Friday, November 11, 2011
My Political Philosophy - The Essential Elements
1) Both sides have good ideas.............2) Neither side has a monopoly on the truth.............3) Compromise (generally speaking, anyway) isn't a dirty word.............4) Open-mindedness is a superior virtue.............5) The capacity to think outside the box is highly valued.............6) Dogma, certitude, and rigid ideology should always be viewed with suspicion.............7) Country is always more important than party.............8) The worshipping of politicians is something that should be avoided.............9) A spade is a spade is a spade (AKA, the importance of moral consistency).............10) Hyperbole and demonization should always be tools of last resort.............11) The stereotyping of others should be avoided.............12) It is not a bad thing to change your mind.............13) It is a very bad thing to change your mind for political expediency.............14) There are ALWAYS unintended consequences and it is NEVER a zero-sum game.............15) You can never be intelligent until you first learn how to doubt....YOURSELF.............16) Only vote the "party-line" when you absolutely have to............. 17) Be a provocateur , not a nuisance.............18) The act of signing a pledge is an act of cowardice.............18) It is rude to shout a person down (yes, even if that person happens to be Ann Coulter, Tammy Bruce, etc.)............. 19) It is wrong to impugn a person's motivation.............20) Try to seek out politicians who aren't afraid to lose (Paul Tsongas in '92, for example).............21) Just as times and circumstances change, so, too, must our ideas. Just because something may have previously worked....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Are you saying that this is the way you behave, or are you saying this is the way politicians should behave?
I'd forgotten about Paul Tsongas. I remember him now, quite favorably.
Probably both, Jerry. I just wish that we had more statesmen, that's all.............I remember him fondly, too, dmarks. The dude actually went down to Florida (on the eve of the primary) and floated the idea of means-testing Social Security. Clinton wiped the floor with him but the fact that Mr. Tsongas had the courage to do that really showed me something.............John McCain in 2000 had a fair amount of chutzpah, too, I thought.
Will: These are commendable traits and some of these virtues will serve a person well in the art of living. Unfortunately, politics has become an all or nothing enterprise. Both politicians and the electorate are polarized. Even so I want to still believe America is capable of getting it right.
Which comes first? Can the voters start behaving well and demand that politicians follow suit, or must it be the other way around...given that most voters don't pay a lot of attention to politics anyway?
Jerry: I believe the American conciousness has to transform...Like any historical/social movement, this will take time and require the involvement of BOTH politicians and the electorate. Its not enough for the electorate to say they are disaffected and then opt out. Indifference is not am option...At the same time politicians have to shelve the theater and act like statesmen. It can start with politicians having the courage to lay out issues in a rational manner and act together to resolve problems.
This is the kind of electorate movement that you saw beginning in the 50's, 60's, and 70's as a strong middle class started to evolve. People has more money, and hence time, to think about issues outside of feeding their families. Then along came Reagan and the beginning of the destruction of the middle class began.
Marcus, I saw Erskine Bowles, Alan Simpson, Alice Rivlin, and Pete Domenici testifying before Congress on deficit reduction. And they all were doing exactly what you're asking for here. Unfortunately, they aren't in power and the politicians who are in power aren't listening.
Marcus: I believe the American consciousness has to transform...
I believe the 99 percent movement will be the catalyst by which this transformation occurs. And I also believe the transformation will involve movement back to the Left (as has been the historical precedent). Witness what happened in reaction to the Conservative-caused Great Depression... a swing back to the Left.
It will happen again... in reaction to the current Conservative-caused recession. The 99 percent movement is the beginning of a shift back to Progressive politics.
btw... this transformation will include rejecting the deficit reduction suggestions of the likes of Erskine Bowles, Alan Simpson, Alice Rivlin and Pete Domenici. The cure for recession isn't austerity. Austerity is the poison that makes recession worse.
Means testing runaway entitlements is hardly an austerity measure, wd. And both of these plans actually RAISE revenues. You might want to do a little research first.............And one of the frequently cited causes of the Great Depression was the humongous war debt that we accrued after WW1, a war that a Democratic President had the short-sightedness to embroil us in.............As for this underconsumption theory of the lunatic left, it has been thoroughly debunked. As I've stated before, the income of the top 5% only went up .62% in the twenties, corporate profits stayed roughly the same throughout (at around 8%), and wages actually went up as a proportion of corporate profits. Add to that the fact that consumption expenses actually ROSE in the 1920s; from 68% of GNP to 75% of GNP.
This isn't to let the Republicans off completely, mind you. Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover ALL (Hoover, especially, with Smoot Hawley) championed very high tariffs and Hoover instituted the highest income tax increase in U.S. history (soaking the rich to the tune of 63%). All of these things no doubt contributed to the souring of the private sector, too.
Hoover instituted the highest income tax increase in U.S. history (soaking the rich to the tune of 63%
Then how was JFK able to lower it from 90-70% before Reagan lowered it initially to 50%?
Why Did America Have A 90% Income Tax Under Eisenhower?
It wasn't higher during the Eisenhower Admin?
Top Federal Income Tax Rate Was Once Over 90 Percen
The rate had reached 94 percent during World War II, on income over $200,000 (approx. $2.49 million in today's dollars). It dropped down to 91 percent in 1946 and remained there until the Kennedy tax cuts in 1962-64. Brackets weren't inflation adjusted back then, so it still applied on income over $200,000, which by then had reached $1.41 million in today's dollars.
Is 94% higher then 63% will??????
Yer factiods are stickin' to yer hemorrhoids.
"Means testing runaway entitlements is hardly an austerity measure"
What runnaway entitlements?
There is a reason they are called entitlements. The participants have paid for the benefits.
Means testing means some people are not going to get the benefits that they have paid for. You might call that thievery.
And, if it lowers the cost, you might call it austerity...Austerity -- austerity is a policy of deficit-cutting, lower spending, and a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided.
I don't think that you understand the definition of an "increase", 37927. Hoover raised the top tax rate from 25% to 63%. That represents a 152% increase. But, yes, if you can find an increase larger than 152%, I will gladly stand corrected on it.............Jerry, with the baby-boomers now reaching retirement age, and the fact that people are living substantially longer (the retirement age was actually greater than the life expectancy when FDR started the program), certain adjustments are now de facto necessary. But it doesn't have to be draconian. People who already have vast amounts of money at retirement are simply asked to give up 10-15% of their SS check and/or 15% of their Medicare reimbursements. I would also raise the retirement age 6-9 months. With these 2 modest adjustments, we could probably salvage these programs and not even have consider the dreaded Ryan approach (which neither one of us seems to care for all that much).
"With these 2 modest adjustments, we could probably salvage these programs"
Got some real numbers?
Actually instead of adding to the burdens of the 99% just raise the level of the cut off the rich get on SS tax,
Like about 300-400% to less then $500,000 before the rich stop being taxed on 100% of their income like the rest of us are. This is relevant since the cut off for the rich has never kept up with the real inflation numbers let alone the amount of wealth being acrued by thoise who pay but a pittance on their total income for SS purposes.
then it solves itself
That is MUCH simpler but never even suggested by the people who think adding to the burden of the lower classes is a better idea.
I can't understand why except for the corporate owned compliant media which pushed the pro wall street right wing anti tax the wealthy message the last 30 years, which has resulted the country in the position it is in.
Just like with income taxes, the rich got special definitions so the majority of their monetary income fell outside the IRS definition of income for the income tax.
Hoover raised the top tax rate from 25% to 63%. That represents a 152% increase. But, yes, if you can find an increase larger than 152%, I will gladly stand corrected on it.............
Lets see;
Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800)
From 0% to 3% that is a MUCH higher increase by percentage then you state will;
In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system.
which resulted in this scenario in 1913, the top tax rate was 7% on incomes above $500,000
During World War I, the top rate rose to 77% and the income threshold to be in this top bracket increased to $1,000,000
Hmmmmm, a 1100% increase, good enuf fer ya will?
BTW the president was Wilson,
So you can start your tax and spend warmongering democrats meme again
:p
Jerry, we currently pay out 15 billion a year in SS to people making over $100,000 a year (pensions and investments, I guess). 15% of that would be 2.25 billion. No, not as much as I thought but I'll bet that if you lowered the threshold to $80,000, it would go up significantly. Add to that the fact that interest rates are very low right now. A retiree with, say, $2,000,000 in the bank is currently only getting about $20-40,000 in interest. That will go up when the economy kicks back in again. I also like the suggestion of the Third Way. They propose that every retiree making over $50,000 a year outside of SS pay taxes on 100% of their SS (they currently only pay on 85% now) earnings. I don't have the numbers for that but it has to represent savings in at least the 10 figure range (the same with tweeking the retirement age upward slightly).
From nothing to 3% cannot be calculated............But, yes, indeed, if the rates went from 7% to 77% in one fell swoop, then that would definitely be the highest increase in history, maybe in the history of the world.
The Gulf of Tonkin - you gonna defend that?............Oh, and, just for the record, when I graded out the Presidents of my lifetime, I gave Nixon an F, Bush 2 a D, and Reagan a B-. If that it your "mind" is somehow indicative of a bias toward Repyblicans, then you're just as insane as wd and some of these other characters (no, not you, Jerry).
"They propose that every retiree making over $50,000 a year outside of SS pay taxes on 100% of their SS..."
This is not means testing. It does not reduce SS cost. It just returns money to the "general fund". That being said, it is not necessarily a bad idea, and definitely better than means testing.
Pretty damn good list I'd say...
#37: "I can't understand why except for the corporate owned compliant media which pushed the pro wall street right wing anti tax the wealthy message the last 30 years, which has resulted the country in the position it is in."
A pure myth, really. Nothing true about any of this claim. We can start with the fact that the wealthy are still overtaxed like the rest of us, and we have more revenue than ever before coming in.
The problem is that we are not being overtaxed more than we are already. It is that we are spending way too much. That is what caused the current problem.
It is that we are spending way too much.
Spending for corporate welfare programs outweighs spending for low-income programs by more than three to one: $167 billion to $51.7 billion.
first up, the largest department of the US Government for corporate welfare.
OK immediate 50% cut to the bloated Pentagon budget, so we can bring the brigade home the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team from Vicenza, Italy. After all nobody has attacked them since 1944-45, nor do they look endangered.
We can also bring all the troops occupying Germany home since their reason for being there "the USSR" ended in 1991.
Ditto for Japan, Bulgaria, Turkey, Spain, Portugal, Israel, Romania.
We also could downsize from an 11 carrier fleet to a more reasonable 7-8 carrier fleet given how much the right wing wants budget cuts. we could also take off line half the nuclear attack and boomer subs, since both the Russians and US all are downsizing our ability to nuke the world 3-5 times over.
Downsize the air Force in a similar manner, MUCHO money saved.
Total federal spending on a safety net for the poor costs the average taxpayer about $400 a year, while spending on corporate welfare programs costs the same taxpayer about $1400 a year. (source: Congressional Budget Office figures)
The largest direct subsidy program in the federal budget is for crop and farm subsidies. Most farmers don’t receive direct subsidies from the federal government,” the report states. “The taxpayer-financed handouts go to only about one-third of the nation’s farmers and ranchers. So, where does all the taxpayer money spent on farmers actually go? Mainly to large corporate agribusinesses and the richest farmers.
Make the farmers getting welfare start paying for all their expenses, NO government money at all.
Cut all subsidies to oil corps, and any other for profit industries'
Give the airlines the full bill for all airport construction and traffic control and accident investigations costs.
Allow the SS admin to bargain for drug costs like the VA can, so less government money is wasted.
End the $70 + billion in public airwave channel rights free of charge...make them PAY for the public airwaves, so they stop getting a free ride,.
Individuals and families must demonstrate need to receive benefits, while corporations with billions of dollars in annual income remain on the federal dole.
Take away Wal-Mart's $37 million from Uncle Sam in the transportation bill.
Stop handing money to Egypt and Israel so they can buy weapons, make their citizens cough up the money, not US tax payers.
Make BP pay the FULL costs of all the response to their oil spill in the gulf.
Charge market costs for Resource leases for mineral rights.
Let Boeing, GE, Conoco Phillips among others finance their foreign sales instead of the US government doing it for them.
Why should American taxpayers subsidize the foreign advertising budgets of McDonalds, General Mills, Campbell’s Soup, Pillsbury, Miller’s beer and Gallo wines, as has been the case in the past?
The Cato Institute defined corporate welfare as “any federal spending program that provides payments or unique benefits and advantages to specific companies or industries.” Stephen Slivinski, director of budget studies of the think tank, conducted a detailed policy analysis of the issue in 2007 titled, “The corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S. Businesses.
The report shows that despite all of the public pleas for the federal government to play a reduced role in private businesses, many Fortune 500 companies are using the federal government as their personal ATMs and have made no moves to get off of the dole.
Thats seems like a good start.
dmarks: A pure myth... the fact that the wealthy are still overtaxed... and we have more revenue than ever before coming in.... The problem is that we are... spending way too much.
A pure myth is what I would call everything dmarks typed. Not a single true statement. In fact, I'd say everything he wrote is the exact OPPOSITE of the truth. Taxes are at historical LOWS. Taxes on the wealthy need to be RAISED and outlays on social safety net programs need to be INCREASED.
Given the fact that we desperately need a single payer health care system, I'd say the problem is government is spending FAR to little.
But I'd be enthustically on board for the cuts #37927 wants to make. One thing the government does spend way to much on is corporate welfare. It's time the free ride for the nation's wealthiest come to an end!
Great list, #37927. I am going to steal it and post it.
Ending agricultural subsidies and military bases in places like Aruba (!) are absolutely good ideas. And I've been advocating for over a year now that the government should be negotiating directly with the pharmaceutical companies. According Congressman Andrews, that one thing alone could save the Federal government some 20 billion a year!
Post a Comment