The rich get rich and the poor get poorer - it’s the GOP economy, stupid
By: Cahir O'Doherty | Published Thursday, June 21, 2012, 2:45 PM | Updated Thursday, June 21, 2012, 2:45 PM
 |
| President Ronald Reagan |
|
Once upon a time, well just 40 years ago actually, if you worked hard all your life you'd probably come out better than you started. It wasn't just a line they fed to lure you here.
It was true -- you stood a good chance of making real progress with your life. In those days, which were your parents’ days, a more tightly regulated economy lifted all boats, not just the big yachts at the top.
There used to be a very strong middle class in America who were the envy of the world, and their unprecedented purchasing power drove the dynamo of the American century.
So what happened? Well, first the Ronald Reagan administration happened.
That era saw the mass changeover from productivity to finance, it saw America's rich find more effective ways to grow their own wealth. Instead of producing goods they switched over to playing the markets, private gain trumped public obligation, special interests trumped the common good.
Since Reagan's inauguration in 1980 we've now developed a financial inequality that's so extreme it's actually worse now than any time since the late 1920s (in the years just prior to the Great Depression).
But while ordinary people are struggling to get by our top corporations are enjoying the highest corporate profit margins in the history of this nation, combined with one of the highest unemployment rates in history.
Employers are also paying the lowest wages in history as a percent of the economy. According to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics this week, profitability in non-financial firms surged in recent quarters to fifteen percent, a level not seen since the late 1960's.
So President Obama was correct last week when he said our private sector is doing fine. There's simply no question about that. It's the best of times for the lucky few and the worst of times for the many.
Giving more tax breaks to corporations that are already stuffed with cash is not going to lead to change. It's the lack of demand that's really hammering our economy and impeding investment.
Some conservatives like to tell you that American jobs only exist because “wealth creators” create them. That's nonsense.
Jobs only exist because there are customers that can afford to buy products. But they can't do that if they don't have the cash.
If you're one of the many people who visited a store last week and hesitated to make a purchase whilst you calculated if you could afford it, you participated in a dangerous cycle. If you turned around and walked out things just got worse.
If instead you're one of those people who rarely have to calculate whether you can afford something, well good for you. The problem is there aren't enough of you to save the rest us from the tightening vice. The crumbs from your table aren't going to be enough.
Of course there are different realities in America. It's why I love livening in New York. It's a democratic city that affords you instructive glimpses into the gulf between rich and poor every time you walk a city block.
It's instructive to walk down to Tribeca, the real seat of the city's wealth now, where you can enter the Harry Potter alternate reality of the financial district. Doormen in white gloves will sweep you into the most expensive looking apartment buildings on the planet.
Upscale lifestyle facilities abound. Yachts bigger than small villages are anchored to the nearby Hudson with immediate access to leafy outdoor restaurants.
If there's a recession on, they haven't got the memo in Tribeca. They live, most of them, in that other America, in Mitt Romney's America, and it's still morning in that America. If you want the next four years to look like the last ten you should vote for him.
To clarify, I don't mind rich people. I don't think rich people are the problem individually. I think that the political party that panders exclusively to them and works against everyone else in the nation is the problem.
I’m not the only one who thinks this. For example David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget who wrote a prescient New York Times op-ed piece in 2010, agrees.
America's increasingly partisan politics is destroying not just the economy and capitalism, but the American dream he wrote. "If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation's public debt will soon reach $18 trillion,” he warned.
That kind of debt cries out for “austerity and sacrifice,” he wrote. Instead, Romney and the GOP insist that the nation's richest taxpayers should be spared even a three-percentage-point rate tax increase.
"Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts," Stockman wrote, "in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses too."
No longer. From 2002 to 2006 the top 1% of Americans received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90% got only 12%.
This growing wealth gap is not the market's fault. It's the fault of decades of bad economic Republican policy. It seems unfathomable that we are being asked to embrace it for yet another presidential cycle.
82 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.hollabackgurl | Jul 06, 2012, 12:41 PM EDT
What will Mitt Romney do expect give more tax cuts to millionaires and ship his own bucks overseas to Switzerland, the Caymen Islands and every other tax haven he can find? How patriotic of him to pay a 15% tax rate in the US - that's a lower percentage than most secretaries, police officers and firefighters. You can already tell Romney will be great for America. Boy howdy.
kaydog1 | Jul 03, 2012, 06:18 PM EDT
I guess I should add to my last post that Mr Obama is nothing if not consistent. I would therefore expect his approaches to problems and the consequent results to be very much the same over the NEXT 4 yrs as they have been in the preceding 3.5 years. So, anyone who is happy with how they personally are doing in our current 'Obamaconomy' should likely vote their pocketbook to continue with Obama at the helm. Anyone who feels that their personal prospects are doing poorly, however, should consider that what you have is what you will get,and consider voting for a different Captain for our economy. It's as simple as that folks - ARE YOU BETTER OFF NOW THAN YOU WERE IN JAN 2009? Decide how you'd like it to be and vote accordingly.
kaydog1 | Jul 03, 2012, 11:21 AM EDT
HOLLABACKGURL, to quote Cahir's article, "If you want the next four years to look like the last ten, you should vote for him (Mitt Romney)" - somehow "FORGETTING" that three and a half of those "last ten years" involved Obama's big Socialist butt sitting in the Oval Office. My point was that Cahir tries to pretend Obama's 3.5 yrs weren't even there. You, at least, are crediting Obama for our present magnificent economic status of 50% of all last year's college graduates being unemployed, 30% underemployed, and 38% of ALL 18 - 19 year olds being UNEMPLOYED. Further, in 2013, all the Federal Income Tax brackets will jump a level, so a 25% bracket will pay 28%, and a 28% will pay 31%, and so on (but it's "not a tax increase") as part of Obamacare, and the Soc Sec tax will start to again collect 2% more on wages (but it's "not a tax increase"), and the Obamacare Tax upheld by the Supreme Court AS A TAX is being re-classified by Obama as 'not-a-tax', 'cause Obama don't raise no taxes! Yet MY Federal Income taxes will go up at least 5%, and the Capital Gains Tax rate will jump from 15% to whatever an individual's ordinary rate is, so business investing is about to take a big dive. one more hit to the economy... Actually, I don't see Obama saving ANY capitalism, except for maybe CRONY CAPITALISM, double-talking his way into taking Billions MORE from the already-fragile economy so that he can pass it on to his friends in municipal unions and phony 'green industries'. So, credit where it's due, HOLLABACK! - Thanks, Obama!!!
hollabackgurl | Jun 30, 2012, 11:43 AM EDT
I don't agree kaydog1. Obama had to save capitalism from the ravages of the financial crisis, from Wall Street's casino crash, and from tax cuts to billionaires that they didn't need and our economy couldn't afford. I credit Obama from protecting us from the financial crash those idiots created for us, and for curbing their activities with the introduction of financial controls that protect us from their worst excesses.
kaydog1 | Jun 28, 2012, 10:05 AM EDT
Cahir, I will not for a moment contest that we are daily raped by the corporations and plutocrats controlling our lives. That said, I note once AGAIN the standard Leftist refusal to accept ANY responsibility for the problem. CBO just this month released figures that show that US households lost 40% of their net worth since 2009 -40%!!! - 2009 was the 1st of the 2 yrs that Obama had full control of House, Senate, Presidency - yet Leftists hand NONE of the responsibility to Obama. It is a shame that Obama will apparantly have absolutely no legacy after his only term in office, but apparantly, everything that has happened was done by Reagan and Bush, before they left office. Poor, stupid old Obama, he's just a tool of the smart Republicans, just another Leftist victim...
seanomelb | Jun 20, 2012, 08:45 PM EDT
Only some of it Briano, maybe you will need a donation if Romney gains power.He wants to take your pittance and give it to us rich guys.
BrianO | Jun 20, 2012, 09:29 AM EDT
Seano how can you be a millionaire, I was sure you donated your wealth by now.
seanomelb | Jun 19, 2012, 07:30 PM EDT
Briano I'm in good company I my self am a self made millionaire and a liberal to boot.You Briano can go on voting for the good old GOP who are sending the middle class into debt so their billionaire friends can become richer,some people can be fooled all of the time.People like you Briano!!
BrianO | Jun 19, 2012, 08:36 AM EDT
KatieMurphy, you show the logic that seanomelb loves, and good job for doing well, I'm sure your father would be proud of you.
KatieMurphy | Jun 19, 2012, 12:09 AM EDT
CAhir almost talks directly about my parents. My father worked faithfully for meager wages, selling for a large distributor of bicicles tvs etc................. his best year was 1984, he made $18000. .............. Then the distributor went out of business, and my dad took over a couple of lines (ignoring the 10 0thers he had sold) as an independent rep......... The following 5 years (until his health failed at age 80, he only worked part time and made $25000. Basically the owner made more money off him then he paid my dad for 40 years..........YOu may ask why Dad didnt leave earlier and go into business for himself, but its impossible to tell you the economic and emotional trauma he suffered during the great depression............BTW I and my husband are quite wealthy. Why - a string of Good luck and Gods grace , a college education , a chance meeting, even a minor pvt airplane accident were instrumental in us both working for Intel corp for decades and they paid us handsomely -(the then president was Dr. Grove, a holocaust survivor saved by good xtians in Hungary..............So I've changed from repub to democrat, given away $100,000 in college scholarship money to good needy kids........I was purely lucky (and darn near worked myself to death) so I have lots of empathy for the average ex- middle class American. Taken to the cleaners by the repub mostly wall street banks. BTw in the latest issue of the Nation, it describes how eg Bof America has put all its risky crazy derivatives into the same corporate shell as the depositors money. They just lost $2 billion in the same kind of derivative scam that brought us Bush Jrs disaster. And if they go under - guess who pays the tab - too big to fail, the FDIC and the taxpayers................ time we bust up these conglomerates. a worse scene could result in what
seanomelb | Jun 18, 2012, 07:48 PM EDT
Briano you're welcome to your illogical one sided point of view.
BrianO | Jun 18, 2012, 03:49 PM EDT
Red branch, you can make out who compiled the statistics shown. www.faireconomy.org the have a particular leaning.
BulldogMania | Jun 18, 2012, 02:21 PM EDT
LMAO! More pathetic nonsense by the radical left. This article is filled with so much CRAP...I'll just say two words...JIMMY CARTER...enough said.
Scrivner | Jun 18, 2012, 02:18 PM EDT
I remember the time just before Reagan--stagflation, the misery index and perpetual engergy crises. The Reagan turnaround was painful, but a revised & simplified tax code, tightened monetary policy and emphasis on a better future brought about a sustained period of prosperity that lasted thru the Clinton administration. You should also note the correlation of who controled Congress, too.
RedBranch | Jun 18, 2012, 02:07 PM EDT
I would have liked to see a red 1% bar for the first graph, if only to counter Twain's critique of statistics.
Bythebay | Jun 18, 2012, 12:09 PM EDT
sirpeter, of course, a Yank taking social security, medicaid, social welfare,foodstamps. Left Ireland in the 80's for the good old US welfare payouts. Lazy loafers.
Bythebay | Jun 18, 2012, 12:00 PM EDT
jamieLM, what Socialist system in Europe? What are you talking about. There are 27 countries in the European Union, which ones are Socialist and what have you based your usual derogatory anti-Europe comment on? You've never even been to Europe.
ProudCanadian | Jun 17, 2012, 11:20 PM EDT
Nicely said Brian0. I will respectfully disagree with you when I do disagree with you. Respect is earned, if you know what I mean.
BrianO | Jun 17, 2012, 08:03 PM EDT
Proudcanadian, there is no growth without discussion, one will not agree totally with another, what many accuse me of ie. "incapable of logic or common sense" I take as a pat on the back from the closed minded, Seano, socialist security is forced savings, that isn't in the control of the individual but in the hands of government. Over your lifetime that control will be under government entities you will support or despise, I like control of my destiny, not hoping for a change in regimes to maybe return my retirement money. And thank you for the compliment. McNamara31 in the famous words of American philosopher bart simpson, It wasn't me I didn't do don't blame me--or was that Obama, eventually (31/2years) you have to be a man and accept resposibility.
seanomelb | Jun 17, 2012, 07:39 PM EDT
"there should be forced savings" try telling that to those trying to feed/clothe and educate their families. Briano is just another clone of the discredited Fox/Newscorp/GOP talking points and poor old Briano is incapable of logic or commonsense.
McNamara31 | Jun 17, 2012, 06:03 PM EDT
Americans have lost 40% of their wealth (and security) not because of hand outs to the poor, but because of the financial crisis left at Obama's doorstep by the Bush administration. The GOP is for deregulation of banking, of the EPA, of business...Why.. because it means greater profits for the corporations which they represent. If you think the GOP represents American people you are beyond hope.What the GOP can't win in votes, they will buy with the money flooding into their super pac's by the corporations purchasing future deregulation.
Searlit | Jun 17, 2012, 03:45 PM EDT
BrianO, I am being taxed at a higher rate than the billionaires. Worker's are paying about 14% of their incomes to Federal, State, SS & Medicare. Many millionaires & billionaires are paying 10% to nothing, once they use all their tax shelters.
ProudCanadian | Jun 17, 2012, 03:30 PM EDT
BrianO are you the same person that has been on here and I have disagreed with you? You have been dead on about this subject. They could do away with social welfare if employers were not so greedy and wanted the moon. There would be more people working if they would be satisfied with what they have rather than telling the poor worker to be satisfied with what they have. Equality, or atleast a bit more of the pie than what he gets so he can live and provide a decent life for himself and family, that is all the little man has wanted forever. Thanks also Brian for your achnowledgement of my previous post.
sirpeter | Jun 17, 2012, 12:59 PM EDT
BrianO. So you want to do away with social security?Like medicaid,social welfare,foodstamps ect? And that makes perfect sense to you? You like the smell of burning cities do ya?
BrianO | Jun 17, 2012, 11:32 AM EDT
I'm all for doing away with socialist security. If there must be forced savings it should be self directed. Your premise is false about percentages,and yes government is stealing us blind, so why not strive for smaller government? When you tax one person more to tax another person less that is theft. You can paint the pony any color it will still be a pony.
Searlit | Jun 17, 2012, 11:12 AM EDT
BrianO, Republicans are stealing us blind. My paychecks have had Social Security taxes taken out from day one. Why should I pay taxes on 100% of my income while the wealthiest pay less than 1%? "Never fair to steal" - if only you would live by your own words...
BrianO | Jun 17, 2012, 08:49 AM EDT
@seano, if you mean rely on me me me to strive to achieve you would be right. I like a man to fish rather than giving him scraps of fish, you know self reliant folks, rather than government serfs.
BrianO | Jun 17, 2012, 08:45 AM EDT
searlit it is never fair to steal.
mark12345 | Jun 17, 2012, 07:39 AM EDT
Cahir, you're a good writer my friend but you couldn't be more wrong with this article. It is the Dems who have killed this country, simple as. Generations after generation of hand outs have perpetuated just that. Almsot every welfare program the Democrats have ever proposed has cost money to the taxpayer and has not achieved its goal, like getting people off assistance. Remember Ireland back in the 80's when there was about 18% unemployment and there were married men with kids out of work for years. That was because the government had taxed the behinds out of the rich to pay for the poor or unemployed. You'll see what will happen in America if they continue to tinker with the rich, the'll take their money and go elsewhere and all we'll be left with is the poor. But it's heading that way anyway. Anyone who criticizes the rich and the corporations really doesn't no economics. You need the rich or there's no jobs, no nothing. Time to vote Romney in.
Andrew007 | Jun 17, 2012, 06:15 AM EDT
What's this Cahir, something we actually see eye-to-eye on? Hahaha! I totally agree with this article you wrote, so something must have happened! :) My comments on your other article titled "Good News or Fox News, which is it Cardinal Dolan?" would fit right in here! Just a request: perhaps you could also post links to the data you obtained? That way ppl can investigate for themselves. Thanks.
seanomelb | Jun 16, 2012, 11:22 PM EDT
Searlit a fair society does not exist in BrianO's dictionary Its all me me me
McNamara31 | Jun 16, 2012, 08:38 PM EDT
Searlit Your points make perfect sense. Instead of serfs, Mitt and Co. would like to see us all working for the corporate plantation with low wages, no safety net or healthcare in old age, while the masters reap all the profits.If elected (God forbid) Mitt will be the first president who followed the Gordon Gecko business model.
Searlit | Jun 16, 2012, 05:01 PM EDT
BrianO, I don't want to take it all, I don't even want half or a quarter. Just some fairness restored to the system would be nice.
BrianO | Jun 16, 2012, 03:23 PM EDT
Searlit just get to your end game, take it all and make serfs of us, we can bow to the king.
Searlit | Jun 16, 2012, 01:15 PM EDT
The funding deficit of Social Security could easily be restored forever, if the cap was taken off the tax. Right now you're only taxed up to about 92,000 dollars of income. If all income was taxed to the full amount there would be plenty of surplus income.
BrianO | Jun 16, 2012, 12:38 PM EDT
Oh i agree with pat he is so wonderful, oh no mac it is you who iswonderful, oh no pat and mac you are lovely says eira, oh we are all such caring humans. --YOU caring leftist I'll listen once you redistribute your own wealth to the masses, spend it all on the less fortunate than you, until it is completely gone.
SeamusMor | Jun 16, 2012, 10:20 AM EDT
It's not the Republicans stupid! It's not the Democrats either. They are both a bunch of whores, with the only difference being their clientele. Johnson's Great Society programs, and Clinton's trade deals with China, are at least as significant as the Reagan-Bush corporate give-aways in any cause-effect analysis of the moribund U.S. economy. It has been a long time since "representatives" represented their constituents. They serve their contributors with the result that public policy reflects the sum of special interests, not the common good. Our goal should not be changing Madams at the national brothel, but shutting down the red light District of Columbia altogether. The time has come for direct Democracy! We can petition for referendums to replace representative government with one person, one vote, majority rules, direct democracy. Once "We the People" take power, we can vote for a "Jubilee", the cancellation of all debts. A fresh start for everyone! Power to the People!!!
Curitiba | Jun 16, 2012, 10:00 AM EDT
Free market economics is the cause of all this, because there is no such thing as a free market (except for poor people). Those who control the capital corner markets and use capital as leverage to extract more money from those who do not in the form of work and high prices for assets such as housing.
eiriamach | Jun 16, 2012, 09:10 AM EDT
I agree with sirpeter that Seano is right. Seanomelb has a knack for coming into a discussion that's already underway (35 comments) and summing up the delusions and the realities of the commenters in a pithy few words! Keep going, Seano.
AengusOg | Jun 16, 2012, 09:07 AM EDT
Are the rich the heart of the problem or should out of control entitlements be the main concern? In my view, government's function is to regulate not manage the economic sector. Where were those eminent New England liberals and financial watch dogs Barney Frank and Chris Dodd when the rich were stealing us blind? There is no easy panacea for keeping our country and its economy healthy.Here is an email sent by a friend that targets the single biggest problem faced by ourselves and our children, the deficit. "The fact is that in FY2012 and for every following year, entitlement payments (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc.) plus interest on the Federal debt will exceed tax collections. The result is the government must borrow 40 cents of every dollar it spends. Expressed another way, the US Government would run a deficit even if it laid off every employee and disbanded the military. It will get much worse because less than 20% of the 77 million baby boomers are currently retired. The rest will retire over the coming decade. This problem is so big that none of the currently proposed solutions will work. We cannot tax our way out of this problem as one party suggests. A tax rate of 100% of the earnings of everyone with a job would still not raise enough revenue. We cannot grow our way out of this problem as the other party suggests. GNP would have to grow at a 5% plus rate for over a decade. By my calculations, the USA only has another two or three years of credit left. After that it will be: borrow, from whom? We will have already borrowed all of the world's pool of savings. We also cannot cut discretionary spending as the Tea Party suggests. As I said earlier, we could disband the entire Federal government plus the military and we would still run a deficit. See hemason67 on YouTube.
michaelidaho | Jun 15, 2012, 09:52 PM EDT
jamieLM, Thank you for your inciteful, well-balanced and non-partisan commentary. Cahir could certainly use your help.
sirpeter | Jun 15, 2012, 09:22 PM EDT
Seano you are spot on.They still believe that anyone can make it in the USA.The American Dream is over 25 years ago and they don't even know it.And it's not coming back.The reality is it was the changeover from manufacturing to finance that is eating away at the middle class.But Americans still have this strange idea that if you work hard you'll get ahead and if you are not getting ahead it's either your own fault or it's the "lazy people" that you are supporting.I remember the 80's in Ireland and the bullsh*t in the media and radio that people didn't really want to work.Well that was a crock of sh*t when Ireland had full employment.Been lazy is not a natural trait in humans.Apathy can be when there is too much of a sacrifice for the reward.It makes a stone of the heart.Take Mike's comment below about Cahir.He calls him a jealous, gay, angry, disenfranchised socialist.Take each word and you know the chances are they don't fit him.But Mike the Rock doesn't put up an argument either.Apathy Seano.Pure Apathy and depression.Thousands of Americans living in tents and in their cars all over the states and still waving the American flag saying WE ARE STILL!!! NUMBER ONE!!USA!! USA!! USA!! LOL.Your right they can be fooled.
mayoman | Jun 15, 2012, 08:50 PM EDT
seanomelb: Thank you for you sane and on-the-target analysis.
mayoman | Jun 15, 2012, 08:45 PM EDT
The homophoic PhlutiePhan shows his ignorant, bigoted stripes again. Grow up, sonny.
pilib04 | Jun 15, 2012, 08:09 PM EDT
What is the Republican National Healthcare proposal. LET THEM DIE!
bonjouryall | Jun 15, 2012, 08:07 PM EDT
Reagen ended Carter's stagflation (remember 15% mortgage rates?) with a modest capital gain tax reduction and, I recall, a tax revenue deal with Demos. He helped to restore prosperity to all (and got some Irish in to boot). He knew how to negotiate a deal - partly by treating his opponents fairly and courteously. Obama is clueless on how to negotiate. And, instead of opting for more stimulus funds, Obama chose to support bailing out the banks in full (a more customary 'haircut'- less than 100% bailout- would have been much smarter and more fair to the public). King Obama diverts revenue from the social security fund to pay for his stimulus. Who's he helping by this? Can he tax the rich and thereby erase the deficits and bring prosperity? No; there's still not enough. Will Romney help the rich get richer? Maybe; depends upon who runs Congress. But I say we will all have to share the pain of taxes, paying extra for our own health care to guarantee it for all, including illegals, stop carrying out useless wars and 'nation building', and limit free trade with countries with no standards. Do you think either candidate will acknowledge this? For me, I know Obama has failed miserably so I'm ready to give Romney a chance. This country needs a negotiator in the Reagen tradition rather than Obama, the Great Divider.
jamthecat | Jun 15, 2012, 08:01 PM EDT
Amazing how many idiots there are making comments on this site, who blindly back the GOP's filth while ignoring all evidence that the Republicans are helping billionaires rob them blind and destroy their chances at a decent future. The GOP uses lies to back up their plan to dismantle Social Security and Medicare. They blame everything regarding the financial collapse on Obama when 90% of the wealth that vanished did so under Bush's watch. Obama has actually shrunk the government, adding 1.5 % to the unemployment rolls even as idiots like Romney say he's been expanding the government and demand he fire even more teachers, firemen, and cops. And these idiots keep right on yapping the right wing nonsense. It's appalling how stupid these people are. Absolutely stupid.
seanomelb | Jun 15, 2012, 06:40 PM EDT
With the shrinking of the middle class in the U.S. 3rd. world status is fast approaching.Those in the middle class who vote for the GOP are voting themselves into poverty. for the first three decades after WW11 the U.S. middle class were the top middle class earners in the world. To put it in figures the safety net wage in Australia(1970) was $40 today it's $600(38hr.wk.). You do the math for the U.S. and see the how the rich have conned you.Who said you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
MikeRock | Jun 15, 2012, 06:35 PM EDT
An article written by a jealous, gay, angry, disenfranchised socialist.
irishpjk | Jun 15, 2012, 06:35 PM EDT
Fifty years and forty years ago I worked hard and saved my money, as time progressed the government started all these feel good programs and took more of my money for Medicare, social security and welfare. They are supplying people who are too lazy to go out and work with a free ticket. I am willing to help out the sick and disabled but there are just too many cheats on the government tit. If you look at who increased my payments to government and cheats you will find out it was the democrats. Now we all know social security is going broke so the democrat in the white house now told us he was giving us a 2% tax break in our pay check but it is not really a tax break it is a reduction in social security payments. So now social is going broke faster and down the road some responsible leader will have to find a way to shore it up. G W Bush had a good plan but we were misled by the liberal media and the democrats in DC, what they did not like was government would not be able to take your SS money and spread it around. I have no idea why the word stupid is in your headline, if you look at the voters you will realize that word
irishpjk | Jun 15, 2012, 05:51 PM EDT
OK, so what does the "Democratic party" economy consist of? Spending huge amounts of money we don't have taxing already over taxed working people(even the middle class), running up a huge deficit that will ultimately lead to Greece like consequences, creating a huge government dependency and killing ambition, which by the way has not worked. Even Clinton realized that. Redistributionist policies(Marxism)that takes from those who work hard and are ambitious, giving to those who live on the dole and milk the system. That sounds wonderful....
citizen69 | Jun 15, 2012, 05:49 PM EDT
Great article Cahir!
eiriamach | Jun 15, 2012, 04:50 PM EDT
"Simplistic" certainly does describe your view, PP! Try making it "simple" and within the verge of reality rather than "simplistic" in your next posting, and maybe I'll bother reading it.
PhlutiePhan | Jun 15, 2012, 04:31 PM EDT
In simplistic terms, Obama is a world socialist who wishes to redistribute income on the road toward complete equality for women and minorities. The Republicans want to create wealth by taking capital in the hands of the rich and using it to create more wealth. Sorry, women and minorities which include gays, do not have a great deal of capital. If you destroy incentive by confiscating the means of production, then everyone suffers. The real issue involved is the Obama "lust" to destroy the foundation of our society in the traditional family in order to placate radical women and gays.
Kendall | Jun 15, 2012, 03:50 PM EDT
Wow can I have the minute I spent reading this drivel back. I was wanting to read something worth paying attention to. However, all I got was the typical politics of envy used by the left.
sirpeter | Jun 15, 2012, 03:50 PM EDT
Advances in technology will sort material wealth and poverty out eventually worldwide.Technology is the only reason large sections of society are living in comfort that would have been unheard of 300 years ago.Poverty was the natural state of 95% of the population back then.We have access to an unbelievable amount of creature comforts these days for less effort.Economies,incomes,percentages,ect,don't mean anything.Ever advancing technology is all that matters in the long run.It wasn't much good been stinking rich when the medical profession prescribed leeches when it should have been a heart by-pass.No point in blaming Ronny Ray-gun.
peterson | Jun 15, 2012, 03:42 PM EDT
Obama's plan will destroy the once great USA, Get a life Cahir !!
christilcaugh | Jun 15, 2012, 02:07 PM EDT
Sadly that IS the way that the Republicans "rule" here.
AengusOg | Jun 15, 2012, 01:45 PM EDT
A lovely man that Ronald Reagan, America at its best. As for"the wealth gap", better to blame an egregious welfare mentality and the failure of public education. In fact, is there any public institution that has a track record that would lead us to believe that more government management is ever an improvement? Perhaps it is unfair to judge government management by the effectiveness of the Bureau of Child Welfare, municipal hospitals, the Motor Vehicle Agency or the Postal Service. Capitalism and democracy are a much better fit than democracy and socialism, if, for no other reason than, "Who will police the state?'. Stockman mentioned "austerity and sacrifice" not tax the wealthy. This article is just another simple-minded political polemic, by an author interested in promoting his party and blaming the Republicans. Why not address issues instead of personalities? Aren't the majority of us against lobbying, politicians taking jobs in industries they previously regulated, the marriage of banks and investment houses, and the huge salaries paid to celebrities and sports figures. If CEOs were celebrities and everyone knew them, would that make their bonuses more acceptable? Finally, an admitted cheap shot, "Mr. O'Doherty New York City is not just the section of Manhattan in which you live."
eiriamach | Jun 15, 2012, 01:38 PM EDT
FastEddy has two groups mixed up: "A republican pays the check by credit card and leaves the tip in cash. A democrat pays the check and tip by credit card." I always leave the tip in cash because, once having been a waitress during the years that I worked my way slowly through a night-school education, I learned that some restaurant managers think themselves entitled to a share of table workers' tips. Also I learned Democrats tip in cash, whether they pay the tab by credit card or not. Republicans tip by credit card so that they can stiff the waiter/ waitress. Democrats who can afford restaurants these days started out working class-- and we haven't forgotten it.
hollabackgurl | Jun 15, 2012, 01:12 PM EDT
Obama inherited an economic storm from the disaster that was the George W Bush presidency. Since then he has staved off a Depression, put millions back to work, saved capitalism from the worst excesses of Wall Street and created a new Health Care law that will benefit all Americans, not just the lucky few.
Opoets99 | Jun 15, 2012, 12:54 PM EDT
OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS: -- HIGHEST number of unemployed Americans IN HISTORY. -- HIGHEST number of poverty level Americans IN HISTORY. -- HIGHEST budget deficits IN HISTORY. -- HIGHEST national debt IN HISTORY. -- HIGHEST rate of increae of national debt IN HISTORY. -- HIGHEST unemployment rate among women IN 50 years. -- WORST depression in 70 years. -- WORST housing market in 70 years. -- WORST job market for African Americans IN HISTORY. -- Most divisive political climate in 150 years. -- Unprecedented Chicago thug-like bullying and threats against the Judicial Branch. -- Most arrogant, snobbish Marie-Antoinette-style First Family IN HISTORY.. Congrats Mr. Obama... you really did "fundamentally transform" the U.S.... toward becoming a Third World country.
lokionline | Jun 15, 2012, 12:51 PM EDT
@jamieLM. Folks who post on here and claim the Europe is run according to "Socialist" policies, display appalling ignorance.
If you think Angela Merkel and the German Bankers who really rule Europe are pursuing socialist policies, you need to get out more.
FastEddy | Jun 15, 2012, 12:49 PM EDT
Its the capitalist economy, stupid. Get over it. A libertarian pays the check and tip in cash. A republican pays the check by credit card and leaves the tip in cash. A democrat pays the check and tip by credit card. A socialist pays the check with someone else's credit credit and steals the tips from the other tables.
BrianO | Jun 15, 2012, 12:46 PM EDT
@proudcanadian, normally we clash but you are as spot on as I can remember, Most that start businesses do on an idea and a lot of work, and the lucky ones have people they hire to work with them. The best run companies reward their employees. @Eiriamach, investment is risk, Most people don't know the pressures of making payroll and don't care.
lokionline | Jun 15, 2012, 12:36 PM EDT
Opoets99. The problem with your analysis is that Republicans have done exactly the same in Congress when it comes to enriching themselves. So there is no differentiation to be found there.
Romney has said he will double down on the policies that led to the recession - unsustainable tax cuts and increased military spending (warmongering). He hasn't offered one new idea for changing the path the economy has been on for the past 10 years
what is that famous definition about insanity? Something about repeating things that don't work.
Let's have some constructive new thinking. Not the tired and discredited rehashing of fail ideas.
Nicomax | Jun 15, 2012, 12:33 PM EDT
If we simply went back to Clinton-era tax rates [an era of remarkable economic growth], we would eliminate a good portion of our annual deficit. If we required all unearned income to be taxed at earned income rates, we'd rapidly increase federal revenues. And if Social Security taxes were withdrawn on every dollar earned, that valuable program would be solvent for the next 75 years. We have the ability to do such, but obviously not the will.
jerrydonovan | Jun 15, 2012, 12:30 PM EDT
The republicans say don't rescind the tax on the rich or else they wont create jobs.!Excuse me ,but don't they have that {Bush}tax advantage now and what are they creating?Thanks to an activist extreme right wing Supreme court this country can be bought.Maybe the Chinese might like to buy us through some nameless super pac.It might be cheaper than going to war.
Opoets99 | Jun 15, 2012, 11:51 AM EDT
One again Cahir, you can't make your case for carrying Obamas water with facts, so you fall back on the old democrat tactic of rewriting history to suit your needs. In the US, the President does not make the rules or laws,he might reccomend them but the Congress makes the laws and the President signs them, sometimes begrudgeingly. Over the last 58 years democtats controlled Congress for 52 years, republicans for 6! And while Reagan was in office, democrats controlled Congress all 8 years! So if you want to lay blame for the downfall of America, look at the democrats who arrived in Washington poor, and left fantastically wealthy at our expense, all the while running the country into the gound.
hollabackgurl | Jun 15, 2012, 11:39 AM EDT
The Koch brothers, who founded and funded the Tea Party movement and now Mitt Romney's campaign, are as toxic for our country as their products are for our environment. They don't wish to run for office, they wish to form a shadow government, a corporate plutocracy to be more specific. They seek control over our country in the darkness of secrecy. After they buy enough judges and elections for their Republican minions, thanks to a politically corrupted Supreme Court Citizens United decision that crazily declared corporations persons, corporate plutocratic rule will come out of the shadows. Not before they make sure most Americans are denied affordable health insurance and care; not before they get Republicans to destroy unions and their better wages and pensions; not before their boot-licking Republicans take away Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security; when they are sure Americans are poor and at their mercy without recourse to courts that still administer justice, then the Koch brothers and corporate plutocrats like them will come out of the darkness to rule in the open.
ProudCanadian | Jun 15, 2012, 11:16 AM EDT
I believe that when you have a business and if you enjoy enough profit that you can expand your business, before you do that you look at your employees who got you that profit. Before you move on ask yourself if these employees are being paid well and if you are honest and they can tell you that they are doing well then you can move on, but if they aren't doing well then keep what you have until they are. Before everyone comes on here and accuses me of being a communist or whatever, look at who is paying the taxes buying the houses and cars, yes my friends it is the worker and if he can't do that then the economy of the country goes down the toliet. All the little man wants is his fair share.
garbo55 | Jun 15, 2012, 11:14 AM EDT
Well said jamieLM
jamieLM | Jun 15, 2012, 11:07 AM EDT
We have too many people in the U.S. who rely on the govt. to support them from cradle to grave which means on the backs of hard working, tax-paying people. This is just NOT sustainable. States are going broke. There aren't enough people paying into the system to support all the non-working, non-tax paying people, all the bloated pensions, and to combat all the flaws in the system - fraud, stupid rules, lack of regulation in some areas and too much regulation in others, etc. I'm no fan of Wall Street and the rest of the fat-cats in the banking and mortgage business, but taking all their money still won't fix the problem long term. I doubt we'll be better off in 4 yrs. under Obama or Romney. Get real - neither one of them are going to create jobs. Presidents don't create jobs - businesses do. The POTUS and Congress just print and throw money at problems, creating a lot of pork and more debt in the process. Now we have this new health care system that no one knows what the true cost will be to businesses and that has created so much uncertainty that few are hiring. Nothing like passing an umpteen page bill that no one has fully read, let alone understands how everyone really will be impacted by it. Obama is charming and speaks well, but he is no Einstein when it comes to the economic issues. Btw; How well is that socialistic system working in Europe?
rpbrown | Jun 15, 2012, 10:44 AM EDT
Well said Cahir. I would also add that the GOP has been able to keep these policies going when people want change because of the Citizens United v. FEC ruling. When companies like Coke can now pump $450 million dollars or more behind any candidate (they're giving it to Romney's campaign), election policy and procedure has gone to waste and the truth of the consequences of Republican financial agendas are hidden from the very people they hurt most and they are distracted with issues like gay marriage which comparatively will have very little effect on them.
johhnyb | Jun 15, 2012, 10:32 AM EDT
Good point Cahir 'I think that the political party that panders exclusively to them and works against everyone else in the nation is the problem.' So check who the top donors to the Obama campaign were from - yes Wall Street.
eiriamach | Jun 15, 2012, 10:24 AM EDT
BrianO, I didn't see your question until my last post appeared. Entrepreneurs seek a satisfying level of profit. Investment in hiring or retooling slows down profit for a time and eats up accumulated capital (of which there is PLENTY in corporate America), and it poses risk. If owners were willing to sacrifice immediate gain for the sake of improving the economic environment long-term, we would all benefit, and the unemployed would benefit immediately. Re-investment takes faith in the common good--in our all getting there together, some with more than others, but fewer fewer left out. I recall the story of a factory owner during the Great Depression who continued to pay his workers out of his own SAVINGS to produce goods he could not sell for years. Risk and sacrifice!
eiriamach | Jun 15, 2012, 10:11 AM EDT
Yesterday I had one of those consumer crunch moments that Cahir writes of: "hesitated to make a purchase whilst you calculated if you could afford it." Not that I knew I couldn't afford the online purchase of a computer accessory, but I couldn't predict whether my income would continue unchanged, so I decided to save instead. Then I realized that this was exactly the SAME excuse that the wealthy give for voting austerity rather than investment-- they can't predict the future business environment under Obama. Well, the rest of us can't predict OUR financial futures under a Republican Congress that vetoes every recovery bill. Wake up America!
BrianO | Jun 15, 2012, 10:10 AM EDT
Eiriamach you pose an interesting question what does it take for a person with capital to invest that capital and create jobs. Why wouldn't a person with the means to expand wish to do so? what is standing in their way?
francisquinn | Jun 15, 2012, 10:06 AM EDT
WOW;;;can't believe what I am reading...sounds like it was written either in Havana or Moscow....O'D....you are way out.....This is grounds for me unsubcribing ......Yur comments are from someone who knows nothing about Economics....Just Awful.....
francisquinn | Jun 15, 2012, 10:00 AM EDT
Wow, there really is no reasoning with this point of view, where all the ills of the world are heaped on past foes and the present participants are blameless. But if cahir agrees as he writes 40 years ago things were better, then maybe we could roll back the war on poverty, the great society of johnson, socialist security, to the times where people were more self reliant. Maybe we could rebuild the middle class black family that has been destroyed by the kind and giving/taking government.
eiriamach | Jun 15, 2012, 09:48 AM EDT
Ask what happens to the economy as more of us slip down from middle-class into borderline poverty or deep poverty and the only consumers left are the one percent. What does it take for them to "get it" and begin to reinvest in jobs, infrastructure, education/ training, start-up loans, and other drivers of economic re-expansion? "I don't mind rich people" either-- if they can wake up to the common good in time to avoid the next, far worse, economic crash. Ultimately, it's in their self-interest to care (and vote Democrats into Congress).
TheOldPerfessor | Jun 15, 2012, 09:43 AM EDT
If Romney gets elected it will be the 4th term of Bush. The third term of Bush almost wrecked the country. The 4th term would finish that job.