America is losing the very thing that makes it great. Opportunity.
Am I still living in America? It seems that everyone believes that the government must "do something" about executive pay. I have a suggestion, let's do nothing at all!…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - handyguy
I don't think a compensation cap for companies receiving bailout funds should be even mildly controversial.
I agree that a government mandated cap under other circumstances is too much. But mandating that shareholders should have a stronger voice in executive pay is a no-brainer. Yet many/most companies resist it. Shareholders might get to complain, occasionally, but they don't get to vote on salaries in very many large companies. And the board is usually controlled by the CEO.
Clavos's defense of a CEO laying off 10,000 people, then getting a bonus for it, requires twisted logic as well as morality. Who got the company into dire straits, requiring downsizing, if not management?
And private companies are not at issue here...but publicly traded companies certainly are.
For all of you defending these poor, persecuted CEOs, where is your compassion for those who've lost their jobs? [Full disclosure: I'm one of 'em.]
27 - The Obnoxious American
Glenn Contrarian,
Your revisionist history doesn't prove anything. Only people who believe in large government think the new deal and not the massive increase in spending as a result of WWII caused the recovery. But the WPA didn't make America great and neither did prohibitive taxes.
Handyguy,
Sorry about your job situation. I'm not saying what happened to you is a happy situation and that you should be focusing your energy on ensuring the CEOs get paid. But, at the same time, you have to agree that getting laid off might not be the "fault" of every executive, but rather a reflection of the business environment. While we'd all love to keep our jobs regardless of the economic situation, reality takes precidence.
If your position in a company is not profitable for the company as a whole, you should be let go. And if your position in the company is very profitable, you should recieve the appropriate compensation. This is the reality of the situation. Once we start meddling, telling companies to make choices that they wouldn't normally make in their best interest, that's the day that America is no longer the great country it has been. This is the point of my article, and this is the direction I see Obama taking us, given his own comments on the matter.
28 - Glenn Contrarian
What really kills me is that the Cons are not only defending the salary caps, but NOW they're against the "Buy American" provision in the stimulus bill! All it's saying is that to help the AMERICAN economy back on track, that AMERICAN taxpayer dollars should be spent on AMERICAN projects in AMERICA, thus getting people back to work where they can EARN money (instead of Bush's "Let them eat tax refunds!") to put food on the table and pay their bills.
How times have changed from back in the 80's when it was considered PATRIOTIC to encourage people to buy American....
29 - Glenn Contrarian
OA -
I'm showing you NUMBERS, hard PROOF. All you - and Clavos - have shown in return is empty rhetoric. If you really think what you're saying is true, then PROVE IT with the NUMBERS.
After the Depression hit in earnest:
WHEN did the economy begin growing - and how fast did it grow?
WHEN did unemployment start falling significantly?
WHEN did the GDP meet or surpass the level it was at before the Depression hit?
C'MON, OA - and Clavos - let's see who really 'revised history'....
30 - handyguy
Glenn, a more recent set of examples might be as effective, or more so:
Bush I and Clinton both increased taxes, to balance the budget; the 90s nonetheless was a very prosperous period.
Bush II lowered taxes [and spent like crazy, thus blowing the budget surplus]. The 2003-2007 period was also prosperous.
All the screaming and yelling about tax cuts/increases may be much ado about nothing, in terms of the economic results.
But both recent prosperous periods were based at least in part on bubbles: the Internet in the 90s and housing in the last several years.
And the unbridled urge to make money fast blinded companies to side-effects and consequences. Thus the post-Enron accounting rules, and the call now for a return to regulating derivatives and other aspects of finance. [And maybe raising taxes, but not in 2009, while we're going downhill so faaaast!]
And these intended 'fixes' may also have unintended consequences: the Enron accounting rules are a big factor now in paralyzing the banking system.
Making sweeping statements about either taxes or regulation, as writers on here are wont to do, is not useful.
31 - Memelleschi
If the CEOs don't like the cap, they can opt out of government assistance, or go get paid more somewhere else and crash that company too.
Maybe this is a wise stimulus-in-reverse. A CEO will work harder to keep the company off the welfare line to get paid more.
The Messiah is a smart guy!
32 - El Bicho
Is there any links to the plan? Considering the author can't even get out of his first paragraph without contradicting himself, I need a little more proof then the use of bold.
33 - Glenn Contrarian
Handy -
Careful with the details there...they might reset and go into the default "Democrats are all ugly" mode....
34 - Clavos
WHEN did unemployment start falling significantly?
Not until America entered WWII, at which point, unemployment was approaching 20%.
Though Roosevelt had some modest successes with his New Deal programs at first, unemployment, the best indicator of a depression, plagued the country right up until 1937, when the Roosevelt Recession (considered to be part of the Depression) wiped out all his advances and strongly increasing unemployment. Only entry in WWII saved the country from total devastation at that point.
And it's pretty hard for you to refute how the track of the top marginal rate seems to give a very good indication of the performance of the economy after the delayed effect of the tax increases and decreases is taken into account.
As I'm sure you know, Glenn, correlation does NOT imply causation.
35 - Brunelleschi
What is it about a war economy that causes people to say "we need a war to get things going again?"
Wars motivate people and prompt the government into taking a central role in planning industry, the very thing Americans hate.
hmmmmm
36 - Clavos
If you coming begging for government help, you have no room to bitch if government caps ridiculus expenditures.
Absolutely true, and a good reason for any CEO to think long and hard about asking for "bailouts" from the government.
There's plenty of money available in China, and they're eager to lend it.
37 - Franco
A trillion dollars is 1000 billion. So check out my numbers on the following for me as they seem strange. If the government bypassed all banks, corporations, and all other intermediaries and sent the bailout funds (our own future tax dollors) directly into the hands of the American people, ever man, woman and child, hear is how that works out.
1,000,000,000,000 trillion dollars / 300,000,000 million Americans = $3,333 for each of us.
30% of the bail out is pork. So take that off, that leaves each of us $2,333 each.
Remember that we have to pay that back, with interest because we are borrowing on your "further" takes dollars.
Is this going to get the economy going?
38 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Perhaps you should have read my references, wherein you would have clearly seen that unemployment had risen as high as 24.9% in 1933 and it fell every successive year until 1937 when it reached 14.3 percent.
That's still high...but it's not much more than than unemployment was in the double-digit unemployment in 1982 (before the government started using the 'new formula' for unemployment that doesn't count those who no longer qualify for unemployment benefits).
In fact, let's check that against the total unemployed NOW, after eight years of Bush. In November 2008 - in the OLD system of determining the unemployment rate (which is how the 14.3% was determined) - the unemployment rate is 12.2 percent!
And that's as of NOVEMBER...and we've lost over a million jobs since then!
So let's compare that 14.3% - bad, but not THAT bad - to a quote from YOUR reference: "By 1936, all the main economic indicators had regained the levels of the late 1920s, except for unemployment, which remained high."
So go back to the drawing board, Clavos. By 1936 we were NO LONGER IN A DEPRESSION. Your own reference states that there was a recession - NOT a 'continuation' of the Depression - in 1937. In fact, your reference states the 1937 recession was short-lived. Here's more: "It began to get better in mid-1938, and every month it was better." MID-1938 WAS AN ENTIRE YEAR BEFORE WWII!
Yeah, unemployment really dropped when WWII came about...but the rest of the economy had ALREADY recovered by the beginning of 1937.
So will you conservatives PLEASE let the facts determine your belief, rather than insisting that your beliefs must determine the facts?
39 - Clavos
Clavos's defense of a CEO laying off 10,000 people, then getting a bonus for it, requires twisted logic as well as morality. Who got the company into dire straits, requiring downsizing, if not management?
Assumes facts not in evidence. MANY factors can result in a company's running into hard times, including government interference, a general recession (sound familiar?), new subsidized foreign competition, etc. Also, handy, your comment assumes that the CEO getting the bonus after laying people off is the executive who got the company in trouble in the first place.
As to morality: again, you're assuming ALL layoffs are somehow immoral. What if laying off the 10,000 most recently hired saves the jobs of the other 40,000 who have been working for the company all their lives?
Also in regard to morality: a CEO's FIRST responsibility is to the owners of the company.
40 - The Obnoxious American
What many here are missing is that this isn't just about companies getting the bailout. My article talks about Obama's plan for ALL companies, not just companies taking bailout from the government. If Obama's plan were limited to just bailout companies, I would be disgusted, but perhaps not so disgusted to write this piece about it.
For those too lazy to actually learn about the new direction this country by way of google search, here is a link to an article that talks about Obama's plan.
Handyguy said that I read too much into the single use of the word "especially". Presidents are supposed to pick their words carefully, and I am reading this exactly as it was spoken by the president himself. If he was only talking bailout companies, he would have said something like:
"But what gets people upset - and rightfully so - are executives being rewarded for failure when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers."
He didn't say that. Instead, he used the word Especially, which means both types of companies.
That said, I'd like to focus on another word in that same sentence:
"Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers."
Can anyone define for me what subsidized means? Is it limited to just getting the bailout, or does using the US Postal Service, relying on the protection of the police, military, sanitation, etc count as a sort of subsidizing by taxpayers? What about if a company does work for the government, or gets customers via the government? Is there any large scale business that can truly claim no benefit from the government? This very vague language.
If you really think this is the direction the USA should go, then you may be in the wrong country. And to those that think higher taxes is good for the economy or worship at the alter of the New Deal, no one is arguing with you because you're wrong. History does not back up your story. You're somewhere in between moon landing deniers and scientologists on the crackpot scale.
41 - Franco
WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan group of senators worked into the night to slash as much as $100 billion from a Democratic economic stimulus package with hopes of fashioning a compromise bill that could win enough Republican votes for passage.
Well, there is 13% of pork out. Go Republicans go!
42 - Clavos
Glenn,
You selectively quote my source: "By 1936, all the main economic indicators had regained the levels of the late 1920s, except for unemployment, which remained high."
Ignoring what follows:
In 1937, the American economy took an unexpected downturn, lasting through most of 1938. Production declined sharply, as did profits and employment. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938. In two months, unemployment rose from 5 million to over 9 million, reaching almost 12 million in early 1938. Manufacturing output fell off by 40% from the 1937 peak; it was back to 1934 levels. (emphasis added)
And a little further on:
However, employment did not regain the 1937 level until the war boom began in late 1940. Productivity steadily increased, and output in 1940 was well above the levels of both 1929 and 1937. Personal income in 1939 was almost at 1919 levels in aggregate, but not per capita.
This is exactly why Roosevelt pushed so hard for America to enter the war, even though many Americans wanted no part of it. As you know, there are those who say, even today, that he had foreknowledge of the Japs' attack on Pearl Harbor, and did nothing, in the hope it would turn the tide of public sentiment, which, of course, it did.
You say:
By 1936 we were NO LONGER IN A DEPRESSION.
Not only was the Depression ongoing, but, as I noted above, Roosevelt's Recession is considered to be part of it. From my same reference (in fact, the opening sentence):
The Recession of 1937, often called the Roosevelt Recession, was a sharp economic downturn in the United States in 1937-38. It was part of the Great Depression in the United States... (emphasis added)
43 - The Obnoxious American
"So will you conservatives PLEASE let the facts determine your belief, rather than insisting that your beliefs must determine the facts?"
Has Obama done the same with regards to this plan? I mean, what facts back up the need for this? What facts back up the need for the 8-900 billion "stimulus" plan? Isn't Obama merely insisting that his beliefs determine facts, after all, "he won."
44 - Brunelleschi
Hey Obnoxious!
I hope Obama slaps that cap on those beotch's and kicks their out of shape their asses in basketball!
He won!
I like Obama more every day.
45 - handyguy
The president has explained in detail why the stimulus is necessary. You just weren't listening.
You decided several months before the election that you were going to stop listening, and that you were going to disagree with his every proposal, period.
The Republican talking points about the stimulus [echoed and parroted by Franco and OA] are predictable, and they're entirely about wresting political advantage from the situation -- nothing at all to do with what's best for the country.
But their strategy is going to bite them in the ass. Obama's forceful speech tonight was electrifying. More to come.
And OA's hysterical, hyperbolic thesis in this article remains unfounded, unproven, untrue.
46 - handyguy
Clavos on my complaint about his heroic-CEO thesis:
Assumes facts not in evidence.
And yours doesn't? Of course it does. And your version is also cold-blooded and unfeeling. Do you have a heart at all?
47 - Brunelleschi
Clavos-
It appears you are making a case for going to war (again) to turn things around? Or are you just saying that the entry into WW2 was a plus?
Either way, sounds socialist.
:)
48 - Cindy D
I wish the president would explain this.
Raid in Afghanistan prompts dispute
The U.S. denies claims that the American-led attack resulted in the deaths of 22 civilians.
49 - Clavos
Clavos on my complaint about his heroic-CEO thesis:
Assumes facts not in evidence.
And yours doesn't? Of course it does.
First, I never used (or implied) the word "heroic" in reference to any CEO.
Second, I assumed nothing. I did postulate the possibility that your hypothetical CEO could be (not is) receiving the bonus for outstanding performance (including the layoff) which improved the company's bottom line; which is, after all, his job.
And your version is also cold-blooded and unfeeling.
Nope. We're discussing business. Sometimes, the proper operation of a business requires actions such as layoffs; for example, some industries are cyclical. When I was a teenager, my father worked in the airline business here in Florida. In those days, Florida tourism was cyclical, falling off to almost nothing in the summers. This meant my dad was furloughed every summer, and had to scramble to find work until the airline recalled him the following winter; sometimes he didn't find any, and things got tough (even to the point of there being less food on the table), but we always pulled through it, and no one, especially not my father, thought the airline's management was "cold-blooded and unfeeling," it was just the reality of my dad's kind of work, which he loved -- so much so he inspired me to go into the same industry after college.
So, handy, you can call me cold-blooded and unfeeling, but I'm a realist: businesses are engaged in making a profit by providing goods and services which are demanded by the consumer; sometimes management has to make tough decisions involving people's livelihoods, that's part of being the top dog and taking responsibility.
I'm now self-employed, but I spent 30 years in aviation, the last 20 in administrative positions in which I often had to both hire and fire personnel. Laying people off was never easy, but was always under circumstances which dictated that some had to go for the business to continue to be viable, and always resulted in more jobs being saved than were laid off.
And, at least in this country, we call it what it is, a "layoff." I've heard that in the UK, they call them "redundancies."
50 - Clavos
It appears you are making a case for going to war (again) to turn things around? Or are you just saying that the entry into WW2 was a plus?
Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that the Rooseveltian "New Deal" did not pull us out of the depression nearly as much as did the US entering the fray in WW II.
I'm a combat veteran of a war. I would never advocate entering into war for that purpose.
51 - Clavos
Sorry, Bru, I neglected to answer your second question above.
Yes, US participation in WW II, along with the participation of all the other allies, was definitely a "plus."
Otherwise, we might all be speaking German or Japanese and there wouldn't be any Jews.
The fact that gearing up for it finally got US out of the Depression was also a plus, but hardly the reason US entered it.
52 - Glenn Contrarian
OA -
Sorry, guy, but I'm going to refer you back to your reference: "By 1936, all the main economic indicators had regained the levels of the late 1920s, except for unemployment, which remained high."
You're predicating the continuance of the Depression on ONE statistic - unemployment...which unemployment is not much higher than our own is right now, TODAY...and there is EVERY likelihood we will reach that same level of unemployment later this year!
So are you going to officially declare that America is in a depression? No? Then why not? Because if all you're basing it on is the unemployment stat, then you must also state that America has officially entered another Depression.
NOW, if you were a bit more objective and not so hide-bound to conservative dogma - the SAME dogma I was raised on and believed in until I started digging deeper - you would understand that the Depression of the early '30's and the 1937 recession were TWO SEPARATE EVENTS - related, yes, but still separate.
AND THE FINAL NAIL in the coffin of your argument is that if FDR's efforts had indeed been so misguided, the fact that Truman AND Eisenhower even INCREASED the top tax rate to nearly thirty points higher than FDR did in 1933...then America would surely have gone the way of the Weimar Republic and modern-day Zimbabwe.
But we didn't. With the exceptions of a few not-so-notable bumps in the road, our economy remained strong THROUGHOUT the postwar period, through the fifties, the sixties, and the early seventies until the Arab Oil Embargo and the recession that peaked in 1982...
...FORTY YEARS of prosperity, even counting the recovery from the monstrous debt after WWII - all from the policies began by FDR, and continued by every president through LBJ.
53 - Hope and Change?
Well its official....The US has elected as president the biggest moron in the history of the US....heres what the CBO is saying and he goes running around like chicke little....
President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.
CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.
Lets remember this guys biggest job was a part-time professor with a no-show job...he doesnt know squat...there is yer hope and change!
54 - El Bicho
"Well its official....The US has elected as president the biggest moron in the history of the US"
How's that possible? You weren't even on the ballot.
55 - handyguy
H&C's foolish and pernicious distortion of the CBO analysis is way off base. And this is probably the first time in his life he has ever quoted a CBO analysis approvingly.
What the report actually says is that the changes the Senate added to the bill will make it work better in the short term [creating 1.3 to 3.9 million jobs by the end of 2010 and increase GDP in 2010 by 1.2 to 3.6 points] with diminishing returns in the long term [10 years!].
But the bill won't exist in a vacuum. The long-term figures apply only if the economy doesn't turn around at all within ten years, if there were no other changes in taxes or spending in ten years, and if the estimates in the report are accurate. A lot of if's.
Even if your favorite target serves two full terms [I of course dearly hope he does], another president will have been in office for two years by 2019, the end of the forecast period.
Did you ever consider trying to make a point with facts rather than nonsense?
I thought not.
56 - handyguy
Clavos, I do find your attitude cold indeed. These are people's lives you're talking about. "Saving more jobs than there were layoffs" is a pretty low threshold for feeling OK about it.
Of course businesses expand and contract. But believe it or not, not all managers' motives are pure like you say yours were, and many companies make terrible mistakes in both hiring and firing. The result is human suffering, which is in the long run a lot more important than a balance sheet.
Pardon me if I'm a little bitter. I suspect I have company...there are now 11 million unemployed in the US, and more people are collecting unemployment benefits than at any time since record keeping started in 1967.
57 - Doug Hunter
Alot of free marketeers hold very strange positions on these things. CEO's layoff people and shift jobs becuase they 'cost too much' all the time and they support it with relish. When it is pointed out that CEO's are making too much they strangely become upset.
There is a problem with the free market in the face of limited supply or the perception thereof.
Look at CEO pay the same way CEO's look at employee pay. If the CEO knows that he can get machinists for $10/hour he will cut people making $30/hour down to increase profits. That's what board's and stockholders need to do to CEO's.
The question you should be asking is that if CEO pay for all executives were cut 50% would people still do the job and the answer is a resounding yes. A few spoiled wealthy ones would throw a tantrum and go into retirement but the majority would stay on with $10 million bonus instead of the $20 million. They'd work just as hard and no, the vast majority wouldn't uproot their family and leave for China where they don't know the market or speak the language despite what my comrades might suggest.
Unfortunately, CEO's and boardmembers are interconnected like an Arkansas family tree and collude to keep pay artificially high. Allowing stockholders a say is a start but probably won't solve the problem completely.
58 - handyguy
The federal government is not going to reduce the pay of any executive by fiat [except for the companies receiving the largest bailouts]. They may try to give shareholders more power - a very different thing, which OA claims he supports. Well, so does Obama, chum.
Another reason for the timing of Obama's announcement was that next week, Tim Geithner will reveal what will probably be nicknamed TARP II. There has to be some assurance to the public that the money will be more carefully spent and managed than the bizarre free-for-all that was TARP I.
59 - Clavos
Clavos, I do find your attitude cold indeed. These are people's lives you're talking about. "Saving more jobs than there were layoffs" is a pretty low threshold for feeling OK about it.
You're entitled to your opinion, handy, as am I. I don't think I said, or even implied, that laying people off was something to "feel OK" about. I DID say that sometimes it's a necessary part of any executive's duties; though I've never felt good about laying people off, I've never felt guilty about it, either.
If my attitude is cold, I'm not hypocritical about it. I've been laid off a couple of times myself. I've never looked at it as a "cold" event, just as another part of working life, a setback to overcome and then move on.
60 - The Obnoxious American
Handyguy,
I respect your sensitive, people first position on layoffs. But even you have to admit that what you are espousing isn't capitalism, and what would result would be an economy not based on economics.
From my view, that would be a very bad thing, especially when competing with other countries that allow their private sector to operate based on profit.
Work isn't welfare, it's an exchange of service for compensation. If the employee isn't providing a service, or if that service could be fulfilled cheaper elsewhere, then should that employee continue to be in that arrangement? I wish more workers looked at their jobs this way, rather than believing in some sort of "right to a job" which doesn't exist.
People's lives are important. So important, that every person need to seriously consider the value proposition they offer to society, not the other way around. Every person owes this sober analysis, and corrective action if necessary, to themselves, their families, their communities. Yet, this ethic seems lost on most Americans today.
The the tax and spend crowd who believes in the revisionist history of new dealers (Glenn Contrar, this means you - read on), I'd like to end with some quotes from a very popular democratic president, who is looking rather conservative by today's standards. His words are as true today as when they were spoken nearly a half century ago:
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
â€" John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased â€" not a reduced â€" flow of revenues to the federal government."
â€" John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964
"In today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit â€" why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues."
â€" John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is no contradiction â€" the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates."
â€" John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort â€" thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."
â€" John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."
â€" John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have asked the secretary of the treasury to report by April 1 on whether present tax laws may be stimulating in undue amounts the flow of American capital to the industrial countries abroad through special preferential treatment."
â€" John F. Kennedy, Feb. 6, 1961, message to Congress on gold and the balalnce of payments deficit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In those countries where income taxes are lower than in the United States, the ability to defer the payment of U.S. tax by retaining income in the subsidiary companies provides a tax advantage for companies operating through overseas subsidiaries that is not available to companies operating solely in the United States. Many American investors properly made use of this deferral in the conduct of their foreign investment."
â€" John F. Kennedy, April 20, 1961, message to Congress on taxation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our present tax system ... exerts too heavy a drag on growth ... It reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking ... The present tax load ... distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities."
â€" John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, press conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The present tax codes ... inhibit the mobility and formation of capital, add complexities and inequities which undermine the morale of the taxpayer, and make tax avoidance rather than market factors a prime consideration in too many economic decisions."
â€" John F. Kennedy, Jan. 23, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
â€" John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive."
â€" John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Expansion and modernization of the nation's productive plant is essential to accelerate economic growth and to improve the international competitive position of American industry ... An early stimulus to business investment will promote recovery and increase employment."
â€" John F. Kennedy, Feb. 2, 1961, message on economic recovery
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We must start now to provide additional stimulus to the modernization of American industrial plants ... I shall propose to the Congress a new tax incentive for businesses to expand their normal investment in plant and equipment."
â€" John F. Kennedy, Feb. 13, 1961, National Industrial Conference Board
61 - Brunelleschi
"I won."
Barack H Obama, 2009
:)
So STFU, Obnoxious Beotch
62 - Cindy D
(looks all around at the economy and the whole world and wonders why these people are still defending this failed bullshit--yooohooo, is anybody home in there?)
63 - Hope and Change?
Ohhhhh so based upon DrDread...I mean Brunelleschi... Kennedy was an ignorant fool and didnt know any better....so...um....er....you know if King Barry is the NEW KENNEDY...he must be evena bigger ignorant fool!
As each day passes and people see what an incompetent fool our President is...I still cant belive that King Barrys supporter are that stupid!
64 - Hope and Change?
Cindy....if you would take the time to read the papers, listen to people other than Rachel MADcow you would realize the those responsible for regulation and oversight of all of these failed insitutions where...um...er....you know DEMOCRATS!
These DEMOCRATS are the same morons who crafted this trillion dollar spending bill....
As each day passes and people see what an incompetent fool our President is...I still cant belive that King Barrys supporters are that stupid!
65 - Christopher Rose
I hate to break up your fun guys, but there you go.
Brunelleschi - changing other commenters usernames in the way you did is one of the easiest ways to get on my very short list of commenters who might get banned if they don't watch it.
H&C, you're already on that list. Making unfounded accusations as to commenter identity and endless repetition of the same meme are both pushing you to the top of that list on a daily basis, so please take care not to make me act.
This has been a public service announcement from the Comments Editor!
66 - Hope and Change?
CindY I think your statement outs you as a possible fraud! Any small business owner who took the time to read this bill will see that there is not one sigle stimulus for small business owner.....85% of the US employers!
So where is the job stimulation? The only thing small businesses will get is more regulation and the bill to pay for it!
67 - Cindy D
H&C,
My comments have nothing to do with any bill. They were about O.A.'s (and others') continued belief in the same failed system. It doesn't work anymore. It worked for awhile, now it has been shown to be a big dud. Get over it. Move on. Think of something new.
68 - Cindy D
And H&C,
My business is highly regulated. In fact, there is no break for us just because we are small. When we get a $4500 fine because a cap was left off an empty drum, it's the same $4500 that Eastman Kodak would get.
69 - Glenn Contrarian
Cindy -
Gotta agree with you. The fact that Reaganomics has failed miserably is there for all to see...but some are so filled with hatred at those 'unpatriotic, Godless liberals' that no matter how bad it gets, even if McCain had won and we had sunk into a worldwide depression, even if we had sunk to the depths of the Weimar Republic and modern-day Zimbabwe...they'd still blame the liberals and the Democrats.
Why?
In a conversation with a strongly conservative friend of mine I found the answer. He was SO sure that Hillary did everything she did in the name of power...and then I remembered the old saying that a man is most likely to suspect others of doing what he would do himself in their place.
In other words, he suspected Hillary of doing what he would do in her place...and it never occurred to him that power for the sake of power was NOT her primary motive.
And I suspect that this might be the case with most conservatives - for many (but not all) their primary motive is power for the sake of power. Many conservatives do not truly believe in democracy. Here's a quote by Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Foundation:
"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
This was from a speech given before 15,000 Baptist ministers, Jerry Falwell, and Ronald Reagan.
To conservatives...it's about power, not democracy.
70 - Cindy D
Glenn,
I have quoted that quote before. So, I understand what you are saying. But, I don't like any of them. Hillary Clinton voted for the war. Hillary Clinton is a horse's ass.
It's not just Reaganomics that failed. It's the whole thing that has failed.
71 - Hope and Change?
To liberals...it's about more government control in our daily lives and income redistribution, not democracy.
72 - Cindy D
To liberals [and to conservatives]...it's about more government control [just different kinds] in our daily lives and income redistribution [each preferring it to go to a different class], not democracy [and not freedom].
There you go H&C, that works better now.
73 - Clavos
To conservatives...it's about power, not democracy.
To paraphrase an individual on these threads:
Where's your PROOF, GC? Where are your NUMBERS?
Where are your SOURCES for this bullshit?
You are right about one point: for me at least it definitely is NOT about "democracy." I'm not at all in favor of democracy. Democracy is mob rule, tyranny of the majority.
And the Founders weren't "about democracy" either:
Ben Franklin, responding to a woman who asks, “Well, Doctor, what have we gotâ€"a Republic or a Monarchy?â€
“A Republic, if you can keep it.â€
74 - Brunelleschi
Rose-
When you have people who sign up with the first name "Obnoxious," I think they are asking for it. I think you have better things to worry about.
:)
Respectfully submitted of course, beotch!
75 - Cindy D
RE #64
H&C,
They are all morans.