Bush officials: Where are they now?

[jams]

After starting the Women in the sex industry thread I find this ironic.

June 22, 2009 | In May, the U.S. economy lost 345,000 nonfarm jobs, pushing the unemployment rate from 8.9 percent to 9.4 percent. According to official statistics, 14.5 million Americans are now looking for work and, as a recent headline at Time.com put it, "The jobs aren't coming back anytime soon." In fact, a team of economists at the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank recently reported that "the level of labor market slack could be higher by the end of 2009 than at any other time in the post-World War Two period."

The news, however, is not altogether grim. While times are especially tough for teenagers [[22.7 percent jobless rate) and blacks [[14.9 percent jobless rate), one group is doing remarkably well. I'm talking about former members of the Bush administration who are taking up prestigious academic posts, inking lucrative book deals, signing up with speakers bureaus, joining big-time law firms and top public relations agencies and grabbing spots on corporate boards of directors. While their high-priced wars, ruinous economic policies and shredding of economic safety nets have proved disastrous for so many, for them the economic outlook remains bright and jobs are seemingly plentiful. In fact, many of them have performed the eye-opening feat of securing two or more potentially lucrative revenue streams at once during these tough financial times.
While it would likely take a small book to catalog the fates of all former "loyal Bushies," a look at just a few of these fortunate folks indicates that not everybody was harmed by the Bush era.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ush_officials/

[gazhekwe]

That really shows the power of the Institution. You know, the one that keeps doors open just for its own, and no one can see it but the ones who are shut out.

[Bobl]

One partial solution:
Move the income tax rate on earned income of more than $400,000 annually back to the 1964 rate of 91%.
We could then reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 or similar legislation, which was replaced by the Gramm Act of 1999, which put the foxes in charge of the henhouse at great profit to those listed above, but destroyed the economy for most of us.

[Lorax]

One partial solution:
Move the income tax rate on earned income of more than $400,000 annually back to the 1964 rate of 91%.
We could then reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 or similar legislation, which was replaced by the Gramm Act of 1999, which put the foxes in charge of the henhouse at great profit to those listed above, but destroyed the economy for most of us.

You win the Pulitzer Prize for Economics for that answer!

I have been advocating for this simple, tried and true solution for years, and on this forum for months now.

Discouraging legacy wealth is the incidental benefit of this as well, and keeps so much money from being concentrated in so few hands.

We don't need billionaires and CEO worship, what we need is sane economic policy that works for everyone.

What I would like to see is a re-focusing on the value of goods, and bring them down to a level that most people can pay cash for, rather than buying everything on credit, which, as we know barely exists anymore, and is a dead end street for us as people, and as an economy.

This would include homes, cars, boats, food, any tangible goods we purchase or consume.

The costs of services/labor would stay relatively the same, so as to maintain income levels, while adjusting the value of all things our incomes buy.

There really is no other place to go in our current condition, since banks are not going to begin lending anytime soon, prefering to keep the bailout monies to shore up their bottom lines.

Those banks that have paid it back are examining ways to avoid having to lend again, and we will end up without any retail banking in this country, as corporate lending world wide will be able to prop up these institutions over time.

Again, Wall Street gets it's bacon saved, while industry, and the rest of us get screwed.

I propose we do what the Amish do when they refuse to have anything to do with a member of their church. They shun them.

Turn your back on this system, live within your means, pay cash when you can, and shun the system. This will send the clearest message to Wall Street, and Washington.

[ccbatson]

Maybe it is because conservative values of a strong work ethic and free market principles are valued amongst the private world.

[Lorax]

Maybe it is because conservative values of a strong work ethic and free market principles are valued amongst the private world.

My response to this post: SHUN

[ccbatson]

Successful businesses don't give money/jobs away for nothing in return.

[Lorax]

List of places where one can find former Bush Administration Officials:

Jail
Discredited
In Denial
Blog Flogging
Heading Fascist PAC's
On Fox Noise Channel
Unemployed

[ccbatson]

Accept the evidence presented above strongly refutes that claim Lorax...Care to try again?

[Lorax]

Accept the evidence presented above strongly refutes that claim Lorax...Care to try again?

Ok.

Shunned
Institutionalized
Paranoid
Delusional
Making it as Comedians

[mjs]

One partial solution:
Move the income tax rate on earned income of more than $400,000 annually back to the 1964 rate of 91%.
We could then reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 or similar legislation, which was replaced by the Gramm Act of 1999, which put the foxes in charge of the henhouse at great profit to those listed above, but destroyed the economy for most of us.

$400,000 adjusted for inflation of course. 1964 was a long time ago. Another Democrat had us in another war. Once folks get to a certain income level, they're not motivated by the actual money anymore, just by the fact it shows they are the best because they have the highest score.

[ccbatson]

2 strikes Lorax, take your time on the next one.

91% tax rate? Call it what it is, slavery.

[Lorax]

I guess I better watch it, or you'll have me banned again.

Speaking truth to power seemingly rubs the repugs against the grain.

A 90% [[we'll shave 1% for good behavior) tax on personal income over 5 million should be a good, modern figure- updating the traditional Republican backed wealth tax of the first 3/4 of the 20th century.

We'll keep in force the ability to form trusts, living wills, etc. a the current taxable limit.

[Bobl]

C: The top rate was around 90% from 1944 through1963. Everything seemed to work out all right.

L: I get the impression that you are a pragmatic business person with empathy for others. Were you really banned from this forum?

[ccbatson]

Banned again? Isn't that an oxymoron? Banned means not allowed to return, so it can't happen more than once...Unless more rules are being broken to return.

The intent of the power to ban someone is rendered useless if the person just comes back again and again. Better not let the owners of this board know that this is your MO Lorax....oops, too late.

[ccbatson]

Bobl. Worked out just fine? Why? because the US still exists? What kind of logic is that.

The Nazi holocaust must have been OK as well, given that logic, because Germany [[and the world) still exist and function.

Ask someone that didn't evade their taxes in that bracket at that time, how well it worked out.

[Bobl]

"...91% tax rate? Call it what it is, slavery..."

More logic from the multiposter. Grossing half a million dollars and paying taxes on it equals slavery!

[ccbatson]

Having 91% of what an individual earns stolen from him/her under threat of force is robbery and slavery.

[mjs]

"I'll work harder" said the work horse told the pigs.

[Lorax]

Having 91% of what an individual earns stolen from him/her under threat of force is robbery and slavery.

You really never have studied this topic, have you? Why do you feel the need to comment on something you know nothing about?

You should be asking questions and learing from others rather than drinking the KoolAid. Commenting in such a way shows you not only know nothing about the topic, but have contempt for those who do, and spew these bizarre talking points which are so out in fascist right field that no one can take you seriously.

For the 20th time, the 90% tax rate was on personal income over the maximum allowable, which in the 50's under Republican Eisenhower was 2 million bucks.

Adjusted for inflation, it could be around a 5 million cap today. Your earnings, whether they were from your paycheck, or investments would be taxed at 90% over that cap.

You would have a choice from the feds to donate that overage to a public trust, charity, or have it set up in any number of ways that would benefit the public at large. This usually involved hospitals, orphanages, museums, infrastructure, national parks, conservation, etc.

It has worked this way since we've had an income tax. It has only been since Reagan that the tax rate was disassembled. Even under Nixon we had a 75% rate.

This was purposely done to discourage legacy wealth, since billionaires don't add anything to the general welfare of the people, as such obscene wealth was always thought of as just what it was, obscene.

There is no evidence that such enormous wealth benefits anyone but the descendants of the earner. We don't have a noble class in this country for a reason, but since Reagan we have created one due to the changing tax laws.

What Rethugnicans advocate for is an Oligarchy. Rule by the wealthy class. The rich in this country since the 80's have perpetrated a particularly viscious form of class warfare on the American people by purposely avoiding taxation by setting up family trusts and corporations in off-shore banks.

Moving industry to slave labor nations to bring down the costs of doing buisness was designed to destroy the labor movement in America, and move all manufacturing overseas.

Union busting has been the mantra of the Republican Reich since Reagan fired the air traffic controllers. And it has been a slash and burn mentality eversince.

[ccbatson]

Sigh..90% of money earned [[over whatever, statist determined "maximum") is taking, by force [[stealing) 90% of a person's rightful property [[in so far as the amount that exceeds what the master tells a person they are allowed to produce). THAT IS SLAVERY

[Lorax]

Sigh..90% of money earned [[over whatever, statist determined "maximum") is taking, by force [[stealing) 90% of a person's rightful property [[in so far as the amount that exceeds what the master tells a person they are allowed to produce). THAT IS SLAVERY

LOL!!

Tell that to the non-unionized Walmart employees.

That is the American way, and has been for our entire history except for the last 30 years.

I see how your beloved Rethugnicans of today have rejected the Republicans of yesterday, since they believed in, and supported this system. Guess you reject Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon, Hoover, etc.

There are good reasons to reject these guys, but no in this sense.

No one is taking by force anyone's money. You provide opportunity for others to have a piece of the economic pie when your earnings are capped.

There is no need for billionaires, they shouldn't exist. There is nothing more you can buy with 100 million than you can with 50 million. If your tastes are that expensive, then you need to live in a true fascist state, where you can operate with impunity.

Look where it got Mussolini.

[mjs]

Comrade, are you sure there's a plethora of billionaire's in North Korea?

[ccbatson]

Good point Lorax...Nonunionized WalMart employees tend to be quite content with their jobs and the opportunity to ascend the ladder and gain experience there, and/or take their experience to the next and bigger opportunity that arises.

[Omaha]

Wal-Mart employees have no need to be unionized. They have it too good already. They are bleeding the company dry without unionization. Hard to believe? Read on.

As a Colbert Conservative and Social Darwinist, it’s difficult to fathom that it’s been four years since M. Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart Exec. V.P. for Benefits, recommended changes in hiring policies to the company’s Board of Directors. Policies which, if implemented, would help maximize owner profits. But profits are only a secondary concern at Wal-Mart. Susan's real concern was to help the employees themselves, who were treated with such lavish pay they were finding themselves dead-ended in the job market.

Why? Because staying in one place [[Wal-Mart) would raise their salaries above their skill levels to such a degree that they can’t find competitive jobs elsewhere. That unwise anti-market policy unfairly raises wages and forces profits down.

It is beyond belief that those liberals in charge of Wal-Mart’s personnel decisions can’t just fire the “high priced� employees and hire some cheaper ones.

Think I am being too tough on Wal-Mart? Don't think that Wal-Mart is too liberal? Read this memo and be amazed.

“Given the impact of tenure on wages and benefits, the cost of an Associate with 7 years of tenure is almost 55 percent more than the cost of an Associate with 1 year of tenure, yet there is no difference in his or her productivity…Moreover, because we pay an Associate more salary and benefits as his or her tenure increases, we are pricing that Associate out of the labor market, increasing the likelihood that he or she will stay with Wal-Mart.�