Comments on: Obama makes his case amidst Reagan’s shadow Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:34:09 +0000 hourly 1 By: deLafayette Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:48:51 +0000 Ronald Reagan’s arrival at the Oval Office resulted in the opening of Pandora’s Box of Ills when he drastically reduced Marginal and Capital Gains Income Taxes.

The result on income shares has since become obvious (from the Paris School of Economics, World Top Income Database which demonstrates clearly that the share of Total Income of the Top 10% of American households increased from 31.5% to 46.3% over the past five decades:
1960 – 33.8%
1970 – 31.5%
1980 – 32.9%
1990 – 38.8%
2000 – 43.1%
2010 – 46.3%

That’s nearly half the total income generated by the American economy!

Income Disparity is The Major Challenge of the United States at present. And nothing from the Republican side indicates that it has a response to that challenge.

Because the only obvious answer is Tax ‘n Spend, meaning putting the top rates back up to where they were before 1960 (at 75%).

Which would give the Republican Party a collective seizure.

By: nikacat Tue, 11 Sep 2012 04:39:57 +0000 I don’t believe there is a shred of truth in the statement that the Obama administration is trying to make government the servant of the middle class. It’s all too clear that Obama and his predecessor, George bush, have striven for exactly the opposite. At least Bush is now only an unpleasant memory. I do hope that Obama will join him and achieve that status in November.

By: brotherkenny4 Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:44:11 +0000 Obama’s admiration was probably due to his understanding that Reagan was only a figure head, an actor who by the angle of his chin and the look in his eye and the imagery and music in the background inspired the average american as the television had trained them to be inspired. Obama is good at that too. Mitt tries to actually sound like Reagan, but that’s not enough and it’s apparent he is no actor, so he’ll never be presidential.

By: ALLSOLUTIONS Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:15:10 +0000 u-bam-a is for more government and more government. Most politicians are.

Government has proven itself to be highly inefficient, highly incompetent and highly uneffective.

Government wastes more resources than business and individuals combined.

The facts no one wants to read.

Learn to think for yourself.

Banned from huffpost.

Censorship is evil.

By: abb68 Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:00:10 +0000 FDR’s New Deal took 10 years and a world war’s stimulus to manufacturing before it found any traction; Reagan’s tax cuts and de-regulation took two years to start a durable expansion.

By: deLafayette Mon, 10 Sep 2012 05:04:14 +0000 COEXISTENCE

{… citizens could get a sense that something new was happening (in the 1930s). What is different for Obama is that there is a very elaborated federal apparatus that already exists.”}

Any Social Democracy, that merits that appellation today, is one that taxes income heavily and spends amply on leveling the playing field. The assortment of Public Services thus is pervasive. But two come to mind that are central to Social Justice.

The first is a National Health-Care System, which provides universal medical services to the nation at an affordable cost. The second is a near-free education from primary to secondary to tertiary education.

Health Care touches every human being on earth. It is a primary concern of all of us and often a matter of life and death. The second is necessary to assure that all citizens have a chance to find work in decent jobs at decent wages.

Perhaps in third place is affordable housing, which allows a family to shelter itself.

Why these three above? Because they relate and coincide with human needs. Consider Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs first promulgate by the psychologist in the latter part of WW2 – when the Great Depression had finally been put to an end by the massive spending of the war. See here:’s_hi erarchy_of_needs

The above three components of Social Justice apply to the bottom levels of the Needs hierarchy, meaning they are the most important. Housing and Health Care are elementary to any nation – which is why most developed countries assume that they are primary Public Services.

The third, Education, is necessary to assure a beings economic fulfillment, that is, the ability to leave the lower areas, assured that they are well-housed and healthy – thus embarked upon achieving the higher levels of personal self-realization.

We’ve not, I submit, in the US been able to assure our population of either an effective National Health System (aka the Public Option) despite two attempts, one by Hilary Clinton and the other by Obama. Or guaranty a decent educational transition from primary to secondary to tertiary education for the majority of our population.

Why? Because despite the Federal assistance to achieve these objectives, we still think (erroneously) that private institutions can best achieve those objectives. So we spend colossal amounts of our income in assuring their attainment in an attempt to guaranty that our children are assured a better standard of living than ourselves.

Meaning this: We have yet to strike a proper balance between the state (Federal, state, city) and and our market economy. Both must coexist, we have learned from the history of the 20th century and the demise of Communism. The state cannot provide solely all the means necessary to achieve an acceptable standard of living for its citizens.

But neither can the market economy. Which should framework the objectives of our economy over the next two decades. But we are stuck in the mud debating the primacy of either for the past eight years and perhaps longer.

It’s time we decide a balance, if only to assure that our children will not bear the hard consequences of our indecision. We must decide, not just at the level of the presidency of our nation, but also in Congress.

Or we, as a nation, are condemned to the inefficacy of gridlock as a nation.

By: UauS Sat, 08 Sep 2012 05:08:11 +0000 I believe that “the comparisons between Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and Mr. Obama’s ambitious plans” are missing such a “little thing” as China. At least, in this commentary. So, I had to click on ‘China’ tab on the right and read “The economy’s ‘China Syndrome’” by Chrystia Freeland, which complemented and completed this article for me.

Speaking of Reagan. In my (not very informed) opinion, by destroying unions, Reagan was at the cradle of mass jobs outsourcing from this country. Whatever one thinks about unions, organized labor is a force with main purpose of protecting jobs and job-related rights of its members. So could it be that strong German unions are among primary reasons why Germany’s worker doesn’t feel as much pain from jobs outsourcing as an American one?

By: OneOfTheSheep Fri, 07 Sep 2012 01:26:26 +0000 To shine a bright light on the “submerged state” is not going to help Obama “make the case” for “four more years”. I see just the same old political shell game with new shells. Rhetoric over substance.

Politicians of BOTH parties don’t “get” that identifying and adding up the “huge benefits” our government is shoveling out day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year isn’t what’s important. What’s important is that they “recognize” many of those “huge benefits” are not appropriate burdens to put on working Americans. The “submerged state” is, in fact, but the American “ship of state” foundering in a sea of red ink! It’s trip to the bottom will be a one way trip if not halted before it’s too late.

What’s important is to “recognize” that all the production of American workers is not enough to generate the tax revenue required to sustain today’s “huge benefits”. And let us not ignore the fact that these “huge benefits” are paid out with dollars this country doesn’t have, just more and more “unsecured” paper and ink. Each such dollar increasingly dilutes the value of every existing dollar in circulation.

We know this because politicians of both major parties fund these “huge benefits” with increases in America’s debt limit that they consider “routine”. Instead of the “new deal” or the “new new deal, the most appropriate description may be the “stacked deal”. There will be no “huge benefits” for America’s workers of the future. They will receive instead the “tab” for today’s largesse.