Pelosi by a landslide

[popeye]

I'm not arguing the policies, just think that they are more right than left.  Can you point to GW's leftist policies that keep him balanced in the middle?

[Kieran]

I never said he was dead vertical center. He sure as hell isn't far right, either.

The country couldn't decide between Bush and Gore for a reason.

[Eagler]

Union busting for "national security"...

 imagine the airport security screeners pulling a stunt like the longshore did on the left-coast last month?

there's a reason for the hire/fire clause

[popeye]

The country couldn't decide between Bush and Gore because they left "None of the Above" off the ballots.

[Charon]

OTOH, do you really view Bush as radical right? I hardly think so... in fact, he's alienated himself from many hardcore conservatives for being too middle.

Kieran

Bush is more moderate than most Christian Conservatives would like (in fact, he's pissing a lot off because he's not reactionary Save America ), but I'm looking at the general focus of the entire party since the Reagan years, though the "Contract with America." Also, the current administration is heavily fiscally conservative, which I feel is just as detrimental as an aggressive welfare-state approach.

Ultimately, I don't think trickle down particularly works, especially for a white-collar worker like myself. The shareholder is number 1, with the customer coming in a distant second and the employee somewhere farther down the list. Hell, you're just an expense to be eliminated for the next earnings report. At least the Democrats have to play along with labor as part of their primary voter base. I'm also hearing rumbles from generally conservative small business owners who feel they're getting the shaft at the hands of big business -- which they are. Small business just doesn't have the clout ($$$) in washington to sit at the same table with the Exxon/Mobils and BPs, etc.

At the same time, the success of the Democrats under Clinton can be traced, even by conservative pundits, to the "New Democrat" movement which was away from the left and into a more moderate - MOR- philosophy. Clinton essentially stole a variety of Republican issues. That's why I have little comparative concern over Ashcroft, since the Clinton administration did quite a bit on its own to trash civil liberties in order to appear tough on the war on drugs (while gaining support from law enforcement and the prison industrial complex in the process). In fact, some Republicans are downright liberal (or libertarian, actually) where these issues are concerned.

Perhaps, when push comes to shove, the new "Liberal" democrats will just give lip service to the ultra liberal "Nader" philosophy just as the Republican party seems to give more lip service than action to its Falwell or Buchanan perspective (at least at the national level). Both extremes make me wary though. If you're a moderate, with libertarian leanings, it's hard to get excited with either party.

Charon

[Eagler]

was this the "success" of the '94 elections?

there was no success, only thief of Republican issues as you point out later in your post and lack of personal accountability - at the top where the example MUST be set for the good of a country

[JBA]

For correcting the (liberal popye and the rest) and calling him on his lies. Must be reading the LA times, NY times or Chicago Tribune, to much not to bother to look into the facts.

Something to read about TAXES

Only The Rich Pay Taxes
 
Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes
 
October 23, 2002

The IRS has released the year 2000 data for individual income tax returns. The numbers illustrate a truth that will startle you: that half of Americans with the highest incomes pays 96.09% of all income tax. This nukes the liberal lie that the rich don't pay taxes. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite.  
 
 
 

*Data covers calendar year 2000, not fiscal year 2000 - and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security
 
 
 
Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% - 56.47% of all income taxes; Top 10% - 67.33% of all income taxes; Top 25% - 84.01% of all income taxes. Top 50% - 96.09% of all income taxes. The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.91% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 20.81% of all income. The top 5% earns 35.30% of the pie. The top 10% earns 46.01%; the top 25% earns 67.15%, and the top 50% earns 87.01% of all the income.  
 
 
The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)
 
 
The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.

The Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.

The rest of your resposes are fight on the money, I could furnish more proff (truth) evidence what ever you want to call it to rebut the lies of the media and the left have to offer but sometimes you can help those that won't help themselves.

Something else for the Dems to read.

The American generation who suffered through the Great Depression and defeated the tyrannical designs that Adolf Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo Hideki had for the world has often been called "the great generation." Will history see it that way? Let's look at it, but first start with a couple of statements from two truly great Americans.


In 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees. James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison, you'll recall, is the acknowledged father of the Constitution, and he couldn't find constitutional authority for spending "on the objects of benevolence."


 our congressman might say, "Madison was all wrong; after all, there's the 'general welfare' clause." Here's what Madison had to say about that: "With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Thomas Jefferson echoed similar sentiments saying, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."


When the great generation was born, Congress spent only three percent of the GDP. Today, as the great generation dies off, Congress spends over a quarter of the GDP. There is no constitutional authority for at least three-quarters of that spending.


Let's look at the recent election campaign. Whether it was a Democratic or Republican candidate, for the most part, they won votes by promising to spend the money of their constituents "on the objects of benevolence." They promised to violate the rights of some Americans for the benefit of other Americans. They promised to take money from younger Americans to buy prescription drugs for elderly Americans, take money from non-farmers to give to farmers and take money from wealthier people to give to poorer people. In a word or two, politicians campaigned on an unstated promise to ignore any oath of office to protect and defend the United States Constitution and instead go to work on undermining it.


The "great" generation has transformed the electoral process from voting for those most likely to protect our Divine-given rights to liberty and property, to voting for those most likely to violate those rights for the benefit of others. There's no question that the "great" generation spared the world from external tyranny, but it has outdone any other generation in destroying both the letter and the spirit of our Constitution, and as such produced a form of tyranny for which there's little defense


Stay tuned for the rebuffing of the so called Privatization of social security....2% of 14% tax taken to be placed into higher yeilding returns (SS found is 2% )stock market averaged 5%.  And would only be for the youngest contrubtors not I repeat no the elderly. So for some of us aproaching middle life we may not benifit from this wise dicision

need more facts.. I'll give them to you.

[popeye]

Thanks for clearing that up.

[whgates3]

Originally posted by ra
I wonder if they'll start calling themselves the New New Democrats.

generally in this type of case i think "classic" is the term used

[ra]

"Ultimately, I don't think trickle down particularly works, especially for a white-collar worker like myself. "  It does work, whether you believe it does or not.  Any politican who offers guarantees is just bloviating for your vote.  'Trickle down' just acknowledges that a vibrant, flexible econony is the best way to minimize the effects of inevitable economic shifts.  

"The shareholder is number 1..."  The shareholders own the company, without their money there is no company, no jobs, no products.  And sometimes shareholders are treated like number 2 (Enron).

"..with the customer coming in a distant second ..."  If the customer is treated too badly the stockholders will eventually be very sorry.

"..and the employee somewhere farther down the list. Hell, you're just an expense to be eliminated for the next earnings report. "
As well they should be.  They work, they get pay and benefits.  That's the deal.  If they want guarantees of lifelong protection from economic instability they should vote Socialist.  I was 'an expense to be eliminated' back in June, and I wouldn't want it any other way.  Should I have demanded they keep me on even though my entire department was being eliminated?  I worked, they paid me.  Good deal.  Getting cut sucks, but a tepid economy is ten times worse, and guaranteeing stability is the fastest route to economic stagnation.

"At least the Democrats have to play along with labor as part of their primary voter base. "  Labor unions are just political bodies, the vast majority of workers get along fine without them.  Unions get most of their clout by being able to control who can work for who.  They claim to offer protection from market forces, but they obviously cannot, no one can.  

ra

[Charon]

Ra, you seem to be a bit laissez-faire where your capitalism is concerned And, I would say your responses are reasonable, if you don't factor in a few recent changes in the business landscape.

For the past decade we have been heavily involved in an intense period of mergers and acquisitions. For those of you who think the Democrats are anti business, I don't recall an awful lot of FTC merger denial during the 1990s. In the oil industry, which I cover, were practically back at the Rockefeller Standard Oil era.

The American version of free market capitalism is anchored on (in theory) a level playing field. This ensures competitive practices the benefit both industry, the consumer and employees.

However, once you reach a certain critical mass of consolidation through mergers and acquisitions in an industry (two or 3 big competitors and perhaps a few inconsequential players), total competition can drastically diminish. Innovation is less important for new product development (more focus on marketing the safe and established). I believe we are too consolidated today.

"The shareholders own the company..." For how long today, an earnings quarter or two? What is and has that money been spent on? R&D? -- Takes too long to add to the bottom line. Customer service and quality? No need to spend any more than the other guy, and every reason to follow the other guy down, hell, you just show more expense if you don't. Instead, that money is spent on mergers and acquisitions, that show growth to shareholders, whether or not the growth will actually be manageable or profitable in the long term.

You can reach a level through mergers where, without formal anti-trust activities, industries informally "agree by action" to undertake practices that would be considered anti-trust if they were openly discussed.  Our current refinery "shortage" leading to price volatility and high gasoline prices (and corporate profits among the Majors) was likely a result of this type of activity. There is an interesting Visa/MasterCard vs. retailers lawsuit right now too that touches on this.

I face this environment with my giant mortgage company, which has 5 class action suits filed against it for such things as not paying taxes out of escrow accounts, misapplying monthly payments, or, in my case, hit you up for mortgage insurance 5 months into the loan even though you paid 40 percent down. We’re talking eviction notice stuff here.

Of course, there is an incompetent 1st tier call center with no power or depth of knowledge, that forwards your complaint to an incompetent second tier via e-mail (it is against their policy to connect you to a higher tier via phone), who can't seem to notice that the account number was transposed by two digits in their initial investigation, for which I received a case-closed letter, again, with no way to actually call and speak with the person who made the determination directly. It took two months to straighten out (with dozens of useless, lying, misdirecting 1st tier calls and confusing response letters from the higher tiers), and if it weren't for my mortgage broker's internal contacts at the company, I would still be trying to speak with a competent human today I'm sure. At least the call center was in the USA, providing some much needed $7 / hr jobs.

As a consumer, what choice do I have? Pay a fee and refinance, and hope I can get as good or better a deal somewhere else? I can today, but I couldn't when all this was going on. Deal with another, larger lender that has similar problems? Pay another half point just to attain a level of customer service with a smaller lender where I can actually speak to a competent human being about my account, just to have my loan sold to a larger lender, perhaps the same one, a few months later (this has happened BTW)?

Further, I believe capitalism has a basic contract between the workers and employers. I believe that without that contract, and it's slipping away fast, capitalism is as failed as communism with political and social ramifications. Granted, my views are a bit out of date for the last 20 years.

"I was 'an expense to be eliminated' back in June, and I wouldn't want it any other way. Should I have demanded they keep me on even though my entire department was being eliminated? I worked, they paid me. Good deal."

Sorry to hear that Ra, but good to see ya taking one for the team, I guess.... A question though, did your department provide the company with any value before you were let go? I assume you did. Why was your position eliminated? Did the elimination serve the needs of the customers or even ultimately the shareholders (assuming they were invested for the long haul)? Perhaps your department, or one like it, could have handled my mortgage complaint with 5 minutes of your competent time, instead of the call center that replaced it.

I'm a believer in loyalty -- both ways. I would like to give my employer my full commitment, 100%, but instead, I have to devote a lot of time and energy looking out for number one. I know I cannot expect any loyalty, or real appreciation of my value when I'm coming up against a bean counter and a stockholder that's asking 'what did you do for me today?'  

I generally agree with you about unions. However, I believe in human dignity - a fair days work for a fair day's wage - and know that without labor pressure you will lose out in the end. History shows this. Unions can be a bit unrealistic today (almost ridiculous at times), but they developed for a reason. Ra, do you feel you deserve health insurance? I may be a socialist for saying this, but yeah, I do. I feel I provide more than sufficient value to my employer to deserve that, but if no employer in my field offers that then I guess it's just time to eat another one for the team.

Soapbox off
Rant off
Pissed off

Charon

[whgates3]

shareholder get screwed because there're bad at what their job - they're supposed to be part owners, but they're only want the dividened/profits, so they dont do their oversight job as part owners and let the CEOs pack the board of directors with rubber stamps - everone know corporate executive get where thay are by being cut-throats, but nobody seems to mind trusting them the stock price is up...no they're down and all the fool who have parted from their money want to (foolishly) lay the blame elsewhere

[ra]

Charon,

I don't know much about the oil industry, but the fact that it is reaching dinosaur proportions might have to do with the fact that oil is now more capital intensive than ever.  There is more oil being sucked out of fewer fields, scattered around the world, requiring pipelines and undersea wells that only huge corporations can afford.  The fact is, we get oil very cheap, considering the price manipulation by OPEC and all the taxes slapped onto the the final product.  Maybe the oil industry would be more efficient with more small players.  But seeing as the 'natural' price for auto gas, if oil was available at market rates and taxes were zero, would be about 60 cents a gallon, how much more efficient could it get?

Sorry to hear that Ra, but...

No need to be sorry.  I was a contractor, not an employee, so when the IT department was cut I was the first out the door.  I have no regrets.  BTW, it was a large mortgage company which was bought out in a merger... no joke.    I can relate to lawsuits and customer service.  Yes, the corporation was profitable, but the merger required one of the IT departments to go.  BTW, our customer service was pretty good, the new company is keeping it.  

I believe capitalism has a basic contract between the workers and employers...

Workers under capitalism are better off than under any other economic form, that's the only contract I would want.  I'm not totally laissez faire, nobody is, but trying to tweek all the faults out of capitalism causes more problems than it fixes, IMHO.  You think capitalism won't be around long, but I think European Socialized-capitalism won't be around long.  It will sink under the weight of 'free' healthcare, mandated 35 hour work weeks, and whatever other tweeks they come up with.

I'm a believer in loyalty -- both ways...

I believe in honesty.   I do the work they ask me to do, and they pay me.  If I get shoved out the door it's either because I didn't perform, or the work is no longer there to be done.  

Ra, do you feel you deserve health insurance?..

This one is a biggy, I could spew for hours.  Bottom line, I deserve whatever goods and services I can afford,  including medical services.   Again, without going into details, I believe that almost everyone (in the US) could afford their own medical care.  Those who couldn't are essentially charity cases, just like those who can't afford their other living expenses and have to receive subsidies.  The rich are always better off than the poor, but poor people in a strong economy are better off than most people in a 3rd world economy.  I personally know 4 people whose lives were saved by extremely expensive medical services they couldn't possibly afford.  They are all still alive to complain about it.  Socialist solutions to poverty just redistribute wealth, but do not create it.  Eventually it wears down the economy.  I am old enough to remember when people spoke admiringly of 'free' Soviet health care.  

I feel I provide more than sufficient value to my employer ..

So do I, which is why I want no guarantees, I can get hired somewhere else if I am no longer needed.  I can also quit my job when I get a better offer, which I have done on several occassions, so it works both ways.  



Falls off soapbox, spilts head, grabs another beer.

ra

[Charon]

Hey Ra, I'm a big believer in capitalism I just feel that a lack of controls at the FTC level have swung too far in recent years. I still hope for a natural correction.

I suppose my concern is that the entire marketplace is shifting to the point where companies can easily get away with providing less than a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, and poorer quality and customer service because you, as an employee or customer, have no real choice left in various industries or service areas. As whgates touches on, the recent reality injected into the stock market might bring a return to common sense from the investor perspective that will refocus corporate priorities into more of a long-term view.

I think part of the swing is also in the fact that we, as consumers, have shown ourselves to be price sensitive more than customer-service orientated. You see it in gasoline (admittedly a commodity), but you also see it in areas like retail and, of course, the airlines. You are even starting to see it in the hospitality industry, which one would think of as the last bastion of customer service. I know of one major national hotel chain that overbooks (using quasi-legal procedures) in some markets just like the airlines - great thing to discover at 10:00 pm after 6 hours of traveling. After some digging, I found out that they were not at a competitive disadvantage for doing so since all the chains apparently used the same loopholes in those markets.

I imagine that at some point the service will get so bad that there will be a consumer revolt. Hopefully there will be retailers and service providers still around that can do more than offer lip service where customer service is concerned when the time comes.

Charon

[miko2d]

Charon: I'm a big believer in capitalism...

Charon: ...marketplace is shifting to the point where companies can easily get away with providing less than a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, and poorer quality and customer service...

 That's like saying that you are an atheist but you pray five times a day...


 Market takes care of crookery by incorporating the risk of deceit into the price of an asset/stock like any other risk. A company with more obscure accounting would be perceived as less risky, so there would be an incentive to make accounting more open - that is, once the shareholders decide that is what they want.

 As for not paying "fair wage" or "poor quality" - it is not possible in the free market environment bacause you would drive good workers and customers to the competition. It will always self-adjust eventually.

 It seems that governmental regulation can fix problems faster or even prevent them - but in the longer term it will make them worse. The only thing that can really help customers, workers and capitalists (those looking to invest their capital, like their retirement savings) is competition - for labor, capital and customers.
 Government regulation stifles competition because regulatory burden is always harder on the newcomers than on the established companies. With less real competition, the crooks will find the way to circumvent any regulations. They can hire smarter lawyers than legislature.

 miko