View Full Version : How Romney defines middle-income Americans - OMG
According to this guy, if you make $200k, you're just starting to be in the mid-range.
(let me know if you can't see the link, not sure if you have to have comcast xfinity)
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20120914/US.Romney/?cid=hero_media
If the Democrat's tax plan is to tax the "rich" and define them as those who make $200K per individual or $250K per houseold, what would you call the "non-rich" who make less than that?
Your perspective is going to be largely shaped by where you are sitting, whether rich or middle class or poor or right or moderate or left. There's no rule book out there defining what each is and where one transitions to the other. It's subjective.
I'm pretty sure Romney would be horrified if he did a $200k year, though.
My take away was that Romney defines middle income as $200,000 to $250,000 and less, which is similar to Obama's definition, although it isn't perfectly clear from the article
"Is $100,000 middle income?" Stephanopoulos asked.
"No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney responded.
"Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year."
I know one or two households making about $200,000. a year and I call them rich. I suppose if you live in Chicago, Boston, or D.C., the pay scale adjusts somewhat to the higher cost of living.
ApatheticNoMore
9-14-12, 5:43pm
I know one or two households making about $200,000. a year and I call them rich. I suppose if you live in Chicago, Boston, or D.C., the pay scale adjusts somewhat to the higher cost of living.
Yea this is why I somewhat understand this argument for middle class CALIFORNIANS. If a family (two incomes) earns 200,000k, I wouldn't call it rich. I think it's quite possible that many many times I have worked right along side people who pull that in (but in most cases only if both spouses work! harder to pull that in on one income). I would think a family earning that would have no reason to complain about their income and if they can't make it on that (excluding highly unusual circumstances - massive medical or college debt?) it's their own darn fault! No crocodile tears for them! But ... not rich. If you are supposed to only buy a house costing 4 times income, that's only an 800k house. That's not unusual. I think thinking it is rich by itself radically misunderstands the true level of income inequality in this country. The really rich, the 1%, the 1% of the 1%, aren't contenting themselves on 200k a year. 200k is probably wages, yea haha, the truly rich don't live off wages.
I think thinking it is rich by itself radically misunderstands the true level of income inequality in this country.
The report on the TV news about this (CBS, for those who may care) stated that the average household income in the U.S. is about $50,000 a year. Which means for every California family getting by on 200K a year (I'm not poking at that, living in CA can be quite expensive), there must be some families in Alabama and Mississippi getting by on $15K-20K a year. Yeah, it's quite a difference.
If the Democrat's tax plan is to tax the "rich" and define them as those who make $200K per individual or $250K per houseold, what would you call the "non-rich" who make less than that?
The majority of working & retired Americans.
The majority of working & retired Americans.
+1
loosechickens
9-14-12, 11:17pm
http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-does-the-average-american-make-breaking-down-the-us-household-income-numbers/
excerpt:
........only 17.8% of all U.S. households make more than $118,200 a year. Only 2.67% make more than $200,000. The fact that only 34% make more than $65,000 is astounding given how expensive other cost of living items have gotten over the past decade. That is why the middle class is feeling squeezed from all different sides."
From U.S. Census data:
"The US has 4,544,384 households that make over $200,000 a year.
There are 112,611,029 households in the United States"
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/maryland/1189037-2009-acs-census-data-100-wealthiest.html#ixzz26VL3EaUe\
No matter who does the defining, (and estimates of the number of households in the U.S. making over $200,000 range from 2% to 4% or so), there is no way that a group representing less than 5% of the total households in the U.S. can possibly be construed as "the middle class".
Somewhere around $50,000 to perhaps $75,000 is the middle, surely. Although we should probably remember that when Mr. Romney was questioned about speaking fees, he described it as (and I'm paraphrasing since it's almost time to head to the pool and I am too lazy to look up the exact wording), "not very much", and it amounted to about $375,000 in a single year. So of COURSE someone with his immense wealth would have a hard time picturing how a family could possibly manage in the "poverty" of only $200,000 per year.
The guy is totally out of touch. Now, the President in recent years may have gotten a bit out of touch himself, in estimating an average family's income, but I'm sure that he, at least, has experienced life down there in the trenches with the 96% of us.
ApatheticNoMore
9-15-12, 12:07am
Somewhere around $50,000 to perhaps $75,000 is the middle, surely.
Two professionals in the major California urban areas will pull far more than that. I know it to be true. Immediate management (direct managers) at the types of jobs I worked I am sure at the better paid companies pulled over 6 figures, at the lower paid at least approached 6 figures, actually some senior non-management people did too. And if you imagine the hypothetical of two people employed thus you can get 200k, now of course lots of people don't go the two professionals route, it's pretty exhausting afterall, I'm just saying how it easily leads to a fairly good income. So basically, that's what the world of white collar work is. Is it to be lucky? Well yes in terms of money it definitely is to be lucky (white collar work is also a nightmare of course - in terms of not money it's the ultimate soul suck, but in terms of money it's ok).
Oh and those households pulling in 50k-75k trust me around here YOU DON'T BUY HOUSING if that's all the income you manage to pull in, and I am absolutely sure that it's a struggle to raise a family on that type of income! You look at some health care plans for a family and the costs are shocking, then you figure 2k renting a house. It's not that I don't know people living on a LOT less. I do. I know other worlds besides the isolated arrogant world of white collar professionalism, but I also know white collar work and what it pulls, and how white collar professionals consider themselves middle class (but hey if you want to make the argument they aren't go ahead - but historically this has always been considered middle class and around here this will pull if not always 200k, definitely 6 figures with 2 incomes). Although to their credit most that I know that live on much less than 50k are single and have no kids, it's still a hard scramble, hit and miss life.
Why should what is middle class be set by cost of living in Kansas rather than cost of living in California?
I'll vote myself taxes if it makes sense, I don't really care about that. But it has peeved me off several times when I've exceeded the limit for so called middle class tax breaks (at nowhere near 200k). What the ... set way too low for cost of living ...
Is "middle class" determined by income, or by lifestyle, or by culture?
A "middle class" lifestyle I suspect costs rather different amounts in various places around the USA.
My take away was that Romney defines middle income as $200,000 to $250,000 and less, which is similar to Obama's definition, although it isn't perfectly clear from the article
"Is $100,000 middle income?" Stephanopoulos asked.
"No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney responded.
"Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year."
I know one or two households making about $200,000. a year and I call them rich. I suppose if you live in Chicago, Boston, or D.C., the pay scale adjusts somewhat to the higher cost of living.
My understanding is that Rogar's quote above is accurate. Apparently the AP originally misreported what Gov. Romney actually said and left off the "or less" part. Which would mean that his definition of the middle class is essentially the same as Pres. Obama's.
I think a more accurate title of this thread should be OMG Journalists Screwed Up Again!
My understanding is that Rogar's quote above is accurate. Apparently the AP originally misreported what Gov. Romney actually said and left off the "or less" part. Which would mean that his definition of the middle class is essentially the same as Pres. Obama's.
I think a more accurate title of this thread should be OMG Journalists Screwed Up Again!
Maybe screwed up? Or intentionally reported it in a way that sells better? The primary goal of media (and at least most of the people employed by them) is not factual reporting - it's making money. If a slanted or misrepresented story sells better...
Actually "$200,000 to $250,000 and less" does not make much sense since $200k is already less - so is $0, which I would hope Romney does not consider middle class. To me it sounds more like Romney put out a range and then tacked on "and less" either as a CYA or the range to him sounded like too much after he said it.
SteveinMN
9-15-12, 10:45am
Then there is the matter that earning 200K in parts of California or New York make you "middle class", while earning 200K in parts of Arkansas and West Virginia make you "rich." I'm thinking there should be some way to index "middle class", the same way it is figured out that certain cities are more expensive to visit than others.
Then there is the matter that earning 200K in parts of California or New York make you "middle class", while earning 200K in parts of Arkansas and West Virginia make you "rich." I'm thinking there should be some way to index "middle class", the same way it is figured out that certain cities are more expensive to visit than others.
Corporations in multiple locations do this all the time to attempt to fairly provide equal compensation for the same job level in different parts of the country.
ApatheticNoMore
9-15-12, 10:58am
Maybe screwed up? Or intentionally reported it in a way that sells better? The primary goal of media (and at least most of the people employed by them) is not factual reporting - it's making money. If a slanted or misrepresented story sells better...
OMG the proles are busy fighting the petty bourgeoisie, Romney laughts all the way to the bank, don't you know that he knows that's not where real wealth resides in this country even if you don't? Although yes of course you could accumulate decent savings on 200k. Of course the states Romney actually needs to win are not California, which will go to Obama, but states where that's like a fortune!
Figures of the average income being fairly low maybe doesn't at all lead me to believe that that low income is "middle class" but rather that this is fundementally NOT a middle class country (it's a working, lower, precariat class country). But yea it is about how you define it, let the entire country have low wage jobs and you can say "oh stastically middle class income is now 10k a year", yea but it still CAN'T afford the lifestyle *historically* associated with middle class, basic costs of living in this rather expensive country are still too high, and you'll notice they haven't being going down (basic health care, housing, transportation etc.). Besides from what I read about the average person they are in terrible shape! I mean their finances are a walking disaster! Debt up to their eyeballs, and I don't mean mortgage debt which historically a middle class lifestyle has always lived with and which as fine as long as it's a resonable porportion of income. I mean just debt for everything. Cars financed to the hilt (and not some reasonable financing like financing say a 10k used car or something, but buying a 30k something or more new car! You'll notice the average household income figures of 50-75k a year in NO WAY really support new car prices in this country! By that logic the "middle class" should definitely never buy new cars). Increasing percentage of the population living on food stamps. Is that also now "middle class" taking food stamps to afford groceries? Defining "middle class" down .....
OMG the proles are busy fighting the petty bourgeoisie, Romney laughts all the way to the bank, don't you know that he knows that's not where real wealth resides in this country even if you don't? Although yes of course you could accumulate decent savings on 200k. Of course the states Romney actually needs to win are not California, which will go to Obama, but states where that's like a fortune!
Figures of the average income being fairly low maybe doesn't at all lead me to believe that that low income is "middle class" but rather that this is fundementally NOT a middle class country (it's a working, lower, precariat class country). But yea it is about how you define it, let the entire country have low wage jobs and you can say "oh stastically middle class income is now 10k a year", yea but it still CAN'T afford the lifestyle *historically* associated with middle class, basic costs of living in this rather expensive country are still too high, and you'll notice they haven't being going down (basic health care, housing, transportation etc.). Besides from what I read about the average person they are in terrible shape! I mean their finances are a walking disaster! Debt up to their eyeballs, and I don't mean mortgage debt which historically a middle class lifestyle has always lived with and which as fine as long as it's a resonable porportion of income. I mean just debt for everything. Cars financed to the hilt (and not some reasonable financing like financing say a 10k used car or something, but buying a 30k something or more new car! You'll notice the average household income figures of 50-75k a year in NO WAY really support new car prices in this country! By that logic the "middle class" should definitely never buy new cars). Increasing percentage of the population living on food stamps. Is that also now "middle class" taking food stamps to afford groceries? Defining "middle class" down .....
+1
Middle class has always covered a pretty wide range (that's basically the only one between poor and rich, isn't it?) - I'd say the demographics are definitely shifting to the lower end of the spectrum.
But the fact remains, any portion of the population that is only represented by a little over 2% isn't middle anything!
I'm sure Romney can't understand why everyone doesn't have a dancing horse! (which by the way gave him a bigger tax deduction than the real average yearly income for the average American family!)
I'm not sure I see the difference between a President who says "rich" begins at $250K, and his opponent who says "middle class" ends at $250K.
I'm not sure I see the difference between a President who says "rich" begins at $250K, and his opponent who says "middle class" ends at $250K.There is no difference, but it would appear that ideology trumps reason.
Romney didn't say middle class 'ends' at 250,000. He said middle class is between 200,000, and 250,000. That's a far cry from middle class ends at 200,000, or 250,000, which could be thought of as upper middle class. A regular person, who understands the levels of class would understand this. There is lower middle class, middle class and upper middle class. Romney doesn't get this, Obama does.
The Romney supporters can try to twist this into a pretzel if they wish, but regular voters understand this. When Romney gets a higher tax deduction for his dancing horse than the average yearly income for average Americans, they understand this, and no amount of twisting and 'explanations' will make this reality go away.
And then there is the whole 'tax cheat' reality that is there, unless Romney wants to dispel this with the release of his tax returns, like EVERY OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SINCE HIS FATHER.
Obama released his long form birth certificate, a move not demanded of any other candidate, EVER! But, hey, he did it! So where is Romney's tax returns, like EVERY OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SINCE HIS FATHER has released? Where?
Really! What are you Romney supporters afraid of? Why aren't you demanding he release his returns? It's not like they are asking anything of him that EVERY OTHER CANDIATE IS ASKED OF. So what gives? What are you afraid of? Are you afraid he is a cheat?
Well duh! I can tell you, all the evidence points to that fact. The man is a cheat, and a liar, and until he shows different, I will contend he is a cheat, otherwise, he would provide the same information that every other candidate provided to help us, the American citizens, make this most important choice for President.
Either he is a cheat and a liar, and doesn't want us to know, or he is thumbing his nose at the process, and at us, the American people, essentially saying we are the 'little people' who don't really deserve to know and should just vote for him because, well, he is HIM, and deserves it, somehow. (he, of course, demanded 10 years of tax returns of his vice presidental pick...do we see the disconnect? Anyone...show of hands?...)
I don't know about you and your ideology, but for me, the fact that it's 'his turn' and 'he just deserves it' isn't really enough for me. I'm smarter than that. And I certainly deserve more than that! If republicans don't, well, that's their problem...and really! That's their problem!
Romney didn't say middle class 'ends' at 250,000. He said middle class is between 200,000, and 250,000. That's a far cry from middle class ends at 200,000, or 250,000, which could be thought of as upper middle class. A regular person, who understands the levels of class would understand this. There is lower middle class, middle class and upper middle class. Romney doesn't get this, Obama does.
That's not true. From the article:
"No one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people,
because principle number one is (to) keep the burden down on middle-income
taxpayers," Romney told host George Stephanopoulos.
"Is $100,000 middle income?" Stephanopoulos asked.
"No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney responded.
That's not true.
Truth isn't a priority with some.
Truth isn't a priority with some.
"Is $100,000 middle income?" Stephanopoulos asked.
"No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney responded.
Apparently - Romney's answer is not true. At least one part, anyway - answering no to "Is $100,000 middle income?" and then saying "middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less" conflict - unless someone has a bit of logic I can't see, one of these has to be false. He said something isn't and is in the same sentence.
Added:
Inconsistency
Definition:
The author asserts more than one proposition such that the propositions cannot all be true. In such a case, the propositions may be contradictories or they may be contraries.
"Is $100,000 middle income?" Stephanopoulos asked.
"No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney responded.
Apparently - Romney's answer is not true. At least one part, anyway - answering no to "Is $100,000 middle income?" and then saying "middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less" conflict - unless someone has a bit of logic I can't see, one of these has to be false. He said something isn't and is in the same sentence.
Added:
Inconsistency
Definition:
The author asserts more than one proposition such that the propositions cannot all be true. In such a case, the propositions may be contradictions or they may be contraries.
Not surprising as Romney's position on most everything is 'all of the above'. Although he usually likes to space his contradictions to himself at least a few hours or days apart!
He very specifically said no when asked if middle class was 100,000 and interjected those higher numbers, 200,000 to 250,000 as middle class. Adding 'or less' just doesn't make sense, and I'm sure he added that just to try to cover his butt, (poorly I might add) which means he is starting to listen to himself, and realize how ridiculous he sounds.
Whatever, a mere 2% of the population isn't actually the 'middle' of anything, is it. It just shows in absolute clarity how out of touch, or ignorant, or incurious, or unconcerned Romney actually is. Either he is totally ignorant of the realities of average Americans, average incomes, what exactly makes up the middle class, or who, or he doesn't care. Or he doesn't really even want to know the vital statistics (and I would think these particular statistics about the American people would be very vital to someone running for President) and just wants to be fed the talking points to regurgitate during speeches.
He wants to help keep the MIDDLE CLASS from shrinking..in fact thinks it's of VITAL IMPORTANCE and vows to PROTECT the middle class and not put any untold burdens on them. Really? He vows to work that hard for, what, 2.4% of the population?..according to his own assessment of what this 'middle class' looks like.
And what about the rest of us? What does this make us? I guess the rest of us, the vast vast majority of (invisible I guess) Americans are just the lazy slackers who should borrow money from our parents to start up million dollar businesses. Otherwise we aren't even on this man's radar.
"Sophistry is only fit to make men more conceited in their ignorance.". - John Locke
"Sophistry is only fit to make men more conceited in their ignorance.". - John Locke
Couldn't this statement be construed as sophistry? Not trying to be negative - it's just one of those words I've never been able to wrap my head around.
Couldn't this statement be construed as sophistry?
Perhaps by a modern-day Sophist...
Couldn't this statement be construed as sophistry?
Yes, but some may not recognize it. Delicious irony!
"Arrogant people will even ignore or downplay good ideas from others, as they cannot accept that others might have better ideas than themselves. This makes reasonable communication difficult and arguments impossible to resolve fairly as the arrogant person will not accept the other person's point of view, no matter how logical/intuitive or correct it is, because the arrogant person is really having an emotional argument about his own arrogance."
http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2019181472_apusromney.html
I am a bit, well, befuddled by this... does anyone actually believe Mr. Romney's claim made in the videotape released? I am feeling very sad for those R's who genuinely want a viable candidate. The primary vetting process has not served them.
I am feeling very sad for those R's who genuinely want a viable candidate. The primary vetting process has not served them.
Indeed. It's as if they want to throw the election. Seriously, Romney is the best they could come up with? Even during the early stages of the Republican nomination process, the candidates were mostly distinguished by their....unsuitability.
http://www.ushistory.org/us/images/00012268.jpg
I think the sadder thing is that most everyone in that room was probably nodding their heads to his comments, agreeing with him.
http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2019181472_apusromney.html
I am a bit, well, befuddled by this... does anyone actually believe Mr. Romney's claim made in the videotape released? ....
Which one are you talking about? You mean the quote about victims as in "almost half of all Americans 'believe they are victims' entitled to extensive government support. ?"
I don't know where Mitt Romney got his "almost half" data, but sure, I completely believe that a significant, measurable number of Americans consider themselves victims. Totally. yup.
Now, what does "consider themselves victims" really mean? I'm not sure exactly, but I certainly think this mindset has major influence in the American political process.
"entitled to extensive government support" - i.e., those who vote Democratic. It's a tired stereotype.
"entitled to extensive government support" - i.e., those who vote Democratic. It's a tired stereotype.
Nope.
It's in the mindset, it's in the whiney voice, it's in the complaints (constant) about what others have that you (the generic you) don't have. It's in the self-righteous pointing to the actions of others--that 1%! They are so selfish!
Now that I think about this, I'm laughing and wonder where Mitt cam up with this "47%" number. It is pretty interesting. I guess that's the latest Democratic vote for Obama?
I like Ike, too, bae. Now there was a Republican!
I was incensed by that clip. Of course I'm voting for President Obama (Eisenhower and Roosevelt being unavailable), and this man who has had everything handed to him since birth is calling me a parasite? How dare he! I've worked all my adult life for everything I've got and save for my whiniest private moments have never considered myself a victim. I've also never not paid federal taxes, even as I deplore the high percentage that goes to support war. I've certainly paid a higher percentage overall than Romney. I'm enraged that this insignificant little pantywaist dares to characterize citizens like me this way. I did have to laugh toward the end when he talks about the "thoughtful" voters who will decide based on emotion, and choose a candidate that they "like." Which made me snort out loud --"Then you're f*****, because nobody likes you!"
...I've worked all my adult life for everything I've got ...
But you didn't build that [net worth.] Just sayin'
But you didn't build that [net worth.] Just sayin'
I agree with President Obama's original quote: that we build infrastructure with federal monies that makes it possible for citizens to prosper. I.e., nobody does it all alone. (Ayn Rand be damned.)
So I wouldn't have built my modest fortune without public schools, public libraries, passable roads...Really, if I'm going to pay federal taxes I'd like to think I'll get something for them (besides international mayhem) should I ever need help.
SteveinMN
9-17-12, 10:27pm
It's in the mindset, it's in the whiney voice, it's in the complaints (constant) about what others have that you (the generic you) don't have. It's in the self-righteous pointing to the actions of others--that 1%! They are so selfish!
Oh. I thought you were talking about the CEOs of our publicly-traded corporations. My mistake.
But you didn't build that [net worth.] Just sayin'
I think Obama's voice must have dipped below the levels of screech from Faux News and the right-wing blogosphere, because apparently no one heard the words that came after that:
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
Seriously, I admire can-do people. But the Wild West is long gone. As soon as people who believe they've done everything themselves tell me they've created their own security, fire, and disaster-response teams, and that they are renouncing use of public streets, highways, and airports, and will not ever deploy the SEC or the courts, and no longer will take advantage of any other publicly-funded infrastructure (Rush better have EIB create its own private satellite system and quit using public airwaves), they can take that shot at Obama. Until then, they should seriously consider moving someplace where their entrepreneurial talents will not be impeded by other people. I'm sure the Taggart Transcontinental Railroad goes there.
A friend, coincidentally, just sent me this quote from President Eisenhower
in an address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors on April 16, 1953:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron"
I Like Ike!!! I also like the old Republican party. Social liberals and fiscal conservatives.
And even the most "can-do" people eventually get old and frail and enter the wonderful world of "can't do much."
I Like Ike!!! I also like the old Republican party. Social liberals and fiscal conservatives.
I wore my I Like Ike button to the county caucuses and convention, which got me sent to the state convention as a delegate, where I got some mighty dirty looks wearing it. Tough :-)
ApatheticNoMore
9-17-12, 11:11pm
Indeed. It's as if they want to throw the election. Seriously, Romney is the best they could come up with? Even during the early stages of the Republican nomination process, the candidates were mostly distinguished by their....unsuitability
I've often suspected elections are often being thrown recently, but ha, it's just baseless speculation, pure conspiracy theory :) Obama fully deserves to lose, but the Republicans most definitely don't deserve to win ...
I've also never not paid federal taxes, even as I deplore the high percentage that goes to support war.
Nobody who doesn't have kids escapes federal taxes, it's hardly possible working full time even if the job is minimum wage (at least based on CA minimum wage), and it certainly doesn't happen with the standard deduction.
iris lily
9-17-12, 11:42pm
I agree with President Obama's original quote: that we build infrastructure with federal monies that makes it possible for citizens to prosper. I.e., nobody does it all alone. (Ayn Rand be damned.)
Except that some citizens take the same opportunities available to all--the infrastructure as roads, schooling, etc--and do extraordinary things with them. That our President deliberately fails to recognize that is unfortunate.
ApatheticNoMore
9-17-12, 11:45pm
It's in the mindset, it's in the whiney voice, it's in the complaints (constant) about what others have that you (the generic you) don't have. It's in the self-righteous pointing to the actions of others--that 1%! They are so selfish!
Oh. I thought you were talking about the CEOs of our publicly-traded corporations. My mistake.
No, no this is about attitude not about where the money is actually going, as the FED gives the banks 40 billion a month ... Will it ever be paid back? Will it ever even be lent out? Who knows. But bankers are not whiny, I'm gonna bet on it, not whiny.
Except that some citizens take the same opportunities available to all--the infrastructure as roads, schooling, etc--and do extraordinary things with them. That our President deliberately fails to recognize that is unfortunate.
And some of our citizens pay the lion's share of the costs of that infrastructure, yet are told they aren't paying their fair share.
Except that some citizens take the same opportunities available to all--the infrastructure as roads, schooling, etc--and do extraordinary things with them. That our President deliberately fails to recognize that is unfortunate.
I wonder; does he not recognize extraordinary citizens? There are plenty of photo ops at the White House with Olympic atheletes, etc. What would recognizing those few extraordiary folks look like to you, IL?
Since most of us happily (at least for me!) fall into the rather huge category of just living our lives ordinary, it certainly makes sense to me that basic government infrastructure services support us regular folks in our day-to-day.
It's in the mindset, it's in the whiney voice, it's in the complaints (constant) about what others have that you (the generic you) don't have. It's in the self-righteous pointing to the actions of others--that 1%! They are so selfish!
I know no one who fits this description. It sounds like a stereotype to me. Who is this generic whiner? I mean, my teens sure whined alot, but that was in their job description!
I don't believe in this stereotype any more than I do in the mean, self-centered, I'm the only one who matters stereotype often assigned to conservatives. I believe we're all more complex than those one dimensional, mean spirited charachter potrayals.
iris lily
9-18-12, 12:55am
...What would recognizing those few extraordiary folks look like to you, IL?
Not denigrating the effort of those by chiding you "didn't build that" for one.
flowerseverywhere
9-18-12, 7:20am
Indeed. It's as if they want to throw the election. Seriously, Romney is the best they could come up with? Even during the early stages of the Republican nomination process, the candidates were mostly distinguished by their....unsuitability.
Don't you think there are some good candidates that are not willing to put everything they and their families have ever done under the microscope? I remember Colin Powell saying when his named was mentioned that he absolutely would not consider it due his wife's history of depression. I have no idea if he would have been a good president, however he may have been. There are very few people through life who never inhaled, were squeaky clean through their teenage and young adult years, who never went to a church or lecture where some nut might have said things that could become magnified.
The intrusion on your privacy ( Kate Middleton for example), the dissection of every word, every sentence even if muttered twenty years ago... we are eliminating a lot of good people.
does anyone actually believe Mr. Romney's claim made in the videotape released?
Ha, seems pretty close to the truth to me.
I think he was talking about all the Julia's (http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia/) in this country.
The Storyteller
9-18-12, 8:30am
http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2019181472_apusromney.html
I am a bit, well, befuddled by this... does anyone actually believe Mr. Romney's claim made in the videotape released?
I believe Romney does, or he wouldn't have said it. But it was an incredibly stupid thing to say. Ranks up there with Obama's cling to their guns and religion quote, only that came out early enough for Obama to recover from it.
Mitt is toast.
SteveinMN - apt point about the CEOs of our publicly traded corporations being the whiners-in-chief. Any time they get into trouble with their risky schemes, or claimed patent infringements, or anything else, they run to the fed gov't as fast as their corporate jets can get them there to demand Uncle Sam rescue them.
The Fortune 500 Corp I work for recently crowed about getting the state where our headquarters is located to cough up money to prevent the hq from moving elsewhere - in other words, the CEO's extortion effort was successful. So the taxpayers of that state - which has drastically underfunded pensions for its state workers, among other things - watch their hard-earned dollars go into the coffers of a for-profit corporation. Did the taxpayers get even a single extra job from our corp. in return? Of course not. But they do get to watch the stockholders of our corp. brag about what a successful business they built.
Makes me furious to watch it happen, but if any complaints about that blackmail sounds like "whining about being a victim" to some ears, then so be it.
SteveinMN - apt point about the CEOs of our publicly traded corporations being the whiners-in-chief. Any time they get into trouble with their risky schemes, or claimed patent infringements, or anything else, they run to the fed gov't as fast as their corporate jets can get them there to demand Uncle Sam rescue them.
The Fortune 500 Corp I work for recently crowed about getting the state where our headquarters is located to cough up money to prevent the hq from moving elsewhere - in other words, the CEO's extortion effort was successful. So the taxpayers of that state - which has drastically underfunded pensions for its state workers, among other things - watch their hard-earned dollars go into the coffers of a for-profit corporation. Did the taxpayers get even a single extra job from our corp. in return? Of course not. But they do get to watch the stockholders of our corp. brag about what a successful business they built.
Makes me furious to watch it happen, but if any complaints about that blackmail sounds like "whining about being a victim" to some ears, then so be it.
They bring value to the state in the form of jobs and payroll taxes. The state only has to do the math and see if its better to keep the company and jobs there of to lose them. The company being based there is an asset, they are in the business to make money for the shareholders. Would you rather they have moved?
They bring value to the state in the form of jobs and payroll taxes. The state only has to do the math and see if its better to keep the company and jobs there of to lose them. The company being based there is an asset, they are in the business to make money for the shareholders. Would you rather they have moved?
+1 Amazing how something so simple can be twisted to become "extortion"...
Scanning over 6 pages of this thread after a long weekend away and the one thing I was looking for (but not really surprised to not see) is figure put forth by a Romney opponent defining exactly what middle class is. If you're going to chastise the man for being out of touch perhaps you (yes, the proverbial you) could offer a little more insight. Rather than simply telling everyone how wrong he is I would appreciate it if someone would tell us what figure would be correct and why. Anyone?
According to what I remember from sociology classes, "middle class" is a construct of income, education, and shared values. Middle income is really what is being discussed here.
Middle income is really what is being discussed here.
Yes, but the remarks which sparked the thread are based not on a social construct, but rather a definition for tax purposes.
From that perspective, it seems that the President and Mr. Romney agree on the same definition of middle class.
They bring value to the state in the form of jobs and payroll taxes. The state only has to do the math and see if its better to keep the company and jobs there of to lose them. The company being based there is an asset, they are in the business to make money for the shareholders. Would you rather they have moved?
Many of those companies also bring a negative to the state in the form of pollution. Those factories aren't belching out perfume (ask people in Hershey, PA, how nice it is to smell chocolate all. the. time).
There also is the matter of privatizing gain and socializing loss. The big Wall Street banks got bailed out even after stealing billions in the form of derivatives payments. When an individual does this -- in the form of shoplifting or stealing -- it's considered a crime. But when a corporation does it, it's just "smart business".
The owner of the Minnesota Twins shelled out almost $40 million this year alone for Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau. He did so because he thought it would be a good investment; he figured these guys would return more than $40 million in value to the Twins. He did not ask the government for a loan or TIF or free lodging for their agents or any similar help to sign these guys; he went out and did it by himself. But he had his hands out when he figured the old ballpark was cramping the Twins' (financial) style and that a new one was "necessary". Why? If it was a good investment, he would have done it without government help/intrusion/welfare/whatever you want to call it. And, dopes that most of us appear to be, we gave him the money even though the Twins get all the ticket fees, the concessions, the parking revenue, the naming rights, ... and, if we're lucky, we get our money back with a bit of interest.
The same story repeats itself when merged companies play cities and states against each other to host their headquarters or new facilities.
If a company wants public help, they should pay for it in a manner both the company and the public deem equitable. Corporations don't kindly put up with government intervention in their affairs. The owner of the Twins would bristle if the government told him he couldn't hire Mauer or Morneau or that the government would be doing the salary negotiations. So why should the owner have a hard time when government insists on equitable treatment when it is a big investor?
Yossarian
9-18-12, 10:01am
I believe Romney does, or he wouldn't have said it. But it was an incredibly stupid thing to say. Ranks up there with Obama's cling to their guns and religion quote, only that came out early enough for Obama to recover from it.
Mitt is toast.
Maybe, but people who where offended by the guns and religion quote like their guns and religion. There was a time when Americans didn't like being govenment wards. Maybe that has changed enough where people will get offended that anyone speaks ill of their dependency, but maybe not. I remember back in the late 70s and early 80s when conservativism became more popular to some young people because it represented self sufficiency and a break from the liberal goverment teat. That may not happen soon enough to help Mitt this go around but it will happen eventually (I hope).
Ha, seems pretty close to the truth to me.
Would you care to explain? None of the (many) people I know who will vote for President Obama seem to fit the Republican "welfare Cadillac" meme, and I'm sure that's true of the vast majority of us. After all--even with high unemployment--most of us work and/or pay taxes, and half of us will vote for Democrats for many reasons independent of support for a strong safety net.
Not denigrating the effort of those by chiding you "didn't build that" for one.
...sigh.... and this is why negative ads work, even if they have been PROVEN to be lies. Even when confronted with THE TRUTH, even when they have been shown, in great big letters, that the 'message' is false, misleading, A LIE, still they complete the circle. Say something over and over and over again and it will stick, just like spaghetti on the wall. And if you can somehow make it into a bumper sticker or yard sigh, even better!
I once read a study where people would simply step over, or around a person lying in the gutter, or a parking lot, or where ever. Not because they were necessarily mean or uncaring, but because they simply did not see the person lying there. They didn't expect, or want to see the person, so they didn't see them.
Let's try this again. IL, did you read, one page back, the ENTIRE quote from President Obama? Did you read the WHOLE thing? All of the words? Do you understand he WASN'T denigrating anyone, least of all small business owners?
According to what I remember from sociology classes, "middle class" is a construct of income, education, and shared values. Middle income is really what is being discussed here.
Yes, but the remarks which sparked the thread are based not on a social construct, but rather a definition for tax purposes.
From that perspective, it seems that the President and Mr. Romney agree on the same definition of middle class.
I agree, middle income rather than middle class is what we're really after for this discussion. I'm with Alan on this one, to me it looks like both men have a very similar definition with the $250K or less idea. The median income in the US is somewhere around $50K right now so they both seem to believe you can still be in the middle at roughly 5 times the median income. Question is, how do we divide the pie? Is it in 1/3s? 33% lower income, 33% middle and 33% higher? Or is it 25% lower, 50% middle and 25% higher? Or is the middle 80% with only 10% for lower and higher? How you assign that makes a huge difference in both the dollar figures and the number of people.
If you're trying to fill the coffers it seems the more people you can classify as being in the higher group (who are by extension less 'entitled' to tax relief) the better. The flip side of that is that by enlarging the upper and lower ends you take numbers away from the middle. I have not heard either candidate attempt to define the lower end, but an upper end of $250K catches all but, what was it, 4%? Looks to me like both men want to define as many people as possible as the middle. Why do you suppose?
Except that some citizens take the same opportunities available to all--the infrastructure as roads, schooling, etc--and do extraordinary things with them. That our President deliberately fails to recognize that is unfortunate.
The Obamas surely recognize that ambitious people build on the commons a strong government provides, given they both rose from middle-class backgrounds via education and hard work themselves. Political perspective colors how you parse that speech, I guess. It certainly resonated with me.
Maybe, but people who where offended by the guns and religion quote like their guns and religion. There was a time when Americans didn't like being govenment wards. Maybe that has changed enough where people will get offended that anyone speaks ill of their dependency, but maybe not. I remember back in the late 70s and early 80s when conservativism became more popular to some young people because it represented self sufficiency and a break from the liberal goverment teat. That may not happen soon enough to help Mitt this go around but it will happen eventually (I hope).
Humm...I wonder if there are no republicans over 65? You know, those government wards (SS, Medicare, public libraries, roads, subsidized housing, meals on wheels, etc..) Think Romney was talking about them? Those slackers who 'cling' to their existence?
And what about those who 'cling to their guns and religion". I suppose they are all wildly successful and NEVER ask for government assistance. Never need unemployment benefits, or health care, or good roads, or utility assistance, or food banks, or...well, he certainly isn't talking about them. Cause they all vote republican, therefore never need the government, or ANYTHING the government subsidizes, supports, manages, or promotes.
The entire context:
Obama, July 13: There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.
And some interesting history & commentary...
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/you-didnt-build-that
Yossarian
9-18-12, 10:38am
Would you care to explain? None of the (many) people I know who will vote for President Obama seem to fit the Republican "welfare Cadillac" meme, and I'm sure that's true of the vast majority of us. After all--even with high unemployment--most of us work and/or pay taxes, and half of us will vote for Democrats for many reasons independent of support for a strong safety net.
From the parts I read like:
They are, he says, “dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them.”He says those people “pay no income tax,” and “so our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.”
it sounds a lot like what I hear from progressives here advocating victimization memes and government as care taker. The part about taxes is speculative but I would guess likley true for many just based on human nature.
The issue as I see it isn't whether governement should be involved with those things. I think they should help victims, care for the needy, etc. It's about approach and outlook- whether governemnt should be the first solution or a last resort and whether there are any limits placed on those roles.
Many of those companies also bring a negative to the state in the form of pollution. Those factories aren't belching out perfume (ask people in Hershey, PA, how nice it is to smell chocolate all. the. time).
There also is the matter of privatizing gain and socializing loss. The big Wall Street banks got bailed out even after stealing billions in the form of derivatives payments. When an individual does this -- in the form of shoplifting or stealing -- it's considered a crime. But when a corporation does it, it's just "smart business".
The owner of the Minnesota Twins shelled out almost $40 million this year alone for Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau. He did so because he thought it would be a good investment; he figured these guys would return more than $40 million in value to the Twins. He did not ask the government for a loan or TIF or free lodging for their agents or any similar help to sign these guys; he went out and did it by himself. But he had his hands out when he figured the old ballpark was cramping the Twins' (financial) style and that a new one was "necessary". Why? If it was a good investment, he would have done it without government help/intrusion/welfare/whatever you want to call it. And, dopes that most of us appear to be, we gave him the money even though the Twins get all the ticket fees, the concessions, the parking revenue, the naming rights, ... and, if we're lucky, we get our money back with a bit of interest.
The same story repeats itself when merged companies play cities and states against each other to host their headquarters or new facilities.
If a company wants public help, they should pay for it in a manner both the company and the public deem equitable. Corporations don't kindly put up with government intervention in their affairs. The owner of the Twins would bristle if the government told him he couldn't hire Mauer or Morneau or that the government would be doing the salary negotiations. So why should the owner have a hard time when government insists on equitable treatment when it is a big investor?
If the state does not feel that they are getting their moneys worth, they should not give tax benefits or whatever the corps want. That is for that entity to work out. If you don't like it, talk to the politicians in charge. As to the ballparks, I believe that they generally bring in a lot of money to local business's so they have to chose if they want to keep them there. Again, if they don't want to pay, don't. The corps should be free to move and the city or state should be free to give incentives if the chose.
And I don't have a problem with letting company's go bankrupt. There are laws in place to handle that. GM should have been allowed to go bankrupt and reorganize, but that would not be in the union's best interest, so politicians got involved.
Yossarian, what is a victimization meme?
Yes, but the remarks which sparked the thread are based not on a social construct, but rather a definition for tax purposes.
From that perspective, it seems that the President and Mr. Romney agree on the same definition of middle class.
Wikipedia has a lengthy treatment of what constitutes middle class, including income, income plus education, kind of work...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class
I guess I'm "lower-middle" by their definition, because I chose a technical job. Now I'm feeling even more like an underachiever and I'm going to spike my coffee with brandy and feel like a victim for awhile... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/fool/bot.gif
IL, just for you...enjoy;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQu2SVFF-cU
So middle class is somewhere less than $250,000 per year in income. If you make more than that you are just lucky or crooked in some way. If you make less than that someone is holding you back or taking your cut. Or your just unlucky. You just need to buy more lottery tickets.
And 47% pay no federal income taxes, so why would they care about tax rates? Maybe instead of pandering for votes, everyone should pay something. If I thought that paying more would actually reduce the debt and do some good, I would be all for it. Lets all pay 5% more, but they are already spending money they don't have, so why do they need more.
I've been for higher taxes for years. We had a much healthier economy before all these (mostly Republican) tax cuts. Talk about pandering!
and for the other side.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKtAX1YHZ6A&feature=related
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/the-reasons-behind-the-people-who-pay-no-income-tax/
From the article (hotlinks not live):
"Mr. Romney is absolutely correct that about half of American households do not pay federal income tax. (He is also tapping into a now long-running vein (http://the53.tumblr.com/) of conservative anger at those households.) But he is missing some crucial context on why they do not pay federal income tax.
The nonpartisan and highly respected Tax Policy Center derived the 47 percent number – it is actually 46 percent, as of 2011 – and published an excellent analysis of it last summer (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2011/07/27/why-do-people-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2/).
It found that about half of the households that do not pay federal income tax do not pay it because they are simply too poor. The Tax Policy Center gives as an example a couple with two children earning less than $26,400 a year: The household would pay no federal income tax because its standard deduction and other exemptions would simply erase its liability.
The other half, the Tax Policy Center found, consists of households taking advantage of tax credits and other provisions, mostly support for senior citizens and low-income working families.
Put bluntly, these are not households shirking their tax liabilities. The pool consists mostly of the poor, of relatively low-income working families and of old people. The tax code is specifically designed to reduce the burden on them."
iris lily
9-18-12, 11:03am
IL, just for you...enjoy;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQu2SVFF-cU
That was funny! Just silly fun.
IL, just for you...enjoy;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQu2SVFF-cU
I saw that yesterday. Loved it!
iris lily
9-18-12, 11:12am
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/the-reasons-behind-the-people-who-pay-no-income-tax/
...
Put bluntly, these are not households shirking their tax liabilities. The pool consists mostly of the poor, of relatively low-income working families and of old people. The tax code is specifically designed to reduce the burden on them."
An argument could be made that they ARE shirking, that when everybody plays and pays, there is more thoughtful spending overall. I like this in theory.
And, if "you didn't build it" then those who aren't contributing to the infrastructure costs shouldn't use "it," if we are going tit for tat. The fact that successful business people contribute to the infrastructure in a disproportionate way when compared to working class single-moms who pay no taxes is something that our Prez DIDN'T chide anyone about.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?_r=0
a reply to the "shirking" concept... Btw, I definitely do not accept that my 85 year old parents, who receive SS, are shirkers. In fact, I believe that those who shirk are those who have the means and the loopholes, while you & I pay the lion's share. I'd sure like to know what Mr. Romney's tax returns look like...
ApatheticNoMore
9-18-12, 11:59am
The main reason so many Americans don't pay any federal income taxes is previous Republican tax cuts:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/17/romneys-theory-of-the-taker-class-and-why-it-matters/?wprss=rss_ezra-klei
(even then it's not so easy not to pay federal income taxes, like I said nearly impossible without dependents)
The main reason so many Americans don't pay any federal income taxes is previous Republican tax cuts:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/17/romneys-theory-of-the-taker-class-and-why-it-matters/?wprss=rss_ezra-klei
(even then it's not so easy not to pay federal income taxes, like I said nearly impossible without dependents)
So we just have everyone mail in a buck as federal income tax, everyone is then paying federal income tax and the problem goes away, right?
I'd sure like to know what Mr. Romney's tax returns look like...
Here you go. (http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/main) That's 2010 and estimated 2011. Yes, most of us think he should release more, but this is a start.
According to everything sifting our way (we Canadians way), definitions (according to MR), don't and won't matter.
Is everyone enjoying the newly released secret audio recording (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2voI91rN4Y) from MR's fundraiser?
We're enjoying it IMMENSELY, and will be vying for a front-row seat so we can watch his ship sink.
I still don't see what's wrong with every dollar anyone makes being exempt up to the HHS poverty line (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml) and every dollar above that being flat taxed at whatever figure would provide at least enough revenue to balance the budget. 15, 18, 20% whatever it is. The big payers will remain the big payers. The non-payers will, mostly anyway, remain the non-payers. The poverty line is only an idea because its non-partisan and there is no doubt people living below that level could use some support. Do away with most deductions. Keep medical hardship deductions because we are compassionate and student loan deductions so we still encourage education. Maybe a couple others, maybe not. Simple is good.
According to everything sifting our way (we Canadians way), definitions (according to MR), don't and won't matter.
Is everyone enjoying the newly released secret audio recording (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2voI91rN4Y) from MR's fundraiser?
We're enjoying it IMMENSELY, and will be vying for a front-row seat so we can watch his ship sink.
I would have guessed that the Romney campaign was the source of that audio.
Is everyone enjoying the newly released secret audio recording (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2voI91rN4Y) from MR's fundraiser?
The guy is just freepin' clueless. And he presents an interesting quandary. Romney's running mate has made a career out of drinking from the public trough. Michelle Bachmann, darling of the Tea Party, forgets that she herself has drawn a government paycheck for more than a decade now. So has John Boehner. And now everyone who's ever accepted government money, whether it is welfare, Medicare, Social Security (and SSDI), a deployment in the Armed Forces, a farm subsidy, or a credit on their income tax for being a left-handed minority purchaser of railroad-retirement credits -- is a moocher?
I gotta think at this point that it's not so much that people like Romney so much -- it's that they hate Obama so much. In which case, maybe Romney's election will show people what blind hatred can do.
I still don't see what's wrong with every dollar anyone makes being exempt up to the HHS poverty line (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml) and every dollar above that being flat taxed at whatever figure would provide at least enough revenue to balance the budget. 15, 18, 20% whatever it is. The big payers will remain the big payers. The non-payers will, mostly anyway, remain the non-payers. The poverty line is only an idea because its non-partisan and there is no doubt people living below that level could use some support. Do away with most deductions. Keep medical hardship deductions because we are compassionate and student loan deductions so we still encourage education. Maybe a couple others, maybe not. Simple is good.
Better yet, emulate the much-maligned Europeans and make higher education and health care affordable (again, as it once was here) as well. I'd vote for something like that. Our tax code is a labyrinth of special treatment and social engineering and ought to be completely revamped, IMO.
ApatheticNoMore
9-18-12, 1:47pm
Is everyone enjoying the newly released secret audio recording from MR's fundraiser?
We're enjoying it IMMENSELY, and will be vying for a front-row seat so we can watch his ship sink.
Yea, and to some extent I don't get it. I don't get why people get so upset by Romney saying they are lazy moochers he doesn't care about (and I get that this is insulting) but not upset by a President that says that he should have the right to imprison ANY OF THEM without trial, and who fights for this right (heck proclaims the right to murder them). I don't get it!!! I think I never will. Sticks and stones will break my bones, and the right to indefinitely detain and rendition will break the body and the mind, but words will never hurt me. Now actually cuts to programs might hurt and that is a subject for debate, but all this is is a bunch of words.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."
While I don't agree with the underlying philosophy here, I think it's true that many people in this country are so hard up economically that the ONLY issues they care about are economic ones. And I find it troubling. Like hello in the big picture the long term state of the planet is more important than jobs today ....
The whole Patriot Act (sic) is completely unconstitutional, IMO. (But since I'm no Constitutional scholar, perhaps someone can explain to me why due process is out and unreasonable search and seizure is in, and it's A-OK.) People have protested--I've written a letter or two--but for the most part, we seem to have lost our will to stand up to our "betters, " so we get what we get.
I saw Jesse Ventura (an American original) interviewed recently. He was explaining that he no longer flies due to his aversion to being groped and irradiated like he's some kind of felon when he has served his country repeatedly as a SEAL, a mayor, and a governor, and is instantly recognizable--though that's beside the point. The interviewer twitted him like he was the off-base one, but he wasn't. We are like lambs to the slaughter.
A timely graph (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/18/161337343/the-47-percent-in-one-graphic?utm_source=NPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20120903)from NPR showing who the 47% are. Nothing too surprising.
A timely graph (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/18/161337343/the-47-percent-in-one-graphic?utm_source=NPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20120903)from NPR showing who the 47% are. Nothing too surprising.
I glanced at the graphic down the page a bit where it shows what people do on weekends. I cracked myself up by reading "groaning, etc." for "grooming, etc." I love me.
Better yet, emulate the much-maligned Europeans and make higher education and health care affordable (again, as it once was here) as well. I'd vote for something like that. Our tax code is a labyrinth of special treatment and social engineering and ought to be completely revamped, IMO.
We don't disagree here Jane. The end result of paying for education and health care through higher taxes vs. tax credits is essentially the same, people end up cared for and/or educated. The only real reason I like my way more is because the money doesn't have to flow through the government to accomplish the goal. It's one typically expensive and often inefficient layer removed from the process. Oversight is different than management and I have no problem with a government that oversees programs to make sure everything is working as it should. I just don't think they need a hand in every cookie jar.
Is everyone enjoying the newly released secret audio recording (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2voI91rN4Y) from MR's fundraiser?
Personally, I find it deeply troubling, and an indication of a national party in big trouble. I wish for multiple robust national parties! The data is clear; the more political parties, the higher voter turnout. The GOP has some grassroots work to do, and I hope they do it. Because, though I am a progressive bordering on socialist, I definitely value living in a pluralistic society, one that is a democratic republic.
Though I do confess to being quite jealous of the Canadian tradition of a six week campaign season!
We don't disagree here Jane. The end result of paying for education and health care through higher taxes vs. tax credits is essentially the same, people end up cared for and/or educated. The only real reason I like my way more is because the money doesn't have to flow through the government to accomplish the goal. It's one typically expensive and often inefficient layer removed from the process. Oversight is different than management and I have no problem with a government that oversees programs to make sure everything is working as it should. I just don't think they need a hand in every cookie jar.
I'm not sure the government needs to be heavily involved. What seems to drive the costs of any sector of the commons way up is "privatization." As soon as an organization has to turn a profit, costs start to skyrocket--and they have to go up and up and up to satisfy stockholders year after year. And quality generally suffers apace. Profit is fine in commerce; not so fine in health care, corrections, education, utilities...
ApatheticNoMore
9-18-12, 2:52pm
I'm not sure the government needs to be heavily involved. What seems to drive the costs of any sector of the commons way up is "privatization."
I think what drives cost up the most is non-genuine privitization, which yes is what often goes by the name of "privitization" - where there are both private profits and heavy government involvement - that is a guaranteed disaster from an economic perspective IMO. Whereas the private sector can work well and government can work well, I have doubts that the combination *EVER* does. And that combination would be govenrment sponsored financial aid to private colleges? Yes. And that combination is banks at this point? Yes. And that combination would be Obamacare? Yea ... I think that's how it will turn out, no real measures to cut cost, mandated spending, privatized profits.
Amazing how much consensus we can gin up, with a little palaver.
According to everything sifting our way (we Canadians way), definitions (according to MR), don't and won't matter.
Is everyone enjoying the newly released secret audio recording (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2voI91rN4Y) from MR's fundraiser?
We're enjoying it IMMENSELY, and will be vying for a front-row seat so we can watch his ship sink.
I think I can usually stay fairly objective on political issues, but this one went to far for me. He is basically saying that about half of the country he is proposing to lead, including the poor, disabled, and elderly, are parasites and unable to care for themselves without government entitlements. I'm sure he will try to qualify his statements with politically correct rhetoric, but in this candid talk he revealed what he is truly thinking. It would really be nice to have a choice of two good candidates in the election, and truth be told it wouldn't take much to defeat Obama. But Romney is a bonehead (I hate to resort to name calling, but I think he just called me some names).
If this isn't the last straw for his defeat, it should be.
We don't disagree here Jane. The end result of paying for education and health care through higher taxes vs. tax credits is essentially the same, people end up cared for and/or educated. The only real reason I like my way more is because the money doesn't have to flow through the government to accomplish the goal. It's one typically expensive and often inefficient layer removed from the process. Oversight is different than management and I have no problem with a government that oversees programs to make sure everything is working as it should. I just don't think they need a hand in every cookie jar.
But they don't always end up educated and cared for (health wise). You are assuming everyone can PAY for these services up front in order to CLAIM the tax credit. That's just not true. I can get health care for my family, but maybe my neighbor can't. so, no tax credit for him...no health care either. Same with education, but that's another thread altogether. But, if we all pay in what we can pay in, then we can all benefit. It's just a big co-op with health care, and the ones who are going to get screwed are the ones in the republican states who BY GOLLY AIN'T GONNA SET UP THE INSURANCE EXCHANGE FOR THEIR CITIZENS NO WAY NO HOW!
You know Obamacare isn't a tax. You know that. The only ones who will be 'taxed' will BE the slackers who can afford it but won't, expecting to get care anyway when they break a leg or get in a car accident, or have a heart attack. It's that whole pesky personal responsibility thing the republicans USED to be for it, before they were against it.
Government is big, I'll give you that. And I'm sure there are ways to trim it. Military for instance, but I think we all are pretty much in agreement there. But where we disagree is in the government-as-enemy meme. You see it as some sort of huge monster swallowing you bit by bit, but I see it as a tool that we ourselves decided we wanted to help order this huge and vastly complicated country.
So which programs would you get rid of? Which service that the government does do you want to get rid of? I'm asking seriously.
In one breath you say 47% don't pay federal income taxes but in the next say folks could take care of themselves with the aid of...tax credits! Are we just throwing that 47% under the bus? Or maybe they really don't matter, as Romney says, so who cares.
By the way, least anyone thinks those 47% are just laying on the couch eating bon bon's and watching Oprah, they DO in fact pay taxes, lots of taxes. They pay school tax and road tax and food tax and state tax and city tax, and SS and medicare and all the other paycheck withholding, just like everyone else. Every purchase they make, every bill they pay, they pay! Which means they pay taxes on ALL their income cause they aren't socking it away offshore in a secret account set up just to avoid taxes. No dancing horse deductions for the average working person (which deduction, I believe, was higher than the average yearly income for the average American)
The GOP has some grassroots work to do, and I hope they do it.
Alas, Redfox, it was pretty clear to me at the WA state GOP convention that those who run the party in at least our state have little interest in the opinions or participation of anyone under about the age of 50. Except that they of course still expect the votes, financial support, and labor from that demographic...
It was very educational to see. I think it will take a generational change for the GOP to move forward.
But they don't always end up educated and cared for (health wise). You are assuming everyone can PAY for these services up front in order to CLAIM the tax credit.
No peggy, I'm really not. I was speaking in very general terms and, generally, I would like to see less government involvement as opposed to more. Less and none are not the same thing. I've stated time and again that I believe we should care for our citizens that can't care for themselves. Because they are poor or invalid or ill or physically/mentally challenged...it doesn't matter, we should make sure they have access to whatever it is that will increase their quality of life. That has been echoed over and over, without fail, by members here that sit to your political right. Why is it that you refuse to see any middle ground between your way of accomplishing that and "throwing them under the bus"? Wanna know why I think there is so much gridlock in Washington?
I'm not sure the government needs to be heavily involved. What seems to drive the costs of any sector of the commons way up is "privatization." As soon as an organization has to turn a profit, costs start to skyrocket--and they have to go up and up and up to satisfy stockholders year after year. And quality generally suffers apace. Profit is fine in commerce; not so fine in health care, corrections, education, utilities...
Emphasis mine. My experience has been that to maximize profit, which is the general goal of business, costs must be very closely managed. If allowed to run unchecked cost overruns will destroy any size business. Or government.
Emphasis mine. My experience has been that to maximize profit, which is the general goal of business, costs must be very closely managed. If allowed to run unchecked cost overruns will destroy any size business. Or government.
My experience as well. The for-profit businesses I have worked with over the years have generally been much more efficient, and thoughtful about their spending and planning, than the non-profit businesses. Probably because the for-profit enterprises actually had to make their books balance through their own efforts, and couldn't rely on Yet Another Grant/Big Donor to swoop in and save the day.
ApatheticNoMore
9-18-12, 3:38pm
Emphasis mine. My experience has been that to maximize profit, which is the general goal of business, costs must be very closely managed. If allowed to run unchecked cost overruns will destroy any size business. Or government.
You have never worked for a large company I guess :). I worked one job where for months and months they didn't have any work for us! I left when I could. Not it wasn't unionizied, the fault isn't with some easy conservative scapegoat, it's the inefficency inheritent in corporate America. They didn't eventually go bankrupt, in the long long long run stuff catches up .... (but it can take decades)
One thing I find depressing is while the video of Romney is finding critics, his spiel was tailor made for an audience who seemed to be quite receptive to this kind of argument.
My experience as well. The for-profit businesses I have worked with over the years have generally been much more efficient, and thoughtful about their spending and planning, than the non-profit businesses. Probably because the for-profit enterprises actually had to make their books balance through their own efforts, and couldn't rely on Yet Another Grant/Big Donor to swoop in and save the day.
Well run non-profits don't rely on saviours, they plan & manage well. I am framing a serious talking-to with my board, who drafted a fabulous strategic plan, and no way to fund it, prior to hiring me. I may have made an error saying yes to this org., and I suspect they hired me due to my fundraising background. Well, they will be getting my expertise! We have some work to do to get financially stable.
All businesses - and non-profits are indeed businesses - understand that some lines of business need to be subsidized for a time by other lines of business if they hit a rough patch or are start-ups. Each business needs to assess its own risk tolerance.
And some non-profits are supported solely by donor dollars, but the majority have several streams of income, including earned income & donated income.
Well run non-profits don't rely on saviours, they plan & manage well.
Indeed so. As I'm sure you've seen from your own experience, they aren't always all that well-run. (Well, neither are many for-profit businesses, but they tend to fade away on their own unless the government steps in to give them vats of money too to keep them going. cough cough).
As you know, up here where I live, we have roughly one non-profit organization for each resident of the country, and "well-run" is a dream for most of them. "Free grant money" (which is never really "free") and donors stepping in at the 11th hour are the order of the day, it is quite frustrating.
Emphasis mine. My experience has been that to maximize profit, which is the general goal of business, costs must be very closely managed. If allowed to run unchecked cost overruns will destroy any size business. Or government.
Uh...I'm pretty sure she meant costs to US. Not cost to the business. Our cost go up, way up! When the bottom line is profit, and not service, OUR costs go up.
No peggy, I'm really not. I was speaking in very general terms and, generally, I would like to see less government involvement as opposed to more. Less and none are not the same thing. I've stated time and again that I believe we should care for our citizens that can't care for themselves. Because they are poor or invalid or ill or physically/mentally challenged...it doesn't matter, we should make sure they have access to whatever it is that will increase their quality of life. That has been echoed over and over, without fail, by members here that sit to your political right. Why is it that you refuse to see any middle ground between your way of accomplishing that and "throwing them under the bus"? Wanna know why I think there is so much gridlock in Washington?
Gregg, I can absolutely agree with trimming the budget, as I have stated plenty of times on these forums, if you cared to read. But I have also said, realistically, which programs should be trimmed, military, farm subsidies, political pet projects to pay back a favored donor. But you haven't said exactly which programs you want to cut.
Saying 'Let's cut the budget and trim the fat' sounds good, looks great on a bumper sticker, but the realities of it are more complicated, and difficult.
think about all the programs the government controls or oversees, roads, schools, air, water, food inspection/protection, SS, medicare, medicaid, welfare, unemployment/retraining, etc....(and there are hundreds, if not thousands if you get on the local level) and say, which ones would you cut? Which ones would you eliminate and how would you deal with the outcome? Talk is cheap. Real cuts are hard work, which is why I'm sure, Romney won't give any specifics cause he doesn't want to do the hard work.(and really, do you think he would actually cut a dime from any of his donors, big agriculture, bit energy, any big business really?)
So, specifically, which programs is bothering you? Surely you have some in mind when you demand we 'cut spending and trim fat'
Here, I'll start off.
Stop tax exempt status for churches and their holdings. Our constitution states no establishment of religion, so let them apply for tax exempt like every other non profit. Each and every church, temple, synagogue, whatever. Let them prove that they deserve it. Of course, this would increase the pressure of the parishioners to support the church and it's ambitions, and it also might cause the church to pull back on some of it's charitable doings, but hey, consequence of action.
Close all bases in each state except one. Of each service if necessary, keeping in mind the various needs of each service. This is do-able. (Notice I don't say close all bases, as that is just a bumper sticker rally cry and not really feasible in this day and age) I'm trying to talk realities here. Of course, that would send thousands more into unemployment, and some communities would really suffer economically, not to mention the lack of a ready troop to go off and fight whichever war the leader deems necessary. (not necessarily a bad thing)
Most farm subsidies could go away. (I find it terribly ironic that all those good corn fed republicans are trampling each other to get federal aid in this drought. As Steven Colbert said, "It's Obamacare for corn") Of course this would raise the price of food, quite a bit I'm sure. Everything has consequence, and for every action there is a reaction.
So that's three things I can see just of the top of my head. And trust me Gregg, despite all the war cries and whooping it up and calls to 'take the country back', the republican congress has no more guts to do these than a democratic congress. Sure, it's pretty easy, and not very courageous to toss grandma under the buss with SS and medicare, but let's talk the real money sucks. Let's talk military. Let's talk farm subsidy, and let's talk the consequences of both.
Let's talk the middle ground. I've tried many times before to talk the middle ground, but all I've gotten is bumper sticker sound bites, and quotes in Latin, and accusations of being a socialist.
They bring value to the state in the form of jobs and payroll taxes. The state only has to do the math and see if its better to keep the company and jobs there of to lose them. The company being based there is an asset, they are in the business to make money for the shareholders. Would you rather they have moved?
I would rather they be the free-market capitalists they claim to be. I would rather that states declare, in unison, that they will not cave in to blackmail by corporations threatening to move to another state. I would rather that taxpayer money be used for the common good, as it was intended: police, fire, roads, schools, libraries, bridges, parks, etc. I would rather that the other corporations in that state who see this news not run down to the state capitol where their hands out for a check, but I'm sure they're on their way to their state rep right now because now what's to stop them from declaring their intention to move out of state? Where does it end? And doesn't the talk about "entitlements" have to include the corporations demanding payouts?
iris lily
9-18-12, 10:03pm
I would rather they be the free-market capitalists they claim to be. I would rather that states declare, in unison, that they will not cave in to blackmail by corporations threatening to move to another state. ...
Yes, as Jonah Goldberg said recently the problem is that Republican politicians have been supporting business rather than the market. That's partly why we are in the fix that we are in.
mtnlaurel
9-18-12, 10:33pm
Here is a question I have had for a long time....
Why does anyone think that the Free Market gives a rat's a** about the United States of America?
To me it's our gov's responsibility to have our country in line to benefit and ride the waves of Free Market to our nation's benefit....
Just because the US relinquishes things to the Free Market, it does not mean that our country or citizenry will benefit.
ApatheticNoMore
9-18-12, 11:31pm
Is everyone enjoying the newly released secret audio recording from MR's fundraiser?
We're enjoying it IMMENSELY, and will be vying for a front-row seat so we can watch his ship sink.
I am digusted with Obama, so I can't see anyone being too thrilled with the outcome of this which is at best only 4 more years of a pretty horrible president.
But I don't EVEN think an Obama victory is going to benefit the Dems long term. For one thing he's horrible and I feel we have horrible policies coming (kinda regardless of who wins but the winner will take the backlash), but for a second thing the economy is on incredibly shaky ground, problems in Europe threaten to hit hard, a recovery that is barely a recovery, and we are running harder and harder just to stand still with monetary policy at present. When you have to pump 40 billion every month just to keep asset prices up and allegedly to help the economy hmm it doesn't seem like it would be sustainable. So if the economic Tsunami hits and when there is a backlash which will mostly be about it but also against and whatever continuing other horrible policies we have - involvement in the middle east, trade policies, completely fake liberalism, potential cuts to Medicare and Social Security etc. etc., then the Democrats will lose big in the house and senate which matter a lot more for most things anyway, matter a lot more than a sell out president at any rate.
According to everything sifting our way (we Canadians way), definitions (according to MR), don't and won't matter.
Is everyone enjoying the newly released secret audio recording (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2voI91rN4Y) from MR's fundraiser?
We're enjoying it IMMENSELY, and will be vying for a front-row seat so we can watch his ship sink.
OH, ok, well, he's apologised. It's all good!
http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-apologizes-to-nations-150-million-starving,29603/?fb_action_ids=10151085202785617&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210151085202785617%22%3A409 656492416621%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151085202785617%22%3A%22og .likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=[]
(OH, I'm sorry, I don't know how to make that smaller!)
From the article:
“First and foremost, I would like to offer a heartfelt apology to all the whores, junkies, bums, and grime-covered derelicts out there who make up nearly half our nation,” a visibly contrite and solemn Romney said outside a campaign stop at a local high school. “Let me assure you that I in no way meant to offend any of the putrid-smelling, barefoot masses out there. My campaign is not about dividing this nation, but about bringing all sides together—the rich, elegant members of the upper class, as well as the 47 percent who are covered in flies and eat directly from back-alley dumpsters.”
Let's talk the middle ground.
Fair enough peggy, we agree more than we disagree most of the time. Here's my take on a little bit of it just to show you that's true.
The military budget really is the low hanging fruit in most of our minds. End all wars...today. The President absolutely can do that if he wishes. Scale back to maybe 10 bases around the world that are shared by all branches. Keep a few additional "listening posts" to make sure there are no holes in the net. Bow out of NATO. Scale back to maybe 20 domestic bases including the Pentagon, SAC, etc. (this will be the hardest sell). Realistically determine what the greatest threats to this country will be in the next 50 or 100 years and gear our defense strategy toward addressing those in the most efficient manner possible.
End all foreign aid except for humanitarian aid.
Make the submission of an unbalanced budget an impeachable offence.
End ALL subsidies to every business, corporation, industry, union or any other private sector venture. EVERY one. Let the free markets work. There would be initial price spikes, but prices would eventually settle right where they should be. That's how it works.
End PACs and Super-PACs. Make the maximum contribution allowed from any source to any political candidate or entity be $1,000. Make our election cycle 6 weeks like our neighbors to the north. Those kinds of very strict limits should help curb some of the pork barrel politics.
Reform the tax codes. No tax up to the poverty line then 20% on every dollar everyone makes above that. As before, eliminate almost every write off. Remember that things like the mortgage interest deduction would go away. That is nothing but a subsidy for the homebuilders, realtors and bankers anyway. No spoon full of sugar in that medicine, but again the free markets would adjust themselves.
Although its only quasi-governmental, remove the insurance industry from healthcare. We don't nee them. Also prosecute to the full extent of the law anyone engaging in Medicare fraud. It's rampant and needs to be dealt with in a severe enough fashion to simply make it not worth the risk.
Spend some of the savings on infrastructure, qualified education (not everyone needs to go to college, but all should have the opportunity), healthCARE not just health insurance, eliminating, not just reducing, our dependence on foreign oil, cleaning up our environment and insuring we don't re-pollute it going forward, etc. Oh yea, reduce the debt, too.
iris lily
9-19-12, 11:48am
A timely graph (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/18/161337343/the-47-percent-in-one-graphic?utm_source=NPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20120903)from NPR showing who the 47% are. Nothing too surprising.
NPR was falling all over themselves yesterday tearing apart Mitt's 47% talk. It was the center of the show for the afternoon talk show host, and he ended his show by saying gleefully "we'll have more on this on All Things Considered in the next hour, and tomorrow's programming" and I thought to myself, "what about Tom Ashbrook's show tonight, isn't he going to cover it as well?" and sho 'nuf Tom 's show centered on the 47% as well. Ha ha they are so predictable. But in the end, they are probably covering this extensively (outside of the fact that they think it will tank Mitt Romney's campaign) because there is a lot to discuss in the whole concept of who does pay income tax and why and what that means.
I suppose that NPR just couldn't find enough in Barack Obama's comment about how they cling to their guns and religion to devote 24/7 programming to it. And, I have to agree, Obama's comment was simply an ignorant, divisive opinion, nothing there to analyze.
I am so glad we are focusing on deconstructing one-liners by candidates, instead of talking about the wars, our rotting infrastructure, our failing educational system, or a dozen other unimportant issues.
The Storyteller
9-19-12, 1:19pm
I am so glad we are focusing on deconstructing one-liners by candidates, instead of talking about the wars, our rotting infrastructure, our failing educational system, or a dozen other unimportant issues.
As if it would make a difference.
This is just a sounding board for people to entertain themselves. Nothing that gets said here matters, and nobody is convincing anyone else. It is what we do and where that counts.
Therefore, I think folks are fine talking about whatever they want.
The Storyteller
9-19-12, 1:37pm
I suppose that NPR just couldn't find enough in Barack Obama's comment about how they cling to their guns and religion to devote 24/7 programming to it.
Considering it was made four years ago and analyzed to death at the time, I'm not too surprised.
ApatheticNoMore
9-19-12, 1:45pm
It does seem to be the thing to talk about in the larger political blogosphere. I don't understand how anyone continually falls for political propaganda and such attempts to make mountains out of molehills (that's when the politicians are not busy claiming the mountains right in front of your eyes are just little molehills you shouldn't worry about).
The Storyteller
9-19-12, 1:46pm
I am digusted with Obama, so I can't see anyone being too thrilled with the outcome of this which is at best only 4 more years of a pretty horrible president.
But I don't EVEN think an Obama victory is going to benefit the Dems long term. For one thing he's horrible and I feel we have horrible policies coming (kinda regardless of who wins but the winner will take the backlash), but for a second thing the economy is on incredibly shaky ground, problems in Europe threaten to hit hard, a recovery that is barely a recovery, and we are running harder and harder just to stand still with monetary policy at present.
I don't agree at all. His positions and actions on health care and the environment are outstanding, and his actions most certainly saved us from another Great Depression. I think he has been a great president.
And for those of us involved in sustainable agriculture, this administration has been a godsend. Things are definitely moving in the right direction.
Considering it was made four years ago and analyzed to death at the time, I'm not too surprised.
You know, it's practically impossible to prove a negative so I won't even try, but I know with absolutely certainty that NPR did not devote hours of programming to it.
The Storyteller
9-19-12, 1:55pm
I don't understand how anyone continually falls for political propaganda
I resent propaganda, regardless where it comes from. As a regular contributor to various Democratic causes and the Obama campaign, I receive this crap in my inbox all the time, and I hate it. Blowing little things way out of proportion to try to wring more money out of me. It is completely unnecessary. I'm perfectly capable of seeing through the crap on both sides and making my own decisions. Those decisions are based not on day to day happenings or minutia of the campaign, but on my basic life philosophy and how the parties or candidates best line up with them.
Just as my friends on the right believe another 4 years of Obama would be a disaster, I believe a Romney administration would be a disaster. A gigantic mistake, counter to pretty much everything I believe in. Our economy barely survived the last Republican administration. I'm not sure it would this time, not so soon before we have even fully recovered.
The Storyteller
9-19-12, 1:56pm
You know, it's practically impossible to prove a negative so I won't even try, but I know with absolutely certainty that NPR did not devote hours of programming to it.
That's not how I remember it, but okay.
That's not how I remember it, but okay.
Well, I am somewhat mollified if you can attest that NPR covered that gaffe even for 10 minutes of programming. So what did they do, poke at rednecks and ask themselves why guns are so attractive to that sad sorry group? just kidding, no response necessary. I listen to NPR constantly but am constantly amazed that they can't hear themselves.
You know, it's practically impossible to prove a negative so I won't even try, but I know with absolutely certainty that NPR did not devote hours of programming to it.
Although it may not have been the dedicated programming yesterday on NPR, here is a little blog post on NPR.com that compares Mitt's "47%" vs. Obama's "clinging"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/09/18/161335578/the-difference-between-romneys-mooching-47-and-obamas-bitter-votersi
I had never heard much of Obama's 'clinging to guns' talk beyond that sentence or two that caught national attention 4 years ago and when you see the whole talk you understand why just the 'clinging' part was plucked out for use.
I learned about the full context of the clinging talk on MSNBC yesterday (which I am convinced that Mitt is on the payroll of MSNBC, Colbert & Jon Stewart b/c of his endless source of material for programming).
Here is Obama's Clinging Talk in full taken from NPR link above:
"OBAMA: So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.
Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).
But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing."
To me, this is NOT writing off a huge segment of the population, but rather trying to get different parts of the country to understand where folks are coming from and the why.
Well, I am somewhat mollified if you can attest that NPR covered that gaffe even for 10 minutes of programming. So what did they do, poke at rednecks and ask themselves why guns are so attractive to that sad sorry group? just kidding, no response necessary. I listen to NPR constantly but am constantly amazed that they can't hear themselves.
You will love this Iris Lily, trust me:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-5-2012/hope-and-change-2---the-party-of-inclusion
Edit to Add: I grew up in Snuffy Smith country and family has been there since before my state was in the Union.... and I also Cling to My Guns and Religion, but am voting Obama '12.
Although it may not have been the dedicated programming yesterday on NPR, here is a little blog post on NPR.com that compares Mitt's "47%" vs. Obama's "clinging"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/09/18/161335578/the-difference-between-romneys-mooching-47-and-obamas-bitter-votersi
I had never heard much of Obama's 'clinging to guns' talk beyond that sentence or two that caught national attention 4 years ago and when you see the whole talk you understand why just the 'clinging' part was plucked out for use.
I learned about the full context of the clinging talk on MSNBC yesterday (which I am convinced that Mitt is on the payroll of MSNBC, Colbert & Jon Stewart b/c of his endless source of material for programming).
Here is Obama's Clinging Talk in full taken from NPR link above:
"OBAMA: So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.
Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).
But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing."
To me, this is NOT writing off a huge segment of the population, but rather trying to get different parts of the country to understand where folks are coming from and the why.
It is good to read the whole thing. In it we can see that Obama, instead of dismissing these folks, says we need to reach out to them. He doesn't denigrate them and call them mooches and victims and such. He says the reason they 'cling' (vote) to their guns and religion is because they have been beat down by the economy. He is actually sympathising with them.
He could have taken the easy way out and said , they won't vote for me cause I'm black, but he rejected that. Instead he states very clearly why these people are voting with their guns (NRA) and religion (christian right). They are just tired of a bad economy in their particular manufacturing areas and maybe know that those jobs aren't coming back. It certainly wasn't a very elegant thing to say, and he could have put the sentiment way better, but the big difference between his 'misspeak' and Romney's 'misspeak' is that Obama was saying we need to reach out to these people who are just having a tough time, and Romney was saying forget these folks, these 'victims' who expect the government to do everything for them (did he lean over and spit when he said that?) He was denigrating them and had no intention what so ever of reaching out to nearly half the country, as he defined it.
This was one of my problems with Bush. He never intended, or even pretended, to be my President. He was the President of those who elected him, and everyone else who cares! Romney is of the same cloth.
Fair enough peggy, we agree more than we disagree most of the time. Here's my take on a little bit of it just to show you that's true.
The military budget really is the low hanging fruit in most of our minds. End all wars...today. The President absolutely can do that if he wishes. Scale back to maybe 10 bases around the world that are shared by all branches. Keep a few additional "listening posts" to make sure there are no holes in the net. Bow out of NATO. Scale back to maybe 20 domestic bases including the Pentagon, SAC, etc. (this will be the hardest sell). Realistically determine what the greatest threats to this country will be in the next 50 or 100 years and gear our defense strategy toward addressing those in the most efficient manner possible.
End all foreign aid except for humanitarian aid.
Make the submission of an unbalanced budget an impeachable offence.
End ALL subsidies to every business, corporation, industry, union or any other private sector venture. EVERY one. Let the free markets work. There would be initial price spikes, but prices would eventually settle right where they should be. That's how it works.
End PACs and Super-PACs. Make the maximum contribution allowed from any source to any political candidate or entity be $1,000. Make our election cycle 6 weeks like our neighbors to the north. Those kinds of very strict limits should help curb some of the pork barrel politics.
Reform the tax codes. No tax up to the poverty line then 20% on every dollar everyone makes above that. As before, eliminate almost every write off. Remember that things like the mortgage interest deduction would go away. That is nothing but a subsidy for the homebuilders, realtors and bankers anyway. No spoon full of sugar in that medicine, but again the free markets would adjust themselves.
Although its only quasi-governmental, remove the insurance industry from healthcare. We don't nee them. Also prosecute to the full extent of the law anyone engaging in Medicare fraud. It's rampant and needs to be dealt with in a severe enough fashion to simply make it not worth the risk.
Spend some of the savings on infrastructure, qualified education (not everyone needs to go to college, but all should have the opportunity), healthCARE not just health insurance, eliminating, not just reducing, our dependence on foreign oil, cleaning up our environment and insuring we don't re-pollute it going forward, etc. Oh yea, reduce the debt, too.
Well Gregg, I agree with just about everything you have laid out.
I agree with the tax, including capitol gains cause in my book that's income.
I agree with the military bits. You're right, that will be hard cause neither side wants to give up bases in their districts. This is why, even though they have had several rounds of base closings, they haven't been able to close more because representatives fight it tooth and nail. This is why I proposed each state pick one base, fight it out among themselves, to start. Something like this has to be done in degrees.
I certainly am for withdrawing overseas subsidies (bribes) except for humanitarian, but here we need to set strict parameters on what is humanitarian because they can couch all sorts of under the table deeds in 'humanitarian aid'. I think becoming energy independent is so important as so many geopolitical problems will magically fade when we do. I say stop the fighting, gracefully, gradually, as in Iraq, and put that 'savings' into energy R&D. We will have to be firm with our 'friends' as to why we are stopping the gravy train, and I expect we would get some mighty big hissy fits, along with threats and posturing, but we should hold fast and strong.
(We need to retain Hillary and re-hire Madeline Albright. Two tough cookies who I think would just love to tell it like it is!)
All excellent ideas!:+1:
In my dreamworld post 2012 election, Southern Democrats (not the Dixiecrats that missed the memo to go TeaParty-Repub) will join forces with Northern Republicans and get our government working again.
(Sorry Westerners for leaving you out of my utopia)
ApatheticNoMore
9-19-12, 3:02pm
He could have taken the easy way out and said , they won't vote for me cause I'm black, but he rejected that. Instead he states very clearly why these people are voting with their guns (NRA) and religion (christian right).
He was talking about people voting for Hillary Clinton, tht is what the speach was in reference to. I didn't know Hillary was big with the religious right but hey ...
He was talking about people voting for Hillary Clinton, tht is what the speach was in reference to. I didn't know Hillary was big with the religious right but hey ...
Well I don't see that at all. He clearly says this is what WE are gonna have to do. I don't think he was working for Hill at the time..He was talking about the demographics and how they broke down dems V repubs. He was lamenting how everyone said those folks would never vote for a dem and he dismissed it as just him being black as some article suggested. He said it was because they were beat down in the economy and saw manufacturing jobs go away that wouldn't come back. This is why they would maybe 'cling' (vote) to their guns and religion.
Not his best moment, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about Hillary.
If I thought that paying more would actually reduce the debt and do some good, I would be all for it.
Political masturbation, but still amusing...
House passes new Buffett Rule
The House on Wednesday passed Republicans' own version of the Buffett Rule, which allows wealthy Americans to voluntarily pony up to reduce the deficit. The bill, labeled the Buffett Rule Act, passed by voice vote, meaning Democrats and Republicans agreed with it. Under the legislation, which would still need Senate approval, taxpayers could check a box on their taxes and send in a check for more than they owe to the IRS.....
Current law already allows taxpayers to send money to pay down the debt, but Republicans said that process is onerous. Under their new plan, taxpayers would have an easy option on their tax returns allowing them to pay more.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/sep/19/house-passes-new-buffett-rule/
ApatheticNoMore
9-19-12, 5:46pm
If I thought it wouldn't go to war and the security state, I'd pay more taxes. However war and the security state at this point pretty much ARE the government. Social Security and Medicare are at this point still self-funding I think (via payroll taxes). So the income tax mostly funds war.
Political masturbation, but still amusing...
They (as a group, not picking on one side or the other, and leaving room for the exceptions) always seem to have endless time for that.
If I thought it wouldn't go to war and the security state, I'd pay more taxes. However war and the security state at this point pretty much ARE the government. Social Security and Medicare are at this point still self-funding I think (via payroll taxes). So the income tax mostly funds war.
This is the primary reason I arrange my affairs to have as little income as possible, because I don't like participating in killing other people.
In my dreamworld post 2012 election, Southern Democrats (not the Dixiecrats that missed the memo to go TeaParty-Repub) will join forces with Northern Republicans and get our government working again.
(Sorry Westerners for leaving you out of my utopia)
That's OK. We're seceding anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movement%29
That's OK. We're seceding anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movement%29
And a glorious day it will be!
(My county sometimes grumbles about accelerating the process, and defecting to British Colombia, Pig War be-darned...)
ApatheticNoMore
9-19-12, 8:16pm
I have often fantasized about the seccession of California, only we need the water, that's why we've been at war with and drone bombing Arizona for the last decade. People say the war hasn't accomplished much, but we've secured the waterways and helped to preserve the California way of life. Oh wait ...
I have often fantasized about the seccession of California, ...
buh-bye!
Now Washington state, I'd made a Big Fuss about that leaving.
Although it may not have been the dedicated programming yesterday on NPR, here is a little blog post on NPR.com that compares Mitt's "47%" vs. Obama's "clinging"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/09/18/161335578/the-difference-between-romneys-mooching-47-and-obamas-bitter-votersi
[/FONT]
That was an interesting editorial, thanks for posting!
Time to post the "Dear Red States" secession letter from the Blue States. Been around the internet a while and some of it is outdated, but still pretty funny:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljokedearredstates.htm
@peggy: yes, I forgot about capitol gains. You're absolutely right, they should be taxed as income. Have we achieved d'etente?
@peggy: yes, I forgot about capitol gains. You're absolutely right, they should be taxed as income. Have we achieved d'etente?
We have! But then you are a moderate republican and I am a moderate democrat, which means we actually meet in the middle more often than not, but don't let those on the far right or left know cause their success is in keeping us divided!;)
mtnlaurel
9-20-12, 12:21pm
PeGGY-GreGG-2016
GoodGolly
GoodGovernment
GreGG-PeGGY-2016
Working Through Differences That Works!
We have! But then you are a moderate republican and I am a moderate democrat, which means we actually meet in the middle more often than not, but don't let those on the far right or left know cause their success is in keeping us divided!;)
Don't forget the tool of divisive Media that has made their ad sales easier by segmenting the market!
Not that rightie and leftie publications/media are new inventions, but now they seem to be on steroids.
Talk about a dog chasing his tail...
Fact Check On 47 Percent Comment:
True or false? Much of Romney's statement relies on assumptions about one demographic: The 47 percent of Americans who he says "pay no income tax." So is it true that 47 percent of Americans don't pay income tax? Essentially, yes, according to the (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/federal-taxes-households.cfm)the Tax Policy Center, which provides data showing that in 2011, 46.4 percent of American households paid no federal income tax. The same data shows, however, that nearly two-thirds of households that paid no income tax did pay payroll taxes. And most people also pay some combination of state, local, sales, gas and property taxes.
In order to assess whether or not, as Romney claims, these non-income tax payers "will vote for the president no matter what," it's helpful to look at a breakdown of who they are. According to2011 data (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=3057) from the Tax Policy Center, more than half of the filing units not paying income taxes are those with incomes less than $16,812 per year. Nearly a third - 29.2 percent - of those paying no income taxes are tax filers earning between $16,812 and $33,542, and 12.8 percent are those with incomes between $33,542 and $59,486. In other words, the poor are least likely to pay federal income taxes, but many middle-class families are also exempt. Smaller but significant numbers of the higher-income earners are also exempt: The same data shows that in 2011, 78,000 tax filers with incomes between $211,000 and $533,000 paid no income taxes; 24,000 households with incomes of $533,000 to $2.2 million paid no income taxes, and 3,000 tax filers with incomes above $2.2 million paid no income taxes.
Overall, according to (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001547-Why-No-Income-Tax.pdf)the Tax Policy Center, "of the 38 million tax units made nontaxable by the addition of tax expenditures, 44 percent are moved off the tax rolls by elderly tax benefits and another 30 percent by credits for children and the working poor."
Moreover, only 18.1 percent of American households paid neither federal income taxes nor payroll taxes in 2011, says the Tax Policy Center (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/federal-taxes-households.cfm). Of that 18.1 percent, 10.3 percent were elderly and 6.9 percent were non-elderly households earning less than $20,000 year, which include low-income families and students. About one in 20 is non-elderly with income over $20,000.
At least one of the demographics that is less likely to pay income taxes (or income and payroll taxes) tends to vote Republican: In 2008, voters 65 and over voted for Republican nominee John McCain over President Obama 53 percent to 45 percent, an eight-point margin. The latest CBS News/New York Times poll also shows Romney winning the support of these voters nationally: 53 percent of voters 65 and older support Romney and 38 percent support Mr. Obama.
Voters in households with household incomes of less than $30,000 a year tend to favor Mr. Obama, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll, with 61 percent supporting the president and 32 percent supporting Romney. The president's margin narrows significantly when only white voters in this income group are sampled: Among white voters earning less than $30,000, 52 percent supported Mr. Obama and 40 percent supported Romney. The race is even tighter when you look at white voters with household incomes under $50,000. Forty-six percent of those voters say they support Mr. Obama, and 47 percent support Romney, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll.
Additionally, according to 2008 data from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation (http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/20100524-229-nonpayers-map-.jpg), eight of the top 10 states with the lowest income tax liability are Republican-leaning states. The other two are Florida, a battleground state, and New Mexico, which CBS News rates (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57499228/obama-has-slight-edge-in-electoral-map-estimate/?tag=mncol;lst;3)as likely Obama territory.
PeGGY-GreGG-2016
GoodGolly
GoodGovernment
GreGG-PeGGY-2016
Working Through Differences That Works!
LOL! If America can stand policy drafted over margaritas on Peggy's dock, I'm in.
ApatheticNoMore
9-20-12, 2:46pm
It doesn't exactly take much reasoning to show that the number of people that will vote for "Obama no matter what" (registered Dems maybe?) doesn't perfectly overlap with the 47% who pay no income taxes. I mean that self-evident, it really is a Venn diagram. And it isn't even my purely anecdotal experience of who will vote for Obama, it's like they've never met a blue state professional! Ha, there's also a small demographic more or less voluntarily poor, system opt-outers, they probalby won't vote for Romney either but shrug. But yea determining the degree of the overlap is a statistics question.
In order to assess whether or not, as Romney claims, these non-income tax payers "will vote for the president no matter what," it's helpful to look at a breakdown of who they are. According to2011 data (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=3057) from the Tax Policy Center, more than half of the filing units not paying income taxes are those with incomes less than $16,812 per year. Nearly a third - 29.2 percent - of those paying no income taxes are tax filers earning between $16,812 and $33,542, and 12.8 percent are those with incomes between $33,542 and $59,486. In other words, the poor are least likely to pay federal income taxes, but many middle-class families are also exempt. Smaller but significant numbers of the higher-income earners are also exempt: The same data shows that in 2011, 78,000 tax filers with incomes between $211,000 and $533,000 paid no income taxes; 24,000 households with incomes of $533,000 to $2.2 million paid no income taxes, and 3,000 tax filers with incomes above $2.2 million paid no income taxes.
It is annoying that all these middle class people and up aren't paying federal income taxes when I (single no kids) could LITERALLY earn minimum wage (CA minimum wage with a 40 hour week and try to live in CA on that), and would *STILL* be liable for income taxes. I've done the math, there's no escape from them - death and income taxes!
44 percent are moved off the tax rolls by elderly tax benefits and another 30 percent by credits for children and the working poor.
Credits for children should definitely max out for a certain number of children. The elderly thing, there may be tax benefits but Social Security *IS* taxable from a federal income tax perspective. It's exempt from state taxes (which doesn't seem quite right either), but not federal.
Voters in households with household incomes of less than $30,000 a year tend to favor Mr. Obama, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll, with 61 percent supporting the president and 32 percent supporting Romney.
I think the truly poor, those below the poverty line and involuntarily, don't even vote very much. So yea supporting one or the other in a poll is one thing, actually getting to the real polls and casting an actual vote another. So it's true many of the truly poor won't vote for Romney (nor Obama nor Jiill Stein for that matter) they probably wont' vote at all.
LOL! If America can stand policy drafted over margaritas on Peggy's dock, I'm in.
Heck, it's the ONLY way I will draft policy! (lot's of legislation on clean water, fisheries, and muskrat protection...gotta protect the newest residents!)
Oh, and of course farm subsidies for lime growers!;)
OH, ok, well, he's apologised. It's all good!
http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-apologizes-to-nations-150-million-starving,29603/?fb_action_ids=10151085202785617&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210151085202785617%22%3A409 656492416621%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151085202785617%22%3A%22og .likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=[]
(OH, I'm sorry, I don't know how to make that smaller!)
From the article:
“First and foremost, I would like to offer a heartfelt apology to all the whores, junkies, bums, and grime-covered derelicts out there who make up nearly half our nation,” a visibly contrite and solemn Romney said outside a campaign stop at a local high school. “Let me assure you that I in no way meant to offend any of the putrid-smelling, barefoot masses out there. My campaign is not about dividing this nation, but about bringing all sides together—the rich, elegant members of the upper class, as well as the 47 percent who are covered in flies and eat directly from back-alley dumpsters.”Yeah, amazing, isn't it, the false-facades and backtracking that goes on when a politician performs a folly.
Originally posted by Rogar.
If this isn't the last straw for his defeat, it should be.My sentiment exactly.
The elderly thing, there may be tax benefits but Social Security *IS* taxable from a federal income tax perspective.
Only if your income is above a certain level. If SS benefits are your only income, chances are you will not pay any tax on it.
From About.com
"If the only income you received during the tax year was your social security or equivalent railroad retirement benefits, your benefits are probably not taxable and you probably will not have to file a tax return," according to the IRS,
If your provisional income is below the base amounts for your filing status, then your Social Security benefits are completely non-taxable.
If you provisional income is between the base amount and the additional amount, then half of your Social Security benefits over the base amount are taxable.
If your provisional income is over the additional amount, then $4,500 (or $6,000 if Married Filing Jointly) plus 85% of your Social Security benefits over the additional amount are taxable.
The taxable portion of your Social Security benefits cannot exceed 85% of your total benefits.
ApatheticNoMore
9-21-12, 2:12am
If this isn't the last straw for his defeat, it should be.
I kind of think Obama fighting (and fighting hard, right in the last few weeks) for NDAA should be a straw in his defeat frankly. Really why isn't the complete trashing of the bill of rights the last @#$# straw for that guy! Far worse than insulting people (and no I don't share some belief in the contemptability of the 47% or anything - at best taxes should be more fair - and that's not a belief about people just systems). Judge Forrest should be cast in a movie as herself :). She's a really good looking woman, 30-40 something, elegant, ready for the screen (richer than the creator but whatever that fight is the good one). The strong intellegent female hero, with her fierce biting legal logic, not just for due process but at this point sadly for the 1st ammendment as well.
I was listening to a communist on the radio the other day. Ok that's all I have to say. No not really, he made a really interesting point. He talked about the election of LBJ and how the anti-war left was talked into voting for LBJ because he was the lesser of two evils as Goldwater was a warmonger and would escalate the Vietnam war etc.. Now nobody knows for sure what would have happened if Goldwater was elected as that is the road untaken. But what did happen with the election of LBJ? Yep Vietnam escalation. Then another election rolls around and it's you must not vote for Nixon he will be a warmonger, the same old lesser of two evils argument. Only Nixon actually wound down Vietnam (after spreading it to Cambodia first yes - hey not really defending the guy). The lesson I take: there's a degree of "you never can tell" about elections. From the best evidence: What we know absolutely: Obama is a horrible person that wants the NDAA, the right to murder people etc. etc.. What we can surmise based on the best evidence: Romney will be no better (his statements so far haven't been better, his party isn't better in general on these issues, his donor base isn't better as far as I know etc.). But the data we have on Obama is far more concrete than our projections of how Romney might act. The lesson the revolutionary communist takes: vote Republican. Oh wait, no that was not it. His lesson was it matters a lot more what is happening on the ground than who you vote for. By the time Nixon was in office, all heck was breaking loose on the ground, the Vietnam war had become quite unpopular, protests were going on etc..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/20/what-romney-doesnt-understand-about-personal-responsibility/?tid=pm_pop
An interesting editorial.
flowerseverywhere
9-21-12, 8:51am
You know what will really help the 47% who are poor enough not to pay federal taxes?
Tinkering with social security, medicare and medicaid to eventually reduce benefits, and reducing access to birth control and abortions.
Maybe some of these lazy old poor people should get their arthritic bones off their couches and go back to work in one of the easy to get high paying jobs available right now.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I've heard that starry-eyed idealist presidents are routinely relieved of their illusions when they take office and are taken aside and told how things work by whomever/whatever is really in charge. I can't believe that President Obama or any other reasonably decent individual would embrace the NDAA voluntarily.
In all the rush to convict Mr. R. on the empathy deficit charge, I think we need to consider whether the real-world economy has the carrying capacity for the entitlement burden we'd like to see. If it doesn't, no amount of tinkering around the edges with tax policy, disarmament, trade protectionism and wealth redistribution will realy matter. We'll just be Western Europe without the external defense guarantees. I don't particularly care how much a president loves or respects me if I think he will be an effective, realistic leader.
iris lily
9-21-12, 11:04am
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I've heard that starry-eyed idealist presidents are routinely relieved of their illusions when they take office and are taken aside and told how things work by whomever/whatever is really in charge. I can't believe that President Obama or any other reasonably decent individual would embrace the NDAA voluntarily.
You know, that's an interesting theory. I agree with you about the "starry eyed idealist" ideas about national security being thrown out in the cold light of reality Presidenting, but I had not applied that to NDAA. Maybe so.
Surely no one believes Romney would be effective? I believe he's polling 30% behind President Obama in the state he governed. They should know how effective he is.
There are worse places to live than Europe; they're aggregate happiness index is generally way higher than ours, I believe.
One thing we could do to bolster the economy is to stop rewarding American companies for sending thousands and thousands of jobs overseas.
In all the rush to convict Mr. R. on the empathy deficit charge, I think we need to consider whether the real-world economy has the carrying capacity for the entitlement burden we'd like to see. If it doesn't, no amount of tinkering around the edges with tax policy, disarmament, trade protectionism and wealth redistribution will realy matter. We'll just be Western Europe without the external defense guarantees. I don't particularly care how much a president loves or respects me if I think he will be an effective, realistic leader.
Surely no one believes Romney would be effective? I believe he's polling 30% behind President Obama in the state he governed. They should know how effective he is.
There are worse places to live than Europe; they're aggregate happiness index is generally way higher than ours, I believe.
One thing we could do to bolster the economy is to stop rewarding American companies for sending thousands and thousands of jobs overseas.
Yossarian
9-21-12, 12:24pm
they're aggregate happiness index is generally way higher than ours, I believe.
These things are not very scientific and I don't see an EU aggregate, but we are ahead of all the major European countries.
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/Sachs%20Writing/2012/World%20Happiness%20Report.pdf
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I've heard that starry-eyed idealist presidents are routinely relieved of their illusions when they take office and are taken aside and told how things work by whomever/whatever is really in charge. I can't believe that President Obama or any other reasonably decent individual would embrace the NDAA voluntarily.
Not many reasonably decent individuals in Washington, then. A big spending bill that stomps all over civil liberties and our "can't agree on anything" Congress passed it by wide margins with little debate and no posturing. And then was immediately signed by the White House.
Surely no one believes Romney would be effective? I believe he's polling 30% behind President Obama in the state he governed. They should know how effective he is.
There are worse places to live than Europe; they're aggregate happiness index is generally way higher than ours, I believe.
One thing we could do to bolster the economy is to stop rewarding American companies for sending thousands and thousands of jobs overseas.
I think he would be more effective, at least compared to the alternative. I think that the Western European statist model is unsustainable, and that our current President either doesn't understand that or considers it irrelevant to his political fortunes. I in fact think we need leadership with the kind of "ruthlessness" needed to shut down uncompetitive operations when needed, and that a venture capital background is a pretty good preparation for the difficult years to come.
Not many reasonably decent individuals in Washington, then. A big spending bill that stomps all over civil liberties and our "can't agree on anything" Congress passed it by wide margins with little debate and no posturing. And then was immediately signed by the White House.
Which should tell you something about the legislation. And the seriousness of it. And the 'holy crap!' element of it. If even the republicans aren't going to try to play politics with this, that should tell us something here is really important. Do we want to know all the secrets? I don't think so. I'm smart enough to know that on day one the President is pulled aside and told things that would make most of us cower in the corner, drooling on ourselves. The burden the President takes on, in information alone, is enormous. The serious politicos know this, which is probably why Cheney appointed himself vice, knowing Bush may not have what it takes, which he didn't as it turns out.
This world is a very complicated, serious and dangerous place..ask any diplomat. We can't run the budget like our own household budget and we can't approach our world 'neighbors' like we do our next door neighbor. It's never, never ever that simple, or that friendly.
I know ANM likes to harp on NDAA, but in actuality, all Presidents have had this power. Being President is an unbelievably powerful position, and one word from this person gets stuff done, whether legal or not....Reagan and Iran-Contra, Nixon and Watergate, Cheney and whoever he wanted 'snuffed' (Ha ha, just kidding...maybe. wouldn't put it past him!)
The whole patriot Act was just Bush's attempt to make it legal, and expand it beyond off the cuff and under the table.
The burden the President takes on, in information alone, is enormous.
I think plausible deniability plays a larger role in some administrations than in others. Given his lack of military, corporate and general leadership experience at the time of his election it would not surprise me to learn that this President could plausibly deny knowledge of several ongoing operations. That would, of course, play right along with Jane's conspiracy theory.
These things are not very scientific and I don't see an EU aggregate, but we are ahead of all the major European countries.
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/Sachs%20Writing/2012/World%20Happiness%20Report.pdf
Must be what they mean by the "soft sciences". Personally, the whole idea of trying to measure happiness strikes me as silly and generally self-serving on the part of the people publishing the data.
I think plausible deniability plays a larger role in some administrations than in others. Given his lack of military, corporate and general leadership experience at the time of his election it would not surprise me to learn that this President could plausibly deny knowledge of several ongoing operations. That would, of course, play right along with Jane's conspiracy theory.
Ha! And we ALL know how responsible and willingly accountable corporate leaders are! >8)
Gee, it's a wonder Obama even knew how to tie his shoes when he was elected..so lacking he was in just about every way shape or form! Thank goodness he didn't have to have 'corporate' experience to pull our butts from the economic cliff back a ways. And as far as military experience, well, we haven't had a military President in a very long time, so that's kind of a straw man, don't you think?
And general leadership experience? The man didn't just step out of a void on day one. He certainly did/does have general leadership experience.
I seriously doubt President Barack Obama is going to play the 'plausible deniability' line. He is too serious and too responsible and just too honest to do that. Bush? Yeah! Romney? Hell yeah! He's done it already, so many times and in so many ways.
Obama has been a good leader and a strong leader. He made several moves that were not in his best political interest, and made decisions that after the fact have proven quite smart and showed plenty of foresight.
Sorry Gregg, 'corporate' experience isn't exactly a ringing endorsement, considering the parade of corporate leaders we have witnessed in economics and responsibility(or lack there of) You know I can find a ton of video of your 'corporate leaders' testifying before congress, lying, hedging, stumbling, sort of apologizing (but not really) and generally displaying 'plausible deniability' tattooed on their corporate butts!
Oh Gregg....you know they (the republican establishment) are getting ready to toss Romney under the bus. They are going to do it, and when it starts, it will be a stampeed for the door. There are only a few left who are willing to go down with that ship! He is just not ready for prime time and we all know it! He might have been a good corporate leader, but he would be a disastrous President.
Come on, accept the truth, and embrace the future, which is going to be great now that Obama has set stuff in motion.:)
The very last place I want to live, after hell, would be in a corporatocracy. We're probably already there.
Gee, it's a wonder Obama even knew how to tie his shoes when he was elected..so lacking he was in just about every way shape or form!
Barack Obama was a single term junior Senator from Illinois when he got elected President. That's a long way from the inner sanctums of Washington long term Reps occupy. He was never a governor of a state, mayor of a major city, or any other kind of leader with more prominance than a state senator. He never lead a company, much less turned one around. He had no military experience, let alone in a leadership role. The biggest group he ever lead prior to becoming President was the Harvard Law Review. No candidate ever has had all of those on his resume. Any ONE of those kinds of qualifications would have put Mr. Obama in a much better position. But he didn't have ANY of them.
The guy was at the right place at the right time. I don't fault him for that. His keynote address at the 2004 DNC got him a Senate seat and put him on a rocket ship to the top. Great. What it did not do is give him leadership experience. If you're naive enough to think that everyone in every corner of the government and military who has spent decades building their particular empire is going to jump right up and offer to share everything they know with the greenhorn that just got handled all the way to the top, so be it. I'm sure they all did exactly that. And peggy, you can spew venom at business leaders all you want, but there is a very long history of great leaders that have come from the private sector. Leadership is leadership, the venue just doesn't make that much difference.
BTW, you can't "play" the plausible deniability card. If you did that would indicate you knew about what you were denying knowledge of. As you said, Mr. Obama is far too honest to do that.
.
. Leadership is leadership, the venue just doesn't make that much difference.
..
Glad you agree with me. President Barack Obama HAS been an excellent leader. This isn't 2008, by the way. The man has been vetted. He IS the President and has done a great job considering the total melted mess he was handed.
And yes Gregg, he was told some pretty serious, and secret things when he became President. He is the President. Of the United States. And could fire any General who tried to withhold information of national security. Just because you don't recognize that doesn't mean it isn't true. Trust me, the man knows things that would make your hair curl.
I'm not harping on business leaders. I'm just saying it isn't necessarily a qualification for President. And investment banker is in business to make tons of money for the investment class, no matter who's job gets tossed, or where they get tossed (overseas), or how many businesses get crushed.. the bottom line is lots of cash, period. A President must be concerned with investments plus all those jobs and where they go, and how they go, and profit isn't the bottom line.
Romney, in his little 47% speech, showed just where he stands, and how he views half of Americans. They don't count. They aren't the investor class and they don't count. Slackers and bums, all of them. All 47%, the elderly, the working poor, students, the sick, those who work two jobs just to get by, all apparently lack the 'motivation' to become captains of industry and buy dancing horses, so they just. don't. count.
Now, if you want to say he is the shining example of a corporate leader, the best and the brightest that the corporate world can offer, well, do that. We're listening. But if you really think a corporate leader is the type of leader we need to move forward, I'd pick a better example. I wouldn't risk my reputation for picking a good one on Mitt Romney. Romney is the very caricature of the swaggering, entitled, self important fat cat, who lights cigars with hundred dollar bills while sitting atop his dancing horse so he won't filthy himself among the 47%.
Sorry Gregg, I truly am. Your guy is going down, and the party is abandoning him like rats from a sinking ship.
Excellent post, Peggy.
Who would all those awe-inspiring corporate leaders be? Lee Iacocca? Some robber baron from the 19th century? Seems like the best of them busy themselves with charitable foundations. From the inside and the outside, commerce looks amoral to me. On its best day. Usually much worse.
Imagine the Founding Fathers drafting a CFO from the British East India Company to lead our fledgling country. Snort.
Yossarian
9-21-12, 10:54pm
I agree private business is different from political leadership. But I'd count being Gov and the SLC gig as public leadership. What are Barry's private business quals again?
I agree private business is different from political leadership. But I'd count being Gov and the SLC gig as public leadership.
Does running your own campaign count? How is Willard doing on that one again? {{{Yossarian}}}
Fact Check On 47 Percent Comment:
The same data shows, however, that nearly two-thirds of households that paid no income tax did pay payroll taxes.
Yes, and those households pay a higher percent of their income to the Federal government than Gov. Romney does. (Talk about somebody with a sense of entitlement.)
Thanks for your work on this Dude. This is a major event that deserves its own thread.
I think it will go down in history as one of those things that sinks a candidacy, like Muskie's (alleged) tears or Kerry ... going wind surfing. And by shining a bright light on the Randian fantasy-land that passes for Republican economic thinking these days, much like Representative Akin did for their social policy, it might be even more important.
If the hapless dems have what it takes to go for the jugular for a change, after decades of being "Willie Hortoned" and "Swift Boated," it could help to roll back the whole tide in the house and the senate ...
Yes, and those households pay a higher percent of their income to the Federal government than Gov. Romney does. (Talk about somebody with a sense of entitlement.)
If the payroll tax rate(excluding the 2% reduction currently in place) is 7.65%, and Gov. Romney paid 13%, how can that be true?
{{{Yossarian}}}
LOL, well domo arigato B, but I'm not that invested in all this. For my kids sake I'd like to see us avoid a national bankruptcy but the rest is mostly bread and circuses.
PS- where are you these days?
Yes, and those households pay a higher percent of their income to the Federal government than Gov. Romney does.
To me this is one of the most disingenuous arguments in the public arena. Payroll taxes provide a specific benefit to the payor. People have actually fought court battles to get to pay these taxes (e.g. over what's included in the SS wage base) because actually for many the SS benefits are higher than the taxes they would pay.
To me this is one of the most disingenuous arguments in the public arena. Payroll taxes provide a specific benefit to the payor. People have actually fought court battles to get to pay these taxes (e.g. over what's included in the SS wage base) because actually for many the SS benefits are higher than the taxes they would pay.
Agreed. I've never understood peoples inclination to include what I would consider entitlement advance payments such as SS & Medicare, or local taxes such as sales and property taxes into discussions of Federal Income taxes.
To me, whatever point they are used to support is negated by their irrelevance.
Imagine the Founding Fathers drafting a CFO from the British East India Company to lead our fledgling country. Snort.
George W. (the original, I mean) ran a pretty sizeable operation at Mt. Vernon. Most of the founders were dirty rotten capitalist scoundrels.
George W. (the original, I mean) ran a pretty sizeable operation at Mt. Vernon. Most of the founders were dirty rotten capitalist scoundrels.
Exactly, I believe one of his first issues with the mother country was the fact that he was not able to barter his local goods equitably for goods from England, forcing him to create his own manufacturing processes on the back 40.
Exactly, I believe one of his first issues with the mother country was the fact that he was not able to barter his local goods equitably for goods from England, forcing him to create his own manufacturing processes on the back 40.
The American Revolution was led by capitalists angry over burdensome taxes, government regulation and trade policy, and was an exceptional historical success. The French, Russian and Chinese Revolutions were led by the contemporary equivalents of community organizers aiming at wealth redistribution, and created chaos, slaughter and despotism.
The American Revolution was led by capitalists angry over burdensome taxes, government regulation and trade policy, and was an exceptional historical success. The French, Russian and Chinese Revolutions were led by the contemporary equivalents of community organizers aiming at wealth redistribution, and created chaos, slaughter and despotism.
Certain elements of the left do remind me of Robespierre.
I hate to think our founders were just a greed-driven band of brigands like Romney et al, so I'll persist in my (apparent) fantasy world in which they were philosophers, free thinkers, and idealists who believed citizens working together could build a government that worked for all.
I've read that many (most?) of the Founding Fathers died broke or close to it. If they were the avid capitalists y'all describe, I guess they weren't very good at it.
The American Revolution was led by capitalists angry over burdensome taxes, government regulation and trade policy, and was an exceptional historical success. The French, Russian and Chinese Revolutions were led by the contemporary equivalents of community organizers aiming at wealth redistribution, and created chaos, slaughter and despotism.
I think they were all led by folks who wanted to be in charge - and whether it was for freedom, capitalism or wealth redistribution, "the cause" was largely window dressing.
I think the American revolution was spared a lot of internal pain because we were overturning an externally imposed system. The failed revolution that occurred here nearly a century later was a very nasty piece of business.
All systems become oligarchies.
Yossarian
9-22-12, 11:11am
If they were the avid capitalists y'all describe, I guess they weren't very good at it.
My father's parents were Ellis Island immigrants but the other side goes back to DOI signer Charles Carroll
As one of the wealthiest men in America, Charles Carroll III of Carrollton risked his fortune as well as his life when he joined the Revolutionaries. Possessing one of the most cultivated minds of any of the signers, he achieved remarkable success as planter, businessman, and politician.
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/declaration/bio5.htm
He died one of the richest men in the country. So there were some successes.
I hate to think our founders were just a greed-driven band of brigands like Romney et al, so I'll persist in my (apparent) fantasy world in which they were philosophers, free thinkers, and idealists who believed citizens working together could build a government that worked for all.
They were something much, much better. They were hardened, cynical realists who understood human nature enough to design a system of government aimed at making it as difficult as possible for the philosophers, free thinkers and idealists to impose their theories of what makes government "work for all". They diffused power among the regions, interests and functions of government to pre-empt its arbitrary exercise. They weren't interested in utopian nonsense. They were interested in limiting the coercive power of government.
They weren't interested in utopian nonsense. They were interested in limiting the coercive power of government.
But, but, cradle to grave government dependence is utopia. Isn't it?
But, but, cradle to grave government dependence is utopia. Isn't it?
That depends on your priorities.
My father's parents were Ellis Island immigrants but the other side goes back to DOI signer Charles Carroll
As one of the wealthiest men in America, Charles Carroll III of Carrollton risked his fortune as well as his life when he joined the Revolutionaries. Possessing one of the most cultivated minds of any of the signers, he achieved remarkable success as planter, businessman, and politician.
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/declaration/bio5.htm
He died one of the richest men in the country. So there were some successes.
My revolutionary ancestors were just plain old middle-class German-Americans who put down their plows to risk their lives for their (relatively new) homeland. They were good, honest, contributing members of the community and thus successful in a way that has nothing to do with money.
I like to think they cultivated their minds as well; I know that side of the family produced a line of Evangelical preachers (and at least one passionate defense attorney) known for loving the written and spoken word. Wealth and power clearly motivates some of us more than others.
They were something much, much better. They were hardened, cynical realists who understood human nature enough to design a system of government aimed at making it as difficult as possible for the philosophers, free thinkers and idealists to impose their theories of what makes government "work for all". They diffused power among the regions, interests and functions of government to pre-empt its arbitrary exercise. They weren't interested in utopian nonsense. They were interested in limiting the coercive power of government.
"Diffuse power" was a marvelous idea--which is why I'd prefer to get money out of the selection process and reform lobbying access. I'd prefer not to have the Koch brothers and their ilk running the show.
"Utopian nonsense?" I don't know what you're talking about.
If the payroll tax rate(excluding the 2% reduction currently in place) is 7.65%, and Gov. Romney paid 13%, how can that be true?
As I am sure you realize, the employer's side of those payroll taxes brings it to 15%, and yes it all comes out of the employee's income under standard economic theory.
LOL, well domo arigato B, but I'm not that invested in all this. For my kids sake I'd like to see us avoid a national bankruptcy but the rest is mostly bread and circuses.
PS- where are you these days?
Heya guy. Still hanging out on the Ginza when I have time. Look me up next time you are in town.
B
To me this is one of the most disingenuous arguments in the public arena. Payroll taxes provide a specific benefit to the payor. People have actually fought court battles to get to pay these taxes (e.g. over what's included in the SS wage base) because actually for many the SS benefits are higher than the taxes they would pay.
Wow, this is rich. We don't include payroll taxes when talking about federal tax income, but we do of course include SS & medicare when we talk about federal expenditures, and why the country is supposedly going bankrupt. I think that is one of the most disingenuous arguments in the public discourse. Guess we've reached common ground in a way...
Who would all those awe-inspiring corporate leaders be?...
Imagine the Founding Fathers drafting a CFO from the British East India Company to lead our fledgling country. Snort.
I think the others have adequately shown the founding fathers didn't see the need to take a vow of poverty. That leaves the other scumbags who got rich by taking everything from the liberal poor. Certainly none of them would ever consider doing anything with their money beyond sitting atop the pile and counting the gold coins as they come in. Take about Bill & Melinda Gates. Certainly the worst of the worst. Someone should stop them before they actually do eradicate malaria. Warren Buffett pledged an extra $30B to the Gates Foundation so he probably deserves everything he gets for hanging around the White House. Paul Allen's Institute for Brain Science actually admits it conducts tests on humans. Most of them are probably poor and indigent on top of it. Michael Bloomberg gave over $300M to support arts and humanities last year. The gall! Take a look at the Philanthropy 50 and you'll discover most of the names on it belong to business leaders (and the rest to the descendents of business leaders). Surely the government would be better at seeing those funds distributed than that group of scum. Double snort.
"Diffuse power" was a marvelous idea--which is why I'd prefer to get money out of the selection process and reform lobbying access. I'd prefer not to have the Koch brothers and their ilk running the show.
"Utopian nonsense?" I don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, that First Amendment can be a real inconvenience at times. For myself, I'd rather live with crass political ads than hand government the power to limit political speech.
I think the founders understood about utopian nonsense. They would have scoffed at the idea that government should serve in the role of a benevolent parent. George Washington said "Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a terrible master".
As I am sure you realize, the employer's side of those payroll taxes brings it to 15%, and yes it all comes out of the employee's income under standard economic theory.
But if you want to make that argument, don't you also have to assume that any taxes paid by the corporations Mr. Romney owned should also be counted because they would have otherwise been available for distribution to him?
I think the others have adequately shown the founding fathers didn't see the need to take a vow of poverty. That leaves the other scumbags who got rich by taking everything from the liberal poor. Certainly none of them would ever consider doing anything with their money beyond sitting atop the pile and counting the gold coins as they come in. Take about Bill & Melinda Gates. Certainly the worst of the worst. Someone should stop them before they actually do eradicate malaria. Warren Buffett pledged an extra $30B to the Gates Foundation so he probably deserves everything he gets for hanging around the White House. Paul Allen's Institute for Brain Science actually admits it conducts tests on humans. Most of them are probably poor and indigent on top of it. Michael Bloomberg gave over $300M to support arts and humanities last year. The gall! Take a look at the Philanthropy 50 and you'll discover most of the names on it belong to business leaders (and the rest to the descendents of business leaders). Surely the government would be better at seeing those funds distributed than that group of scum. Double snort.
You left out a salient part of my post, to wit:
Who would all those awe-inspiring corporate leaders be? Lee Iacocca? Some robber baron from the 19th century? Seems like the best of them busy themselves with charitable foundations. From the inside and the outside, commerce looks amoral to me. On its best day. Usually much worse.
I have no problem with money, or chasing money, or wealth on its own. Money is a tool, like science, that can be used for good or ill. I just don't want to live in a country where power is in the hands of the highest bidder, instead of being "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
ApatheticNoMore
9-22-12, 1:06pm
The American Revolution was led by capitalists angry over burdensome taxes, government regulation and trade policy, and was an exceptional historical success. The French, Russian and Chinese Revolutions were led by the contemporary equivalents of community organizers aiming at wealth redistribution, and created chaos, slaughter and despotism
That's the left-wing argument, that the Constitution and so on were really just designed to cement plutocracy, so bizarre it's now worn as a badge of honor! (yes and plutocracy is wonderful!) Honestly though hard to compare the agrainism (even if with slavery blah blah, it was still a pretty vision minus the slavery) of say Thomas Jefferson with modern industrial or post-industrial capitalism, dont' you think? Whether it was a sucess or not I do not know. Many of the concepts were of course not new and were actually taken from English law. It's easy to be sucessful when you have an entire country of virgin natural resources to use up and you do over a couple of centuries with great rapidity. And I'm quite sure the losers of such conquest (the Indians) may not regard it as such a sucess. Not so much natural resources left so now the empire (a path that definitely shouldn't have been taken) goes looking for them elsewhere.
Yes, that First Amendment can be a real inconvenience at times. For myself, I'd rather live with crass political ads than hand government the power to limit political speech.
Judge Forrest and the case against the NDAA has at this point become a First Amendment case. Now personally I think due process is even more important than the First Amendment and it's obviously a due process case. But anyway the case was made that the journalists can not do journalism they way that they would naturally do so because they are never sure if they write a journalistic piece about groups that are considered terrorists whether or not it will be considered "material support for terrorism" or whatever. The Obama administration would not make clear whether or not that would consistitue "support" whether speech would constitute "support"! Thus Judge Forrest concluded in this absolute refusal to provide any clarifications of the already vague legistlation, that yes the NDAA was also a threat to free speech in addition to being a threat to due process. So what do we have going on in the world today: we have corporations and billionaires able to BUY politicians, NAKED BRIBERY, which must be protected at all costs under "free speech", even though everybody knows it is bribery. We have journalists afraid to write whatever it is they will on the fear that they will be locked away without trial forever and ever and the higest power in the land fighting for this (the Obama administration, if you think Romney would be different, ask yourself why he never mentions these issues). It is very hard in the full context of this not to conclude "free speech" ONLY really applies to corporations. Some people are more equal than others and those "people" (haha) are corporations! One law applies to them another to flesh and blood type "people". And it doesn't take a genius to start suspecting that what we are heading for is corporate dictatorship. That the U.S. "free enterprise system" (although of course it's not really - I've read the world economy has required 100 bailouts in the last few decades to keep going, I don't know much about that, I do know this "economy without government interference" could not have survived the 2008 collapse without MASSIVE quasi-government BAILOUT - federal reserve bailout etc.) might actually turn out just as dictorial in the end as well ... it depends on how harsh the enforcement, could be soft dictatorship where everyone is kept in line by fear or NDAA and so on rather than conducting you know actual purges or something, but it's still dictatorship. I'm inclined to conclude most people will turn their eyes away then, aware, but unwilling to really be aware, always knowing but routinely forgetting they know.
Wow, this is rich. We don't include payroll taxes when talking about federal tax income, but we do of course include SS & medicare when we talk about federal expenditures, and why the country is supposedly going bankrupt. I think that is one of the most disingenuous arguments in the public discourse. Guess we've reached common ground in a way...
+100 you got it. So Medicare and Social Security fund themselves (for now, they have problems ahead and so on), but for decades and decades and decades they were ENTIRELY BALANCED income with expenditures (actually income exceeding expenditures, they were a balanced budget). Ok then what do income taxes that aren't funding SS and Medicare fund? Oh a few social programs here and there, AFDC, food stamps, unemployment (partially employer funded), the national parks, etc. but pardon me if I suspect that that is not where the bulk of the money is going. All that money that the 47% are shirking and not paying (and I agree the tax code is kind of unfair), would it go to programs to benefit the 47% or to some larger social benefit in general? Well maybe if they work in the military industrial complex! But otherwise I'm beginning to wonder, if it's not even providing benefits for them, other than it being unfair that others have to pay taxes from which they may also derive no benefit and they don't, what's so horrible about them not paying taxes anyway?
Yes, that First Amendment can be a real inconvenience at times. For myself, I'd rather live with crass political ads than hand government the power to limit political speech.
I think the founders understood about utopian nonsense. They would have scoffed at the idea that government should serve in the role of a benevolent parent. George Washington said "Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a terrible master".
Money is not speech, regardless of self-serving supreme court decisions (Buckley vs. Valeo, 1976).
I'm getting that "utopian nonsense" is just a throwaway line, because I don't know anyone who longs for utopia or thinks such a place is possible. Most of us just want a responsive, responsible government that is answerable to its citizens and not a puppet of corporate interests.
But, but, cradle to grave government dependence is utopia. Isn't it?
I see relying on our governments, which we all do, as a collaboration. I pay taxes, and in return I get services. In my past, I needed food stamps for about a year. I was very very grateful for them! I am government, those who work in government to provide these services are my neighbors & community members.
We are interdependent upon each other; it's how we are hard wired, as a congregate species. Every day I wake up grateful for these things that are publicly funded and made possible our public employees at every level...
A safe home, built to a government code
Clean water assured by a local municipal utility
Dependable electricity & garbage/recycling/compost pick-up.
Working traffic signs and roads in reasonable repair
Street lights
Public transit
Educated employees
A safe car with seat belts & air bags
Regulated businesses that accurately measure the gasoline, etc., that I buy
Inspected restaurants
First responders
Families that have some food, medical care, & shelter, even if they are very poor
And so forth.
Imperfect? Of course, as human beings are involved. Nonetheless, I do depend upon several levels of gov't cradle-to-grave, and I feel privileged to pay for those things such that I listed, above, which I cannot possible hope to provide for myself.
ApatheticNoMore
9-22-12, 1:29pm
Since apparently we just love radical takes on things (the Consitituion was really plutocrats etc.), the radical take on the New Deal is that it was just a bone thrown to BUY OUT the working class (all those who work for a living), to prevent a workers revolution obviously (which I make no claims would have turned out wonderful or anything, maybe, but doens't always). To buy out radical union activism as well. To keep the middle class anti-communist all throughout the cold war (look if the standard of living for the masses in the U.S. is good and in 50's and 60s America it was) why are you going to go coveting life in some communist country where it isn't? A lot of things made life in the U.S. good then (all the other economies being out of operation after WWII for instance), but social programs and some income redistribtion helped.
Communism is dead, any hope of workers revolution put out in most of the world, put out even if when necessary by extreme measures like the U.S. helping to install bloody dictators when necessary. So the New Deal really isn't needed anymore to buy out the people is it .... banana republic or well what other choice do you have? Bannana republic or bannana republic, take your pick. So they are trying to dismantle the New Deal. But this is bad for anyone non-rich. But historical inevitability - haha. When even the party that is supposed to protect such things won't claim it will fully protect such things (but hey it will be "lesser evil" isn't that good enough for ya?), what can you conclude. The New Deal is no longer socially useful, F U, anyone that's not a plutocrat. They've already decided that the Constitution itself is no longer needed, yea not even the Constitution, out the window. That was also kind of useful in the Cold War to define U.S. principles in contrast to Soviet ones, but we really don't need to do that anymore. If this country has ANY common principles at all at this point and it's not the Bill of Rights I don't know what they are!!!! Really are there ANY common principles uniting this country anymore? I may think the national parks are wonderful, and thank Teddy Rossevelt. Someone else thinks the national parks should just be mined for resources and sold off at a profit. Hmm nothing in common. But anyway if even the consitution is disposable, why wouldn't they dispose the New Deal as well (maybe I direct that at anyone who believes in the lesser of two evils and stresses the world lesser, where I stress the word evil when I use that phrase :)), corporate dictatorship.
I think the others have adequately shown the founding fathers didn't see the need to take a vow of poverty. That leaves the other scumbags who got rich by taking everything from the liberal poor. Certainly none of them would ever consider doing anything with their money beyond sitting atop the pile and counting the gold coins as they come in. Take about Bill & Melinda Gates. Certainly the worst of the worst. Someone should stop them before they actually do eradicate malaria. Warren Buffett pledged an extra $30B to the Gates Foundation so he probably deserves everything he gets for hanging around the White House. Paul Allen's Institute for Brain Science actually admits it conducts tests on humans. Most of them are probably poor and indigent on top of it. Michael Bloomberg gave over $300M to support arts and humanities last year. The gall! Take a look at the Philanthropy 50 and you'll discover most of the names on it belong to business leaders (and the rest to the descendents of business leaders). Surely the government would be better at seeing those funds distributed than that group of scum. Double snort.
If you added up all of the net worth of the top Forbes 500 people that wouldn't make a dent in what the President added to the national debt this year. How's that for sobering?
If you added up all of the net worth of the top Forbes 500 people that wouldn't make a dent in what the President added to the national debt this year. How's that for sobering?
Psshaw, if we just take more and more of evil peoples assets we can feel morally superior in the here and now. Of course it won't help but I think it's only fair. Let future generations deal with the problems we create and promulgate. The important thing is to satisfy our desires now while we sing la la la la la.
ApatheticNoMore
9-22-12, 1:50pm
Ending the wars would help :)
If you added up all of the net worth of the top Forbes 500 people that wouldn't make a dent in what the President added to the national debt this year. How's that for sobering?
Some of this adding has to do with the fact that taxes have been cut so much that the U.S. is chronically in deficit. And what about programs passed under previous presidents like prescription drug benefits. And some is Obamacare maybe (not sure how much that is even in effect), and some is WARS, and maybe some is the stimulus (however much of the stimulus itself was ... wait for it ... tax cuts). So how can anyone really argue it was Obama alone that added this? What I think you need to add up is how the deficit would have been reduced if the Bush tax cuts were eliminated.
ApatheticNoMore
9-22-12, 1:55pm
Let future generations deal with the problems we create and promulgate. The important thing is to satisfy our desires now while we sing la la la la la.
that seems the entire of our environmental policy summed up right there. Fracking destroying water supplies? The important thing is to satisfy our desires now. Deep sea drilling leading to destroying the ocean and entire ecosystems? The important thing is to satisfy our desires now.
Anyway on budgets: play the deficit card (and you know much of the country regardless of party will understand that it's kind of a problem) or play the tax card, but playing both just seems hopelessly contradictory.
Stepping back a moment - what is an "acceptable" level of taxation for an individual to bear? How many hours a week are you comfortable demanding that an individual labor to pay for local, state, and federal governmental services?
Is it 1 hour a week? 1 day a week? 2-3 days a week? 7 days a week?
ApatheticNoMore
9-22-12, 2:13pm
Since my contributions to social security are much less than I put in my own 401k .... yea I think I'm willing :) And would pay more.
I see relying on our governments, which we all do, as a collaboration. I pay taxes, and in return I get services. In my past, I needed food stamps for about a year. I was very very grateful for them! I am government, those who work in government to provide these services are my neighbors & community members.
We are interdependent upon each other; it's how we are hard wired, as a congregate species. Every day I wake up grateful for these things that are publicly funded and made possible our public employees at every level...
A safe home, built to a government code
Clean water assured by a local municipal utility
Dependable electricity & garbage/recycling/compost pick-up.
Working traffic signs and roads in reasonable repair
Street lights
Public transit
Educated employees
A safe car with seat belts & air bags
Regulated businesses that accurately measure the gasoline, etc., that I buy
Inspected restaurants
First responders
Families that have some food, medical care, & shelter, even if they are very poor
And so forth.
Imperfect? Of course, as human beings are involved. Nonetheless, I do depend upon several levels of gov't cradle-to-grave, and I feel privileged to pay for those things such that I listed, above, which I cannot possible hope to provide for myself.
+1
But if you want to make that argument, don't you also have to assume that any taxes paid by the corporations Mr. Romney owned should also be counted because they would have otherwise been available for distribution to him?
Exactly. The effective economic tax rate is closer to 45%
Stepping back a moment - what is an "acceptable" level of taxation for an individual to bear? How many hours a week are you comfortable demanding that an individual labor to pay for local, state, and federal governmental services?
Is it 1 hour a week? 1 day a week? 2-3 days a week? 7 days a week?
You know, I just WISH someone would tell me what my tax rate would be to solve all of these social problems that we keep throwing money at. TELL ME how much it's gonna cost to stop the incessant whining. Then--I will decide if I'm willing to pay it. I might be! It's entirely possible!
I don't mind paying more in tax, necessarily. Efficiency and how the monies actually, realistically address and "fix" the problem is the big issue, as I see it.
From the outlook of Rawle's Original Position (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position), I think I would be OK with a level of somewhere between 1/2 and 1 day a week of my individual time being required "for the common good", under normal conditions.
ApatheticNoMore
9-22-12, 3:13pm
Well if you are going to pay for medical care at current ridiculous rates anyway (and YOU DO and YOU ARE) then it might just be better to have a deduction from your paycheck called "National Healthcare" or "Socialized Medicine" or whatever they want to call it than to have a deduction from your paycheck that's probably costing even more money going to an insurance company, which you'll lose the minute you lose your job. How many days of our lives should we have to work to pay for bloated ridiculous health care premiums? Toss out a number, then we can make sure it never gets above that many days.
but we do of course include SS & medicare when we talk about federal expenditures, and why the country is supposedly going bankrupt. I think that is one of the most disingenuous arguments in the public discourse. Guess we've reached common ground in a way...
B you have lost me. I'm sure you know the problem isn't the current balance of payments but rather the projected cost of future benefits. So knowing that you know that are you are saying we can fund those benefits based on the current level of taxation? If so I'm curious to see your numbers.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0b/Medicare_%26_Social_Security_Deficits_Chart.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/GAO_Slide.png
I'd like to see what that graph would look like if we got rid of the $106,000 cap.
I'd like to see what that graph would look like if we got rid of the $106,000 cap.
I'd like to see what it would look like if we had kept the surpluses in SS we knew we would need instead of using them to offset spending.
Stepping back a moment - what is an "acceptable" level of taxation for an individual to bear? How many hours a week are you comfortable demanding that an individual labor to pay for local, state, and federal governmental services?
Is it 1 hour a week? 1 day a week? 2-3 days a week? 7 days a week?
I'd be (and I was) comfortable paying Clinton-era tax rates. As a "single childless loser" (credit Stephanie Miller), I didn't have a lot of dodges. We have cut federal taxes to the bone (credit Ronald Reagan, who I'm sure my mother is chasing around Paradise with a rolled-up newspaper) and now we're paying for it. WAG, I worked over one day a week for the common good (including the infernal war machine).
I'd like to see what it would look like if we had kept the surpluses in SS we knew we would need instead of using them to offset spending.
YES.
I 'd be quite happy to pay Denmark's rates for that level of service.
http://www.taxrates.cc/html/denmark-tax-rates.html
I would much prefer that all be reasonably housed, fed, educated & have decent health care paid for by everyone's contributions than to have the extremes of wealth & poverty currently in existence in the US. If I could figure out a way to live & work in Denmark, I'd be there.
ApatheticNoMore
9-22-12, 4:18pm
Even though it's not a huge impact I'd also like to see what it would look like if Obama's silly payroll tax cut was done away with.
We have cut federal taxes to the bone (credit Ronald Reagan, who I'm sure my mother is chasing around Paradise with a rolled-up newspaper)
That's just a myth so maybe ask her to go easy on him.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1 945–2015.jpg
B you have lost me. I'm sure you know the problem isn't the current balance of payments but rather the projected cost of future benefits. So knowing that you know that are you are saying we can fund those benefits based on the current level of taxation? If so I'm curious to see your numbers.
We are talking about something different now. The original question was should we be including payroll taxes when thinking about whether a person is contributing financially or just living on the public teat, mooching off the 53%. I say yes even if they are paying into programs that will benefit them. All government should benefit us as a whole, and I am all for getting rid of the ones that don't.
Now you're talking about the sustainability of the two programs. The chart you posted is apparently ignoring the trust funds, which is an explicit statement that the differentiation between payroll taxes and general receipts, and the segregation of these programs and the general account, is a meaningless fiction. But a moment ago you were arguing the opposite. What gives? Choosing one side of that when it fits your ideological position and the other when it doesn't is what I find disingenuous. And it is more than a technicality, because to argue that SS is in dire straights you pretty much have to argue that the trust fund is an illusion.
I think the distinction is meaningful, and if so the boomers have been paying into the program at a rate greater than necessary to support the contemporaneous benefits of retirees throughout most of their working lives, with the surplus invested on their behalf in US treasuries. Now (or soon) the interest and principle will help to defray the burden of their benefits. It will run out in a couple decades. The shortfall thereafter can be made up for with some very moderate adjustments, such as edging up the income cap as our old friend Jane suggests.
As for Medicare, the problem is twofold. One is the aging of our society. It is aging, and the associated societal costs are going to go up as a percentage of GDP.
"Get over it," as you guys used to love to say.
The other is the runaway costs of health care in general, and in my view this has to be looked at on a society wide basis. The obvious solution, which has been followed successfully in some form by every other developed country, is to expand the risk pool to include everyone, eliminate the inefficiencies of multiple bureaucracies, replace the profit motive with a focus on favorable and humane outcomes, and bring to bear a unified negotiating power.
But every time we try to take even a baby step in that direction, the right screams bloody murder. Death Panels! Bolsheviks!
I am sorry my old chum, but it is hard for me to believe in the sincerity of the American right in wanting to actually solve the problems we face in a realistic way, rather than to just use them to do what they have always wanted: roll back the New Deal, impose a stark social Darwinism and implement the end game of their Starve the Beast strategy.
We are talking about something different now. The original question was should we be including payroll taxes when thinking about whether a person is contributing financially or just living on the public teat, mooching off the 53%. I say yes even if they are paying into programs that will benefit them.
Not exactly. The question was the degree to which a person’s payments represent them paying their fair share of public expenses. If all you do is pay for something that benefits you directly and not pay anything toward the general public good, I think that is a different moral position than someone who pays a share of the tab regardless of whether they get a direct benefit.
Now you're talking about the sustainability of the two programs. The chart you posted is apparently ignoring the trust funds, which is an explicit statement that the differentiation between payroll taxes and general receipts, and the segregation of these programs and the general account, is a meaningless fiction. But a moment ago you were arguing the opposite. What gives? Choosing one side of that when it fits your ideological position and the other when it doesn't is what I find disingenuous. And it is more than a technicality, because to argue that SS is in dire straits you pretty much have to argue that the trust fund is an illusion.
B you asked why we talk about these programs in the context of a discussion on national solvency. I thought that was obvious but since you asked, well pictures are better than words sometimes, but that isn't an inconsistency. And the flip side is true, if you want to talk about trust funds then it's an admission that they aren't general funds. We still have a problem even when you count the trust funds. So for the sake of argument include the trust funds but as you can see below things are going from bad to worse each time they update the calcs. If this was a report I reviewed in my business I'd have no faith in the current projection and guess that it was going to get even worse soon. It's a problem, a big problem, and it's coming soon.
Moreover, we can debate whether the trust fund is a legitimate concept or not, and it may matter in the context of our discussion as to the proper interpretation of payroll taxes, but I wonder if that matters in the context of budget crisis if that money has been spent?
As for the rest of your hyperbole I missed where anyone here has said anything of the sort. The real debate seems to center around the degree which we should aspire to provide a European style welfare state or and whether such programs are affordable in the long run, so I can't really help you with the remainder of your post.
http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/SocialSecurityTrustFundoriginal.jpg
flowerseverywhere
9-23-12, 9:06am
an interesting thing about income taxes is people say that even if you pay no federal taxes you pay a lot in taxes (payroll, state, sales etc.)
Well, I would think if you make millions each year you pay a heck of a lot more in property taxes, sales etc. than most of us make in a lifetime just due to your lifestyle. If Mitt buys a bottle of wine, it isn't going to be the $14 box kind- with resultant higher taxes. His property taxes must be immense as well compared to us normal folk. He has multi million dollar homes in Boston, California and NH. All must be maintained by paid labor (hopefully legal with taxes paid) And you pay a heck of a lot more in sales tax shopping on Rodeo drive than the sales rack of Kohls.
I am not defending anyone, (personally I don't care for the man) but just pointing out that you need to compare apples to apples. One number does not give you the complete picture whether on the top or the bottom.
ApatheticNoMore
9-23-12, 9:49am
Well, I would think if you make millions each year you pay a heck of a lot more in property taxes, sales etc. than most of us make in a lifetime just due to your lifestyle. If Mitt buys a bottle of wine, it isn't going to be the $14 box kind- with resultant higher taxes. His property taxes must be immense as well compared to us normal folk.
Maybe, I've seen housing in the 1.5 million and up range paying almost nothing in property taxes. How do I know this? I was trying to rent a small part of the building as an apartment and found out they were selling it. Oh that's rich, they are trying to find a renter and meanwhile at the exact same time selling the building out from under them (and continualy reducing and probably underpricing it to sell) at which point said renter will surely get evicted without warning! Yea to know is to run the other way. But almost no taxes at all, and that's because the building was purchased 30-40 years ago and taxes were never allowed to be increased much from the initial purchase price (Prop 13).
That's just a myth so maybe ask her to go easy on him.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1 945–2015.jpg
Looks like they did something - we haven't seen a dent in tax receipts like during the last crash since the early fifties. I hope the last two dips aren't a projection of what the next one will look like.
flowerseverywhere
9-23-12, 12:11pm
But almost no taxes at all, and that's because the building was purchased 30-40 years ago and taxes were never allowed to be increased much from the initial purchase price (Prop 13).
Yes, you could be right about property taxes, we won't know until someone looks at the actual returns and tells us. Prop 13 is unique to California I think. I did find some info from this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120921/us-romney-taxes/
"The Romneys gave $2.6 million in cash to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the documents show. They gave just over $2 million in non-cash charitable contributions – including donations of stock holdings in Domino's Pizza, Dunkin Donuts and Warner Chilcott – to a family trust.
Overall, the Romneys' main tax return and separate forms for blind trusts totaled over 800 pages. The blind-trust income came from hedge funds and other complex investment vehicles. The couple also reported $3.5 million in income "from sources outside the United States," citing "various countries." Their forms included filings on holdings in Switzerland, Ireland, Germany and the Cayman Islands.
No wonder why he doesn't relate to the 47%. Heck I am surprised if he can relate to much of anyone besides the top .05%
You know, it's practically impossible to prove a negative so I won't even try, but I know with absolutely certainty that NPR did not devote hours of programming to it.
Yes that awful liberal outfit that just the other day featured a scientist who has written a book decrying the fact that lefty anti science loonies like the anti vaxxers never get criticized by the media like the poor right wing climate
Change deniers and therefore the media such as NPR is wrong and bad and such and we should leave politics out if science unless we can use science to bash the left I guess. This lovely bit of nonsense left the npr folks flabbergasted so they were quite unable to ask any intelligent questions about the premises of the propaganda oops I mean scholarly work. Later that day NPR featured a story on gun culture in Texas in which some good old boys got a platform to blather on and on about what a commie Obama is and how he wants to take all their second amendment rights away. No factual counterpoints or opposing views were aired in conjunction with that piece In there somewhere was an uncritical piece giving some Romney campaign surrogate the forum to talk some more trash about Obama and try to rehabilitate the Mittster and let everyone know it's still a horse race by God!
I give you your "liberal" media.
Because you are absolutely right. It is not like it's important at all to try and determine what a potential potus might feel about the common folk and his or her general viewpoints on how class might intersect with public policy. I would feel just great having a potus who thinks nearly half of American society is the scum of the earth! Those lucky duckies who don't make enough money to pay one form of federal taxation-moochers! Oh and by the way, I think my household paid a higher percentage in income tax than Romney did. So there you go. How is it possible to be a 53 percenter getting not a dime in direct government aid and yet still support Obama? Shame on me! I am a Class traitor!
I'd like to see what that graph would look like if we got rid of the $106,000 cap.
I personally think that is a wonderful idea. Unfortunately there are a lot of folks who like the idea, but don't seem to see that it would be necessary to also remove the cap on payouts. If both sides theoretically have no limit it should work out well for everyone (time value of money, statistical likelihood of people dying before retirement age, etc.). If, however, those who would limit only the repayment were to win out.... Well, we already know where that road goes.
So if you're lucky enough to live to a ripe old age it's kibble and a park bench for you? Don't think so. Raise the payroll rate if necessary.
We always seem to have enough money for the next war, don't we...
Moreover, we can debate whether the trust fund is a legitimate concept or not, and it may matter in the context of our discussion as to the proper interpretation of payroll taxes, but I wonder if that matters in the context of budget crisis if that money has been spent?
Hi Yossarian.
I think it matters a lot because it leads to different conclusions for the future. In budgeting decisions we should give programs credit for income that they earn. The chart you posted is in effect blaming the programs for future deficits but not giving them any credit for past surpluses.
I think the conversation we should be having is: Thank goodness we anticipated the temporary inversion of the population pyramid resulting for the large baby boomer cohort and (to a large degree) got our act together with regards to SS and (to a lesser degree) Medicare. Unfortunately, we didn't do so well with regards to everything else. How should we adjust our behavior going forward?
Instead, what we are getting is: We did earn a large (temporary) surplus as planned, but then we went and spent it all (on something else, but that's beside the point). We obviously cannot go on like this, so we must make drastic changes to the entitlement programs (with little or no examination of the policies that actually got us into this mess) ...
Sorry for the hyperbole. (Well, not really, but if you're not going to play along it's no fun anymore …)
B
So if you're lucky enough to live to a ripe old age it's kibble and a park bench for you? Don't think so. Raise the payroll rate if necessary.
We always seem to have enough money for the next war, don't we...
Agreed on the war part and the eliminating the $106,000 cap part, but not really understanding the whole park bench comment. All I was saying is that if you remove the limit on how much someone can pay in it is only fair to remove the limit on how much can be paid back. The same percentages should apply bottom to top, that's all. That system would have a better chance of survival for a couple reasons. First, it gets funded with today's dollars, but gets to pay out in tomorrow's. Today's money is always more valuable than tomorrow's. Second, statistically not everyone is going to live to a ripe old age. There will be people that pay in for 40 years and then die right about the time they were to have started collecting. It's sad, but it happens and more often than someone lives to be 100. The actuaries of the day knew that when SS was started and they can dial the numbers in within a fly spec today.
I translated that as "remove the payroll cap*, but cap the benefits." Maybe I need to practice reading for comprehension.
*I saw somewhere the cap is way up to $110,000 now. Woo.
Yossarian
9-24-12, 10:27am
*I saw somewhere the cap is way up to $110,000 now. Woo.
Well, take it in context. Originally the wage cap was $3,000, which is less than $50k today, and the rate was 2% instead of 15% as today.
Well, take it in context. Originally the wage cap was $3,000, which is less than $50k today, and the rate was 2% instead of 15% as today.
That was probably adequate for an era when a lot more people were civic-minded enough to die in their early sixties.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.