Maybe “Made In America” means something.
We have a potential to be a manufacturing powerhouse again, and have a workforce who is starving to do a little more than serve people at Starbucks (not that theres anything wrong with Starbucks).
Hmm, yes, I am not against global economies. I am merely pointing out that, as it is, Halliburton is not held accountible to the American buyer.
Any huge change in our economy is trouble. Switching from a service based economy to a manufactuing economy sounds impossible since there is global competition… what to do.
‘Made in America’ probably has to be replaced with ‘Smartly controlled, manipulated, and interacted by America’.
Holly,
Perhaps America has to many people to be sustained by a service based economy. I’m not suggesting a huge change overnight, because that will never happen, but we can take steps that point us in the right direction. Like I said, we have a very large, talented work force that is not being completely embraced the way that it could. Unemployed = eager to work, after all.
As far as Halliburton and it’s sister corporations go, I hope that in the future they will be held accountable to the American buyer.
Of course, Americans who bought Halliburton shares in 2002 aren’t complaining.
Did I read that Cheney owns a lot of Halliburton stock?
I’m thinking you are right, if the company makes money, the people are happy. Are the ‘people’ or stockholders the middle class?
What works for us all? Ack.
I’m off taking a Saturday nap!
It IS a global economy. Holy crap - i can’t believe I’m reading people write that it is “only a global economy if we allow it to be.”
Let’s say we create a widget, and try to export it to customers in France for $15. The folks in China create a widget, and try to export it to France for $5. Do the French buy the $15 because they have a soft spot in their hearts for Americans? no.
Let’s say we place a huge tariff on cars from foreign companies so that any Toyota, Honda, or Subaru costs $40,000. What are we left with? GMs and Fords that we can get for $35,000, less consumer choice, and failing American car companies because the issue isn’t sales, the issue is cost structure.
Let’s say Walmart has to now buy all their goods from American manufacturers, who charge about 150% more than the current suppliers. How do the middle class like that? They’d be the first to feel the pinch, and it would basically cause self-imposed inflation. The same dollar buys you less at the store.
DantheMan, you must define “Global Economy” in a different way than the talking point excuse for greed the term “global economy” has become, first off.
Second, since when is everything so black and white, or one extreme or another?
Your answer relfect the opinion that it is either “all or nothing”. Those types of arguments get old after a while. They are not an excuse for striving to do better.
How do you propose to put unemployed Americans to work, DantheMan?
One more comment, dantheMan,
It looks as if the “global economy” has collapsed. Is it really worth embracing?
My point is Americans could strive to buy American made goods, and be aware of where the things they buy come from. Why is that so shocking to you? Are you being divisive?
DantheMan:
“Let’s say we place a huge tariff on cars from foreign companies so that any Toyota, Honda, or Subaru costs $40,000. What are we left with? GMs and Fords that we can get for $35,000, less consumer choice, and failing American car companies because the issue isn’t sales, the issue is cost structure.”
Are you sure that’s accurate?
Actually, DtM, the issue IS sales.
Furthermore, if we place huge tariffs on foreign cars what we are left with is NOT less consumer choice, but rather the choice to spend a little extra money on a higher quality car with better options, or on a crappy, cheap, American product we don’t want…and American car companies still fail because they’re making what people don’t want anymore.
For instance, find me an American car with a turbo, all wheel drive, a manual transmission, and a hatch/wagon configuration. Find me an American car that gets 50 MPG.
lojasmo
“American car companies still fail because they’re making what people don’t want anymore.”
I agree American manufacturers shouldn’t have marketed “that thing got a hemi” and instead should have marketed “Made in America” and offered cars as sweet as my Scion TC.
It is up to the leadership of those companies to get on board or get left behind, and they might just get on board. These manufacturers should embrace the change, rather than throwing their hands up in the air and declaring “it’s the unions fault we’re failing”, then keep on paying for an avalanche of TV ads that promote only the biggest baddest pickup trucks during NASCAR races. In my opinion the “big three” CEOs and their fellow executives are complete and utter idiots.
Holly,
You may be on the other side of the political fence, but anyone who can quote from “Alice’s Restaurant” is OK in my book ;>
Really your really are a moron but there’s a danger in the “buy American” mantra. I am a firm believer in “think globally, buy locally” philosophy but that has to be adopted by the world community. Also, the world community needs to recognize the damage done and waste that is incurred by spending monies on arms, both small and large. A serious effort must be started to de-militerize the world’s economy. If we can establish a de-militerized zone and if that zone prospers economically then it will be possible for the planet to finally set aside its military goals and begin to allow people to live quiet, peaceful lives, without the fear of armies or war. Is it going to happen in our generation? No. But, do we want future generations to look back at us and say, “It could’ve started with them.”
A global economy is not a choice. You don’t decide if you want to “opt in”.
It is here, and here to stay. We need to figure out where our niche in it is. And I’m pretty sure it is not in manufacturing.
Ah, Really is pretty fun, actually.
Sounds like Richard is calling for some sort of Zollverein (or was that attained via military action instead of in peace?), or something. The latest that comes close to that might be the EU. You might be calling for what Einstein called for… a world govnt. I’m not for that, though. Too much power in one spot. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
And I’m thinking yes, if many countries were isolationistic, it would work to ‘Buy (Only) American.’
I’m remembering the 1987 correction and the world struggle associated with the correction. We all struggled, not just one country. I just googled it and the troubles started in Hong Kong? I thought Vietnam.
Anyway, what niche are we looking to nail? How DO we get what we need…
I’d offer up three options, all from my personal opinion but based on observation in my business travels:
1. Medical / biomed. We have the best trifecta of businesses who passionately pursue medical breakthroughs, many patients who are willing to pay for them, and universities that can bolster the research. Huge potential. As countries become wealthier, they will want to live forever like our baby boomers.
2. Sciences, non-medical. We can be the leaders in environmental research and breakthroughs on this front. I love Newt’s idea of having awards — 1st company who has a car that gets 100 mpg and holds 5 people and can actually merge on and on ramp gets $100 million. We have the talent.
3. Banking / finance. Yes, our banking system just failed. But we have the most sophisticated people finding the most creative uses of capital. We got a bit carried away, but it doesn’t mean we punt on this one. We have alot of unused capital in America. A great finance system will route it to the most productive places.
A theme here — these all require creativity and education. Don’t skimp on the workforce. Let’s invest billions in helping fasttrack these industries, instead of pouring good money after bad into the union-fearing automakers in Detroit.
And a note - in 25 years, my list will be obsolete. We have to operate under a premise that these change continuously. Which is why even thought having car makers 50 years ago was a great thing, it might not be worth holding on to for the next 50.
“Too much power in one spot. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.”
Holly - I agree! Doesn’t matter if the power resides in a monopoly business, in a royal dynasty, or in a government that has morphed into something it was never meant to be. Absolute power should be actively saught and extinguished wherever it resides, government, business, social, etc.
And I’m pretty sure it is not in manufacturing.
The service economy then? We will all approve each other’s loans? We will all cater each other’s weddings? We will all plan each other’s financial futures?
That has got to be the singularly most idiotic statement ever posted in the history of the internet. DtM, I take my hat off to you. You have surpassed every lowered bar ever set by the idiots in the last 30 years.
Let me try and convey to you the importance of manufacturing in the United States. If we aren’t making stuff, we can’t buy stuff. Manufacturing is the root, the engine, the font of our fortune, the way that the world economy work. Try this, for one month, get a real job and actually do something. Then come back and tell us what you think about manufacturing in the United States
***********************
No one here likes chili, do they?
***********************
No one really likes the Superbowl either!
Its all the watercooler sensation!
I guess no one cares that a senator from Minnesota chums with the prez. No advantage there in the least.
The right only cared if it was Norm. Its only so sad that it isn’t Norman.
Mr “nearly as many mortgages as years in his house.”
*********************
The CHENEY - Halliburton parallel deserves to be brought up. But then let’s have perspective after that:
Once having worked for a company - and thus having a small soft spot for the former employer
is not the same, as having been the CEO. Or the same as still receiving $150K annually.
A CEO, as we see from the bailout boys & their bonuses, get other compensation. Stock options, etc.
Pat Sajak’s BIG MONEY.
There is always a problem & a conflict to address when people have an investment.
The degree of that problem is dependent upon what the past connection was & what the future job is.
I am sure all here pick their physician based on ZERO qualifications. To be sure that there is no bad advice,
steering you to medications made by companies they own stock in!
HEY! I know!: Let’s only pick people who have no qualifications - then there won’t be a potential conflict!
Oh wait. That didn’t work out so well for the past 8 years either.
*********************
Richard - you nailed it on manufacturing!
“Catering each other’s weddings” is a gem.
*********************
dtm in his “no manufacturing” reminds me of people who bought vaporware stock during the tech bubble.
Doing other people’s taxes is what it comes down to.
If people learn its not all THAT hard for most people to do one’s own, then H&R Block suddenly has a problem.
IF the structure of the country is all predicated upon smoke & mirrors, people must remember smoke & mirrors
drift on the wind.
When you cause economic strife - people go elsewhere to borrow.
Hell, like even WE DO - to China.
People who think what they do is the “be all” have a disconnect.
There is a hole in the bucket: if you make “smoky” stuff like ideas that can be stolen without ever entering a room,
or consists of whim purchases you can live without
vs brick & mortar industries people actually NEED.
I think DantheMan is trying to say:
1. American manufacturing has little value because our labor force is too expensive.
2. Business owners should not be embarassed by creating jobs in communist China rather than creating jobs here.
3. The American public will never embrace American Made products if they cost a little more than stuff made in communist China.
4. The trade deficit is permanent, we should all just get used to it.
5. We should embrace communism over there so we don’t have to do it here.
Why?
Because of the “global economy”.
Am I getting that right DantheMan?
I wonder if there is something to these claims we’re a ‘knowledge based economy’.
Manufacturing is still important to our economy, but is it the ‘base’? Not for years, I think. Labor too expensive? Hmmm, in other words we value our workers too much.
1. “American manufacturing has little value because our labor force is too expensive.” American manufacturing has value, and I know of alot of products which are manufactered here. But in a global economy, goods that are manufactured in a way so that they don’t offer a consumer value (because of the cost structue, yes) are dying. I don’t hate manufacturing.
2. “Business owners should not be embarassed by creating jobs in communist China rather than creating jobs here.” Correct. Assuming that having the Chinese create a 35 cent part in mass, then turn around and use your American resources to add more value somewhere along the value chain.
3. “The American public will never embrace American Made products if they cost a little more than stuff made in communist China.” If the quality is commensurate with the price different, then that American manufacturer will do just fine. My Weber grill was made in the USA. I could have spent 1/2 on a grill, but no way.
4. “The trade deficit is permanent, we should all just get used to it.” No, Globalization is permanent, and we should all just get used to it. By the way, we export alot of stuff. Alot. What happens when we put steep tariffs on all incoming goods? Those countries stop importing our goods.
5. “We should embrace communism over there so we don’t have to do it here.” By embracing free market capitalism here and across the world (by allowing the best possible person to make the particular good for a profit) we are doing more for freedom than any government could.
In America, the pay difference between unionized and non-unionized auto workers is 10 bucks ($55/hour for unionized, $45/hour for non-unionized) Health care costs for retiree benefits are $14-$15 per hour per worker in unionized companies, and $3-$4/hour/worker in non unionized companies. Thusly you see that the discrepancy is moot if you nationalize health care here in the US.
Anti-union bullshit doesn’t really fly in consideration of the cost of American automotive manufacturing.
There is a nationalized health care program for retirees in the US. It is called Medicare. Any further nationalization of the health care system in the US will simply be Medicare for all.
So yes, this anti-union discussion does fly. If I employ 100 union people, and the cost of employing them makes my product cost $40 per unit, and I can go to the global market and sell it for $38 per unit, what happens?
I either get subsidized by the government for the other 2-3 dollars per unit, or I try to sell the unit for $42 but nobody buys it.
Both of those things are occuring with carmakers today. Unions aren’t the victims in Detroit, they are the problem. And blame should not escape the executives in the 70’s and 80’s who entered into these unsustainable contracts with unions, and are now retired and punted the issue to someone else.
By embracing free market capitalism here and across the world (by allowing the best possible person to make the particular good for a profit) we are doing more for freedom than any government could.
I’m sure the 9 year old girl, working 16 hours a day, each and every day, for $10.00 a month, appreciates how we’re helping with that whole freedom thing. The best possible person to make any particular product is that person that can be exploited the most, maximizing the profit.
Every day that passes with news reports about some banking CEO getting some 10’s of millions dollar bonus, I think more and more what we need is a good, old fashioned class war. The GOP’ers have been complaining about it since the criminal Reagan was in office so maybe we need to make their worst fears come true. And I’m not talking about restructuring the tax code, I’m talking old school class war, peasants with pitchforks and torches, storming the castle. Seizing all the wealth of the top 2% in this country and redistributing it would be a nice stimulus for the economy. Also, it would give the top 2% something to do. They could go to work and try to reacquire all their loot.
Ah, Richard. The old patriots with the pitchforks imagery. How noble.
Here is the problem: It already occured. Many of those who are successful in the business, medical, legal, and other fields started out with nothing. They were the ones who had nothing, getting a decent education, somehow finding a way to get into and through college, and entering the workforce. Then they carved out a niche for them in the world, and through persistence and creativity rose to a position of relative comfort.
I think to think I’m one of those.
So in these united states, the way that you are the Patriot with the pitchfork, the way that you storm the castle so to speak, is by persistently and creativity adding some value to the system. Anyone in America can take on “the man” and win. Anyone in America can seize some wealth and redistribute it to them, their family, and the charities that they care deeply about. I did, you can, anyone can.
The patriot with the pitchfork — that opportunity awaits each and every one of us!
Unions aren’t the problem, unions are the solution. Unions help create the wealth that sparks demand for goods and services. People don’t buy a company’s car because that car is cheaper, they buy it because they see in that car an acceptable amount of value, for the dollar they’re spending. That value might be in MPG or style or horsepower or something. But way down the list of things people consider when they’re buying a car is sticker price.
If 30% of the world’s work force were organized, we wouldn’t be in the economic mess we’re in. When China let’s it’s workforce unionize, that will create an economic force that will be tough to compete against.
that opportunity awaits each and every one of us!
A popular urban myth. Reaganism at it’s most nauseating. I suppose one could argue that it is true the same way that Quantum Physics is true. There is some probability that any one of us could, through hard work and a little luck, pick our plucky selves out of the primordial swamp of middle class America, and become one of the wealthy elite.
Trouble is, it’s not true. Only one in five small businesses survives the first year. The game is so rigged now, no one outside of the landed gentry stand much of a chance. Medical costs keep many people working for the large companies instead of starting out on their own.
“If 30% of the world’s work force were organized, we wouldn’t be in the economic mess we’re in.”
Hmmmm…. let me think of some of the most powerful unions in America and how their industries are doing:
Government workers: Taking more and more of hard-earned tax dollars each year to “administer” our governmnet to us. Running record deficits at the federal and state levels.
Doctors; (AMA), yes a union and an incredibly powerful one. They restrict the flow of doctors into certain specialities keeping your health care prices high. The result? The most expensive health care system in the world.
Auto: 3 big union-dominated car manufacturers getting killed both in terms of quality and finances by the non-unionized companies. Pretty stark contrast if you ask me.
And to say unions create wealth is asinine. They do it the same way the government does it: By taking the same dollar that would have been out there anyway, and redistributing it to their liking. Their liking, often times, being formed by corruption. Splitting a dollar apart in a different way and then taking a cut for doing so isn’t wealth creation. Sorry.
Taking more and more of hard-earned tax dollars each year to “administer” our governmnet to us. Running record deficits at the federal and state levels.
Blaming government workers for budget deficits. Make sure to tell that to your kids teacher, or your mailman, or to the next cop that pulls you over. I’m sure they would be very interested in that theory and you could have a spirited debate.
Doctors; (AMA), yes a union and an incredibly powerful one. They restrict the flow of doctors into certain specialities keeping your health care prices high. The result? The most expensive health care system in the world.
You definitely want to bring this one up and I would recommend the best time would be while you’re getting a colonoscopy. Blaming doctors for the high price of health care.
Auto: 3 big union-dominated car manufacturers getting killed both in terms of quality and finances by the non-unionized companies.
I’m pretty sure you’ve never been in a auto plant, either union or non-union so we can just take for granted, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Toyota will soon be UAW, Honda will as well. Nisson and Hyundai will fall into line. The reason they have been non-union to this point is because they offer similar and equivalent contracts to their workers. There is some fallacy to the image of the UAW worker. There isn’t widespread lounging at an auto plant.
DantheMan,
I remind you that the ideas you are pitching are what has led us to where we are now. I don’t see you offering any fresh ideas, I only hear the same old tired rhetoric.
There were plenty of unemployed people to go around even 4 years ago, DantheMan. If you and the Republicans are going to continue to offer nothing but excuses for the trade deficits and outsourcing that have contributed to the loss of American jobs, how do you propose to put very large amounts of eager, talented, and desparate to work Americans to work, long term?
Look at Michigan, for example. Is this simply those poor people “pulling themselves up by their bootstraps?”, because if the jobs aren’t there, that means moving to a place where the jobs are.
So where is that, DantheMan?
Overseas?
I think you’re being a bit of a “crap sandwich salesman,” trying to convince us that it is delicious, and is the only sandwich that makes any sense.
DtM
Regarding medicare: People are often able to retire before they are eligible for medicare…often many years, or even decades before. This necessitates responsible employers (and employers of employees with strong union representation) to offer interim health care.
So, no. Your union argument does not hold water.
Listen, you can bitch and moan about how things are changing, or you can adapt. Those whom I see adapting are doing just fine, even in this economy.
President Obama, who I so far support, is talking about change. Having fresh ideas in American industry today sure as heck doesn’t mean moving back to the times of unions. But with 7 of the top 10 political donation organizations (based on political contributions) being unions, I sadly don’t see this changing.
I know, I know. You all like to think that fat cats on Wall Street and cigar-chomping CEOs are the ones who influence Washington with money. The fact is unions are doing more to keep beltway lobbyists employed than Wall Street is. So much for change.
DantheMan:
“Having fresh ideas in American industry today sure as heck doesn’t mean moving back to the times of unions.”
That is your and your fellow Republicans opinion.
Perhaps the reason we are discussing labor and the economy is because we are in such a mess. To fix our problems workers need jobs and money. Arguing for ‘no unions’ or ‘less union power’ is not a step in the right direction, I think. Unions were and are needed to ensure ‘equality’ in the capitalistic system.
It’s been a long time since the Hoffa years when unions may have gotten too powerful. I thought the latest union activity was a pressure to respect and compensate workers (Ford’s idea that workers should be paid enough to buy the product could be brought up here).
The end result we’re looking for is a better economy, right? The bootstraps idea won’t work if the middle class can’t prosper… if the economy was deregulated enough so it crashed beyond help. I have hope.
I don’t think Americans are lazy, and I get angry with that anti-American sentiment. Time to figure out a plan instead of arguing the extreme.
It’d be nice to think outside the box right now, though.
Richard,
In a free market people are paid for the value they create. Unfortunately, we do not a free labor market in this country.
First, we have the minimum wage, which distorts the true value of just being able to show up at work on time and be clean. Liberals want to make this wage a living wage for a family. Let me tell you, if the only skill you have acquired in your life is being clean and on-time, you shouldn’t be having a family. You should be ashamed, and living alone in the basement of your parents.
Next, you have the unions, who, through monopolistic practices, have distorted the value of labor towards the high end. And yes, they are a labor monopoly, just like the rail and oil monopolies of lore, and similar to the electric, gas, and water utility monopolies of today. The big difference is that unions are not regulated like the other monopolies. In fact, while liberals hate the utilities and always try to milk them for social engineering programs, the unions are the darlings of the left, who will do anything to give them an advantage over management/capital in order to drive up the cost of labor.
Unions do not create wealth, unless you are talking about wealth for the leadership. Unions were good in the beginning. A $30MM resort and golf course? Puh-lease!!!
Wealth is created by someone having have a great idea, risking a lot of money to create it, and then even more money selling it all the while hoping he doesn’t lose everything and go bankrupt. Richard, if you want wealth, get an idea, build a product, and try to sell. And, based on the ideas you are trying to sell here you will die penniless and living off the taxpayers.
You stated:
Seizing all the wealth of the top 2% in this country and redistributing it would be a nice stimulus for the economy. Also, it would give the top 2% something to do. They could go to work and try to reacquire all their loot.
First, you are an evil little man. Second, you try coming after my gold, you will be met with lead.
Once again, Holly is the voice of reason.
And Nitro, you are correct, that my opinion on unions is only my opinion. But I’ll tell you that I have worked in union shops and I believe the unions had a detrimental impact on creativity, innovation, and overall performance within that shop. Perhaps I witnessed the wrong unions. But yes, it is only my opinion.
And it is also only my opinion that any one of us can create, innovate, and work our way into the top 2%. It doesn’t require government leveling. It requires an inspired and able individual. Yes, just my opinion, but my opinion in this case is based on real-life experience.
Daschle needs to go from HHS appointment. Dean for HHS!
Voice of reason? That’s my mother!
Ah, yes. Really, that anti-American argument about minimum wage employees being stupid and lazy drives me nuts. Love your country or find another? It’s the people that make a country. All of us.
I think democracy is where it’s at, and in ours equality and majority rule are important. If we don’t set minimums in our market, watch for corruption, avoid the situation where profit is at the expense of the middle class, educate and take care of our workers, and work together to solve problems (a two party system provides balance), we’ll lose our democracy.
And then what? Military rule? Some would be better than others, no matter how hard you worked? A super-society built on prefection and scientific manuevering? Total destruction of certain parts or all of our earth? Good movies have explored those options.
Don’t tell anyone, Holly, but I think you and I agree on more than I would have originally guessed.
DantheMan:
“And it is also only my opinion that any one of us can create, innovate, and work our way into the top 2%.”
Is that an excuse to diminish or ignore the needs of the other 98%, because DantheMan, that other 98% is ALWAYS going to be there. If you don’t like them, or even hate them, that is your problem. They are as American as you are. They vote. They raise families. A lot of their money GOES TO and SUPPORTS the top 2%.
Really?
“based on the ideas you are trying to sell here you will die penniless and living off the taxpayers”
That’s just completely insane. So everyone who shares Richards point of view will die penniless and living off the taxpayers? Are you sure about that? Since when are you righties the oracles of predictions anyway? Republicans have had little credibility, and not much selling power anymore.
“In fact, while liberals hate the utilities and always try to milk them for social engineering programs”
What? Are you sure about that?
“First, we have the minimum wage, which distorts the true value of just being able to show up at work on time and be clean. Liberals want to make this wage a living wage for a family. Let me tell you, if the only skill you have acquired in your life is being clean and on-time, you shouldn’t be having a family. You should be ashamed, and living alone in the basement of your parents.”
How many people have being clean and on time as their only skill, Really? HOW MANY? What percentage of American workers do you believe fall into that category?
Are you sure you are being accurate, Really? You wouldn’t be mischaracterizing people you don’t like would you?
“you try coming after my gold, you will be met with lead”
What is that a Reich quote or something?
I could say then, using your wonderful way of dealing with people you don’t like, that a typical Republican will threaten to shoot socialists.
Is that a mischaracterization of you?
A couple of things Really?: The idea that the minimum wage, or any worker’s wage, is inflated right now is not true - since about 1973, productivity has grown steadily, while wages have flattened out (when both are adjusted for inflation). Currently, the average hourly salary with all benefits included (insurances, vacation days, sick leave, etc.) is $25.21. If that had kept pace with productivity it would be $40.91. Therefore, workers are producing more for less.
The big difference between economies with high union membership (recent peak was in the mid to late seventies) and those with lower union membership (now for example) is the concentration of wealth in the top 3% richest americans. In the seventies, they held around 18% of all the wealth in the country, now they hold 23% (highest percentage since just before the Depression). The average CEO salary of the largest 400 companies in the U.S. makes 441 times the average worker, in the seventies that number was about 50 times.
If you are in a union, you are more likely to have health insurance and better pay. Losing unions has meant losing wealth for average Americans. That’s all there is to it.
Julie:
“Therefore, workers are producing more for less.”
Yet, Americas recent prosperity under Republican leadership was not shared.
I’m taking a step back… I think we all agree on a few things:
1. For this to be a great nation, we need an abundance of jobs, good jobs, so people can work and bring home a healthy paycheck.
2. Regarding power, there must be a balance. If business owners have all the power, workers won’t have any leverage. If labor unions have all the power, there will no longer be an abundance of good jobs to employ them.
3. Government has a role — some of you think they should manage the economy, I think they should be like a referee… there are the exception cases — but they have a role
4. Unemployment is the enemy of a good economy.
5. Everyone must have the opportunity to advance their lot in life. Some of you think everyone is entitled to some level of comfort, I think everyone is at least entitled to the opportunty to make their own way. But we agree that opportunity should be there for all.
Now, I think the best way to create this nation where everyone can advance their quality of life is by having an abundance of jobs, jobs that exist because they add real value to the global economy. You do this through innovation and having companies and ideas that crush the competition, not by legislating it. You can’t force a business owner to keep his doors open for the union if he can’t make a go of it.
Unions would not be needed if we had a business environment where there was an abundance of jobs for workers to choose from. They could vote with their feet rather than pay union dues. If they felt they were being treated unfairly by the boss, they could go around the corner to a more enlightened business owner. Business owners would realize that they need to treat workers well in order to keep them, and there you have the balance.
Holly,
Please don’t put words in my mouth. Nowhere did I state that minimum workers are syutpid and lazy. What I said was……..
“we have the minimum wage, which distorts the true value of just being able to show up at work on time and be clean”
The market should decide the value of the skills of being on time and clean, not the government. There are some labor markets in the US where the starting wage at a McD’s is several dollars higher than the minimum.
Julie,
You stated that…
“The idea that the minimum wage, or any worker’s wage, is inflated right now is not true ”
As I noted above, there are labor market where the real minimum is higher than the government minimum. However, in other markets, there are people willing to workfor less than what the government mandates. Which means that the government is inflating the value of this basic labor. If you want to raise the real minimum wage for low skilled American workers, kick out the illegals. Skilled labor is an issue which I am not addressing.
Ok, so a union exacts rents from companies in the form of higher salary and benefits. That is called monopolistic power, which most libs hate when companies have it (you know, companies owned by stockholders like union members), but love it when unions do. Your contradiction is puzzling, unless you favor laborers (the job holders) over stockholders (the job creators), who for the most part are also laborers. Puzzling.
Nitro,
you wrote,
“How many people have being clean and on time as their only skill, Really? HOW MANY? What percentage of American workers do you believe fall into that category?
Read before you write, Nitro. I never said that was their only skill. I said that the government inlfates wages for the skills of being clean and on time, which are the basic skill requirements of many jobs.
YEs, I did say “you try coming after my gold, you will be met with lead” to whcih you replied
“What is that a Reich quote or something?”
NO, IT IS A STATEMENT OF FACT. It is amazing that this discussion has gone on for so long and you are just now bringing up a Nazi analogy. You must be back on your medication.
You stated….
” I could say then, using your wonderful way of dealing with people you don’t like, that a typical Republican will threaten to shoot socialists.
Is that a mischaracterization of you?”
Absolutely, and I would expect nothing less from you Nitro.
Nitro
“In fact, while liberals hate the utilities and always try to milk them for social engineering programs”
What? Are you sure about that?
YEP. Look at all of the subsidized light bulbs, insulation, and bill payment forgiveness that utilities are forced to cover. I worked closely with them for approx 10 years, I know. Insulation and efficiency bulbs reduce the amount of the product they sell - they are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts or to increase shareholder value. Just more social engineering foisted upon them by the anti-business libs.
I was refering to Wilhelm Reich, you idiot, Really? He has written almost the same exact words that you posted.
Look him up.
You twist things into your divisive visions, Really?, as your repies to my comments show.
” Insulation and efficiency bulbs reduce the amount of the product they sell - they are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts or to increase shareholder value. Just more social engineering foisted upon them by the anti-business libs.”
What does this say about you, and the utilities? It is difficult for me to believe everyone who works for or runs a utility feels this way. This point of view without a doubt is something that could use a change of perspective. The race to the bottom line (greed) does not always make it right.
I said that the government inlfates wages for the skills of being clean and on time, which are the basic skill requirements of many jobs.
What jobs are these, and how many people, Really?
“NO, IT IS A STATEMENT OF FACT”
So, then your threat to shoot socialists stands.
Great Job!
Wealth is created by someone having have a great idea, risking a lot of money to create it, and then even more money selling it all the while hoping he doesn’t lose everything and go bankrupt.
Not an iota of wealth has been produced yet. Wealth is only generated when money changes hands. A great idea is worth spit unless someone is willing to buy it. All the hard work in the world won’t make you a dime unless someone is willing to part with that dime. Typical supply sider faulty thinking.
Union’s create the middle class with discretionary income. Union’s create the job security where a employee can take a gamble on buying a house or car or vacation. Suddenly money is changing hands. If I have a great idea and the resurgent union movement has signed up 30% again, I would be much more able to sell my product to a workforce with money in their pocket. It’s no coincidence that the decline in union membership in this country has resulted in the median family income declining as well. This is while the top 2% has seen a 150% rise in their incomes.
Richard:
“This is while the top 2% has seen a 150% rise in their incomes.
From Bloomberg.com
Richest Americans’ Income Doubled as Tax Rate Slashed
“Jan. 30 (Bloomberg) — The average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a third to 17.2 percent through the first six years of the Bush administration and their average income doubled to $263.3 million, new IRS data show.”
Was that a shared prosperity? Are the wealthy now suffering during this economic crisis?
Oops, sorry Really, I wasn’t saying you said that… but your sentiment goes along that line of thinking. Hmm, I’ll try not to generalize.
What’s the clean part you keep mentioning?
The only remedy for this inequitable system is a strong unionization effort. They won’t part with the money that they’ve made off of the sweat of working people easily. There’s a lot more of us then them so I’m thinking any class war will take a weekend, maybe a long weekend.
And this has been bothering me so much, I can no longer stand by without commenting. Chili does not have beans nor is it cooked with hamburger. Save the beans for soup and use sirloin in your chili.
Wealth is created when you grow the pie. Period.
Steve Jobs and his great company created the Ipod. People all over the world bought the ipod, and then suddenly the designers of the Ipod did very well, the maker of the Ipod did well, artists who preveiously had cost limitations keeping them from making a CD could put their music in MP3s and sell it, people bought Apple stock… it created wealth.
Pfizer creates wealth when they develop a $100 drug that can be used instead of doing a $5,000 surgery. More people would take a drug than have surgery so more people live longer, more productive lives. The money that would have been spent on that surgery can now be spent on other productive things. The designer made money. Pfizer’s stock went up. You and I no save money because our Medicare and Medicaid tax dollar goes further. That creates wealth.
Governmnet taking a dollar from the system, using 20 cents of it to run its agencies, and then doling out the other 80 cents to someone else shifts money, but doesn’t create any wealth.
A union collecting union dues so they can pay a lobbyist to enact a law raising the apprecenticeship time for plumbers, all to maintain the pay level of current plumbers does not create wealth. Somewhere, there is a talented, able, ambitious young plumber who now has more red tape to cut through in order to service customers. But the union guys are fat and happy.
…and use sirloin in your chili.
AMEN, Brother!!!
DTM - all those benefits you enjoy?
Thank the unions - without them, you wouldn’t need no stinkin’ benefits, ‘cause you got a job.
But rest assured, the Bill McGuires of the world appreciate your efforts.
Than you unions.
There, how was that? I’m not trying to minimize American unions’ place in our history. I’m just saying that they are not part of the solution for a better future.
4 hour break for the Super Bowl!
Ha…. I meant “Thank You unions”
So much for typing with a baby on my lap.
How long have I checked this page out and, expecting recipes and sport strategy, I passed? I’m just glad I ate an hour before reading. Is reading C.J. Jung useful? You betcha, Really?.
DtM,
Great post on making the pie larger. You are dead on. Why can’t liberals see that baking a bigger pie is better than try to steal my piece?
Nitro,
Do the math. The wealthiest 400 would pay 33% more in taxes, or $11M more per year. See, this is the part about growing the pie that lbs can not seem to understand. Or, if you do, you are just too lazy to do the hard work required - much easier to steal.
And, to do Chili right, it needs to be on top of Spaghetti and covered with cheese - SKYLINE style.
And, lest I forget - PITTSBURGH WON THE SUPERBOWL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Richard - you are missing out.
That girl you postulate that works 16 hours a day for $10 a month has the freedom
to open her own sweatshop some day!
Doesn’t she?
And we will, as well.
Never mind that parents cannot afford to send their kids to college as readily as they once could.
Never mind that our world is shrinking into an “India.”
The middle class are, after all — -> scum. Aren’t they?
Certainly in my mind’s eye - I am on top of the world. Just me & the Donald Trumps.
Giving more to those who “create wealth” is problematic in that they don’t spend it in ways that grow the economy. If I make money, I buy stuff. The guy who makes 400 times what I make doesn’t buy 400 times as much stuff. I’ll buy a car, but he won’t buy 400 cars. As far as pumping that money back into the building new businesses, the wealthy spent too much of their money buying derivatives, which are too far removed from actual production to grow the economy. In fact, giving too much money to people who didn’t reinvest in actual production is a big part of our current economic woes. Trickle down just doesn’t work (even if you call it “creating wealth”) - it evaporates before it hits the rest of us. Without adequate wages, markets won’t have enough money for even the most innovative products to move. Raising wages is a far more efficient and effective way to build an economy.
Unreal.
After eight years of Dumbya, rightwingers still think supplyside and trickledown work.
TPT -
1. That was funny stuff. Quality. W was such a quotable Prez, in a bad way.
2. If you are trying to make an argument that we can raise our standard of living without making the pie larger, then I’ve been giving you a bit too much intellectual credit all these months.
Julie,
I just love how lefties glom on to a pharse like “trickledown” and turn it out as a perjorative anytime they talk about Reaagan, lower rates for the higherst payers, or the wealthy.
No, the wealthy won’t buy 400 cars - they will buy yachts and gulfstreams and two vacation homes. Right now boat builders and pritave jet companies are hurting just as badly or worse than the automakers.
The wealthy do not spend all they earn. Neither should you. It is called savings. Too many people today have no savings, a $10K credit card balance, a car payment, and an underwater mortgage that was a stretch to begin with, two more TVS they never watch, and a slew of video games. I do fine for myself, yet I don’t have the $3000 LCD TV, the new lxury car (mine was used), any credit card debt, the huge house, or any of the trappings of wealth. What I do have is 6 months emergecny living cash in the bank, a mortage of less than half what I qualify for, and no car payment, and a decent retirement account. This is not due to having money. It is due to me learning to live within my means from my parents, and doing so from the time I earned my first dollar beginning at age 14 from the company I started.
If you don’t have it, don’t spend it. Kepp the old car longer. Don’t buy the bigger house. Your 27” or 32” TV is just fine. I know that this is going against what all of the politicians want you to do with the “stimulus money” that is being taken from the taxPAYERS, but is it the right thing to do for the long term health of our economy.
There is the zero sum idea…
Hey, W. and Dr. Suess have something in common! It’s funny how I value one of those guys, and not the other.
The newest memeber of the Obama Adminsistration - Secretary of Tax Ethics
I would love to be at his staff meetings……
LOS ANGELES (AP) - A federal judge in California has issued an arrest warrant for “Girls Gone Wild” founder Joe Francis because he failed to appear at a hearing in his tax evasion case.
Another member of the Tax Cheat Team Obama……….
At least this one had the honor to withdraw.
====================
Killefer withdraws nomination over tax issues
Posted: 10:35 AM ET
From CNN Senior White House Correspondent Ed Henry
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Nancy Killefer withdrew her nomination Tuesday to become chief performance officer, a new post in President Barack Obama’s administration, a White House spokesman told CNN.
Officials said privately the reason for the withdrawal was unspecified tax issues.
The withdrawal is an embarrassment to the White House, as the much-touted post was aimed at scrubbing the federal budget.
–CNN’s Ed Henry contributed to this report.
=====================