• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Bernie Gives Voice To The 72%

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Sanders: 'No wonder' public is angry

6 Comments

RSS
Email
Print

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, gestures as he speaks at the California Democrats State Convention in Sacramento, Calif., Saturday, April 30, 2011. | AP Photo
'Americans want shared sacrifice in deficit reduction,' Sanders wrote in an op-ed Friday. Close
By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 7/29/11 7:11 AM EDT

Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator from Vermont, took to the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal on Friday to offer an explanation of Americans’ anger as Congress dithers on a plan to raise the debt ceiling and to denounce the two major plans under consideration.

“The rich are getting richer. Their effective tax rate, in recent years, has been reduced to the lowest in modern history. Nurses, teachers and firemen actually pay a higher tax rate than some billionaires,” writes Sanders, who serves on the Senate Budget Committee as an independent, repeating sentiments he often voices in floor speeches and in television appearances. “It’s no wonder the American people are angry.”
Continue Reading
Text Size

-
+
reset

Listen
Latest on POLITICO

The tea party's terrorist tactics
GOP targets songs and sunburns
Sanders: 'No wonder' public is angry
Ex-DNI rips Obama White House
Treasury may delay payment plan
Morning Score: Obama losing indies

POLITICO 44

The problem, he says, is that “Republicans in Congress have been fanatically determined to protect the interests of the wealthy and large multinational corporations so that they do not contribute a single penny toward deficit reduction.”

While Republicans have led the charge, Sanders argues that President Barack Obama and some Democrats haven’t been far behind, agreeing to extend George W. Bush’s tax cuts and making a budget deal with $38.5 billion in cuts through the end of fiscal 2011. And, as the deadline to raise the debt ceiling approaches on Tuesday, the plans offered by both sides will do more of the same, he says.

The plan from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would include $2.4 trillion in cuts over a decade, including $900 billion in “areas such as education, health care, nutrition, affordable housing, child care and many other programs desperately needed by working families and the most vulnerable.” At the same time, though, “it does not ask the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations to make any sacrifice.”

But while “the Reid plan is bad,” the bill put forward by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) “is much worse.” It doesn’t include cuts to defense spending, and while it starts with $1.2 trillion in cuts now, another $1.8 trillion would have to be made in the next six months. “Those cuts would mean drastic reductions in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,” Sanders says. “What’s more, Mr. Boehner’s plan would reopen the debate over the debt ceiling, which is now paralyzing Congress, just six months from now.”

At the same time, most Americans want to see the rich pay more in taxes, Sanders says, citing a Washington Post/ABC News poll from earlier this month that found 72 percent of Americans saying that people earning more than $250,000 a year should pay more in taxes.

“In other words, Congress is now on a path to do exactly what the American people don’t want,” he says. “Americans want shared sacrifice in deficit reduction. Congress is on track to give them the exact opposite: major cuts in the most important programs that the middle class needs and wants, and no sacrifice from the wealthy and the powerful.”

“Is it any wonder, therefore, that the American people are so angry with what’s going on in Washington,” he adds. “I am too.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60200.html#ixzz1TUw68240


I think Bernie is right about this but in addition Congress needs to trim off the public payments to all of the super rich in all of its programs like the corn subsidy programs. Caps should be limited to 250K or less and if you have an income of 250K outside of farming, then no subsidy money should be given.

There should be a cap on ethanol payments when ethanol is profitable on its own. One can make a case for infant industries but at some point one has to take the bottle away. The bottle can be there if needed, but onec the baby is on solid food and plenty is available, take it away. These are just two examples in our industry where overspending over the years has added to the national debt just to go to people who don't need it. It has been a plundering of the public purse and it has been signed off by republicans and democrats so it isn't a left or right issue but a right or wrong issue.

Tex
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
hypocritexposer said:
Tex, when do the Bush tax cuts expire?

Probably never, it seems.

We should never have had the Bush tax cuts. They didn't spur the economy and just put everything in the credit card with China and others who saved more than they spent(ants) lending the money.

One thing I have learned about politicians, hypo, is to forget about reading their lips, just see what they have accomplished or not accomplished. Everything else is BS.

Can you tell me where the tax breaks helped the economy? Can you show me where they created jobs or did they just help concentrate the wealth of the nation while Bush put it on the nation's credit card? Same thing with his prescription medical plan. Nothing was paid for while giving tax breaks to the rich and borrowing the money and creating future liabilities that would loom as soon as the economy hiccuped. In this case the economy more than hiccuped.

The large concentration of wealth garnished by the very rich in this country is getting to the tipping point (especially if you look at it from a historical social level). We will soon not be talking about just their earnings in the economy but their assets they have gained through past plundering of the public's purse. This is the risk they increase the more greedy they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality



Tex
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Tex said:
hypocritexposer said:
Tex, when do the Bush tax cuts expire?

Probably never, it seems.

We should never have had the Bush tax cuts. They didn't spur the economy and just put everything in the credit card with China and others who saved more than they spent(ants) lending the money.

One thing I have learned about politicians, hypo, is to forget about reading their lips, just see what they have accomplished or not accomplished. Everything else is BS.

Can you tell me where the tax breaks helped the economy? Can you show me where they created jobs or did they just help concentrate the wealth of the nation while Bush put it on the nation's credit card? Same thing with his prescription medical plan. Nothing was paid for while giving tax breaks to the rich and borrowing the money and creating future liabilities that would loom as soon as the economy hiccuped. In this case the economy more than hiccuped.

The large concentration of wealth garnished by the very rich in this country is getting to the tipping point (especially if you look at it from a historical social level). We will soon not be talking about just their earnings in the economy but their assets they have gained through past plundering of the public's purse. This is the risk they increase the more greedy they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality



Tex


The deal is, they will end at the end of 2012.


They are already in any projections of revenue after that. Any tax increases in the debt ceiling discussions are on top of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

What would doubling the tax increases do to the economy?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Tex said:
Can you tell me where the tax breaks helped the economy?

Tex


Can you definitely say that the tax cuts did not save or create jobs?


We know revenue increased, as a % of GDP......


2002 31.00%
2003 30.88%
2004 32.79%
2005 33.58%
2006 35.05%
2007 36.70%
2008 32.73%
2009 26.49%



What impact did the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 have on jobs and economic activity during Bush's 2 terms?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
We know whar Sanders underlying wishes are. He's a socialist. He wants everyone to have an equal income and distribute all the money through government. :roll:

But Sanders is no different than some 3rd world despots that say a few people want to hear and they're all over him and singing from the rooftops about him.

Eff that SOB.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
hypocritexposer said:
Tex said:
Can you tell me where the tax breaks helped the economy?

Tex


Can you definitely say that the tax cuts did not save or create jobs?


We know revenue increased, as a % of GDP......


2002 31.00%
2003 30.88%
2004 32.79%
2005 33.58%
2006 35.05%
2007 36.70%
2008 32.73%
2009 26.49%



What impact did the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 have on jobs and economic activity during Bush's 2 terms?


Briefing
News & Politics
Arts
Life
Business & Tech
Science
Podcasts & Video
Blogs

HOME
/
moneybox
:
Commentary about business and finance.
Happy 10th Birthday, Bush Tax Cuts!
You've been a failure in every conceivable way.
By Annie LowreyPosted Wednesday, June 8, 2011, at 6:56 PM ET

George Bush. Click image to expand.George W. BushThe massive Bush tax cuts mark their 10th birthday this week. Sadly, despite my best efforts to find something redeeming about them—honest!—there is little to celebrate. By nearly all of the metrics set out by President Bush himself, the cuts were a colossal failure.
PRINTDISCUSSE-MAILRSSRECOMMEND...REPRINTSSINGLE PAGE

In 2001, the Bush administration inherited a few years' worth of budget surpluses, so it decided to cut income tax rates, double the child-care credit, and sharply reduce the levies on investment income. The economy then slowed, even entering a brief recession. As a form of stimulus, the administration doubled down, expanding and hastening the 2001 changes. Bush promised that the tax cuts would do a whole lot more than put money in people's pockets—which, in fact, they did. He said they would "starve the beast," forcing Congress to reduce the size and scope of government. He promised they would increase the prosperity of all Americans. He also vowed: "Tax relief will create new jobs. Tax relief will generate new wealth. And tax relief will open new opportunities."

OK, a pitter-patter of applause for what the tax cuts did do effectively: Cut taxes and reduce overall payments to Uncle Sam. Low-income families benefited from the child-care credit jumping from $500 to $1,000. High-income families benefited from the top marginal rate falling. Billionaires benefited from lightly taxed dividend income. And government receipts, in turn, dropped.
Advertisement

But the benefits mostly accrued to the rich, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The think tank reports that between 2001 and 2008, the bottom 80 percent of filers received about 35 percent of the cuts. The top 20 percent received about 65 percent—and the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent.

What about the president's claims? Take his pledge that the cuts would spur job growth. To be fair, we'll ignore employment changes during 2008, the year the Great Recession seized the economy. During the 2001 to 2007 business cycle, America's economy enjoyed 52 straight months of job growth. But it was sluggish—in fact, the slowest rate of jobs growth on record since World War II, and just one-fifth the pace of the 1990s.

Then there's wealth. Put simply, the aughts were a decade of income stagnation: The tax cuts failed to bolster most taxpayers' earnings, even before the recession hit. Median real wages actually dropped from 2003 to 2007. Household income from business-cycle peak to business-cycle peak declined for the first time since tracking started in 1967. As documented by my colleague Timothy Noah in his series "The United States of Inequality," this did not hold true for the nation's billionaires and millionaires. Garden-variety high-wage earners saw their income go up. And incomes for the top 1 percent skyrocketed. For some people, obviously, the cuts "generated new wealth," in the president's phrase. But overall, inequality got worse.

That leads to the third metric: Did the cuts "open new opportunities"? It's a vague phrase, but one way to measure it is to look at job growth—and there's nothing to see there. Another way would be to say that the cuts benefited "job creators" (to use the current en vogue phrase), like the nation's start-up businesses. But the number of private-sector jobs created by young companies fell during the Bush administration.

Unfortunately, the tax cuts never translated into robust economic growth, either. Indeed, the aughts saw the worst growth since World War II. From 2001 to 2007, annual GDP growth averaged just 2.4 percent per year, lower than in any other postwar business cycle. The contrast is starker still when judging against the previous decade. In real terms, GDP grew half as much from 2001 to 2010 as from 1991 to 2000.

There is another metric that Bush set out for the tax cuts: Did they succeed in helping to create a smaller government? Again, the answer is no. Events beyond Bush's control necessitated the Afghanistan war. He later decided to invade Iraq, and pushed through unpaid-for domestic expansions of government, like Medicare Part D. Deficits and government spending as a share of GDP grew during the Bush administration.

OK, a final attempt at celebration. Did the tax cuts stimulate the flagging economy in the early aughts? Sort of. Tax cuts give a mild boost to the economy, but not a big one. "After the tax rebates in 2001, 2003, and 2008, households [spent] between 25 and 67 cents more for each dollar of tax cut," William Gale of the Tax Policy Center writes. That makes tax cuts "a relatively weak way to help the economy compared to increases in government purchases, for which each dollar of increased deficit turns into an additional dollar of spending."

So, to recap: The Bush tax cuts were followed by low GDP growth, negative median wage growth, and little job growth. Even before the Great Recession, growth in the Bush business cycle was the weakest since World War II. And the cuts cost about $2.6 trillion between 2001 and 2010, according to the Economic Policy Institute—adding to a debt future generations of taxpayers will pay for, plus interest.

By Bush's own metrics, then, the tax cuts were a failure. But perhaps that is because Bush chose such absurd metrics and made such silly promises about tax cuts' economic omnipotence in the first place. To state the obvious, tax cuts are not magic. They can help a strong economy get stronger or help a weak economy pick up some steam. They also have a direct impact on the government budget. But they cannot goose employers into adding millions of jobs, pay for themselves, and arrest the growth of government, all while delivering everyone cupcakes. So perhaps the best we can say about the Bush tax cuts is that they did exactly what we should have expected them to do.

Here is a good website to play with the numbers:

http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/


Mike, I don't share your views of Bernie. He has been out front in calling out the frauds that government policy has inflicted on the average person. He has seen them close up by what his colleagues in Congress were doing behind the scenes and called the consequences correctly.

I am not a socialist but when politicians use it as a shield word against criticism of their clearly sorry actions, it is time to disarm them.

Bernie as a socialist is a whole lot better than many who call themselves capitalist. It isn't because socialism is better than capitalism, it is because socialism is often better than the crony corrupt capitalism that has got a hold on many in D.C.

Tex
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Tex said:
Bernie as a socialist is a whole lot better than many who call themselves capitalist. It isn't because socialism is better than capitalism, it is because socialism is often better than the crony corrupt capitalism that has got a hold on many in D.C.

Tex


did you intend to type Corporatism, because that is what you described.

Corporatism is another product of the "left". Excessive government regulation and control leads to "Regulatory Capture" and Corporatism.


It is not Capitalism....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
While everyone else was blaming the high costs of medicaid/medicare on the individuals receiving it- and individual fraud----Bernie delved much deeper and showed that the major cost of fraud comes from the Doctors, Clinics, Pharmaceutical and Medical products manufacturers, etc., etc...
And he backed major enforcement of laws prosecuting this type fraud and stiff penalties for it....
Maybe if a few more Pharmaceutical or Clinic CEO's or Doctors ended up in prison for this type fraud-- there may be a lot less wasted tax dollars.....

I believe in corporations. They are indispensable instruments of our modern civilization; but I believe that they should be so supervised and so regulated that they shall act for the interest of the community as a whole.
~Theodore Roosevelt
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
hypocritexposer said:
Tex said:
Bernie as a socialist is a whole lot better than many who call themselves capitalist. It isn't because socialism is better than capitalism, it is because socialism is often better than the crony corrupt capitalism that has got a hold on many in D.C.

Tex


did you intend to type Corporatism, because that is what you described.

Corporatism is another product of the "left". Excessive government regulation and control leads to "Regulatory Capture" and Corporatism.


It is not Capitalism....
Excessive government regulation and control leads to "Regulatory Capture" and Corporatism.?????


It isn't capitalism, which is my point. It can even go so far as to make Socialism look good.

Excessive govt. regulation does not lead to regulatory capture. That is plain wrong.

That is like saying excessive rules on keeping count on who has what money in the bank leads to bank robbery.

A breakdown of competence and corruption lead to regulatory capture and can probably be more closely related to direct campaign contributions than anything else.

Gee, let us let the prisoners make the rules so they will follow them and we don't have to hire prison guards!!!!

This is truly the most laughable quote I believe I haves seen from you, hypo. I really hope you rethink it.

We are not holding our elected Congressmen accountable and much of the reason is that we are informed on what they are doing in any competent manner. We are, as a nation, following the principals instead of the principles.

I do agree with you that it isn't real capitalism.

"Fascism should be more accurately called Corporatism as it is the merging of state and corporate interests"---- Benito Mussolini







FascismUSA.com
- Where Big Corporations Have Become Our Government -

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."

Benito Mussolini, Fascist dictator of Italy


"Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism'. I'm afraid, based on my own long experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."

Sen. Huey Long


"Fascism is capitalism in decay."

Nikolai Lenin

http://www.fascismusa.com/

You know it is bad when the "capitalists" make the Socialist Bernie Sanders look good.

Tex
 

redrobin

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,148
Reaction score
6
Location
arkansas
Communism and communists can't remain hidden no matter how they describe themselves.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Eisenhower warned of the dangers of corporate influence in 1961..

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower 1961
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
redrobin said:
Communism and communists can't remain hidden no matter how they describe themselves.

rr, I hope you too are a communist.


You should be a communist at home with your family, a socialist with your church and a capitalist in business.

My wife and I are totalitarian benevolent communist dictators of our family. Everyone has equal access to the fridge, the air conditioning, the electricity and safety of home.

When you use loaded words, you are out of good arguments and have to depend on fear. The fear part is usually a deliberate diversion from the truth because you are doing or approving something bad. I hope that isn't the case with you.

Tex
 

Latest posts

Top