Knife in the Back of a Dying Man
March 4th 2009 18:52
The economy is floundering. Companies are laying people off to get their cash positions better even when they can afford the employees. They fear what's coming.
The housing market is only halfway down to the point that would put it where it should be by historical average.
Obama's solutions? First, if you make over $250,000 a year, like a successful small business person, you will no longer be able to deduct your mortgage interest. That should fully destroy the housing market. Good job BHO!
Then, as if that's not enough, he wants the completely undemocratic, thug rule law the "Employee Free Choice Act." As one person put it, this is like a law called "The Strict Gun Control Law" that gives everybody a bazooka. He promised the AFL-CIO to get card check passed this year.
For businesses already facing $650 BILLION in new "carbon taxes," this is a knife in the back of corporate America. Now a union organizer can come into a company with a few large friends and force a company to unionize, which kills jobs and companies. Unions are the number one reason, with government interference close behind, that US automakers are failing. US automakers pay $2600 PER CAR in pension and health benefits to employees who retire as early as 50 because of union contracts.
Oh, these are the same Union leaders luxuriating at a Florida resort while the people who pay union dues to pay their salaries are having to make concessions and give up jobs.
Combine this law with increasing government control of the banks that other banks go to for the money to loan money, and it's a recipe for disaster. The government will be able to force companies to cooperate with unions to qualify for loans. Government funded "community organizers" who get $6 Billion in the "stimulus" bill can strongarm companies through a variety of tactics.
Get ready for more pain in the economy, because for Obama it's not about the economy, it's about, as HE SAID IT, "reMAKING America." Not rebuilding it, reMAKING it.
What is he wanting to remake it into? Venezuela, Argentina, France, all failed socialist economies. Venezuela, with all its oil wealth, can't keep the electricity on. Now that oil prices have tanked (pardon the pun), the country is deep in poverty with strongarm tactics being used to keep Hugo Chavez in power. Hey, but Sean Penn loves Hugo, so he can't be that bad . . .
You can support my blogging even more by buying my book at Author House. Unlike liberals, this is the only fantasy world I live in
The housing market is only halfway down to the point that would put it where it should be by historical average.
Obama's solutions? First, if you make over $250,000 a year, like a successful small business person, you will no longer be able to deduct your mortgage interest. That should fully destroy the housing market. Good job BHO!
Then, as if that's not enough, he wants the completely undemocratic, thug rule law the "Employee Free Choice Act." As one person put it, this is like a law called "The Strict Gun Control Law" that gives everybody a bazooka. He promised the AFL-CIO to get card check passed this year.
For businesses already facing $650 BILLION in new "carbon taxes," this is a knife in the back of corporate America. Now a union organizer can come into a company with a few large friends and force a company to unionize, which kills jobs and companies. Unions are the number one reason, with government interference close behind, that US automakers are failing. US automakers pay $2600 PER CAR in pension and health benefits to employees who retire as early as 50 because of union contracts.
Oh, these are the same Union leaders luxuriating at a Florida resort while the people who pay union dues to pay their salaries are having to make concessions and give up jobs.
Combine this law with increasing government control of the banks that other banks go to for the money to loan money, and it's a recipe for disaster. The government will be able to force companies to cooperate with unions to qualify for loans. Government funded "community organizers" who get $6 Billion in the "stimulus" bill can strongarm companies through a variety of tactics.
Get ready for more pain in the economy, because for Obama it's not about the economy, it's about, as HE SAID IT, "reMAKING America." Not rebuilding it, reMAKING it.
What is he wanting to remake it into? Venezuela, Argentina, France, all failed socialist economies. Venezuela, with all its oil wealth, can't keep the electricity on. Now that oil prices have tanked (pardon the pun), the country is deep in poverty with strongarm tactics being used to keep Hugo Chavez in power. Hey, but Sean Penn loves Hugo, so he can't be that bad . . .
You can support my blogging even more by buying my book at Author House. Unlike liberals, this is the only fantasy world I live in
| 61 |
| Vote |
Comment by Andrew Biviano
I know I said that I was done commenting on your blog, but over the weekend I was pondering something I wanted to ask you. If you are so inclined, perhaps it would make a good topic for a separate posting, because it is pretty expansive.
My question is about your frequent use of the word "socialist" or "socialism" to describe Obama or his policies. What do you mean when you say this? I have mostly ignored the term until now because it seems so blatantly extreme, a product of campaign silliness that McCain/Palin pulled out at the end when things got desparate. Just as you rightly rebuked the use of the term "fascist" to describe Bush or other conservatives, I figured it was the extreme right's equivalent slander. It seems that no matter what your views, the extremeists on the other side will cast you as either Hitler or Stalin.
But then I see you use it so frequently and casually that I think you do not intend it as the same kind of slur. But at the same time, I don't understand what you mean. What is your definition of these terms? I looked them up in several dictionaries, and Random House's definition of Socialism is: "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." It is basically the traditional communist model of no private ownership of pretty much anything, and really refers to the type of economy we have, not to decisions on social spending. I presume (or at least hope) that this is not the defiinition you intend when you use the term, as I don't think the problems that you identify are relating to the government taking direct title of all private property and businesses, and paying everyone a fixed living stipend regardless of what they contribute or produce.
So then I came across a different definiton in Encyclopedia Brittanica, which states that socialism "is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by economists and learned critics. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by society on behalf of the poor [or] . . . radical social reform which disturbs the present system of private property." This seems a lot closer to the meaning you intend, and the meaning given to the word by self-described Socialist Parties in Europe, especially France and Italy. I think it is an unfortunate thing that the word has these two very different meanings, because it carries the stigma of the USSR and Red China, while usually referring to something very different -- capitalism with a large social safety net, like in France. I think it would help to have a better word, but oh well.
If you do use the word socialism more in the second defintion, that of "redistirbution," it would help me understand you better to know where you draw the line. For instance, if a country has a strongly capitalist economic system, based on private ownership and competition, but devotes a large share of tax revenue toward services and aid to the poor, are they a "socialist" nation? Do you consider all expenditures or investments in social services or infrastucture that disproportionately benefit the poor (such as public education, medicare, or SCHIP) to be socialist policies? Is there a place in your political theory for social spending that you do not consider "socialist"? Is there a less derogatory term you use for social spending of which you approve?
I wonder because McCain also promised tax breaks and credits that would have sent revenue collected from the rich to help the poor and middle classes get health care, for instance, and wanted to expand the child tax credit so that those without children would further subsidize those with kids. I wonder because every politician of every stripe makes promises to help the middle class rather than the top 1%, who, as you mention, pay the most disproportionate share of income tax. Are all of these approaches socialist?
Here's perhaps the best example. The most blatantly redistributive government program is the Earned Income Tax Credit, which was suggested by Nixon, signed into law by Ford and greatly expanded by Reagan, who seemed to be the patron saint of conservatism in the last election, with every GOP candidate trying to appear to be Reagan 2.0. Reagan actually heralded the EITC as "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress." Does this mean that Reagan was a Socialist? If so, is socialsim necessarily bad?
So, I was interested in having a discussion that goes beyond the labels and actually discusses the merits of different approaches. To me, it seems like both sides are very much pro-capitalism, but have different views on how much regualtion capitalism needs to stay productive and fair, and whether assisting the lower classes helps the country move forward or drags it down. If you feel like writing an article on your views, I would be happy to respond.
Comment by Jonathan Biviano
Politics Realm
Marriage Bits
We cross the line when we say that instead of 35% of your weath, which we taxed the "rich" at under Bush, we're going to take 60%. That is what Obama's various tax increases amount to when you factor in having to pay FICA on money earned over 100,000 and the reductions in deductibility. Then, once Obama takes that 60%, he's giving $500 credits to people who work but would otherwise pay no taxes.
That is redistribution. When you redistribute more to the poor and take more from the rich, it's socialism. That redistribution is also taking place by expanding SCHIP and other programs for the poor, including to people earning up to $100,000 a year.
Obama is also over-empowering the worker, another classic aspect of socialism, by pushing for card check. I've seen personally what unions can do as far as strongarming people. If there's no secret ballot, there will be very few non-union shops, and unions are one of the major factors in the domestic car companies' demise as they have to pay $2,600 PER CAR in pension and health benefits to people who retired up to 13 years before the social security retirement age.
I don't define socialism as anything as sinister as equalling nazism, though they were originally called the Nationalist Socialist Party. However, I do believe we'll see at least two banks and two car companies "nationalized" by the end of the year, or maybe 2010. The current spending spree will force it.
The problem is, especially in this "set up shop anywhere in the world, sell by Internet" world we live in, companies will leave, forcing more people out of work. That means more government support needed, which means more taxes. But the people in this country that pay 80% of the taxes (the top 2% of earners) run the companies, and they'll leave with them. So who do we tax now to support people out of work that have become conditioned to turn to the government?
Comment by Andrew Biviano
And while I completely respect and listen to arguments that redistribution has gotten too high, creating unfair burdens and perverse incentives, I hope that you can join me in rejecting, or at least clarifying, what seems to be the new Republican mantra, started by McCain with Joe the Plumber as the mascot. Their message seems to be that redistribution=socialism=bad. I don't see any nuance in there allowing that a little bit of socialism is a good thing, as you said. Rejecting all societal care and assistance ot the poor is not only the most anti-Christian message I can imagine, it is bad policy. Reagan pointed out how good it is for our families and for our economy to help get money where it provides the most opportunities and into the hands of people who will spend all of it, keeping the economy moving.
My line for where socialism becomes a bad thing is where it creates backwards incentives to not work or produce. To keep things in historical perspective, at one time the top marginal tax rate was 91%. That is certainly too high. But I don't think that raising the rate 3 of four points is too much. The successful economy we had during the nineties at these same rates is good evidence. (And credit should go to both parties). Where in between 39% and 91% it gets too high I couldn't tell you. And while I differ with your math in how you calculated 60%, if I had a say in this I would certainly be willing to compromise on many of the proposed tax increases as long as our bills are paid.
That is the final piece of the "redistributionist" argument that is left out and most hurts conservatives' credibility -- paying our bills. There is a lot of spending that conservatives want. And just like there is only so much you can squeeze out of the rich, there is even less you can squeeze out of the poor and middle class. It would hurt our economy even more to give the consumer class on which the wealthy make their money even less dsiposable income. Left out of the socialism discussion is the fact that for the mostpart tax policy is not based on class warfare, it based on where the money that our leaders want to spend is located. Congress doesn't hate the rich; they are the rich. Non-rich want to become rich. It is just that if you want to do anything that costs money, you either have to get it from Americans with money or borroe it from China.
Republicans conveniently ignore this reality now that the spending is of the type they don't like, and in my mind are cynically playing the "socialism" card. It's like they just now realized that deficit spending is not great. One of the most disappointing things President Bush ever did, in my mind, was not that he had different but sincere views on foreign and domestic policy. It was that he decided to send us into two wars without asking for any real sacrifice from the citizens, other than military families. This was unprecedented. In the past the citizenry always sacrificed at least a little along with the soldiers by paying for the war. I think we would have overwhelmingly approved of paying for it if he had asked. I know that I would consider my tax dollars well spent if they went to destroying al-qaeda and securing WMD's. But taxes were actually reduced, and we had record (until now) deficits year after year. So that was redistributionist. It was taking from our (now poorer) children to pay for what we want today.
The argument from Bush supporters was that we helped our children by making the world safer in the future, so it was reasonable to put the wars on our credit card for them to pay off. This is a logically valid argument. I just wish that people opposed to Obama at least recognize the same logic in his approach. It helps our children to build long-lasting infrastructure and create a more sustainable domestically-produced energy system and make health care broader and less expensive. It will help our automakers to eliminate the $2,600 cost per car if changes in health care policy means that employers no longer bear that burden almost entirely by themselves. This is a huge advantage held by our all foreign competitors with governments that provide universal health care.
So in my mind, if you want to be effective and be part of the solution these next 4 (or 8) years, the best thing would be not to use the derogatory "socialist" label which makes people tune you out. Nor is it productive to just complain about the actions being taken. The problems are too immense to do nothing. The best thing might be to offer alternative solutions, based on our common ground and interests and supported by their merits, not ideologies. At the core of every debate, we all share the desire to find the most effective way to get our economy rolling again and fix the problems that must be solved, such as energy, climate change, and health care. Name calling doesn't help, but brainstorming does.