Obama throws Rev Wright under the bus

[GaryC 7]

So do you think Franklin Delano Roosevelt had scary ideas also? You must be a very wealthy young man, happy for you, but I am a working stiff, and these major corporate’s are making insane amounts of money off the back of good working American people. My ideas are scary, how, health care for everyone, for the baby who is sick with a fever in the middle of the night and parents have nowhere to take this baby, no health care, or money. Yea I am one scary lady, children rights. Unions are dying away, as these big wigs start to have a monopoly on the whole economics of this world. You are the kind of person they are looking for, someone to fight for the rich. I think people should make a good wage, enough in order to purchase a nice home. Is that scary to have an idea that if you work really hard in this country, gave time and your life for this country, that if you do the right thing, you should not have to make a choice between dog food or chicken for your evening dinner. You are right I do have very scary ideas.

"Trickle-down economics" and "trickle-down theory," is a term used in political rhetoric to classify economic policies perceived to primarily benefit the wealthy and then "trickle-down" to the middle and lower classes. The theory states that if the top income earners invest more into the business infrastructure and equity markets, it will in turn lead to more goods at lower prices, and create more jobs for middle and lower class individuals. This sentiment is captured in John F. Kennedy's argument, "a rising tide floats all boats". Proponents argue economic growth flows down from the top to the bottom, indirectly benefiting those who do not directly benefit from the policy changes. However, others have argued that "trickle-down" policies generally do not work,[1] and that the trickle-down effect might be very slim.[2]

Today "trickle-down economics" is most closely identified with the economic policies, known as Reaganomics or supply-side economics. Originally, there was a great deal of support for tax reform; there was a dual problem that loopholes and tax shelters create a bureaucracy (private sector and public sector) and that relevant taxes are thus evaded. Reagan, in 1984 cut taxes by 5%. In order to spur business, Bill Clinton lowered taxes for the wealthy another 3%.[3] In the early years of 2001, George W. Bush, lowered taxes again for the wealthy by 4%. To this day, the tax rate is currently at an all-time low at 18%, many economists generally favor simplifications and generally reform in the tax code[citation needed]. A major feature of these policies was the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the term "supply-side economics" was used to promote a trickle-down idea.[4]

“ It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory. [5] - David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director ”

The term "trickle-down" comes from an analogy with a phenomenon in marketing, the trickle-down effect

The ideas derided as "trickle-down economics" are often seen as a major rhetorical variant of "what's good for business and the rich is good for the country." In this form they have been ridiculed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt as "toryism." The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory": "if you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows." Galbraith claimed that the horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896.[12]

Yes I do think FDR had some scary ideas. The fact that a lot of his programs were found unconstitutional is proof that he was wrong. FDR didn't guide us out of the depression, his policies prolonged it. And no I am not rich, I work for a living. The economy is based on business. That is where the jobs comes from. When you punish business you are really punishing the people that are employed by them. Your class envy is breathtaking. If you would stop and think instead of running your life on hatred you would see that. Supply side economics works. It has been the basis of our economy for a very long time and it is what has made us strong.

[GaryC 7]

Just to put your worship of FDR's economic policies to rest here is a short lesson.

How FDR's New Deal Harmed Millions of Poor People

by Jim Powell

Democratic presidential candidates as well as some conservative intellectuals, are suggesting that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal is a good model for government policy today.

Mounting evidence, however, makes clear that poor people were principal victims of the New Deal. The evidence has been developed by dozens of economists -- including two Nobel Prize winners -- at Brown, Columbia, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, the University of California (Berkeley) and University of Chicago, among other universities.

New Deal programs were financed by tripling federal taxes from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940. Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and so-called "excess profits" taxes all went up.

The most important source of New Deal revenue were excise taxes levied on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, radios -- these and many other everyday things were subject to New Deal excise taxes, which meant that the New Deal was substantially financed by the middle class and poor people. Yes, to hear FDR's "Fireside Chats," one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity! A Treasury Department report acknowledged that excise taxes "often fell disproportionately on the less affluent."

Until 1937, New Deal revenue from excise taxes exceeded the combined revenue from both personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. It wasn't until 1942, in the midst of World War II, that income taxes exceeded excise taxes for the first time under FDR. Consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money for growth and jobs.

New Deal taxes were major job destroyers during the 1930s, prolonging unemployment that averaged 17%. Higher business taxes meant that employers had less money for growth and jobs. Social Security excise taxes on payrolls made it more expensive for employers to hire people, which discouraged hiring.

Other New Deal programs destroyed jobs, too. For example, the National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) cut back production and forced wages above market levels, making it more expensive for employers to hire people - blacks alone were estimated to have lost some 500,000 jobs because of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933) cut back farm production and devastated black tenant farmers who needed work. The National Labor Relations Act (1935) gave unions monopoly bargaining power in workplaces and led to violent strikes and compulsory unionization of mass production industries. Unions secured above-market wages, triggering big layoffs and helping to usher in the depression of 1938.

What about the good supposedly done by New Deal spending programs? These didn't increase the number of jobs in the economy, because the money spent on New Deal projects came from taxpayers who consequently had less money to spend on food, coats, cars, books and other things that would have stimulated the economy. This is a classic case of the seen versus the unseen -- we can see the jobs created by New Deal spending, but we cannot see jobs destroyed by New Deal taxing.

For defenders of the New Deal, perhaps the most embarrassing revelation about New Deal spending programs is they channeled money AWAY from the South, the poorest region in the United States. The largest share of New Deal spending and loan programs went to political "swing" states in the West and East - where incomes were at least 60% higher than in the South. As an incumbent, FDR didn't see any point giving much money to the South where voters were already overwhelmingly on his side.

Americans needed bargains, but FDR hammered consumers -- and millions had little money. His National Industrial Recovery Act forced consumers to pay above-market prices for goods and services, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act forced Americans to pay more for food. Moreover, FDR banned discounting by signing the Anti-Chain Store Act (1936) and the Retail Price Maintenance Act (1937).

Poor people suffered from other high-minded New Deal policies like the Tennessee Valley Authority monopoly. Its dams flooded an estimated 750,000 acres, an area about the size of Rhode Island, and TVA agents dispossessed thousands of people. Poor black sharecroppers, who didn't own property, got no compensation.

FDR might not have intended to harm millions of poor people, but that's what happened. We should evaluate government policies according to their actual consequences, not their good intentions.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3357

[SaadBell 0]

The country is a mess at this time, we have a war going on, not making any freaking progress, soldiers dying daily, no health care reform, no energy plan. NOTHING Why, I ask you would you want to do more of the same, only let’s triple our efforts. What in the world would make you think it would work, it has never worked, EVER, why even do it in the first place? It is just common sense, we need new ideas, and we need drastic change in this country. We have the highest incarnation rate in the world, Russia is behind us. American home of the free, sure, but only for some, what are you afraid going to happen if we try a new way, it is a mess right now, and to continue on this path is sure death. You think secretly Obama will enslave you, what, please I really don’t understand what your fear is of changing this white house, and trying to salvage what we have, before we have just another third world country.

[GaryC 7]

The country is a mess at this time, we have a war going on, not making any freaking progress, soldiers dying daily, no health care reform, no energy plan. NOTHING Why, I ask you would you want to do more of the same, only let’s triple our efforts. What in the world would make you think it would work, it has never worked, EVER, why even do it in the first place? It is just common sense, we need new ideas, and we need drastic change in this country. We have the highest incarnation rate in the world, Russia is behind us. American home of the free, sure, but only for some, what are you afraid going to happen if we try a new way, it is a mess right now, and to continue on this path is sure death. You think secretly Obama will enslave you, what, please I really don’t understand what your fear is of changing this white house, and trying to salvage what we have, before we have just another third world country.

Change for change sake isn't progress. Sure we have problems but going off half cocked based on hatred and anger gets no where. The basic system we have now works and has worked for a very long time. It has its ups and its downs but on the whole it works. Try focusing on improving yourself rather than attempting to legislate it. Free enterprise and self determination are the foundation of this country. The government needs to get out of the way and let it happen not step in and dictate every detail in an attempt to make it "fair". Try and let go of your hate ganja girl. It's eating you up inside.

[SaadBell 0]

The largest programs still in existence today are the Social Security System and Securities and Exchange Commission—the primary regulator of publicly traded U.S. firms.

So I assume you are not happy with people receiving SS, good, that will also help stimulate the economy cut off all social security, and all military benefits, there now the problem is done.

[SaadBell 0]

I am not personally an angry person; I am passionate in changing this country for the better. I came from the front lines of our war on drugs, child abuse, health care, and I can tell you all I have seen and witness. You go through years of seeing the wealthy getting wealthier, while our poor get poorer. How many shelters you been to lately? Have you heard some of the stories of these folks? I am not against wealth; just no one person needs 20 trillion dollars, which is insane. I just think personally if we changed a lot of ideas, we could make hunger a memory, we could make health care a basic human right. So I am not getting where you are getting all this hatred from me. Personally I am very blessed, I know this, but why should I be ok, while others drown, I can’t do that. I had a friend who had no idea that we had children shelters, and that children are housed in these shelters sometimes their entire life. She is a good person, but her circle never sees the real poverty. That old thing you hear all the time when growing up, “Pick yourself up by your bootstrap,” is old and sometimes you need some help to pick yourself up. I don’t want riches, just a nice secure life, I think every human deserves that.

[GaryC 7]

The largest programs still in existence today are the Social Security System and Securities and Exchange Commission—the primary regulator of publicly traded U.S. firms.

So I assume you are not happy with people receiving SS, good, that will also help stimulate the economy cut off all social security, and all military benefits, there now the problem is done.

Left field no? You have a talent for wild generalizations. Focus ganja.

[GaryC 7]

I am not personally an angry person; I am passionate in changing this country for the better. I came from the front lines of our war on drugs, child abuse, health care, and I can tell you all I have seen and witness. You go through years of seeing the wealthy getting wealthier, while our poor get poorer. How many shelters you been to lately? Have you heard some of the stories of these folks? I am not against wealth; just no one person needs 20 trillion dollars, which is insane. I just think personally if we changed a lot of ideas, we could make hunger a memory, we could make health care a basic human right. So I am not getting where you are getting all this hatred from me. Personally I am very blessed, I know this, but why should I be ok, while others drown, I can’t do that. I had a friend who had no idea that we had children shelters, and that children are housed in these shelters sometimes their entire life. She is a good person, but her circle never sees the real poverty. That old thing you hear all the time when growing up, “Pick yourself up by your bootstrap,” is old and sometimes you need some help to pick yourself up. I don’t want riches, just a nice secure life, I think every human deserves that.

20 trillion? Wow! Who is that? Better call Bill Gates and tell him he is relatively poor now. I have been to several shelters. I have even volunteered in a few. As for being poor I think I know how that is better than you. For two years I lived on the streets back in the 80's. You think we have it bad here? I have seen what real poverty is up close and personal. Try going to Indonesia, China or the Philippines some time. I have been there and seen it with my own eyes, have you? The poorest among us has it better than the average there. Why? Because of the system you seem to hate so much.

[ChuckNTeresa 0]

I was just watching a news conference on TV. He just totally disowned Rev Wright. He looked very nervous. He was stammering, stuttering and every other word was "um". He said that "nothing that Rev Wright said yesterday was constructive". Ok, he did it. He has disowned him. I still have to wonder how someone can sit in a church for 20 years and not understand what the preacher stood for. This isn't over, not by a long shot.

This is way off the topic and I know I am sorry but I was wondering how I can make a post or a forum ! Here is my issue ! By the way the Consulate officer throw us in front of the bus !!!! LOL

Good Morning my name is Chuck and my Fiancee name is Teresa ! We are right now in Ciudad Juarez waiting for an appeal for our K1 Visa ! We had an open appointment and went to that on April 16th. After waiting for about 7 months to get to this point we were denied of our Visa becasue the Consulate officer stated he believe that my fiancee and I were already married ! The consulate officer did invite us back a second time and asked that we provide him proof that we was not married and we did that with a certified letter form our goverments office ! After showing him the certified letter and providing him with emails and contacts of the person we talked to in the goverments office. THe consulate officer then stated the letter was worded wrong and that he was not going to review any other eveidence we had. The consulate officer said it was his job to approve or deny our visa and we were denied becasue he continues to believe we are married despite our evidence ! The consulate officer has no prrof to back up resaon for denial because there is no proof. Do you know how long an appeal can take ? Do you have any suggestions where we can go for help ! What can we do from here. Thank you for any insight that you have ! Sincerly Chuck and Teresa.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Do you have any suggestions where we can go for help !

Yes.

One of VJ's many immigration-related forums. This is Off Topic.

[SaadBell 0]

I just got back from Africa December 07, so I know poverty, Sudan is a great example of poverty. Personally I think you should have never had to be homeless on the streets, in the wealthest countries in the world. Why is that, why does our country, and we are a wealthy why does the U.S. might have higher infant mortality rates than some other developed countries. For example, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Sweden all have lower infant mortality rates? We are the best, and we don't have to have infant mortaity rates like a third world country. What do you purpose? Profit in health care is a bad idea, life should not be so expensive that only the wealthy get good health care. Are their babies worth more than your babies?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... only the wealthy get good health care. Are their babies worth more than your babies?

Quantitatively speaking, yes.

[GaryC 7]

I just got back from Africa December 07, so I know poverty, Sudan is a great example of poverty. Personally I think you should have never had to be homeless on the streets, in the wealthest countries in the world. Why is that, why does our country, and we are a wealthy why does the U.S. might have higher infant mortality rates than some other developed countries. For example, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Sweden all have lower infant mortality rates? We are the best, and we don't have to have infant mortaity rates like a third world country. What do you purpose? Profit in health care is a bad idea, life should not be so expensive that only the wealthy get good health care. Are their babies worth more than your babies?

I was homeless in 1980-81 because I just got out of the Navy and couldn't get a job because of Carter's lousy liberal way of running the country. Thank God Reagan came along and used supply side economics so I could find a good job.

"only the wealthy get good health care" Really? How is it that I have good health care then. Do you consider a $65K job wealthy?

Edited April 30, 2008 by GaryC

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Gary, you owe me a new keyboard.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, you owe me a new keyboard.

Sorry, ones in the mail.