The Right Way Back

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Hear Obama in 2001 Chicago Public Citizen Radio Interview criticizing the Warren Court as not radical enough for not pursuing redistribution of wealth.

Obama Says that community organizing is for the purpose of assembling the political power to force redistribution of wealth.

This article should be called," The right way forward". Who want to "back"? The world is ever changing. We will never go back to the way we were. We can develop and be better.

Wow! Very well written and insightful. Why isn't Michael Bloomberg running for President now? I say Bloomberg in 2012!!

"Too many companies are already setting up shop elsewhere because of the difficulty they have getting visas for their foreign workers. That means fewer jobs for middle-class Americans"

But those jobs weren't going to go to middle class Americans anyway, they were going to go to the foreign workers the company wasn't able to hire - you said it yourself in the previous sentence.

"That means higher standards, higher salaries, merit pay, tenure reform, school report cards, a longer school day and more. These reforms have been essential to our success in New York, and if they can be achieved here, where labor unions and special interests have held sway for decades, they can be achieved across the nation."

Unlike New York, the entire nation doesn't have an abundance of overpaid bankers they can tax to death to fund all that stuff. And I would like to keep the rest of the country as little like New York as possible.

"The ultimate in financial planning is to bounce the check to the undertaker."

That's funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

2001 Chicago Public Citizen Radio Interview criticizing the Warren Court as not radical enough for not pursuing redistribution of wealth.

Says that community organizing is for the purpose of assembling the political power to force redistribution of wealth.

My goodness, collegevoter - Is Bloomberg your daddy, or uncle? Don't beg, undidnified!

I'm joking if people haven't picked that up by now.

P.S. There's a video posted on the upper right-hand corner of this page that has an interview with George Soros. Everyone should check it out to see what our real, new Overlord has to say.

Thank you Treasury Secretary Paulson. If Obama (or McCain) doesn't appoint this man Treasury Secretary they're NUTS.

He is the only man out there (with the possible exception of Bob Rubin who probably doesn't want the job again) with the economic AND political skills necessary to get this job done. Larry Summers does not.

Please, please, PLEASE whoever is the next president have the common sense to appoint this man Treasury Secretary. I'm begging you.

As a corollary..Mr. Obama..try the unthinkable...TALK to us..

THANK YOU MAYOR BLOOMBERG............SOUND ADVICE, PRESIDENT OBAMA WILL NEED ALL THE HELP AND ASSISTANCE HE CAN GET. OUR ECONOMY IS IN THE TANK, WE ARE FIGHTING TWO WARS WHICH ARE COSTING US 10 BILLION A MONTH AND THE JOB LOSSES AND FORECLOSURES HAS US TEETERING ON THE EDGE OF A DEPRESSION. LETS HOPE EVERYONE IS THINKING LIKE YOU.

Micheal Bloomberg is a wise man and his advice is pearl of wisdom that whoever gets elected to the highest office in the US and the world would be foolhardy to ignor. However, he had not advised the next president to tell the American people the harsh reality that America and the American people cannot and should not live on future earnings while the rest of the world live on past earnings. Instant gratification is something that should never have been promoted.

Secondly, he should Obama in particular that should he be elected he should keep his big mouth shut, stop shouting and start working and stop spending the 4 years of his presidency blaming and rubbishing George Bush. We do not want him to ever mention George W. Bush's name in the 4 years he is in the White House. We are sick and tired of hearing Obama shouting and blaming everything on George W, Bush.

Mayor Bloomberg was still a Republican when he became the first Republican for whom I ever I ever voted. This letter alone, tells me my instincts were right, though I'm sure I'd never vote Republican again. Call him, Barrack!

Your rebuttal made no sense so i thought you might want another chance at it.

After 9/11, the US government started rounding up Muslims without cause and without due process of law, like we did to the Japanese Americans in WWII. The Bush administration called it's main internment camp Guantanamo Bay. While there are certainly many guilty terrorists held in Guantanamo, there are also many innocent American citizens who have been held illegally for years without even being charged with any crime. They have been tortured by our government. Some of them have died.

Recently the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration in the matter of Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court Justices were NOT on the side of the terrorists. They were on the side of the Geneva Convention, that says you can not torture POWs, and on the side of US laws that state you can not imprison a person without charging them with a crime and bringing them to trial. I'm sure that like most Americans, the Justices who voted against the illegal, immoral doings at Guantanamo didn't feel sympathy for the terrorists. They felt sympathy for the laws of AMERICA, the land of the FREE, where even rat finks get a fair trial.

Meanwhile, back in Iraq, the Bush administration is busy trying to build a smokescreen to hide the CRIMES they have committed. Those pesky weapons of mass destruction. Just think, the National Debt went up over 6 trillion dollars under Bush. More than 2 TRILLION of it went directly into the pockets of Halliburton, a corporation owned by the Cheney family. Halliburton is now a DUBAI corporation and therefore is not subject to US taxes. All that money they took out of the US Treasury is going into the coffers of a MUSLIM country.

Did you hear about how the US government is being charged millions for Halliburton deliveries of sand into Iraq from Kuwait? Sand. Like there is a shortage of sand in Iraq? Another contractor shipped sand from Idaho to Iraq at our expense. Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz discusses these and other excesses of our current government's out of control spending in Iraq.

Your grandchildren will be working like slaves to pay off this debt, so that the Bushes and Cheneys can live the high life in Dubai.

Yeah, they're patriots, Bush&Co. They wear flag pins. And hide the money they stole from America in Dubai.

And they want me to believe that Obama is a socialist. Right.

In case you think McCain is any different than Bush, watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJUCU1UH2w

The Kennedy tax cut.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm

About half way through the article.

President Kennedy proposed massive tax-rate reductions, which were passed by Congress and became law after he was assassinated. The 1964 tax cut reduced the top marginal personal income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent by 1965. The cut reduced lower-bracket rates as well. In the four years prior to the 1965 tax-rate cuts, federal government income tax revenue--adjusted for inflation--increased at an average annual rate of 2.1 percent, while total government income tax revenue (federal plus state and local) increased by 2.6 percent per year . In the four years following the tax cut, federal government income tax revenue increased by 8.6 percent annually and total government income tax revenue increased by 9.0 percent annually. Government income tax revenue not only increased in the years following the tax cut, it increased at a much faster rate.
The Kennedy tax cut set the example that President Ronald Reagan would follow some 17 years later. By increasing incentives to work, produce, and invest, real GDP growth increased in the years following the tax cuts: More people worked, and the tax base expanded. Additionally, the expenditure side of the budget benefited as well because the unemployment rate was significantly reduced.
Using the Congressional Budget Office's revenue forecasts (made with the full knowledge of the future tax cuts), revenues came in much higher than had been anticipated, even after the "cost""of the tax cut had been taken into account. Additionally, in 1965--one year following the tax cut--personal income tax revenue data exceeded expectations by the greatest amounts in the highest income classes.
Testifying before Congress in 1977, Walter Heller, President Kenned''s Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, summarized:
What happened to the tax cut in 1965 is difficult to pin down, but insofar as we are able to isolate it, it did seem to have a tremendously stimulative effect, a multiplied effect on the economy. It was the major factor that led to our running a $3 billion surplus by the middle of 1965 before escalation in Vietnam struck us. It was a $12 billion tax cut, which would be about $33 or $34 billion in today's terms, and within one year the revenues into the Federal Treasury were already above what they had been before the tax cut.
Did the tax cut pay for itself in increased revenues? I think the evidence is very strong that it did

People on these bogs are fond of saying that the current economic meltdown was caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underwriting bad mortgages. While Fannie and Freddie obviously are guilty of writing bad mortgages, and worse, guilty of lobbying Congress to allow them to do so with impunity, their actions are just a small piece of the puzzle when it comes to determining who (or what) caused the financial crisis we face today.

In 1929 the stock market crash caused the banks to fail, because the banks were in bed with the stock market. Back then, banks owned investment houses, so when the stock market fell, the banks fell too. This triggered the Great Depression. So in 1933 the Congress wrote laws that regulated banking, making it illegal for banks to own investment companies, mortgage guaranty companies or insurance companies. The idea was to keep key industries separated by a fire wall, so that if one industry failed the whole economy would not go down in flames.

But the Republicans under Bush deregulated the banking industry. Senator Phil Gramm wrote legislation (the Gramm Rudman Act, the Gramm Leach Biley Act, etc.) that stripped away the regulations in the financial and insurance industies. He pushed them through the Republican Congress and they were signed into law by Geo. W. Bush. John McCain voted in favor. Everybody said how great it is to deregulate and create free markets.

Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch each gave over a million dollars to Senator Gramm's re-election campaign.

The economic collapse that happened later was a direct result of the deregulation, and here's how: the banks wrote bad mortgages, then bundled the mortgages into investment vehicles that they sold all over the world, and they even got firms like AIG to insure the investments. It was all a house of cards.

If there had been no deregulation, sure we would have had a bunch of bad mortgages, and the mortgage guaranty and real estate industries would have suffered, but there would not have been a global financial meltdown, since the problem would have been contained in one sector of the economy. You can thank Geo W. Bush, Sen. Phil Gramm and Sen John McCain for the meltdown, since they were strong proponents of deregulation.

Furthermore, although Fannie and Freddie are now holding the bulk of these bad mortgages, Fannie and Freddie did not originally write most of these mortgages. They bought them after the fact, bundled by banks/investment companies. Fannie and Freddie got screwed by the Wall Street fat cats. And so did you, if you pay taxes.

What is Phil Gramm doing today? He works as a lobbyist in Washington, trying to make it legal for the Swiss bank he represents to sell Death Bonds in the United States. Nice guy, Phil Gramm. Incidentally, John McCain has said that he wants to appoint Phil Gramm as Treasury Secretary. Some people just can't learn from their mistakes.