« Progressive Pilgrims’ Progress | Main | Sandbox - 13feb19 »

12 February 2019



It might help us understand Mr. Cross’s views if we know more about his background. Where he was educated, his employment and other critical events which shaped his life. What are his views on risk-taking, is he risk-averse or is he a risk taker? George has been very clear about the events shaping his world view and the risks he took. The billionaires listed by George above were all risk takers and were rewarded. Mr. Cross seems to be upset he missed the opportunity train and is upset that others caught the train and made the trip to prosperity.

George Rebane

Russ 106pm - Agreed. But in my decades of experience is discussing such matters with people of the Left is not very encouraging. Somehow instinctively they know not to expose the generic tenets of their socio-political credo. I think it's because such exposure would immediately put them into a position of having to defend the indefensible, or even a position of ridicule. And when they accidentally divulge more detail than prudent - e.g. AOC's recent withdrawal of the details of her Green New Deal points - it turns out to be an embarrassment in the greater public forum (although not with their base which shares their intellectual deficits).

Apropos to my above post and Mr Cross's desire for a socialist revolution, a correspondent forwarded to me an essay titled 'Dear Socialists: The People HAVE Seized the Means of Production using Capitalism'. Sadly, there is not a progressive alive who will understand the points made.


,,,V. Lenin??? Trump's speeches are worthy of your run of the mill tin pot dictator...


This is too good to not drop right here…….

"It’s almost as if affluent (Nevada City/Grass Valley/Truckee progressives - my emphasis) , influential people in California like the way California used to be before all the Diversity arrived, so they promote environmentalist roadblocks to keep their part of California from ever adjusting to the state’s vast new population “Environmentalism” is so much nicer of a word than “segregation.”

Delightful….simply delightful!

….and who says Pretty, Pretty, Gavin Newsome is entirely with his charms!?

‘Let’s be real.’ Gavin Newsom says he’ll cut back on California’s high-speed rail plan

Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/#storylink=cpy

Bill Tozer

The larger the government, the smaller the citizen.

Retired physician Dr. Dawkins once told me that if you gave everyone in his native Jamaica a hundred dollar bill, at the end of the month 5% would have everyone of those 100 dollar bills.


I will take Trump's form of "dictatorship" over ANY Commie Progressive Lib Dem any day,,, D.H. (or should we use your old "Clueless" ,, Dougy?)

Robert Cross

Russ:: backgrounds mean nothing.. Why does it matter about my education or occupation. You would only use that information as a crutch to either credit or discredit (in this case) the ideas. it's about the ideas. ideas stand alone. And I didn't miss the train as it were.

George "socialist revolution" -- here you go again painting things with your pinko brush.. Would a return to the tax rates of the 1050's be socialistic?

George Rebane

Bocephus 157pm - You seem to have trouble keeping focus again. This post is about Mr Cross' vision of America. Try to keep up.

RobertC 439pm - I think you meant 1950s, which is the usual refuge for the uninformed leftists when discussing tax rates, which no one paid during the 1950s because of the ample supply of so-called loopholes in the tax law. But for those who don't know, citing 90% top rates sure makes an impression.


"I think you meant 1950s, which is the usual refuge for the uninformed leftists when discussing tax rates,"

Besides the normal numbers you can dig up concerning actual (rather than statutory rates), it's interesting to consider that total income taxes in 1950, as a percent of GDP, where about 60% of what it is now. I think that in the glory days of 1930, with the imaginary 90%+ rates, it was about 15% of the current percentage.


Robert@04:39 PM I am just trying to understand your view of the world, how did you come to view socialism as the solution? We are all the products of our background. What is yours?


Hang on, peak imaginary tax rates were in 1944 not 1930. 94%


"We are all the products of our background. What is yours?"

Well, it certainly can't be from growing up in a bonafide socialist country.

It'll be different this time.

Don Bessee

The socialist gifts that keep on giving unintended help to crush their agenda -

But the good times for Democrats have come to a screeching halt in the past few weeks. A raft of scandals involving racism, antisemitism, radicalism, allegations of sexual assault, and extreme views on a variety of issues has hit the Democrat Party hard as it slinks back into the limelight after a two-year period of GOP control of all levers of government in Washington and most state governments across the country.

These hurdles threaten the Democrat Party’s chances at a return to national power in 2020, with its rising stars and key players throughout the federal and state governments tangled in a web of problems that could cost Democrats the White House in two years and more deeply hurt the party in down-ticket races while tearing down fragile coalitions assembled by Democrat leaders desperate to put a check on Trump.

Trump has taken advantage of the Democrats’ misfortunes, first delivering a State of the Union address last week that received rave reviews from the public per post-speech polling, then hitting El Paso, Texas, on Monday evening for a rally where he bashed Democrats and the media as per usual but also began laying the groundwork for the core themes of 2020. Trump beat up the Democrats on these scandals and ripped his political opposition’s emerging extreme views on a variety of issues, all while celebrating a new poll that has him surging up at a 52 percent approval rating–the highest he’s had in years.




One this is curtain. The two here backing socialism, are NOT on the "maker" side of the field. They are on the other with their hand outstretched.
Your not real hip to answering easy questions.. Are you Bobby?
Who stopped you from being a millionaire? Why so buttsore about those who have done better than you? Name the poor(as in broke) SOB that gave you a good paying job.(Well,, asked the wrong person about that.....)

Bill tozer

Yep, those darn Idle Rich country club private prep school
boys are the problem here, people.
Those snobby white rich kids who are filthy rich and spend a life of leisure and they did not earn a penny of it. Walk around with their noses in the air.It's immoral!

Class warfare is ugly and unattractive. Perhaps Bobby Sue should talk less of greed and more of envy

Robert Cross

George 4:47 -- let me rephrase the question -- based on the premise that:

1) the 1950's are deemed by many to be a time of economic prosperity for all.
2) it had high tax rates for the very wealthy but with loopholes and all the average tax paid by the top .01% was 55.3%.. now it is 40.8%.... the top 1% now pay 27.1%
3) economic inequality was at low rates.
4) mom & pop capitalism flourished
5) income and wealth for the middle and lower economic strata was increasing unemployment was low.. etc. etc.

This does not seem to be very socialistic to me. I would call it mom and pop capitalism... before large corporations gobbled up the landscape and turned mom and pop into 'associates'.

I am not talking about some socialist revolution. You seem to want to automatically couch things with that mantra. I am just talking about using a tax structure and public works initiative not unlike that undertaken between the Korean War and the Vietnam War... The last several decades have seen the wealth gush up but only drip down at less than a trickle.
The wealthiest people's taxes support the country compared to the poor.. there is no doubt about that in terms of actual dollars. (loopholes and all)..

So the point is let the wealthy pay a little more instead of a lot less. Cutting taxes for the wealthy and increasing spending usually creates even greater deficits which then channels more tax payer money, in the form of interest, back to wealthy investors. It is a continuous cycle.


RC sez: "based on the premise that:

1) the 1950's are deemed by many to be a time of economic prosperity for all.
2) it had high tax rates for the very wealthy but with loopholes and all the average tax paid by the top .01% was 55.3%.. now it is 40.8%.... the top 1% now pay 27.1%
3) economic inequality was at low rates.
4) mom & pop capitalism flourished
5) income and wealth for the middle and lower economic strata was increasing unemployment was low.. etc. etc."

It sounds to me like a combination of an economic overshoot from WWII and a good supply/demand ratio for workers. Dunno how you'd get the same effect with tax policy. In fact, quite the opposite with a combination of globalization and mass importation of labor.

That's always the way isn't it? Rather than asking why labor is worth less, you simply gather up money at the top and then pass it out to whoever is in favor at the moment.


...and, no doubt, state law is going to have to chase people.

It's not so different than an argument about gun control. It won't work in a state/city if neighboring states/cities don't have equally draconian laws, therefore Chicago's gun laws need to expand outward, California's need to expand outwards.

In the case of taxes, states are in real financial trouble. If someone moves out of state, we need to claw back taxes for them or simply crank up national tax levels and then send more money back to New York or New Jersey. Somehow, I expect that ScottO is not going to escape the inevitable fiscal crisis in California public pensions.


I bet Bobby won't be effected by the huge taxation he envisions for others.
The government gets PLENTY of money. But knows how to piss it away faster than your teenage kid.

Don Bessee

Busted and disgusted -

In worse news (for the media), more than two-thirds of the public, a whopping 69 percent, believe the establishment media are “more concerned with advancing its points of view rather than reporting all the facts.”
Only 29 percent disagree.

What’s more, nearly half (43 percent) of Democrats agree with that statement, along with an incredible 72 percent of Independents and 95 percent of Republicans.
When asked if media coverage is designed to “delegitimize the views held by President Trump and his supporters,” nearly six in ten (59 percent) agreed, including 60 percent of Independents and 93 percent of Republicans.

The media’s non-stop lying and fake news stories about the Russia Collusion Hoax has also backfired. A majority of 53 percent now believe the media “prematurely declared President Trump guilty of collusion with Russia without sufficient evidence” — this includes 55 percent of Independents and even 22 percent of Democrats, which is more than one in five.



George Rebane

RobertC 955pm - I hope you're not suggesting that we are capable of returning to those days of yesteryear. (That's what liberals always accuse me of as they misunderstand these commentaries.) Those post-WW2 days are gone forever, we live in a completely different world as measured along every imaginable dimension - tax policy, entitlement spending, regulatory burdens, demographics, dominance in world trade, fractionated/fractured culture, understanding the desiderata of government, national dumbth level, national debt/deficits, civil liberties, 1st & 2nd Amendment rollbacks, ...

The socialist future for America that you and yours see will cement a two-tiered populace - the compliant cohort, happy to have traded their freedoms for promised security; and the socially-deplored who chafe for the return of their liberties, and who therefore must be marked and monitored closely by the state.


The economics of the 1950s was all about satisfying the pent up consumer demand created by the rationing the nation experienced during WWII. People replaced worn and patched up stuff, which got the economy roaring, creating more money and then people start splurging on the nice to have stuff, after making do with the bare minimum during the war.

During the war, we lived in my Grandmothers house and she had a huge garden and fruit trees. All the berries, peaches, apricots and pares had to be preserved and it was very difficult to get the needed sugar. Grandma Francis and her three daughters gamed the rationing board to get the sugar. She raised chickens in the back yard to supplement the rationed meat. Once the war was over the garden was retired for a few years and the chickens were eaten and not replaced. She was happy to do her shopping at SPD.

Todd Juvinall

GeorgeR why do the libs criticize us for wanting to return to good times (50's) while they return to post Civil War?


Another thing about the 1950's... they followed WWII where we kicked Axis butt and at the end, the US manufacturing capacity was in high gear and unscathed. Elsewhere, Europe and Asia, it was shot up and bombed out.

So in the 1950's we were the only game in town. Add to that a monetarist expansion of the money supply to reverse the bizarre contraction that caused the Great Depression and we have a big party.

George Rebane

Gregory 112pm - Thank you for that important highlight - my "dominance in world trade" was not clear enough when I tried to cover too much with too little.

ToddJ 1206pm - I wasn't aware that the Dems were that proud of their post-Reconstruction era role in national politics, especially in the South.

Todd Juvinall

Not my point. Sorry if it was not clear. They complain we want to return to the 50's and we say no we like today. Move along. Then they try to hold us to their racist standards of the 1850's and we say what the hell does that have to do with today? So they are as usual very confused about which past they prefer for us and for them.

George Rebane

ToddJ 227pm - Gotcha. But their confusion is easy to decode - it's whatever will best serve their narrative du jour, consistency is never a constraint.

Todd Juvinall

You are correct!

Robert Cross

George 10:06 "The socialist future for America that you and yours see will cement a two-tiered populace"-- This is different than the current system of wealthy and everyone else because???

Gee George.. there you go again with your convenient socialist label. Always a good retort that pleases the brainwashed who resonate more to buzz words like 'socialist' than logical reasoning. As my previous post(s) on this subject implied, that you, via your redundant "socialist" reply didn't seem to understand, is that what I am advocating for is a return to mom and pop small business capitalism rather than multi-national corporate conglomerates and holding companies controlling the vast majority of the global economy, and that raising taxes on the wealthy BACK to 1950 levels might be a step in that direction... That is all...

Unless you consider small business a socialist endeavor I suggest you read my posts more carefully and think a little before you issue your typical knee-jerk 'socialist' responses.


So Bobby thinks soaking big bizz will bring back Mom and Pop stores? LOL!! Start with all the damned laws and regs they have to deal with. They are getting regulated right out of business.
You think the new reg that makes them put in a third bathroom was a great idea? You know, for those who have no idea what their "gender" is? Now the push to make them pay employees more than they are worth? Yup, that's going to keep them in business.

Don Bessee

The wealthy and everyone else'

That's the socialist narrative, pretend there is no middle class, working class, professional class, disabled, union government workers and so on. Its the united proletariat against the 1% right crossed up Antifa collectivist?


Bill Tozer

Trigger warning: Contains references to Christians.

“Prudent policies can’t ignore economic realities that call into question their effectiveness. Whether their advocates realize it or not, “ultramillionare” taxes are false promises for whatever they propose to finance, whether that new spending would truly serve the common good or not.




The wealth of all the billionaires in US would fund the government for 8 months.


As my previous post(s) on this subject implied, that you, via your redundant "socialist" reply didn't seem to understand, is that what I am advocating for is a return to mom and pop small business capitalism rather than multi-national corporate conglomerates and holding companies controlling the vast majority of the global economy, and that raising taxes on the wealthy BACK to 1950 levels might be a step in that direction... That is all...

When you also suggest a reversion to "1950 levels" of government I might consider your request for more taxes.

George Rebane

RobertC 457pm - I have only labeled how you have characterized yourself. While no one is against mom and pop businesses, we do need some very large corporations to provide the blessings of technology at prices that everyman can afford. The problem at that point is to prevent corporatism - corporate/govt collusion to insulate the big guys from competition by the smaller and more nimble. And the only thing that makes corporatism possible is government becoming a leviathan that controls everything and can readily assure winners and condemn losers. Minimalist governments cannot do that, especially since they don't have their hands on large spigots of cash. You are a big government guy who has no plan to stop 1) govt overreach, and 2) corporatism. Besides, you may also be a globalist.

Robert Cross

Small business didn't get regulated out of business.. they got run out of business by Walmart , Kmart, Dollar General and all the other chains that suck a community's money out and replace them with low paying associate jobs. American small business manufacturing didn't get regulated out of business either.. they were eaten by bigger fish who then downsized and outsourced the jobs and blamed too much government regulations as the culprit.

Todd Juvinall

This humorous parody of the democrat party is hilarious. Watch it and you may pass out.


George Rebane

RobertC 633pm - Can't tell whether you're still conversing with me, or having a debate with yourself. For the record, I did NOT claim anything about small businesses being regulated either into or out of business. Better if you use time tags so people can tell whom you are addressing and about what.

Bill Tozer

Robert Cross @ 6:33 pm

And small Mom and Pop retail brick and mortar businesses pay their 2-3 employees better K-Mart? And K-Mart is closing stores due to on-line retailers. Guess that money all ends up in Bezos’s pockets. Boy did Jeff ever piss off the Wa Compost employees when he refused to share with them the Trump tax cut windfall. He said something about they were overpaid underperforming lousy journalists that need to up their game. Quality over quantity.

Interesting this talk of the 50’s and Mayberry RFD. Growing up, my elders and the World War II generation were always bellyaching that after the War we rebuilt Japan with brand new state of the art steel mills and manufacturing plants while our old steel mills were failing behind due to age and old equipment. The steel mills could not compete and the cheap Japanese products were flooding our markets. The common refrain was “Cheap crap Japanese tools!” as a wrench would snap off in ones hand with the ensuring tearing of the skin off the knuckles. Cheap Japanese crap! Of course, by the following decade or so, all the experts and pundits were predicting Japan would soon overtake theUS as the biggest economy in world.

One merchant marine who had two ships sunk out under him in WW II looked straight into my eyes and said, “Do you know that after the war they passed a law that all leather shoes sold in the US had to be made in Italy. Do you know that!!?” I could tell that really ate at him. Whether that was true afterhWar for awhile, I do not know. Seemed unfair to Mom and Pop shoe makers here.
The only Mom and Pop outfits I know that are paying good wages to their employees are local plumbing outfits and electrical outfits that don’t have to compete with big corporations or the foreign companies. They just compete with other mom and pop outfits.

Do you know why the big boys don’t go all in the Green businesses? Cause there is no profit in it without government tax payer backed loan guareentees.

If a person comes up with a great product that people like or need that is offered at a ready reasonable price with good service, the world will beat a path to that Mom and Pop’s door. In-N-Out Burger comes to mind. Only one employee and they held his job open for him when he went off to fight in the war. Paid him well, only job he ever had. As an old man now, they still pay him well with all expenses paid to go around greet people at the door. He greeted me at the Auburn In-N-Out...that’s what a burger is all about.

Bill Tozer

The Rich Never Actually Paid 70 Percent and The Myth of a 1950s Golden Age


Bill Tozer

From House Resolution 109 (The Green New Deal): There you go, Mr. Cross

(N) ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies; and
Actually, item (M) caught my attention, but it’s off topic.

(M) obtaining the free, prior, and informed
consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples;

George Rebane

The photo of all the Dems sponsoring and supporting the Green New Deal will become iconic in the annals of American political history no matter which side wins the fight for and against socialism. I intend to hang one up on RR and in my home office as a perennial reminder of the dedicated collectivists among us.

Bill Tozer

“The problem, George, is not collectivism but GREED. The need for collectivism rises from the human need to feel that one has some control over one's life. The power of the many will eventually beat the power of the few. That is what gives birth to revolution … the desire of the many to get a fair shake. I think the 2018 midterm elections may have signaled the birth of the next American revolution...”——-Robert Cross
An interim government, known as the Provisional Government, was formed with the mandate to call elections, which would lead to the establishment of a legislative body in charge of writing a new constitution. The Provisional Government, first led by Georgy Lvov and after July by Alexander Kerensky, introduced several reforms aimed at democratizing the country, including universal suffrage and freedom of assembly and speech. Yet it made a crucial mistake by not withdrawing Russia from the war.

On October 25, Bolsheviks led an insurrection against Kerensky’s government, seizing power almost immediately. Despite their contempt for parliamentarism, Bolsheviks carried on with the Provisional Government’s plans to hold parliamentary elections as soon as possible. On January 18, 1918, the first democratically-elected parliament gathered in Petrograd. When Lenin realized that the Constituent Assembly had no intention to give in to Bolsheviks’ demands, they dissolved the Assembly and declared all political groups illegal, doing away with the first attempt to establish a democratic regime in Russia’s history.


Don Bessee

Just sayin'



The comments to this entry are closed.