Why does Obama want to raise taxes?

[IchabodPlain]

People, we've been here before, back in 1929. It is exactly the same except in one respect. When the stoick market collapsed due to the wild speculation and laissez-faire capitalism, we still had an industrial base and we didn't owe other countries more money than we could possibly generate.

FDR did not cut spending, he increased it. He also instituted a minimum wage that ensured that if you worked full time you could support a family on one income.

And also managed to never see the unemployment level drop below 15% before WW2; worked like a charm.

 

[Upchurch]

Under McCains plan, all people will be paying less.

But most people will be paying more under McCain's plan than under Obama's.

 

[dudalb]

Capital does not create wealth. Labor and resources do. Don't you ever forget that. Capital is just a token for surplus labor to be used to buy resources and labor to produce more wealth.

Those who are makiing the most money in America right now are doing so by playing games with capital produced by labor that they think to buy cheaply. American science and invention produced marvels of technology which the investor class then decided they were better off manufacturing elsewhere to avoid having to pay a living wage to labor.

The investor class benefitted from our education system, from the roads that carry their cheap imported crap, from the military force that we exert to keep the native peoples of the forreign countries where they manufacture that crap from rising up and nationalizing American investments, and from the natural resources that are extracted and sold to the countries that manufacture their crap.

And they think they are entitled to keep those gains, extracted from the labor of generations before them, and owe nothing to society for the privilege.

That is not even human.

Yeah. This Marxist Surplus Value theory worked so freaking well in the Soviet Union.

 

[leftysergeant]

How well did Friedmanism, the right-wing opposite of the New Deal, work in Chile and Iraq?

The rest of the world was also in recession when most of FDR's programs were implemented. Then, right in the middle of the recovery, WWII broke out elsewhere, putting a crimp in any of our trade except in war materiel.

It took a while for the infrastructure to get built. And, once the financial industry was re-organized, it took time to refill the coffers. There was also some relief for the families wiped out in the crash, so that we did not have such massive starvation as might otherwise have followed and farmers who could still irrigate did not go into foreclosure as rapidly as they would today.

And we still had an industrial base to re-activate, and we weren't in debt to an enemy.

 

[Tricky]

Yeah. This Marxist Surplus Value theory worked so freaking well in the Soviet Union.

So it's "You're a commie!" That's all you got?

And of course, the communist USSR didn't fall simply because of socialism. There are many factors, including incredible corruption. And now it appears capitalism is failing there too, unless you count organized criminals as capitalists. Russia has many problems, primary of which is that it has extreme poverty and few resources.

But socialism, in various forms is working quite well in other places. We have some of it here in the US. Social security is so popular here that any politician that says "scrap it entirely" will not win any national office.

 

[dudalb]

I made a specific reference to the Marxist Surplus Value Theory ,which is exactly what Lefty was pushing, which has been disproven time and time again.
I am not in favor of Lasseiz Faire Captalism, either. I don't want to go to either extreme.
And the Marxian brand of Socialism has been proven to fail time and time again.
ANd yeah, I will go on record that Communism was a system that was just as bad as Nazism. And I can quote body counts to prove it.
I love this reverse McCarthism, where anybody criticising Marxism is accused of being another McCarthy.

 

[leftysergeant]

And the Marxian brand of Socialism has been proven to fail time and time again.

The past 28 years have shown that the idea that making more capital available to the investor class will bring prosperity for all is total BS.

ANd yeah, I will go on record that Communism was a system that was just as bad as Nazism.

Stalin was a closet fascist. It was more his personality than the ecconomic idea he pushed that killed people. Naziism is just total crap and an excuse for mass murder. The ecconomic theory behind it was also stupid. In many respects, it resembles Friedmanism. The only thing that made it work, for a while, was the theft of some of the more important ecconmic resources of Poland and Czechoslovakia.

 

[IchabodPlain]

How well did Friedmanism, the right-wing opposite of the New Deal, work in Chile and Iraq?

Chile does exceedingly well, compared to the rest of Latin America.

Top 5 nominal GDP and higher Gdp per capita than every country who has a higher nominal gdp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_American_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Not to mention consistently higher growth rates than most South American countries.

Iraq? It's a bit early to tell, but they already have a higher Gdp per capita than they did before the war.

The rest of the world was also in recession when most of FDR's programs were implemented. Then, right in the middle of the recovery, WWII broke out elsewhere, putting a crimp in any of our trade except in war materiel.

The Great Depression was in '29, his programs had little effect before the war broke out until '43; that's nearly 15 years to get the country back on track. Don't get me wrong - plenty of things the New Deal got right (rural electrification springs to mind), but to paint it as a wide-sprawling success is sheer over-the-top hyperbole.

It took a while for the infrastructure to get built. And, once the financial industry was re-organized, it took time to refill the coffers. There was also some relief for the families wiped out in the crash, so that we did not have such massive starvation as might otherwise have followed and farmers who could still irrigate did not go into foreclosure as rapidly as they would today.

Oh, and farmers were paid to burn crops, slaughter pigs, and let meat rot to control prices.

And we still had an industrial base to re-activate, and we weren't in debt to an enemy.

Which enemy are we in debt to?

It seems you make the same mistakes as those of my parents generation which is to think of the world as a static entity. It is not. Industrial jobs are not as skill intensive as jobs in other fields. Some will be here out of necessity (BMW factories in SC for example), but most can be done at roughly the same quality in other places as they can here.

You're living in the world of 50 years ago when a guy could drop out of high school to work at a factory and be able to raise a family, and pay for a house on his salary alone. The world has gotten smaller, and increasingly more are able to compete for jobs in the world.

 

[dudalb]

Ichabod, we are dealing with a True Believer.
Look at the BS he just swung:

Stalin was a closet fascist. It was more his personality than the ecconomic idea he pushed that killed people.

Guess he never heard of Mao or Pol Pot. Just a coincidence that Marxism was the system involved.
And even when it did not result in a massive death toll, Marxism failed as a economic system.
I think a mixed economy is the way to go, with a slight emphasis toward a free market.

 

[Gurdur]

.....Guess he never heard of Mao or Pol Pot. Just a coincidence that Marxism was the system involved.

While you make a reasonable point there, he's right about Stalin; Stalin was in all likelihood an Okhrana stoolpigeon who found himself completely by accident high up in the winning side. Lenin's promotion of Stalin just had to be one of Lenin's most stupid mistakes ever.

I repeat that this does not detract from your general point, but the guy is completely right about Stalin specifically.

 

[leftysergeant]

I am not a Marxist. But, given a choice between Marxism and Friedmanism and the whole gaggle of Chicago School baboons, I would prefer Marxism.

I don't even want to hear any blather about GDP. GDP doesn't mean that wealth is being distributed equitably. When I was stationed in Libya, the per capita income was about $500. That was the highest in Africa. Right on the outskirts of Tripoli, people were living in palm-frond lean-tos and making a bare living working for the few Libyans and the many foreigners working for the oil companies.

How was the ecconomy of Chile just before the CIA helped Pinochet off Allende, and how good after? And how is their retirement system doing? Everyone I have met who lived in Chile during the Pinochet iunterregnum says it sucked. How well is the wealth of Chile distributed now compared to the Pinochet years? I don't want to know the mean. What is the mode?

When capitalism is left to run rampant, it always collapses. It runs in roughly 80-year cycles.

What FDR built worked just fine, thank you very much, until that snivelling little snot Phil Gramm pushed through his Finance and Bank Modernization measure. It has been down-hill since as the banks assumed more and more risks, with little long-term benefit for the average homeowner, and disasterous results for some.

We are being asked to put a bandaid on the gaping wound he inflicted on our ecconomy now.

I don't think the factory workers (if any survive) should be asked to fix Gramm's stupidity. Those who profitted from it should.

 

[IchabodPlain]

I am not a Marxist. But, given a choice between Marxism and Friedmanism and the whole gaggle of Chicago School baboons, I would prefer Marxism.

Commie .

I don't even want to hear any blather about GDP. GDP doesn't mean that wealth is being distributed equitably. When I was stationed in Libya, the per capita income was about $500. That was the highest in Africa. Right on the outskirts of Tripoli, people were living in palm-frond lean-tos and making a bare living working for the few Libyans and the many foreigners working for the oil companies.

OK. How did Libya compare with other African countries? You, in your anecdotal example, are not including any context.

Chile has half the people below the poverty line (18%) as Venezuela (37%), and is lower than Brazil (31%), Argentina (23%), Columbia (49%) and every other country in S. America.


Source.


Chile also has one of the highest literacy rates and life expectancy, and lowest infant mortality rates in all of S. America. You picked a bad example here.

How was the ecconomy of Chile just before the CIA helped Pinochet off Allende, and how good after? And how is their retirement system doing? Everyone I have met who lived in Chile during the Pinochet iunterregnum says it sucked. How well is the wealth of Chile distributed now compared to the Pinochet years? I don't want to know the mean. What is the mode?

Look for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile

When capitalism is left to run rampant, it always collapses. It runs in roughly 80-year cycles.

Evidence? Or is this just coming from your backside 'O Fortune-Teller?

What FDR built worked just fine, thank you very much, until that snivelling little snot Phil Gramm pushed through his Finance and Bank Modernization measure. It has been down-hill since as the banks assumed more and more risks, with little long-term benefit for the average homeowner, and disasterous results for some.

Stop and listen to yourself. Everything was fine before 1999?! No, I'm pretty sure Social Security has had to be continually adjusted because it runs into shortfalls.

In this economic mess, there are more fingers to be pointed than just at Gramm. Who signed that bill into law? When did Fannie May and Freddie Mac lower their standards to encourage more low-income home-owners?

 

[leftysergeant]

eta: And guess which candidate wants to raise taxes on businesses?

Neither of them. McCain just wants to forgive the high end their share of the cost of the infrastructure. Obama wants to tax the higher income of more successful investors.

You accept a comfortasble income and re-invest in the business in a way that creates jobs, everyone comes out a winner. You pile up the bucks and let the rest of the community rot, you get socked and have it coming.

 

[leftysergeant]

OK. How did Libya compare with other African countries? You, in your anecdotal example, are not including any context.

Badly enough, if you were not a member of the ropyal family, that there was strong support for the idea of revolution when I was there in 1966-68.

Chile has half the people below the poverty line (18%) as Venezuela (37%), and is lower than Brazil (31%), Argentina (23%), Columbia (49%) and every other country in S. America.

Now or under Pinochet's Friedmanite nightmare? The reduction of the population of working-class people by means of outright murder may have accounted for some of that low unemployment.

How is their social security system working since Friedman stuck his dirty fingers into it?

 

[kallsop]

Take all their money and spread the wealth, then bask in the glory of the resulting economic boom. Sales of lottery ticket, cigarettes and six-packs will explode! It's going to be sweet, just wait and see.

 

[gdnp]

Take all their money and spread the wealth, then bask in the glory of the resulting economic boom. Sales of lottery ticket, cigarettes and six-packs will explode! It's going to be sweet, just wait and see.

Wow. You left out crack cocaine rap albums. Maybe the $5 hookers will have to raise their rates as well.

And to think conservatives accuse liberals of being elitist.

 

[David Wong]

Wow. You left out crack cocaine rap albums. Maybe the $5 hookers will have to raise their rates as well.

And to think conservatives accuse liberals of being elitist.

That's one of the things that has all but driven me out of the Republican party (after voting for GOP in every election but one). It's this bizarre, frothing, absolute hatred of the poor.

It's the worst kind of scapegoating, kicking the people who are already down, for being down.

What's most bizarre is that this is also supposed to be the party of the hard-core Christians, but that frothing hatred of the poor is absolutely in opposition to every Christian teaching on the subject, and would have to be considered outright evil in any system of morality (except Rand's, I suppose).

As baffling as it is scary.