The Media Is Liberal But Not As Much As It Thinks

The mainstream media has been brainwashed into thinking that it is "Liberal", and so it has fewer Liberals in its lineup of guests on political interview shows. If there were 3 people at the table: Media, Republican, and Liberal, the Republican would complain that it is unfair, "Because it's two against one! The Liberal can leave, or I'm outta here, and you two can be all chummy!"

This is a debate tactic wherein you hint that the impartial judge shares your opponent's point of view, and the judge then compensates for it by being more "centrist".

And so the debate judge would be less likely to side with the sensible argument, even though the judge has personally reasoned it out, and it has passed the smell test.

Of course, if you had a sensible argument, there would be no need to sway a sensible judge. And thus, today's debate on what's "sensible".

"Some say endless war and vilifying your neighbor will make the future better for our children. Some disagree, and think that sound fiscal/trade/tax policies are the way to fix America's problems. The endless debate continues..." -This is your Mainstream Media today.

Eisenhower's Salary Cap

In the 1950s, Local income taxes were 3%; State income taxes 6%; and any excess of income over $400,000/yr was taxed by the Federal government at 91%. 3+6+91=100. Eisenhower put a 100% tax on all income over $400,000/yr, which is effectively a salary cap. And it affects ALL Americans - not just the rich.

So if a fry cook made over $400,000 in taxable income, the excess over 400k would be GONE. Sorry!

Same goes for the unemployed single mom. Same goes for the Wall Street fat cat. Same goes for the weapons manufacturer. Same goes for the student who just won the lottery. This was shared sacrifice that the politicians talk about so much today. No one in the 1950s took home over $400,000/yr: shared sacrifice!!!

A 1950s Washington DC barbecue conversation, in America's current political and media climate

Here's a conversation you did NOT hear in the 1950s at a DC Barbecue:

Post-war greedy fuck #1: The government is reaming me with these taxes, fukkin Eisenhower!

Post-war greedy fuck #2: How much did YOU pay?

Post-war greedy fuck #1: Almost $9 million dollars! I kept my war-time $10 million/year salary and now at 90% for anything over $400,000, I only take home about $1.1 million. Fucking poor and all their handouts!

Post-war greedy fuck #2: I'm in the same boat, pulling down $5 million, I only take home $600,000.

Post-war greedy fuck #1: Some say that we could just leave all that extra tax money in the company, to hire our neighbors who are out of work, but I need that new Limo with the air conditioning and the bar.

Post-war greedy fuck #2: Yeah. "Let *me* pay those taxes for you - just hire me - you're throwing that money down the drain, giving it to the government," is what I hear people say. Fuck them! - I am the employer - they ever heard of a poor man hiring someone?

Scrap Trickle-Down

Let's face it: Corporate fatcats are not going to share the money they stole from productive workers. Well, they share some with politicians and the media, but none makes it back to the population, except maybe in the form of unemployment checks.

Trickle-down doesn't work. Executives and Board Members don't have the discipline to see that the companies, workers, and America thrives. It's time to give these Corporate fatcats an excuse to not take home giant paychecks: a 90% sin tax on all income over $2million/year.

The problem is, the media and politicians are bought-and-paid-for, but think that they are witnessing trickle-down in action: "We gave tax cuts, and now we are selling more ads. Hooray, trickle-down works." But it doesn't.

But the Media wakes up in the middle of the night and thinks, "If we suggest that Executives need a salary cap, they might not buy ads anymore. Let's take a softer approach to trickle-down." The Politicians wake up in the middle of the night and think, "If we suggest that Executives need a salary cap, they might not contribute to our campaign coffers anymore. Let's take a softer approach to trickle-down."

The Visitation

When visiting south Florida, at the end of December, something wondrous appears out over the water. There, on clear nights, which is most of them, around midnight, due south, over the water, gleams a jewel. Something new and out of the ordinary. Something special. It must be a visitation of some sort, hovering low over the water, reflecting - look - it's right down there, past the reef. But no. It's not new, no matter how much of an exciting relief that would be. No, it's just Alpha Centauri, suddenly revealed over the bulk of the earth, buried deep in the southern hemisphere. There it lies, a constant companion for those south of the equator, but to this northerner, it's a glimmering spaceship on fire coming in for a landing on a distant island. Soon, alien visitors will come ashore and hopefully they are friendly, and have viewed us from afar, from their home and from orbit and from right over there. And they will bring enlightenment.

Nope - just a bright star, visible during that time of the year, only. But you can still dream, if for just half a second.

Sin taxes on high paychecks results in smaller government and a better economy

Feral
Reposting a bit of this, but during the Eisenhower era...

Despite the rich paying as much as 70% in income taxes on their highest earnings the economy still grew, something that seems to be lost down the memory hole. High taxes on the wealthy and economic growth - who'd a figured???

The thing is, this is painted as a money-grab, whereas it should be looked at a sin tax. The right-wing pundits and politicians claim that the government wants $70million from a $100million/year salary. But that's not how it actually works. It you tax at 70% for every $ earned over $2,000,000/year (for example), then business-savvy Boards of Directors will pay out $2,500,000/year maximum. The rest stays in the company.

It's a sin tax: you tax what you want to discourage, which in this case is the theft of profits from the company. But not only are high paychecks stealing from the company, its workers, and its shareholders, but it is also stealing from the economy. For every dollar that poor and middle class people get, *every* dollar goes back into the economy, through the purchase of goods, and the paying of taxes. Poor-/middle-class people save next to nothing - it all goes back into circulation. Give rich people cheap money taxed at 30% and only that 30% plus maybe another 20% goes back into the economy through purchases. The rest - 50% of their pay - gone overseas or in trust funds or foundations.

So with this 70% sin tax, government makes less off of rich people because they get their salaries limited, but the shortfall is recovered because poor- and middle-class people will then be paying taxes on their salaries and sales tax, gas tax, etc.

Finally, putting money into the hands of the poor- and middle-classes suddenly eliminates the need for unemployment checks. The government takes in the same amount in overall taxes, but puts out less in benefits,

Thus, a high sin tax on the rich (call it a "fine" if you like) results in smaller government. Imagine that.

Poisoning Yet Another Well

So this attempt, by Republican governors and General Assemblies, to strip government employees of their collective bargaining rights, among other things - is this just a way to poison the well? Maybe in one or two years, after collective bargaining has been eliminated, the Republicans will look around and pretend to be shocked:

"Look at the crappy benefits and perks these government workers get. A government job is bad enough, but to have so few benefits, it's a wonder people want to work for the government at all. And I hear that some employees are considering leaving their jobs and working in the private sector. Well that is the way of the future, with government as broken as it is."

/Republicans Who Broke Government

The Future of The Global Warming Crisis

I had a discussion about "man-made global warming" yesterday. Here are my nuggets of wisdom:

"Long ago, when the earth was warmer, atmospheric carbon was sequestered into sedimentary layers. The earth subsequently cooled. Nowadays, that carbon dioxide is being released from fossil coal and oil deposits, and it's being released faster than it was sequestered. It's not crazy-talk to deduce that the atmosphere will again heat up because of this human-aided activity.

...

"Al Gore is pointing out that the smoke alarm is beeping, and people are laughing at him. "Al's hearing things again." But when the earth is on fire, people will say, "No one could have forseen this ever happening," and Halliburton will be paid hundreds of billions of dollars to pretend to do something about putting the fire out.

...

"At some point in the future the energy companies will be able to make more money with "cleantech" than with oil/gas/coal. At that point the politicians and media (who are bought-and-paid-for by such companies) will trumpet the need to go "cleantech".

Those "carbon credits" are more like a "sin tax" than a "bribe". You want to pollute? Well, you're going to have to pay for the cleanup, in advance. But if you've "gone green", there's no need for the carbon credit money to pay for the cleanup, because your polluting has stopped.

...

"I'm with you, that humans are natural, so any global climate change can be defined as "natural". I also don't think that there will be "runaway" global warming: the earth has a way of naturally moderating itself, for example higher temperatures create more evaporation which creates more clouds which reflects sunlight back into space which cools the earth.

I'm also with you that "carbon" is just one of many pollutants used in (or produced by) manufacturing.

People like Al Gore have taken on the worst job in the world: if he's right, and that man-made global warming is on our doorstep, and he succeeds in stopping it, then what effect we will all see? -nothing! How un-exciting. Much more exciting for the house to be fully engulfed in flames and have the fire brigade come barreling down the street, and have suited-up rescuers carry people from the fire. And then when Al Gore murmurs, "Well, I told you the smoke detector was beeping..." people will turn on him and say, "A little late for that now, Al, don't you think?"

High taxes equals higher stock prices equals a better economy

Current monetary policy has worked because it has helped lift stock prices which in turn have fueled the economic recovery, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told CNBC on Friday.
...

"There's a real upward momentum here," he said. "I think we are underestimating and continuing to underestimate how important asset prices, very specifically equity prices, are not only to shareholders but the economy as a whole."

Greenspan is onto something: higher stock prices can indicate a better economy, at least until you try to cash in, of course. BUT...

You know what will increase the value of stocks as a whole? - keeping the highest paychecks out of the Executives' pockets, and keeping it in the company, where it can be paid out as an increased dividend. This will make the stocks more desirable and will increase their value. AND...

You can use that luxury CEO pay and buy back stocks out of the market, thus concentrating supply, and driving up the price.

I'd say if you want to increase the value of stock, quickly, tax every dollar over $2,000,000 in annual compensation at 90%. That will keep money in the company, where it can be used to pay dividends or buy back stock.