Democrats should seize tax issue to reframe 2010 campaign
It's clear by now that Democrats have to do something big and fast if they are to avoid political gloom, or even Armageddon, in the November elections.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - roger nowosielski
. . . bide their time . . .
27 - jeannie danna
Since the election of Obama, they have been *hoarding* money, jobs, education, health care and anything else that isn't nailed down.
:Q The next third world country baby adopted by Angelina will be an American.
28 - jeannie danna
I'm going to write that article...
"I'm an Ass and So are You!"
:O
29 - Cindy
Maybe Dave will agree to an interview for your article, Jeannie! (teehee)
30 - roger nowosielski
Excellent idea, and a catchy title too.
And yes, by the time they adopt their next, America is going to be the Third World.
The capitalists have squeezed well nigh all the profits from their home country, and now they're about to desert it and set out for greener pastures, with the same promises of delivering prosperity and well-being to all, until they squeeze them dry too. That's the capitalist MO and the cycle.
31 - Cindy
You could just shorten the title, call it Dave's An Ass.
32 - jeannie danna
LOL! I don't want to get banned...
I'm just really pissed off by this country.
I was out mowing my lawn and an investor came calling...boy, was he sorry...but, like I told him in the end, "Whatever else someone says to you today, it will roll right off of you." congratulations, you survived Jeannie
33 - Bill B
# 23
+1
Cindy is right on - They're waiting for us to start spending money we don't have. They've drained our resources like vampires suck blood - we were only too happy/stupid to oblige. Especially when one takes into account our debt as compared to retirement savings - it's abysmal.
Here's something radical - cut taxes significantly more for those making X amount of money (less than 150k maybe) and compensate by increasing the taxes of the rich.
Anybody think they won't invest in business and job creation to try and recoup their raised tax burden via the newfound booty that the lower earners would now be spending?
34 - Mark
Here's something radical - shut down the government and enable workers and owners to work out new property relations/relations of production and surplus distribution.
35 - jeannie danna
Mark,
New property relations? Yes, everyone get the F out! The Native Americans were here first and, believe you me, they want their country back...
36 - roger nowosielski
Right, what do you think this is, Greece?
All the Federal and State workers will scream bloody murder.
37 - roger nowosielski
Thanks for alterting me to Cindy's comment, Bill. That was spot on - it's not about consumer confidence anymore.
I'm not certain about your idea, though. It's the big banks and megacorporations that are hoarding capital and acccumulating surplus - not the little guy (and I mean hear mid-size businesses). I don't think they're being lent to anymore.
As to the megacorporations, I thinking they're banking on Third-World consumers (recent overtures on the part of th UK to India being a case in point). They've just about given up on expanding the American market for the very reason mentioned: no dough. And why should they give a fuck?
38 - roger nowosielski
mean here . . .
39 - jeannie danna
OH,Roger...you made one too! :D I'm not alone!
40 - handyguy
It's interesting how dead certain some commenters seem to be about the motivations and intentions of corporations. These companies don't exactly broadcast their "thoughts" -- they are often rather secretive. So it's good we can depend on your telepathic abilities to keep us informed.
The recovery is slow but it's there. Manufacturing activity has increased for 13 months in a row now.
Americans love to consume, and they will eventually be doing it again big time. Don't let your ideological blinders fool you.
41 - Mark
So, Dave, Kenn, Clavos & co are correct -- the state apparatus constitutes a class and can best be analyzed as an independent actor.
42 - Mark
handyguy -- it sure seems that recession and depression are separate entities...
43 - Bill B
I'm not certain about your idea, though. It's the big banks and megacorporations that are hoarding capital and acccumulating surplus - not the little guy (and I mean hear mid-size businesses). I don't think they're being lent to anymore.
The thought would be that they'd loosen up that capital once us serfs start spending our newfound cash. Somebody would reap that benefit - it's right in their wheelhouse.
As to the megacorporations, I thinking they're banking on Third-World consumers (recent overtures on the part of th UK to India being a case in point). They've just about given up on expanding the American market for the very reason mentioned: no dough. And why should they give a fuck?
The gorilla in the corner of the room nobody's talking about. When it comes right down to it they could give 2 shits who actually buys their widgets.
Are we doomed until there's some kind of standard of living 'leveling out' throughout the glob(ilization)?
44 - handyguy
Where did all this doom-and-gloom, all-is-lost attitude come from on the left? Most of us are old enough to have lived through other recessions. It's not the end of the world.
45 - jeannie danna
Blame, Alan. lol
46 - jeannie danna
I am so depressed...I'm going to leave...
:( doom-and-gloom
47 - Bill B
You're right HG - but you have to admit it ain't looking good.
To know where we stand, the average citizen, all one needs to do is look at the recent financial collapse, and then look at the milquetoast that was passed to address it.
If our government couldn't muster meaningful reform on the heals of this mess when will it???
And that's not even taking into consideration the ineffectual oversight of existing regulation that IS in place .
48 - John Wilson
Roger #25 makes a good point: "... John (#22). My hunch is they're hoarding it,...
Indeed, the financial press has noted, with alarm, that US business savings has topped $3trillion, an unheard of high.
NO businessman will invest in production when there is no market. This is where supply-side economics hits a brick wall.
49 - jeannie danna
Bill,
Everything that this administration proposes is met with a resounding, NO!
50 - jeannie danna
John, #48
They are sitting on 3 trillion? Then they don't need these obnoxious tax cuts.
51 - roger nowosielski
"Are we doomed until there's some kind of standard of living 'leveling out' throughout the glob(ilization)?"
That's exactly the intent. The intent is the wrong word here. It's the natural consequence of capitalist expansion until it exhausts itself. And it's not a matter, as some suggest, of "intuiting" the secret thoughts in smoke-filled boardrooms. It's simply a matter of understanding the nature of the beast.
52 - roger nowosielski
Mark, what made you think of the "independent actor" idea?
53 - roger nowosielski
An interesting idea comes to mind given this scenario: confiscation of all the major resources and assets so that the government, not Big Business be in charge of the economy. Hitler did remarkably well in the six years leading up to WWII - so why not again? If the business is not up to it, an able leader, given public support, will. (And mind you, compared to Germany merely 70 million strong, we're a giant.
Of course such proposals will only come from the socialists-turned-fascists, once this merely transitional form of government run its due course.
Not recommending it of course, but the idea offers some interesting possibilities. And it's not beyond the far reaches of the imagination.
54 - Mark
Rog #52, your #36
jeannie, re your #35, too true and the only way they're ever going to get close to a fair shake it for us to get the UIS out of North America.
55 - Mark
(works better w/out the 'I')
56 - roger nowosielski
We're already part of the Third World; may as well get used to it and mingle with the hoi polloi.
As to your other point, I see. The gov is an independent agent.
57 - Jo
Bush's mistakes may have been detrimental to this country, but what Obama has done is far more heinous. Obama is un American. Period. This is not about the repubs or dems. It's about an illegal president who only cares about himself and his wannabe gangster cronies.
58 - jeannie danna
Thanks Mark
:D From me the hoi polloi
59 - jeannie danna
See what all of this stupid media propaganda is doing to this country? You can read it in #57.
60 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger #53 -
I'm about halfway through Churchill's first book in his history of WWII - "The Gathering Storm".
The socialists didn't "turn fascist". They supported the fascists as a coalition towards the end of the Weimar Republic...but on the day that Hitler was elected Chancellor, when he stepped to the podium to give his first address to the Reichstag, he turned to the Socialist party and said, "I have no further need of you."
There is no similarity between today's Democrats who understand that a healthy dose of socialism (health care and social security and free public education) is a GOOD thing...and the fascists who cared not one whit about such notions except as a path to power.
Read again Dave's comment #1 and his justification for 'keeping the crazies'. Also, bear in mind where he assumes that the Democrats will win elections by fraud...and remember the blatantly false accusations that tyrants tend to throw towards the group they see as a threat.
There are parallels between America of today - but the Democratic party, the liberals, and the progressives are not part of these parallels except maybe between the 'blue-dog' democrats and the socialists that Hitler rejected in his first few moments of chancellorship.
61 - Clavos
Tax the hell out of all the businesses, especially the manufacturers, and watch them leave for greener pastures faster than they already are.
Or, alternatively, give them incentives to hire, in the spirit of Henry Ford's revolutionary idea of paying his workers enough money so they could buy his cars.
62 - Bill B
Or, alternatively, give them incentives to hire, in the spirit of Henry Ford's revolutionary idea of paying his workers enough money so they could buy his cars.
Clavos - right on, except I think that ethos has been replaced by;
Pay your workers enough to keep them scared and just barely above water so they can be the good little pawn in the more pressing matter of maximizing dividends for stockholders.
That's todays ethos.
63 - jeannie danna
It wasn't Henry's idea.
Battle of the Overpass, May 26, 1937
"The story of the labor struggle reached a turning point with the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. Informally known as the Wagner Act, after Senator Robert Wagner of New York, it established workers' rights to collective bargaining and sought to stop unfair practices by employers, employees, and unions. Finally, union organizers felt they had a mechanism to organize the mass production industries, including the reluctant automobile industry. By 1936 and 1937, the fledgling United Auto Workers (UAW) had coordinated successful sit-down strikes at both General Motors and Chrysler. However, Ford Motor Company proved slightly more resistant to unionization. The UAW felt it had a sufficient base for membership at Ford's Rouge plant, but the workers were apprehensive because of their unfamiliarity with unions and Ford Motor's anti-union stance."
Credit is due the men who shed their own blood in order to improve the working conditions and pay in Ford's factories.
64 - Clavos
@#63:
It wasn't Henry's idea.
Wrong, Jeannie. Ford came up with his idea in 1914, long before the UAW even existed. Read your history.
According to Wikipedia:
Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage, which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers. (Using the consumer price index, this was equivalent to $111.10 per day in 2008 dollars.) The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs. Ford called it "wage motive."
65 - jeannie danna
Please read the link in #63 and IMO, Wikipedia is editable by every, T, D, and H that comes along to add their spin on the facts.
:d So my link trumps yours !
66 - roger nowosielski
Or, alternatively, give them incentives to hire, in the spirit of Henry Ford's revolutionary idea of paying his workers enough money so they could buy his cars.
I have to agree with Bill. When was the last time that Big Business (not moms 'n pops) operated on those principles. They would seem to define the very rationale and logic of capitalism if capitalism it must be: in order for there to be producers, there must be consumers. So why have we abandoned the only feature which, for instrumental reasons, let's grant it, not out of principle, made the system "humane"? Here are some possibilities:
(1) The fat cats are fat enough and they don't care any longer about getting fatter.
Nah, power and money are aphrodisiacs; once you've developed a taste, you always crave for more.
(2) Corporations have lost their soul.
That's presuming they ever had a "soul," although there is some truth to that insofar as outward behavior is concerned. The bigger you get, the more removed you become from those who contributed to your growth, less "caring" and less sensitive.
(3) Corporations have already moved for greener pastures.
That's most likely the reason. The move has already been made, and the home country itself is being regarded as a colony. The Third Word has become more important from the standpoint of expansion and the American people, consumers and workers alike, are getting a taste of what's like being treated like the Third World used to be - for no other reason that they've become impoverished. There is nothing more left to squeeze.
If you have any doubts, look at the quality of cheap, China-made products to which we're increasingly being treated; if that's not an indication of substantial decrease in the average American's spending power and "lesser importance," I don't know what it.
One could summarize the above by speaking of hubris, but I don't think the description fits. To speak of hubris presupposes the idea of a fall; besides, it's a term attributable to persons, not to impersonal economic systems. So perhaps the best way to cap it up would be to speak of the nature of the beast. At its inception, when capitalism was still young, we haven't seen its fault lines. Now that it had matured, the nature of the beast, with all its inherent contradictions, manifests itself in full.
So however enticing Clavos's idea may sound, of returning to Henry Ford's "principle," I don't thinks it's a realistic solution insofar as mega-corporations are concerned. And to provide them with incentives is merely to placate them.
So I say, why not confiscate their resources and assets, revoke their charters, and start from scratch? Strange as it may sound, it's not outside the realm of possibility.
67 - Bill B
Don't have much time - Jeannie - have to agree with clavos here. But you're both kinda right if memory serves me.
That is a quote from Ford - at the beginning - as competition stiffened (a big factor) and unions arose things changed. It's also entirely possible that he, (and he may have been somewhat out of touch with the average bear as he was quite wealthy) as time went on, still believed he's was paying a fair wage and the workers thought otherwise.
68 - Bill B
Roger-
I have to agree with Bill
my emphasis
Sounds like it pains you to do so!
"arrgghhh! Gotta agree with that #@%!!&#@*!! Bill!"
;-)
Anyhoo - we have a ways to go on our decent into oblivion before that would even become an option roger - only then can I hear the anti socialist masses say something on the order of "Well shit, if they puttin' food on my table I reckon I don't care what their political party be!"
off to a weekend wedding I go!
69 - jeannie danna
Bill,
When you have time.
Ford's Bio
This is very thorough and gives both sides of the story.
70 - Bill B
oops - supposed to be *descent*
71 - Bill B
ok jeannie - thanks - but the main thing I'm agreeing with clavos on is the quote.
72 - Clavos
So my link trumps yours !
Um, no Jeannie, it's a matter of historical record, not "trumping."
Here's a link to a state of Michigan official government site relating Ford's accomplishment. It says, in part:
...Ford's plan doubled typical wages and sent shockwaves through the other car companies. They thought Ford was crazy and would soon go out of business. Ford knew, however, that this new deal would not only lower costs due to decreased turnover, but it would create more buyers of his cars: the employees themselves!...
...More than 15,000 would-be workers showed up to claim the $5-a-day jobs, though only about 3,000 were needed. Those left outside were angry, and eventually fire hoses were turned on to disperse the crowd. The increased wage plan led to a stable workforce. Ford soon produced as many as 8,000 Model Ts in a single day. The price dropped to under $300 for a brand new car. In order to stay competitive, General Motors and other automakers followed suit. They also increased wages and began use of the moving assembly line. Henry Ford had changed the industry forever. (emphasis added)
You should have paid better attention in history class, Jeannie.
73 - jeannie danna
Ford came up with his idea in 1914
Really? Then what were the first workers paid? Because, in 1903 the factory was already up and running.
:D I'm not wrong, Clavos
74 - Clavos
@#67:
Actually, Bill, the reason the Ford workers resisted the UAW's organizational efforts in the 30s, contrary to what Jeannie's quote says in #63, was because they were happier with their wages and working conditions than the workers at GM and Chrysler.
Again, a matter of historical fact, not conjecture.
Ford had his flaws (virulent antisemitism, e.g.), but he was a VERY smart entrepreneur -- perhaps the smartest the world has ever known.
75 - Clavos
Really? Then what were the first workers paid? Because, in 1903 the factory was already up and running.
Irrelevant.
He boosted their wages (more than doubled them, actually) in 1913-14 -- a full 20 years before the UAW was trying to organize his plants -- before the UAW existed, even.