Originally Posted by 13thGenLawyer

Fellow authors, I don't really intend to pick on Boomers, but the politics of the boomers drive me crazy. Did anyone else pick up on the story where Obama is being criticized for not appointing an advisor for "African-American voters." The Clinton Camp blasted him for this, and then touted their own African-American Advisor that Hillary has that is "very out-front."

As a 13er, I have 2 problems with this senselesss rhetoric. 1) Why does an African-American need an advisor for the African-American vote and 2) If a candidate feels the need to appoint such an advisor, isn't that candidate admitting to the country that he/she can't relate to the block of the population for which the advisor is appointed and that the candidate needs someone to tell them how to talk to that particular segment of society?

So this story indicates several troubling issues. Hillary can't relate to African Americans, so she needs an advisor. Obama apparently believes he can't relate to his "own" segment so he has been pressured into appointing an advisor and is entering the dreaded "mainstream" of politics (and I had such high hopes for him). Furthermore, it demonstrates that the Clinton campaign is very fearful of Obama and is sniping at him every chance they get, and would rather talk about the PROCESS of who an advisor is, then the RESULTS (props to catfishncod for the suggestion of this word) of what the campaign will actually DO for African-Americans.
It is all so disgusting..... oh winds of change, when will you blow harder?

Well, I'm a Boomer, but I completely agree with you here. Ah, my yappy, yappy Generation. I love working with Xers, because they cut the crap and get the job done.

Originally Posted by 13thGenLawyer

Fellow authors, I don't really intend to pick on Boomers, but the politics of the boomers drive me crazy. Did anyone else pick up on the story where Obama is being criticized for not appointing an advisor for "African-American voters." The Clinton Camp blasted him for this, and then touted their own African-American Advisor that Hillary has that is "very out-front."
As a 13er, I have 2 problems with this senselesss rhetoric. 1) Why does an African-American need an advisor for the African-American vote and 2) If a candidate feels the need to appoint such an advisor, isn't that candidate admitting to the country that he/she can't relate to the block of the population for which the advisor is appointed and that the candidate needs someone to tell them how to talk to that particular segment of society?
So this story indicates several troubling issues. Hillary can't relate to African Americans, so she needs an advisor. Obama apparently believes he can't relate to his "own" segment so he has been pressured into appointing an advisor and is entering the dreaded "mainstream" of politics (and I had such high hopes for him). Furthermore, it demonstrates that the Clinton campaign is very fearful of Obama and is sniping at him every chance they get, and would rather talk about the PROCESS of who an advisor is, then the RESULTS (props to catfishncod for the suggestion of this word) of what the campaign will actually DO for African-Americans.
It is all so disgusting..... oh winds of change, when will you blow harder?

Thank you. This is excatly what I mean when I say that I suspect that Hillary as president would just be a rehash of tired and discredited 3t methodologies. It would be bad if the US were to waste the four years from 2009 to 2013 bumbiling around in the past, when a new approach is needed. What's even worse is that four years out of power won't be enough to reform the GOP. They're likely to beat Hillary in 2012 with a more crafty Bushite who will bring about even bigger disasters by 2016.

Originally Posted by 13thGenLawyer

Fellow authors, I don't really intend to pick on Boomers, but the politics of the boomers drive me crazy. Did anyone else pick up on the story where Obama is being criticized for not appointing an advisor for "African-American voters." The Clinton Camp blasted him for this, and then touted their own African-American Advisor that Hillary has that is "very out-front."
As a 13er, I have 2 problems with this senselesss rhetoric. 1) Why does an African-American need an advisor for the African-American vote and 2) If a candidate feels the need to appoint such an advisor, isn't that candidate admitting to the country that he/she can't relate to the block of the population for which the advisor is appointed and that the candidate needs someone to tell them how to talk to that particular segment of society?
So this story indicates several troubling issues. Hillary can't relate to African Americans, so she needs an advisor. Obama apparently believes he can't relate to his "own" segment so he has been pressured into appointing an advisor and is entering the dreaded "mainstream" of politics (and I had such high hopes for him). Furthermore, it demonstrates that the Clinton campaign is very fearful of Obama and is sniping at him every chance they get, and would rather talk about the PROCESS of who an advisor is, then the RESULTS (props to catfishncod for the suggestion of this word) of what the campaign will actually DO for African-Americans.
It is all so disgusting..... oh winds of change, when will you blow harder?

1. It is hardly certain that the current group of Boomer leaders are the last ones that we will have. We now have the last wave of Silent in power; the youngest Silent are now old (64+), and there isn't enough time for any new figures to rise from the ranks of second-tier leadership. When the likes of Biden, Pelosi, Cheney, and Reid are off the scene, then that's it. Few political leaders arise from nowhere in their late 60s. The youngest Boomers are still in their 50s and even their late 40's, so there's still some possibility of Boomers coming from seemingly-nowhere to prominence in politics. The situation in which Boomers are in much the same position as the Silent are in now (the end of their run) isn't going to happen until about 2025, near the end of the Crisis of 2020.

2. Prior Idealist generations have given America its most visionary, principled, and decisive leaders at the end of their runs. Nothing suggests that the Boomers' current position of political prominence is near an end. A complete overturning of the Rove/Bush clique is likely to result in a different set of Boom leadership, and in view of what we now have -- a clique devoid of the usual characteristics of Idealists at their best -- it's likely to be better. OK -- Obama isn't so bad, but even he is likely to have a Boom-dominated House, Senate, and Supreme Court. He's unlikely to force much of a Thirteener style onto American politics, and he will likely take his cues from Boomers. Think of Harry Truman, an aging Lost politician who saw fit to have as many Missionaries around as possible because he was more like a Missionary than were most Lost.

3. Don't concern yourself unduly with the columnists. They surf the wave of public opinion, and public opinion can dash those who ride the wave of popular opinion into the rocks, especially as one turning becomes another.

4. Barak Obama's connections to native-born American blacks is tenuous. His African heritage is truly African, which is very different from that of most American blacks who have only their genes to link them to sub-Saharan Africa. He can appeal to most American blacks only by appealing to their cultural sensibilities and political concerns. That's logic -- not heritage. Some white, Hispanic, or Asian fellow could do much the same if he applied his thoughts appropriately (few do). Note, of course, that he won in a landslide in Illinois, wheich means that he got lots of white votes.

5. The "mainstream" is not an object of appropriate derision. The political mainstream decided that Herbert Hoover was the perfect match for the Presidency in 1928 and that he was a disaster in 1932. Popularity for Dubya once peaked at 91% and has fallen into the low 30's, which indicates that the mainstream itself can change should someone once popular fail due to mishandling of a situation. The most dramatic shifts occur around Turnings.

6. A 4T is nigh. Does anyone question that "business-as-usual" is the most disastrous course for anyone? Does anyone think that intensifying disparities between haves and have-nots, the disappearance of economic security, massive corruption in high-level politics, utter dishonesty in the Executive Branch, cultural polarization, and a bungled war in Iraq are altogether benign?

The 4T coalition has yet to congeal. The key players may be the rank-and-file Christian fundamentalists, people who have been given the shaft badly. They rejected the liberal secularists on abortion, gay rights, and porn only to end up voting with right-wing corporatists who promised them control of culture in return for acquiescence in extreme disparities of economic results only to find that Corporate America wasn't going to sacrifice the cash cow of popular culture. Fundamentalists ended up as the most vulnerable to mass layoffs and to becoming cannon fodder in a war on behalf of war profiteers and the oil cartel.

7. As a rule, the coalition in command going into the Crisis is discredited and overturned as the Crisis begins. That is part of the Regeneracy, the first stage of the 4T.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

You exaggerate when you say 'continuous.' When muscle powered weapons and elaborate armor were state of the art, it took considerable training and expense to become a first class warrior. The nobility often excluded the serving classes from the possession of weapons and by the way political power. Revolts were few and far between, though there was no lack of cause or talk.

With the printing press and the musket wielding soldier wearing no armor, ideas spread faster and it took a lot less training and expense to field an effective soldier. Once a few nations invented the citizen soldier, the rest had to follow suit or be badly outnumbered in battle. For some reason, about the time all men were armed, the People jumped to the conclusion that God wanted all men to have certain unalienable rights. Enter the age of revolution.

The result has generally been representative democracy. In principle, the People ought to have the advantage over the Establishment. The power of the ballot box ought to render armed revolution obsolete. The elite ought to be badly outnumbered. The fundamental problem with representative democracy, however, would be representatives. Once elected, the representatives instantly become part of the elite. They have this persistent habit of turning on the People. The divide between the People and the Establishment seems to be as wide as ever, even if both lead lives unimagined by their predecessors from before muskets and printing presses.

Computer networks, weapons of mass destruction and the need for renewable energy might prove as fundamental a set of forces working for change as the musket, printing press and steam engine. Among other things, imperialistic war and hegemonic war might be no longer cost effective, and thus obsolete. Among other things, direct vote computer network democracy has the potential to cut the representative out of representative democracy.

Could that possibly happen?

Even with bourgeois democracy, elites still have huge amounts of money with which to fund campaigns of politicians amenable to their purposes and "think-tanks" that disseminate sympathetic ideologies. Don't forget the potential for huge advertising budgets. Thus come such arguments that
if minimum wages go up, minor indulgences for most people will become more expensive or that pollution controls are imposed, jobs will be lost. Such expression is far from democratic; it is all one-sided with no room for debate.

Corporate elites (shareholders and executives) have found ways in which to pose their interests with a populist touch. One is to exploit patriotic sentiments and symbols as a substitute for independent thought. Another is to attack opponents as in line with some questionable causes or purposes (communists, terrorists, anarchists...).

Democracy succeeds to the level of the philosophical sophistication of the masses, and that depends upon the quality and quantity of formal education. Intellectual elites are bought off all too easily with prospects of well-paid jobs in think tanks, in corporate and governmental bureaucracies, and advertising agencies.

I think that the ability of right-wing interests to overwhelm people with spin and propaganda depends upon the concentration of wealth and political power. Have those ever been so concentrated in America as they are today? Small-scale entrepreneurs can't fund think tanks, make huge contributions to right-wing causes or campaigns, or buy advertising for any purpose other than to solicit business.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Even with bourgeois democracy

Not to nitpick, but Marxist terminology annoys me.

I'm sick and tired of waste..... wasted time, wasted resources

End the war on drugs - how is this helping anything?

End the complex tax code - why do I get taxed before expenses while corporations only pay tax on "profits"?

End social security payments to the rich - where is the logic in lack of a means test for what is obviously a form of social welfare?

End corporate welfare-what's free market about that? And how is that fair?

End industrial era, one size fits all education - I'm a teacher---the system is RUINING so many children

Recognize that chemical pollution is the real environmental crisis!!!!!

Restore the rights to life & liberty for all, including the people less than 9 months old and the guilty

Am I conservative? Libertarian? Liberal? Progressive?

Originally Posted by wvally

End social security payments to the rich - where is the logic in lack of a means test for what is obviously a form of social welfare?

I agree. The reason that all Americans get SS IIRC is because FDR had to placate conservative Democrats who were opposed to "welfare," he had to pass it of as "insurance" to get SS through congress.

Welcome by the way.

Originally Posted by wvally

I'm sick and tired of waste..... wasted time, wasted resources

End the war on drugs - how is this helping anything?

End the complex tax code - why do I get taxed before expenses while corporations only pay tax on "profits"?

End social security payments to the rich - where is the logic in lack of a means test for what is obviously a form of social welfare?

End corporate welfare-what's free market about that? And how is that fair?

End industrial era, one size fits all education - I'm a teacher---the system is RUINING so many children

Recognize that chemical pollution is the real environmental crisis!!!!!

Restore the rights to life & liberty for all, including the people less than 9 months old and the guilty

Am I conservative? Libertarian? Liberal? Progressive?

AMEN!!! Except that I'd add the fact that they aren't making any more oil or coal or gas to the list.

The Grey Badger, whose Silent Generation common sense has been getting blank stares for 40 years at least and hence am overjoyed to hear it from another quarter.

wvally:

Great list you posted, and as far as chemical pollution goes, a former Vice President testified before Congress the other day on this very thing. To make any progress, not only members of Congress but the public at large has to want to make it happen. Right now I believe that most Americans are still very snug with their moneycentric, corporate driven, auto dependent lifestyles to make much of dent in policies and behavior. We are very good at not locking the door until long after the horse has left the barn.

As far as corporate welfare goes, I would like to see more done that would limit their intense power. You mentioned one size fits all education, how about one size fits all retail? For the most part you have only a few behemoths controlling things there. At the end of WWII 80 percent of retail was still family owned; today about 80 percent is corporate owned. How did we get here from there? I would like to see large retail chains be limited in the number of stores they can operate in a given area, and also an end to retail payola, where large companies can buy off stores to favor their products over those made by smaller operators. To me large stores preach the gospel of customer service, but are very poor about actually practicing it. I have learned that first hand in my attempt to get more stores to carry a favorite product of mine which is made by a smaller company as opposed to one of the giants.

Originally Posted by wvally

I'm sick and tired of waste..... wasted time, wasted resources

Absolutely.

End the war on drugs - how is this helping anything?

There needs to be a safety valve; complete bans are unenforceable. The key, I think, is to separate addicts from pushers. This can't be done with jails and guards and so forth; those are corruptible. We also don't need 1%+ of our population in jail.

War and crime end when you put them in the red. Here's a probably crazy idea: Buy up all those poppies in Afghanistan. The next time you pick up an addict, put him on a poppy reservation (or coca, or whatever). They can make their own "stuff"... or they can go into rehab, their choice (and their relatives' if they want to help them). Only having an easily accessible population of needy addicts (and they're only slightly less accessible in the jails than in the 'hood) keeps the drug trade going the way it does.

End the complex tax code - why do I get taxed before expenses while corporations only pay tax on "profits"?

I never thought of it that way before...

End social security payments to the rich - where is the logic in lack of a means test for what is obviously a form of social welfare?

End corporate welfare-what's free market about that? And how is that fair?

End industrial era, one size fits all education - I'm a teacher---the system is RUINING so many children

All obvious.

Recognize that chemical pollution is the real environmental crisis!!!!!

Huh wha? That's not even 3T - that's 2T. We know how to stop chemical pollution, we just need to implement it more effectively (and in the 4T and 1T we will).

Restore the rights to life & liberty for all, including the people less than 9 months old and the guilty

I think you mean bans on both abortion and the death penalty. Those are Culture War issues that I'd like to see toned down.

Am I conservative? Libertarian? Liberal? Progressive?

Who cares? I'm sick of partisanship. All I care about is if you're constructive or destructive.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

The Grey Badger, whose Silent Generation common sense has been getting blank stares for 40 years at least and hence am overjoyed to hear it from another quarter.

Never fear, the new Heroes are here... with mid-life Nomad backup to do the kneecapping we're too cooperative to do ourselves.

Originally Posted by wvally

Am I conservative? Libertarian? Liberal? Progressive?

Human, I think.

Welcome aboard.

Originally Posted by Odin

Not to nitpick, but Marxist terminology annoys me.

The Marxists created much of the language of political discourse. It's better that the Marxists influence the language than that they control the economy or politics -- right?

I don't consider bourgeois much of an insult. I'm more concerned with the right-wingers who look at a Marxist critique of capitalism and see virtue in everything that Marxists find wrong in capitalism, especially in any survival of early capitalism. Such right-wingers either create or preserve a pre-revolutionary situation that makes a Lenin, Tito, Mao, or Pol Pot possible.

I'm not a Marxist. I prefer that Marx's economic and social critique be wrong because capitalists prefer that workers have a stake in the system. It is better that people have something to lose other than their chains, to address one of Marx' favorite dicta.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Marxists created much of the language of political discourse. It's better that the Marxists influence the language than that they control the economy or politics -- right?

I don't consider bourgeois much of an insult. I'm more concerned with the right-wingers who look at a Marxist critique of capitalism and see virtue in everything that Marxists find wrong in capitalism, especially in any survival of early capitalism. Such right-wingers either create or preserve a pre-revolutionary situation that makes a Lenin, Tito, Mao, or Pol Pot possible.

I'm not a Marxist. I prefer that Marx's economic and social critique be wrong because capitalists prefer that workers have a stake in the system. It is better that people have something to lose other than their chains, to address one of Marx' favorite dicta.

Marx saw some very real problems and talked about them clearly. Unfortunately, his answers were based on naive 19th century notions of man and nature. The implementation of those answers amounted to totalitarian dictatorship. The problems are still there, even if Marx's proposed answers to said problems have been discredited.

Some people just respond poorly, though, to language from theories they don't like. JustPassingThrough a while ago said he stopped listening to me when he heard the phrase "military industrial complex." Those words imply a world view he had rejected. When he heard them, he turned off his mind. (Well, assuming it was ever turned on in the first place.)

Thing is, the "military industrial complex" might be Eisenhower's alternate terminology for Marx's "bourgeois capitalist ruling class." If advocates of the conservative establishment reject or refuse to deal with world views conflicting with their own, how does one deal with them? I mean, I can use words like 'conservative establishment' instead of Marx's or Eisenhower's perhaps over used and emotionally laden words, but that doesn't seem to get one all that much further. They still lock into existing values. The words aren't the only problem. They are rejecting world views which frame capitalism as part of the problem, rather than as the universal final and complete answer.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Never fear, the new Heroes are here... with mid-life Nomad backup to do the kneecapping we're too cooperative to do ourselves.

Not to undercut Mr. Fish's pride in belonging to a group that includes literally tens of millions of people (and hundreds of millions if you include all those born between 1981 and 2000 in other, less important countries) - none of whom actually chose to be part of this group, or had to display any unique talent or hard work to join this group - but in the unlikely even that what we're witnessing here is lingering adolescent grandiosity predicated on a theory of history that doesn't account for the vast differences in aptitude, opportunity, and life experience (good and bad) between the large numbers of people born in a particular period of time (not to mention not having any empirical research to support it as well as having several major flaws [just how did the generations get shorter even as people started to live longer?]) let me suggest that Mr. Fish consider joining a slightly smaller if not overly-selective group perhaps a fraternal orgranization like the Masons.

In doing so, his millieness would not only be one of the youngest members of his local chapter he would enjoy a range of fringe benefits including free beer and barbeque and I'm willing to bet that one day he might even enjoy a cut rate on wall-to-wall plush carpeting from one of his fellow Masons (who also happens to own the carpet shop downtown). And I swear to God kid: there will come the day when getting wall-to-wall plush carpeting at a fraction of the retail cost will seem like the best thing that has ever happened to you. And if you're anything like me it may just be.

Originally Posted by Linus

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Never fear, the new Heroes are here... with mid-life Nomad backup to do the kneecapping we're too cooperative to do ourselves.

let me suggest that Mr. Fish consider joining a slightly smaller group perhaps a fraternal orgranization like the Masons.

In doing so, his millieness would not only be one of the youngest members of his local chapter he would enjoy a range of fringe benefits including free beer and barbeque and I'm willing to bet that one day he might even enjoy a cut rate on wall-to-wall plush carpeting from one of his fellow Masons (who also happens to own the carpet shop downtown). And I swear to God kid: there will come the day when getting wall-to-wall plush carpeting at a fraction of the retail cost will seem like the best thing that has ever happened to you. And it may just be.

Cool, whatever. Me, I'm just here for the kneecapping

The stinks and aromas of the last Twenty Years in figures, fact and illustration from the good folks at PEW Research

Originally Posted by PEW

Yet the Democrats' growing advantage in party identification is tempered by the fact that the Democratic Party's overall standing with the public is no better than it was when President Bush was first inaugurated in 2001. Instead, it is the Republican Party that has rapidly lost public support, particularly among political independents. Faced with an unpopular president who is waging an increasingly unpopular war, the proportion of Americans who hold a favorable view of the Republican Party stands at 41%, down 15 points since January 2001. But during that same period, the proportion expressing a positive view of Democrats has declined by six points, to 54%.

Ahh, the race to the bottom. We be 3T.

Originally Posted by wvally

I'm sick and tired of waste..... wasted time, wasted resources

End the war on drugs - how is this helping anything?

End the complex tax code - why do I get taxed before expenses while corporations only pay tax on "profits"?

End social security payments to the rich - where is the logic in lack of a means test for what is obviously a form of social welfare?

End corporate welfare-what's free market about that? And how is that fair?

End industrial era, one size fits all education - I'm a teacher---the system is RUINING so many children

Recognize that chemical pollution is the real environmental crisis!!!!!

Restore the rights to life & liberty for all, including the people less than 9 months old and the guilty

Am I conservative? Libertarian? Liberal? Progressive?

I would like to suggest a couple of changes to the list, which basically I agree with.

1. Don't stop paying social security benefits to the rich. Instead, do two things:

a. End the social security tax cap so that they rich don't stop paying at $90,000.

b. Increase the marginal tax rate to, say 50% or more on anything over $1 million, so that they have to give half their benefits back anyway.

2. As for corporate taxes, as you see, I favor much higher income taxes on wealthy people, including full taxation of dividends. But I think that in the 1950s/early 1960s, the corporate and income tax structure actually encouraged corporate investment, whch was a good thing for the economy and for everyone. In other words, encourage business to spend their money to create more business, rather than to pay themselves huge bonuses or pay shareholders huge dividends.

3. I don't agree about abortion, but I wouldn't mind seeing it go back to the states to decide. No blue state would outlaw it.

Originally Posted by Finch

Cool, whatever. Me, I'm just here for the kneecapping

As it happens, I think the authors are quite brilliant and that their theory has some merit. I also think that certain people take it a little too seriously.

(The fish kid isn't dumb either. He'll grow up eventually.)

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Marx saw some very real problems and talked about them clearly. Unfortunately, his answers were based on naive 19th century notions of man and nature. The implementation of those answers amounted to totalitarian dictatorship. The problems are still there, even if Marx's proposed answers to said problems have been discredited.

Some people just respond poorly, though, to language from theories they don't like. JustPassingThrough a while ago said he stopped listening to me when he heard the phrase "military industrial complex." Those words imply a world view he had rejected. When he heard them, he turned off his mind. (Well, assuming it was ever turned on in the first place.)

Thing is, the "military industrial complex" might be Eisenhower's alternate terminology for Marx's "bourgeois capitalist ruling class." If advocates of the conservative establishment reject or refuse to deal with world views conflicting with their own, how does one deal with them? I mean, I can use words like 'conservative establishment' instead of Marx's or Eisenhower's perhaps over used and emotionally laden words, but that doesn't seem to get one all that much further. They still lock into existing values. The words aren't the only problem. They are rejecting world views which frame capitalism as part of the problem, rather than as the universal final and complete answer.

The point. Karl Marx well described the capitalism of his time as an oppressive order little better than its feudal predecessor. Beyond question, the primary concern of capitalists was to keep workers toiling as hard as possible for as long as possible and with as little as possible. The ideal worker to the early capitalist was the one thankful to his oppressors for the means of animal survival even while the plutocrats who owned the sweatshop lived like kings and treated his riding horses with more respect than he treated his cattle in the factory.

Marxism became irrelevant in the more advanced parts of the West when technologies that came into existence at or near the end of his life required a new class of consumers. The new consumers would by necessity be the working class that capitalists had long oppressed and exploited. Old elites could live quite well with a large staff of household flunkies to drive his carriage, transmit messages, light oil lamps, sweep his floors, fan him or cool him with icy drinks, beat the dust out of his carpets, and perhaps even entertain him. The rich of 1880 needed no electric lights, motion picture, recorded music, or telephone, and surprisingly not even an automobile. If profits are high enough and servants are cheap enough one can live very well.

Marx failed to recognize that industrial elites and agrarian elites could themselves be in conflict (think of the American Civil War waged between one side in which industrialists, financiers, and merchants shared power and the other side dominated by slave-holding agrarian plutocrats -- and Marx wrote about the Civil War!). Think also of the magnates of new industries in conflict with the magnates of old industries. Think of the dissimilar interests of merchants and manufacturers.

Who was going to buy the mewfangled innovations of the late 19th and early 20th century? The rich didn't need them. The middle class was tiny except for small-scale merchants and farmers who restrained themselves because any indulgence was a cut in living standards.

Who but the long-suffering proletariat? Workers would have to get higher wages with which to buy things and more leisure with which to use and enjoy them. The idea that workers would have to become a market if technological capitalism were to succeed was itself revolutionary. Maybe not so destructive as the sort of revolution that Marx prophesied for the capitalist world, but it would change the world in ways that the greatest pessimist in the capitalist future could have never seen.

Of course, there were places in which plutocrats kept wages abysmal on the grounds that profits to be had from sweating people to their physical limits and keeping them on the brink of hunger was the best way in which to get economic growth that would trickle down through some mystical process. Russia was such a place before 1917, and China was such a place before 1949.

End of lecture.

Originally Posted by Finch

Cool, whatever. Me, I'm just here for the kneecapping

You gotta respect an honest man!

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I would like to suggest a couple of changes to the list, which basically I agree with.

1. Don't stop paying social security benefits to the rich. Instead, do two things:

a. End the social security tax cap so that they rich don't stop paying at $90,000.

Yes!

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

b. Increase the marginal tax rate to, say 50% or more on anything over $1 million, so that they have to give half their benefits back anyway.

Yes!!

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

2. As for corporate taxes, as you see, I favor much higher income taxes on wealthy people, including full taxation of dividends. But I think that in the 1950s/early 1960s, the corporate and income tax structure actually encouraged corporate investment, whch was a good thing for the economy and for everyone. In other words, encourage business to spend their money to create more business, rather than to pay themselves huge bonuses or pay shareholders huge dividends.

Yes!!!

These are all extremely sensible suggestions.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

3. I don't agree about abortion, but I wouldn't mind seeing it go back to the states to decide. No blue state would outlaw it.

Uh, maybe. That's one way of handling it.

My god! Some one agreed with me! Thanks.

DK

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

My god! Some one agreed with me! Thanks.

DK

I think you'll find more agreement than is apparent just from the responses. Some of us have slipped back into lurk mode, and post rarely. To be honest, I only tend to post when I have a difference spin on things. Not the best trait, but then, I'm a Boomer.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I think you'll find more agreement than is apparent just from the responses. Some of us have slipped back into lurk mode, and post rarely. To be honest, I only tend to post when I have a difference spin on things. Not the best trait, but then, I'm a Boomer.

That in itself is rather scary, Dave. The last time this board was so dull and repetitive was in August 2001.