PDA

View Full Version : Class Warfare Scorecard



Aging Hippie
4-5-11, 10:13am
Another excellent article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney04042011.html

"So, yes, personal consumption has gone up, but only by a hair. The truth is, people are running harder just to stay in the same place. They're not making any headway at all. In fact, this whole myth about credit-addled shoppers going crazy at Macy's so they can load up on designer jeans and Italian leather boots, is pure bunkum. For most people, it's a hand-to-mouth existence 24-7. Most of their time is spent figuring out how they can stretch the budget or feed a family of four on pinto beans and Velveeta. They don't have the cash for luxuries, unless you consider Spam a luxury."

Wandering off to eat my pinto beans smothered with Velveeta and Spam now....
:cool:

Alan
4-5-11, 11:34am
The author of the article lost me at the repeated mention of "fatcats and their brats" and "spoiled kids", but it does help me understand the "Class Warfare" title.

It would have been better to present the facts without all the attitude.

loosechickens
4-5-11, 12:45pm
here are some factual things about income and how it is distributed through the population, which should give us a good idea of what percentage of folks are in there looking for jewelry and designer jeans, and which are doing more of the eating of pinto beans.

Also quite interesting to see how steadily the top few percent have garnered more and more income over the years. If there is any "class warfare" going on, it's definitely the rich against the poor, not the other way around. Or, to put it more accurately, if "class warfare" is happening, the rich are clearly winning.

The richest, DO pay a large amount of the income tax collected in the U.S., although the rates they pay are less than half of what they were thirty years or so ago, and there are still plenty of loopholes to avoid even paying those new, lower rates......although the top Federal income tax rate is nominally something around 36%, few high income people actually pay those rates. I can't remember exactly, but I do remember that one year when VP Cheney's income tax records were released, people were shocked to find that on an income of quite a few millions of dollars, he paid something like 12% of it in Federal income taxes.

The figures for "wealth" as opposed to "income" are even more instructive, but we are discussing spending and income here in this thread, so I chose this piece instead of one showing what a huge increase the top few percent have managed to gain in net worth (adjusted for inflation) as compared to the middle class and others, most of whom have fallen behind instead.

http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/12/06/the-rise-of-the-top-1/


Top 1% of Income Earners Made 20% of Total Adjusted Gross Income in 2008

In 1987, the top 1% of income earners in the United States earned 12.32% of the total AGI (adjusted gross income) in the country.

In 2008, the top 1% of income earners in the United States earned 20.00% of the total AGI (adjusted gross income) in the country. A year earlier, this number had reached a lofty 22.83%, a near doubling of 1987's figure.

Let's look at the progression from 1987 until 2008:

1987 - 12.32%
1988 - 15.16%
1989 - 14.19%
1990 - 14.00%
1991 - 12.99%
1992 - 14.23%
1993 - 13.79%
1994 - 13.80%
1995 - 14.60%
1996 - 16.04%
1997 - 17.38%
1998 - 18.47%
1999 - 19.51%
2000 - 20.81%
2001 - 17.53%
2002 - 16.12%
2003 - 16.77%
2004 - 19.00%
2005 - 21.20%
2006 - 22.06%
2007 - 22.83%
2008 - 20.00%

The top 5% of income earners have seen their share of the total adjusted gross income pie grow as well. In 1987, the top 5% of income earners in the country earned 25.67% of the total adjusted gross income - by 2008, this number had jumped to 34.73% after hitting a high of 37.44% the year before.

As you can probably guess, this jump for the top 5% of income earners means that other groups had seen their shares drop, and drop considerably.

The drop starts at those who fall in the "between 5-10% of income" range, which worked out to those making between $113,799 and $159,619 in 2008.

In 1987, this group of people earned 11.23% of total adjusted gross income in the country. This number more or less has remained the same from 1987 to 2008, with the 2008 number coming in at 11.03%.

How about those Americans who fell in the "between 10-25%" AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) group?

In 1987, this group made 23.85% of the total adjusted gross income in the country. By 2007, this group saw their share fall to just 20.66% before bouncing back slightly (21.62%) in 2008.

The drops continue to get more noticeable as we get into the between 25-50% and bottom 50% groups.

In 1987, the between 25-50% group earned 23.62% of total adjusted gross income. This number fell considerably over the years, touching a low of 19.04% in 2007. In 2008, the between 25-50% adjusted gross income range group earned 19.86% of total adjusted gross income in the country.

How about the bottom 50% group?

In 1987, this group of Americans earned 15.63% of total adjusted gross income in the country.

In 2008, this group of Americans earned 12.75% of total adjusted gross income in the country.

--

Here's a breakdown of the different income categories:

Top 1% - Over $380,354
Top 5% - Over $159,619
Top 10% - Over $113,799
Top 25% - Over $67,280
Top 50% - Over $33,048
Bottom 50% - $33,048 and Lower

As I noted in this article, the top 1% of income earners in the United States paid 38.02% of all federal individual income tax collected in 2008.

Here is the breakdown for all income groups:

Top 1% (Income Split Point $380,354) Paid 38.02% of Federal Individual Income Taxes
Top 5% (Income Split Point $159,619) Paid 58.72% of Federal Individual Income Taxes
Top 10% (Income Split Point $113,799) Paid 69.94% of Federal Individual Income Taxes
Top 25% (Income Split Point $67,280) Paid 86.34% of Federal Individual Income Taxes
Top 50% (Income Split Point $33,048) Paid 97.30% of Federal Individual Income Taxes
Bottom 50% (Anyone Making Less Than $33,048) Paid 2.7% of Federal Individual Income Taxes


Source: Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

bae
4-5-11, 2:32pm
Are wealth, and income, zero-sum? No.

For the sake of argument, posit that I and my neighbor live on an island, and fish for our living. (To prevent quibbling, assume we engage in sustainable fish harvesting practices, and that these fish only live off our reef, and are only harvested by the two of us.)

If he catches one fish for dinner, and I catch two fish, eating one and preserving the other for tomorrow, I have generated more wealth and more income than he. But did I rob him? Did I take his share of the fish, against his will? No.

Now, if I trade this extra fish for materials to weave a fishing net, then stay up late making a net, and the next day catch 200 fish using my improved technology to increase my productivity, still sustainably, I'm vastly "wealthier" than my neighbor. But have I harmed him?

Well, sure I have, if he is of a certain mindeset. He feels bad that I have more. And I can probably use my extra fish to influence people and buy things he can't. Which probably irritates him more. And I can probably decide that I can sit under a palm tree, and hire my neighbor to operate my net and canoe. Sooner or later, he's going to want to confiscate my fishing output, or my net, so things can be "fair", because I'm "hogging all the wealth", I'm not "sweating for my living", and because as our island society's wealth increased, he didn't get as much.

Cue Zimbabwe.

Roll credits.

pinkytoe
4-5-11, 2:53pm
Isn't there a point when one has enough though? Is there some virtue in acquiring more and more just because you can? I thought that was called greed....my Catholic upbringing imprinted on my brain that it is good to share.

bae
4-5-11, 2:55pm
Isn't there a point when one has enough though? Is there some virtue in acquiring more and more just because you can? I thought that was called greed....my Catholic upbringing imprinted on my brain that it is good to share.

You might find Andrew Carnegie's "The Gospel of Wealth" of interest in thinking about that.

I'm curious, though, why you assume the link between "acquiring more" and not-sharing/greed?

Alan
4-5-11, 3:20pm
Envy seems to be such a popular emotion. I've never understood it myself, just as I've never understood how someone who made more money than me was somehow limiting the amount of money I could make.

I think all of us here know that wealth is not zero-sum. It's not like a pie sitting on a counter and if you take three pieces, I'm limited to one or perhaps none. Treating it as such does a dis-service to us all IMHO. And to say that at some point one has enough, as our President did and is parroted here, seems to me to be the very essence of envious thinking, although in the President's case it's probably more a means of exploiting that envy for political gain which seems to have worked out pretty nicely for him.

I've also never understood why the same people who think that a person who wants to keep as much of their money as possible is "greedy" don't seem to apply the same term to those who want to take it away. One of life's great mysteries I suppose.

pinkytoe
4-5-11, 3:47pm
the link between "acquiring more" and not-sharing/greed?
We live in a society; why would we not want to share our wealth for the betterment of the society?

bae
4-5-11, 3:49pm
We live in a society; why would we not want to share our wealth for the betterment of the society?

My question was why you thought "acquiring more" necessarily implied the person doing the acquiring was greedy, and/or not-sharing?

And again, I'll point you to Carnegie's discussion of why a person who desired to share, to better society, might indeed choose "acquiring more" as a plausible course of action to carry out those ends.

Never Again
4-5-11, 3:59pm
Isn't there a point when one has enough though? Is there some virtue in acquiring more and more just because you can? I thought that was called greed....my Catholic upbringing imprinted on my brain that it is good to share.

It is good to share, but should that be a personal choice? Is it sharing if it is enforced by law?

Never Again
4-5-11, 4:01pm
Envy seems to be such a popular emotion. I've never understood it myself, just as I've never understood how someone who made more money than me was somehow limiting the amount of money I could make.

I think all of us here know that wealth is not zero-sum. It's not like a pie sitting on a counter and if you take three pieces, I'm limited to one or perhaps none. Treating it as such does a dis-service to us all IMHO. And to say that at some point one has enough, as our President did and is parroted here, seems to me to be the very essence of envious thinking, although in the President's case it's probably more a means of exploiting that envy for political gain which seems to have worked out pretty nicely for him.

I've also never understood why the same people who think that a person who wants to keep as much of their money as possible is "greedy" don't seem to apply the same term to those who want to take it away. One of life's great mysteries I suppose.

Good point...If I want to keep at least 50% of my income and the government wants more than 50% of my income, which of us is the greedy one? Just asking....

flowerseverywhere
4-5-11, 4:15pm
What about this scenario.

Say someone chooses to go to school for a career, giving up material wealth and taking loans, paying them back then live frugally, limit family size and work hard to amass wealth. They pay for kids education, buy property, and use money for the good of the community, donate money to the library, participate in getting food to those who have none, donate to the salvation army to help those who are at the bottom of societies barrel, give money to organizations that help develop children (think 4H, scouts, boys and girls clubs, sports) for instance. Volunteer for activities that will help the community. Help children and parents so they don't drain the public coffers. Overall use money wisely and save for a rainy day so when they get old are not a drain on society, thus freeing a future generation from having to pay taxes to support them.
Are governments (from local to federal level) shown to be good stewards of our money? Will they spend money judiciously and not waste it? Will they not wage unjust and illegal wars? Will they give contracts to the best person or a person who gave them money to be elected.

there are a few very wealthy people who live a crazy lavish lifestyle, however there are also a whole bunch of people who have wealth that are not greedy. I am thinking of a wonderful surgeon I know who is very wealthy but it wasn't by mistake he got where he was and he is one of the most generous people I know. And a lot of us that are above the median who are just generally good, hardworking and generous people.

bae
4-5-11, 4:20pm
Consider also the framework for charity laid out in the Mishne Torah by Moses ben Maimon, more commonly known as Maimonides (1135-1204):

- The highest degree, exceeded by none, is that of a person who assists a poor Jew by providing him with a gift or a loan or by accepting him into a business partnership or by helping him find employment — in a word, by putting him where he can dispense with other people's aid.

- A step below this stands the one who gives alms to the needy in such a manner that the giver knows not to whom he gives and the recipient knows not from whom it is that he takes.

- One step lower is that in which the giver knows to whom he gives but the poor person knows not from whom he receives.

- A step lower is that in which the poor person knows from whom he is taking but the giver knows not to whom he is giving.

- The next degree lower is that of him who, with his own hand, bestows a gift before the poor person asks.

- The next degree lower is that of him who gives only after the poor person asks.

- The next degree lower is that of him who gives less than is fitting but gives with a gracious mien.

- The next degree is that of him who gives morosely.

bae
4-5-11, 4:27pm
See also Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles III, Chapter CXXXIII:



In tantum igitur divitiae bonae sunt, in quantum proficiunt ad usum virtutis: si vero iste modus excedatur, ut per eas impediatur usus virtutis, non iam inter bona sunt computanda, sed inter mala. Unde accidit quibusdam bonum esse habere divitias, qui eis utuntur ad virtutem: quibusdam vero malum esse eas habere, qui per eas a virtute retrahuntur, vel nimia sollicitudine, vel nimia affectione ad ipsas, vel etiam mentis elatione ex eis consurgente.

LDAHL
4-5-11, 4:39pm
This article is an example of the sort of thinking that made the Soviet Union the economic juggernaut it is today. Envy makes a poor basis for policy. I suppose we could survive for awhile expropriating the wealth of the bae’s of the world, but I suspect we’d soon reach the point of “peak bae”. Not only that, but the supply of baes-yet-to-be would eventually dry up as our most valuable human capital followed our financial capital to friendlier climes.

loosechickens
4-5-11, 8:15pm
I always have to laugh just a bit, because the people who scream the loudest about why it's just fine that the richest are getting more and more of a share of the total income in this country, are pretty much always the ones who have the most and are determined to hang on to every cent.

And, since the total income (AGI, which represents the total income of all the groups in a given year) necessarily adds up to 100% of the income, if one group figures out a way to get twice the percentage of that 100% than they used to, that extra percentage HAS to come out of the 100%, meaning that other groups will find THEIR percentage share of the total income being reduced.

The flaw in bae's example (he does tend to oversimplify, IMHO), is that it should be more like there is a whole village of fishermen depending on the fish for their living, and the total sustainable catch of fish is, say, 200 fish per year, and the village fishermen go out every year and catch all of those 200 fish.

Then, one guy figures out how to catch more fish, OR manipulates the rules about catching fish, (dates, hours, etc.,) to favor his new method, and manages to catch twice as many fish as he caught every other year.

Remember, there are only 200 fish (unless someone figures out how to grow MORE fish, not CATCH more fish), so if that guy used to get 10% of those 200 fish and now gets 20% of those 200 fish, SOMEBODY is going to come up short and not be able to catch as many fish as they used to, because all of the 200 fish will be used up before he or she gets their usual share.

Now, if that inventive guy has figured out a way to grow MORE fish, so can increase the total number of fish he catches, without taking away fish from all the other fishermen, then THAT would be a good use of his talents, and since he wouldn't be depriving others of fish, it's doubtful that he would have a problem, and hopefully, he would manage to figure out how to grow enough fish that he could catch a lot more himself, but would have some sense of generosity and not make sure to vacuum up every last additional fish for himself. Although, since the others would still have the same number of fish they were accustomed to catching, probably they would be pretty willing to see him have more fish, without feeling as though they had been cheated.

But if he just figured out a way to get way more of a finite number of fish than he used to, and the number of catchable fish did not increase, so that others had to settle for fewer fish than they were used to, resentment would multiply. At which point, he would start blustering about zero sum games and confiscation of riches, and "class envy" and "class warfare" to cover up the fact that he was hogging a much larger percentage of the fish.

If one group's standard of living increases and increases, and as it increases, they use that wealth to lobby the people who make the rules, and donate to the campaigns of the people who decide on the regulations, and then, SURPRISE, rules and regulations appear that make it easier and easier for them to get a better deal for themselves every year, then somebody is going to have to pay for that by having a lower standard of living, making less money, etc.

And if rules and regulations that are instituted make it harder and harder for those with less to negotiate a better situation for themselves, you really do have a recipe for disaster for a democratic society.

there is a reason why Third World countries have very rich/tiny middle/lots of poor, and first world democracies have had some very rich/large numbers in the middle/and some poor. And that is because the higher the GENERAL standard of living of the most people, the healthier and better the society works for all.

In the years from the end of the Great Depression to the mid-eighties, we had a far better mix in this country, a much healthier middle class, certainly plenty of rich people, and certainly some poor people. Now, we are moving into a mix, in the past thirty years (and as the wealthiest have increased their stranglehold on power to effect changes in laws and regulations in their favor), the pace has increased, and we are slowly, but surely beginning to resemble a number of Third World countries in disparity of income and inequality, which is the highest practically that it has even been in this country.

It's not an "envy" issue, it's an issue of looking to see what is best for a society as a whole. And for free societies as a whole, a healthy, vibrant middle class that is not losing out on its share of the wealth of the country in favor of a few, is best for the country.

Nothing wrong with rich people. And numerous rich people DO a lot of philanthropy, etc., endow foundations, libraries (Andrew Carnegie comes to mind). But, balance is important, and making sure that we don't decimate our middle class in favor of the immense riches of a few, really is important.

No matter how many self serving explanations the rich make for why they should get more, more, more. JMHO.

We've beaten this particular dead horse to death several times before, but I note that we all rise to the bait, once again, hahahahaha.

Alan
4-5-11, 8:36pm
But if he just figured out a way to get way more of a finite number of fish than he used to, and the number of catchable fish did not increase, so that others had to settle for fewer fish than they were used to, resentment would multiply. At which point, he would start blustering about zero sum games and confiscation of riches, and "class envy" and "class warfare" to cover up the fact that he was hogging a much larger percentage of the fish.

The flaw in your analogy which perhaps reflects a misunderstanding of 'zero-sum', is that wealth is not finite. As wealth is created disparities may grow as well, but that doesn't mean that someone has to lose a portion in order for someone else to gain.


If one group's standard of living increases and increases, and as it increases, they use that wealth to lobby the people who make the rules, and donate to the campaigns of the people who decide on the regulations, and then, SURPRISE, rules and regulations appear that make it easier and easier for them to get a better deal for themselves every year, then somebody is going to have to pay for that by having a lower standard of living, making less money, etc.

If you are concerned about that, you should get on the limited government bandwagon with me. If we don't scale governmental influence back, its corruption you speak of will only get worse.

JaneV2.0
4-5-11, 8:44pm
I recently heard that corporations were paying 30% of all federal taxes a few decades ago, and now they're paying 6%. I don't understand the point of cutting and cutting and cutting federal taxes--especially for the richest among us--and then talking about slashing Medicaid and numerous other programs for the poorest of us. Why are there no penalties for companies who continue to offshore jobs and register corporations in tax havens like the Marianas? Why do we have a cap on SS payroll deductions?

I once heard a conservative Danish politician asked how he felt about the high tax rates in his country, and he said (I'm paraphrasing) he'd rather be a moderately prosperous man in a healthy economy than a rich man in a weak and struggling one. This seems like an eminently sensible outlook. I don't think it's a matter of envy at all--that sounds like projection to me. I have enough, and I'd be willing to pay more federal taxes if necessary (at least after we've trimmed the Eternal War Budget by a good percentage) to live in the kind of country the Danish gentleman described. Right now, More and more, I feel like I'm living in a feudal state. And I don't like it.

bae
4-5-11, 8:44pm
And, since the total income (AGI, which represents the total income of all the groups in a given year) necessarily adds up to 100% of the income, if one group figures out a way to get twice the percentage of that 100% than they used to, that extra percentage HAS to come out of the 100%, meaning that other groups will find THEIR percentage share of the total income being reduced.


This is the traditional Loosechickens argument that there is only a finite amount of income, and that Person A's income necessarily must be taken out of Person B's pocket. The "wealth is theft" line.

It is incorrect. It is unfortunately the worldview of many people.

Loosechickens cannot address the basic mathematics, or logic, or physical reality of the situation, and so is compelled to obfuscate and make insinuations. This is a typical approach for someone who doesn't have a cogent argument to stand on.

And since reasoned argument will not prevail, at some point out come the knives, and, as I said above, welcome to Zimbabwe.

http://cdn4.creditwritedowns.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/Zimbabwe-100-trillion-500x250.jpg

Lainey
4-5-11, 8:50pm
yes, lc, we must stop "punishing success" - ha! haven't the rich "suffered enough"??
Love the Tom Tomorrow cartoon on this:

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/comics/this_modern_world/2011/03/01/this_modern_world/index.html

loosechickens
4-5-11, 8:56pm
I am determined not to get into this dead horse territory, as never the twain shall meet, and I should know that, Alan. ;-), but 100% of anything is still 100% of anything. I hear you, and if the pie keeps getting bigger, some can get richer without others being hurt.

But in real life, in the past thirty years or so, a few have gotten immensely richer, at the expense of others, who have seen THEIR standard of living and real income go down, while those few have seen theirs go up, up and up, and have used that gain to tilt the playing field ever more in favor of that continuing.

The POINT is that a healthy, vibrant middle class, and a good standard of living for the most possible numbers of people in a country, historically have resulted in the most stable, highest quality of life and satisfaction of the most possible numbers and percentages of citizens.

When workers lose ability to negotiate with owners, and owners can hold the prospect of outsourcing to other countries to low paid workforces in order to force workers to work for less and less, and see their standards of living decline, it is not just that the top few percent get more, or that others get less, it's that a society becomes less healthy, quality of life for citizens goes down, resentments grow, manipulators start setting one group of "have less" folks against other groups of "have less" folks, and sit back and continue to rake in the riches.

Look, I think it's fine for people to be rich....in a percentage sense, WE are in that top, at least, 10% of net worth, at least, although not in income....in income, we're far closer to the median or below it. What worries me is the diminishing of our middle class, the way people are set against people so that scapegoats can be blamed, without most actually seeing the source of the real problems.

And, that's it for me.....I hate these dead horse arguments. It's just that it's gotten on these subjects that pretty much the only people that post are you conservatives who all agree with what has been happening for the past thirty years, so I feel, sometimes, that I need to put my oar in just for balance.

But........just don't have the heart for it, at the moment....so carry on......

I think that spending cuts need to be made. I would prefer cuts being made to our bloated military and corporate subsidies and tax credits and giveaways to them, rather than the cuts being made on the backs of the people who have the least, the elderly, old, sick, our children, people without health care, etc.

I think those who are able to pay more taxes, SHOULD pay more taxes, so that we can make our books balance, have schools, libraries, good roads and bridges, and excellent education for all students.

I'd like to see public funding of elections, with each candidate given an equal share of the citizen owned airwaves to make his or her case as to why they should be elected, and money to send out mailings, do outreach, etc. I would like to see the influence of corporations, unions, the wealthiest and special interests and those who finance campaigns with ulterior motives in mind to be powerless to do that, which public funding of all elections would provide.

Because what we really need are elected leaders who represent the totality of the people who elected them to office, all the people in their district or state, rather than coming into office owing a few large campaign donors and people with influence, allowing them to call the shots, which all of us know is what is happening today. Our Congressmen and Senators spend more of their time raising money than they go on governing, and that is not a good recipe for good government either. And those with the most money and the most incentive to use that money to ensure that the laws and regulations passed favor them are more than willing to step up and pony up the money they want and need, but they expect and get a lot for it. And that isn't good for the country as a whole, either.

Alan
4-5-11, 9:06pm
And, that's it for me.....I hate these dead horse arguments. It's just that it's gotten on these subjects that pretty much the only people that post are you conservatives who all agree with what has been happening for the past thirty years, so I feel, sometimes, that I need to put my oar in just for balance.

I wouldn't consider it dead horse territory, and the few conservatives here don't start these discussions, we simply try to apply reason to other peoples emotion. Without we few, there wouldn't be any balance at all.

I, for one, enjoy it and wish there were more vibrant discussions on this site like there were 3 or 4 or 5 years ago. Different strokes I guess.

pinkytoe
4-5-11, 9:31pm
I fear we possess different types of brains as we continue to agree to disagree. I truly try to understand the conservative point of view but it just does not compute in my feeble brain.
Anyway, if we cease to look after the poor, the elderly, etc as a society through our government (not including philanthropy and charity) what will happen to the least among us?

bae
4-5-11, 9:38pm
... dead horse territory ... never the twain shall meet, ...I hate these dead horse arguments ... you conservatives ... the cuts being made on the backs of the people who have the least ...


“The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.” Robert Lifton, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism

bae
4-5-11, 9:40pm
Anyway, if we cease to look after the poor, the elderly, etc as a society through our government (not including philanthropy and charity) what will happen to the least among us?

I don't see how it logically follows that if the government isn't taking care of things, that things won't get done.

I have seen some evidence that when the government steps into fields traditionally handled by private philanthropy, they dominate the field and drive out the players. See Putnam's interesting book "Bowling Alone", and Beito's "From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State" for some examples.

JaneV2.0
4-5-11, 9:51pm
"we simply try to apply reason to other peoples emotion." Oh, please. I didn't study philosophy or debate, so I don't know what the Latin term is for patronizing twaddle, but I know it when I see it.

I have to admit I find it rather refreshing to be included among the "hysterical female" crowd, though. Usually, I find myself counted in with the Spock contingent.

Alan
4-5-11, 9:56pm
I have to admit I find it rather refreshing to be included among the "hysterical female" contingent, though. Usually, I find myself in counted in with the Spock crowd.

Not to be argumentative, but if you didn't label yourself and others, then engage in identity politics, you'd probably make a fine conservative.>8)

bae
4-5-11, 9:57pm
I didn't study philosophy or debate, so I don't know what the Latin term is for patronizing twaddle, but I know it when I see it.

"laxus pullus"

JaneV2.0
4-5-11, 10:01pm
"I have seen some evidence that when the government steps into fields traditionally handled by private philanthropy, they dominate the field and drive out the players. See Putnam's interesting book "Bowling Alone", and Beito's "From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State" for some examples. "

Bowling Alone put me right to sleep. I'm waiting for the movie. :~)

Personally, I'd rather pay into Social Security and have some autonomy in my dotage than have to stand in line at some church with a begging bowl or impose on my relatives for shelter. But that's just me.

JaneV2.0
4-5-11, 10:34pm
The closest I could get to "laxus pullus" was something like "stewing hen." My mother always told me I should study Latin, and I always told her I wasn't interested in chatting with aging priests...

Labeling? Pot, kettle. I do have a libertarian streak, but it doesn't reach Randian levels.

iris lily
4-5-11, 10:39pm
I am getting lots of enjoyment from this thread. Carry on! Entertain me. More Zimbabwe allusions, please.

iris lily
4-5-11, 10:42pm
Not to be argumentative, but if you didn't label yourself and others, then engage in identity politics, you'd probably make a fine conservative.>8)

alan, I've often thought that Jane needs only a small intervention to bring her to the side of right thinking. She makes me laugh and it too often follows that those who make me laugh are conservative.

iris lily
4-5-11, 10:45pm
...I do have a libertarian streak....

Oh that's clear. We'll round up the van and pull you into it; the intervention should take only a few hours. You'll come out on the other side happier for it, I promise.:D

JaneV2.0
4-5-11, 10:49pm
You may be on to something--I've been known to laugh at a conservative or two myself...:D

pinkytoe
4-5-11, 10:56pm
don't see how it logically follows that if the government isn't taking care of things, that things won't get done.
I guess we'll see how private industry and entrepreneurs take care of things in years to come as that is the direction things are going...one thing that comes to mind locally are toll roads. Private companies have very quickly constructed and managed new toll roads, very efficiently, I might add, and they are quickly taking over every existing highway to make it a toll. If you cannot pay to drive on the toll road, oh well. What will become of public highways?

flowerseverywhere
4-6-11, 3:18am
I always have to laugh just a bit, because the people who scream the loudest about why it's just fine that the richest are getting more and more of a share of the total income in this country, are pretty much always the ones who have the most and are determined to hang on to every cent.



This generalization is not the case with me. Firmly middle class, I can count on one hand the times I have eaten food not cooked from scratch this year, drive a 1999 honda, and buy my clothes at the thrift store. I just don't see most governments at any level spending my money wisely. I gladly pay my school, property, state, federal and sales tax because I haven't found any other country where I want to live and I know I have to pay my share. If taxes are raised across the board, with the wealthy being taxed the most, will it really help this country? Will our officials say, thanks, that's enough. We'll live within our means and not pass these massive overspending budgets on to the next generation. We'll make sure that the money we get doesn't go to our cronies but to the people who really need it. I don't have a high level of trust that will happen.

LDAHL
4-6-11, 8:36am
I keep hearing about how things have gotten so much worse "in the last thirty years"; I suppose to imply that Reagan caused us to fall from that state of economic grace we experienced in the seventies. My recollection is somewhat different, but with Mr. Obama's help, it looks like our memories will be refreshed.

loosechickens
4-6-11, 11:30am
have no time to keep beating the horse this morning....off to explore in the Chiracahua Mountains, but just had to add....

Iris Lily.....I find that it's conservatives that make ME laugh, too. Perhaps not in the same way, exactly, but we have something in common...... ;-)

have a good day, everybody....I'm sure you will have solved everthing by the time I get back.

flowerseverywhere
4-6-11, 12:45pm
for anyone who might be interested the Government accountability office just released a 345 page document on ways to save money and become more efficient.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP


"For example, while the Department of Defense is making limited changes to the governance of its military health care system, broader restructuring could result in annual savings of up to $460 million. Similarly, we developed a range of options that could reduce federal revenue losses by up to $5.7 billion annually by addressing potentially duplicative policies designed to boost domestic ethanol production. Likewise, we identified a number of other opportunities for cost savings or enhanced revenues such as reducing improper federal payments totaling billions of dollars, or addressing the gap between taxes owed and paid, potentially involving billions of dollars. Collectively, these savings and revenues could result in tens of billions of dollars in annual savings, depending on the extent of actions taken."

Aging Hippie
4-6-11, 1:15pm
Isn't there a point when one has enough though? Is there some virtue in acquiring more and more just because you can? I thought that was called greed....my Catholic upbringing imprinted on my brain that it is good to share.

The concept of "enough" is one of the cornerstones of simple living. Why would anyone need or want more than "enough"? And why is wealth considered to be infinite (except spiritually) in a finite world? Humans have overpopulated this world and we are running out of resources. Isn't the very basis of capitalism that the financial health of the "owners" will trickle down to equal reasonable financial health for all? Yet, that is not happening.

LDAHL
4-6-11, 1:32pm
The concept of "enough" is one of the cornerstones of simple living. Why would anyone need or want more than "enough"?

Why would anyone want to allow someone else to decide for them how much was "enough"?

Why would anyone feel they had the right to tell someone else how much was "enough"?

Gregg
4-6-11, 2:30pm
The concept of "enough" is one of the cornerstones of simple living. Why would anyone need or want more than "enough"?

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how much, exactly, should be "enough". I will hazard a guess that my definition will be somewhat different from yours (or anyone else's). I feel as though I deserve the opportunity to pursue my version rather than have one dictated to me. Some here are comfortable leading a pretty austere life. Fine with me if that's what you want, but there are a lot of things that improve my quality of life that are well beyond a spartan existence. Should anyone have the right to tell me I can't pursue those "luxuries"? If so, who and what gives them that right?

pinkytoe
4-6-11, 3:33pm
I always thought simple living was about "enough" too. Enough not being spartan - just that point at which our needs are met and we are content. If it takes a lot more stuff to "improve" our lives, why would we even have an interest in a simple living board? Just curious...

LDAHL
4-6-11, 5:05pm
I think you need to define your metric of simplicity when asking that question. If my concept of “enough” is as far from yours as yours is from a Bolivian peasant farmer, which one of us is “right”? If my concept of “enough” involves a level of financial independence that doesn’t require taxpayer subsidy, while someone else is willing to accept much less, provided they can rely on some version of a social safety net, which one of us is the more “simple”? What constitutes wretched excess? A summer cottage? A tour of Europe? My dog’s breakfast? My breakfast?

I’m not interested in defining the appropriate level of “enough” for anyone but me and mine. And I’m certainly not interested in anyone making that call for me.

stuboyle
4-6-11, 5:40pm
Here is quote which caught my eye which I tend to agree with:

"The idea that anyone who works hard enough can become rich is a powerful one; for Americans, it's not just appealing but central to national identity. The problem is that this vision of social mobility doesn't hold true within the United States -- and on a global scale, it's just plain silly. The reason you earned as much as you did last year has far less to do with how hard you worked than with where and to whom you were born. In the United States, of those children born to parents in the bottom 10 percent of incomes, around one-third remain at the bottom (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.125.7314&rep=rep1&type=pdf) as adults, and over half remain in the bottom 20 percent. Only one out of 77 children born into the bottom 10 percent of incomes reaches the top 10 percent as an adult, according to Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis writing in the Journal of Economic Perspectives."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/04/dont_mess_with_taxes?page=0,0

In my own experience, I didn't realize when I was younger how important it was to attend a "top-tier" school. I certainly was intelligent enough to attend one of these schools. Had I known, I may have loaded-up on the debt. I went through my own cost benefit analysis and decided for me wasn't worth it.

flowerseverywhere
4-6-11, 7:08pm
I always thought simple living was about "enough" too. Enough not being spartan - just that point at which our needs are met and we are content. If it takes a lot more stuff to "improve" our lives, why would we even have an interest in a simple living board? Just curious...

I don't think that making money always equates with more stuff. Some people like to make money so they can do they things they want and help their family, give their children and grandchildren enriching or educational experiences, or take care of parents. You can live very simply and have money in the bank to use for whatever cause you see fit. I know I was very proud to give my children college educations and they have thanked me for it many times in their adult lives and have become successful professionals. I see nothing wrong with that.