Could The GOP get Teddys Seat???

[TheDancinMonarch]

There are very few leftists in the U.S. How many votes did the US Communist Party candidate get during the last presidential election?

Why vote for the Communist Party that can't win when you can vote for the Democrats who can win?

[Col Hogan]

There are very few leftists in the U.S. How many votes did the US Communist Party candidate get during the last presidential election?

Top down economic stimulus through the banks and healthcare reform that benefits for-profit insurance and big pharma are a continuation of trickle down theory.

Whether it's wiretapping, war, or the economy Obama on most of the big issues is at the least centrist, and you can make an argument for right of center.

This is really priceless. A gift from the Gods.

The radical left-wing president has turned into a miserable failure, and now his far left-wing conspirators are throwing him under the bus and trying their best to paint him as "right of center"...somewhere between Eisenhower and Nixon? Let the Reagan analogies begin.....

Clueless doesn't even begin to describe it.

Baldy, I wouldn't call them clueless...I think they know exactly what they're doing...

Revising history...Obama was going to be the great savior for the left...he hasn't walked their line exactly as they wanted (gay rights is one big example for people like jon...who I must note says Obama is right of center... )

[CID1990]

There are very few leftists in the U.S. How many votes did the US Communist Party candidate get during the last presidential election?

Why vote for the Communist Party that can't win when you can vote for the Democrats who can win?

I read a little bit of the Communist Party's platform in the 2008 election. It was surprisingly similar to the Democratic platform. It makes me wonder if Communists are filling the ranks of the Democratic Party, or the other way around. Maybe 'Communist' is just too dirty a word for political viability.

[kalm]

Top down economic stimulus through the banks and healthcare reform that benefits for-profit insurance and big pharma are a continuation of trickle down theory.

.

That position would be "Corporatist". Left and right have used that. Trickle down actually has less to do with (in theory) national corporations and more to do with entrepreneurs, with out regard to their specific industry, having more money to invest to provide jobs. Not even similar approaches.

That's kind of my point. The Democrats have become really good at playing the corporatist game - that's why they're currently in control. This of course goes right over the head of the misinformed like baldy, dancinmonarch, and citgrad who know they're angry that the "socialists" have taken control, but just can't manage to figure out why.

But in the end is not corporatism simply an appendage of the notion that economic growth is sustained by empowering the high-end earners through lower taxation, deregulation, smaller governement? Has that not been the conservative agenda for 100's of years, that capital precedes labor?

[TheDancinMonarch]

But in the end is not corporatism simply an appendage of the notion that economic growth is sustained by empowering the high-end earners through lower taxation, deregulation, smaller governement? Has that not been the conservative agenda for 100's of years, that capital precedes labor?

I support smaller government, deregulation and lower taxation, none of which we are getting today or will ever get from this administration. And probably not from any Republican administration either. That's why I'm angry.

[Ivytalk]

Back to the theme of this thread. What hot-blooded Donk in here would do Martha Coakley? Inquiring minds want to know!

[kalm]

But in the end is not corporatism simply an appendage of the notion that economic growth is sustained by empowering the high-end earners through lower taxation, deregulation, smaller governement? Has that not been the conservative agenda for 100's of years, that capital precedes labor?

I support smaller government, deregulation and lower taxation, none of which we are getting today or will ever get from this administration. And probably not from any Republican administration either. That's why I'm angry.

That's pretty much what we've had for the past thirty years with the exception of the size of government - which has grown under both parties - but, then again so has the population.

The top marginal tax rate under Ike was 91%, under Nixon it was 67%. Reagan cut it to around 30% which is where it has stayed except for the small increase under Clinton which also helped balance the budget. Corporate taxes since the 50's have shrunk from around 40% to 10% of total tax revenues today. Reagan pushed for deregulation, and of course Clinton signed Graham-Leach-Bliley which repealed banking regulations inacted to protect us from another Great Depression.

Meanwhile, wages have been stagnant since the 70's and CEO to janitor salary ratio's have gone from 40-1 to 500-1. Corporations have gone multinational and made record profits while good paying jobs have left our shores. We had 0 net gain in jobs for the last decade. In other words, we have experienced a massive redistribution of wealth away from the middle class.

If Obama goes in the opposite direction (he has shown few signs of doing that thus far), it's not without reason. Reaganomics/supply side economics/trickle down economics have been an utter failure. And unless the Obama adminstration took permanent control of production, even with modest reforms back to where we were during the 50's and 60's, he will remain far from being a communist.

[kalm]

And don't get even get me started on free trade - which also happened under Clinton. Same supply side theme - free up capital for multinationals and we will all benefit.

[BDKJMU]

I support smaller government, deregulation and lower taxation, none of which we are getting today or will ever get from this administration. And probably not from any Republican administration either. That's why I'm angry.

That's pretty much what we've had for the past thirty years with the exception of the size of government - which has grown under both parties - but, then again so has the population.

The top marginal tax rate under Ike was 91%, under Nixon it was 67%. Reagan cut it to around 30% which is where it has stayed except for the small increase under Clinton which also helped balance the budget.

And for the majority of this nation's history, we've gotten by with zero federal income tax. The top marginal tax rate under the 1st 27 Presidents, with the exception of Lincoln, was zero, since there was no income tax outside of a small one during the War Between the States.
The top federal tax rate under:
-Wilson went from 7% to 77% at the end of WWI.
-Harding, and Coolidge it fell to 25%.
-Hoover it went from 24% to 63%.
-FDR it went up to 79% before WWII, and up to 94% during WWII

Reagan cut it to 28%. It went up to 31% under George HW Bush. That wasn't any "small" increase under Clinton. It went to 31% to 39.6%. That's a huge increase. And that doesn't even include state income taxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax ... ted_States

Corporate taxes since the 50's have shrunk from around 40% to 10% of total tax revenues today.

The United States has the 2nd highest corporate tax rates in the world next to Japan- 35% fed + an avg state of 4.25%, 39.25% effective. You think it should be higher?
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publicatio ... 23470.html

[Baldy]

And for the majority of this nation's history, we've gotten by with zero federal income tax. The top marginal tax rate under the 1st 27 Presidents, with the exception of Lincoln, was zero, since there was no income tax outside of a small one during the War Between the States.
The top federal tax rate under:
-Wilson went from 7% to 77% at the end of WWI.
-Harding, and Coolidge it fell to 25%.
-Hoover it went from 24% to 63%.
-FDR it went up to 79% before WWII, and up to 94% during WWII

Reagan cut it to 28%. It went up to 31% under George HW Bush. That wasn't any "small" increase under Clinton. It went to 31% to 39.6%. That's a huge increase. And that doesn't even include state income taxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax ... ted_States

Corporate taxes since the 50's have shrunk from around 40% to 10% of total tax revenues today.

The United States has the 2nd highest corporate tax rates in the world next to Japan- 35% fed + an avg state of 4.25%, 39.25% effective. You think it should be higher?
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publicatio ... 23470.html

Word.

And that is a fact that goes right over the head of the uninformed like Kalm and his ilk. Not to mention the fact that the US is the only industrialized nation in the world that taxes it's US based corporations on profits they make overseas. For example, if Ford sells a car to a German citizen in Germany, of course it has to pay the German government income taxes on the sale of that car, but Ford also has to pay the US Government taxes on that transaction also. If Mercedes-Benz sells a car to a US citizen in the US, the only tax it has to pay is to the US Government.

And people actually wonder why those "evil, nasty corporations are shipping jobs overseas"????

[OL FU]

That position would be "Corporatist". Left and right have used that. Trickle down actually has less to do with (in theory) national corporations and more to do with entrepreneurs, with out regard to their specific industry, having more money to invest to provide jobs. Not even similar approaches.

That's kind of my point. The Democrats have become really good at playing the corporatist game - that's why they're currently in control. This of course goes right over the head of the misinformed like baldy, dancinmonarch, and citgrad who know they're angry that the "socialists" have taken control, but just can't manage to figure out why.

But in the end is not corporatism simply an appendage of the notion that economic growth is sustained by empowering the high-end earners through lower taxation, deregulation, smaller governement? Has that not been the conservative agenda for 100's of years, that capital precedes labor?

Not really, imho. Corporatism is a slight less obvious form of socialism. Using corporate structures to implement government policy. Also picks the winners and losers, nothing to do with trickle down which is what we were discussing. With corporatism you don't have lower tax rates in fact you probably won't have lower rates. Because the winners have been selected. I think corporatism was a part of the republican agenda for many years. But it is not part of the conservative agenda. Many posing as conservatives believed and promoted it however so I can see where the disconnect arrives. Trickle down, like it or not, is basically lower taxes and let the market decide. Not prop up corporations so that we can promote public policy. Unfortunately, whether liberal or conservative, many times corporatism gets included in the programs promoted by the two.

[kalm]

And for the majority of this nation's history, we've gotten by with zero federal income tax. The top marginal tax rate under the 1st 27 Presidents, with the exception of Lincoln, was zero, since there was no income tax outside of a small one during the War Between the States.
The top federal tax rate under:
-Wilson went from 7% to 77% at the end of WWI.
-Harding, and Coolidge it fell to 25%.
-Hoover it went from 24% to 63%.
-FDR it went up to 79% before WWII, and up to 94% during WWII

Reagan cut it to 28%. It went up to 31% under George HW Bush. That wasn't any "small" increase under Clinton. It went to 31% to 39.6%. That's a huge increase. And that doesn't even include state income taxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax ... ted_States

The United States has the 2nd highest corporate tax rates in the world next to Japan- 35% fed + an avg state of 4.25%, 39.25% effective. You think it should be higher?
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publicatio ... 23470.html

Word.

And that is a fact that goes right over the head of the uninformed like Kalm and his ilk. Not to mention the fact that the US is the only industrialized nation in the world that taxes it's US based corporations on profits they make overseas. For example, if Ford sells a car to a German citizen in Germany, of course it has to pay the German government income taxes on the sale of that car, but Ford also has to pay the US Government taxes on that transaction also. If Mercedes-Benz sells a car to a US citizen in the US, the only tax it has to pay is to the US Government.

And people actually wonder why those "evil, nasty corporations are shipping jobs overseas"????

Who said anything about corporate tax rates?

But I do get your point on trade policy. Ford probably also pays a tariff on cars sold in Germany.

We need to protect domestic industry. Perhaps instead of taxing overseas profits, we should penalize American companies that manufacture products overseas for sale back in the U.S.

[kalm]

That's kind of my point. The Democrats have become really good at playing the corporatist game - that's why they're currently in control. This of course goes right over the head of the misinformed like baldy, dancinmonarch, and citgrad who know they're angry that the "socialists" have taken control, but just can't manage to figure out why.

But in the end is not corporatism simply an appendage of the notion that economic growth is sustained by empowering the high-end earners through lower taxation, deregulation, smaller governement? Has that not been the conservative agenda for 100's of years, that capital precedes labor?

Not really, imho. Corporatism is a slight less obvious form of socialism. Using corporate structures to implement government policy. Also picks the winners and losers, nothing to do with trickle down which is what we were discussing. With corporatism you don't have lower tax rates in fact you probably won't have lower rates. Because the winners have been selected. I think corporatism was a part of the republican agenda for many years. But it is not part of the conservative agenda. Many posing as conservatives believed and promoted it however so I can see where the disconnect arrives. Trickle down, like it or not, is basically lower taxes and let the market decide. Not prop up corporations so that we can promote public policy. Unfortunately, whether liberal or conservative, many times corporatism gets included in the programs promoted by the two.

Interesting points, and I'll admit it's difficult to remember what true conservatives even stand for these days.

But I'll continue to side with Adam Smith and Abraham Lincoln who both recognized that labor precedes capital, not the other way around. High end earners don't create jobs, demand creates jobs.

[Col Hogan]

As Massachusetts voters head to the polls, the latest overnight poll of the Bay State gives Republican candidate Scott Brown a 9 point lead...

According to the survey conducted Sunday evening by the non-partisan firm, Brown leads the Democratic attorney general 52 percent to 43 percent.

The results came as Suffolk University in Boston released a survey Monday reporting that Brown surged to a double-digit lead in three Massachusetts communities identified as bellwethers because party registration in those cities is similar to the statewide voter makeup and because in the most recent “like election” – the November 2006 Senate race– the results in all three communities were within 1 percentage point of the actual statewide results for each candidate.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/01 ... z0d45YLGq6

[OL FU]

Not really, imho. Corporatism is a slight less obvious form of socialism. Using corporate structures to implement government policy. Also picks the winners and losers, nothing to do with trickle down which is what we were discussing. With corporatism you don't have lower tax rates in fact you probably won't have lower rates. Because the winners have been selected. I think corporatism was a part of the republican agenda for many years. But it is not part of the conservative agenda. Many posing as conservatives believed and promoted it however so I can see where the disconnect arrives. Trickle down, like it or not, is basically lower taxes and let the market decide. Not prop up corporations so that we can promote public policy. Unfortunately, whether liberal or conservative, many times corporatism gets included in the programs promoted by the two.

Interesting points, and I'll admit it's difficult to remember what true conservatives even stand for these days.

But I'll continue to side with Adam Smith and Abraham Lincoln who both recognized that labor precedes capital, not the other way around. High end earners don't create jobs, demand creates jobs.

and that is an interesting point. it is also one of the points of true conservatism. Reward labor, even if that labor makes a pile of money

[kalm]

Interesting points, and I'll admit it's difficult to remember what true conservatives even stand for these days.

But I'll continue to side with Adam Smith and Abraham Lincoln who both recognized that labor precedes capital, not the other way around. High end earners don't create jobs, demand creates jobs.

and that is an interesting point. it is also one of the points of true conservatism. Reward labor, even if that labor makes a pile of money

Well then, color me true conservative.

[kalm]

As Massachusetts voters head to the polls, the latest overnight poll of the Bay State gives Republican candidate Scott Brown a 9 point lead...

According to the survey conducted Sunday evening by the non-partisan firm, Brown leads the Democratic attorney general 52 percent to 43 percent.

The results came as Suffolk University in Boston released a survey Monday reporting that Brown surged to a double-digit lead in three Massachusetts communities identified as bellwethers because party registration in those cities is similar to the statewide voter makeup and because in the most recent “like election” – the November 2006 Senate race– the results in all three communities were within 1 percentage point of the actual statewide results for each candidate.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/01 ... z0d45YLGq6

Watching morning joe this morning they were commenting on Brown shaking hands in the cold at the hockey game played at Fenway while Coakley was attending $2500 per plate dinners with Obama.

I hope Brown wins, the Democrats need to be taught a lesson about populism and the short coattails of Obama's corporatist agenda.

[Appaholic]

Back to the theme of this thread. What hot-blooded Donk in here would do Martha Coakley? Inquiring minds want to know!

I'd give her an A-2-M just because she's the AG..... ...but, I'm not a dem, so....

[Baldy]

Word.

And that is a fact that goes right over the head of the uninformed like Kalm and his ilk. Not to mention the fact that the US is the only industrialized nation in the world that taxes it's US based corporations on profits they make overseas. For example, if Ford sells a car to a German citizen in Germany, of course it has to pay the German government income taxes on the sale of that car, but Ford also has to pay the US Government taxes on that transaction also. If Mercedes-Benz sells a car to a US citizen in the US, the only tax it has to pay is to the US Government.

And people actually wonder why those "evil, nasty corporations are shipping jobs overseas"????

Who said anything about corporate tax rates?

Ummm... BDKJMU did and then I followed up.

Why?

But I do get your point on trade policy. Ford probably also pays a tariff on cars sold in Germany.

We need to protect domestic industry. Perhaps instead of taxing overseas profits, we should penalize American companies that manufacture products overseas for sale back in the U.S.

That would be nice, but with the nature of our punitive corporate tax policy, don't hold your breath.

[YoUDeeMan]

But I'll continue to side with Adam Smith and Abraham Lincoln who both recognized that labor precedes capital, not the other way around. High end earners don't create jobs, demand creates jobs.

Gosh, you'd think that the people in Haiti (before the quake) and every third world back-azzed country, have a high demand for food and materials. So, just where are the jobs in those countries?

[Appaholic]

But I'll continue to side with Adam Smith and Abraham Lincoln who both recognized that labor precedes capital, not the other way around. High end earners don't create jobs, demand creates jobs.

Gosh, you'd think that the people in Haiti (before the quake) and every third world back-azzed country, have a high demand for food and materials. So, just where are the jobs in those countries?

Correct. High-end earners don't create jobs, but they create the capital to finance the supply for that demand....kind of like how a nerd gets the hot chick...he didn't create her desire, he created the capital to finance her desire...

[YoUDeeMan]

Gosh, you'd think that the people in Haiti (before the quake) and every third world back-azzed country, have a high demand for food and materials. So, just where are the jobs in those countries?

Correct. High-end earners don't create jobs, but they create the capital to finance the supply for that demand....kind of like how a nerd gets the hot chick...he didn't create her desire, he created the capital to finance her desire...

Early candidate for Post of the Year!

[CID1990]

Word.

And that is a fact that goes right over the head of the uninformed like Kalm and his ilk. Not to mention the fact that the US is the only industrialized nation in the world that taxes it's US based corporations on profits they make overseas. For example, if Ford sells a car to a German citizen in Germany, of course it has to pay the German government income taxes on the sale of that car, but Ford also has to pay the US Government taxes on that transaction also. If Mercedes-Benz sells a car to a US citizen in the US, the only tax it has to pay is to the US Government.

And people actually wonder why those "evil, nasty corporations are shipping jobs overseas"????

Who said anything about corporate tax rates?

But I do get your point on trade policy. Ford probably also pays a tariff on cars sold in Germany.

We need to protect domestic industry. Perhaps instead of taxing overseas profits, we should penalize American companies that manufacture products overseas for sale back in the U.S.

Kalm, I'd agree with you with one exception-

Before penalizing US companies for shipping the work offshore, I would also want to look at the reasons behind their decisions to do so. Has our government made it prohibitively expensive to do business in America? Do non-skilled Americans REALLY deserve to be paid 40+ dollars per hour with exorbitant benefits and 20 year retirement plans at 80-90%? There are jobs requiring college degrees that do not offer that. Some of the more notoriously organized labor fields have driven a lot of business out of the country.

Sometimes we have a habit of penalizing the effects without giving any consideration to the causes. There are a number of reasons why American companies do their manufacturing overseas, and profit maximization is one of them (some people would call thisa greed in spite of the fact that they invest in 401Ks). However, for some companies the choice is to either build the widgets overseas, or not build widgets at all.

[kalm]

Who said anything about corporate tax rates?

Ummm... BDKJMU did and then I followed up.

Why?

But I do get your point on trade policy. Ford probably also pays a tariff on cars sold in Germany.

We need to protect domestic industry. Perhaps instead of taxing overseas profits, we should penalize American companies that manufacture products overseas for sale back in the U.S.

That would be nice, but with the nature of our punitive corporate tax policy, don't hold your breath.

BDKJMU answered my post about our corporate tax revenues with the often cited statistic that are rates are the 2nd highest in the world. What's actually collected from corporations (tax revenues), if memory serves, is substantially down the list. IE: we have higher rates, but more loopholes.

And our tax rates should be higher, we have a high standard of living, solid infrastructure, a large military, advanced public eductation system, and access to abundant resources.

So excuse me if I don't feel all that sorry for the many immensley successful corporations that have suffered under the yoke of the repressive and punitive corporate U.S. tax system. It's the price your company should pay for being allowed to exist in the best country on earth.

But if companies still want to move their operations to Bangladesh to save a buck, our answer should be don't let the door hit you in the ass, and expect a heavy tariff when you want to return your finished product back to the U.S. You are replaceable by (as Cid1990 points out) less greedy corporations. If the product is neccessary that void will be filled.

Ingrates.

[OL FU]

I guess Schilling isn't a yankee fan