<p>Actually Desegregation was most actively pursued first by Ike when he sent troops to Little Rock. Many southern DEMOCRATS effectively blocked desegregation until then.</p>
<p>Barrons, you are holding out on me. That’s a nice link you found.</p>
<p><a href=“http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/25/news/economy/income_gap/index.htm[/url]”>http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/25/news/economy/income_gap/index.htm</a></p>
<p>Kluge and Dstark, I’d love to debate any one of the issues, but cannot do it today. </p>
<p>One issue is, however, simple regarding the minimum wages. My opposition to rasing the minimum wages is that it does more harm than good to the people an increase is supposed to help. We all know that the minimum wages are NOT meant to suffice as living wages for adults. Take a look at WHO earns minimum wages.</p>
<p>On the other hand, minimum wages are appealing to very young adults and part-timers who have not earned sufficient qualifications to justify a higher salary. The reaction to increase minimum wages is that … fewer such jobs will be available to a class of citizens who need them. </p>
<p>You see, I do not find it contradictory to support hgher wages, but not necessarily support increasing the minimum wages. This is not in defense of big business! I DO like a number of big businesses, but within reason. I have mentioned in the past why I really like Jim Sinegal. Paying his employees as little as possible is not exactly his policy at Costco. </p>
<p>Regarding taxation, I am not in favor on any kind of double taxation. As you know, I am in favor of one time consumption and production taxes. Capital investments should be rewarded and not penalized. In good times, and bad times, a country needs investment incentives. </p>
<p>Also, I am not in favor of wealth or death taxes. This discussion always intimates to be about rich versus poor. The reality is that the very rich will do fine no matter what happens. After all, they can vote with their feet and leave the country -like Dorrance of Campbell fame did. On the other hand, inheritance taxes have a profound impact on … newly created wealth. For instance, is it really bad for a hard working family who has built several Mexican eateries to try to leave the growing “empire” in THE family? Those are the people who will suffer from some of our current laws. </p>
<p>As far as sipping a glass of Aquafina around the fire place, I believe that some of my own positions would infuriate the sparse right-wing membership of CC. For instance, I would not endear myself too much with my unabated criticism of fools such as Peter Kirsanow.</p>
<p>Xiggi, as to your beliefs on inheritance taxes, I thought you believed in a meritocracy? </p>
<p>Surely we can tax some inheritance, after all, the beneficiaries didn’t earn the money. </p>
<p>What about the capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes, or taxes on interest that have never been taxed?</p>
<p>We haven’t raised minimum wages in what? I think we can raise them up a bit and not lose too many jobs. Minimum wages are not keeping up with inflation.</p>
<p>Capital investments are rewarded when they work.
Why do we need investment incentives? Isn’t the profit motive enough?
There isn’t a shortage of capital in this country or the world. The world is sloshing around in capital. Have you seen world wide interest rates? World wide housing prices? Stock prices in most of the world?</p>
<p>As for the wealthy that would leave the country if they don’t get the tax structure they want, I say, “see ya”. “Don’t come back”.</p>
<p>What productivity tax do you prefer?</p>
<p>“We haven’t raised minimum wages in what? I think we can raise them up a bit and not lose too many jobs. Minimum wages are not keeping up with inflation.”</p>
<p>Raising the minimum wages by $1.00 per hour could cost between 150,000 and 500,000 jobs. However, please ask yourself if the raise would help the beneficiaries -the 13-18 years old and the poorly educated 18-25 years old. </p>
<p>As far capital investments, the taxation simply raises the cost. You need to look further than the benefits of whomever offers the capital and look at the side of the … recipients.</p>
<p>“Raising the minimum wages by $1.00 per hour could cost between 150,000 and 500,000 jobs.”</p>
<p>Evidence, please? Funny. I thought the whole point of “trickle down” was that it resulted in immediately spendable income. Among the poor, spent in places where poor folks work - fast food, Wal-Mart, gas stations. </p>
<p>I actually prefer a maximum wage…for public companies. Their articles of incorporation are dependent upon a legislative finding of public benefit, and they can be regulated any way a legislature chooses (and have been).</p>
<p>Xiggi, we have costs. Who are going to pay these costs? These costs don’t go away if you tax one thing instead of another.</p>
<p>We don’t need to tax capital any lower. We have too much of it already. If the cost of capital was too high, why are real interest rates so low in most of the world? Why do we have a housing boom everywhere. Why are stock prices high in so much of the world? People are getting home loans with teaser rates at 1%. Capital is scarce? These things are not the result of a shortage of capital, or of people afraid of taking risks.</p>
<p>In a perfect world it would be great not to have to tax capital or wages or inheritance. This world costs money.</p>
<p>“As far capital investments, the taxation simply raises the cost. You need to look further than the benefits of whomever offers the capital and look at the side of the … recipients.”</p>
<p>I do. Trickle down doesn’t happen.</p>
<p>“Raising the minimum wages by $1.00 per hour could cost between 150,000 and 500,000 jobs. However, please ask yourself if the raise would help the beneficiaries -the 13-18 years old and the poorly educated 18-25 years old.”</p>
<p>Yes it would. Why don’t you ask the people who get the minimum wage if they would like to see an increase?</p>
<p>Why is it that people with capital need thousands and millions in incentives and minimum wage earners can’t get a buck?</p>
<p>I tell you what. Instead of giving thousands and millions more to people who don’t need the money, let’s give that money to the poor. Then they can spend the money, create demand for goods and services, and businesses will come in to capture those dollars. Then everybody wins and we don’t have to see if anything trickles down.</p>
<p>Trickle down certainly does happen. Just ask the boatbuilders who were nearly bankrupted when the luxury tax was placed on boats. When the rich stopped buying boats lots of regular skilled working guys were SOL.
Same thing for elite sports cars. When the tech boom was flush in Seattle the guys who worked on Porsches and Ferraris were taking in $$$ hand over fist keeping these cars running and adding improvements.
When the bust came along they were laying off well paid mechanics and some closed shop. Happens every day in thousands of ways. Smart middle-class people make nice livings off the rich from the waiters making 100K in Las Vegas to the guy selling and installing granite countertops in all the old homes in LA.</p>
<p>“When the tech boom was flush in Seattle the guys who worked on Porsches and Ferraris were taking in $$$ hand over fist keeping these cars running and adding improvements.”</p>
<p>Yup, and I’m sure they were all making minimum wage. And the luxury tax prevented all those tech boom guys from buying Porsches and Ferraris from those guys selling them at minimum wage. And the guys who built the Porsches and Ferraris were making minimum wage as well.</p>
<p>What about Clinton?</p>
<p>The luxury tax was pretty much phased out by 1998.</p>
<p>"The last remnant of a luxury tax on high-end cars and SUVs expired New Year’s Day, eliminating a surcharge that added $1,200 to the cost of a $40,000 vehicle. </p>
<p>“Just as cash rebates and other incentives helped luxury car sales in 2002, repeal of the luxury tax should help boost sales in 2003,” said Paul Taylor, chief economist for the National Association of Automobile Dealers in McLean, Va. </p>
<p>The tax was part of a federal deficit reduction act aimed at big spenders that was signed by President George Bush in 1990. The tax added 10 percent to the cost of recreational boats priced at more than $100,000, furs that cost more than $5,000 and new cars that sold for more than $30,000. </p>
<p>The tax was cited by many boat retailers as crippling their industry, along with a recession and the Persian Gulf War. Boat sales plummeted 50 percent to $10-billion in 1992. </p>
<p>The fur and boating industries persuaded lawmakers to repeal the tax in 1993, but the auto industry had to settle for a 10-year phase-out. By 1998 the luxury tax on new cars was whittled down to 3 percent and the minimum price threshold raised to $40,000."</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The same Democrats who became Dixiecrats, and later, odd additions to the GOP.</p>
<p>I never understood why the GOP took in a lot of the Dixiecrats. It seemed rather odd to me. At any rate, I don’t think it’s fair to blame either party for segregation. Both complicitly and implicitly were at fault at some point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those would be the southern Democrats who all became Republicans in response to the Civil Rights Movement, right?</p>
<p>I think Al Gore’s father remained a donkey…as did Senators Fulbright and Byrd, and many others.</p>
<p>In case anyone came in late, Barrons is not being sarcastic, ironic, tongue in cheek, or anything other than dead serious. No recognition of anything illogical for Barrons in the idea that a marginal tax on expensive cars caused “regular joes” to become unemployed. 'Cause we all know that a Porsche mechanic couldn’t possibly repair VW’s or other cars - he just has to fold up shop and go on the dole if you impose a marginal tax on Porsches, inevitably causing those otherwise-would-be Porsche drivers to, like, take the bus instead, right? [CLUNK] </p>
<p>Back to liberals on campus - I always love it when conservatives try to take credit for desegregation. Why not bring up Abe Lincoln while you’re at it? But seriously - we’re talking about those evil lllllllliberals on campus who are leading students into the leftist abyss.</p>
<p>Guess what? That’s exactly what they said about those bad, bad teachers who “instigated” students back in the 60’s to head down South to participate in the civil rights struggle. I can still remember reading a brochure from the John Birch Society (remember them?) which described Martin Luther King and his “comrades” as “racist revolutionaries.” The buzz phrase back then was “off campus agitators.” </p>
<p>Yeah, Barrons, the right was all over that desegregation thing back in the day. (<<<That’s what sarcasm looks like, by the way.)</p>
<p>So they phased out the luxury tax and, guess what? Sales of Lincolns and Cadillacs went through the floor. </p>
<p>Sales of Lexi, BMWs, Mercedes soared. Made a really, really big difference for minimum wage workers. Yeah, right. Except, as sales of Lincolns and Cadillacs fell, the “trickle down” from the American workers who used to make them to those minimum wage workers disappeared virtually entirely. </p>
<p>So much for the “chief economist” (ah-hem) of the National Association of Automobile Dealers, who am sure cared deeply for those minimum wage workers.</p>
<p>Kluge, isn’t it rather interesting that the major achievements of liberal college activists date from twenty years before my birth! I’ll file that information next to the long list of “lofty” causes you provided earlier. </p>
<p>Something funny about those pesky stereotypes is that they tend to carry quite a bit of truth. </p>
<p>So, allow me to ask … what have the liberals DONE lately -with the emphasis on DOING something? Despite being tempted to openly question the achievements of “wonderful” leaders such as Nancy Pelosi, John Sweeney, Randi Weingarten, or the great Hillary herself, I’ll let you come up with specific examples for this … century or at least during my generation. </p>
<p>I’m afraid to hear the sound of a deafening silence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe, if I’m not mistaken, that the last liberal President balanced the federal budget. Personally, I prefer a little fiscal responsibility to the “spend us into deficit oblivion” policies of the conservatives.</p>
<p>If by “lately” you mean the last six years, then you have to understand the role of the opposition party. The Republicans control the White House, both houses of Congress, and most of the governors seats. It is their turn to “do things” and then we’ll see whether or not the voters like those things. We’ll see if the voters applaud the effectiveness of the new Homeland Security Department, and the streamlined FEMA, and the progress of the war in Iraq, and our foreign policy towards Iran and all the rest of the things the party in power has been doing. If the voters approve, there are plenty more Bushes where these came from to keep electing. If not, they’ll probably try another Clinton. They liked the last one pretty well.</p>
<p>Problems with the last 6 years? Let’s make it the last 30 years. </p>
<p>After posing the question, I decided to google “major accomplishment of democratic party” and quickly had to drop the major. After reading about 6 pages of rather vapid links, I thought I found paydirt at one of the “good people” site. In this case: <a href=“http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/14/17389/674[/url]”>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/14/17389/674</a> . </p>
<p>The title sounded promising: Be Proud of Being Democrat, and LIBERAL too! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With bated breath, I read every comment, hoping to finally see THAT list. Alas, no such bonanza was to be found. Could it be that all those good-hearted citizens were cut from the same cloth as the original poster? After all, didn’t he write, “Maybe it **would help ** if **someone ** could make a list of positive accomplishments of modern Dems” </p>
<p>Is this poor and misguided soul really so lazy or dumb not to be able to compose such a list HIMSELF. It should be easy after all … in the time he wrote that great post, he should have been done. Hell no! What a novel idea it must be to really try to DO something. No, hell no …Let’s borrow his “thinking” cap for a moment. You know that one Uncle Alfred gave hime. That one with the Teamster logo on it … Why stray too far from what we know best. Let’s be AGAINST other people’s ideas and PRAY that someone from our ranks does come up with something. </p>
<p>Always someone else. Someone to criticize. Someone to pay for my own lifestyle and indulgence. Yes, yes, it has to absolutely and positively be someone else. After all, someone ought to write about it. Yes, I’ll sit on my fat and lazy ass and complain that someone else did not his job. Now, could someone please make THAT list of all our accomplishments. Geee, it must not be that hard! Don’t we have all the smart people on our side? I am ready to pound those darn conservatives into the ground. I am so ready with my fists next to my feet, regardless if I sit or stand. Please, please, someone must help me! </p>
<p>Oh well, nuff said!</p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>My prevailing view of government is that the less “they do”, the better off we are. My biggest problem with the “convervatives” is that they are forever wanting to “do” too much – ban abortion, end stem-cell research, teach creationism in the public schools.</p>
<p>Every time I vote for one, he embarrasses me. There was the time when yellow dog Democrat Senator Herman “Pockets” Talmadge got caught stuffing envelops of cash into his overcoat. So, I had no choice but to vote for the Republican. What’s the idiot “do” for six years? His entire legislative career consisted of sponsoring one piece of legislation: a bill prohibiting the Library of Congress from printing Playboy magazine in braille for the blind (the only people on earth who really DO read it for the articles).</p>
<p>Now this Bush fella comes along. Never could stand him. I didn’t vote for him the first time, but Kerry is, and always has been, a walking corpse and we were in the middle of a war on terror and what have you. And, now we find out that he was frickin’ lying about weapons of mass destruction, never had one iota of a plan for Iraq, has made a muck of the Homeland Defense department, doesn’t have a shred of fiscal responsiblity in his bones, smeared his own Secretary of State (who it turns out was the only guy in the Administration who had a clue about Iraq) and can only manage to replace one of two women on the Supreme Court with another white male. About the only good thing I can say about him is that he hasn’t started a “nuke-yoo-lar” war.</p>
<p>At least the Republican governors I vote for in Massachusetts mostly stay out of way and don’t bother anybody. I vote for 'em because, with the Democratic controlled legislature, I figure the state government won’t be able to “do” anything.</p>
<p>Porsche mechanic-$120/hour plus nice profits on all the parts than go into a $50,000 hotrod Porsche engine.
VW mechanic-$75/hour and nobody builds $50K VW hotrod motors.</p>
<p>That ends up deing the difference between living in Redmond and Kent. BTW my Porsche mechanic is a proud grad of Harvey Mudd College with a chem major. Great guy.</p>