Originally Posted by ASB65

The Tea Party is mostly made up of older voters, but the millies are the future and I do think that the Republican party is going to become more and more libertarian as time goes on and the millies age more into adulthood. He is certainly striking a cord with them. According to my son there is an awful lot of excitement surrounding Ron Paul in his school.

When the millies backed Obama because they wanted change, they meant it. I believe they are looking for drastic change and right now Paul is fitting the bill. He is the most of out of box of all the candidates. It will be interesting to see what change the millies actually bring when are become old enough to make a difference to enact it. All I can say is, hold on to your hats, folks. I think things are going to look different when the millies get the reins.

The rise of Ron Paul amongst the "young rightists" is another one of the reasons why I think that we are still very early into this 4T. Chas has written about "pivot points" and I think that he's on to something there. Simply put, the Tea Party is not the future of the Republican Party, they will soon be the past. By the 2020's what is considered to be mainstream in GOP thought will be ideas like containing the size of and cost of the military-industrial complex and also saving money by decriminlizing a lot of private behaviors, especially in the area of drug use.

A lot of today's "young leftists" are tending in the same general direction on these issues.
When we get there and we see a convergence of millie thought in the mainstream of the two parties is whne and where we can go into a 1Tish post partisan era.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Baloney. She is a champion of the 99%. Under the current system, all politicians need to raise money. She will rein in the bad practices of all investment companies, no matter who or where they get their money from.

Wow, Eric, you've really drunk the Kool-Aid! Beware of turning her into an avenging angel. People like you tried that with Obama in 2008 and look where we are.

James50

Originally Posted by herbal tee

The rise of Ron Paul amongst the "young rightists" is another one of the reasons why I think that we are still very early into this 4T. Chas has written about "pivot points" and I think that he's on to something there. Simply put, the Tea Party is not the future of the Republican Party, they will soon be the past. By the 2020's what is considered to be mainstream in GOP thought will be ideas like containing the size of and cost of the military-industrial complex and also saving money by decriminlizing a lot of private behaviors, especially in the area of drug use.

A lot of today's "young leftists" are tending in the same general direction on these issues.
When we get there and we see a convergence of millie thought in the mainstream of the two parties is whne and where we can go into a 1Tish post partisan era.

Oh, I think you are right. Although Ron Paul is far from being a liberal, but there are certain aspects about some of his stances which resonate across party lines and appeal to young people. I tend to see the millies picking and choosing what parts they like from both the Dems and the Libertarians and going from there.

It has become nearly impossible for the Democrats and the Republicans to find any common ground on anything, which is why our country is in the mess it is today. But notice how down at OWS the young liberals and the young libertarian, Ron Paul supporters, didn't have that problems. They did come together, found common ground and worked towards the same purpose. I think the general feeling was, "Let's solve the big issues that we can agree on and work out the other stuff later." And that's the way it should be. There in lies the difference between a functioning government and non-government like we have now.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Oh, I think you are right. Although Ron Paul is far from being a liberal, but there are certain aspects about some of his stances which resonate across party lines and appeal to young people. I tend to see the millies picking and choosing what parts they like from both the Dems and the Libertarians and going from there.

It has become nearly impossible for the Democrats and the Republicans to find any common ground on anything, which is why our country is in the mess it is today. But notice how down at OWS the young liberals and the young libertarian, Ron Paul supporters, didn't have that problems. They did come together, found common ground and worked towards the same purpose. I think the general feeling was, "Let's solve the big issues that we can agree on and work out the other stuff later." And that's the way it should be. There in lies the difference between a functioning government and non-government like we have now.

Oh, I suspect that the seeds of OWS are still being planted. The filed has been mostly fallow because of the literal winds of winter. But spring is coming and the anti occupy laws passed by many cities since last year can not erase the contacts made. The future will come as it always does.

Originally Posted by Odin

NASA isn't very expensive compared to the rest of the budget, we can do both at the same time.

Just a matter of a few billion dollars. I think that the military and industry can handle space and that energy is a higher priority now for our national security.

Originally Posted by James50

Wow, Eric, you've really drunk the Kool-Aid! Beware of turning her into an avenging angel. People like you tried that with Obama in 2008 and look where we are.

James50

She's not running for president yet. The great white hope is that at least she can replace one idiot Republican. One less Republican is about the most valuable situation in the world right now. I've certainly been impressed with her public career thus far, and your allegations don't put too much of a dent in that I'm afraid.

Re Obama "look where we are" LOL

Where we are is almost entirely the fault of Republican obstruction.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We can go faster than that, and CA is. See the global warming thread. We need to switch now to avoid catastrophe. Haven't you heard the scientists' warnings?

The issue is not warnings. It is how fast can we develop alternate energy supplies on a practical basis. For long term, solar looks good, but the technology is not available yet to replace oil, gas and coal. We have lost 30 years in developing nuclear power plants.

Originally Posted by radind

The issue is not warnings. It is how fast can we develop alternate energy supplies on a practical basis. For long term, solar looks good, but the technology is not available yet to replace oil, gas and coal. We have lost 30 years in developing nuclear power plants.

Yes I understand. We have indeed wasted 30 years on nuclear power, and not developing solar. But I disagree; the technology IS available to replace oil and coal at least. Again I refer you to the global warming thread. See the solar plant company in CA. There are other companies doing it too. Things will change quickly if and when our excuses and Republican obstruction ends. The only reason we have not replaced, and can't replace, oil and coal soon (within 10 years at least) is political, and ONLY political.

Originally Posted by James50

And you are forgetting we do have a corporate tax although I would be in favor of doing away with it along with taxing all dividends at the personal level.

I don't know that I'd do away with it completely but I would at least exempt the portion of earnings paid out as dividends *and* make all dividends taxable to the recipient at their ordinary, marginal income tax rates. This not only ends the "double taxation" conundrum, but it also allows a sliding scale for dividend tax rates based on one's income and encourages businesses that don't have productive use of extra capital to pay it out in dividends instead of hoarding it. Dividend stocks tend to be less volatile as the income stream dampens the swings in the market, and I think less volatile financial markets are in the public interest.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The latter may be a good idea.

But corporate tax is not an "extra tax" as you suggest. Money made by corporations is supposed to be capital for use by the business; it doesn't go into anyone's personal pocket.

But owning shares in a corporation means, effectively, that a portion of the company's earnings and cash position belong to you, albeit indirectly.

If I own a share of stock that earns $1 this quarter, that's effectively $1 in earnings the corporation holds that I indirectly "own". It has already been taxed at the corporate level, let's just say 25%, so the business now holds 75 cents attributable to my ownership based off those earnings. At this point a dividend is little more than a "return of capital" -- a portion of that already-taxed 75 cents -- which, in other areas of finance and investing, is a tax-free transaction because it's giving back money that has already been taxed (much like, say, the portion of an after-tax 401K plan or non-deductible IRA attributable to after-tax contributions). But when we tax it -- even at only a 15% cap -- that 75 cents becomes less than 75 cents as it's taxed again.

But if the business could pass dividends through pre-tax and it takes that $1 and returns 40 cents to a shareholder as a dividend -- only 60 cents is taxed to the corporation (at least under at the system I tend to favor) and of the other 40 cents, a retiree living on a modest income with dividend stocks would pay 10-15% tax on that 40 cents while Mitt Romney would pay 35% or more. Plus the business doesn't hoard as much cash (unproductively) because of tax laws, and that has other benefits.

Cash hoarding among businesses has enabled a lot of job killing M&A as they eventually unleash their huge mountain of hoarded cash to buy competing businesses and products, and I think it has destroyed many corporate R&D departments as with huge mounds of cash sitting around, executives would rather "buy" new technologies and products from smaller businesses in their space than invest in R&D. (In reality, corporate "R&D" strategy in many businesses is almost nothing but M&A, including with my current employer.) Thus not only does this cash hoarding do little for the economy while it's accumulating, it actually can *damage* the economy when a merger or acquisition is the end result, typically leading in a considerable net job loss due to economies of scale and eliminating "redundant" functions -- and often, reduction in consumer choice and competition.

Dividend payouts, IMO, encourage spreading cash around instead of concentrating it in one place where its velocity is usually close to zero, and I think that shouldn't be discouraged with the current double taxation penalty.

Originally Posted by James50

The info from over the weekend was that 75% of the income from the 1% is ordinary income and taxed at those rates. Its interesting how when you start to push back, the universe under consideration gets smaller and smaller. First it was the 0.1%, now its the top 400.

Keep in mind that dividends are paid after the corporate income tax is paid. Its that double taxation of corporate earnings that has always bothered people. The real rate on the dividends is much higher than 15%.

James50

I won't post it again (between PW and me, it's made it to the forum at least four times), but the Tax Policy Center did a nice analysis and turned it into a simple bar graph. If all Federal taxes are accounted-for, the peak paying families in percentage of income are those earning $250,000 a year. It drops from there in both directions. At the very high end, it drops like a rock. So if the issue really comes down to fairness, uneaned income is a good first place to look. Fix that first. There is no need to favor capital formation at a time that we are awash in capital. And while we're at it, can we at least agree that those with earnings in the bottom two quintiles are already paying their fair share (the lowest quintile is ~10% of earnings). Considering their financial plight over all, even that may be excessive. The same can't be said for those earning millions.

Originally Posted by James50

Wow, Eric, you've really drunk the Kool-Aid! Beware of turning her into an avenging angel. People like you tried that with Obama in 2008 and look where we are.

James50

Obama was wishful thinking, and I admit to being gulty of it myself. Warren is different in kind. She's fought against the credit mongers for a long time. I don't think she'll stop just because she's in the Senate. She'll also have the advantage of being elected in a state that supports her ideas. Of course, we never know how any given candidate will act in office, unless they are already an incumbant.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Originally Posted by radind

The issue is not warnings. It is how fast can we develop alternate energy supplies on a practical basis. For long term, solar looks good, but the technology is not available yet to replace oil, gas and coal. We have lost 30 years in developing nuclear power plants.

Yes I understand. We have indeed wasted 30 years on nuclear power, and not developing solar. But I disagree; the technology IS available to replace oil and coal at least. Again I refer you to the global warming thread. See the solar plant company in CA. There are other companies doing it too. Things will change quickly if and when our excuses and Republican obstruction ends. The only reason we have not replaced, and can't replace, oil and coal soon (within 10 years at least) is political, and ONLY political.

I see you decided to be sarcastic, but radind has a point. Nuclear is vasly superior to fossil fuels, yet we decided that it was overly dangerous. The evidnce of the danger: Three Mile Island (no ... that is zero ... deaths or even illnesses traced to the incident) and Chernobyl (an accident waiting to happen, but not possible here). We need more of this technology, especially now that we can control it precisely. As long as site the reactors inland and away form fault lines, the risks are very small. Compare that to coal which kills hundreds if not thousands every year. Is this an argument for ignoring future technoolgies? No. It's a bridge. It may be the only viable bridge we have.

If we plan to move toward electric cars, we have to move away from coal, and fast. NG is a good bridge fuel. Nuclear is better.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I see you decided to be sarcastic, but radind has a point. Nuclear is vasly superior to fossil fuels, yet we decided that it was overly dangerous. The evidnce of the danger: Three Mile Island (no ... that is zero ... deaths or even illnesses traced to the incident) and Chernobyl (an accident waiting to happen, but not possible here). We need more of this technology, especially now that we can control it precisely. As long as site the reactors inland and away form fault lines, the risks are very small. Compare that to coal which kills hundreds if not thousands every year. Is this an argument for ignoring future technoolgies? No. It's a bridge. It may be the only viable bridge we have.

If we plan to move toward electric cars, we have to move away from coal, and fast. NG is a good bridge fuel. Nuclear is better.

This problem could be solved if we could only reach a national consensus and make a national committment. Since both continue to be part of the problem, it will probably take a grassroots push from the voters.

Originally Posted by radind

This problem could be solved if we could only reach a national consensus and make a national committment. Since both continue to be part of the problem, it will probably take a grassroots push from the voters.

Well, as usual our political process doesn't emphasize the points of agreement on both sides (we want to reduce dependence on foreign -- and often hostile -- energy sources) and instead focuses on the disagreement on what to do about it (all-in for "green" or "drill baby drill"). But by focusing on the disagreements, we don't see a base of common ground to build on. Common ground should be the foundation for public policy initiatives; from there you can negotiate the extra details and finer points.

I'm not saying there won't be disagreements, sometimes intractable even -- this is a function of healthy democracy when not taken to the extremes. But we shouldn't accept public policy that has two sides digging in their heels from Day One, not willing to "capitulate" until the other side does first.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If we plan to move toward electric cars, we have to move away from coal, and fast. NG is a good bridge fuel. Nuclear is better.

IMO, nuclear versus NG is "sweating the small stuff" compared to the big prize (reducing dependence on oil).

Oil is back up over $100 a barrel. Natural gas prices FELL over 30% in 2011. NG is much cleaner burning than oil and coal. It's not renewable so it's only a bridge, but a bridge that looks like it will easily last us for several decades.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes I understand. We have indeed wasted 30 years on nuclear power, and not developing solar. But I disagree; the technology IS available to replace oil and coal at least. Again I refer you to the global warming thread. See the solar plant company in CA. There are other companies doing it too. Things will change quickly if and when our excuses and Republican obstruction ends. The only reason we have not replaced, and can't replace, oil and coal soon (within 10 years at least) is political, and ONLY political.

It is politics that holds us back from starting a major push toward energy independence. In my opinion the technology is not ready now and it will take 20 to 25 years(after we start). It seems to me that we should focus on the national needs and reach a broad consensus across political parties to start a Manhatten level push for energy independence.

Originally Posted by radind

It is politics that holds us back from starting a major push toward energy independence. In my opinion the technology is not ready now and it will take 20 to 25 years(after we start). It seems to me that we should focus on the national needs and reach a broad consensus across political parties to start a Manhatten level push for energy independence.

Indeed, we haven't had a program on the scale of the Manhattan Project, Interstate Highway System or Apollo Program for a few decades. It seems to me that infrastructure refresh and independence with cleaner energy should be the next one.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Lets' talk about the concepts developed by Saul Alinsky. Where is there any indication that his techniques are only suited to fighting the ruling class? Targetting and personalizing issues is exactly what the right has done so well for the last 40 years. I'm sure that, having fully appreciated the vaule of his ideas, they are unwilling to have those ideas used against them. They are working hard to prevent that possibility by personlizing the ideas as being the product of that hated radical Saul Alinsky.

See how well they learned!

Exactly right, David. The Right is co-opting the techniques of the postmodern Left. They have become precisely what they allegedly hate. And right now they are doing a much better job of being PC than the Left is. The Left is actually moving on. The Right is stuck, again -- but now they're stuck in a particularly awkward place. Neither Gingrich, Romney, nor even Ron Paul is going to get them out of it.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Exactly! Where has that pressure been over the past 3 years? We have to stop making excuses for his bending over to the corporate rule and hold him accountable. But then, that's what I've been saying repeatedly for the past 3 years.

What does holding President Obama accountable mean, exactly? Does that mean actively working towards his defeat in November? Does it mean passively standing by and watching while Romney wins the election? Or does it mean writing letters to the White House or asking tough questions during town hall meetings?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

What does holding President Obama accountable mean, exactly? Does that mean actively working towards his defeat in November? Does it mean passively standing by and watching while Romney wins the election? Or does it mean writing letters to the White House or asking tough questions during town hall meetings?

Perfectly stated!

Cheers.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

But owning shares in a corporation means, effectively, that a portion of the company's earnings and cash position belong to you, albeit indirectly.

If I own a share of stock that earns $1 this quarter, that's effectively $1 in earnings the corporation holds that I indirectly "own". It has already been taxed at the corporate level, let's just say 25%, so the business now holds 75 cents attributable to my ownership based off those earnings. At this point a dividend is little more than a "return of capital" -- a portion of that already-taxed 75 cents -- which, in other areas of finance and investing, is a tax-free transaction because it's giving back money that has already been taxed (much like, say, the portion of an after-tax 401K plan or non-deductible IRA attributable to after-tax contributions). But when we tax it -- even at only a 15% cap -- that 75 cents becomes less than 75 cents as it's taxed again.

I don't agree. Owning something does not mean you get its earnings, in the case of a corporation. The corporation earns what it keeps, and corporation tax is a tax on those earnings. If the stock increases in value, that's capital gains, and that's when you get earnings on it, as well as if you get dividends. You get your ownership value back if you sell your stock, which rises and falls on the market, not directly on the corporation's assets. You also get your share back if the corp. goes out of business.

But if the business could pass dividends through pre-tax and it takes that $1 and returns 40 cents to a shareholder as a dividend -- only 60 cents is taxed to the corporation (at least under at the system I tend to favor) and of the other 40 cents, a retiree living on a modest income with dividend stocks would pay 10-15% tax on that 40 cents while Mitt Romney would pay 35% or more. Plus the business doesn't hoard as much cash (unproductively) because of tax laws, and that has other benefits.

Cash hoarding among businesses has enabled a lot of job killing M&A as they eventually unleash their huge mountain of hoarded cash to buy competing businesses and products, and I think it has destroyed many corporate R&D departments as with huge mounds of cash sitting around, executives would rather "buy" new technologies and products from smaller businesses in their space than invest in R&D. (In reality, corporate "R&D" strategy in many businesses is almost nothing but M&A, including with my current employer.) Thus not only does this cash hoarding do little for the economy while it's accumulating, it actually can *damage* the economy when a merger or acquisition is the end result, typically leading in a considerable net job loss due to economies of scale and eliminating "redundant" functions -- and often, reduction in consumer choice and competition.

Dividend payouts, IMO, encourage spreading cash around instead of concentrating it in one place where its velocity is usually close to zero, and I think that shouldn't be discouraged with the current double taxation penalty.

You may be right about all of the above, I'm not sure. However, a corporation need not hoard its earnings; it is supposed to plow them back into the business to make it grow, as well as pay dividends. When it behaves well this way, that's good for the economy. If corporations are doing that much hoarding, all the more reason to raise the corporate tax until they learn to run their business correctly. In any case, the government needs more revenue now, not less. Lower taxes are not what we need in general right now. Also, the company may need the flexibility to decide when it can afford to pay dividends, or when it's better to invest the earnings in an expansion or retooling of the business.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I see you decided to be sarcastic, but radind has a point. Nuclear is vasly superior to fossil fuels, yet we decided that it was overly dangerous. The evidnce of the danger: Three Mile Island (no ... that is zero ... deaths or even illnesses traced to the incident) and Chernobyl (an accident waiting to happen, but not possible here). We need more of this technology, especially now that we can control it precisely. As long as site the reactors inland and away form fault lines, the risks are very small. Compare that to coal which kills hundreds if not thousands every year. Is this an argument for ignoring future technoolgies? No. It's a bridge. It may be the only viable bridge we have.

If we plan to move toward electric cars, we have to move away from coal, and fast. NG is a good bridge fuel. Nuclear is better.

NO sarcasm there. Those who think nuclear is a good bridge, should think if they want to live near Fukushima Japan. I don't know if I want to shut them all down, if they are inspected more exhaustively than they have been in the past. Maybe a few should be shut down, like the one near New York City. Do we really want New York City to be like Fukushima? Not a good bridge fuel at all; if anything we may need less of it, not more. In the meantime, we can still use the energy we get now from the safer ones. That's as much as I would favor. The good bridge fuel is natural gas. And btw, more nuclear plants is not "fast." By the time any new ones come on line, the need for the bridge will have long gone. And they leave us with lots of waste to clean up. It's not worth it.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Indeed, we haven't had a program on the scale of the Manhattan Project, Interstate Highway System or Apollo Program for a few decades. It seems to me that infrastructure refresh and independence with cleaner energy should be the next one.

I agree with you there.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Well, as usual our political process doesn't emphasize the points of agreement on both sides (we want to reduce dependence on foreign -- and often hostile -- energy sources) and instead focuses on the disagreement on what to do about it (all-in for "green" or "drill baby drill"). But by focusing on the disagreements, we don't see a base of common ground to build on. Common ground should be the foundation for public policy initiatives; from there you can negotiate the extra details and finer points.

I'm not saying there won't be disagreements, sometimes intractable even -- this is a function of healthy democracy when not taken to the extremes. But we shouldn't accept public policy that has two sides digging in their heels from Day One, not willing to "capitulate" until the other side does first.

The problem is, one party in particular is doing this across the board, on all issues. It is not that they won't compromise because of particular disagreements; they won't compromise because doing so is to be in league with the devil and taxes and "big government" (all the same thing in their eyes).

The necessary common ground is not only about the national security/foreign dependence angle, but on the danger and the price of continuing to use fossil fuels at all. You can negotiate "finer points," but there's still the facts, and common ground in politics for its own sake that does not address real concerns, is still a shaky "common ground." We can be on "common ground" on a pathway into the ditch or over a cliff, if we decide on the wrong "common ground." "Drill baby drill" can't be made into a "finer point;" it is simply wrong. The middle of current opinion is not necessarily correct opinion. The left is generally correct on the issues, whether it sounds nice to say that or not.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

What does holding President Obama accountable mean, exactly? Does that mean actively working towards his defeat in November? Does it mean passively standing by and watching while Romney wins the election? Or does it mean writing letters to the White House or asking tough questions during town hall meetings?

Holding someone accountable is not the same as working toward their defeat. In fact, keeping one accountable, insures that they stay true to their campaign promises and has a better chance at winning again. It is looking at him, as with any candidate, with eyes wide open. There were way too many excuses for his behaviors over the past three years.

Had Bush done any of the following, there would have been an uproar from those of us on the left.

Let the taxes for the rich not expire

Went into Syria without congressional approval

Put social programs on the chopping block

Signed into law the NDAA. Now any nutcase president can use it.

Ordered new and more powerful bunker busters from Boeing

Surround himself in his administration with those who favor corporations and banking industry.

Bought into austerity for the citizens, while having bailed out banks

Handed over the health reform bill to the lobbyist through backroom deals

And those are only a few of the back slides and down right cave ins from our president.

There are a number of things that would hold him accountable. Number one, is to not make excuses for bad behavior and his favoring corporations. There are a number of avenues we can take. To offer a few, I suggest to call, write, and e-mail one's disapproval to the White House. Support organizations who are willing to hold him accountable because there is power in numbers. All types of organizations exist that work and gather around issues that our politicians aren't addressing in favor of the people. Take healthcare for instance. There are at least three or four organizations that work just on that issue alone.