Jesse Ventura on President Obama

[kidrock]

well he taught obummer well

And Bush 1 and Bush 2

[LITE-INN]

And Bush 1 and Bush 2

you forgot slick willie

[Bubstr]

Since SS is taxed based upon earned income and the majority of people who earn "earned income" is the middle class, it is hardly surprising that they would pay the largest share. However, corporations/employers share also rose at the same time via payroll taxes. Employers are required to match the employees contribution both for SS and Medicare/Medicaid. The effects of raising SS was felt everywhere by most everyone.

Now why did SS have to be amended? It didn't even take 20 years for LBJ's Great Society to drain the coffers of SS and force a major revision with the hopes of keeping it solvent.

Ok, here is the imbalance of SS contributions. If someone making $20,000 a year pays on 100% of their income. If someone making $300,000 a year, is paying on 50% of their income. If someone making $150,000,000 a year, is paying on only 1% of their income. This wasn't a problem, till they made the SS fund a part of the general budget. That turned the contribution into a tax. Everyone is not getting taxed on the same rate. On top of that, the ones that made the most get bigger benefits to a point. It's not about taxing the rich, it's about equality.

In reality Corporations and employers pay no tax. Their tax burden is figured into the price of the product or service. The consumers of said product or service pay that tax. They are merely tax collectors.

If you look at the numbers on SS and medicaid the only real fix is raising the cap on contributions , a modest increase in rate and competition in the purchasing end of medicaid. It seems to be the fad today to treat it like an entitlement, but it is very necessary for the independence of the elderly. We as a whole are going to pay for this living expense, one way or another. Threw SS or threw taxes for welfare or threw our hospital bills we pay or insurance premiums and the elderly lose any semblance of independence.

I know a lot of people are preaching self responsibility. Where the people that retired in 2008 -2009 responsible when some lost half of their retirement funds in the market? How about the ones trying to save in CDs at almost Zip interest. Just ask if your retirement savings could be cut in half at the last minute, and not feel the pain or insecurity. SS and medicare is a safety net. It is a needed safety net.

Let's look at the ramifications of not having a sound SS and Medicare. Since we don't euthanize the elderly yet, someone is going to pay for their care and living expenses. If you don't know who that will be, just look at who pays the bills now.

[skids]

Shawns Reagan

Reagan granted amnesty to millions of mexicans today he would be skinned alive by Shawn and palin among others

One of the biggest changes was in the economy. Under Reagan, income taxes for the rich were slashed while social security taxes, which mainly fall on working people, were raised. One of Reagan’s first acts was to break the air traffic controllers’ union, signaling an all-out war on organized labor. Reagan also continued the process of cutting back government regulation of business, especially in the financial sector.

The United States under Reagan launched a huge military build-up and increased U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe. Reagan also began to step up U.S. intervention and attacks on progressive governments by trying to overthrow the Sandinistas government of Nicaragua and by invading Grenada. The United States trained Latin American police, military and paramilitary terrorists in torture and assassination and freely gave aid to repressive governments in El Salvador and Honduras. In Afghanistan, the CIA funneled aid to the reactionary and brutal forces.

Here at home, Reagan began the process of undoing many of the reforms started during the Great Depression of the 1930s, and which were expanded due to people’s struggles in the 1960s. As governor of California, Reagan was the first to impose tuition on students at state colleges and universities. His anti-environmental stance was legendary, with his infamous secretary of the interior James Watt. The anti-immigrant movement grew under the banner of ‘English-only.’ Pat Buchanan, the administration’s communications director, remarked that AIDS was “nature's revenge on gay men.” Last but not least, Reagan introduced the ‘Christian right’ to the halls of power in Washington D.C. as they unleashed vicious and often violent attacks on women’s right to choose.

This is not to say that there were no victories in the people’s struggle under Reagan. In the Middle East, the United States was forced to withdraw from occupying Lebanon after hundreds of marines were killed in Beirut. Local workers’ struggles such as that by Chicano cannery workers in Watsonville and the fight of meatpackers in Minnesota were able to win wide community support. And Jesse Jackson’s historic 1984 run for the presidency galvanized many African Americans and progressives to action.

But all things considered, the Reagan presidency was a setback for the struggle for peace, justice and jobs. The gap between the rich and the poor widened and homelessness exploded in cities across the country under Reagan. Workers’ wages, after adjusting for the rising cost of living, were lower at the end of the Reagan presidency than they were at the beginning. The flight of U.S. corporations overseas accelerated, hitting African Americans particularly hard - in the 1980s the average income of blacks in the Midwest fell almost 20%. Deregulation of the economy opened the doors to corporate greed and fraud, leading to the great stock market crash of 1987 and the savings and loan crisis a couple of years later. Tax cuts for the rich tripled the federal debt from less than $1 trillion when Reagan came into office to almost $3 trillion eight years later.

CIA funding of reactionary, feudal forces in Afghanistan sowed the seeds of Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network, while Reagan’s military build-up and interventions, often in violation of international law, put the United States on track to occupy Iraq. Reagan’s rise to power also marked the end of the New Deal tradition of reform in the Democratic Party that began under Franklin Roosevelt. In response to Reagan, the Democratic Leadership Council moved the Democratic Party to the right, leading to the Clinton presidency - known for its embargo of Iraq, welfare ‘reform’ and promotion of Wall Street.

While politicians from George Bush on down try to raise the banner of Reaganism and reaction even higher, we have to learn from and gain inspiration from the millions who fought Reagan and his policies for the causes of peace, justice, equality and socialism.

I'll start by countering one argument that is always made by liberals:

Fable 10: In the 1980s the Rich Got Richer and the Poor Got Poorer

During the 1980s the bucket of liberty and economic freedom rose, while the bucket of income equality fell. Upper-tier Americans significantly expanded their share of national wealth, while low-income citizens lost ground. Reagan policies were critical to the shift.

FALSE!

During the Reagan years, the total share of national income tilted toward the wealthiest Americans. From 1980 to 1988 the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans increased their share of total income from 16.5 to 18.3 while the poorest fifth saw their share fall from 4.2 to 3.8 percent.

Yet it is NOT TRUE that the gains by the wealthiest Americans came at the expense of low-income Americans. From 1981 to 1989, EVERY income quintile--from the richest to the poorest--GAINED INCOME according to the Census Bureau economic data.

The reason the wealthiest Americans saw their share of total income rise is that they gained income at a faster pace than did the middle class and the poor. But Reaganomics did create a rising tide that lifted nearly all boats.

By 1989 there were 5.9 million more Americans whose salaries exceeded $50,000 a year than there were in 1981 (adjusting for inflation). Similarly, there were 2.5 million more Americans earning more than $75,000 a year, an 83 percent increase. And the number of Americans earning less than $10,000 a year fell by 3.4 million workers

[15D]

Ok, here is the imbalance of SS contributions. If someone making $20,000 a year pays on 100% of their income. If someone making $300,000 a year, is paying on 50% of their income. If someone making $150,000,000 a year, is paying on only 1% of their income. This wasn't a problem, till they made the SS fund a part of the general budget. That turned the contribution into a tax. Everyone is not getting taxed on the same rate. On top of that, the ones that made the most get bigger benefits to a point. It's not about taxing the rich, it's about equality.

In reality Corporations and employers pay no tax. Their tax burden is figured into the price of the product or service. The consumers of said product or service pay that tax. They are merely tax collectors.

If you look at the numbers on SS and medicaid the only real fix is raising the cap on contributions , a modest increase in rate and competition in the purchasing end of medicaid. It seems to be the fad today to treat it like an entitlement, but it is very necessary for the independence of the elderly. We as a whole are going to pay for this living expense, one way or another. Threw SS or threw taxes for welfare or threw our hospital bills we pay or insurance premiums and the elderly lose any semblance of independence.

I know a lot of people are preaching self responsibility. Where the people that retired in 2008 -2009 responsible when some lost half of their retirement funds in the market? How about the ones trying to save in CDs at almost Zip interest. Just ask if your retirement savings could be cut in half at the last minute, and not feel the pain or insecurity. SS and medicare is a safety net. It is a needed safety net.

Let's look at the ramifications of not having a sound SS and Medicare. Since we don't euthanize the elderly yet, someone is going to pay for their care and living expenses. If you don't know who that will be, just look at who pays the bills now.

Equality will remain elusive. Government isn't capable of providing it, at best it can create an atmosphere where everyone competes on a level playing field (I know we haven't or probably will never achieve this either, but it has a better chance than does income redistribution.) One of the great problems with SS is the generous benefits it pays to those who made the minimum 40 quarters of contributions as compared to those of us who will make contributions for 47 years.

I agree that it is the consumer who over the long run pays for everything. When a business no longer can compete, that may be the threshold where the employer and employee pay as opposed to the consumer.

I would sign on to both higher SS with-holdings if, and only if, the Federal Government stopped using the surplus to fund welfare programs.

[mudslinger47]

I'll start by countering one argument that is always made by liberals:

Fable 10: In the 1980s the Rich Got Richer and the Poor Got Poorer

During the 1980s the bucket of liberty and economic freedom rose, while the bucket of income equality fell. Upper-tier Americans significantly expanded their share of national wealth, while low-income citizens lost ground. Reagan policies were critical to the shift.

FALSE!

During the Reagan years, the total share of national income tilted toward the wealthiest Americans. From 1980 to 1988 the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans increased their share of total income from 16.5 to 18.3 while the poorest fifth saw their share fall from 4.2 to 3.8 percent.

Yet it is NOT TRUE that the gains by the wealthiest Americans came at the expense of low-income Americans. From 1981 to 1989, EVERY income quintile--from the richest to the poorest--GAINED INCOME according to the Census Bureau economic data.

The reason the wealthiest Americans saw their share of total income rise is that they gained income at a faster pace than did the middle class and the poor. But Reaganomics did create a rising tide that lifted nearly all boats.

By 1989 there were 5.9 million more Americans whose salaries exceeded $50,000 a year than there were in 1981 (adjusting for inflation). Similarly, there were 2.5 million more Americans earning more than $75,000 a year, an 83 percent increase. And the number of Americans earning less than $10,000 a year fell by 3.4 million workers

Many of these stories are writen as if our economy is a "zero sum gain", meaning if Joe makes 2 dollars, that means there are two dollars less for Jeff to make. That simple put, is not the case.

[Bubstr]

I'll start by countering one argument that is always made by liberals:

Fable 10: In the 1980s the Rich Got Richer and the Poor Got Poorer

During the 1980s the bucket of liberty and economic freedom rose, while the bucket of income equality fell. Upper-tier Americans significantly expanded their share of national wealth, while low-income citizens lost ground. Reagan policies were critical to the shift.

FALSE!

During the Reagan years, the total share of national income tilted toward the wealthiest Americans. From 1980 to 1988 the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans increased their share of total income from 16.5 to 18.3 while the poorest fifth saw their share fall from 4.2 to 3.8 percent.

Yet it is NOT TRUE that the gains by the wealthiest Americans came at the expense of low-income Americans. From 1981 to 1989, EVERY income quintile--from the richest to the poorest--GAINED INCOME according to the Census Bureau economic data.

The reason the wealthiest Americans saw their share of total income rise is that they gained income at a faster pace than did the middle class and the poor. But Reaganomics did create a rising tide that lifted nearly all boats.

By 1989 there were 5.9 million more Americans whose salaries exceeded $50,000 a year than there were in 1981 (adjusting for inflation). Similarly, there were 2.5 million more Americans earning more than $75,000 a year, an 83 percent increase. And the number of Americans earning less than $10,000 a year fell by 3.4 million workers

That's very convenient to stop at 1989. The changes in the laws where never rectified. Tell us about them rising boats in the 90s and 2000s. Who ever wrote this article overlooked the long term effects of deregulating monopoly laws and weakening the unions.

[15D]

That's very convenient to stop at 1989. The changes in the laws where never rectified. Tell us about them rising boats in the 90s and 2000s. Who ever wrote this article overlooked the long term effects of deregulating monopoly laws and weakening the unions.

This answer was a response to what occurred during the Reagan Administration. If you are un-happy with the 90's, perhaps you should address your ire to the Clinton Administration.

[skids]

That's very convenient to stop at 1989. The changes in the laws where never rectified. Tell us about them rising boats in the 90s and 2000s. Who ever wrote this article overlooked the long term effects of deregulating monopoly laws and weakening the unions.

I thought the 90's (Clinton years) were always touted as those days of a "Booming economy", "budget surplus" etc. Do you disagree with your liberal friends on that?

[Bubstr]

If you can't see the correlation between deregulation and the demise of the middle class, I guess you will have to go threw life with your blinders on. This isn't about Democrat or republican, they both screwed us. Clinton had NAFTA and The Bush's was the military / industrial complex's pawn and they all had a hand in the housing bubble. The fact is we had regulation that worked for over 60 years at that time and Regan fixed something that worked. He owns it for as long as it says a law. Just like Lincoln owns the Civil War and FDR owns SS. The effects of these things, good or bad, don't stop as soon as there is a new president. We still feel the effects of the Pure Food and Drug act of T Roosevelt back in the early 1900s, although our executive branch is getting very lacks on enforcement.

Just look at what Reagan's deregulation did to your Gas prices. They didn't go up on his watch, but if it wasn't for his watch, these oil companies couldn't have gotten so big that they can control prices. I can remember when Standard oil was broken up for monopoly and it didn't control near the market shares as the present oil companies do.

A real conservative wants those regulations conserved. If it wasn't broke, don't fix it. You can sing Ronnie's praises all you want but he was the progressive liberal and gave the freebees to the Corporations, and he made the middle class pay the bill for it. Then the middle class got no thank you, but a screw you.

Anyone that blindly follows their preferred party without question, deserves what they get. None are as blind as those that will not see.

[skids]

If you can't see the correlation between deregulation and the demise of the middle class, I guess you will have to go threw life with your blinders on. This isn't about Democrat or republican, they both screwed us. Clinton had NAFTA and The Bush's was the military / industrial complex's pawn and they all had a hand in the housing bubble. The fact is we had regulation that worked for over 60 years at that time and Regan fixed something that worked. He owns it for as long as it says a law. Just like Lincoln owns the Civil War and FDR owns SS. The effects of these things, good or bad, don't stop as soon as there is a new president. We still feel the effects of the Pure Food and Drug act of T Roosevelt back in the early 1900s, although our executive branch is getting very lacks on enforcement.

Just look at what Reagan's deregulation did to your Gas prices. They didn't go up on his watch, but if it wasn't for his watch, these oil companies couldn't have gotten so big that they can control prices. I can remember when Standard oil was broken up for monopoly and it didn't control near the market shares as the present oil companies do.

A real conservative wants those regulations conserved. If it wasn't broke, don't fix it. You can sing Ronnie's praises all you want but he was the progressive liberal and gave the freebees to the Corporations, and he made the middle class pay the bill for it. Then the middle class got no thank you, but a screw you.

Anyone that blindly follows their preferred party without question, deserves what they get. None are as blind as those that will not see.

I asked you a question that you have yet to answer. I'll ask it again.

I thought the 90's (Clinton years) were always touted as those days of a "Booming economy", "budget surplus" etc. Do you disagree with your liberal friends on that?

[Bubstr]

I asked you a question that you have yet to answer. I'll ask it again.

I thought the 90's (Clinton years) were always touted as those days of a "Booming economy", "budget surplus" etc. Do you disagree with your liberal friends on that?

First off the liberal is not my friend anymore than the so called conservative. It may have been booming for Wall Street but I had yet to recover from the extra tax that the previous administration put on us. I was still coping with paying 7.5% on an extra $40,000. I don't remember any raise in pay threw out the 90s.

Sure The Clinton administration brags about their balanced budget, but with the tax Regan put on us, how could they miss. As far as a surplus goes, tell us how much the national debt went down?

Clinton didn't do us any favors. His NAFTA was explained by Ross Perot as a big sucking sound from the south and as we can see now, he was very correct. Yet another result of an action that didn't really come home to roost till long after he was gone. Just like Regan's screw ups.

Your type seems to think after one president gets out of office their impact stops. That is not the case. We are still paying interest on Ike's Interstate system, Johnson's Vietnam war, Regan's Star wars and B1 Bomber, Both Bush's three wars just to mention a few. The biggest thing we are paying for is the accumulated deregulation of Corporate America, by both parties, believing a rising tide floats all boats. A myth, put out by corporations. While it is true this is not a Zero sum game, it also doesn't mean if one does well all do well either. Who they make it from and where they spend it or if they spend it has a lot more to do with it. Economy is the circulation of money.

[DirtClassic]

[15D]

If you can't see the correlation between deregulation and the demise of the middle class, I guess you will have to go threw life with your blinders on. This isn't about Democrat or republican, they both screwed us. Clinton had NAFTA and The Bush's was the military / industrial complex's pawn and they all had a hand in the housing bubble. The fact is we had regulation that worked for over 60 years at that time and Regan fixed something that worked. He owns it for as long as it says a law. Just like Lincoln owns the Civil War and FDR owns SS. The effects of these things, good or bad, don't stop as soon as there is a new president. We still feel the effects of the Pure Food and Drug act of T Roosevelt back in the early 1900s, although our executive branch is getting very lacks on enforcement.

Just look at what Reagan's deregulation did to your Gas prices. They didn't go up on his watch, but if it wasn't for his watch, these oil companies couldn't have gotten so big that they can control prices. I can remember when Standard oil was broken up for monopoly and it didn't control near the market shares as the present oil companies do.

A real conservative wants those regulations conserved. If it wasn't broke, don't fix it. You can sing Ronnie's praises all you want but he was the progressive liberal and gave the freebees to the Corporations, and he made the middle class pay the bill for it. Then the middle class got no thank you, but a screw you.

Anyone that blindly follows their preferred party without question, deserves what they get. None are as blind as those that will not see.

I thought Standard Oil was broke up just after Teddy Roosevelt left office somewhere around a century ago. At the time I thought Standard Oil under Rockefeller had a 90-95% percent share of the refining industry. Guess I'll have to look that up.

I don't see deregulation that same way you do, and no it doesn't mean I'm blind. Globalization I would estimate has a greater effect on the stagnation/shrinking of the middle class in some sectors of the economy while it increases it in others. Competition creates winners and losers.

Regulation is one thing, required inspections of meat and other foodstuffs, laws requiring workplace safety, environmentalism, just to name a few are things all reasonable people would agree too that the Federal Government should be doing. However, using regulation as a tool in global isolationism I think is counter-productive. If you were to advocate that after a certain amount of time, say a decade, that 3rd world countries who import into the US have to start putting into place the same sort of regulations our local industries have to endure, then I would agree with you. That would be a fairer/leveler playing field than we have today.

[15D]

I thought Standard Oil was broke up just after Teddy Roosevelt left office somewhere around a century ago. At the time I thought Standard Oil under Rockefeller had a 90-95% percent share of the refining industry. Guess I'll have to look that up.

I don't see deregulation that same way you do, and no it doesn't mean I'm blind. Globalization I would estimate has a greater effect on the stagnation/shrinking of the middle class in some sectors of the economy while it increases it in others. Competition creates winners and losers.

Regulation is one thing, required inspections of meat and other foodstuffs, laws requiring workplace safety, environmentalism, just to name a few are things all reasonable people would agree too that the Federal Government should be doing. However, using regulation as a tool in global isolationism I think is counter-productive. If you were to advocate that after a certain amount of time, say a decade, that 3rd world countries who import into the US have to start putting into place the same sort of regulations our local industries have to endure, then I would agree with you. That would be a fairer/leveler playing field than we have today.

At it's apex Standard oil controlled 91% of it's market. That would have been right around 1900. By the time it was actually broken up in 1911 it's market share was down to 64%.