Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 58

Thread: The REAL Party of the Rich

  1. #1
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default The REAL Party of the Rich

    It ain't the Republicans. More than half of the Congressional Districts with the highest per capita incomes are represented by - A DEMOCRAT !
    Half of all those making at least $100,000 per year ( $200 k for couples) live in states where BOTH Senators are Democrats.

    This is one reason why I want to see how serious Charles Rangel really is in pushing his Tax-Reform proposals. He is starting to talk about serious tax simplification that would eliminate preferences in exchange for reduced rates.
    Sounding incredibly like Ronald Reagan he recently said in an interview with George Will : " I don't think the Tax Code should be a substitute for the appropriations process in making social change. " That, he says, ought to be the province of the standing committees. The question for tax writers ( read himself) "is not just what is fair and equitable, but what is good for the economy. "

    Showing a deft grasp of current economic reality Rangel hearteningly ratcheted UP the traditional Dem definition of "rich" from $200,000 to $500,000 perhaps FINALLY recognizing it is mostly folks making that and less that start most of the new businesses that create most of the new jobs in this country.

    Most encouraging of all ( IF he really means it ) is his proposal to scrap the current Tax Code. "I would erase the whole thing" and ask "How much money does it take to run the damn government ? " and then invite all the interest groups to" come in and defend their preferences."

    This is sweet music indeed for those like me who pine for REAL , genuine POLITICAL Reform. A radicaly simplified Tax Code would cause half of K Street to look for real honest work instead of spending their time trying to persuade Congress to grant tax breaks and preferences in exchange for campaign contributions.

  2. #2
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    Rangel and Obama both have the same problem ... that many uber-rich contributors to the Democratic party don't want their 'game' of high 'officially published' income tax rates to end. The reason of course is that, between offshore tax havens, tax favored investments, and tax free muni bonds which are also part of the current 'game', the uber-rich don't pay anywhere near the 'officially published' tax rate. These 'uber-rich' have traditionally been big supporters of Democratic candidates and policies, motivated in large part by democratic policies that will continue / increase their financial perks re tax avoidance and/or feeding their investments via the public trough.

    In point of fact the 'uber-rich' don't actually pay tax rates that are as high as those the middle class must pay. However, as everyone from Rangel to Reagan has correctly pointed out, the 'uber-rich' investing in offshore tax havens or muni bonds or tax favored (gov't subsidized) industries creates far fewer jobs / far less new wealth than an equal amount of money directly invested in a fully taxable free market growth business.

    Unfortunately for Rangel and Obama, other Democrats led by Sen. Schumer and arguably the Clintons are now working the K Street angle - for obvious reasons. And doubly unfortunate for Obama, immediately after he co-sponsored a bill that would slam the door on offshore tax havens for 'uber-rich' American investors, his political contributions and public support by 'uber-rich' celebrities dried up immediately (with the single notable exception of Oprah). Obama's bill quickly disappeared, however Obama's 'uber-rich' celebrity support did NOT reappear !

    What's really scary though is that Charlie Rangel and Ron Paul now seem to be meeting on 'the dark side of the moon' in regard to tax reform !!!

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 01-03-2008 at 04:47 PM.

  3. #3
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Rangel and Obama both have the same problem ... that many uber-rich contributors to the Democratic party don't want their 'game' of high 'officially published' income tax rates to end. The reason of course is that, between offshore tax havens, tax favored investments, and tax free muni bonds which are also part of the current 'game', the uber-rich don't pay anywhere near the 'officially published' tax rate. These 'uber-rich' have traditionally been big supporters of Democratic candidates and policies, motivated in large part by democratic policies that will continue / increase their financial perks re tax avoidance and/or feeding their investments via the public trough.

    In point of fact the 'uber-rich' don't actually pay tax rates that are as high as those the middle class must pay. However, as everyone from Rangel to Reagan has correctly pointed out, the 'uber-rich' investing in offshore tax havens or muni bonds or tax favored (gov't subsidized) industries creates far fewer jobs / far less new wealth than an equal amount of money directly invested in a fully taxable free market growth business.

    Unfortunately for Rangel and Obama, other Democrats led by Sen. Schumer and arguably the Clintons are now working the K Street angle - for obvious reasons. And doubly unfortunate for Obama, immediately after he co-sponsored a bill that would slam the door on offshore tax havens for 'uber-rich' American investors, his political contributions and public support by 'uber-rich' celebrities dried up immediately (with the single notable exception of Oprah). Obama's bill quickly disappeared, however Obama's 'uber-rich' celebrity support did NOT reappear !

    What's really scary though is that Charlie Rangel and Ron Paul now seem to be meeting on 'the dark side of the moon' in regard to tax reform !!!

    ~
    What's scary about REAL Tax Reform ? There's nothing all that unique about what Rangel is proposing. We got a lot of it in 1986 when Reagan signed the Bradley Bill exchanging lower rates for simplification. The problem was that Congress reneged on their part of the deal and did not control spending.

    You're mostly correct about Obama BUT the unique and most encouraging part of his campaign is the "small donor" factor. Obama's actual contributors outnumber Hillary's by more than 2 to 1 AND most of them are not maxed out and he can and has gone back to them for more. It's like he has room under his "salary cap" and she doesn't.

  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    What's scary about REAL Tax Reform ?
    ... the obvious answer is that it would actually increase the real amount of tax dollars that the 'uber-rich' would be required to pay ! Going from a 'published' income tax rate of 36% to a real tax reform rate of 25% is not actually an 11% tax cut for the 'uber-rich', it's more like a 10%+ tax increase given the effects of offshore tax havens / tax free muni bonds / tax favored (subsidized) investments resulting in production tax credits etc.

    You're mostly correct about Obama BUT the unique and most encouraging part of his campaign is the "small donor" factor. Obama's actual contributors outnumber Hillary's by more than 2 to 1 AND most of them are not maxed out and he can and has gone back to them for more.
    ... and the arguable reason for this is Obama's sponsorship of a bill to close down offshore tax havens for 'uber-rich' Americans - which promptly sent high profile celebrities and 'uber-rich' Democratic supporters running in the opposite direction from Obama - leaving him no choice but to fundraise $20 at a time instead of via the traditional $10,000 a plate Democratic party fundraisers at George Soros' mansion !

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 01-04-2008 at 11:53 AM.

  5. #5
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ... the obvious answer is that it would actually increase the real amount of tax dollars that the 'uber-rich' would be required to pay ! Going from a 'published' income tax rate of 36% to a real tax reform rate of 25% is not actually an 11% tax cut for the 'uber-rich', it's more like a 10%+ tax increase given the effects of offshore tax havens / tax free muni bonds / tax favored (subsidized) investments resulting in production tax credits etc.



    ... and the arguable reason for this is Obama's sponsorship of a bill to close down offshore tax havens for 'uber-rich' Americans - which promptly sent high profile celebrities and 'uber-rich' Democratic supporters running in the opposite direction from Obama - leaving him no choice but to fundraise $20 at a time instead of via the traditional $10,000 a plate Democratic party fundraisers at George Soros' mansion !

    ~

    Obama is NOT the candidate of the LIBERAL uber-rich; those that like to see upper middle income taxpayers pay taxes at 30% and above while they are free
    to shelter their incomes. They also love to push social programs that THEY do not have to pay for. Those folks by and large are supporting Hillary.BUT the most they can contribute is $2300 each if I'm not mistaken. More importantly Obama has matched her in fundraising and has plenty of cash on hand AND has a long list of folk he can go back to and ask for more. Hillary can't.

    Some uber-rich WOULD be willing to pay a higher effective rate than they are now for two reasons: 1. They'd save a fortune on lawyers, accountants, tax planners
    and investment advisors and 2. They would have MORE freedom to spend and invest than they do now. And a few ( Ben Stein; maybe Buffet ) would do it because the country as a whole would benefit and they wouldn't get hurt.

  6. #6
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    ^^^ oh, agreed completely ^^^ . But that raises the same question in regard to Obama's 'electibility' if uber-rich Democratic backers cannot support him because the tax policies of the Republican candidate will be less 'expensive' in terms of actual tax bill. And of course uber-rich Democratic backers are generally celebrities who can command media air time, are owners of local newspapers / TV stations etc who can set editorial policy and influence news coverage (or lack thereof), are owners of banks / law firms / tech companies who can exert a fair amount of lobby pressure etc.

    Of course neither party seems to have much interest in cutting gov't spending or slacking off on tax increases for the middle class.

  7. #7
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ oh, agreed completely ^^^ . But that raises the same question in regard to Obama's 'electibility' if uber-rich Democratic backers cannot support him because the tax policies of the Republican candidate will be less 'expensive' in terms of actual tax bill. And of course uber-rich Democratic backers are generally celebrities who can command media air time, are owners of local newspapers / TV stations etc who can set editorial policy and influence news coverage (or lack thereof), are owners of banks / law firms / tech companies who can exert a fair amount of lobby pressure etc.

    Of course neither party seems to have much interest in cutting gov't spending or slacking off on tax increases for the middle class.
    Oh ? You think they'd do better with Huckabee's FAIR Tax plan ?
    As far as "lobby pressure" goes we're back to my original post and why Tax Reform would be such a good thing.

  8. #8
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    ^^^ speaking to 'uber-rich' Democratic supports - no they'd be far better off with Hilary's or Edwards' continued offshore tax shelters, continued gov't subsidies and tax credits to various businesses they own or can invest in, continued unfunded federal mandates forcing states to issue more tax exempt muni bonds at ever higher interest rates to pay for federally mandated gov't services ...

    speaking to the American middle class - as long as gov't spending isn't cut the 'real world' tax rates on the middle class have only one possible direction ... up. Managing to extract more tax dollars from the 'uber-rich', by whatever plan, is a practical impossibility. It's been tried, and has failed miserably with additional unintended consequences. You probably remember the 'luxury tax' which simply served to bankrupt US boatbuilders and to cost US automakers market share as the uber-rich promptly avoided the 'luxury tax' by purchasing their yachts overseas and floating them home as 'used' goods. Similarly, increasing the capital gains tax simply drove uber-rich investment money offshore or into muni bonds but out of American businesses that created jobs and produced American tax revenue.

    If the 'poor' can't afford to actually pay taxes, and if the uber-rich can side-step taxes, guess who that leaves to pay those taxes !


    Speaking to anyone's 'fair tax' plan, this is merely a short-sighted throwback to the failed 'luxury' tax ... with nothing at all 'fair' about the end result, which will be a 30% price increase on every item purchased in America that the 'poor' and the middle class must pay, but that the uber-rich can still avoid via purchasing their luxury cars, yachts and private jets from foreign suppliers, driving / flying / sailing them around Europe a bit, and then shipping them back America as 'used' goods exempt from tax.

    Ultimately, somebody in media is going to have the 'balls' to finally point out that while the 'poor' and the 'middle class' are actually citizens of one particular country and subject to all of that country's laws, that the uber-rich are in effect GLOBAL citizens who are free to shift their money i.e. investments / purchases around the world as best suits their total after-tax rate of return / total costs. Same basically applies to large corporations who can easily outsource or border jump to evade the business laws / regulations / costs of a particular country, but not to the small businesses that are stuck attempting to remain profitable under whatever business laws / regulations / costs a particular country (or state) chooses to enact.



    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 01-04-2008 at 02:03 PM.

  9. #9
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    It ain't the Republicans. More than half of the Congressional Districts with the highest per capita incomes are represented by - A DEMOCRAT !
    Half of all those making at least $100,000 per year ( $200 k for couples) live in states where BOTH Senators are Democrats.
    I always over simplify things, however...

    It does appear that Democratic leadership tends bring about prosperity whereas, Republican leadership has the opposite effect.

    Just sayin'


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  10. #10
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    ^^^ arguably Democratic policies bring about prosperity for some ... specifically the uber-rich, the 'poor', and public sector / union workers / workers in gov't subsidized industries. However, this is not a case of 'a rising tide raising all boats'. It is a case of Democrats swamping middle class boats in order to make these other boats float higher.

  11. #11
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    I agree that traditional Republican policies are favorable to the middle class. This new generation of Republicans seems to be hell bent on destroying the economy from the inside out.

    Private and corporate interest groups have over run the white house, and that has been detrimental for the United States in ways that are going to take decades to repair, I fear.

    Edited to add: Aren't [public sector / union workers / workers in gov't subsidized industries] these people considered middle class? I mean, were talking teachers, firefighters, nurses, truck drivers, grocery clerks, loggers, construction workers, social workers, police officers, soldiers, flight attendants and pretty much anyone who isn't a manager or professional investor or business owner. You know, the people that draw a paycheck every week is what I'm getting at.

    If you add in the uber rich and the poor, pretty much by your own statement Democrats are good for just about everyone.


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  12. #12
    TheSexKitten
    Guest

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    Quote Originally Posted by Paris View Post
    I agree that traditional Republican policies are favorable to the middle class. This new generation of Republicans seems to be hell bent on destroying the economy from the inside out.
    Amen. Republicans used to say they were this little thing 'fiscally responsible' but that's been thrown out the window as the party transforms.

  13. #13
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    Aren't [public sector / union workers / workers in gov't subsidized industries] these people considered middle class? I mean, were talking teachers, firefighters, nurses, truck drivers, grocery clerks, loggers, construction workers, social workers, police officers, soldiers, flight attendants and pretty much anyone who isn't a manager or professional investor or business owner. You know, the people that draw a paycheck every week is what I'm getting at.
    arguably you're half right. The division line between the 'halves' of course is not union membership per se but whether or not their paycheck is funded by private sector profits (which makes them middle class), or funded by tax revenues / gov't subsidies (which makes them part of the favored subgroup). If the paycheck is funded by private sector profits, ultimately the subject of pay raises and future employment are tied to a balance which allows their employer to remain profitable. But if the paycheck is funded by tax money, the subject of pay raises and future employment is a simple matter of gov't directives with the costs being dumped on taxpayers.

    Private and corporate interest groups have over run the white house, and that has been detrimental for the United States in ways that are going to take decades to repair, I fear.
    I agree. However, recognize that corporate interest groups come from both sides of the street as it were. Microsoft would be a far less profitable corporation if not for Democrat supported loopholes on corporate taxes ... specifically a loophole which allows software created on the US west coast to be registered as Irish rather than American thus making software royalties subject to a 10% Irish tax instead of a 35% US tax ! Also, certain industries such as ethanol and photo-voltaics arguably couldn't even exist without the continued existance of gov't grants / subsidies / protection from foreign competition. I'm not saying that Boeing and Halliburton haven't profited from lobbying Republicans. However I am also saying that Microsoft and Pacific Ethanol have also profited from lobbying Democrats. The players change but the 'game' continues !!!

    Republicans used to say they were this little thing 'fiscally responsible' but that's been thrown out the window as the party transforms.
    exactly !!! The day that GWB cemented his election victory via the institution of a new social welfare benefit program (i.e. prescription drugs for seniors) was the day that 'fiscal responsibility' disappeared from the Republican lexicon.

    However, we do need to face up to a reality of election politics. Nobody who is receiving a gov't check / benefit wants that check / benefit to be reduced, and is extremely likely to cast his vote to that effect. This is the basis of the arguable Democratic coalition between the poor, the very rich, and the subgroup of workers whose paychecks are funded by tax money. Arguably, an approach of raising taxes and maintaining high gov't spending rather than cutting gov't spending benefits all three of these coalition groups. At the same time, the approach of raising taxes and maintaining high gov't spending most negatively impacts middle class workers whose paychecks depend on private sector business profits. But increasingly, the coalition now comprises a majority of registered voters !

    Unfortunately for this coalition, the economic 'engine' that it depends on is the taxation of private sector business profits and the taxation of workers whose paychecks are financed by those private sector business profits. As stated earlier, among the coalition members the poor do not actually pay taxes, the very rich are able to side-step high taxes, and the recycling of tax money from the paychecks of a teacher / cop / gov't clerk that consists entirely of tax money in the first place do not provide much fuel for the economic 'engine'. However, as private sector business profits shrink as a result of higher taxes, and as taxes on private sector workers increase (or are lost altogether due to unemployment), the economic 'engine' starts to stutter big time. Arguably this is what is just now starting to happen to the US economy on a grand scale.

    A resulting exodus of private sector businesses and private sector workers from high tax rate states is also just now being recognized, with the realization that they compromise a minority at the ballot box versus the coalition and thus have only one alternative - to 'vote with their feet'. This in turn provides a double whammy of removing yet more fuel from the economic 'engine', while at the same time providing the coalition with a wider majority at the ballot box allowing them to impose even higher taxes on the private sector businesses and private sector workers that remain. Ultimately this is an unsustainable situation as gov't expenditures exceed actual gov't tax revenues by a wider and wider margin, meaning that ultimately the level of gov't expenditures must be cut.

    Because of the voting power of this coalition, the only likely way that gov't expenditures will ever actually be cut back in Democratic controlled states is through the development of 'crisis level' budget problems for state and local gov'ts. This has not yet started to happen, but the rumblings are certainly audible (i.e. Schwarzenegger calling a 'fiscal emergency' for California). It will indeed be extremely interesting to see how these 'fiscal crises' play out in states like CA, NY, NJ etc. when crisis induced cutbacks in gov't expenditure levels actually start to affect the Democratic coalition in the form of reduced social welfare benefits, layoffs of public sector employees, cuts in tax favored investor subsidies, closing of tax loopholes etc. Of course, the scuttlebut is already out there that these state gov'ts will resort to selling off state infrastructure to foreign investors, will resort to selling new muni bonds carrying ever higher interest costs etc. in an attempt to avoid forced cutbacks in gov't spending levels.

    I usually don't get into economic details in the 'Wild West' forum, but this just released gov't stat is very telling ... ...

    which basically dissects the gov'ts own figures buried in the nooks and crannies of yesterday's December jobs report, and concludes that

    - total unemployment has now risen to 8.7% (using broadest measure)
    - 49,000 construction jobs were lost in December
    - 31,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in December
    - 24,000 retail jobs were lost in December
    but on the flip side
    - 62,000 private sector service jobs were created in December (mostly low pay rate)
    - 31,000 public sector jobs were created in December ( mostly decent pay rate)

    from a tax revenue standpoint, first let's throw overboard the retail jobs lost and the private sector service jobs gained as neither of these categories has high enough incomes involved to make a significant contribution to tax revenue dollars (due to low tax bracket, earned income tax credits etc). Then you have to throw overboard the public sector jobs as well, because in the final analysis tax money collected back from public sector workers who are 100% paid with tax money in the first place does not contribute any NEW tax revenue. So what you're left with is the outright loss of 80,000 decent paying private sector construction and manufacturing jobs, as well as the outright loss of the tax revenue that those workers formerly paid ... as well as a separate loss of tax revenues from those construction and manufacturing businesses whose profits fell so far as to force them to lay off employees.

    As the author of the article speculates, the government cannot wind up being the 'employer of last resort' for long !

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 01-05-2008 at 08:58 AM.

  14. #14
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    Quote Originally Posted by Paris View Post
    I agree that traditional Republican policies are favorable to the middle class. This new generation of Republicans seems to be hell bent on destroying the economy from the inside out.

    Private and corporate interest groups have over run the white house, and that has been detrimental for the United States in ways that are going to take decades to repair, I fear.

    Edited to add: Aren't [public sector / union workers / workers in gov't subsidized industries] these people considered middle class? I mean, were talking teachers, firefighters, nurses, truck drivers, grocery clerks, loggers, construction workers, social workers, police officers, soldiers, flight attendants and pretty much anyone who isn't a manager or professional investor or business owner. You know, the people that draw a paycheck every week is what I'm getting at.

    If you add in the uber rich and the poor, pretty much by your own statement Democrats are good for just about everyone.

    Not at all. We are STILL paying the price for FDR's disastrous economic policies which were continued by Truman.
    We enjoyed prosperity thanks to JFK's tax cuts ; Reagan's tax cuts and Bush's tax cuts. We DID enjoy prosperity uinder Clinton thanks mostly to Gramm-Rudman which Clinton reluctantly and eventually signed after long opposing it and Capital Gains tax cuts which fed the Stock Market boom.
    The coddling of the uber-rich which Melonie and I both argue against is mostly supported by Dems.

  15. #15
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    MELONIE- How many of those construction & manufacturing jobs were filled by ILLEGAL Immigrants ? Most, I would say.
    Btw, those pushing for mandatory employer provided health care are just pushing employers to hire Illegals to whom they don't provide benefits at all.

  16. #16
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSexKitten View Post
    Amen. Republicans used to say they were this little thing 'fiscally responsible' but that's been thrown out the window as the party transforms.
    Sad, all too true and UNFORGIVABLE.

  17. #17
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ speaking to 'uber-rich' Democratic supports - no they'd be far better off with Hilary's or Edwards' continued offshore tax shelters, continued gov't subsidies and tax credits to various businesses they own or can invest in, continued unfunded federal mandates forcing states to issue more tax exempt muni bonds at ever higher interest rates to pay for federally mandated gov't services ...

    speaking to the American middle class - as long as gov't spending isn't cut the 'real world' tax rates on the middle class have only one possible direction ... up. Managing to extract more tax dollars from the 'uber-rich', by whatever plan, is a practical impossibility. It's been tried, and has failed miserably with additional unintended consequences. You probably remember the 'luxury tax' which simply served to bankrupt US boatbuilders and to cost US automakers market share as the uber-rich promptly avoided the 'luxury tax' by purchasing their yachts overseas and floating them home as 'used' goods. Similarly, increasing the capital gains tax simply drove uber-rich investment money offshore or into muni bonds but out of American businesses that created jobs and produced American tax revenue.

    If the 'poor' can't afford to actually pay taxes, and if the uber-rich can side-step taxes, guess who that leaves to pay those taxes !


    Speaking to anyone's 'fair tax' plan, this is merely a short-sighted throwback to the failed 'luxury' tax ... with nothing at all 'fair' about the end result, which will be a 30% price increase on every item purchased in America that the 'poor' and the middle class must pay, but that the uber-rich can still avoid via purchasing their luxury cars, yachts and private jets from foreign suppliers, driving / flying / sailing them around Europe a bit, and then shipping them back America as 'used' goods exempt from tax.

    Ultimately, somebody in media is going to have the 'balls' to finally point out that while the 'poor' and the 'middle class' are actually citizens of one particular country and subject to all of that country's laws, that the uber-rich are in effect GLOBAL citizens who are free to shift their money i.e. investments / purchases around the world as best suits their total after-tax rate of return / total costs. Same basically applies to large corporations who can easily outsource or border jump to evade the business laws / regulations / costs of a particular country, but not to the small businesses that are stuck attempting to remain profitable under whatever business laws / regulations / costs a particular country (or state) chooses to enact.



    ~
    The Luxury tax on high priced gas guzzlers and luxury yachts was a CONSUMPTION tax. They got around it on private jets by setting up leasing and time-share arrangements. Real Tax Reform would be addressed to the Income
    Tax.

  18. #18
    TheSexKitten
    Guest

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    Wait... please explain how FDR's financial policies were so disastrous...?

  19. #19
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSexKitten View Post
    Wait... please explain how FDR's financial policies were so disastrous...?
    We were in a DEPRESSION and he RAISED taxes thus taking MORE money out of the economy when it was starved for capital.

    He gave us an alphabet soup of Federal Agencies and Programs most of which were both unecessary and unsuccessful. He Federalized the dole taking out of the hands of state and local officials.

    He set up an unsound and unfair Social Security system that (then and now) was simply an income transfer system rather than a pension system.

    He meddled and fiddled continually with the economy especially the farm economy
    which we all pay for today with price supports; quotas and the like.

    During W.W. II he set wage and price controls and rationing instead of letting the
    free market work resulting in shortages and inflation long after W.W. II.

    He failed to institute Free Trade.

    He supported Jim Crow ( it had serious economic consequences for the South ).

    I could go on and on but worst of all were his tax policies that at one point had a
    100% marginal rate.

  20. #20
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    you left out the arguably most heinous FDR legacy ... the UCC laws

  21. #21
    Senior Member Tara_SW's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    160
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    Quote Originally Posted by Paris View Post
    IIf you add in the uber rich and the poor, pretty much by your own statement Democrats are good for just about everyone.
    exactly! Paris, I'm digging your posts in this section of the website. I hope you keep them coming

  22. #22
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    you left out the arguably most heinous FDR legacy ... the UCC laws

    http://www.ahherald.com/bishop/2004/...bankruptcy.htm
    Sorry Melonie but Gordon Bishop is completely WRONG !
    First of all , the great Geneva conspirators he refers to were nothing more than international bankers trying to hold together a monetary system that could no longer handle a world economy and W.W. I war debts as various national banks clung to the gold standard.Wars are expensive and are fought with BORROWED money One of a number of causes of the Great Depression btw was worldwide constriction of capital caused in part by gold- based currencies not being able to expand sufficiently. More importantly, everyone at the time had seen what had happened in Weimar Germany when the government printed money at an insane rate. Hyper-inflation was the great fear of bankers and politicians especially Roosevelt which is why he continually carped about balanced budgets when a little deficit spending would have been a very good thing indeed.

    The U.C.C. is the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE which most states have adopted in whole or in part. It was written by merchants and lawyers to help facilitate rational business with legal protection. Inter alia, it includes Debtor-Creditor provisions which have been incorporated into both State and Federal Bankruptcy Laws.

    There is no such case of "Erie R. Co. vs Thompson". The correct cite is "Erie R. Co.Vs. TOMPKINS " and it is a very important Supreme Court case. Prior to ERIE, under a case called Swift vs. Tyson, Federal courts were free to IGNORE state law in diversity cases. ( One of two bases for Federal jusrisdiction is "diversity" when a citizen of State A sues someone domiciled in State B.) It effectively gave Federal judges discretion to cherry pick and borrow as they saw fit from the laws of the state in which they sat depending on whether the legal issue was "local" like a real estate matter or "general" about which the Federal courts were supposed to develop a body of "Federal Common Law". This led to some particularly egregious examples of Federal meddling with state law and promoted forum shopping where people would move to another state or form a corporation just to create "diversity".

    In the "Erie" case Justice Brandeis restored order, sanity and FEDERALISM.
    Tompkins had been injured by a passing train in Pennsylvania. Under Pa. law he was a "trespasser" as he was walking on the RR right of way and could only recover for gross or wilfull negligence.Tompkins sued Erie, a N.Y. corp in Federal Court in N.Y. Rather than apply Pa. law (which should have governed because the accident happened in Pa. ) the Federal Court applied "general" Federal Law and the jury awarded Tompkins $30,000 and the 2d Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and sent the case back to the 2d Circuit for an application of Pa. law and Tompkins saw his case dismissed. The Supreme Court made it clear that there was "NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW" and that state statutes and precedents were to be respected and applied in Federal Court. It had NOTHING to do with the UCC.
    Bishop is correct however in that FDR was eventually able to appoint enough Justices to the Supreme Court to uphold his expansion of Federal power mostly through tortured interpretations of the Commerce Clause.

    One of the many good things the Erie case did was preserve the Tenth Amendment which reserves to the states those powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government.

    Melonie- I know you like and agree with these grand conspiratorial visions of multi-nationals and international bankers sitting down in secret to rule the world.
    First, there is litttle evidence that any such things actually occur,and if they had,we probably would have avoided the Great Depression. Folks like Mr. Bshop need to get their facts straight and decide whether to properly credit bankers for competence or not. Under his "theory" , these nefarious bankers did a lousy job olf implementing their grand scheme. At the time he writes of,there was a LOT of debt floating around. The U.S. and Europe had fought a World War financed largely by bonds and loans. A slowing economy and trade protectionism had made repayment difficult for some countries ( many countries still got substantial revenues from import duties and excise taxes which declined as trade did ). As I've stated, EVERYONE concerned feared governments printing money to repay the debts which is why they clung to the gold standard so that the various currencies would have some intrinsic, residual value no matter how much paper money was printed. The resulting banking collapses were much more the result of incompetent governing and banking (as I've already discussed a number of times in condemning the Fed.)

    You have such an excellent handle on and understanding of history, politics and economics that it surprises me when you lend credence to some of this conspiratorial gobbledygook.
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 01-08-2008 at 01:32 PM.

  23. #23
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    you left out the arguably most heinous FDR legacy ... the UCC laws

    http://www.ahherald.com/bishop/2004/...bankruptcy.htm
    Melonie- Did you actually READ Bishop's piece ? It's total malarkey and his chronology makes no sense. In 1938 , FDR had been in office for FIVE years ; salvaged what remained of the banking system; set up the FDIC and already had enough Supreme Court Justices change over to support, or at least stop interfering with his New Deal policies.
    FDR did NOT take us off the gold standard, NIXON did. FDR simply prohibited private ownership of gold coins or gold bullion to help prevent manipulations in the price of gold or private attempts to corner the market as Gould & Fisk tried to do in the 1870's.

    I don't know what Bishop thinks he's talking about with the Erie decision. It most definitely does not say anything approaching what he claims it does and has NOTHING to do with bankruptcy; the UCC or "equity" courts as Bishop claims.
    Mr Bishop is most definitely NOT a lawyer and his Constitutional scholarship stinks.

  24. #24
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    Melonie- Did you actually READ Bishop's piece ?
    no, I didn't read it in detail ... I only gave it a quick once over in searching for a link to express FDR's supplanting of free markets with 'corporatism' - i.e. gov't subsidies / intervention / regulation in order to insure that certain corporations remained profitable while also guaranteeing that new businesses were forbidden from offering effective competition. Following is a far better reference link ...



    (snip)"Principled advocacy of the free market requires an understanding of the differences between genuine free enterprise and “state capitalism.” Although the Left frequently exaggerates and overemphasizes the evils of corporate America, proponents of the free market often find themselves in the awkward position of defending the status quo of state capitalism, which is in fact a common adversary of the free marketer and the anti-corporate leftist, even if the latter misdiagnoses the problem and proposes the wrong solutions.

    Indeed, corporatism, implemented by the state — whether through direct handouts, corporate bailouts, eminent domain, licensing laws, antitrust regulations, or environmental edicts — inflicts great harm on the modern American economy. Although leftists often misunderstand the fundamental problem plaguing the economy, they at least recognize its symptoms. "(snip)

    (snip)"Leftists usually understand how wartime provides politically connected corporations with high profits and cushy contracts. What is more often neglected is that the history of the American domestic welfare and regulatory state also corresponds closely to the rise of corporatism. It is no coincidence."(snip)

    (snip)"The New Deal

    Both Franklin Roosevelt’s admirers and his detractors often think of his New Deal legacy as generally socialistic. Like the Progressive Era, the New Deal is widely misunderstood: it did indeed attack the free market, but often did so at the behest of corporate interests.

    Such interests were largely behind the emergence of the National Recovery Administration, which exemplified FDR’s economic central planning. Far from being a purely egalitarian agency, the NRA was largely modeled after the policies of Mussolini, who had yet to be considered an enemy by most Americans, but rather was still seen as an inspiration by many. As John Flynn explained in his book, The Roosevelt Myth,

    [Mussolini] organized each trade or industrial group or professional group into a state-supervised trade association. He called it a corporative. These corporatives operated under state supervision and could plan production, quality, prices, distribution, labor standards, etc. The NRA provided that in America each industry should be organized into a federally supervised trade association. It was not called a corporative. It was called a Code Authority. But it was essentially the same thing. These code authorities could regulate production, quantities, qualities, prices, distribution methods, etc., under the supervision of the NRA. This was fascism. The anti-trust laws forbade such organizations. Roosevelt had denounced Hoover for not enforcing these laws sufficiently. Now he suspended them and compelled men to combine.

    Though the NRA intended to guarantee profits through mergers and price controls — forbidding smaller business from competing by offering better prices — big business, big labor, and most other initial supporters turned against the NRA when it became universally recognized as a complete failure. In 1935 the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. Aside from the NRA, other New Deal measures epitomized naked corporatism. The Agricultural Adjustment Administration cartelized the farming industry, and Roosevelt’s farm subsidies and price supports have to this day helped to solidify a corporate stronghold in American agriculture."(snip)

    (snip)"To convince the anti-corporate skeptic of the benefits of the free market, it is crucial to defend the legitimate systems of profit and private property, but it is also vitally important to make clear that America doesn’t have a free-market economy, and indeed many of the ills associated with free markets are actually the result of state capitalism — or socialist corporatism. That the expansion of government regulations, often done in the name of combating corporate excesses, is frequently supported most enthusiastically by corporate interests makes it all the easier to explain economic liberty to those who have become disenchanted with the current system and misattribute the problems to the free market."(snip)

  25. #25
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The REAL Party of the Rich

    he U.C.C. is the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE which most states have adopted in whole or in part. It was written by merchants and lawyers to help facilitate rational business with legal protection. Inter alia, it includes Debtor-Creditor provisions which have been incorporated into both State and Federal Bankruptcy Laws.
    Again, a better explanation of the legal 'change' which occurred in 1938 re the U.C.C. can be found at a different link ...



    (snip)"

    INTRODUCTION

    I was asked to testify in a tax case as an expert witness. After many days of preparation, I felt confident of my research. I spent over 30 minutes presenting many Supreme Court decisions that supported the defendant's position. The prosecution concluded his statements, and to my amazement, the judge told the jury that they could only consider certain facts, none of which were the facts I had given.

    As soon as the trial was over I went around to the judge's office and he was just coming in through his back door. I said, "Judge, by what authority do you overturn the standing decisions of the United States Supreme Court. You sat on the bench while I read that case law. Now how do you, a District Judge, have authority to overturn decisions of the Supreme Court?" He says. "Oh, those were old decisions." I said, "Those are standing decisions. They have never been overturned. I don't care how old they are; you have no right to overturn a standing decision of the United States Supreme Court in a District Court."


    PUBLIC LAW V. PUBLIC POLICY

    He said, "Name any decision of the Supreme Court after 1938 and I'll honor it, but all the decision you read were prior to 1938, and I don't honor those decisions." I asked what happened in 1938. He said, "Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. The charge that Mr. S. was being tried for is a Public Policy Statute, not Public Law, and those Supreme Court cases do not apply to Public Policy." I asked him what happened in 1938? He said that he had already told me too much - he wasn't going to tell me any more.


    1938 AND THE ERIE RAILROAD

    Well, I began to investigate. I found that 1938 was the year of the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case of the Supreme Court. It was also the year the courts claim they blended Law with Equity. I read the Erie Railroad case. A man had sued the Erie Railroad for damages when he was struck by a board sticking out of a boxcar as he walked along beside the tracks. The district court had decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law: that this man was not under any contract with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue the company. Under the Common Law, he was damaged and he would have had the right to sue.

    This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years. Swift v. Tyson in 1840 was a similar case, and the decision of the Supreme Court was that in any case of this type, the court would judge the case on the Common Law of the state where the incident occurred - in this case Pennsylvania. But in the Erie Railroad case, the Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. So here we find the blending of Law with Equity.

    This was a puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces together, I determined that all our courts since 1938 were Merchant Law courts and not Common Law courts. There were still some pieces of the puzzle missing.


    A FRIEND IN THE COURT

    Fortunately, I made a friend of a judge. Now you won't make friends with a judge if you go into court like a "wolf in black sheep country." You must approach him as though you are the sheep and he is the wolf. If you go into court as a wolf, you make demands and tell the judge what the law is - how he had better uphold the law or else. Remember the verse: I send you out as sheep in wolf country; be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove. We have to go into court and be wise and harmless, and not make demands. We must play a little dumb and ask a lot of questions. Well, I asked a lot of questions and boxed the judges into a corner where they had to give me a victory or admit what they didn't want to admit. I won the case, and on the way out I had to stop by the clerk's office to get some papers. One of the judges stopped and said, "You're an interesting man, Mr. Freeman. If you're ever in town, stop by, and if I'm not sitting on a case we will visit.


    AMERICA IS BANKRUPT

    Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him of my problem with the Supreme Court cases dealing with Public Policy rather than the Public Law. He said, "In 1938, all the higher judges, the top attorneys and the U.S. attorneys were called into a secret meeting and this is what we were told:

    America is a bankrupt nation - it is owned completely by its creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the state governments.

    Take silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly. Your court is operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction - call it anything you want, but do not call it Admiralty."
    (snip)

    continued on the next page ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Maryland TRIED raising taxes on the 'rich' ... but the Rich Go Missing !
    By Melonie in forum Forum Games, Quizes, and Surveys
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 06-16-2014, 07:58 AM
  2. Good Places to meet REAL rich men in Los Angeles
    By krystel_gotti in forum Other Work
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-10-2010, 09:11 AM
  3. The REAL Party of the RICH
    By Eric Stoner in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-26-2010, 09:45 AM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-17-2009, 03:18 AM
  5. the REAL up and coming political party in the USA
    By Melonie in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 04-19-2005, 03:21 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •