What if the president proposed something big -- something that really focused on a broader question, such as the fundamental inequality in America? Well, surely, if he did so, he would be labelled a socialist! Not socialist as defined in the academic sense, or as the rest of the world uses it in its political life, but in the crude way that Republicans have always used it -- as a brickbat to throw at their political opposition.
This has all happened before. In the 1936 election, when FDR proposed the "radical" safety net of Social Security, his Republican opponent Gov. Alf Landon painted a portrait, familiar to FDR's detractors, of the president as a communist and socialist:
Imagine the field opened for federal snooping. Are these 26 million going to be fingerprinted? Are their photographs going to be kept on file in a Washington office? Or are they going to have identification tags put around their necks?
Fortunately, Americans ignored him and gave FDR an overwhelming victory.
Democrats are again in an excellent position to take a risk like FDR took with the New Deal. They might give themselves some identity other than that of modest centrists, constantly worried about offending one constituency or another.
Professional party Democrats in Washington have been dismissive of the New Deal for the past twenty years, considering it a coalition of voting groups that are now "passé." While that is true, they could learn from the example of a White House administration tending to the needs -- and the pain -- of Americans. FDR's administration was not afraid to institute programs that the Republicans condemned as "socialist"; it was ready to take the flak from a right wing that was always prominent in the Republican party -- and that now seems to control it.
Commenting on Republican congressman Allen West's assertion that there are currently "78 to 81" Communists in the Democratic party, Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed, entitled "Let's just say it: The Republicans are the problem":
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges.
They're going to call us socialists or communists no matter what we do, so now seems like as good a time as any -- when their party is in disarray -- to solve inequality. It's not "class warfare." When I was young, America, indeed, had a real class system (in the same way that much of the world still does). Now, social distinction is largely based on income bracket, not birth. Inequality is the problem.
Discrimination because of class difference was bad enough, but our present inequalities have a new, quite sinister origin. Money means power. Super money means super power. It's not just that the top 1 percent -- and the top 0.1 percent -- skims their money off the top. What is more important is that power is concentrated in a very few hands, which is a disaster for our democracy. (See Paul Krugman's article "Plutocracy, Paralysis, Perplexity.")
As a result, we see two things happening. The first is abuse of the capitalist system -- demonstrated by free enterprise run amok as experienced in 2008, and from which we still suffer. The second is the tremendous control wielded by those who provide money for campaign financing. They are the people FDR once summed up quite neatly as "organized money."
Let us draw a line between business institutions that are expected to perform essential services for us and those that are allowed to carry on in the ways to which they are accustomed. (Although, hopefully, with less "buccaneering." The Dodd-Frank legislation designed to introduce regulation has been badly watered down or not even carried out.)
We should simply recognize those business institutions that provide basic services and require close monitoring to ensure that these services are performed well. No, not nationalization, but careful regulation of businesses that agree to provide specific services with agreed-upon "just profits."
Credit cards and a bank account are essential to daily life. The New York Times reported on April 30 that "The banking industry as a whole earned nearly $30 billion last year from overdraft fees on debit cards and checking accounts." An attorney from the National Consumer Law Center summed it up: "Profits are the reasons for fees, not risk or costs."
And what about loans for buying a house? Or for education? And health insurance, perhaps even life insurance? What about heating our home? Many communities contract with a provider for water and electricity. Is not the profit factor agreed upon? And monitored? (Is that not how we handle military contracts, even if we don't monitor those very well?)
There is a long history of business working closely with private enterprise, going back to the New Deal and on through World War II. At the local level today we have many examples. The Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority in New York comes to mind. There are other experiments with "hybrid companies," as Stephanie Strom informed us in the New York Times: "A new type of company intended to put social goals ahead of making profits is taking root around the country, as more states adopt laws to bridge the divide between nonprofits and businesses."
But, one knows that most institutions, particularly the big ones, will not respond voluntarily, or simply won't cooperate. Hence, there is little realistic choice other than government intervention and supervision. Government action was behind every program of the New Deal. And we seemed not only to have survived but also prospered. No question about it: on a nationwide scale, our government needs to provide the framework and monitoring of these "service institutions."
This regulation would be but one step in a major political effort to set right the inequality in our economic and social system. Introducing this in no way diminishes the other measures needed, such as a radical shakeup of the taxing formulas.
Shifting the thrust of economic policy to emphasize -- and actively promote -- the quality of our life is essential, and it's hardly radical or socialist. Are we Americans willing to grasp this?
Universal healthcare is a terrific method for preventing it.
Please run for President. We need a strong, bold, and fearless leader to stand up for people and fight against the wealthy and corporations. We need your voice and your courage to bring relief to those of us who are downtrodden and ignored.
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/frenchrev/summary.html
SparkNotesÂ: The French Revolution (1789-1799Â): Summary of Events
"No one factor was directly responsiblÂe for the French RevolutionÂ. Years of feudal oppression and fiscal mismanagemÂent contributeÂd to a French society that was ripe for revolt. Noting a downward economic spiral in the late 1700s, King Louis XVI brought in a number of financial advisors to review the weakened French treasury. Each advisor reached the same conclusion—that France needed a radical change in the way it taxed the public—and each advisor was, in turn, kicked out.
Finally, the king realized that this taxation problem really did need to be addressed, so he appointed a new controller general of finance, Charles de Calonne, in 1783. Calonne suggested that, among other things, France begin taxing the previously exempt nobility. The nobility refused, even after Calonne pleaded with them during the Assembly of Notables in 1787. Financial ruin thus seemed imminent.
The Estates-GeÂneral
In a final act of desperatioÂn, Louis XVI decided in 1789 to convene the Estates-GeÂneral, an ancient assembly consisting of three different estates that each representeÂd a portion of the French populationÂ. If the Estates-GeÂneral could agree on a tax solution, it would be implementeÂd. However, since two of the three estates—thÂe clergy and the nobility—wÂere tax-exemptÂ, the attainment of any such solution was unlikely..Â."
I mean really, if she's so conerned about others, why doesn't she just donate a hefty part of her salary because that's what socialist do, take everyone's money and spread it out. The problem that I see is that people who value socialistic systems aren't willing to take vows of poverty to help their fellow man, they just want everyone else to give it up so they can control who gets what while preserving their standard of living.
So to the lady who wants everything spread out...I'm ok with you giving up your chunk of stability/security/safety if you want to, but stay away from my pie... Ok, I'm done :)
http://libcom.org/library/us-thibodaux-massacre-1887
US: The Thibodaux Massacre of 1887 | libcom.org
"One of the most interestinÂg, and probably least known events in Louisiana history is the Thibodaux Massacre of 1887, the second most bloody labor dispute in U.S. history.
Although most of the blood letting occurred in the environs of Thibodaux, the strike encompasseÂd a larger area. The strike affected sugar plantationÂs in St. Mary, Terrebonne ,and Lafourche parishes. These parishes make up an area known as the "sugar bowl." Thibodaux is the parish seat of Lafourche.
The plight of the sugar cane worker in 1887 was one of back-breakÂing labor and meager pay. Most field hands were paid approximatÂely 13 dollars a month. They were also paid in script. Script was basically a coupon redeemable only at the company store owned by the planter. The store´s prices were normally marked up 100%. You can see that the worker usually wound up being indebted to the planter. Louisiana law stated that if a worker owed money to a planter he could not move off the planters land until the debt was paid. This law essentiallÂy reduced the plantation laborer to the status of serf..."
Since Reagan the American right - bankrolled by the likes of the Koch billionaires- has repreated that any group standing for social and collective rights is socialist or even communist.
They have turned it into a kind of slander repeated to satiety or disgust by lackey media such as Limbaugh, Kristol, the late Robert Novak, the late William Buckley... people of various levels of education and intelligence but all embarked in flasehood, slander, amalgamation.
It is time to point out that not any call for more vacation, increased minimum wage, maternity leave,
protected pension plans etc. is socialism or communism, but plain and simple human rights.
This needs to be drummed as relentlessly as the right has slandered anything from the center to the left.
He had a mind that could fend against himself and adopt self-contradictory positions, but in a nutshell, when all is said and done, he was for the very rich, against any social measures and for a super aggressive foreign policy, especially in Irak.
...for getting even more Republicans elected... (snicker)
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PRS85006173
FRED« Nonfarm Business Sector: Labor Share
While corporate profits are increasing:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP
FRED« Corporate Profits After Tax
Mainly because of reduced wages and benefits:
"JPMorgan’s July 11 “Eye on the Market” newsletter put it, “Reductions in wages and benefits explain the majority of the net improvement in [profit] margins… US labor compensation is now at a 50-year low relative to both company sales and US GDP.”
http://www.workingamerica.org/blog/2012/03/08/1-got-93-of-u-s-income-in-2009-2010-more-long-term-jobless-than-reported/
1% Got 93% of U.S. Income in 2009-2010, More Long-Term Jobless Than Reported ½ Main Street
"More confirmation that the extremely rich are getting richer and those without jobs are suffering even more.
In 2009 and 2010, the first year of the current “recovery,” the 1 percent captured 93 percent of U.S. income growth. Repeat: 93 percent of income growth went to the 1 percent..."
There are two options:
o MASSIVE and peaceful movement, like civil rights
o Second revolution
The only thing that will wake up Americans is a shortage of affordable food.
"CivilizatÂion and anarchy are only seven meals apart" — Spanish proverb
http://blog.american.com/2012/04/obamas-inequality-argument-just-utterly-collapsed/
Working America relies upon the flawed findings of one Emmanuel Saez at the Economic Policy Institute. His conclusions about rising income inequality over the last thirty years has been completely debunked, because the data he used is so incomplete. This, his latest study makes the same error, Old Tulsan. You've been had.
"Researchers considering levels and trends in the resources available to the middle class traditionally measure the pre-tax cash income of either tax units or households. In this paper, we demonstrate that this choice carries significant implications for assessing income trends. Focusing on tax units rather than households greatly reduces measured growth in middle class income. Furthermore, excluding the effect of taxes and the value of in-kind benefits further reduces observed improvements in the resources of the middle class. Finally, we show how these distinctions change the observed distribution of benefits from the tax exclusion of employer provided health insurance."
http://www.nber.org/papers/w17164.pdf
And by fixing you mean taking from others what is not yours?
Or haven't you tuned in to REALITY lately?
I hope you remember that conservatives were and are against all bailouts.
Don't use it as an excuse to increase tax rates to fund your social engineering aspirations.
To respond to your point, no I am not "rich". I your regular middle class guy. But I don't covet Thy neighbors money.
His approach to governing in this fashion was not only novel, it was unethical. I wouldn't on this level try and draw many comparisons to FDR.
IMHO, the bad form of Socialism, is a system of benefits for the middle and lower classes paid for almost exclusively by the upper classes.
THE MOST POPULAR FORM OF THIS IN THE US, is the somewhat widely popular notion that we should shore up the financial shortcomings of the Entitlement Programs by simply raising the Earnings-Cap on folks with upper incomes WITHOUT simultaneously increasing their payouts at retirement.
IF THE ADVOCATES OF THIS AGENDA, intended to increase the payouts in line with the contributions, then it is obvious, that Raising-the-Cap, would SOLVE NOTHING.
******
AS A PROGRESSIVE DEM, I HATE THE IDEA OF A BUFFET-RULE, which is actually so tiny that it solves NOTHING-
It would amount to about 1% of the amount we currently spend on InterestPayments on the Debt.
=====
THE REAL FIRST STEP is that we need to completely and PERMANENTLY throw out all the special treatments that we apply to the Income of the Wealthy, Most of the SuperRich, get most of their money through things other than wages.
1) TOSS OUT the 15% rates on CapitalGains, Dividends, and HedgeFundManagers, and tax EVERYTHING as ORDINARY INCOME
2) PERMANENTLY SIMPLIFY THE AMT, no deductions, percentage of AGI, IRS automatically adjust for inflation.
THESE TWO COMMON-SENSE APPROACHES would have more than 10x the benefit of any Buffet-Rule.
Can you agree to a total flat tax where the tax code is a one page document published every 2 years, which has one sentence on it. "The tax rate for all Americans is xx%". No loopholes, no deductions, to incentives, nothing for anybody. IF that happened it is estimates that the rate could be 14% to 18% to actually increase the revenue to the federal government. Everyone pays based on what they make. if a millionaire makes 10,000,000 they pay 1.5 million in tax. if a family makes 10,000 they pay 1500. The savings in reductions in the IRS would service the debt all by itself, some 790 Billion annually today. Now that is equality and fair. The rich get no breaks and neither do the poor. Something for everyone to hate and everyone to love.
AS A PROGRESSIVE, I believe in a Progressive Income Tax-
. . as did Adam Smith, and the vast majority of our Founding Fathers
IMO, I wouldn't tax anyone in excess of 40%, except in extraordinary circumstances like
* After WWI & WWII, or NOW to pay for Bush's TWO Wars
* Like now to pay down the Mountain of GOP Debt that was run up during the Administrations of Reagan & GWB (unlike most, I don't want to pay this debt DOWN, I WANT TO PAY IT COMPLETELY OFF)
SO NO, I don't believe in any type of FLAT, or so-called FAIR, TAX
All of which are ultimately a giant tax cut for the wealthy and a tax increase therefore for everyone else.
AS FAR AS FILING YOUR TAXES, an enormous portion of our citizens can get by with filling out the 1040EZ or 1040A, and some simple implementations of the full 1040.
Mostly it is simply a matter of following instructions, which most of us have been conditioned to believe are too complicated for us to do.
As I HS Teacher, I regularly taught students how to do taxes in less than a week.
****
A 1page Tax Code, YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ECON, OR ACCOUNTING.
IF WE SIMPLIFIED THE TAX CODE TOMORROW, politicians would expand it up, very quickly.
10,000 page tax code means nothing, if only 5 pages apply to your situation.
******
REALITY-CHECK= Politicians will never eliminate HomeMortgageDeduction, or
This idea of your sound really super but do you have any numbers which would substantiate these changes?
IS THERE A GOOD FORM OF SOCIALISM ?
This really gets back to definitions
TO SOME PEOPLE, ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF SOMALIA, or the US Gilded-Age of the RobberBarons
IS SOCIALISM.
MY ANSWER WOULD BE
1) For starters, every other advanced Nation on the Planet has a Socialized Medicine System, although there are many different levels of Private/Public
OUR PRIVATE MEDICINE SYSTEM IN THE US, provides among the worst results with the undisputed HIGHEST COSTS anywhere else on earth.
SADLY, our current system grew up under public subsidies, and there are no good transition models.
The way our system works is that due to cost-shifting, it is next to impossible to pay your own way anymore.
And the Beneficiaries are an ever shrinking group of people with Cadillac Coverage, SUBSIDIZED BY EVERYONE ELSE.
=======
I recently spent time in Germany and found their system pretty good, and the people are quite happy with it.
EXCEPT, many, many people cannot afford to drive over there.
Most of the Scandinavian countries are happy with their Socialism, and willing to pay the taxes necessary to support their systems
THE SWEDES, recently voted to cut back on their Social Benefits and cut taxes in the process.
========
HORRIBLE SYSTEMS France & Greece, that want benefits paid for by SantaClaus