Before the usual barrage of right-wing outrage, perhaps those outraged by this column would care to reread this portion of Reverend Grisham's column:

"They’ve exercised their power to create laws and regulations tilting policies to benefit the wealthy and super-wealthy - favorable inheritance taxes, overseas havens, low capital gains tax rates, financial deregulation, lower marginal tax rates."

The plutocracy takes good care of it's own. Those of us living in those skinny little columns on the left side of the page don't have any actual representation for our meager financial interests.

Rather than questioning political candidates about social issues, we should be demanding to see who is financing their campaigns. The financiers expect a return on their investment.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

November 13, 2011 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

I don't know about STATISTICAL proof, but I'm sure a little digging will locate instances of arm-twisting lobbying and even lobbyists writing legislation, that could be translated into dollars and cents subsidization.

Posted by: Coralie

November 13, 2011 at 3:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

P5: "I would like to see actual statistical proof that their wealth actually influenced the creating of new laws and regulations.">>

Here it is in spades: http://www.thenation.com/article/1619...

Don't miss the important reference: http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_...

P5: "I have yet to see an answer on what would count as wealth,>>

Why would net worth be that difficult to quantify?

P5: "many people have stocks and bonds that may or may not place them in those categories.">>

Stocks and bonds are wealth.

P5: "Stocks and bond are really just paper.">>

Currency is paper and it is exactly wealth too. The amount of wealth it represents is clearly marked on each note. If you have 1,000 Wal-Mart of stock, you can turn it into about $59,000 Monday morning.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

November 13, 2011 at 4:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Here's one of the best articles I've seen about what's happened to create the inequality that has left us dysfunctional as a society. I plan to do a column about this (unless someone beats me to it.)

Lowell Grisham

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/files/a...

Posted by: LowellGrisham

November 13, 2011 at 4:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Senator Boozman argues against raising taxes on the wealthiest among us citing those very wealthy as "job creators" and saying that raising taxes on the wealthiest would curtail job growth.
.
I mailed Sen Boozman a letter to his Lowell office and reminded the Senator:
.
1. In 1950, the yr the Senator was born, highest U.S. income taxes were 91%. Capital gains taxes went to 40% and the rules then were more strict on what composed a capital gain. 1950 was the year of U.S largest gain in GNP.
.
2. In 1977, the year Boozman and his late brother started their eye clinic business top income tax rates went to 77%. Capital gain taxes went to 35%.

3. The Senator and his brother fared very well under tax rates that are twice as high as today's tax rates on upper incomes.
.
4. In 1963 I worked a full time summer job between college semesters. I paid a higher income tax rate in that year than Warren Buffett, richest man in the U.S., pays on his income today. I paid 20%, today Mr Buffett pays 17%.
.
The devil (unfair advantage) always lies in the details folks. Today huge corporations are allowed to ship their incomes overseas and face no U.S. taxation. These same companies declare that the U.S. must protect their assets in case of a foreign attack.
.
Jobs that have traditionally paid a decent income have been shipped wholesale to 3rd world nations.
Additionally those low-wage jobs are providing profits to U.S. corporations who pay no income tax on the gains from shipping jobs overseas. We've lost over 6 million such jobs in the last 10 years.
.
In 1963 the gap between a CEO and average worker pay was 75x. Today it's over 350x.
.
Eventually we cannot all make and sell hamburgers to each other or sell each other insurance. You can echo the worn out Republican chant of "It's unions that are forcing jobs overseas." How trite. Who among you would work for $4 day? That's what it costs Whirlpool to pay semi-skilled workers in Mexico. Skilled labor could earn up to $6 day.
.
In 1963 we had neighbors to whom my dad had sold 6 acres of land. They paid cash. They built their own home for cash. The wage earner in the family was a city bus driver. The wife in the family delivered newspapers for 3 hrs a day. They sent their two boys to college. Both boys had a part time job which paid for most of their living expenses while in college. Try that today. In the last 15 yrs state subsidies to colleges and universities have decreased by 24%. Now the average student debt is about $28, 000 so that we can relieve the pressure on "job creators."

Posted by: cdawg

November 13, 2011 at 5:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

P5: "what formula will everyone agree is wealth,... there is going to be a huge debate on the specifics.">>

I don't see how that is going to make very many pennies of difference. As long as we start out using a consistent objective standard to measure the populace. Under all scenarios you are going to find, vast wealth inequality in the 20's and 30's, with a big drop off in the 40's to the 80's, culminating in a rise to very great wealth inequality today. See this chart (which shows income) for instance:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Better, see this article and charts which slices and dices wealth in several different ways (including who owns stocks and bonds):

"15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America"

http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

November 13, 2011 at 6:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

"the system isn't working". And what systems have we been trying for the last 30 years? Varying degrees of big government. Just what Lowell has been advocating. Thanks for nothing Lowell.

Posted by: GregJ

November 14, 2011 at 3 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

GREGJ: "what systems have we been trying for the last 30 years? Varying degrees of big government.">>

Actually, no. As alph_cat once pointed out with this article:

***
Big Government? Obama Has 273,000 Fewer Federal Employees Than Reagan
By Ray Medeiros | August 24, 2011

"Every single Republican today talks about being a Reagan conservative. This is a conservative that believes in small government, reducing federal spending and ultimately runs a lean and mean government. They talk about this stuff in campaigns, but in practice they failed miserably.

"In fact HISTORICALLY, it is has been Democratic presidents who have reduced the size of the federal government. The Republicans have lied to the people so much that I believe the current crop somehow BELIEVES the history as they have been told, rather than researching the facts for themselves. This may be a stretch, but I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.

"According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which tracks the number of employees per year, the data shows that the “conservatives” for small government are really just big government conservatives. I know that is an oxymoron, but numbers don’t lie."

It gets better:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/big-go...

And see the chart I posted here which normalizes for population change: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Non-defense workforce as a percentage of the population, is lower than 30 years ago, whether you adjust for population or not:

TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 — 2,875,000
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 — 2,840,000

We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago." -ibid

(Incidentally, consistent with history, the number of government employees went up during Bush, and has decreased under Obama).

The notion that our bad showing is too much "big government," in the sense of social spending,... one measure would be to see how we compare to the spending of our peer nations:

"The United States currently ranks thirty-fourth(34th) out of the thirty-four(34) members of the OECD in regards to spending on social programs, dead last."
http://www.politicususa.com/en/debt-s...

So the notion that we are having these problems relative to our peer nations, and this is due to too much "big government," falls flat on its face.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

November 14, 2011 at 9:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Free, when have we given limited government a chance? You just made MY case, that big government is not really working. big, bigger biggest, it doesn't matter, my point is, like I clearly said "varying degrees of big government".
You didn't make a case for small government, you made a case for some assumption you made about something you wish I said.

Posted by: GregJ

November 14, 2011 at 10:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Sure, lets give slavery a try again. good idea. Make the doctors slaves, very original.

Posted by: GregJ

November 14, 2011 at 10:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

GREG: "You didn't make a case for small government,">>

Saying "big" or "small" without a reference point, is meaningless. I provided two reference points:
a) our past history
b) other countries

What reference point are you using for your talking point? If you don't have one, you aren't really saying anything.

GREG: "you made a case for some assumption you made about something you wish I said.">>

No, I made a case showing the size of government, as measured by the number of heads employed, has shrank in the last 30 years, the exact time reference you referred to.
Also, federal spending, certainly a good measure of "size of government" has grown at twice the rate under republican presidents. Since 1959 federal spending has gone up an average $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

History shows, want big government? Vote republican.

If you are going to pass along the "big government" boogie man talking point you need a comparative reference for the claim of "big." And considering it turns out to be wrong when compared to our own history, or comparable countries, it means what you are saying, is probably just wrong.

GREG: "lets give slavery a try again... Make the doctors slaves,...">>

Were you under the impression that the millions of doctors in other countries, were "slaves?" I assure you it isn't true. For a host of reasons, US doctors are paid considerably more than in other countries. This does not show up in better results. I've provided many examples here:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Turns out, having people working in health because their first and foremost interest is in helping you have better health, gets better results than the motivation of making piles of money. Who could have ever guessed that one?

This has been well studied. If you've got a few minutes, see this clip:

"Why more money sometimes causes worse results"
http://fearandloath.us/why-more-money...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

November 14, 2011 at 11:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Whose greed are you really concerned about? The author, FFL and others on their side of the spectrum want you to believe that there is a growing disparity in wealth because those who are uber-wealthy conspire with the government to keep the rest of us poor, ignoring the fact that whatever collaboration there is among the two groups usually pushes the same ideas that they demand we follow. Even when economic growth practically ceased in the latter years of the Eisenhower administration, and when every instance where a president flattened the tax rate led to a more progressive payment of taxes, they aren't moved from their position that somehow the wealthy aren't paying their fair share. They don't mind greed on the part of government, as long as they can derive some benefit from it or can avoid having to do as much work to accrue it. Facts never bother those folks.

Posted by: IrishMensa

November 15, 2011 at 11:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

IrishMensa (with my apologies to the high-IQ organization)--

RE "Whose greed are you really concerned about?"
It's not a matter of greed-- it's a matter of having the wealthy pay for the benefits of our society in proportion to their far greater profit from them. The wealthy are welcome to be as greedy as they like. Indeed, they historically have transcended the burden of high tax rates by making the whole country, as well as themselves, wealthy. Look at figures for productivity and growth of GDP compared to the top marginal tax rate from World War Two onward. Higher top taxes coincide with greater income growth for everybody, world-class infrastructure, and world leadership in technology and education. Lower top taxes coincide with the decline of the middle class, collapsing infrastructure, loss of our technological and educational superiority, and poormouthing from the wealthy.

Greed isn't the problem. Shirking civic duty is.

Posted by: AlphaCat

November 16, 2011 at 1:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

I don't understand why so many of you think the wealthy gain more from society and therefore should pay more. When I say society, I mean services that are provided as a result of taxation. I also can never seem to wrap my arms around this business of "fair share". Suppose I make $1 million this year (a guy can dream). Even if all that income was capital gains and taxed at 17% that means that I would be paying $170,000. Meanwhile, if I were a local paramedic making $30,000 this year, I would, at most, pay 15% or $4,500 (and before everyone gets upset, I am discusing federal income tax exclusively). Are you trying to say that the guy making $1 million is using 38 more times the services provided by tax dollars. I hardly think so.

In any other discussion, fair share is based on percent of consumption and not percent of contribution. Fair share certainly doesn't get larger because just because the amount I could contribute is larger. When I buy a seat on an airplane I pay the same amount as the guy sitting next to me. The differences in our income does not matter because we are all receiving the same services.

Posted by: superdave10

November 16, 2011 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

AC said: How much more wealth is built for the Walton family by the interstate highway system than for you or me, compared to the difference in taxation?

Actually, the Walton family was considerably wealthy before I-540 ever came into existence. If you want to argue that the Walmart business benefits from the interstate, I would agree. I would also say that any of us have the same opportunity to build a business such as Sam Walton did. He was uber wealthy when he started. He worked hard, took risks, sacrificed and grew a successful business.

AC said: The difference between making a living and amassing wealth is tremendous. Wealth has value beyond ownership and use. But great wealth is not earned by work.

Great wealth, or at least the increasing of wealth, is earned by investment which implies a certain amount of risk. If a wealthy person places their money in the market, they could lose every bit of it (can you say Enron).

I read your discussion with CS and my take on it is this. The obvious answer is that anyone would rather be a millionaire taxed at 40% rather than a $30k per year employee with no taxes. However, I don't think that million dollar guy should be penalized, particularly when they once were the $30k paramedic.

I say all this because I once was the $30k paramedic. I decided I didn't want to be in that position in life any more. So, I worked my tail end off, working mulitple full time jobs, went to school, got an education and have worked my way up the ladder into positions with more responsibility and better pay. I am finally coming to the point where I have money I could invest if so desire. If I do so, and I, over time and through careful investment, generate wealth for myself and my family, I don't believe I should be penalized for that or be told I'm not paying my "fair" share. At that time, I will have worked for that money. I will have taken the financial risk in making careful investments and I believe I should be able to enjoy the fruits thereof without being construed as the evil wealthy people that hate the rest of society.

Posted by: superdave10

November 17, 2011 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

GregJ, is everybody who is employed by somebody else a 'slave'?
I guess it doesn't bother you that nurses are 'slaves' to doctors (or hospital administrators.
That teachers are slaves to school systems.
That most people are slaves to chain stores, corporations, or other businesses, unless they are slaves to city, state, or federal governments.
That members of the military are slaves.
That most scientists are employed by government, corporations, or the military.
So most people are wage slaves?
And I'm sure you're not a Marxist!

Posted by: Coralie

November 17, 2011 at 12:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

FFT: "When we look at "Total public social expenditure as a percentage of GDP" only nine countries spend less than we do (Turkey, Mexico, Korea, etc):

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-i...

latest data in this chart is 2007. Outdated and does not reflect the saviors' spending on Obama care/minority interests/etc. Irrelevant as a source.

Lots of talk about Canada and Japan in this blog and they seem to be put on a pedestal for social equality. Here is the point missed....Canada's top fed tax rate is 29%, Japan's is 40%. Better yet, their tax rates include all individuals making any income. Japan's lowest income tax rate is 5%, not zero like the US. In both of these countries everyone pays federal income tax, unlike the US.

Obviously absent from the referrals are Italy, Spain, Greece, UK, France, etal. The European model that so many (including the savior in chief) have heralded as examples are crumbling. This European eutopia is 'coming home to roost' to quote the messiah's spiritual advisor.

We have 1/2 of our population receiving some type of government assistance, 1/2 paying no federal income tax, and 1/2 of them receiving a welfare subsidy cloaked in our taxation system. We spend too much. We chase liberal dreams of euphoria in the form of Solyndra (cost us $500M and payback to Obama supporters and funders over US taxpayers) and other crony investments. And yet the focus of this column is on the lack of taxation as the culprit.

What exactly do we need the federal government to do? Nothing more than is mandated by the constitution. Protect our borders (which Obama has abandoned), Provide for a military, and maintain our federal parks and wetlands. Other than that, the states can take care of themselves.

All this 'redistribution of wealth' talk is out of control. The federal government nor the American citizen has the 'right' to take from those with ability and give to those in need. Money earned belongs to the earner. The sooner we learn this lesson, the sooner we will get people off welfare and onto a payroll.

All this talk about 'fairness' is really getting old. I tell my kids that life is not fair. It would be good for everyone to understand that. If you want it, get out of bed earlier and work harder to attain it. Else, quit the whining.

Posted by: commonsense96

November 18, 2011 at 11:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Well Alpha, if that is all you have, point made...

Glad you accept my points.

Can't heal myself. Spending too much on taxes.

Posted by: commonsense96

November 20, 2011 at 9:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "Can't heal myself. Spending too much on taxes."
If you were spending less on single-payer health care than you are on private insurance, then your expenses would be lower and you would stand a better chance of finding successful treatment for your tragic condition. Of course, you'd have to do something with all that time saved from whining. Maybe you could open a fourth business location.

Oh, what am I thinking? You'd still whine.

Posted by: AlphaCat

November 20, 2011 at 11:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "Interesting how my arguments are 'whining' and yours are not. Love that slant."
Your "arguments" are whining because you repeat them despite the fact that they have been shown to be untrue or misleading. Even when you've tried to come up with some reference other than Faux News for basis, your references, or your interpretation of them, have consistently been shown to be wrong. It's about to happen again:

RE "The loans were turned down by the Bush admin. Obama revived them. Are you not keeping up with the news Alpha?"
Again: How soon you forget. Refresh your memory here: http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2011/oc...
If you bother to read the linked article, note particularly within it:
"January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE 'without prejudice' because it wasn’t ready for conditional commitment."
See also http://tinyurl.com/cc8rogt and http://tinyurl.com/c6r5563

RE "Catch that? Obama and democratically controlled congresses' stimulus package. NOT Bush admin."
Nope. The loan was applied for in 2007 as part of a 2005 Bush administration program. There was no discontinuity in the program or in the loan application. (This is not to say that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is a bad program, by the way.)

RE "Answer: The payers will now pay directly for those subsidies, and yet still pay the same in federal income tax, medicare, etc.... Net effect: increased taxation on those who pay, with increased benefits for those who don't. Cute trick, but no cigar."
Thanks to bipartisan congressional gutlessness, Obamacare is not a single-payer plan. In other words, your argument is not applicable to what I said.

Posted by: AlphaCat

November 21, 2011 at 1:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Solyandra is such a big scandal but I don't hear any Republicans complaining about the huge subsidies to the nuclear industry for the last 60 years.

Posted by: Coralie

November 21, 2011 at 5:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

There is the old 'percentage' liberal talking point again. The loan to Solyndra " represents just 1.3 percent of that portfolio".

Classic..... $500 million thrown away in less than 2 years, and the left lays it off as no big deal since it is just 1.3% of total backed loans. What about the fact that it is $500 million!

The worst part of the failure is that in an eleventh-hour effort to shield the private investors, the government placed them first in-line to receive liquidation proceeds ahead of the taxpayer. In other words, the private investors have a better chance of getting their money back than do the taxpayers. Wonder why that deal was struck? Pretty obvious....

And then to add the caveat that "they failed because of a powerful and very good trend: the price of solar technology is dropping so fast, they didn't anticipate the competition quickly enough" as an excuse? That is exactly why the federal government should not be funding capitalist ventures. The risk should be on the private investor, not some government employee with nothing to loose in the game. A private investor (minus the prospect of government loans and protection through same) would be more savy in their analysis of the business prospect and risk. They would analyze the business leadership and determine better than the government what the success potential is. And then if they loose, it is their money they loose, not the taxpayers. Capitalism is best.....

Posted by: commonsense96

December 3, 2011 at 12:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Alpha: "how many "private" investments hang on government protections such as property-tax abatements, enterprise zones, infrastructure deals, and so on?">>

And "too big to fail" circa 2008. When capitalism pooped the bed, socialism paid for new sheets.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 3, 2011 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Alpha: "How did your investments do in the Bush recession? I lost a lot more than my share of that $500 million. I'd say a loss of only 1.3% is damned good in comparison."

How do you seriously derive a comparison between a percentage of government spending and losses in the recession? You started this debate with laying-off the loss as only 1.3% of government spending. Now you want to shift the debate to percentage losses in the recession? The two are so adverse it denies comprehension...

Posted by: commonsense96

December 7, 2011 at 11:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "How do you seriously derive a comparison between a percentage of government spending and losses in the recession?"
The government spending in this case is an investment loss and a (rather small) percentage of the money in the government's energy investment portfolio. Just like my investment losses in the recession, except my percentage of loss was a lot higher. Pretty commonsense, I'd say.

RE "Now you want to shift the debate to percentage losses in the recession?"
Yet again: How soon you forget. I've not shifted anything. I originally made that point on 2 November. Refresh your memory again here:
http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2011/oc...

Based on the wording of your questions, though, I think you misunderstood my point. I'm comparing MY percentage of investment losses in the recession, not the government's entire losses in the recession, to the government's percentage of investment loss in the Solyndra loan.

Posted by: AlphaCat

December 8, 2011 at 12:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

COM asks: "how is single-payer [health-care] any different?">>

To which I answered:

"One non-profit insurance entity serving the mandate of delivering healthcare to the population vs...
hundreds of companies serving the mandate and corporate responsibility of maximizing profit for shareholders? This really shouldn't be that difficult to grasp."

It shouldn't be, but for COM, it is. I then gave the specific example of billing clerks, which he ignored. I could, and have, given many other examples/reasons, but if COM has a better reason for why we spend about twice as much per person on health care as, say, France, while getting creamed on every objective measurement of success, then let's see what he has.

France: $3,165 per person vs... $7,000 in US. (The Healing of America, pg.52)

And they cover everyone, with better outcomes. That is a *huge,* astonishing, embarrassing, humbling, difference.

This shameless, idiotic, conservative fetish-like devotion to private profit and abhorrence of government, costs us a great deal at many levels. This article provides a few other specific examples:

***
Whose Big Government?

Conservatives Grew Government in Order to Guarantee Private Profits

"...what would Galbraith make of today’s student-loan system? Government enables private banks to make loans, structures the market, and guarantees profits. It is considered half-private, half-public. Yet it is horribly complex, rife with corruption, and $6 billion a year that could help students afford college instead fattens the coffers of private lenders, enriching people like Albert Lord, the CEO of Sallie Mae. An entirely public system, in which government made loans directly to students, would be cheaper and less complex. That might be "bigger government," but it would be more efficient and would better serve the public purpose. Alternately, we could have a fully private system, in which banks actually compete and take risks, perhaps by bidding for the right to make loans.

Instead, we have the worst of both worlds: government that is bigger than it needs to be because it helps generate private profits. The same could be said of the Medicare Advantage program, which supposedly introduces "private-sector competition" to Medicare, but instead spends $1,000 more per person than is necessary because it subsidizes private-sector profits."
http://www.newamerica.net/publication...

Our medical system, government and military is filled with this kind of wasteful stupidity. With regard to healthcare, our peer countries figured this out decades ago and put a stop to it. Canada did it in 1966.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 8, 2011 at 12:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )