Wish I had said this.

[Whovian]

Probably have but not in such a short sweet way.

[MrSlayer]

1. Did we "defeat" communism in the 50's and 60's?

I don't remember that in any of the history books.

I'd take that out and say something about the percentage of union workers, which is more meaningful and actually had a bearing on our standard of living.

[Whovian]

2. The "defeat" was well in the bag before Reagan claimed it as his own.

At least that's the way I read it. They were defeated, IMHO when JFK stared down Khrushchev. Or at least the USSR form. If you consider China, it seems to still be going strong. So, yeah. "Defeat is a bit of a stretch.

[rDigital]

3. The decline of union labor is one of the great tragedies of the 20th century.

I wish more people had the spirit and gumption to organize.

[former-republican]

8. Damn right

You know what I would like to see.

President Obama hold a press conference and tell Walmart you are a disgrace.
You are the biggest employer in this country .
You are one of the most profitable companies in history.

An American success story yet 40% of your employees are on government assistance .

That's what I would like to see my President say out loud .

[rDigital]

9. He's got 4+ more years to go. I hope he finds time to fix the NLRB and introduce a

Workers Bill of Rights, one with real teeth.

[former-republican]

10. I sure hope he does but getting it through congress won't be easy

It will be a battle for sure.

[Cerridwen]

18. Remember the mccarthy era?

Yeah, we "defeated" Communism here in the US in the 1950s and 1960s.

[ErikJ]

4. In the 1950's 60's, the top tax rate was 3 times higher than now... and the GDP was too!

[Jamaal510]

5. You won't find many Republicans today

who would agree to even return the tax rates to half that amount. Most of them believe that 39% on the rich is too much! Seriously, what the Hell...they can easily make that money back. If a person who makes $50M a year gets taxed 39%, it would be roughly less than $25M that they have to pay, which means they would still have more take-home change than the majority of American households make in a year!
I really don't know where this country went wrong where a number of us all of a sudden think higher taxes on the rich is a radical concept. Americans were perfectly fine with it back in the '50s and '60s...

[WillyT]

6. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[former-republican]

7. I'll be honest with you guys , I don't care that much about the tax rate of the rich

whether it's 33% , 39 % or 40%

I care about living wages .
We are fighting the wrong fight in Washington.

I wish the President spent as much time talking about wages as he does about taxing the rich.

[progressoid]

11. True.

Raising taxes on the wealthy won't raise my income any.

[Unknown Beatle]

12. But it will help with our crumbling infrastructure.

And create jobs among other things.

[HiPointDem]

13. there's a reason for the higher taxes though; to discourage speculative investment

(bubble investment). too much money in too few hands == bubblish speculation.

i don't think the president spends much time talking about taxing the rich.

i agree with you on the jobs, though.

[LukeFL]

17. Did you answer his survey?

He asked what we want Jim to work first. There were areas where we can type exactly what our vision and priorities are.

[aandegoons]

20. A living wage is key.

But that will only come when we prove we don't kowtow to the rich by raising their taxes.

One barrier at a time.

[Delphinus]

14. Makes

a whole lot of sense to me.

[WiffenPoof]

15. I Believe That President Obama...

...needs to actually "campaign" on these important issues. He is quite good on the stump.

Paige

[LukeFL]

16. We should let him know

Did you answer his survey? He was asking what exactly we want to see him tackle first. What are our priorities.

[catnhatnh]

19. Built the internet???? 50s and 60's??? N/T