Skip to main content

View Diary: CA-Sen: Carly Fiorina's priorities (280 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No kidding (4+ / 0-)

    the top marginal income tax rate on the rich was 90% during the fifties. Union membership was at an all-time high. A one-income family could afford a house and two cars. There was no trade deficit. words like "downsizing", offshoring", and "outsourcing" were unheard of, and the average CEO made 30 to 50 times the salry of the average worker, as opposed to the 300 to 1,000 times they do now.

    Taking us back to 1950's would be the Rethugs worst nightmare, and should be our Number One goal!

    Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

    by drewfromct on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 08:57:03 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  well (4+ / 0-)

      except for the whole massive racial injustice and rampant sexism thing.  Economic justice for whites was better in 50s but a lot of people were left out in the cold.

      Help build the Progressive Governing Majority at Open Left

      by Scientician on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 08:58:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, pick and choose (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Scientician, Pris from LA

        We say that we should go back to the good economy of the fifties, and keep the gains we've made on social justice, while Rethugs would like to keep us on the road to Neo-Feudalism with a return to racism, sexism, and class privilege on steroids

        Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

        by drewfromct on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 09:03:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes! Let's raise the top rate to 90%! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drewfromct, Pris from LA

      Inject some tax fairness back into the system so we can concentrate on our priorities and get away from shrinking government and instead see government as the answers to our problems, personal and group-wise.

      •  Screwy (1+ / 0-)

        Isn't there anyone here who owns or runs a business? Who never had to fire people because business was really bad? Since when does being a democrat/liberal mean that basic economics is irrelevant? It's one thing to argue for the existence of a social safety net, and quite another to quarterback a private company's financial decisions. I don't want to cheer on HP, but it's their responsibility to do what's best for their business—and it's the government's job to set up and maintain the environment in which that happens.

        As for the 90% tax rate: I remember very well when my father turned down the chance to greatly expand his business in the early 60s. He was already making a very good living and had hit the 90% marginal rate. He explained to me that for all the work he would have to do in order to keep another 10¢ on every dollar, he was just not interested. So, that 90% tax meant that some 10-15 other jobs were never created.

        •  Job priorities (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          drewfromct

          As Kossacks, we believe there are 3 good jobs. Government jobs, new economy jobs and union jobs. And those of us fortunate enough to have jobs should be willing to pay enough to support those of us not fortunate enough to have a job to afford them the same or similar lifestyle as those with jobs enjoy. Food, shelter, medicine and other pursuits of happiness should not be restricted to those with good jobs.

        •  What's Best for Business? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          drewfromct, Zack from the SFV, kurt

          Best solely for shareholders?
          Best solely for CEOs, Board Members and top mgmt?

          We're in tough times now so different rules apply.

          But the M&A orgy of the last 20 years, funded in large part by unsustainable debt (watch the huge corporate bond re-sets in the next 4 years from some of those mergers that defied rules of "basic economics") was built on a very narrow and short-term definition of who "business" is and what "best" means in both nature and duration.

          If I create a job, the salary and expenses of that position are deductions from the income on which taxes are paid.

          But we've abandoned the idea that improving our employees purchasing power will improve all businesses and improve our communities.

          We're locked in a death race to the bottom with societies that don't protect employees, don't preserve the environment and don't assure the safety or quality of their products.  

          On the upside, we can buy that product (tainted in so many ways as it is) a few bucks cheaper at the BIG BOXMART store. (The fact that those savings are far exceeded by the relative drop in our purchasing power is not of concern to those whose purchasing power has sky-rocketed under this new definition of what's 'best for business'.

          If you say "Let them eat cake", don't accuse the offended peasants of feeling "entitled". It makes them nostalgic for their knitting.

          by Into The Woods on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:04:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What's best for business (0+ / 0-)

            is profit, measured in various ways. Could corporate structure rules be reformed? Right on! But that's exactly what I was talking about—something that government needs to do. All the corporation should be expected to do is to follow the rules. Tough times don't mean that different rules apply, unless you have a rule about what is meant by "tough times" and then specify what changes take place.

            •  Corprate Culture - Not Just Structure (0+ / 0-)

              I really don't know if you can regulate the current culture out of existence.

              You can remove some of the most obvious financial incentives that reduce the percieved risk and magnify the short-term profit.

              You can bring 'new' exotic instruments under the regulatory rules created to facilitate and preserve (not shackle) the free market and by doing so redirect some of that huge amount of money now captured by private wagers into more constructive investments.

              Bad times = last 18months - i.e. Great Recession exceeded in recent history only by Great Depression of the 30s.  That's my definition of bad times and yes, what I would consider proper and appropriate in terms of layoffs, wage freezes or cuts, benefit reductions is different during that time from what I would consider proper and appropriate when the goal is not survival but carving off more money from the 95% to further enrich the already wealthy 5% - which is what happened over the last 20 or more years.

              If you say "Let them eat cake", don't accuse the offended peasants of feeling "entitled". It makes them nostalgic for their knitting.

              by Into The Woods on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 01:43:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  You DINO you (0+ / 0-)

          Since when does being a democrat/liberal mean that basic economics is irrelevant? It's one thing to argue for the existence of a social safety net, and quite another to quarterback a private company's financial decisions... So, that 90% tax meant that some 10-15 other jobs were never created.

          How dare you make sense?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site