PDA

View Full Version : Who Will Stand Up to the Super rich?



Qtec
11-13-2010, 09:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> November 13, 2010
Who Will Stand Up to the Super rich?
By FRANK RICH

IN the aftermath of the Great Democratic Shellacking of 2010, one election night subplot quickly receded into the footnotes: the drubbing received by very wealthy Americans, most of them Republican, who tried to buy Senate seats and governor’s mansions. Americans don’t hate rich people. They admire and often idolize success. But Californians took a hearty dislike to Meg Whitman, who sacrificed $143 million of her eBay fortune — not to mention her undocumented former housekeeper — to a gubernatorial race she lost by double digits. Connecticut voters K.O.’d the World Wrestling groin-kicker, Linda McMahon, and West Virginians did likewise to the limestone-and-steel magnate John Raese, the senatorial hopeful who told an interviewer without apparent irony, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>“I made my money the old-fashioned way — I inherited it.”</span> <span style="color: #990000">Take note eg8r</span>

To my mind, these losers deserve a salute nonetheless. They all had run businesses that actually created jobs (Raese included). They all wanted to enter public service to give back to the country that allowed them to prosper. And by losing so decisively, they gave us a ray of hope in dark times. Their defeats reminded us that despite much recent evidence to the contrary the inmates don’t always end up running the asylum of American politics.

The wealthy Americans we should worry about instead are the ones who implicitly won the election — those who take far more from America than they give back. They were not on the ballot, and most of them are not household names. Unlike Whitman and the other defeated self-financing candidates, they are all but certain to cash in on the Nov. 2 results. There’s no one in Washington in either party with the fortitude to try to stop them from grabbing anything that’s not nailed down.

The Americans I’m talking about are not just those shadowy anonymous corporate campaign contributors who flooded this campaign. No less triumphant were those individuals at the apex of the economic pyramid — the superrich who have gotten spectacularly richer over the last four decades while their fellow citizens either treaded water or lost ground. The top 1 percent of American earners took in 23.5 percent of the nation’s pretax income in 2007 — up from less than 9 percent in 1976. During the boom years of 2002 to 2007, that top 1 percent’s pretax income increased an extraordinary 10 percent every year. But the boom proved an exclusive affair: in that same period, the median income for non-elderly American households went down and the poverty rate rose.

It’s the very top earners, not your garden variety, entrepreneurial multimillionaires, who will be by far the biggest beneficiaries if there’s an extension of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts for income over $200,000 a year (for individuals) and $250,000 (for couples). The resurgent G.O.P. has vowed to fight to the end to award this bonanza, but that may hardly be necessary given the timid opposition of President Obama and the lame-duck Democratic Congress.

On last Sunday’s “60 Minutes,” Obama was already wobbling toward another “compromise” in which he does most of the compromising. It’s a measure of how far he’s off his game now that a leader who once had the audacity to speak at length on the red-hot subject of race doesn’t even make the most forceful case for his own long-held position on an issue where most Americans still agree with him. (Only 40 percent of those in the Nov. 2 exit poll approved of an extension of all Bush tax cuts.) The president’s argument against extending the cuts for the wealthiest has now been reduced to the dry accounting of what the cost would add to the federal deficit. As he put it to CBS’s Steve Kroft, “the question is — can we afford to borrow $700 billion?”

That’s a good question, all right, but it’s not the question. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>The bigger issue is whether the country can afford the systemic damage being done by the ever-growing income inequality between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else, whether poor, middle class or even rich.</span></div></div>

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/opinion/14rich.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print)

Q

LWW
11-14-2010, 04:21 AM
Which party do you think these uber rich actually support?

LWW

Qtec
11-14-2010, 04:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A Journey From Lawmaker to Lobbyist and Back
By ERIC LIPTON

WASHINGTON — When Cooper Industries, a century-old manufacturing company based in Texas, moved its headquarters to Bermuda to slash its American income tax bill, it had to turn to a Washington insider with extraordinary contacts to soothe a seething Congress.

Dan Coats, then a former senator and ambassador to Germany, served as co-chairman of a team of lobbyists in 2007 who worked behind the scenes to successfully block Senate legislation that would have terminated a tax loophole worth hundreds of millions of dollars in additional cash flow to Cooper Industries.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Now Mr. Coats, a Republican from Indiana, is about to make a striking transition. He is spinning the revolving door backward.

As part of the Republican wave in this year’s midterm elections, Mr. Coats will join the Senate again and is seeking a coveted spot on the Finance Committee, the same panel that tried to shut the tax loophole and that the Obama administration has pushed to again consider such a move.</span> </div></div>

LWW
11-14-2010, 04:49 AM
Was the question too difficult?

LWW

Gayle in MD
11-14-2010, 05:15 AM
Excellent article, Q. This part, especially:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>The G.O.P.’s arguments for extending the Bush tax cuts to this crowd, usually wrapped in laughably hypocritical whining about “class warfare,” are easily batted down. The most constant refrain is that small-business owners who file in this bracket would be hit so hard they could no longer hire new employees. But the Tax Policy Center found in 2008, when checking out similar campaign claims by “Joe the Plumber,” that only 2 percent of all Americans reporting small-business income, regardless of tax bracket, would see tax increases if Obama fulfilled his pledge to let the Bush tax cuts lapse for the top earners. The economist Dean Baker calculated that the yearly tax increase at the lower end of that bracket, for those with earnings between $200,000 and $500,000, would amount to $700 — which “isn’t enough to hire anyone.”

Those in the higher reaches aren’t investing in creating new jobs even now, when the full Bush tax cuts remain in effect, so why would extending them change that equation? American companies seem intent on sitting on trillions in cash until the economy reboots. Meanwhile, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office ranks the extension of any Bush tax cuts, let alone those to the wealthiest Americans, as the least effective of 11 possible policy options for increasing employment.

Nor are the superrich helping to further the traditional American business culture that inspires and encourages those with big ideas and drive to believe they can climb to the top. Robert Frank, the writer who chronicled the superrich in the book “Richistan,” recently analyzed the new Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans for The Wall Street Journal and found a “hardening of the plutocracy” and scant mobility. Only 16 of the 400 were newcomers — as opposed to an average of 40 to 50 in recent years — and they tended to be in industries like coal, natural gas, chemicals and casinos rather than forward-looking businesses involving the Green Economy, tech or biotechnology. This is “not exactly the formula for America’s vaunted entrepreneurial wealth machine,” Frank wrote.

As “Winner-Take-All Politics” documents, America has been busy “building a bridge to the 19th century” — that is, to a new Gilded Age. To dislodge the country from this stagnant rut will require all kinds of effort from Americans in and out of politics. That includes some patriotic selflessness from those at the very top who still might emulate Warren Buffett and the few others in the Forbes 400 who dare say publicly that it’s not in America’s best interests to stack the tax and regulatory decks in their favor. </span></div></div>

Qtec
11-14-2010, 05:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Was the question too difficult?

LWW </div></div>

no. Too stupid.

Q

LWW
11-14-2010, 05:29 AM
So, daring to question the regime is now deemed to be stupidity?

Perhaps I was wrong in my refusal in the concurrent thread?

LWW

Qtec
11-14-2010, 06:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which party claims to be urgently, desperately concerned about the deficit? The Republicans, of course. So which party is prepared to bust the budget, if that's what it takes, to serve the interests of the rich? The GOP. And which party, to get its way, refuses to approve desperately needed tax relief for the bruised and battered middle class? Once again, the Republicans. </div></div>

Q

LWW
11-14-2010, 07:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which party claims to be urgently, desperately concerned about the deficit? The Republicans, of course. So which party is prepared to bust the budget, if that's what it takes, to serve the interests of the rich? The GOP. And which party, to get its way, refuses to approve desperately needed tax relief for the bruised and battered middle class? Once again, the Republicans. </div></div>

Q </div></div>

So why has the deficit increased from $160B to <span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 26pt'>$1,400,000,000,000.00</span></span> in 4 years of a democrook congress?

LWW

llotter
11-14-2010, 07:26 AM
Milton Friedman said the he never saw a tax cut that wasn't an improvement over no tax cut but the Left always insist on adding Marxist trimmings, class warfare, 'from each according to their ability', into the mix and that is basically un-American and destructive of our Execeptionalism.

There has been growing disparity in wealth and income in this country and I agree that it not a good thing, but the cause is the direct result of re-distributive leftist policies along with a market dominated by government spending.

Markets where people are spending their own money to meet their own needs are the most fair and efficient model and essential for freedom to flourish but that market has become so distorted by government interference that is killing the fairness, the efficiency and the freedom. We can compete in world markets when we stop redistributing money and let freedom work its wonders.

There is no significant problem that we now face that government hasn't made a thousand times worse but the Left has sold it soul to enhance their power and self-preservation, the country be damned.

wolfdancer
11-14-2010, 02:22 PM
I would like to add a footnote to this informative post by our noted economist.....
bullcrap
Your answer for everything....seems to be "blame it on the left"
Did you sleep through 8 of the last 10 years...comatose, perhaps?
Here's what happened.... 8 years of the #*^%@#! chimp at the helm, who inherited a surplus...and left behind a massive debt that your great, great grandchildren will be trying to pay........
I think you may have studied "Maynard G. Krebbs", and thought you were studying, John Maynard Keynes. Either way, I wouldn't be wasting my time if I were you, applying to Wharton.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ...it is not a good thing</div></div> probably the only truism in your "informative" post.....
We can compete in world markets....maybe........ if our workers agree to work 16 hr days, give up any benefits, take massive pay cuts, and buy their vittles from the company store.
XXX (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIfu2A0ezq0)

pooltchr
11-14-2010, 02:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
We can compete in world markets....maybe........ if our workers agree to work 16 hr days, give up any benefits, take massive pay cuts, and buy there vittles from the company store.
XXX (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIfu2A0ezq0)
</div></div>

So you are suggesting that the only way we can compete in the global market is to lower our standard of living?
Maybe all those artificially high wages and benefit packages the unions got for employees are the reason we are no longer competitive.

You might be on to something.

Steve

eg8r
11-14-2010, 03:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I made my money the old-fashioned way — I inherited it.” Take note eg8r

</div></div>Are you willing to take the opinion of one person or statistical fact over about two decades?

The poor continue to do the things that made them poor. In your case it is whining about why everyone is doing better than you.

eg8r

Deeman3
11-14-2010, 03:51 PM
Who will stand io to the super rich?

Obama, of course! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

LWW
11-14-2010, 05:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
We can compete in world markets....maybe........ if our workers agree to work 16 hr days, give up any benefits, take massive pay cuts, and buy there vittles from the company store.
XXX (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIfu2A0ezq0)
</div></div>

So you are suggesting that the only way we can compete in the global market is to lower our standard of living?
Maybe all those artificially high wages and benefit packages the unions got for employees are the reason we are no longer competitive.

You might be on to something.

Steve </div></div>

I am going to speak from local experience here.

General Motors had multiple parts and assembly plants locally. They were all represented by the IUE. The IUE contracts matched the UAW contracts of all other GM plants across the nation.

Honda, a half hour away, opened it's first plant about 30 years ago in Marysville. They also matched the national UAW wage and benefits package.

Today ... all of the, to let that sink in <span style='font-size: 20pt'>ALL</span> of the GM plants have been shuttered.

Meanwhile, Honda has expanded the original plant, added shifts, and built additional plants ... built parts distribution ... and attracted several supplier plants to Marysville.

Now ... what's the difference?

- The IUE refused to ever allow the plant to increase production per shift beyond the minimum the contract required.

- The IUE workers were robbed of 2 hours pay per week which Honda employees didn't pay because they had no union.

- Nearly every ex GM employee I know carped incessantly about how GM was screwing them ... and the union promoted this.

- I've never met a Honda employee who complained about conditions.

- All of the ex GM employees are learning about reality, and realizing how good they have it.

- Honda is still cooking on all burners ... and building cars with approximately 30% less man hours than the old GM plants were doing.

- When the gubmint bailed out the UAW ... called the GM bailout ... the IUE was left high and dry.

- We also have an Isuzu-GM joint venture here doing quite well for the same reasons as Honda.

The reality is that the US auto manufacturing industry is thriving and paying good wages.

The reality is also that Honda, BMW, Mercedes, VW, Isuzu, Toyota, Nissan, and others are leading the way. The UAW was poison to the US auto industry for the last few decades.

LWW

Qtec
11-14-2010, 08:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The poor continue to do the things that made them poor.</div></div>

What is that then? Work all their lives for slave wages?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In your case it is whining about why everyone is doing better than you.

eg8r </div></div>

There you go again. You attack ME in order to avoid debating the real questions. Pathetic.

Q

Qtec
11-14-2010, 09:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you willing to take the opinion of one person or statistical fact over about two decades? </div></div>

The statistical fact is that the wealthy are getting richer while the rest of America is getting poorer.

In the 50s and 60s it was the American citizen's spending that drove the economy. In those days they were paid a decent wage. These days they don't have the money to spend.

Q

wolfdancer
11-14-2010, 10:45 PM
I know this is a debatable topic, and that many people just "work" the system, instead of finding work for themselves. Not everybody can afford to go to College; not everybody is qualified to go either....and most of the manufacturing jobs that allowed people to earn a decent living have been shipped overseas.
A major cause that led to the depression was the wealth distribution....and the numbers are very similar today.
It's very hard to escape from poverty......I've been trying unsuccessfully, for some 72 years now....thank the Lord for these SS "welfare" checks,the unfair to employers, retirement checks, and the socialized health care. Also the $.05 bus fares...with the signs reading "please give up your seat to seniors"

LWW
11-15-2010, 05:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which party claims to be urgently, desperately concerned about the deficit? The Republicans, of course. So which party is prepared to bust the budget, if that's what it takes, to serve the interests of the rich? The GOP. And which party, to get its way, refuses to approve desperately needed tax relief for the bruised and battered middle class? Once again, the Republicans. </div></div>

Q </div></div>

So why has the deficit increased from $160B to <span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 26pt'>$1,400,000,000,000.00</span></span> in 4 years of a democrook congress?

LWW </div></div>

Was this question too hard also?

LWW

eg8r
11-15-2010, 08:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ron Kampeas from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency news agency found Cantor's comments extremely surprising, writing, "I can't remember an opposition leader telling a foreign leader, in a personal meeting, that he would side, as a policy, with that leader against the president.</div></div>Didn't the voters of America just recently stand up to Soros and kick him in his groin?

eg8r

eg8r
11-15-2010, 08:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The statistical fact is that the wealthy are getting richer while the rest of America is getting poorer.

</div></div>You made a quote about getting rich the old fashioned way, inheritance, yet that happens less than 10% of the time.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In those days they were paid a decent wage. These days they don't have the money to spend.

</div></div>Maybe so, the problem is that the jobs did not change but the people wanted more money. It is absolutely stupid to be paying a cashier at a grocery store $7.25/hour but the leeches of society will continue voting in politicians that are willing to drive up wages to unrealistic levels and businesses will find ways of getting rid of those overpriced jobs.

eg8r

eg8r
11-15-2010, 08:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is that then? Work all their lives for slave wages?

</div></div>Yep, if they only have one job at minimum wage and are still having babies. I worked with a guy that knew he was losing his job at the end of the month. He is over 50 years old and not too much hope of getting another equal paying job any time soon. Do you know what he did...He cashed in his 401k and bought a boat because the deal was just too good to pass up.

I have friends that tell me I am stupid for paying off all my debt, driving a 10 year old car and paying my house off early. Their argument is that you will always have debt so you might as well lease a new car every other year. They live in a perfectly good, modest, home but they wanted a brand new kitchen. When the economy was great they borrowed almost 50k of equity from their house. When the economy tanked their home dropped in value almost a 100k and they are now upside down to the tune of 70k in a home that was purchased for 65k in the beginning.

Those are examples of poor people doing the things that made them poor.

Do you really need examples of the rich doing what made them rich? Start with these, hard work, living below their means, saving/investing whatever they can to reduce the realized income which in turn will lower their taxes.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-15-2010, 08:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The poor continue to do the things that made them poor.</div></div>

What is that then? Work all their lives for slave wages?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In your case it is whining about why everyone is doing better than you.

eg8r </div></div>

There you go again. You attack ME in order to avoid debating the real questions. Pathetic.

Q </div></div>

Because he has no grasp of the overall projections.

They all need to read, "Flat, Hot and Crowded"

The future is in technology for clean, renewable fuels, WITH regulations.

The Grand Oil Party, has held up progress already, for over a decade, and it started decades ago, with Reagan.

People like us have to remind ourselves, these are the people who deny what 98% of the scientists around the world, agree on, and have been warning us about for years, and which Republicans, The Oil Industry, and The Grand Oil Party, pay Scientists to deny.

Now we have Boehner, who was caught passing around pay off checks from TOBACCO!!! Right on the Senate Floor! Yet, they saok up all of the RW lies, which deny Climate Change????

They still deny the link between pollution and cancer rates going through the roof, because of Bush's energy deregulation, easing up on the Clean Water Act, and Bush's Ownership Society, and the Wall Street Collapse, being linked, and still deny the real reason behind Bush's illegal War In Iraq, OIL contracts, for his and Cheney's oil buddies.

They're hopeless....

They blame Social Security, the best thiing that ever happened in this country for our citizens, while the colossal waste and corruption in the Military Industrial Complex, in the Defense Industry, is far beyond any savings we could get, by removing SS, and Medicare...completely, once the care of our wounded vets, and the huge costs of these wars, with interest on-going, are added up, and after Bush failed to pay for anything, all ignored in the prattle of the right.


While at the same time, the pigs who collapsed the economy, on Wall Street, are their heores!!!! They're living in their mansions, counting their money, laughing their asses off...and these nutjobs want to keep their tax cuts in place, and take more from the dying Middle Class!!!

If they haven't read enough to know that the economic collapse, was not solely due to anything that Fannie and Freddie did, or are not even aware, that the damages and the results, were a done deal by late 05, early 06, or that by that time, the crash, was impossible to divert, then they shouldn't discuss economics, at all.

They don't read books. That is the whole reason, why they get so angry about everything, they have NO FACTS, just the daily Fux Noise, Republican Party, lies, corporate cover ups, and greed firmly in place, and viable, because of the stupidity of voters.


G.

LWW
11-15-2010, 11:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Do you really need examples of the rich doing what made them rich? Start with these, hard work, living below their means, saving/investing whatever they can to reduce the realized income which in turn will lower their taxes.

eg8r </div></div>

What is this madness of which you speak?

How can anyone possibly function without the state to protect them?

LWW

wolfdancer
11-15-2010, 01:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It is absolutely stupid to be paying a cashier at a grocery store $7.25/hour but the leeches of society.... </div></div>
Not everybody can be an engineer, but everybody needs the basics..food, shelter, etc
You would begrudge that niggardly wage, to a single Mom trying to raise her kids and stay off welfare? It's barely survival pay.
Cashiers at a supermarket are often the only employee that one deals with. I play pool in a city some 20 miles from here....
I used to have a job, trying to discover dishonest employee/ employee theft. Handling money is very tempting to an underpaid employee. You wouldn't believe how much they can cost a business over a period of time.
In addition to their job skills ....like getting folks quickly checked out...they may also be paid to "sell" the store as a place to shop, and be paid a premium for their honesty.
There's a young Black cashier at Costco...that brings a smile to everybody that goes through his line. I've told him that I expect him to be the store manager, one of these days.
Anyway, since the Fed. min. wage is $7.25 an hour, I think it's been argued and decided by folks...above your own pay scale
You seem to have shown your disdain for the "little people" with that remark.It's another way of saying:
"Let them eat cake"

LWW
11-15-2010, 02:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the 50s and 60s it was the American citizen's spending that drove the economy. In those days they were paid a decent wage. These days they don't have the money to spend.

Q </div></div>

Wait a minute Snoopy ... in your "WAGE REPRESSION" htread you are arguing that US workers are making much more today than in the 1950's and 1960's.

Is this a case of "WHATEVER THE PARTY PUTS ON THE SPOON" ...

LWW