Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Finance, the economy & Economics The GOP Plan to Screw the Economy & Middle Class

We know the Do Nothing Congress, 2012 Edition, is ready to recess for elections. They've done less than expected, and expectations were pretty low going in, considering the Republican goals.

In December, the Fiscal Cliff is looming. They haven't dealt with that. Not at all.

The failed to pass a transportation bill, which would build roads, repair infrastructure, and put people to work.

Yet, the TEA Party and their patrons have been yammering about tax cuts for the rich. What would happen if people voted for their own interests? Well, they might look at the figures regarding making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, and think again about permanence. Fair taxation is across the board, not hitting any one group with outrageous taxes. no one has posited taxes at what Francois Hollande wanted, which was 75% on the Rich. Just roll back what George Bush's Deficit Legacy would bring to us. Here is how Bob Cesca sees it, quoted in part. Please read the entire article,as there is much that cannot be quoted due to fair use restrictions.
Based on 'bang for the buck' the rollback and passing infrastructure would do more for the economy, and the fiscal health of the nation than most any other proposal.

There is an underlying theme here, and most don't like to mention it because it scares them. (I don't mean Lilli.) The theme is Distribution of
Wealth. For some inane and imbecilic reason, these three words have become synonymous with someone sticking their hand in your
pocket and giving whatever pittance you happen to have to someone else. That is not what it means, and it doesn't mean Socialism
either. What it does mean is that the amount taken by the owners of capital should be less than it is now. Not zero, but less. And what
does this mean? It means that part of what is not being taken out (and hidden) can go back to the workers in the form of benefits,
better wages, better working conditions, more stability on the job, etc. This, in turn, generates more investment, because when the
workers have more disposable income they tend to spend more, and this reverts back into the businesses from which they buy. It also
increases savings, which generates new wealth that can be reinvested in the economy, thus promoting growth. Think of it this way.
Capitalism is supposed to work according to the rule of surplus value (or profit, a grosso modo), i.e. the capitalist invests capital to build, say a
factory (fat chance in America), and he expects a return on his investment. He must pay the costs of operation, which include wages,
electricity, etc. Now, the higher the expected return to the capitalist (or the quicker he expects that return), the lower the cost of
operating the factory must be. So, when the capitalist's only goal is to assuage the greed of his shareholders (and his own, of course)
he sets this return very high and subsequently reduces what he pays the workers - obviously when there are unions that can be more
difficult, and that's why they hate unions - because it is the easiest way to cut. You probably won't get very far telling the
electric company or your other vendors that you don't want to pay what they ask. Besides, they are also capitalists and need to bow to
their shareholders. In an economy such as that of the USA (a mature economy) growth is expected to be slow. First of all the problem is
simple arithmetic: The larger the base on which I'm building, the higher the absolute value I need to generate a large relative return.
For example, if my base is 100 then I need 20 to generate a percent return of 20%. However, if my base is 1,000,000,000,000 then I must
generate 200,000,000,000 in order to achieve a 20% return. Theoretically, the larger the base the larger the consumer class, hence,
generating the 200 billion should not present a problem. However, if he reduces the wages of the working class, then their
buying power no longer guarantees growth. So, he looks for markets abroad. But in doing this, he winds up having to invest in the
countries to which he sells. This means still less jobs in the country of origin with the ancillary benefit that if the country to
which he sells has a lower wage base than in the U.S. he can squeeze yet more profit from the company. This excess may not even
show up in the U.S. So, as it is easy to see, the distribution of the wealth in a country is a direct function of how much capital does or does not
flow back into the economy. This is why Reganomics, trickle down bullshit does not work. This is why, taxing the working class,
which is already taxed to death, instead of taxing the rich, does not work. So really, what we are saying when we say the rich should
pay their fair share is not that someone is going to take money from middle class Americans. On the contrary, it means that those who retain more of
the fruits of the labor of the middle class should be obliged to put more back into the economy, so as to strengthen that same
middle class and promote growth.

I'm out of breath but this is a crude description of what I mean when I say Distribution of Wealth.

The Rethuglicans have openly stated and are committed to denying the Executive Branch any "wins" effectively putting all rational progress for this country in limbo.

This outrageous behavior needs to be broadcast so that when we pull the lever, or punch a chad on November 6th, we'll know who to kick out of Office.