Defining a Progressive Economic Strategy

Yesterday afternoon before the place started to rock like mad, I listened to a very interesting discussion between Jeff Faux and Gene Sperling who was one of Clinton's economic advisors. The interesting thing is that Sperling was still touting the benefits of the trade agreements - this was recorded in 2006 - it will blow your mind when you hear what a so-called democrat sees as an acceptable work career - the only thing I can think is that he can be this callous, because he knows he's well connected, and won't need to worry about job offers. For instance, when asked by Faux, whether it's good for society to retrain and change jobs every couple of years - Sperling didn't think that was a problem - I wonder how much Sperling has invested in his education - we know they move in and out of the public/private sector like cockroaches. Please listen to at least parts of this - it will explain sooooo much.
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/webfeatures_viewpoints_progressive_econ_strategy/

Look at the whole fact sheet here - summary follows:
http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/books/globalclasswar/globalclasswar-factsheet.pdf?nocdn=1

One of the most prosperous periods in our nation's history was during Eisenhower where the rich were taxed at almost 90% Raise taxes on the rich half the problem would be solved.

where the rich were taxed at almost 90%

There's another reason why the corporate taxes should be higher. What happens is that since they've been able to severely lower the cost of their labor, been permitted to ignore environmental regulations and denied benefits to workers, their profits have consequently soared. This is obvious, but the resulting high profits are now being handed out to the executives. The high profits attract more investors, artificially raising the price of their stock but they aren't using the money to grow the corporation as CEOs did in the past. In the golden years of a prosperous middle class, when companies were required to participate in the country that afforded them a productive workforce and free resources, they took their earnings and re-invested, creating real prosperity for all. As the corporation expanded, more people were hired, not fired or continually laid off, and the employees who chose stock options were actually investing in something real. CEOs like Mitt Romney aren't businessmen - they couldn't run a business if their lives depended upon it - that takes brains. They're trashing their corporations, spending everything as it's earned and moving on acquiring new ones to dominate or screw others in the market. Low taxes, abnormally high profits with no re-investment - only continual mergers and acquisitions, encourage the growth of trash stock and create bubbles in the economy due to stock prices that have been artificially increased and false claims made by rating agencies that they pay to give them a good report. As we know, the bubbles eventually pop leaving workers and unsophisticated investors in the rubble. Anybody that thinks there isn't a boatload of insider trading going on among these criminal elites should pull their heads out of the sand. (There are corporations that are run honestly, but fewer of them exist as they are swallowed up by the Mitt Robbed Me's in the world.)

Oh yeah, NAFTA, that was a good one, wasn't it?

"Free Trade" is one of those things that has a name that sounds good. Like being an "independant", or a "moderate".