Poverty and inequality an election issue?

[EastMed]

Sadly, it does not appear to be the case, at least not explicitly. And yet, economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman and goodness knows how many empirical studies, highlight how poverty and inequality are bad for society, for the economy and for the country.

Poverty and inequality were supposed to big issues in this year's campaign. The growing gulf between rich and poor became a hot issue in 2011 as a result of the Occupy Wall Street protests, and the latest official figures show things getting worse, not better. Of the 34 rich-country members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, only Chile, Mexico and Turkey are more unequal.

But for all president Barack Obama's rhetoric over taxing the 1% or the brief firestorm that followed the disparaging remarks Mitt Romney made about the 47% he claimed "pay no income tax", many feel the plight of America's poor is being ignored.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...ality-election

[Benvolio]

Since poverty and inequality are the result of massive immigration, it is not a subject either party wants to address.

[Kulindahr]

Poverty and inequality are the GOP stock in trade: they work to increase them, then blame the Democrats who fight them.

The GOP used to get accused of being the party of the rich, and early on the accusation was false. Now, however, it's become so true that it's baffling how anyone who isn't filthy rich would support them. If Romney/Ryan policies are instituted, the best analyses are saying the US will lose 4.5 million jobs in just two years. We'll have new shanty-towns, except this time the GOP will joyfully use zoning and housing codes to knock over people's only homes.

[Benvolio]

Nope. Misfire again. Poverty and inequality are because of the unequal tax structure... and something republicans want to make worse by an illogical tax plan.

Nonsense. If you bring in millions and millions of poor immigrants you will have million of poor people. Duh. Taxes cannot solve that problem.

[Jack Springer]

Sadly, it does not appear to be the case, at least not explicitly. And yet, economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman and goodness knows how many empirical studies, highlight how poverty and inequality are bad for society, for the economy and for the country.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...ality-election

If you ask the liberals at CEP -- everything is fine with the economy, so I guess there is widespread prosperity and no poor people.

[chance1]

a better economy would fix this situation far faster and have longer term positive impact than wealth redistribution

you can give a man a fish or teach him how to fish - the latter being a much better play

no charge for the cliche btw

[bw92116]

Poverty is created by the rich, by taking more than their share.
Even when the economy was going strong, in the late 1990s, most of the profit was going to the top.

[Rolyo85]

No, no, they will cut taxes on everyone, give back the money to Medicare that Obama stole to fund his private Healthcare project, they will super-fund the military again, and they will not borrow any money from anyone. And the way they will pay for all of that is by "bipartisan work". Ryan said it, so it must be true.

[chance1]

Poverty is created by the rich, by taking more than their share.
Even when the economy was going strong, in the late 1990s, most of the profit was going to the top.

love it

and wealth is created by ??????

talk about an upside down premise

that's why the war on women is so bogus - the idea that a woman cares more about free contraception than a good job (or any job) is demeaning

[bw92116]

Wealth is created by someone taking too much.

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

love it

and wealth is created by ??????

talk about an upside down premise

that's why the war on women is so bogus - the idea that a woman cares more about free contraception than a good job (or any job) is demeaning

Actually, wealth (aka growth) is created by investing capital efficiently. Thus, technically, redistribution can create wealth... assuming those you redistribute to are less likely to sit on capital and more likely to put it to effective use... hence... the "top-down" vs. "middle-out" rhetoric... crazy I know...

As for the woman comment... I would suggest it is equally demeaning to trivialize all female reproductive issues by equating them with "free contraception". I'm not quite an expert in the area though... so I tend to let women decide if there is a war on women...

[Kulindahr]

If you ask the liberals at CEP -- everything is fine with the economy, so I guess there is widespread prosperity and no poor people.

False. Just because you can recite Republican lies doesn't make them true.

[Kulindahr]

Poverty is created by the rich, by taking more than their share.
Even when the economy was going strong, in the late 1990s, most of the profit was going to the top.

Wages have not kept pace with inflation, especially the minimum wage. Incomes of the rich have outpaced inflation.

Undeniable conclusion: the system has been rigged to funnel income from those who work to create value into the pockets of the wealthy.

[Kulindahr]

love it

and wealth is created by ??????

Middle class entrepreneurs.

[chance1]

Actually, wealth (aka growth) is created by investing capital efficiently. Thus, technically, redistribution can create wealth... assuming those you redistribute to are less likely to sit on capital and more likely to put it to effective use... hence... the "top-down" vs. "middle-out" rhetoric... crazy I know...

As for the woman comment... I would suggest it is equally demeaning to trivialize all female reproductive issues by equating them with "free contraception". I'm not quite an expert in the area though... so I tend to let women decide if there is a war on women...

yeah - let's redistribute wealth - quite an incentive for the wealthy

seems like the threat of that has had the opposite approach

i LOVED Joe Biden's "super wealthy" narrative in the debate - you know those making $250K - vein in his neck Joe sorta over-reached with the class warfare there

but I know there's lots of votes to be had

as for the women comment please "calm down" just as joe said we should all calm down about Iran - they're not close to having nuclear capability - even though israel/bibi thinks so and despite that disparate POV we're in "lock step" with israel

dontcha know

back to the women - it was simply an example of the cynicism so deeply embedded in the dem re-election strategy

WAR ON WOMEN - with Sandra Fluke (pronounced FLUCK) even getting a convention speech - and Obama's love

women want what men want - a job - a good job if possible - that's priority # 1

it's romney's job to make that case - my only point is the republican party's platform gives them more credit than the dems who tend to attract voters with ONE single thing for each

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

yeah - let's redistribute wealth - quite an incentive for the wealthy

seems like the threat of that has had the opposite approach

i LOVED Joe Biden's "super wealthy" narrative in the debate - you know those making $250K - vein in his neck Joe sorta over-reached with the class warfare there

but I know there's lots of votes to be had

as for the women comment please "calm down" just as joe said we should all calm down about Iran - they're not close to having nuclear capability - even though israel/bibi thinks so and despite that disparate POV we're in "lock step" with israel

dontcha know

back to the women - it was simply an example of the cynicism so deeply embedded in the dem re-election strategy

WAR ON WOMEN - with Sandra Fluke (pronounced FLUCK) even getting a convention speech - and Obama's love

women want what men want - a job - a good job if possible - that's priority # 1

it's romney's job to make that case - my only point is the republican party's platform gives them more credit than the dems who tend to attract voters with ONE single thing for each

For the record, redistribution in this great nation of ours is the status quo not the exception. If we were talking about WWII tax rates, I would see your point, but we're talking about Clinton/Reagan-esque tax rates. I have a sneaking suspicion the rich will manage... the last four years big business (with extended tax cuts) has seen record profits and the DOW has doubled... yet those most capable of absorbing the poor economy decided to sit on their capital and let the rest of the country crumble around them. They are incentivized by greed (which as I've said before is totally fine and just) and a system that favors them... they will have that same incentive when the top rate is 3-4% higher. 98% of small businesses do not have that luxury and assuming they reinvest profits as they've done in the past, are not subject to the higher tax rate. Finally, is the budget deficit a serious problem or not?

As for women- I believe they are just as intelligent as men. If they feel they are being pandered to, it will be reflected in the polls. The Repubs ironically claim that the ONLY important issue is the economy and then refuse to give details on their plan to fix the... um... economy. If women do not value information on reproductive rights, they will ignore it- or even punish Dems for pandering. I agree the economy is the #1 issue for most women... but as you said in reverse... it's not the ONLY issue... and if a segment of women is on the fence on the economy, it is more than justified in letting other issues influence its decision and deserves to be informed about them.

[andysayshi]

love it

and wealth is created by ??????

Wealth is created when businesses invest capital. The problem with the economy at the moment is that it is skewed for the very wealthy. When tax rates are low, the wealthy have little incentive to reinvest earnings into business (like expanding, hiring, etc) because they can make money by storing their untaxed money. The money is stagnant. The economy is stagnant.

When tax rates are higher, the wealthier people running businesses have more incentive to re-invest earnings, because they will gain more by doing so than by treating their gains as income. The more they expand and hire, the more middle and low income earners have to spend. The money returns to the wealthy through a more functional economy. Everybody wins.



How do we know this is true? Because history proves it. Look at the graphs below. In the past 60 years, the periods of highest growth in the US have ALWAYS been when the marginal tax rates are higher. And when tax rates drop, we usually see a brief increase in GDP, followed by a substantial drop.





ALL the data show this to be true. A more equitable taxation rate, where the rich pay more, helps to balance the equity of wealth in the nation, which in turn helps to boost the economy.

The Romney/Ryan plan to reduce taxes by 20% across the board will worsen the current economy. Economists all over the US and internationally say so.

[evanrick]

a better economy would fix this situation far faster and have longer term positive impact than wealth redistribution

you can give a man a fish or teach him how to fish - the latter being a much better play

no charge for the cliche btw

You are so right, and if you vote for Obama thats exactly what he will do.

What would also help is if republicans stop holding America hostage over tax cuts and debt deals.

Every poll out there blamed the republicans for our credit downgrade, I think we know whos hands are bloody here.

[Kabluey]

At some point you have to recognize that wealthy people who skim money out of an economy and put it either off-shore or in the bank are effectively taxing the economy.
What's the difference between having a chunk of money taken for tax, versus going into the pockets of Walmart's owners in the form of profit? Well for one thing, taxes generally get spent back in the economy.
And all the while the owners do their best to minimize employee salaries, increasing inequality for their own benefit.

[chance1]

You are so right, and if you vote for Obama thats exactly what he will do.

What would also help is if republicans stop holding America hostage over tax cuts and debt deals.

Every poll out there blamed the republicans for our credit downgrade, I think we know whos hands are bloody here.

One dem narrative is how dumb voters are

Do yourself a favor and read some or all of Bob Woodwards Price of Politics - quite a diff take on the debt crisis and Obama - polls be damned

http://mobile.nationaljournal.com/ma...eader-20121011

[Benvolio]

You seem to imagine that the wealthy keep their money by stuffing currency into the mattress. No, it is always invested in some form. Even if if were simply in a checking or savings account at the bank, it is available for the bank to loan. That is how banks work. Much of it of course is in stock in companies which are producing and hiring people. Some is invested in US bonds etc. Some is invested out of the country, but foreigners invest here as well, and probably in greater amounts.

[rareboy]

You don't understand money anymore, do you?

The plutocrats who are aggregating wealth at a rate not seen since the last quarter of the 19th century are not investing it back into the US. Their money is global and they couldn't give a shit if it is helping the American middle class or whether it is building the middle class of India or China or Mexico. The money is invested in shipping millions of jobs out to third world countries where people work for near slave wages.

Your vision of the way the economy works hasn't existed for many years now.

And at the moment, I can guarantee you that corporations and higher wealth individuals are sitting on piles of dead money. The interest on bonds and ARI isn't even keeping up with inflation because loans are tight and rates low.

Why?

Because there is no new driver for the consumer economy and the middle class and poor are not able to spend on goods and services the way they were before the quants broke the world economy.

And when you talk about how US banks work? Are these the banks that had so much garbage bets on their balance sheets that they have folded or are being bought up by the foreign banking industry?

[Benvolio]

Your hateful attitude and that of your party toward employers, corporation and capital in general is a major part of the problem. The US is a much less safe place to invest than it once was. Believe it or not there are countries where employers are not regarded as the enemy.

[rareboy]

Oh crap.

The US would still be the safest place on earth to invest if it hadn't gutted the middle class by making them pick up the tab for the multi-national corporations. Do you think NIKE makes its shit in a third world sweatshop because the US isn't a 'safe' place to invest? Bullshit. It does it so that it can, along with all the other multi-nationals, exploit workers in underdeveloped nations.

The manufacturing, distribution and retail economy...the one that supported the growth of the service economy...the one that made the US rich...has been pillaged and raped by the men and women who no longer even necessarily think of one country as their home...they are world citizens.

And the fraction of the 1% that already have all the rules written for them by the politicians they own...well, they want even more. They won't be content until the US can supply workers for $1 a day from the shantytowns that will ring all the southern cities.

And once again...you spin off nonsensical tripe about how somehow employers are regarded as the enemy in the US. Crap.

But for 90% of the employers, the deck has been stacked against them to favour the huge multi-nationals and the types of corporations that would not think twice about gutting an entire industry or region if it would get their CEO's a 7 or 8 figure bonus.

[JayHawk]

a better economy would fix this situation far faster and have longer term positive impact than wealth redistribution

you can give a man a fish or teach him how to fish - the latter being a much better play

no charge for the cliche btw

Were you awake for the Bush Presidency? Where the wealthy were given the biggest tax break to date and still we had the slowest growth of any presidency since Herbert Hoover? How does Mitt's double down on those failed policies cause anything to change?

[rareboy]

Oh. And one further note on US creditworthiness and position as a secure place to invest.

The only reason that US treasuries and bonds have been the gold standard over the last five decades is not because of the corporate boardrooms.

It is all based on the US ability to tax its citizens. The Tea Baggers drive to crush Washington's power to balance revenue and expenses through nonsense like extending the Bush Tax Cuts are threatening this delicate balance. And the creation of a systemically poor and ill educated underclass and destruction of the backbone middle class economy in the US is what threatens to turn those vaunted investments into junk debt.

At this point, it would probably take only one more disastrously managed war of adventure like Bushco. ran in Iraq to permanently cripple the US reputation as the safest place on earth for foreign investment. But RomneyCo. seem hell bent on spending themselves rich on more reckless military spending.

[Kulindahr]

Were you awake for the Bush Presidency? Where the wealthy were given the biggest tax break to date and still we had the slowest growth of any presidency since Herbert Hoover? How does Mitt's double down on those failed policies cause anything to change?

It isn't "and still we had the slowest growth", it's "therefore we had the slowest growth."

Debt hobbles business, so saying the rich put their money in banks is a way of saying they weight down the economy. Businesses have less debt when they have lots of customers, so putting the money in the hands of those who are actually creating wealth -- the workers -- enables businesses to progress without the hobbling of debt. If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation, it would be $20/hr now, and that would mean LOTS of money flowing to businesses in the form of profits because customers would be buying. So wanting the workers, the less-than-rich, to get a better deal is actually the real pro-business position.

Prosperity in an economy as a whole comes from the velocity of money, the speed at which it changes hand. When the only way to acquire money is through debt -- the scheme banks and the wealthy have been using -- the velocity slows down. That reduces prosperity. Even intelligent corporations know this; Microsoft has kept itself free of debt, and has therefore been flexible enough to be nimble in the economy. When they need money, they don't have to worry about going into debt, because they have money in the bank to use. If they had to rely on borrowing money for new projects, they would be a much smaller company.

So money "in the bank" by rich people -- something that's a rarity anyway -- is anti-business because it makes running a business more costly, which shuts out the creation of many small businesses. OTOH, money in the bank by corporations is beneficial to the economy because it enables business to proceed without the burden of debt. Similarly, money in the bank by the lower portion of the economic ladder is also a benefit, because it removes their debt and serves to enable large purchases they wouldn't otherwise make.

[Kulindahr]

Oh. And one further note on US creditworthiness and position as a secure place to invest.

The only reason that US treasuries and bonds have been the gold standard over the last five decades is not because of the corporate boardrooms.

It is all based on the US ability to tax its citizens. The Tea Baggers drive to crush Washington's power to balance revenue and expenses through nonsense like extending the Bush Tax Cuts are threatening this delicate balance. And the creation of a systemically poor and ill educated underclass and destruction of the backbone middle class economy in the US is what threatens to turn those vaunted investments into junk debt.

At this point, it would probably take only one more disastrously managed war of adventure like Bushco. ran in Iraq to permanently cripple the US reputation as the safest place on earth for foreign investment. But RomneyCo. seem hell bent on spending themselves rich on more reckless military spending.

As for the Bush tax cuts, they should be dropped, and the individual exemption raised by $2000. Then we need new higher brackets: a hefty one of 80% that would last as long as it took to use that money to fix bridges on interstates and US highways, and would then drop to join the next lower; a 67% bracket which would go to bring interchanges and waterways up to par , at which it would drop to the next lower level; a 55% bracket to upgrade all facilities in national parks and highway rest stops -- etc., or some other combination aimed at infrastructure -- not for Congress to touch in the least. Then a permanent 45% bracket that would go to shore up 'entitlements', everything from Medicaid to the VA, and then go into the general budget.

This would still require serious cuts in expenses. Personally, I'd do that by a freeze in all spending, for at least five years, while actually decreasing spending for all agencies/departments that could actually be done by the private sector.

Meanwhile, encourage localities to drop zoning, which actually harms the economy by requiring people to commute great distances and increases crime.

[Benvolio]

IF-not when- the economy recovers, the Bush tax cuts shouldbe allowed to expire for all taxpayers. Remember when they were enacted the Dem said they were tiny and insnificant for all but the rich? So now those tiny taxes should be returned to give more voters a stake in tax and spending legislation.

[opinterph]

Remember when [the Bush tax cuts] were enacted the Dem said they were tiny and [insignificant] for all but the rich?

A word search using “insignificant” doesn’t help me validate the inspiration for your statement. I do find suggestions that the cuts for higher income earners have not generated new jobs, as some current political dialogue advocates.

Letting the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich Expire Won't Hurt Job Growth
(Kevin Drum, Mother Jones, September 2012)

Study: High-End Income Earner Tax Cuts Fail to Produce Economic Growth
(Michael Morrison, Decisions Based on Evidence, September 2012)

[Benvolio]

Obviously you will need to go back to 2002 or so when the Bush tax cuts were enacted to find the Dems wailing that they were insignificant for most people. Don't you remember?

[opinterph]

Don't you remember?

No, I don't remember~ but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[andysayshi]

Opinterph's link to Mother Jones above led me to read a few other articles on the site. This one astounded me:

Ryan and Romney's Small Business Malarkey Explained

Half of all the money made by small businesses is actually made by just 3 percent of the small businesses. That sounds unbelievable, but the cause is loopy tax laws that allow companies like Price Waterhouse Coopers - one of the largest accounting and consulting firms in the world - to be classified as a small business in the US.

In 2007, 339 manufacturing corporations that each earned an average of $429 million filed as "small business" S corps. They paid zero corporate taxes.

So when Paul Ryan claims that letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire will affect 53% of small businesses, he's actually talking about it affecting a small group of large, rich corporations who've managed to set themselves up as "small", despite being nothing of the sort.

[Kulindahr]

Opinterph's link to Mother Jones above led me to read a few other articles on the site. This one astounded me:

Ryan and Romney's Small Business Malarkey Explained

Half of all the money made by small businesses is actually made by just 3 percent of the small businesses. That sounds unbelievable, but the cause is loopy tax laws that allow companies like Price Waterhouse Coopers - one of the largest accounting and consulting firms in the world - to be classified as a small business in the US.

In 2007, 339 manufacturing corporations that each earned an average of $429 million filed as "small business" S corps. They paid zero corporate taxes.

So when Paul Ryan claims that letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire will affect 53% of small businesses, he's actually talking about it affecting a small group of large, rich corporations who've managed to set themselves up as "small", despite being nothing of the sort.

And what does the Small Business Administration say?

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

Opinterph's link to Mother Jones above led me to read a few other articles on the site. This one astounded me:

Ryan and Romney's Small Business Malarkey Explained

Half of all the money made by small businesses is actually made by just 3 percent of the small businesses. That sounds unbelievable, but the cause is loopy tax laws that allow companies like Price Waterhouse Coopers - one of the largest accounting and consulting firms in the world - to be classified as a small business in the US.

In 2007, 339 manufacturing corporations that each earned an average of $429 million filed as "small business" S corps. They paid zero corporate taxes.

So when Paul Ryan claims that letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire will affect 53% of small businesses, he's actually talking about it affecting a small group of large, rich corporations who've managed to set themselves up as "small", despite being nothing of the sort.

And as andy has commented on previously, another thing a lot of people don't seem to understand is the concept of progressive tax rates... I've heard tons of people mentioning how Obama's tax plan slams those small businesses/ "upper middle class" folks who earn just above the threshold... but, of course, the higher tax rate only applies to the amount above $250,000... so a small business making $300,000 would only pay higher taxes on $50,000... and would not see their taxes rise at all if they reinvested (spurring on potential job growth) that extra $50,000...

[Benvolio]

And as andy has commented on previously, another thing a lot of people don't seem to understand is the concept of progressive tax rates... I've heard tons of people mentioning how Obama's tax plan slams those small businesses/ "upper middle class" folks who earn just above the threshold... but, of course, the higher tax rate only applies to the amount above $250,000... so a small business making $300,000 would only pay higher taxes on $50,000... and would not see their taxes rise at all if they reinvested (spurring on potential job growth) that extra $50,000...

It is incorrect to suggest that income reinvested is not taxed. The extra $50,00 would be taxed, and only the remainder after federal, state, and in some places, city taxes could be available for investment. The Dems want to impose the payroll tax on that remainder as well. The progressive tax is directly from the Communist Manifesto and has therefore been a Democrat holy cow for decades.

[Kulindahr]

And as andy has commented on previously, another thing a lot of people don't seem to understand is the concept of progressive tax rates... I've heard tons of people mentioning how Obama's tax plan slams those small businesses/ "upper middle class" folks who earn just above the threshold... but, of course, the higher tax rate only applies to the amount above $250,000... so a small business making $300,000 would only pay higher taxes on $50,000... and would not see their taxes rise at all if they reinvested (spurring on potential job growth) that extra $50,000...

Or as a friend of mine had to do one year, when his income went over a threshold -- he paid the higher rate on about $30. It became a family joke.

[Kulindahr]

And as andy has commented on previously, another thing a lot of people don't seem to understand is the concept of progressive tax rates... I've heard tons of people mentioning how Obama's tax plan slams those small businesses/ "upper middle class" folks who earn just above the threshold... but, of course, the higher tax rate only applies to the amount above $250,000... so a small business making $300,000 would only pay higher taxes on $50,000... and would not see their taxes rise at all if they reinvested (spurring on potential job growth) that extra $50,000...

The reinvestment situation actually depends on a number of things. First is what types of business it is; with my handyman business as a sole proprietorship, it didn't matter what I did with profit; I could party on it or buy a new pressure washer or get liability insurance or do advertising, and it was still taxable income. The only exception was one year when there was a little tax credit for acquiring new equipment (it saved me all of $360).

For other types of business, various credits and deferments exist; a contractor I know gets deductions for safety gear for new workers, for example. Accountants might argue whether that figure is even profit, of course. The local business professor explained it by differentiating between money spent in a fashion that is integral to the existing business plan and functions of the company, which may have deductions or credits, and money that is spent in expansion, which likely does not.

[Benvolio]

Even so, the money invested is after tax. So in the example, the busnessman earns 50,000, pays Federal, state, and perhaps city income tax on it. He is left with, say 30,000. Then, say he spends it all on a truck for his business. He gets to depreciate it over 10 years, or 3000 years and each year saves the amount of his tax rate (marginal or net, , take your pick) times 3000, say 30 % for a 100o saving plus state saving. Sometimes we have had credits for equipment bought, but i think they have expired. A credit for the 30000 would be tax saving of that amount plus a state tax saving of that amount times the state marginal rate.

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

It is incorrect to suggest that income reinvested is not taxed. The extra $50,00 would be taxed, and only the remainder after federal, state, and in some places, city taxes could be available for investment. The Dems want to impose the payroll tax on that remainder as well. The progressive tax is directly from the Communist Manifesto and has therefore been a Democrat holy cow for decades.

Yes, Ben... I will concede that it does depend on the circumstances (deductions, type of reinvestment, accounting, etc.)... earnings claimed as actual income are likely to be taxed. However, my larger point, of course, is that the effective tax rate for a business earning $300,000 would not change much at all (especially if deductions are passed to encourage small business) whereas it would change substantially for a business making $10 million...

I do enjoy btw... just when it looks like you are having a legitimate convo... you throw in that last line for funsies and ruin it... I guess this has been a socialist/communist country for the last hundred years then... including that old Commie Ronald Reagan... but you tend to save that language for the Dems...

[JayHawk]

pro·gres·sive/prəˈgresiv/
Adjective:
Happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.

Hmmm doing things in an orderly sequence is problematic for republicans or at least xenophobes.

[Benvolio]

Hmmm doing things in an orderly sequence is problematic for republicans or at least xenophobes.

"Progressive" necessarily means that you are moving toward some goal. Marx meant that progressive taxes were for the purpose of pulling the dread rich down to a position of equality. So it is with Obama. As I have often said, a major problem with the Democrats is that no Democrat leader has ever defined the new economic system to which they are "progressing". Most alarming they clearly have no concept of where the are dragging us. They will drag us to hell if that will keep them in power.
Seriously, what economic system do Democrats want?

[Benvolio]

Calling something progressive does not make it progress. What are you progressing toward? Less economic freedom, higher ever higher taxes, socialism, then communism.

[Benvolio]

Progressive is towards a more fair society with greater amounts of opportunity for the workers. It isn't less economic freedom. It doesn't lead to socialism or communism.

Fine, but our Democrats do not meet that definition. They are all about less and less economic freedom. Total regulation is the goal. Obama has impased 17,000 pages of new regulations and the bureaucrats are writing new ones as fast as they can.

[Kulindahr]

I do enjoy btw... just when it looks like you are having a legitimate convo... you throw in that last line for funsies and ruin it... I guess this has been a socialist/communist country for the last hundred years then... including that old Commie Ronald Reagan... but you tend to save that language for the Dems...

Since he threw in that line, I'll point out that Nazi Germany also had a tiered, i.e. progressive, tax system.

[Kulindahr]

Democrats may not be progressive... they aren't left wing enough to be progressive. They are centrist (at best). Less and less economic freedom? Less economic freedom for whom? For Mitt Romney to outsource jobs?

And Obama has passed 17,000 pages of new regulations? Prove it.

The number is approximately correct. But Bloomberg, Huffington, and several other sources all agree that Obama has actually slowed the issuance of new government regulations, especially for businesses.