General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWish I had said this.
Probably have but not in such a short sweet way.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)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
(2,866 posts)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
(2,239 posts)I wish more people had the spirit and gumption to organize.
former-republican
(2,163 posts)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
(2,239 posts)Workers Bill of Rights, one with real teeth.
former-republican
(2,163 posts)It will be a battle for sure.
Cerridwen
(13,257 posts)Yeah, we "defeated" Communism here in the US in the 1950s and 1960s.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)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
(72,631 posts)former-republican
(2,163 posts)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
(49,988 posts)Raising taxes on the wealthy won't raise my income any.
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)And create jobs among other things.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)(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
(594 posts)He asked what we want Jim to work first. There were areas where we can type exactly what our vision and priorities are.
aandegoons
(473 posts)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
(11,830 posts)a whole lot of sense to me.
WiffenPoof
(2,404 posts)...needs to actually "campaign" on these important issues. He is quite good on the stump.
Paige
LukeFL
(594 posts)Did you answer his survey? He was asking what exactly we want to see him tackle first. What are our priorities.