published Sunday, October 16th, 2011

The Lifeboat

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

157
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
John_Proctor said...

GREAT cartoon, Clay. The history is accurate and reflects what is happening economically today. Those of us in steerage will sink while those in first class will circumvent the rules to save themselves.

Listening for the monkey howling to begin in 4, 3, 2 . . .

October 16, 2011 at 12:24 a.m.
onetinsoldier said...

Repugnants are no higher on the food chain than child molesters. The sooner that despicable party is history the better for America

October 16, 2011 at 12:36 a.m.
fairmon said...

A wonderment about this is; Will taking his money and throwing him over board keep the ship from sinking?

October 16, 2011 at 1:27 a.m.
fairmon said...

Tax the top incomes more, I don't give a rip since I am not in the top 20%. I don't think it will help enough to measure and may hurt instead of help. I would be willing to pay more taxes as well if congress and the administration were better stewards of tax payer money.

When the government has spent the approved stimulus money and reduces spending back to pre-stimulus levels what happens to the demand that was created by the temporary stimulus? What happens when the temporary tax reduction to those in the lower brackets, that is primarily spent on imported goods which only increases the help needed in low paying American retail shops, ends? Anyone with an answer please share it.

I agree with Bill Clinton and the economist that say any action that is not aimed at enabling American producers to compete with imports is a wasted effort to improve the U.S. economy. Why did GE decide to build their light bulb producing plant in China instead of the U.S.? Perhaps understanding that would at least reveal the challenge of increasing American production and jobs. One financial publication stated it was because regulations prohibited producing them in America. I think it is 2012 when the standard incandescent bulbs can no longer be produced or used in the U.S. Currently all fluorescent bulbs the government encourages people to use are imported, none are made in the U.S.

What is either party in office or trying to be in office doing to address the issue of a lack of demand for American made products? If so what are they doing or proposing that would at least attempt to address this root cause problem?

October 16, 2011 at 2:39 a.m.
EaTn said...

Great laughable toon, but also sad that it portrays our America. The two gullible guys holding the ropes are part of the 99% and will be scuttled as soon as the 1% passenger is safe.

October 16, 2011 at 5:12 a.m.
lumpy said...

Onetinsoldier, so you're saying that I'm barely above a child molester, since I've considered myself a Republican over the years and I've voted for Repbulicans. The stupidity of your post stands on it's own. The head of your Party, Obama, is "in bed" with Wall Street and large Corporations. He's sided with large Pharma. Corporations, made deals with them, to eliminate generic brands in exchange for their money. You don't know what you're talking about.

EaTn, you're a bunch of fools. You could bleed the so-called 99% dry, take everything they have at gunpoint, but it won't make a difference. The Flea Party, urinating and threatening hard working people in the streets, is going after anyone who makes more than they do, which is probably nothing since 99% of them have nothing to do because they're always to busy bitching and whining instead of working.

Clay Bennett serves no other purpose than to attack the Republican Party. He adds nothing to the debate. Like some have said, it's not much more than Democratic Party propaganda.

October 16, 2011 at 7:06 a.m.
ricardo said...

The 2 sailors lowering the lifeboat are the government enabling the theft.

October 16, 2011 at 7:08 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Lumpy said: "The head of your Party, Obama, is "in bed" with Wall Street and large Corporations."

But Wall Street’s money is going to Romney . . Apparentlly, Wall Street is really unsettled over the Dodds-Frank financial reform bill. . . poor things . . it’s hard to reform:

“WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Wall Street money is heavily favoring Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in the race to unseat President Barack Obama, the latest signal of business unease with Obama's tenure and perhaps a bet on his re-election chances.

Romney, a co-founder of buyout firm Bain Capital, stresses his Wall Street acumen in his bid to win the Republican nomination to challenge Obama in the November 2012 election. . .

Wall Street money has been moving away from Obama and Democrats since 2010, in part fueled by Obama's harsh criticism of banks and financial overhaul legislation he signed last year, which banks say is burdensome.

These latest figures confirm that trend.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/01/us-usa-campaign-fundraising-idUSTRE7805KL20110901

October 16, 2011 at 7:51 a.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "Why did GE decide to build their light bulb producing plant in China instead of the U.S.?"

There are a couple of good reasons why G.E. closed the plant in Winchester, Virginia that produced incandescent light bulbs and moved it to China.

Workers there made about $30.00 an hour. To convert that plant into one that would produce CFL's, it would have cost G.E. $40 million, and with the wage differences between the two countries, CFL's would have to have been priced 50% higher than those already coming in from China manufactured by competitors.

"Perhaps understanding that would at least reveal the challenge of increasing American production and jobs."

It's going to take Americans forgoing spending money at Wal-Mart, to obtain those "low, low prices," with a combination in a renewed interest in buying manufactured products created domestically.

It's also going to have to result in American workers taking a pay cut, for the reality of the situation is that workers making $30.00 an hour making anything is unsustainable in today's marketplace.

"One financial publication stated it was because regulations prohibited producing them in America. I think it is 2012 when the standard incandescent bulbs can no longer be produced or used in the U.S."

The standards do not prevent anyone from using incandescent light bulbs at all in the United States. The standards just address the manufacturing, importing, and sales of incandescent light bulbs, which will be phased out over 2012-2014, beginning with the 100 watt bulbs and ending with the 40 watt bulbs.

So anyone who loves incandescent light bulbs still has a few months to stock up on them and can use them until they are all gone, if they are so inclined to do so.

Personally, I love CFL's, and am sorry that they all come in from China these days, but that's out of my control.

With advancing technology, people lose jobs. I imagine that around the beginning of the 20th century, the newspapers will filled with lamentations by people who had manufactured buggy whips for decades.

"Currently all fluorescent bulbs the government encourages people to use are imported, none are made in the U.S."

There is an alternative. Sylvania produces a variety of halogen light bulbs in a plant in St. Marys, Pennsylvania, offering replacements for standard incandescent light bulbs. Sylvania recently converted that plant to only produce halogen light bulbs that meet the new energy use standards being phased in from 2012-2014.

October 16, 2011 at 8:33 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The fleabagger cartoonist is already getting monotonous.

Is this (topic?) going to be one of those that he wears out while he ignores the government involvement in everything gone wrong?

October 16, 2011 at 8:44 a.m.
alprova said...

limpy wrote: "EaTn, you're a bunch of fools."

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that EaTn is one person.

"You could bleed the so-called 99% dry, take everything they have at gunpoint, but it won't make a difference."

Seems to me that the 99% in this country HAVE been bled dry. That's kinda why so many have taken to protesting.

"The Flea Party, urinating and threatening hard working people in the streets, is going after anyone who makes more than they do, which is probably nothing since 99% of them have nothing to do because they're always to busy bitching and whining instead of working."

I'm sure that many of those who have time to protest would love to go back to work, if there were viable jobs open to them. Again, that's one of the reasons that they are protesting.

"Clay Bennett serves no other purpose than to attack the Republican Party. He adds nothing to the debate. Like some have said, it's not much more than Democratic Party propaganda."

Ah, but the plain and awful truth of the matter is that Republicans set themselves up, giving Clay and others so to have good reason to offer criticism about them on a daily basis.

And if this forum is any indication, there is no lack of criticism coming from those aligned with Republicans as well. Thank God I woke up and smelled the roses a few years back. I used to be one of you.

The more that I read from people who stand with the right, and their intense hatred for our current President and their fellow Americans, the more committed to the Democrats I become, if that is even possible these days.

I know that I am not alone.

October 16, 2011 at 8:48 a.m.
TinaFrench said...

Somebody go over there and bump BRP. His needle is stuck. Same crap, different day. LOL You are a joke!

October 16, 2011 at 8:48 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

JonRoss said: "Quoting Reuters does not a fact make. Quoting AP does not a fact make. Come on you Progressive thugs, quote facts, not slogans."

Like it or not, JonRoss, the financial data coming from the Federal Election Commission and the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics does reflect actual facts. . . and the financial data is showing that Wall Street's money is mostly going to "Mr. Corporations Are People Too," Mitt Romney. . . a sampling of an actual financial factual fact:

Since this spring, Mr. Romney has raised $1.5 million from employees of firms like Morgan Stanley; Highbridge Capital Management, a hedge fund; and Blackstone, a private equity firm. Mr. Obama has raised just over $270,000 from firms that were among his leading sources of campaign cash in 2008.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11289/1182636-84-0.stm?cmpid=news.xml

October 16, 2011 at 8:51 a.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "The fleabagger cartoonist is already getting monotonous."

No, Clay publishes fresh material several times per week.

The crap you find it necessary to post in response to every new cartoon is beyond monotonous, you Clay Bennett stalking creep.

October 16, 2011 at 8:54 a.m.
fairmon said...

mntl said....

Apparently, Wall Street is really unsettled over the Dodds-Frank financial reform bill. And, in the same post Wall Street money has been moving away from Obama and Democrats since 2010.

Dodds/Frank only passed recently. Could it be he failed to keep promises to both Wall St. and voters? Remember his campaign speech with a promise to balance the budget by his second year in office? He had a democrat congress and not only didn't balance the budget he didn't even submit one timely and had nearly doubled the debt. Previous post here were how Obama had little support from Wall St. and businesses although their support of democrat candidates was significant. There is still no match for Obama's 1 billion dollar campaign fund with a lot coming from unions and businesses.

Perhaps it is they have figured out he is a typical two faced, lying con artist who has one objective, staying in office and having the power, influence and wealth federal office provides.

October 16, 2011 at 9:09 a.m.
lumpy said...

No, Mtl, that won't fly. Obama is a corporatist just like most politicians. He sucks up their money like no one else. Obama blasts Wall Street and "the rich" while at the same time holding his hand out. Typical Democrat.

Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank are multi-millionares. It's ok for them to rake in money while "serving" in Congress, huh? The Occupy bunch are an astoundingly ignorant horde of zombies. They consider Durbin,Pelosi, Obama, Dodd and Frank as allies? Please.

To continually prop up the Democratic Party as the party "of the people" is total nonsense. Obama is barely above Chavez in his tactics to hold on to power. It's not the millonares Obama is after, it's those that work hard and do ok. He doesn't like them having options. He wants to control them.

October 16, 2011 at 9:18 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Lumpy said: “No, Mtl, that won't fly. Obama is a corporatist just like most politicians. He sucks up their money like no one else. Obama blasts Wall Street and "the rich" while at the same time holding his hand out. Typical Democrat.”

Facts are facts, Lumpy. Why are you having such a difficult time facing the fact that Wall Street’s money to going to Mitt Romney? Would you prefer Wall Street give their money to President Obama? Are you upset that Mitt Romney is Wall Street’s guy? What is it?

October 16, 2011 at 9:36 a.m.
fairmon said...

I came back to see if anyone had addressed the questions posted at 2:39 a.m.

alprova responded to one question with....

It's going to take Americans forgoing spending money at Walmart, to obtain those "low, low prices," with a combination in a renewed interest in buying manufactured products created domestically.

It's also going to have to result in American workers taking a pay cut, for the reality of the situation is that workers making $30.00 an hour making anything is unsustainable in today's marketplace.

Add the dollar stores and a few others to Walmart. A change in consumer spending is not likely to happen. We are screwed if that is the only option. Taking a pay cut and paying more is not a win-win and there is no way to convince people that is in their best interest even though it is.

Thanks for the info. on Sylvania bulbs, I will look for them. I do look for the country of origin on every purchase. The number of imported food products is growing with a high number from Canada, Brazil and most sea food is from China even if packaged in the U.S. Packaging is another service business which creates no wealth. South Korea imports are increasing also. Aren't you glad we spend a fortune defending them free of charge so they can subsidize their businesses and import to us.

It is not logical to blame a company for not building or expanding and producing in the U.S. if they can't sell what they make. There has to be a better way to address the problem than what our leaders in either party are proposing.

October 16, 2011 at 9:36 a.m.
tderng said...

after what Obama had done to this country in his first term,I really shudder to think about him being a lame duck President.Without having to worry about re-election he would probably restructure America into the U.S.S.A(Un-united Socialist States of Anarchy).Well,let them try I am locked and loaded.And ready to defend my home and country.

October 16, 2011 at 9:42 a.m.
fairmon said...

I have less and less sympathy for some dope head getting hungry and sleeping in the street. The problem is and the government can't determine who is a drug and welfare dependency abuser and those able and willing but without opportunity. So, we wind up supporting both.

Statistics can be misleading. There have been several articles by uninformed journalist commenting on the low number of drug users detected by Florida's testing requirement to receive welfare and suggesting or concluding it is a failure. The stat omitted is the significant drop in request and net reduction in welfare spending. This causes one to wonder how many no longer reside in Florida due to their testing requirement that may now be in their state in order to get benefits without being tested?

I do hope the federal government doesn't implement a testing program. If they did section 8 housing may create a hell of a problem for cities. However the feds would probably include two weeks at the Betty Ford or similar foundation making the owners wealthy at tax payers expense with continued benefits for the abuser. Yes I am cynical.

October 16, 2011 at 10:01 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: "Dodds/Frank only passed recently. Could it be he failed to keep promises to both Wall St. and voters? . . . Perhaps it is they have figured out he is a typical two faced, lying con artist who has one objective, staying in office and having the power, influence and wealth federal office provides.”

Specifically, what promises are you claiming that President Obama made to Wall Street in his 2008 presidential campaign, Harp3339? . . . Are you suggesting that he promised Wall Street that there would be no reform of the banking and financial investment industry?

And since Wall Street’s money is going to Mitt Romney what sort of campaign promises do you think he is making to Wall Street? Is Romney promising to take us back in time before financial reform? Is this what you are thinking? If so, it certainly doesn't appeal to me.

October 16, 2011 at 10:07 a.m.
fairmon said...

mntl responded with...

Facts are facts, Lumpy. Why are you having such a difficult time facing the fact that Wall Street’s money to going to Mitt Romney? Would you prefer Wall Street give their money to President Obama? Are you upset that Mitt Romney is Wall Street’s guy? What is it?

I don't care for Romney but forced to select him or Obama I hope they contribute to Romney and zero to Obama. Believe it or not there are some smart business people that realize a better economy in America is also good for them. Many of the bankers would like to see businesses grow, prosper and need a loan and employ people they could also loan money to. They don't loan to unemployed people or failing businesses. Every dollar the government confiscates in taxes or rising energy and other prices is one less dollar that could be spent buying goods and services or invested in a CD, in bonds or a mutual fund.

October 16, 2011 at 10:15 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: "I don't care for Romney but forced to select him or Obama I hope they contribute to Romney and zero to Obama. . . Every dollar the government confiscates in taxes or rising energy and other prices is one less dollar that could be spent buying goods and services or invested in a CD, in bonds or a mutual fund."

Since Mitt Romney has made it rather clear that he prefers the status quo when it comes to Wall Street and the bankers, your vote comes as no big surprise to me, Harp3339.

Speaking of taxes, have you ever wonder about the cost to the U.S. Treasury since 2001 from the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans?

The National Priorities Project and Citizens for Tax Justice has created a site with a real time ticker that shows the cost of the Bush Tax cuts. When I checked the site earlier the cost was:

1,034,925,089,966

http://costoftaxcuts.com/

October 16, 2011 at 10:53 a.m.
librul said...

Osama must be smiling in the embrace of Jesus.

October 16, 2011 at 10:59 a.m.
miraweb said...

Excellent cartoon, Clay. Well done sir!

October 16, 2011 at 11:03 a.m.

Solyndra: Money spent on a working factory. Completely legal and non-criminal activities. Sometimes investments fail. That's not a crime, not when you try your best.

Now if you want to find some criminals, go find the ones in Beijing who subsidized their own industries to drive prices down and collapse ours. Or is that more of an act of war?

In any case, if only the Economy had the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. But I guess that's a dirty mean old government regulation that stifles jobs! We'd surely have a lot more ocean liners around if not for it!

October 16, 2011 at 11:13 a.m.
fairmon said...

Understanding the budget/spending cuts:

Tax revenue=$2,170,000,000,000

Budget=$3,280,000,000,000

New debt=$1,650,000,000,000

Recent budget cuts=$38,500,000,000

Drop the zeros and consider it a household budget:

Income=$21,700

Household spending=$38,500

New household debt=$16,500

Household spending reduced $385

Outstanding credit balance=$142,710

The mind is a wonderful instrument that will block out traumatic or unpleasant events or news. But, the facts don't change and prompts the question after the wealthy are made less wealthy what is the next step to stop the slide? Does this family need to drastically reduce spending and increase their income? They may have to drop out of the country club and use a non motorized push mower on the lawn and make other difficult spending decisions. Aren't you glad the POTUS and a lot of congress are lawyers instead of legitimate business people or intelligent economist.

October 16, 2011 at 11:20 a.m.
potcat said...

MountianL, you need to read David Plouffe's book about Obama. Plouffe ran Obama's Campaign, and he writes of Obama and Axelrods meeting with the big Wall Street Bankers and investers at the end of 2006. They were an agreement, Wall Sreet will supply the money, and Obama agreed to do their bidding and bring along the Gamblers and Thieves and appoint them to positions of running Americas Finacial institutions, guess what, He DID. Wall Street appointed and approved Obama's Presidency.. not the Voters... Sorry.

If you believe the Propaganda that Wall Street is backing Romney, you are very Gulliable and Partisan in knowing the Truth and wishing it were true, sorry it is not.

Every one should watch last Sun. 60 Min. interview with CEO General Electrics Jeffrey Immelt, who Obama has appointed to head Americas Economical Team, or i should say Wall Streets.

Immelt is known for shipping jobs out of America daily and ramping it up so fast, its scary. Why would Obama do this? I think its obvious, don't you.

October 16, 2011 at 11:21 a.m.
DarkSky said...

Average starting pay of Wal-Mart employee $8.75/hour

Wal-Mart CEO Michael Duke pay $16,826.00/hour (yes,that's per hour)

October 16, 2011 at 11:22 a.m.
onetinsoldier said...

Repugnants are the party that doesn't want to work with anyone and I can't wait til the day it becomes acceptable to beat them where they stand with Louisville sluggers. Lumpy I never said a repugnant was above a child molester. They aren't. Both are low life scum out to do harm to the least among us. Lifes new rule. A piece for everyone or no peace for anyone. My triple great Grandfather marched with 17th Missouri through Georgia once and it would be a great honor to repeat that feat.

October 16, 2011 at 11:31 a.m.

JonRoss, they didn't put half a billion in their pocket. They put the money into building a factory, which was just what they were supposed to do with it. The money from that did go into people's pockets, but not large-scale fraud. Just pay for labor and materials.

Exactly what is supposed to happen. Stop making false claims. Go visit the factory itself, see if they got good value for the money.

And no, the business model was not unsustainable, except in the face of, as I said, foreign action, which dropped the price of solar panels, which meant that Solyndra's more expensive, but functional process was not as cost-effective. You want to hate anybody? Go hate the Chinese. Tell them to stop killing American industry. Tell our government to stop letting it happen if you want.

Don't make up offenses just because you want to find reasons to hate the President.

As for the CEO of Wal-Mart, where would he be without the hundreds of thousands of people working for him? They know to keep their customers happy, their customers are the source of their income, but their employees are just as important. Unless you believe the CEO can run all the stores himself.

October 16, 2011 at 11:35 a.m.
miraweb said...

I agree that hard work should be rewarded. $8.75 an hour doesn't seem like much of a reward.

If you could show that the CEO of Walmart is working 1900 times harder than the people actually in the store your argument might make a little sense.

He's getting paid not for "working harder" but for other values (right or wrong) that we have about class, education, connections - and, yes, money.

Has he earned a salary above $8.75 an hour? Quite possibly.

But there is little chance Walmart would make what it does without its employees stocking shelves, helping customers, and sweeping the floors.

"No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level -- I mean the wages of decent living." FDR, 1933

October 16, 2011 at 11:38 a.m.
potcat said...

I would also like to say.. No way a Republican was ever going to be approved for being "elected" President, even Wall Street would have a hard time getting America to buy that. After W.and the Republican Murderous and record setting spending Spree, it wasn't going to happen, and neither was there going to be President Hillary Clinton. Wall Street couldn't buy her off, and thats the the truth and opinion i have come to.

October 16, 2011 at 11:39 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Potcat said: " Wall Street appointed and approved Obama's Presidency.. not the Voters... Sorry. . . If you believe the Propaganda that Wall Street is backing Romney, you are very Gulliable and Partisan in knowing the Truth and wishing it were true, sorry it is not."

Indeed, the facts show that Wall Street donated heavily to Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008, Potcat. Just as the facts are showing that Wall Street is currently donating heavily to Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. Why are you denying this fact?

"It is no secret that the relationship between President Obama and Wall Street has chilled. A striking measure of that is the latest campaign finance reports.

Mitt Romney has raised far more money than Mr. Obama this year from the firms that have been among Wall Street’s top sources of donations for the two candidates.

That gap underscores the growing alienation from Mr. Obama among many rank-and-file financial professionals and Mr. Romney’s aggressive and successful efforts to woo them.

The imbalance exists at large investment banks and hedge funds, private equity firms and commercial banks, according to a New York Times analysis of the firms that accounted for the most campaign contributions from the industry to Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama in 2008, based on data from the Federal Election Commission and the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Since this spring, Mr. Romney has raised $1.5 million from employees of firms like Morgan Stanley; Highbridge Capital Management, a hedge fund; and Blackstone, a private equity firm. Mr. Obama has raised just over $270,000 from firms that were among his leading sources of campaign cash in 2008.

Employees of Goldman Sachs, who in the 2008 campaign gave Mr. Obama over $1 million — more than donors from any other private employer in the country — have given him about $45,000 this year. Mr. Romney has raised about $350,000 from the firm’s employees.

Those figures do not account for all Wall Street giving, nor for the full force of each candidate’s robust network of Wall Street “bundlers,” wealthy individuals who raise money from friends, family members and business associates. . .

. . . The gap in Wall Street giving to Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney underscores disenchantment with Mr. Obama in the industry and the challenges both candidates will face in grappling with public anger about the financial world."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11289/1182636-84-0.stm?cmpid=news.xml

October 16, 2011 at 11:41 a.m.
terrybham said...

Great cartoon Clay, as usual. Keep up the good work.

October 16, 2011 at 12:12 p.m.
ricardo said...

The Titanic is sinking and the 1% just want to b***h about how uncomfortable the lifeboat seats are.

October 16, 2011 at 12:19 p.m.
DarkSky said...

Is the CEO of Wal-Mart worth 1900(maybe a 100 or 200 that would still be $800/$1600 a hour) workers? Not in my book. But then I don't work or shop there.

The Solyndra thing is for me just the cost of doing buisness, eh?

Taxpayers have been footing the bill on so many Federal boondoggles for the last 100 years. So, the money is gone. So what? Hold someone accountable for it? Like the 2008 housing bubble burst? People, don't you know "it's to big to fail!"

JonRoss says " Standard of buisness conduct" HA! How about Bear Stearns, Goldman-Sachs, AIG, Citigroup? Where are their "standards"? Shouldv'e let em fail then they would be broken up and sold off. But that didn't happen. The people running those companies got their % and bonuses.

October 16, 2011 at 12:19 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Tdemg said: "After what Obama had done to this country in his first term, I really shudder to think about him being a lame duck President. Without having to worry about re-election he would probably restructure America into the U.S.S.A(Un-united Socialist States of Anarchy)."

Hmmmm . . . and these facts don't make you shudder, Tdemg?

"C.E.O.’s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001."

"Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/opinion/07kristof.html?pagewanted=print

October 16, 2011 at 12:28 p.m.
hambone said...

jonRoss, if it were all about hard work and risk taking, coal miners should be making $ 50,000/hr!

The CEO of Wal-Mart is just a yes man. People under him make the calls and he says yes and gets the big bucks!!

October 16, 2011 at 12:40 p.m.

JonRoss, I don't understand the part where you make things up that are completely untrue, and expect me to believe it when the facts are not at all what you claim.

The money was for building a factory. The factory was built. The money went into thousands of pockets, and I have seen no evidence produced by you, or anybody else, that there was significant actual corruption involved. I'm sure somebody in one of the construction companies hired his cousin or brother to laze around, but I'm not exactly going to get irate over that.

And yeah, you do hate Obama. At least be honest about it. If you didn't hate Obama, you wouldn't be making up so many wild and inflated claims about him.

You should really look up debt structuring though, the concept of various priorities in debt repayment is quite well known in business.

October 16, 2011 at 12:40 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

JonRoss- "He is the first president America has ever had that cares not one whit about what the citizens want, he is totally absorbed in forcing his radical concepts on us."

Hmm, health care reform, middle class tax cuts, wall street reforms, environmental reforms, etc.

Wow the man is truly radical. I guess people have no concerns about these issues.

October 16, 2011 at 12:40 p.m.
anniebelle said...

2005 (here's clue -- Bush/Cheney were at the helm) Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management.

Again, 2008 -- same criminals Bush/Cheney -- took $800+ Billion out of our treasury to hand over to the banksters on Wall Street.

You Koch suckers would have a lot more credibility if you had been hollering about that. You are so pitiful, you're shameless and brainless. Just bleat like sheep after your masters. Quit denying history and we might believe some of your rhetoric.

October 16, 2011 at 12:44 p.m.
onetinsoldier said...

And they won't give it back willingly. It will have to be taken. Congress can do it or the people will.

October 16, 2011 at 12:44 p.m.
onetinsoldier said...

Class warfare has been going on for a long time and it's about time both sides joined the fight. OCCUPY

October 16, 2011 at 12:47 p.m.
potcat said...

Limric, Check out Vanity Fair Magazine this MO. The cover is Johnny Depp, its about a project he's working on by the Hunter S. Thompson novel "*The Rum Diary", that Depp himself discovered.

The Article is written by one of my favorites "Nick Tosches" , check out archives on his experience with smoking Opium.

I am reading right now "California and Bust" by Michael Lewis, Vanity Fair, A must read for all, i am boiling Mad!!

My wish would be one hour with Depp,he he he, I'm kidding, no i'm not.

October 16, 2011 at 1:11 p.m.

Sorry JR, but if the same thing happened with a private industry, they'd write off the 1 or 2 cent loss out of the whole and move on, because it's just not worth it.

The thing about this faux-investigation is that they don't have to spend their own money, they're spending ours, while ignoring real and substantive issues they could do something about. And you're cheering them on in their circus, which they just use to distract you from any important job they could be working on.

However, if you want, you can always attend the Bankruptcy auction to see what assets are present. They built the factory, and you know what you can do? See if it's worth buying. Maybe you can manufacture something important there yourself!

Just remember, industrial fabrication doesn't mean you get to make up large-scale lies.

October 16, 2011 at 1:20 p.m.
fairmon said...

anniebelle said....

2005 (here's clue -- Bush/Cheney were at the helm) Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management.

I did raise hell and writing Wamp at the time and Corker about it. Does this make it OK that this administration pissed away one half trillion on an investment their own advisers were against? An investment that the venture capitalist that invest in risky or start up business avoided. Two wrongs don't equal one right. As someone pointed out they did spend it and build a factory that when divested they are in a position to recover their money in front of the "loan" from tax payers which is unheard of.

Again, 2008 -- same criminals Bush/Cheney -- took $800+ Billion out of our treasury to hand over to the banksters on Wall Street. At least the banks have paid back the loan plus interest. Had they failed there was no agreement that the owners and stockholders would be paid in front of the government/tax payers.

There is no defending the prior administration but the reason so many are going against this lying two faced incompetent con artist is his failure to deliver on promises. I will balance the budget in my first two years in office. Unemployment will be under 8%. I will close Gitmo, I will quickly bring an end to the two costly wars we are in and can't afford. I will stop a speeding bullet and leap tall buildings in a single bound type BS.

I would love to see every loop hole closed with zero deductions, reductions, credits etc. end. No problem with some increase in the rates for the mega wealthy but I would like to also see the manipulation using grants, subsidies, incentives etc. end.

October 16, 2011 at 1:34 p.m.
fairmon said...

mntl posted...

"C.E.O.’s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001." "Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent

And, the verifiable root cause of this was or is? Will taxing the wealthy more fix this and balance the budget, stop the increase in the national debt?

October 16, 2011 at 1:41 p.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Two DemocRATic deckhands helping the GOP get away. Talk about turning your back on people. And you OCCUPIERS, I prefer to work rather than chant and march. I wanted to do that, I'd go to Greece, France, Egypt, Beirut, Damascus, Tripoli and so on and so on and so on. You chant, I'll laugh and you and cash my paycheck.

October 16, 2011 at 2:12 p.m.

JR...It'll be hard to attend an event that only exists in fantasies. But tell you what, in the event of an actual trial, why don't you promise to attend the post-acquittal release with a sign saying that you were wrong?

I'd also suggest you realize that for every sin you imagine is made up about President Bush, there's somebody who says Bush did no wrong, and made the country great by spending us trillions more into debt! You want to come up with real complaints about Obama? Go right ahead.

Just don't bring up false stories like this Solyndra BS. At least you're not a Congressman though, who while denouncing this whole program on the one hand, uses the other to write a letter begging for more money for a company in his or her own district.

October 16, 2011 at 2:17 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Wal-Mart is a private entity, so why is it anyone's business what the CEO makes....unless you are a stockholder. If you own stock and disagree with the CEO's compensation, vote your shares against it. Otherwise, it's none of your business.

October 16, 2011 at 2:35 p.m.
ricardo said...

The proxy votes of Walmart and the rest of the Fortune 500 are controlled by a plutocracy of a few individuals and mutual fund managers, not by the 100 shares you hold.

October 16, 2011 at 2:43 p.m.
Rufus_T_Firefly said...

Republicans are so PROTECTIVE of a fetus and yet FEEL no responsibility for HUMANITY.

When that FETUS matures and has no JOB, where are the Republicans?

When that FETUS matures and has NO health care, where are the Republicans?

When that FETUS matures, has a family, and must provide health care and put food on the table, where are the Republicans?

Why do Republicans ABANDON the FETUS when the FETUS needs them most?

CLICK HERE --- > MY VALUES

October 16, 2011 at 2:46 p.m.
miraweb said...

A more effective way to deal with a company whose values you don't agree with is to take your business elsewhere. Bank of America is currently having a strong taste of that medicine.

That said, there need to be checks and balances against all types of power - be it governmental or corporate.

October 16, 2011 at 2:48 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

TinaFrench said... "Same crap, different day"

Yes, it is. If I come by and find the same crap every day you are expecting me to be creative and try to bring some value to this useless page of socialist fleabagger propaganda?

Thank goodness for those who have the patience to spend time engaging in a war of words with the intellectually lazy Bennett worshipers! You could lay out reality for them on a solid 24 karat gold platter and they will continue to chant their mindless talking points. Some of them will invest hours a day, hundreds of words repeating the same vapid garbage that Clay queues up for them.

Down with Big Business!

Down with Big Banks!

The Tea Party is Dangerous and Extreme

God Sucks Government is Great!

Republicans are Stupid

Oil is Evil

Coal is the Devil’s Seed

CO2 is Scary

Oh yes, and the Rich Are Evil and as such I Am Entitled to Enlist the Government to Confiscate Their Wealth and Give It To Me!

That probably about covers it, not enough depth to challenge the intellect of a 5 year old.

I hope I am not so hopelessly stupid and desperate for something to do when I retire!

October 16, 2011 at 3:01 p.m.
fairmon said...

Obama may be challenged with the tea party and the flea party against him. Diane Sawyer certainly exposed the medias position when she said the protest was in 100's of cities in a thousand countries around the world. This is similar to I have visited 58 states when there are only around 198 countries in the world.

October 16, 2011 at 3:13 p.m.
hambone said...

Nothing on this forum anymore but wannabe 1%ers who have fed at slop trough of Fox, Limbaugh and Beck so long they are drunk on the swill!!

October 16, 2011 at 3:15 p.m.
fairmon said...

ricardo said... The proxy votes of Walmart and the rest of the Fortune 500 are controlled by a plutocracy of a few individuals and mutual fund managers, not by the 100 shares you hold.

It is still a publicly owned company and stock holders are the ones with their investment at risk whether through mutual funds or persoanlly owned. Those objecting to the CEO pay can affect the decisions of the company and B.O.D. Those not owning stock can not shop there and let them know why which may be more effective than stock holder votes. Or, you can keep pissing and moaning and suggesting an incompetent government do something. Should the government nationalize them or just tell them how to run their business? There doesn't seem to be any outrage that essentially every product they sale is imported with the parking lots full almot 24/7.

October 16, 2011 at 3:21 p.m.

Wow, Diane Sawyer misspoke on television? Call out the national guard, this travesty will not stand! We must crush whatever news network hired her for letting somebody like her on the air!

Tell me, should she have her tongue ripped out, or can we just sew her mouth shut as punishment?

The more petty the grievances, the less likely the argument has merit.

As for Wal-Mart, they've made a point of relying on public assistance, with all the bonds they have received to construct stores, all the roads they use to transport their goods, all the law enforcement officers they use to help stop crimes, and all the employees they have on welfare because they don't pay enough in terms of wages.

And you can bet they're working to influence government too.

October 16, 2011 at 3:23 p.m.
DarkSky said...

JonRoss, I think the whole system is corrupt. Both major parties, in my view, are responsible. The public is responsible. The corps are responsible. That's why I don't shop at Wal-Mart. I vote not only in elections but also with my money when I choose not to support companies whose values I don't agree with.

But for you to blame the President for all the problems that plague America today is absurb. Congress controls the purse-strings of our gov't, not Obama. These problems we have, have been in the making for decades. Of course the politicians have been bought. That's the system we have today.

I'm not against capitalism. If you can work hard, make sacrafices, you can excel in this country. I'm against un-regulated capitalism, otherwise our air would kill us, our water be poison, and our jobs would cripple us.

But I keep voting and hoping that change can happen.

October 16, 2011 at 3:36 p.m.
patriot1 said...

As for WMT, I have made some money on their stock through the years, thanks to compotent leadership. Wait... is that George Soros I see sneaking into that life raft?

October 16, 2011 at 3:43 p.m.
ricardo said...

I don't shop at Walmart and I don't own stock there, but if you believe that the handful of stock shares you own makes a difference on what the company or BOD does, then you are extremely naive. I do believe that the influence of large corporations (Walmart being one of them) into political campaign financing and lobbying has gotten out of hand. Congress has the power to change this, but they have already been bought off.

October 16, 2011 at 3:43 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: “Will taxing the wealthy more fix this and balance the budget, stop the increase in the national debt?”

Believe I answered this question for you last week, Harp3339. Since nothing has changed, the answer is still the same – increasing the taxes for the "ultra rich" will help reduce our deficit. As to the amount, I think Buffet ‘s projected $20 billion annual estimate is probably still valid.

(Bloomburg) “Warren Buffett, the billionaire who partnered this year with President Barack Obama to push for tax increases on the wealthy, urged policymakers to target gains made by speculators with short-term investment horizons.

If you give me a choice between taking $1,000 from 20 million families or hitting 50,000 people who shuffle money around all day, I’ll take it from the people who shuffle money,” Buffett told Bloomberg Television’s Betty Liu today in an interview from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange.

“Somebody that buys a stock-index future and sells it 10 seconds later and gets 60 percent by long-term gains -- he would have a different world to live in,” Buffett said of his push for changes to the tax code. . .

Raising taxes on about 50,000 “ultra-rich” individuals who pay low taxes may add as much as $20 billion to government revenue each year and help reduce the deficit, Buffett said. . .

Global investors overwhelmingly back Obama’s proposed tax increase for the wealthy to cut the deficit, according to a Bloomberg Global Poll. By a margin of 63 percent to 32 percent, respondents in the quarterly survey of 1,031 investors, analysts and traders who are Bloomberg subscribers supported the call for the rich to pay more. . .

“The economy will not be hurt at all by taxing those who pay very low rates a higher rate,” Buffett said.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-09-30/buffett-says-tax-rich-money-shufflers-to-relieve-families.html

October 16, 2011 at 4:28 p.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Mrs Pelosi's House and Mr Reid's Senate passed the bank/Wall St bailouts and President Bush signed 'em--so when we eliminate Democrats and RINOs, we're left with: the Tea Party.

If Mr Buffet thinks D.C. can spend his money better than he can, the IRS takes checks. If he thinks his secretary can spend it better than he can, he can give it to her instead of whining about what DC should do. And he thinks $20 billion will do much for a deficit of a trillion or so?

'In America the lower class are Democrats. The middle class are Republicans. The upper class are Communists'--an unnamed European to Henry Luce and Whittaker Chambers, around A.D. 1950 or so, quoted in Chambers' book WITNESS.

October 16, 2011 at 4:50 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

AndrewLohr said: "If Mr Buffet thinks D.C. can spend his money better than he can, the IRS takes checks. . . And he thinks $20 billion will do much for a deficit of a trillion or so?"

Andrew, I believe you're missing Mr. Buffet's point - in a very big way. Haven't you ever wondered about the cost to the U.S. Treasury since 2001 from the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans? The National Priorities Project and Citizens for Tax Justice has created a site with a real time ticker that shows the cost of the Bush Tax cuts. I just checked the site for you and the cost is:1,035,002,175,110

October 16, 2011 at 5:16 p.m.
fairmon said...

mntl said....

I believe you're missing Mr. Buffet's point - in a very big way. Haven't you ever wondered about the cost to the U.S. Treasury since 2001 from the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans? The National Priorities Project and Citizens for Tax Justice has created a site with a real time ticker that shows the cost of the Bush Tax cuts. I just checked the site for you and the cost is:1,035,002,175,110

Who is missing the point? I have never objected to increasing taxes just the sloppy spending. This penny wise dollar foolish issue essentially means without the Bush tax cuts, which included lower incomes, that the deficit would be 13.7 tillion instead of 14.7 trillion.

October 16, 2011 at 5:34 p.m.
anniebelle said...

Here's some facts for you to digest.

National Debt Increased by 75% under Bush:

2001 - $5.871 trillion 2008 - $10.640 trillion

National Debt Increased 25% Under Obama:

Jan 31st 2009 = $10.569-trillion Jan 31st 2011 = $14.131-trillion

But of the $3.56-trillion increase, 98% was carry over from Bush programs:

Bush: $910-billion = Interest on Debt 2009/2011 Bush: $360-billion = Iraq War Spending 2009/2011 Bush: $319-billion = TARP/Bailout Balance from 2008 (as of May 2010) Bush: $419-billion = Bush Recession Caused Drop in taxes Bush: $190-billion = Bush Medicare Drug Program 2009/2011 Bush: $211-billion = Bush Medicare Part-D 2009/2011 Bush: $771-billion = Bush Tax Cuts 2009/2011

Bush's contribution:

2001 to 2008: $4.769-trillion 2009 to 2010: $3.181-trillion

Total: $7.950-trillion

Increase Since 2001 = $14.131 - $5.871 = $8.26-trillion

Bush's contribution: $7.950-trillion / $8.26-trillion = 96%

Increase caused By Bush's Programs: 96% Increase caused by Obama's Programs: 4%

Considering the help for the auto companies that has kept millions employed plus a modest stimulus program.... the statistics again prove Democrats to be much better managers of the people's money.

October 16, 2011 at 5:43 p.m.
fairmon said...

hwtnb said...

As for Wal-Mart, they've made a point of relying on public assistance, with all the bonds they have received to construct stores, all the roads they use to transport their goods, all the law enforcement officers they use to help stop crimes, and all the employees they have on welfare because they don't pay enough in terms of wages. And you can bet they're working to influence government too.

I have no doubt they do influence governments. But, do they pay their property and other local taxes? Do they pay the bonds interest and principle when due? Do they pay the fuel taxes for roads maintenance and all other legislatively imposed local, state and federal cost? If so there is no legitimate complaint regarding those items. What I don't understand is why so many people complaining about their pay scale and the CEO pay still shop there for a large percentage of their purchases. Why do people not boycott them and insist they pay people better and the CEO less?

October 16, 2011 at 5:46 p.m.
dude_abides said...

BRP said... "Yes, it is. If I come by and find the same crap every day you are expecting me to be creative and try to bring some value to this useless page of socialist fleabagger propaganda?"

I certainly don't expect that of you, BRP, not at all. If the wealthy of this country, collectively, had a desk, you'd have spent your entire existence under it, nodding your head in agreement. That life is not very conducive to creativity.

October 16, 2011 at 6:14 p.m.
fairmon said...

Average starting pay of Walmart employee $8.75/hour

Walmart CEO Michael Duke pay $16,826.00/hour (yes,that's per hour)

Yep that is the normal starting rate. They could cut the CEO pay in half and increase every Walmarts hourly rate by almost .04C per hour or $1.60 per week. Not saying neither should happen but this is about the impact of Buffet's supporting 20 billion more per year in taxes from the rich.

What would happen if our brilliant leaders enabled Americans to competitively produce all the imported products the Walmart sales? One elite congress member stated "our people are capable of higher level and technical work, they don't make trinkets". Damn we do have some people not capable of more than trinket making which is a hell of a lot better than being supported by the government and doing nothing.

October 16, 2011 at 6:20 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

DarkSky, your 3:36 post is spot on. Bravo.

October 16, 2011 at 6:22 p.m.

harp: Well, you can find a few examples of how Wal-mart has engaged in dodgy maneuvers with its taxes. And no, fuel taxes do not cover the costs of highway maintenance, if you want to do that, you will have to raise them. This estimate from 2007 are that the number is around 51 percent of the money spent on transportation comes from such taxes. To be fair to Wal-Mart, they aren't the only ones under-contributing, most everybody is, especially with the increase in fuel efficiency not necessarily decreasing road wear, but no, you can't say their fuel taxes cover their costs of operations. And I don't even know that they don't play games with their fuel taxes.

If you want to know why people aren't foolish enough to limit themselves to the boycott option, it's because they know it won't work, and no, they can't just camp out in front of the stores because other people will gladly blind to any abuses they do report, while condemning them for getting in the way.

October 16, 2011 at 6:26 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: “Who is missing the point? I have never objected to increasing taxes just the sloppy spending.”

Who are you trying to fool, Harp3339? Last week you went on a real rant when I suggested that we needed to discontinue the preferential treatment given to individuals who earn their income from capital gains and dividends. Indeed, how quickly you forget.

“For the very richest Americans, low tax rates on capital gains are better than any Christmas gift. . . this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically. The rates on capital gains — which include profits from the sale of stocks, bonds and real estate — should be a key point in negotiations over how to shrink the budget deficit, some lawmakers say. . .

Most Americans depend on wages and salaries for their income, which is subject to a graduated tax so the big earners pay higher percentages. The capital gains tax turns that idea on its head, capping the rate at 15 percent for long-term investments. As a result, anyone making more than $34,500 a year in wages and salary is taxed at a higher rate than a billionaire is taxed on untold millions in capital gains.

While it’s true that many middle-class Americans own stocks or bonds, they tend to stash them in tax-sheltered retirement accounts, where the capital gains rate does not apply. By contrast, the richest Americans reap huge benefits. Over the past 20 years, more than 80 percent of the capital gains income realized in the United States has gone to 5 percent of the people; about half of all the capital gains have gone to the wealthiest 0.1 percent.

The way you get rich in this world is not by working hard,” said Marty Sullivan, an economist and a contributing editor to Tax Analysts. “It’s by owning large amounts of assets and having those things appreciate.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/capital-gains-tax-rates-benefiting-wealthy-are-protected-by-both-parties/2011/09/06/gIQAdJmSLK_story.html

October 16, 2011 at 6:27 p.m.

TO the moronic first comment. 75% of women, 50% of children and 20% of men were saved from the TItanic....HIstorically accurate. ALso, this cartoon is extremely biased as both parties are to blame for this sinking ship.

October 16, 2011 at 6:33 p.m.
dude_abides said...

rebelliousnature... I don't think... they didn't say... the ship's not the... but the repub... nevermind.

October 16, 2011 at 8:03 p.m.
fairmon said...

mntl...

I don't think you have a clue regarding capital gains. That is a different issue than ordinary income rates that I have repeatedly said I have no objection to being increased. Short term gains are now taxed as ordinary income except for the favored hedge fund managers. If you buy something and your money is invested in that item or business for 10 years and you sell it for a 10% profit is it "fair" that you pay taxes as though the earnings all occurred in one year? Keep in mind inflation in that ten year period would be no less than 2% per year compounded while your average increase in value is 1% per year not compounded. Tell me how it is fair that you pay taxes in the year of the gain as though it was earned income for the past one year which means you actually have a loss in buying power on the investment?

Where do you think the start up money for a new business listed on the stock market comes from? They are called IPOs (initial product offering) which people buy and if the value increases and they sell before 12 months for a profit they pay ordinary income rates. If they hold it longer than 12 months and profit they pay the long term capital gains rates regardless of how long held. Increase those rates very much and there will be no investors to fund new businesses ventures. The thing those not investing don't want to hear is about those investments that go the route of Solyndra with losses of principle that are held more than 12 months and can only be used to reduce gains $3,000 per year and that has not been increased in years if ever. If you want to change the rules then change it both ways. If gains are taxed as ordinary income or a higher rate then allow all prior losses to be used to off set gains until recovered. It is not as simple as just socking it to them, there can be serious unintended consequences with severe impact on the markets. Dividends are a separate subject.

October 16, 2011 at 8:48 p.m.
lumpy said...

This "revolution" should be called the st revolution. Literally and figuratively. Until we get our way, we're going pee and st in the streets until you give us what you've earned! Obama's newest and most vocal constituency are public defecaters. The 99% slogan is about as empty and vacant as "hope and change" and "yes we can".

The dumb, lazy, greedy, and envious are getting whipped up into a frenzy by a community agitator.

Why is it any of anyone's business what a CEO makes? Why is a CEO being paid millions evil, but not an actor, singer, celebrity or athlete? You leftists have no credibility. You're hypocrites.

What you should be up in arms about are politicians who leave office millions of dollars wealthier than when they came in, like Dodd, Frank, Pelosi, Reid and Obama. Union bosses raking in millions is ok, but a private entity paying a CEO what they want is not?

October 16, 2011 at 9:04 p.m.

I can find no shortage of people lamenting the excessive money and adulation that each of those persons receives. Especially the ones who are just famous for being famous.

October 16, 2011 at 9:12 p.m.
ricardo said...

harp, by your argument, people who buy lottery tickets should be able to deduct their cost basis, since they get taxed on the winnings. Sounds great. No downside to "investing". If you're losing more than $3000, then you're obviously not a very good investor.

October 16, 2011 at 9:13 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: "I don't think you have a clue regarding capital gains. That is a different issue than ordinary income rates that I have repeatedly said I have no objection to being increased."

Please, Harp3339. Personal income is personal income. During the Reagan era both types of income were taxed at the same rate – 27 percent. The only reason there is such a huge gap between the two forms of income now is due to manipulative politics designed to give preferential tax treatment to a certain segment of the population – the wealthy sector.

October 16, 2011 at 9:57 p.m.
alprova said...

Harp wrote about Walmart: "I have no doubt they do influence governments. But, do they pay their property and other local taxes?"

In most cases, no. In Ft. Oglethorpe, Georgia, the city paid for all the improvements to lure the first store Walmart built on Battlefield Parkway, and gave it to them tax-free for ten years. They abandoned that property before paying one cent in taxes and built the Super Center two miles away, outside of the city's limits, thumbing their nose at the city of Ft. Oglethorpe.

"Do they pay the bonds interest and principle when due?"

In that case, no they didn't.

"Do they pay the fuel taxes for roads maintenance and all other legislatively imposed local, state and federal cost?"

No they don't. Walmart is very adept in making desperate municipalities, eager for a promise of an eventual return on investment through local taxes, to pay those costs on behalf of Walmart up-front, to lure them into opening stores in those municipalities.

October 16, 2011 at 9:57 p.m.
tderng said...

onetinsoldier...anytime you wish to march through here come on down...we got a little sumthin for you!!We are fully armed this time and much more ready to fight.So any time you get to feelin froggy take a leap BOY!!!

October 16, 2011 at 9:59 p.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "If you buy something and your money is invested in that item or business for 10 years and you sell it for a 10% profit is it "fair" that you pay taxes as though the earnings all occurred in one year?"

What difference does it make, if the tax rate is the same over the ten year period? It makes perfect sense to tax them for the year that you cashed in on your investment and had access to those profits.

"Keep in mind inflation in that ten year period would be no less than 2% per year compounded while your average increase in value is 1% per year not compounded."

You're reaching. We are right now at the same rate of inflation that we were in January of 2000, making the net inflation rate over the past ten years zero.

"Tell me how it is fair that you pay taxes in the year of the gain as though it was earned income for the past one year which means you actually have a loss in buying power on the investment?"

For the same reason that you could have lost all of your investment over the same ten year period, effectively giving you a tax write-off beginning the year that the stock depletes to zero.

"Where do you think the start up money for a new business listed on the stock market comes from? They are called IPOs (initial product offering) which people buy and if the value increases and they sell before 12 months for a profit they pay ordinary income rates. If they hold it longer than 12 months and profit they pay the long term capital gains rates regardless of how long held."

Thus, the reason why there exist two different tax rates. The incentive effectively, is to persuade people to hold onto their stocks for longer periods of time, which is why exercising prematurely is a very bad idea, except in the case of a stock declining in value, which usually results in a loss and a tax write-off.

"Increase those rates very much and there will be no investors to fund new businesses ventures."

I seriously doubt that. If the rates were the same for both short-term and long-term investments, it would still mean that out of every dollar earned, you would get to keep most of that dollar, free and clear. Capital gains are calculated according to the tax bracket your overall income falls into. They are not flat.

"The thing those not investing don't want to hear is about those investments that go the route of Solyndra with losses of principle that are held more than 12 months and can only be used to reduce gains $3,000 per year and that has not been increased in years if ever."

Yes, but you eventually get to write-off all your losses. That too is the way the game is played.

"If you want to change the rules then change it both ways. If gains are taxed as ordinary income or a higher rate then allow all prior losses to be used to off set gains until recovered."

There are ways many loopholes that still exist to avoid taxes on capital gains and the rich take full advantage of them.

October 16, 2011 at 11:18 p.m.
alprova said...

tderng wrote: "onetinsoldier...anytime you wish to march through here come on down...we got a little sumthin for you!!We are fully armed this time and much more ready to fight.So any time you get to feelin froggy take a leap BOY!!!"

Do you really have the courage of your convictions?

Occupy Chattanooga has been going on since Friday in Coolidge Park.

October 16, 2011 at 11:28 p.m.
alprova said...

ricardo wrote: "harp, by your argument, people who buy lottery tickets should be able to deduct their cost basis, since they get taxed on the winnings."

Actually, you are allowed to deduct purchased lottery tickets against any winnings that you have, but you are only allowed to deduct a figure up to the amount you actually win, and only the cost of those lottery tickets purchased during the year in which you win.

In other words, if you start buying $10.00 worth of losing lottery tickets per week on January 1st of the year and you win $1000.00 on December 31st, you will have spent $520.00 for lottery tickets up to the winning ticket. You are also allowed to deduct the cost of the winning ticket as well. Thus, you are allowed to deduct $520.00 from your winnings and you will only have to pay taxes on the remaining $480.00.

You are not required to keep the tickets as proof of purchase, but you are required at the very least, to keep a diary of all amounts spent for lottery tickets during the year.

A handful of states do not honor the Federal deduction from state income taxes. Georgia does, but it has a limited deduction for any taxes on gambling winnings paid to another state. So if you live in Georgia and win the lottery in Tennessee, which does not tax lottery winnings, you will still have to pay income taxes in Georgia.

October 17, 2011 at 12:07 a.m.
fairmon said...

ricardo said... harp, by your argument, people who buy lottery tickets should be able to deduct their cost basis, since they get taxed on the winnings. Sounds great. No downside to "investing". If you're losing more than $3000, then you're obviously not a very good investor.

If someone wins a lottery they can deduct the cost of the tickets plus any gambling losses that year. But, they don't have to put up but $1 per ticket where an investor has to put up the cost of a share of the company and will own no more of the company than bought. In 2008 and 2009 anyone investing lost a lot of money including people saving for retirement. A loss of $60,000 dollars will take 20 years of gains more than $3,000 a year to recover. People that had owned GM stock for years and kept it lost 100% of their investment.

October 17, 2011 at 12:15 a.m.
fairmon said...

The thing those not investing don't want to hear is about those investments that go the route of Solyndra with losses of principle that are held more than 12 months and can only be used to reduce gains $3,000 per year and that has not been increased in years if ever."

Alprova says...... Yes, but you eventually get to write-off all your losses. That too is the way the game is played

True but some want to change the rules so at least make them fair both ways. If I am carrying forward $60,000 in losses and have a good year and make $60,000 I still haven't made any money on investments but the system says I still have to pay long term capital gains tax on $57,000 and carry forward the remaining $57,000. If the rules are changed to have all gains taxed as ordinary income then any income should be reduced by prior losses. What is the logic of limiting the reduction of income by prior losses? If gains continue the following year and no losses remain to be carried forward then the tax revenue will be there. You usually have a more logical response than "tough luck that is the way the game is played".

October 17, 2011 at 12:41 a.m.
fairmon said...

"If you want to change the rules then change it both ways. If gains are taxed as ordinary income or a higher rate then allow all prior losses to be used to off set gains until recovered."

alprova responds with.... There are ways many loopholes that still exist to avoid taxes on capital gains and the rich take full advantage of them.

Remember we are talking about the initiative to close the loop holes and having all income taxed as ordinary income. Remember the people working at Enron, GM, Solyndra and many other less publicized bankruptcies that had their savings in company stock took a loss and are starting over trying to save for retirement and needing to invest in something that keeps up with inflation including food and energy which the fed excludes. The crooks all sold theirs that had been given them as bonuses before the bankruptcy was filed, leaving the workers with losses. Many had been in stock purchase plans outside an IRA which they also lost and those IRA losses are never used. Those with losses will probably not live long enough to recover their losses at $3,000 per year. The number in this predicament is probably a lot larger than anyone wants to believe. The IRS may be able to provide that data bur it won't be publicized by either party since it doesn't fit their agenda.

October 17, 2011 at 1:01 a.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "What is the logic of limiting the reduction of income by prior losses?"

There really isn't any logic behind it at all.

"If gains continue the following year and no losses remain to be carried forward then the tax revenue will be there."

Exactly.

"You usually have a more logical response than "tough luck that is the way the game is played"."

I didn't mean for it to come across like all that. I simply meant that the carry forward rule for losses has been around for long time. Sorry.

October 17, 2011 at 1:33 a.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: " In 2008 and 2009 anyone investing lost a lot of money including people saving for retirement."

I can testify to that one personally. I lost 40% of what I had invested in a retirement account during those two years.

October 17, 2011 at 1:36 a.m.
acerigger said...

John Ross? Is that you Bill O'Rielly???

October 17, 2011 at 6:23 a.m.
EaTn said...

JonRoss--- you must be one of the wealthy trying to hold onto what you have because I can't imagine you being one of the middle class gullible enough to buy into the wealthy propaganda spewed out on right-wing media.

October 17, 2011 at 8:18 a.m.
acerigger said...

The "too big to fail" financial institutions and their political wh*res crashed our economy and no one has been indicted,much less prosecuted,millions unemployed,millions of homes foreclosed,millions in poverty,on and on,and all you worry about is someone urinating on the shrubbery?

BTW,Chief John Ross was an honorable man,I hope you live up to his name-sake.

October 17, 2011 at 8:28 a.m.
lumpy said...

EaTn, you don't have to be one of "the wealthy' to see the foul flea party for what they are, they're anti-american, collectivists, and anti-capitalist. So now wonder Obama supports them.

Ace? Is that you Keith Olberman?

I heard the flea party is meeting in Florida to make a list of their demands. I wonder what they are? Free food, free cars, free drugs, the right to take anything they want from anyone at anytime, and, oh yes, the right to crap and pee on anyone's feet if that person does not cough up what they own to them.

October 17, 2011 at 8:35 a.m.
mymy said...

Many on the left are getting it. It will never happen with those on this site.

The Exasperation of the Democratic Billionaire Real-estate and newspaper mogul Mortimer Zuckerman voted for Obama but began seeing trouble as soon as the stimulus went into the pockets of municipal unions. 'It's as if he doesn't like people," says real-estate mogul and New York Daily News owner Mortimer Zuckerman of the president of the United States. Barack Obama doesn't seem to care for individuals, elaborates Mr. Zuckerman, though the president enjoys addressing millions of them on television. The Boston Properties CEO is trying to understand why Mr. Obama has made little effort to build relationships on Capitol Hill or negotiate a bipartisan economic plan. A longtime supporter of the Democratic Party, Mr. Zuckerman wrote in these pages two months ago that the entire business community was "pleading for some kind of adult supervision" in Washington and "desperate for strong leadership." Writing soon after the historic downgrade of U.S. Treasury debt by Standard & Poor's, he wrote, "I long for a triple-A president to run a triple-A country." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204002304576628673446417268.html

October 17, 2011 at 8:49 a.m.
EaTn said...

lumpy--there are three types of right-wingers; the wealthy, the wanna-be wealthy and the gullible.

October 17, 2011 at 8:53 a.m.
DarkSky said...

Lumpy,I want to know what makes any protesters in the U.S.A, "anti-american"? Because they don't share your view of the world? Gotta remember, Constitutional Rights....

JonRoss, your 7:51am post is totally absurb. The Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street demonstations have been, for the most part, peaceful. No one killed, no shootings, no riots,no burning homes and buisnesses, and no looting.

We as a country, really need to find a common ground. The "right wing, left wing" extremist crap is getting really old and stale.

October 17, 2011 at 9:05 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

JonRoss October 16, 2011 at 1:02 p.m.

-"Middle Class tax cuts ? Where ? How much ? Didn't happen."

I guess you are unfamiliar with the Recovery Act also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which gave $288 billion in tax cuts and benefits for millions of working families and businesses.

-"Wall Street reforms ? Such as ...? Uhh, perhaps you have heard of the Wall Street and Consumer Protection Act signed in 2010?? Dodd-Frank?

"Don't recall any environmental "reforms" either." Obama has pushed for reforms to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, clean energy, cap and trade, (originally supported by Republicans such as John McCain, Scott Brown, Lindsey Graham, Lisa Murkowski, etc. until Obama tried to pass the bill).

Do you even do the most basic research before posting questions like the above?

October 17, 2011 at 9:11 a.m.

WOW. How anyone can still defend the work of Obama (and Clay Bennett) is remarkable.

October 17, 2011 at 9:19 a.m.
lumpy said...

Let's examine who has thrown their support to the Occupy crappers. Let's see, there's China now, (China!), communinists, nazis, Chavez and the likes of Sean Penn. I'd say it's a foul mix of hypocrites and anti-americans. Unless the Occupy crappers become equal opportunity criticizers and attack Obama and the Democrat Party as well, then I maintain that they're just tools of the Democrat Party.

This is an attempt by Obama to finds some way to hold on to power even if it means violence and chaos. He'd do well as the dictator of a bannana republic.

What people should be protesting is the shockingly bad stewardship of our hard earned money. Hard earned by people of all economic brackets. It's Washington that should be protested, not private entities. Obama is attempting to convince everyone that he hasn't been around since 2008. Anyone with half a brain isn't buying into it, so now he's whipping up the brain dead, people like the Occupy crappers.

October 17, 2011 at 9:58 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said... Harp3339 wrote: " In 2008 and 2009 anyone investing lost a lot of money including people saving for retirement."

I can testify to that one personally. I lost 40% of what I had invested in a retirement account during those two years.

Losses in a retirement IRA or 401K are doubly bad since there is no option of deducting any of those losses. The losses I and many others had were outside a tax deferred account. I will not live long enough to recover the losses at $3,000 a year and now hearing I should pay on any capital gains at a higher rate if I have a significant gain in one year irritates the crap out of me. For example if I have a $60,000 gain this year and other income then I am in a higher bracket and pay at that rate, then next year have another loss that is added to prior losses. As you know the tax laws are complex at best and like a noise bopper if you push down on one thing something pops up somewhere else.

That is one reason I feel strongly about ditching the current IRS regs and adopting the "fair tax" proposal as written without a bunch of outhouse lawyers in congress mucking it up and attempting to manipulate and show favor.

October 17, 2011 at 10:06 a.m.
dude_abides said...

communinists(sic)? nazis? LOL! I hear Charles Manson, Ayman al-Zawahiri, John Hinkley, and Mel Gibson are backing the teabaggers!

October 17, 2011 at 10:45 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Ricardo said: “harp, by your argument, people who buy lottery tickets should be able to deduct their cost basis, since they get taxed on the winnings. Sounds great. No downside to "investing". If you're losing more than $3000, then you're obviously not a very good investor.”

I believe the bottom line is that an individual's gambling winnings are fully taxable. Unlike an individual's winnings from capital gain ventures, our politicians have not created a preferential designer tax rate to benefit their favorite constituency – wealthy players. If you itemize deductions, you can deduct your gambling losses, but your deductions cannot be more than the amount of gambling income reported on your return.

October 17, 2011 at 10:49 a.m.
NGAdad said...

Hey JonRoss... how's about you respond to the requests that are due by you in the bogus Tort you filed, you major hypocrit. You of all people were never smart enough nor rich enough to be in the Rightwing Criminal conspiracy. P.S. and you are stealing from Rossville, as usual, whose citizens are elated you are forever evicted from the scene of your crimes.

October 17, 2011 at 11:08 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

acerigger said... "The "too big to fail" financial institutions and their political whres crashed our economy"*

Just don't forget, political wh*re #1 & #2 are Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. The Democrats AND Republicans are guilty for encouraging irresponsible financial practices, colluding and failing to properly regulate. You could put Nancy Pelosi (the woman) and Barack Obama (the child) on that boat with the monopoly guy and you would have a much more accurate representation of the problem.

October 17, 2011 at 11:12 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova said... "I can testify to that one personally. I lost 40% of what I had invested in a retirement account during (2008 and 2009) years."

I guess that is what happens when you bet on "Hope & Change". I moved 100% to income funds as soon as it looked like a Marxist had the edge over another Hawkish Progressive Republican. There was NOTHING encouraging about the 2008 field. Yes, Obama was clearly identifiable as a Marxist well before he was elected. Too bad the press never bothered to vet the Manchurian Candidate.

Maybe you should direct your bitterness at the real problem. Misdirected idealism can be expensive!

Which reminds me of the old saying... If you are young and conservative you have no heart. If you are old and liberal you have no brain. Or something like that.

October 17, 2011 at 11:29 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Acerigger said to Jon Ross: “The "too big to fail" financial institutions and their political whres crashed our economy and no one has been indicted,much less prosecuted,millions unemployed,millions of homes foreclosed,millions in poverty,on and on,and all you worry about is someone urinating on the shrubbery?”*

Indeed, Acerigger. I also noticed Jon's obsession with the shrubs. Do you think Jon's shrub obsession is just a political ploy to divert us from the inequality issue that the U.S. is facing or does it reflect some kind of personal inability to see the bigger issues involved?

Speaking of the bigger issue and the bigger picture, did you catch Nicholas Kristof’s “America’s Primal Scream” in the New York Times? If not, it’s a good article::

“Economists used to believe that we had to hold our noses and put up with high inequality as the price of robust growth. But more recent research suggests the opposite: inequality not only stinks, but also damages economies.

In his important new book, “The Darwin Economy,” Robert H. Frank of Cornell University cites a study showing that among 65 industrial nations, the more unequal ones experience slower growth on average. Likewise, individual countries grow more rapidly in periods when incomes are more equal, and slow down when incomes are skewed.

That’s certainly true of the United States. We enjoyed considerable equality from the 1940s through the 1970s, and growth was strong. Since then inequality has surged, and growth has slowed. One reason may be that inequality is linked to financial distress and financial crises. There is mounting evidence that inequality leads to bankruptcies and to financial panics.

“The recent global economic crisis, with its roots in U.S. financial markets, may have resulted, in part at least, from the increase in inequality,” Andrew G. Berg and Jonathan D. Ostry of the International Monetary Fund wrote last month. They argued that “equality appears to be an important ingredient in promoting and sustaining growth.”

Inequality also leads to early deaths and more divorces — a reminder that we’re talking not about data sets here, but about human beings. . ."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-americas-primal-scream.html?_r=2

October 17, 2011 at 11:46 a.m.
twharr said...

Good one Clay!

October 17, 2011 at 12:30 p.m.
EaTn said...

The right-wingers have paid big media propaganda bucks to associate Democrats to words like liberals, communists, Marxists, union lovers, etc. Doesn't that imply that Republicans in direct opposition are Fascists? So now we have a system controlled either by Communists or Fascists--sounds like we've regressed to the 1940's.

October 17, 2011 at 12:30 p.m.
acerigger said...

lumpy said..." Ace? Is that you Keith Olberman?"

No,but thanks.

Oh,btw, if Marcus Bachmann's clinic can "pray away the gay",then they may also be able to pray away the paranoia of the wingers! (I pray for 'em myself)

October 17, 2011 at 1:11 p.m.
miraweb said...

I always learn new things on this forum.

Without reading here, I might never have known that Obama was a marxist in bed with the big banks with no intellectual heft but is in danger of taking over the world.

And people say fiction is dead . . .

October 17, 2011 at 1:31 p.m.
lumpy said...

That's right, dude, China is backing the "movement", so is the American nazi party and the communist party of America. Great allies with great intentions.

October 17, 2011 at 1:39 p.m.
DarkSky said...

Lumpy, I give up on you. You won't listen to reasonable opinions and counter arguements. "Nazis supporting the Occupy Wall St movement", lol.

You keep blaming Obama, but the problem is much larger than just who holds the presidency at this moment. The problem is on both sides of the aisle in Congress. The problem is on Main St. The problem is on Wall St.

At least BRP has been stating his opinion and not just attacking Clay Bennett. That is a small step forward.

October 17, 2011 at 1:39 p.m.
EaTn said...

lumpy...so you prefer right-wing fascists over left-wing communists?

October 17, 2011 at 1:58 p.m.
tderng said...

alprova...yes I am!But the fleabaggers in Coolidge Park are no threat to me so why are you bringing them into it?I was responding to a post by onetinpannysoldier that he would be proud to march through Georgia as his ancestors supposedly did.I have no beef with a bunch of people peacefully protesting anything they want,whether I agree with them or not.However if someone makes a provocative statement such as was made by onetinpannysoldier I simply responded.Anyone trying to force their beliefs on me at the point of a gun had better be ready to use it,because I sure am.

October 17, 2011 at 3:07 p.m.
lumpy said...

EaTn, facists, dictators, communists and totalatarians always start out as socialists. I prefer those who will defend the rights our Constitution guarantees us. El Presindente Obama, has given up on' working with congress, whether it's Democrats or Republicans, so he's now out there whipping up the crappers in the hopes that chaos will land him 4 more years, GOD forbid! Obama is no problem solver and he must have his way.

Washington is to blame. Both Democrats(mostly) and Republicans have been horrible stewards of tax payer dollars. Go there and march. Our president has spent irresponsibly and sucks up money from corporations right and left. He's very much part of the problem.

He's only fooling the Occupy crappers, he doesn't fool me.

October 17, 2011 at 3:29 p.m.
DarkSky said...

So Lumpy, replacing President Obama will fix all the problems? HaHa! You are easily led by the nose. When will you march on Washington?

I want term limits on Congress. That might help alleviate the problems with Congress.

October 17, 2011 at 3:57 p.m.

missusAnneebull sez--You Koch suckers would have a lot more credibility if you had been hollering about that. You are so pitiful, you're shameless and brainless. Just bleat like sheep after your masters. Quit denying history and we might believe some of your rhetoric.

why i beeleev the missus sownds likey shes tokin abutt hersef

hers mrBee and sum otters up thar shor missd a hole lott uf infomashun likey mrHarp, mrLumpi an mrPatreeut shor enuff sed sooo mach hows mrBush tok da peeples $$$ too! likey-prezObam tookd a hole lott uf $$$ frum ole georjy porji pie sorrios an georjis $$$ is goin ta da prez an da proteesturs en wallup streeet an ta U-rope too sos dey ken proteest an peepee on da grownd an awl.

mrBee drows purtee toons butt hes nut tellin da hole trooth---evr

why mrBee shaym shaym un yursef! da trooth is butter dan da lies ifn yur goin ta giv us awl won stori den tell us da hole stori ur git yursef beck ta da drowin taybull an smeck yur hed gud!!

October 17, 2011 at 4:07 p.m.

The right-wingers have paid big media propaganda bucks to associate Democrats to words like liberals, communists, Marxists, union lovers, etc. sez mrEetin

why thet is soo funni mrEe! why ifn yudda set yur butt on prezObams choorch poo onna purty sunday an lissend ta ole mrjerrymyah!Rite preechun an preechun aginst da wite mans and aginst amerikans evri purty sunday--why i bet da horseys butt yud bee noddin yur ole hed up n down now wudnt ya? An wen mrRite toked on an on bowt soshul justuss an revulooshun why whar wuz da nise mrObam? why rite thar in his poo noddin and noddin hees hed!

why mrEatin, wes ken thunk fer owrsevs now--wees red mrObams buks whar he toks abowt hees daddy and hees veezun is hees daddys veezun an mrObam teechin hees stoodgints awl bowt da karl marxest sistum an soshul justuss an mrObams frends! o daddy! wut a pak uf dawgs! ther owwwn wurds konveekt dem! ther owwn speeechs! thar owwn veedeeos uf thar speeechs! wees amerikans don hev ta bee lyin an lyin likey yall upp thar! wees jest set beck an wach da pa-raid an tha zooo an tha x-mploshuns!

why mrEeetin too bed yall Demons kant see yursefs en awl thos eensulz to tha foks yall cull Repubs--evn tho dey aint--dey ees awl kin uv peeples--yall jest hev a lott uv hayt an beeturniss en yur harts! yall neeed Jesus an sooon!!

October 17, 2011 at 5:05 p.m.
fairmon said...

mntl posted........ The National Priorities Project and Citizens for Tax Justice has created a site with a real time ticker that shows the cost of the Bush Tax cuts. When I checked the site earlier the cost was.

There is no way to say this is or is not accurate. Too many assumptions have to be made such as those investing would have done exactlyt the same thing and the number in that category did not change with the higher rates. Some economist say tax revenue actually increased due to the cuts and there is not way to say the revenue would not have been the same or more or less if the rates had been different. You must be reading the NY Times or WST?

mntl quotes Warren Buffet.... Somebody that buys a stock-index future and sells it 10 seconds later and gets 60 percent by long-term gains -- he would have a different world to live in,” Buffett said of his push for changes to the tax code. . .

I agree with Buffet and have no idea why congress and the IRS allows hedge fund managers and program traders to report these gains as long term instead of short term which they obviously are. Taxing those gains as short term would deliver the increased revenue Buffet suggest. Taxing gains as ordinary income would work if all prior losses were also included in the calculation any year in which gains were realized. Even Warren Buffet agrees with that.

October 17, 2011 at 5:32 p.m.
fairmon said...

mntl posted..... In his important new book, “The Darwin Economy,” Robert H. Frank of Cornell University cites a study showing that among 65 industrial nations, the more unequal ones experience slower growth on average. Likewise, individual countries grow more rapidly in periods when incomes are more equal, and slow down when incomes are skewed.

He has the events reversed "In his important new book"? Who made the decision or concluded that his book was important? The NY times and the publishers pitching the book doesn't mean it is an important book. Others of an opposing view are just as important if one happens to agree with the theory. I assume they all write books out of concern for their country and fellow man?

1-An industrialized country is an ambiguous term. What gives a country that status?

2-The U.S. has gone from almost 50% of their employment being in manufacturing which includes those years you point out the wealth distribution was more equal. It was more equal and there was a productive middle class in those days.

3-So called emerging economies are attaining a much higher percent in the manufacturing sector and the number attaining middle class in their society is growing proportionately. China and India are two examples.

4-Employment in U.S. manufacturing is down to the low teens % from the high forties %. Look at a chart of the drop in manufacturing and the shift in the equalness you rant about.

5-We are rapidly becoming a service country and services cannot and will not enable equality. There are many examples of that in the world. Service=supplying aids or services instead of products or good. Medical, teaching, lawyers, politicians, bankers, brokers etc. etc. all provide services and depend on those creating products and wealth needing their service.

How will a service economy ever grow? Who will require and pay for those services other than the government which is rapidly gaining momentum toward bankruptcy. By the end of 2012 regardless of who is or is not elected you will recall these exchanges of opinion.

October 17, 2011 at 6:36 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Miraweb said: "I always learn new things on this forum. Without reading here, I might never have known that Obama was a marxist in bed with the big banks with no intellectual heft but is in danger of taking over the world. And people say fiction is dead . . ."

Yes, the marxist-communist political rhetoric is a Republican Tea Party specialty, Miraweb. There is also a bit of interesting history to this kind of rhetoric. As probably know, Charles and David Koch are major funders of the Republican Tea Party. Their father was an active member of a group called the John Birchers. From what I’ve read, the John Birchers were a pretty radical group and fought against civil rights and the United Nations etc. Anybody who didn’t see things their way was a communist. I read they even accused President Eisenhower of being a communist.

Anyway, it’s obvious the Koch brothers have incorporated the Bircher communist rhetoric into their Republican Tea Party. Needless to say, since President Obama doesn’t see things their way he’s a communist – just President Eisenhower. I also noted that David Koch ran for vice president on the Libertarian ticket at one time, pledging to abolish Social Security, the Federal Reserve System, welfare, minimum wage laws and federal agencies -- including the Department of Energy, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency. Can you believe it?

October 17, 2011 at 6:40 p.m.

mntl posted..... In his important new book, “The Darwin Economy,” Robert H. Frank of Cornell University cites a study showing that among 65 industrial nations, the more unequal ones experience slower growth on average. Likewise, individual countries grow more rapidly in periods when incomes are more equal, and slow down when incomes are skewed. mrHarpy

yah nut troo! en Nort U-rope wuz eecual fur long long tim an mos peeples wer por an dos texes war HI! Wuz no fest eekonomie! wuz slo slo slo! tha Gurlz is lyin agin! dim gurlz!! hee hee

I also noted that David Koch ran for vice president on the Libertarian ticket at one time, pledging to abolish Social Security, the Federal Reserve System, welfare, minimum wage laws and federal agencies -- including the Department of Energy, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency. Can you believe it? sez mootinlur-all

yah! i beeleev it! eets culled tha CONsteeTooshun! Freeedom uv Beesnuss! Freeeedom uv tha Peeples ta bee reech ur por ur inna-beetwixt!

whars yur braynes Gurl? inna yur pantz?

October 17, 2011 at 7:03 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Jon... he was citing mountainlaurel. Glad to see I'm not the only one who ignores his garbled mess. I do usually read what he cites, which is often mountainlaurel and therefore always true.

October 17, 2011 at 10:21 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said about Kristof’s Thoughts on Frank’s “Darwin Economy”: Who made the decision or concluded that his book was important? . . . Others of an opposing view are just as important if one happens to agree with the theory.”

Since Kristof wrote the article, I think it’s obvious who thought Frank’s new book “The Darwin Economy” was important, Harp3339? Clearly, those who respect Kristof might read the book and those who do not respect Kristof will probably not read the book. Doesn’t this go without saying?

Harp3339 said: “He has the events reversed "In his important new book"?

To date, I haven’t read the book. Have you read it, Harp3339? I could be wrong, but it doesn’t sound to me like you have read the book. Personally, I don’t like to discuss a book that I haven’t I read. In the case of this particular book, I probably will read it because I’m intriqued by the premise that Kristof identifies in his column, “America’s Primal Scream.” It some ways it appears to connect with a few of my own observations about life, equality, attitudes, politics, status of our nation’s economy, and the spirit in which this country was founded.

Harp3339 said: “An industrialized country is an ambiguous term, et cetera. .The U.S. has gone from almost 50% of their employment being in manufacturing, et cetera. . . emerging economies are attaining a much higher percent in the manufacturing sector, et cetera. . . Employment in U.S. manufacturing is down to the low teens, et cetera. . . We are rapidly becoming a service country and services cannot and will not enable equality. There are many examples of that in the world, et cetera.*

Sorry, Harp3339, but your references to these issues do not make much sense to me as they stand. Some of the references are clearly facts, but since you do not provide the context in your post, they are just sort of out there - know what I mean? I’m assuming the references have something to do with Frank’s book, but since I haven’t read the book I don’t what Frank has said about the issues you’ve identified – if anything. If you had provided the proper context and actual quotes from Frank’s book, I might have been able to pick up on his point and your point, but since you don’t do this, your point is lost to me. If I do read Frank's new book "The Darwin Economy", I’ll let you know what I think of it.

October 18, 2011 at 1:23 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.