Great Article

From a great man who tells truth to power like no one else I know.

http://www.thenation.com/article/164...cupied-america

And so true!!

Barack Obama criticizes bankers as “fat cats,” then invites them to dine at a pricey New York restaurant where the tasting menu runs to $195 a person.
That’s now the norm, and they get away with it. The president has raised more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and private equity managers than any Republican candidate, including Mitt Romney. Inch by inch he has conceded ground to them while espousing populist rhetoric that his very actions betray.
Let’s name this for what it is: hypocrisy made worse, the further perversion of democracy.

yep, the worst one is your boy...............

Barack Obama is in bed with Wall Street more than any Republican. What a pile of horseshit.

Depends on what you mean by "Wall Street." If you mean publicly traded corporate America, you are dead wrong. If on the other hand you more narrowly mean the financial industry, it may be a closer call, although I'd still guess that the Republicans have received more from them than the Democrats over the past 20 years. Of course the Democrats getting more right now because they are the ones in power.

But the solution to all of it public financing of elections and a constitutional amendment(s) stating that 1) money is not speech; and 2) allowing unlimited regulation, up to and including banning, of corporate and individual campaign contributions; and 3) explicitly overruling Citizens United.

No personal money in politics and no corporate money in politics.

More horseshit. Obama has raised more money from Wall Street than Republicans could hope for. Jesus, don't you know the kool aid is bad for you?

"Our politicians are little more than money launderers in the trafficking of power and policy—fewer than six degrees of separation from the spirit and tactics of Tony Soprano"

Totally agree with this. We need to push for changes and get money out of politics. Not sure if that will ever happen in my lifetime though.

Lying About Bush's Tax Cuts

By Andrew Foy and Brenton Stransky


The majority of the taxpayers in our country believe it a foregone conclusion that taxes will rise substantially in the near future and that the Bush tax cuts will soon be no more than a footnote of political history. You don't need to be a genius to see that the government will have to raise more revenue to pay for seemingly infinite spending, but before we resign ourselves to higher taxes, we should consider defending the Bush tax cuts against the left.

Two of the most oft-cited objections to the Bush tax cuts by the left are that it helped only the rich and it was largely responsible for the federal deficit at the end of the Bush presidency. Instead, it is true that if the current administration allows any or all of the Bush tax cuts to expire, economic growth will be slowed and tax revenue could actually decrease, perpetuating our deficit dilemma.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 broadly lowered income, capital gains, dividends, and estate taxes. Fanning the lie that only the rich benefited, liberal economists Peter Orszag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse-government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes." This criticism stuck so well that it is difficult to find a liberal today who doesn't believe that these tax relief measures were anything more than "tax cuts for the rich."

But the data does not support this conclusion. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total.

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized %1%2 and weights %3.

This shift may have occurred because as the wealthy (who are arguably the most industrious and productive citizens) are better-incentivized to be industrious and productive through lower taxes, they create higher incomes for themselves and end up paying more taxes. The Bush tax cuts did shift the tax burden, but not in the direction most liberals think.

The second major misconception spread by the left about the Bush tax cuts is that the lower tax rates caused the federal deficit woes we face today. Keeping with the party line of blaming the previous administration for all of today's problems, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) quipped in a news conference on January 8 of this year: "Let me just say that the tax cuts at the high end ... have been the biggest contributor to the budget deficit." Of course, the Speaker would have us believe that overspending has nothing to do with our deficit.

In fact, the Bush tax cuts actually increased government revenue. According to economist Brian Reidl of the Heritage Foundation, The Laffer Curve (upon which much of the supply-side theory is based) merely formalizes the common sense observations that

• 1. Tax revenues depend on the tax base as well as the tax rate,
• 2. Raising tax rates discourages the taxed behavior and therefore shrinks the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue gains, and
• 3. Lowering tax rates encourages the taxed behavior and expands the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue loss.

If policymakers intend cigarette taxes to discourage smoking, then they should know that high investment taxes will discourage investment and income taxes will discourage work. Lowering taxes encourages people to engage in the given behavior, which expands the base and replenishes some or all of the lost revenue. This is the "feedback effect" of a tax cut.

The following figure is an illustration of the Laffer Curve. The curve postulates that two tax rates exist between the extremes of no tax and 100% tax that will collect the same amount of revenue: a high tax rate on a small tax base and a low tax rate on a large tax base. Whether or not a tax cut recovers 100% of the lost revenue depends on the tax rate's location on the Laffer curve. When tax rates are above the equilibrium point on the Laffer curve, reducing the tax rate increases revenue.



So what was the effect of the Bush tax cuts? The data reveals that tax revenues in 2006 were actually $47 billion above the levels projected by the Congressional budget office before the 2003 tax cuts. Clearly, tax rates were beyond the point of equilibrium.

The Bush tax cuts were intended to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest and thus create jobs and increase economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts shows that this is exactly what happened. The following table from Reidl's analysis depicts these effects.



The empirical data makes it impossible to validate the liberal claims that the Bush tax cuts were "for the rich," or that they "caused the budget deficit," or that they were in any way responsible for causing this latest economic crisis. In fact, a study by economist John W. Skorburg underscores the positive effects of the Bush tax cuts. Skorburg's study found that the Bush tax cuts, which lowered the total federal tax burden from 20.9% in fiscal year 2000 to 17.9% in fiscal year 2008 and 2009, were responsible for increasing the economic growth rate. Further, the author concluded that "[i]f President Obama raises tax burdens, trend growth in real GDP will fall."

The bottom line is that tax policy has far-reaching effects, and for decades, liberals have refused to acknowledge them. The dire consequences of higher tax burdens in times of economic weakness were made most clear when FDR raised taxes in 1937, causing a double-dip in GDP that prolonged the Great Depression. If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, recovery from the current crisis will likely be prolonged, and we will have no one to blame but ourselves for not observing the lessons of history.

Andrew Foy, M.D. and Brenton Stransky are authors of The Young Conservative's Field Guide and can be contacted through their website at www.aHardRight.com.

"No personal money in politics, and no corporate money"

How about Union Money?

Public financed elections
what a scam talk about
incumbent insurance.

The unions have to be defanged.
Allowing members to opt out
of political donations would help.

All in all the only problems
are the incumbents.

But I wouldn't want to lose
Sen. Jeff Sessions, I love that man.
We need 49 other Senators just like him.

More horseshit. Obama has raised more money from Wall Street than Republicans could hope for. Jesus, don't you know the kool aid is bad for you? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

As I said in the post you completely ignored, I'm not sure. And I suspect the answer depends on how you define Wall Street. My definition is "from the PAC of or from an officer, director, or executive of any publicly traded company." If you use that definition (other than say "from the PAC of or from an officer, director, or executive of any large financial services company") I think you may find that the Republicans have raised more, although I'm not sure.

But, if you'll go back to the Bush administration, it will be reversed. The incumbent party always has something a fund raising advantage with big business, although that does not in any given circumstance guarantee that they raise the most funds in a given cycle.

Also, if you are talking about Obama versus any one of the seven dwarfs now running as Republicans, limiting your numbers only to the Presidential race, you're probably correct. No real Republican fund raising has started. Big business rarely plays big in the primaries. But once the nominee is picked, then there will be a big push for bucks by the eventual nominee.

As usual, it depends on what the definition of "is" is. Horseshit is horseshit. And the article was horseshit.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/co...?cid=N00009638

Ok, I guess Goldman Sachs isn't Wall Street.

The link is figures for 2008 and only for Presidential candidates. In 2008 Obama cleaned up because 1) McCain was such a pathetic candidate; and 2) Bush had so disastrously destroyed the economy that even a good Republican candidate couldn't have won. So Obama likely lead even in non-financial industrial companies.

2012 will be a much different scenario. The bottom line is that corporate contributions are, in the main, not ideologically driven. Corporations bet on winners. Obama was a clear winner in 2008. This time, not so much unless the Republicans commit Hari Kiri.

Well, the Republicans will commit Hari Kiri. But the article remains horseshit.