We seem to have a strong anti tax and small government group lurking in the midst of our country. Many of these people affiliated with these groups are individuals like me, the average middle class citizen chugging away everyday to provide for their families. These are the people I firmly stand behind and support, these people are the engine of our economy. They have been told by the GOP, conservative radio and television host that lower taxes and smaller government intervention in business can build the middle class and make it stronger. These people have been diverted and need to come back to the realization that those policies although may sound great does not correct the stagnation of the wages we have endured as the middle class.
The Republican party has been calling for less taxes and less over sight of business for the better half of two and a half decades The problem I see in this campaign of anti tax and limited government is the fact that they never once mention the stagnation of the wages of the backbone of the American workforce, while the Republican party is hard at work with cutting taxes they never seem to take appropriate actions when it comes to corporate salaries and income disparity. Why are they mute on this huge problem the middle class has. Top corporate salaries and compensation have increased 500% over the last 30 years, so the profits are being made. Now why has the average citizen’s paycheck remained pretty much stagnant? While they preach that if we cut taxes it will increase the money in our checks and make building business easier and more profitable, the fallacy is it would never make up the difference in the disparity of income we see in just about every household in the middle class today. Spreading the wealth was talked about as if it was evil and socialistic, well the party that mentioned that must be in favor of keeping the wealth were it is, at the top of the corporate ladder. If supply side economics worked, the average income of America would have kept up with the income of the CEO and we all know that has not happened. Employer and employee have to co-exist and without each other, neither survive. It is a partnership where one is not more valuable than the other. If the company has enough profit to reward the top executives then they must have enough revenue to reward the people that made the business successful, the workers on the factory floor. The pursuit of happiness is the right of all people and that has been stifled by greed at the top of the economic ladder. So in memory of those who have fought for the rights of the workers on the business and factory floor we must keep the dream alive and the torch lit to pass to the next generation.
that never works because greed always wins.
<
p>It’s going to take forever to overcome the damage that was done in the last decade by the Bush Administation and the republican majority.
I’ll add to your history lesson, Ray. A lot of traditional FDR & Kennedy Democrats were turned off by the antics at the 1968 Democratic convention and subsequent takeover of the Democratic party by the McGovernites. These Democrats became the “Silent Majority” and re-elected Nixon in 1972. While Watergate propelled these people back to the Democrats in 1976 the dismal failure of the Carter administration created the “Reagan Democrats”. These folks were mostly white, Catholic, and members of the WWII generation. For the most part they have died off or are no longer active in politics.
<
p>For the most part the Republican party used these folks to win elections promising lower taxes, tough on crime, less govt. intrusion in their lives, and it worked. These Reagan Democrats, held decent middle class jobs with benefits and pensions (think Framingham GM). As these folks and their jobs have disapeared the GOP is left with the religious right, no govt types, a lot of small business owners, and much of corporate America. A very diverse and somewhat strange coalition.
<
p>More on this in Part 2., but I have to go to the transfer station first, afterall it is Saturday. Got to re-cycle.
After a long day at the transfer station…….I’ll try to explain part 2 of today’s history lesson.
<
p>So in 2000 GWB would of cleanly won the election if not for the 11th hour story of the drunk driving arrest in Maine, or Al Gore could of tried to win his home state of Tennesee. Bush, in one of the debates explained that those that pay taxes should be the ones that get relief from taxes, Gore gave some uninteligible rebuttal. Most of what was left of the Reagan Democrats agreed an voted for Bush. First round of tax cuts were pretty well accepted by most of the country, but then came 9/11, war in Iraq, continued tax cuts (when we should of been raising taxes to pay for the war). In 2004 casted enough doubt about John Kerry so that Bush is narrowly re-elected.
<
p>Then the roof caved in on the Republicans! Katrina, ongoing Iraq war, GWB being an incoherent President. 2006 Dems takeover House and Senate. 2008 President Obama. Dems win the under 30 crowd who weren’t even born when Reagan was first elected. Reagan Democrats are gone. Republicans are left with the religous right (who turn out to be not so right), no govt types (who hate govt until they need govt), small business types (who always bitch and moan about taxes as they leave in their Escalades).
<
p>As far as jobs and middle class wages are concerned the free traders and pro-immigrant pols (who are both Democrat and Republican) can take credit for this. I have to ask are we better off having China as an economic adversary rather than a military adversary? That is where a lot of those middle class manufacturing jobs went. Back in the 1980s leverage became the economic mantra. If a business had assets it needed to leverage them, instead of re-investing in the business or rewarding workers. Personal leveraging of assets has now contributed to the personal crisis so many Americans now face with toxic mortgages, credit card debt etc.
<
p>Answers? Haven’t quite thought that thru yet.
I’m curious if you give much credit to Obama winning because of
<
p>
<
p>My own opinion is the country is still more conservative than it is liberal and the independents went for Obama for the above reasons and that absent the above it wouldn’t have taken much to swing 4 million people (assume 66.8 M vs. 58.3 M).
JohnD, I pretty much agree with your assertion that overall the country is more conservative. We do get a skewed sense of things here in Massachusetts. This is where Obama may be overreaching. In other parts of the country that “swing” will probably produce losses in the 2010 mid terms for Democrats
I admit I don’t know whom they voted for but I think these numbers translated into a lot of Obama votes…
<
p>
you need to stop whining. If progressives cannot pass whatever legislation you want, it’s because the American people don’t want what you have, not because of “GOP Policies or lack thereof.”
<
p>Your entire thesis is wrong; higher taxes do not increase wages and national income. Americans do not believe in higher taxes and income redistribution and so have not elected many Democrat presidents since FDR (e.g., Walter Mondale. Remember?) Certainly they have not elected Dems across the board … until the current political aberration whose reversal seems to be underway.
<
p>Republicans have won over the past decades because likely voters believed in their economic thesis, and they were satisfied with the economic results, too.
<
p>It seems unlikely they would continue to vote against their own economic interests year after year. Were you around for the Carter administration? There’s your proof.
<
p>We will see whether the American voter will continue to believe in the reckless economic policies of the Obama administration and a very liberal Congress.
<
p>I’m thinking they will not.
<
p>Really? So paying taxes to hire a police force isn’t cheaper than everyone finding their own private police force? Paying taxes to create infrastructure such as roads and bridges isn’t cheaper than for-profit companies only doing the same where it is the most profitable — or not having it done at all?
<
p>I seriously doubt that. I can see why conservatives believe that though — they see government as this big, oppressive force (coincidentally, the way they run government when they themselves are in power) that is the “them” to their “us”. Liberals see government as a way to achieve things that either can’t be achieved by rugged individuals, or things that can be done cheaper when resources are pooled.
<
p>I have found that people who decry taxes as “socialism” have absolutely no appreciation for how much they rely on others for their own success.
So the governor could hire his neighbor is not financially feasible to me. The state government laying workers off, while the governor asserts his outsider label is not financially feasible for me. Raising taxes so democratic hacks can keep their jobs is not financially feasible for anyone.
the reason is WE HAVE NO MORE MONEY. How much money did the state of MA just spend on Teddy’s Hollywood orchestrated wake, funeral, parade and burial?? How many hours of overtime? How many flags handed out? What could we have used all that money for? More hard earned taxes from people like me gone down the toilet.
and it’s a psychological disorder. I know you don’t mean to make such an argument.
<
p>Neither did I. I said nothing about private police forces, national defense, the Supreme Court, the ICC, the NTSB, etc. There’s a place for government involvement in many matters.
<
p>Operating our nuclear missile force is a good example of something only the government should do.
<
p>Providing the interstate legal and regulatory structure for the highway, air traffic control, and the electrical grid systems are examples where the government must set standards and adjudicate jurisdictional conflicts but it is cheaper and more efficient to outsource building and operation to the private sector.
<
p>But if private sector can deliver the product or service, then government should stay out of it. Like the auto industry. Or health care service delivery. Or computers. Or vegetables.
<
p>Please cite a single example when government has provided anything at less cost, irrespective of “pooling resources.” The post office? Air force toilet seats? Welfare? Medicare? The Mass Pike? The MBTA? Public housing?
Aren’t you the one proclaiming universal truth about “government” with no exceptions? And nice subject change by the way — after I offered you examples where higher taxes do increase wages and national income (by people pooling their resources to do things which don’t get done otherwise), you change your test to “Please cite a single example when government has provided anything at less cost, irrespective of “pooling resources.””
<
p>Here’s my example: public schools. Per-pupil spending is usually in the $6,000-$10,000 range. Check the price tags of private schools — they are almost always above that, with a few exceptions such as religious schools which use a lot of free labor by nuns and priests.
<
p>And although I’m sure you’ll point to some poor school district that is failing, look at more representative districts in the state. Very good education for less than a private school.
<
p>It isn’t even an apples-to-apples comparison either — which you don’t seem to acknowledge. Private schools can turn kids away. Public schools can’t. Same with private companies such as UPS — last I checked, UPS didn’t deliver first class mail, didn’t deliver regular parcels on Saturday, and didn’t operate a mailbox every couple of blocks. It’s easy to be cheaper when you cherry pick.
the Republicans always run on the same story of lower taxes and less government. Unfortunately, it’s nothing more than a bunch of spin and manipulation, because what they really mean is lower taxes for the wealthy, and less government regulation so corporations can have a free pass to trample and pillage the American people.
<
p>The sorry thing is how many people actually buy the fiction of the Republican platform. I have spent so much time trying to convey the real message of what the Repubs mean by lower taxes and less government. I have family members who are die-hard Republicans. I have been talking to them for more than 15 years about the platform differences. It was not until the last 4 years of the Bush Administration that they finally decided it was time to take a listen to what I had to say. Suddenly, they are all Independents, and were never really Republican.
<
p>So, the only reason there have been Republican presidents and representatives, is because the Repubs ethical standards are lower than Dems, and can therefore willingly and easily mislead the American people with information that is only partly true.
<
p>example of an exerpt of a hypothetical Republican stump speech.
If the Repubs were being honest and straight forward, without trying to mislead, the hypothetical stump speech would be…
<
p>
So anyway, during the next election cycle, why don’t you
support the idea that your party should be more honest with the American people about what you really mean.
<
p>That’s the real story.
This is progressive spin of the intents and effects of less-government, lower-tax Republicans.
<
p>What planet do you spend your time on? “Trample and pillage the American people”? How contrary is this to the perception of America? It’s simply progressive fantasy (and Marxist rhetoric, Comrade.) When was the last time you were in a Whole Foods, or an Apple Computer store, or Wal Mart, or a True Value hardware store. People LOVE those places, and support them with their dollars.
<
p>Ditto the products we buy from Procter & Gamble, Kelloggs, Ecover, Verizon, and Microsoft.
<
p>Lower taxes and fewer regulations create jobs. Higher taxes and more regulations stifle jobs.
<
p>I assume you do not believe this.
<
p>Then why do we have such a crisis in America. We are still in the midst of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, as well as non existent regulations for corporations, yet we are now feeling the effects of those policies in huge unemployment rates, and rampant fraud and poor management in corporate America.
<
p>The low tax, low regulation theory has been proven false.
<
p>You are the one who is spinning. You seem to be getting dizzy.
It seems Supply Side and Communism are very similar in a sense that both can be made to look good on paper, yet fail miserably in practice. The reason Supply Side fails is because the beneficiaries of the tax cuts do NOT turn around and invest the additional wealth into new jobs like they are “supposed” to according to the theory. They just keep it in their own bank accounts and live it up.
Annual rates of employment growth, by president:
<
p>
<
p>From here:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c…
and here:
http://www.visualizingeconomic…
If free speech is still a right.
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/…
…made popular by the Barbara Anderson crowd that “A tax cut is a pay raise.”
<
p>You know what else is a pay raise? A pay raise. And far too few companies have been willing to grant the average employee a pay raise over the past 8 years. Or “employment” is defined as having a job that pays $8.25 an hour.
<
p>If the middle and working classes want to know why its continually getting tougher to get ahead, they need to look no further than right here: the avg household income, when adjusted for inflation, actually declined over the past 8 years.
<
p>Yet somehow bringing up this point inevitably leads to cries of Marxism! and Communism! from the right, as we have seen here.
<
p>Now should the government control wages, set ceilings and floors based on positions held? No. But as Democrats we need to do a better job explaining to the average worker that Republicans do not have their best interests at heart.
<
p>Tax cuts to do not automatically result in a stronger, vibrant economy, just like less government does not neccesarily equate to better government.
Look at unemployment in Michigan, nearing 30%. Who do you blame, Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA? A Dem Governor? Lets face it , both parties are owned lock stock and barrell by Wall St. who have NO allegiance to American workers or the U.S. Time to look at our trade and economic policies and quit blaming one party or another. We’re all in this together and we are going down the tubes.
on this:
<
p>Lets face it , both parties are owned lock stock and barrell by Wall St. who have NO allegiance to American workers or the U.S.
<
p>I won’t stand by and let people get away with claiming that trickle-down economic theory works and that the reason the average American worker is struggling is because of high taxes.
was no friend of working people, by objective standards. Compared to his predecessor and successor, he was better, but that’s not saying much.