OH, I can go there if need be. Just really wouldn't want to get all primal again. Been there, done that! Hard to square it all when the dust settles.
The right advocates less government. Really?
- Thread starter CaptainObvious
- Start date
OH, I can go there if need be. Just really wouldn't want to get all primal again. Been there, done that! Hard to square it all when the dust settles.
So you are in the top 2% of wealth, good for you. Your lifestyle and what you can do isn't going to change by going back to the previous rates.
Before the Bush tax cuts, people did okay...didn't they? Was there greater prosperity before the tax cuts? Yes, the tax cuts were supposed to create greater prosperity and jobs, and strengthen the economy...well, did that actually happen?
Nope.
The post war period was one where the labor unions were strong, and corporations did not have the type of control over the political process they do now.
Also following WWII, corporations would have been crucified by the patriotic American public if they pulled the shit they pull now. Imagine American corporations doing business post WWII with the Godless Communists of Red China, just to make more money for themselves, and put Americans out of work in the process...
Before the Bush tax cuts, people did okay...didn't they? Was there greater prosperity before the tax cuts? Yes, the tax cuts were supposed to create greater prosperity and jobs, and strengthen the economy...well, did that actually happen?
Nope.
The post war period was one where the labor unions were strong, and corporations did not have the type of control over the political process they do now.
Also following WWII, corporations would have been crucified by the patriotic American public if they pulled the shit they pull now. Imagine American corporations doing business post WWII with the Godless Communists of Red China, just to make more money for themselves, and put Americans out of work in the process...
Did I mention I'll be glad when you get a job?
I'm pretty far right, and I'm not opposed in principle to the right for labor to organize. BUT I am opposed to union thug tactics and demanding benefits and pay their employer simply cannot afford. I am opposed to union workers being insulated from getting canned over poor job performance. I say unions have the right to strike AND their employers have the right to replace them if they choose to in the event of a strike.
Once taxes get raised, they will continue to be raised. There's no stopping the politicians.
If you want to deny that the aftermath of WWII created the large American middle class, that's your perogative, but you're denying history, economics and mountains of evidence against you. After WWII, the US was a virtual monopolist. Labor unions were strong because there was little international competition, few sources of cheap labor, and no sophisticated technology that could substitute for labor. (The typical auto plant today has over 900 robots and less than half the number of employees that they had fifty years ago to produce the same number of cars.)
Regarding your comment that corporations today are corrupt, we agree. All large organizations are corrupt. Businesses, governments, unions. All of them. If it's big, it's rife with corruption.
The combination of international competition, cheap labor and sophisticated technology (none of which existed in the 1950s-1960s) reshaped the entire economic landscape. There's no way to put that 1950s genie back in the bottle.
If you want to deny that the aftermath of WWII created the large American middle class, that's your perogative, but you're denying history, economics and mountains of evidence against you. After WWII, the US was a virtual monopolist. Labor unions were strong because there was little international competition, few sources of cheap labor, and no sophisticated technology that could substitute for labor. (The typical auto plant today has over 900 robots and less than half the number of employees that they had fifty years ago to produce the same number of cars.)
Regarding your comment that corporations today are corrupt, we agree. All large organizations are corrupt. Businesses, governments, unions. All of them. If it's big, it's rife with corruption.
The combination of international competition, cheap labor and sophisticated technology (none of which existed in the 1950s-1960s) reshaped the entire economic landscape. There's no way to put that 1950s genie back in the bottle.
"Once taxes get raised, they will continue to be raised. There's no stopping the politicians."
Sure there is, its called free elections...
You admit strong labor unions were part of the process, which allowed the workers to enjoy the spoils of victory, right along with the corporations. A balance.
Now things are harder, but what do we see? Reduced corporate profits?
Nope. We see increasing corporate profits and reduction of wages and benefits.
So we agree that since every group, including corporations, unions, and government are corrupt...then it is ever more important to have a check and balance system.
The unions and corporations are always in conflict, which keeps them in check.
Eliminating the power of unions throws more power to the corporations, which makes them even more corrupt.
I'm just talking about the need for balance, the Ike did in his final speech to the American people.
We are clearly out of balance, and the right wing is not going for a method to restore balance with their measures.
How patriotic is is for the republican party to spend the next two years doing nothing...just to make things bad come elections time, so that a republican can be president?
That is a good thing for the American people during this particular time?
The party of no is a solution to our problems?
Sure there is, its called free elections...
You admit strong labor unions were part of the process, which allowed the workers to enjoy the spoils of victory, right along with the corporations. A balance.
Now things are harder, but what do we see? Reduced corporate profits?
Nope. We see increasing corporate profits and reduction of wages and benefits.
So we agree that since every group, including corporations, unions, and government are corrupt...then it is ever more important to have a check and balance system.
The unions and corporations are always in conflict, which keeps them in check.
Eliminating the power of unions throws more power to the corporations, which makes them even more corrupt.
I'm just talking about the need for balance, the Ike did in his final speech to the American people.
We are clearly out of balance, and the right wing is not going for a method to restore balance with their measures.
How patriotic is is for the republican party to spend the next two years doing nothing...just to make things bad come elections time, so that a republican can be president?
That is a good thing for the American people during this particular time?
The party of no is a solution to our problems?
Bingo.
You are making some great points.
The thing that makes me crazy is how politicians try to justify raising taxes on the grounds of "shared sacrifice," as if wasteful spending and taking a person's hard-earned money from them are morally equivalent.
Talk to me about raising taxes when every possible wasteful, useless, counterproductive, unconstitutional, immoral and just plain silly spending program has been--not trimmed--but repealed.
Obama has made it about as clear as possible that he sees this in purely class warfare terms. He wants to borrow a zillion dollars, raise taxes on people who won't vote for him and give it to his union financiers.