Back in the 1980's and 1990's, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack... and to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
Yeah, and he is entitled to his view but his perspective is also a bit colored due to the fact that he is one of the richest guys. He also does not sufficiently address the structural issues that most effect poor people.
Where the high tax rates do the most damage, is in the "middle area" - people who have money, but not billions and investors and startups that are dealing with money in the millions range.
If you are trying to raise money for capital improvements and/or a startup and need cash in the 100k-40mil range.. the rate of taxation and thus potential return on investment weights heavily on the risk/reward calculations of potential investors. Does anything think the tech revolution of the 90's would have happened at 70's level regulation and tax rates? Reagan set the stage. Just like economic prosperity doesnt happen until a generation after literacy rates in a country hit a certain level, it also takes time for the effect of lower rates to make a difference.
Plus Buffet mostly stands alone in his view, he has become an ideologue of sorts. Also, the question " why should other people have a right to such a huge percentage of your money" does need to be asked. Its the mentality that other people have the right to your property simply because they "want it" that is most dangerous... irrespective of its immediate financial harm. Once you start down that path, it doesnt stay with the "rich" soon the mob get jealous of anyone who have more that they do, and the middle class starts getting systematically attacked. Go read up on the progress of Bolshevism. The ultra rich may have been the first to be attacked, but it certainly did not end with them.
The biggest single Thing that he glossed over however, was spending. He mentioned it, but glossed over it.. though he did admit taxing the rich wasn't close to the entire answer.
The biggest structural problem with overtaxing the rich, is it simply leads to yet more govt spending. However it is spending itself that is a regressive tax. Taxing the rich could not begin to cover our deficits. Printing trillions of dollars is the biggest tax on the poor, and combined with the payroll taxes serves as an enormous energy-drain. Even if in a good economy, taxing the rich high in of itself would not necessarily totally kill the economy, it would still slow it down. Yet the structural problems with spending still would mean the poor saw little benefit from that.
It is kind of ironic, because we hate China - and for good reasons - but their artificial pegging of their currency to the dollar is the only thing that has kept all aspects of inflation down in the USA. We can still buy cheap nicknacks.. though notice that food, fuel, and essential services (health, education) have skyrocketed over the past 10 years. If you find something that hasnt skyrocketed in the past decade, it probably comes from China. Make sure to keep this in mind before advocating additional govt spending on anything.
In a fair concession to the "left" , it was Bushes useless wars and poor managing of such that was responsible for a good deal of , but certainly not all, of the insane spending increases. Obama however, accelerated the spending and printing of money.. and we are at a monetary saturation point where small immediate economic relief due to stimulus money is quickly offset by the additional structural damage such "extra" currency does to the financial markets and inflation.
Also, due to our trade deficits.. our economy has become like a sieve. Printed money doesnt stay in our borders, it quickly flows out to other countries. Conversely, the only thing that keeps us from being Greece in fact at this point is the fact that the USD is the worlds reserve currency. In other words, a lot of the negative effects of us printing money are actually felt elsewhere. They are felt here as well, but at least we share the pain with the rest of the world when we do it.
But nonetheless.. until our society admits that we have to cut our annual govt spending about in half - no matter how much we "want" to have all these programs and bureaucracies , we wont get anywhere. Taxing the rich, printing money to give to poor people, increasing Wall Street regulations... none of that will ever help anything. It is the proverbial " rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic "
Just the act of stopping the spending alone would be enough to revive the economy. It would be a much better stimulus than any trillion-dollar pork barrel program.
Ok so you agree with the guy in the video. The problem lies with the government. I mean if your hooker says sure you can do anal its not extra, what ya gonna do?
The richest 1% of US Americans earn nearly a quarter of the country's income and control an astonishing 40% of its wealth. Inequality in the US is more extreme than it's been in almost a century — and the gap between the super rich and the poor and middle class people has widened drastically over the last 30 years.
The poverty numbers are indeed terrible. Hopefully more people realize the benefits of free enterprise, the fault of cronyism and the Fed before it is to late and that number grows to represent all of us.
Sadly, most people will probably continue with the emotional appeals that do not address the real problems.
What is ironic is that we could cut huge amount of spending if we just picked up and left our European military bases and stopped subsidizing Europe's defense. But noone on the left wants to talk about those kinds of solutions.
About his discussion on the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae issue. Here's a video of Democrats scolding regulators on their findings of mismanagement within Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac in 2004.
What's not so great, Fannie & Freddie has given almost as much in bonus's to exec's as AIG and other Wall Street Investors. Yet the left is saying NOTHING about that. In that video I posted it tells how much Raines and Gorelik received in bonus's while cooking the books, yet nothing was done. I guess you can get away from being a greedy book cooking whore if you're a democrat/liberal.
I guess you can get away from being a greedy book cooking whore if you're a democrat/liberal.
You can straight go fuck yourself. Don't even come with that shit. Its about Power, ya ignorant red neck. It's not about what side of the fence you are on, its about how much Power and Stroke you have to afford you the protection to get away with crap like this.
So every Wall Street, Investment Bank, Insurance Company, Automobile Industry, CEO/CFO and President of the Board of Directors, ect, ect, ect, must as well be a liberal democrat with that kind of generalized statement.
Face it. The GOP is going to get utterly smoked in the 2012 National Election cycle, and more then likely swept back in the 2013 State Election cycle.
I have a hanky with your name on it come Nov. 2012.
Koch industries, the second largest privately-held company in the US, is an oil refining, chemical, paper products and financial services company with revenues of a $100bn a year. Virtually every American household has some Koch product - from paper towels and lumber, to Stainmaster carpet and Lycra in sports clothes, to gasoline for cars. The Koch’s political philosophy of rolling back environmental and financial regulations is also beneficial to their business interests.
Plus they bankroll a lot of right wing astroturfing, Tea Party among one of their better known projects.
I guess you can get away from being a greedy book cooking whore if you're a democrat/liberal.
You can straight go fuck yourself. Don't even come with that shit. Its about Power, ya ignorant red neck. It's not about what side of the fence you are on, its about how much Power and Stroke you have to afford you the protection to get away with crap like this.
So every Wall Street, Investment Bank, Insurance Company, Automobile Industry, CEO/CFO and President of the Board of Directors, ect, ect, ect, must as well be a liberal democrat with that kind of generalized statement.
Face it. The GOP is going to get utterly smoked in the 2012 National Election cycle, and more then likely swept back in the 2013 State Election cycle.
I have a hanky with your name on it come Nov. 2012.
I really don't give a shit if the GOP loses, we're fucked either way. Until the ignorant kool-aid drinking fuck sticks on the left and the right pull their head from their ass, we will be stuck with the same old bullshit in politics.
It's fucking sickening to see the 2 party system shit all over everything. Ron Paul maybe running as a Republican but he's far from being part of the party. That's where my vote is going, If people want real change that's where it's going to have to start. Now open wide and return to blowing Drakiis!
Koch industries, the second largest privately-held company in the US, is an oil refining, chemical, paper products and financial services company with revenues of a $100bn a year. Virtually every American household has some Koch product - from paper towels and lumber, to Stainmaster carpet and Lycra in sports clothes, to gasoline for cars. The Koch’s political philosophy of rolling back environmental and financial regulations is also beneficial to their business interests.
Plus they bankroll a lot of right wing astroturfing, Tea Party among one of their better known projects.
Can you say anything without getting it from the Huffington post or some other liberal agenda driven media?
George Soro's also has a lot of money that bank roll's liberal agenda driven movements. And then...?
The Kock brothers are a private business, are they greedy whores? most likely. But they still don't have anything to do with a Government entity that had a role in the housing bubble, like Fannie & Freddie.
Can you say anything without getting it from the Huffington post or some other liberal agenda driven media?
"The Facts tend to have liberal bias".
I don't expect they have time between creationism lessons to tech geography in your part of the country, but Al Jazeera is Qatar-based news source. That would make it Arabic.
Quote:
The Kock brothers
The only time you happen to be right is by accident.
Koch brother ARE The Republican Party, they pay for pretty much everything and openly dictate policy. If you are going dance to the tune, it might be helpful if you know who pays for the music.
PLEASE GOD..SOMEONE TELL ME WHERE SINIJ LIVES...Please...I will take care of this the right way.
Yes, threatening me with violence really going to help me change my mind and see you point of view.
Plus you are way over the line with your douchebagery.
LOL...I did not threaten you worm boy. I said I would take care of this the right way, perhaps we would go sit and have a cold beer and discuss this like rational people. Go ahead, insult me some more. Your words are as weak as your perspective on American politics or your understanding of Constitutional Law. Go back to your sand box and play child, while you still have a chance to do so and are protected by people much more worthy than you.
Can you say anything without getting it from the Huffington post or some other liberal agenda driven media?
"The Facts tend to have liberal bias".
I don't expect they have time between creationism lessons to tech geography in your part of the country, but Al Jazeera is Qatar-based news source. That would make it Arabic.
Quote:
The Kock brothers
The only time you happen to be right is by accident.
Koch brother ARE The Republican Party, they pay for pretty much everything and openly dictate policy. If you are going dance to the tune, it might be helpful if you know who pays for the music.
I read Al Jazeera quite a bit in english. They are BBC trained reporters, and actually do a lot of good work - when it comes to actualy reporting. Their editorial and opinion bloggers are drawn from the deepest darkest marxist pits one could image, theyre terrible.
But their actual reporting is good.
Koch bros arent the GOP, they are one FACTION in the GOP. Herman Cain is the current Koch proxy in the GOP primary just FYI. Judging from the way Faux news acts, it looks like Murdoch might be behind him now as well , originally Perry was Murdoch's proxy but has proved himself too incompetent on the national stage to be a useful tool.
Out of the "mainstream" ( non-Paul ) candidates, Romney is actually the most independent. He has various ties, but as an equal force in business and politics on his own.. is why Fox and the right wing windbags rail against him all the time.
I am voting for Paul, but will vote for Romney against Obama if he gets the nod. And Tas I think you are wrong, if the GOP does the sensible thing and sends Romney against Obama ( or Paul ) then Obama will likely lose. If Cain or Perry get nominated, then GOP loses. If Newt gets it... hard to say, I would say advantage Obama in that case... except Newt has a history as Speaker that led to 90's prosperity, even if he left the Speakership in bad form...
Locally, I dont see a lot of change. Depends on how the economy is doing.
Well stated Derid and certainly worth considering. I don't know how things went around the country today, but in Northern Virginia and Maryland, many democrats were unseated in today's elections, replace with republicans and independants, even in staunch never before penetrated democratic areas.
I agree that if Paul, who is the only logical choices, or at least Romney are selected, Obama loses. I am not certain with Newt, I think he is already a forgotten entity, but I could be wrong.
Derid, talking to you is always refreshing. Most conservatives I have displeasure to debate against fall into hysterics half way through the argument, right after running out of Fox News soundbites.
My position on Koch is that right now they have undue influence on Republican party even outside of directly planting candidates. Some candidates might be more or less independent, but overall GOP message is mostly Koch.
Whether or not the Koch brothers have given money to the Republican party doesn't affect my opinions any more than George Soros' support of the Democrats affects yours. Both parties have billionaire donors. So what? How about you take some of your own medicine and stick to debating the issues rather than name calling and inflammatory soundbites designed to elicit a visceral reaction.
Whether or not the Koch brothers have given money to the Republican party doesn't affect my opinions any more than George Soros' support of the Democrats affects yours. Both parties have billionaire donors. So what?
Have you watches last round of primaries? A bunch of winning-ticket established republicans got tossed out during primaries for not towing Koch line. Tea Party is a minority voice even in the Republican party, yet by holding primaries hostage they have undue influence on entire political process. Net effect is even more gridlock, because Republican politicians no longer can compromise in fear of being called RINOs and unseated during primaries.
Who exactly do you call a "winning-ticket" republican that got tossed? I've only seen two people bow out and I'd never heard of either before the debates started.
And if they are afraid of being called RINOs, then perhaps they should remember on what principles they were elected.
Reid got handed undeserved victory because Tea Party put complete nut in opposition to him. Even Democrats wanted to vote him out, but alternative happened to be much much worse.
Then Murkovski from Alaska got replaced by unelectable candidate, she won anyways as write-in.
Michael Castle from Delaware got tossed out in favor of unelectable tea party candidate.
This is just going from my memory, there are many more. Pretty much if not for Tea Party interference, Republicans would have had Senate and Congress by now. Next election Tea Party and debt limit hostage-taking going to cost Republicans Congress majority.
This guy went to OWS with a camera crew and a sign that said " I am the 1%, lets talk"
From the article:
Quote:
Indeed, there were plenty of heated discussions. I did little more than ask how much of my earnings I should be allowed to keep.
This is good question, but before answering it we need to look into HOW you got your earnings.
What do we want to reward as society? We want creators - engineers, scientists, artists, doctors, and business creators. Someone with net benefit for society, working for the common good in one or another way is what should be rewarded.
Instead, 1% are mostly bankers, market speculators and CEOs with golden parachutes, and generational rich with inheritances. Is that what we want to reward as society? Gambling with other people's money and old money?
How much you got to keep should depend on how you got it. Sometimes it should be none of it, sometimes all of it.
Well, just remember that people who start businesses by getting money from investors and people who land good jobs at businesses that got started or grew with money from investors tend to think that the investors should be rewarded for taking the risk.
I will agree that there is certainly a crony class of so-called capitalists that needs reigned in, the ones who feed off the federal reserve and crony govt money and transactions. This applies equally to both parties, its not a "conservative vs liberal" issue. Cronyists on both sides exists, in very large numbers. People just need to start remembering that cronyism has nothing to do with true capitalism.
What grates at me is all those on the left who do not know the difference, or pretend there isnt one.. and just malign free market economics for "causing their problems" when it was the insider cronyism , corruption and such that created the problems.
Its not like its a vague theory either , very easy for me to point to the instances where crony govt fouled everything up.
Well, just remember that people who start businesses by getting money from investors and people who land good jobs at businesses that got started or grew with money from investors tend to think that the investors should be rewarded for taking the risk.
I don't believe that there should be such thing as "investor class". If your middle class is extensive and banking system is robust then you would not need angel investors for small business creation. More business will be created because more people would be able to afford it.
I beg to differ, because I have been close to that process quite a bit. Real manufacturing require major capital investments that are beyond the reach of the middle class, except when many middle class people get together to pool money - but then someone has to manage and direct that enterprise because there is a LOT to it... and the investor and financial management class is reborn.
Plus what about very successful entrepreneurs who go about diversifying or starting new business?
So, in a 20-year period when the financial sector's share of the economy expanded by a third, from 6% to 8.4% of GDP, donations from this particular group increased by 700%.
Link is as always - more wealth concentrated into fewer hands translates to more political power that leads to policies that result in further concentration of wealth.
Actually you can just as easily easily argue that power concentrated in govt leads to concentration of wealth in the politically connected. Its a feedback loop.
We can easily dismiss this assertion by looking what happens in the absence of government/regulation - the same power/wealth concentration as we see now.
Negative. Govt intervention was the root cause of much of the imbalance. Your datasets are way too small, and limited in scope to make any accurate assertions or judgements.
We can easily dismiss this assertion by looking what happens in the absence of government/regulation - the same power/wealth concentration as we see now.
How about real examples, Robber Barons or as I like to call them captains of Industry didn't cause the Great Depression.
Stop with the lefty rants and stay to facts.
The facts are nobody has come up with one thing that caused it. There are several theory's as to what did it but if your smart enough to read a bit it was the several things that caused it and several things that made it worst.
No, Great Depression, just like 2008 recession just happened and all parallels, like speculative bubbles are just coincidence.
Quote:
Stop with the lefty rants and stay to facts.
Sorry, I don't speak conservative. "The facts" for you is anything that you agree with, "lefty rants" are everything else, including to Webster definition of the word 'facts'.
No, Great Depression, just like 2008 recession just happened and all parallels, like speculative bubbles are just coincidence.
Quote:
Stop with the lefty rants and stay to facts.
Sorry, I don't speak conservative. "The facts" for you is anything that you agree with, "lefty rants" are everything else, including to Webster definition of the word 'facts'.
Someone should look up the definition of 'irony' in Websters while they have it to hand.
Not your writing style, rather your doublespeak is reminiscent of some characters found in one of his works. Big difference.
I know fixation on Orwell and Rand is quite popular with today's conservatives, but have any of you actually read any of it? 'RINO' alone could have been borrowed from pages of 1984 and Norquist pledge, with "but not when raising taxes on the poor" clauses from the pages of Animal farm.
Poor Derid, throwing stones in the glass house again.
Quote:
When did I compare your ideas to Obama? Do you have any ideas of your own?
Multiple times in the past, you are prone to regressing to "look, someone_conservatives_hate said this as well so it must be wrong" line of thinking. As to recent examples - "Do you have any ideas of your own?"
Interesting you use the term RINO in some sort of misguided attempt to insult me.... considering I have never been known for using or even liking the term RINO.
Glass house eh? Hah.
Your attempts at insults and building of pejorative associations fails as badly as all of your other rhetorical pursuits.
Also, I have never once been prone to saying " look someone conservatives hate said something so he must be wrong". I have however said or implied " I already acknowledged the general gist what the video says, and didnt have 30 minutes to spend watching something I already know" , or " I have found this person to be so silly in the past that I am not going to waste my time again".
In neither case, did anything anyone else thought have anything to do with it. However since you are unable to even comprehend the difference between disavowing/ignoring your data, and thrashing the poor reasoning you use to interpret your data - it is understandable that you would make this type of mistake.
Judging from the tone and timbre of your post.... perhaps you should wait until after nap time before posting? Just a suggestion.
So your point is that a lion of the left turns out to use the same loopholes you rail against the right for using? Gosh, seems all that liberal talk was just that, talk.
Oh my, isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? Why don't you hop on to one of your news sites and see if you can dig up the numbers for charitable contribution by party affiliation. Right off the top of my head I know that B.O. gave less than 1% of his earnings before he ran for president and even then only upped it to 3%. You'd be hard pressed to find more than a couple of conservatives with numbers that low.
General Electric paid 0% in taxes, YES THAT IS CORRECT 0%. I mean WTF I just worked for free for 3 months for the government paying 30% while they pay 0%!!!!!!!! The top 1% is legit if they work their asses off to make it, BUT doing so makes NO ONE WANTS TO BEGIN SMALL BUSINESS ANYMORE BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE "MIDDLE" class Americans and since they are wideing the gap, we are fucked. Will probably edit this once since i am prety drunk ATM.
Are we still talking about how estate of one of the richest 1%-ers managed to dodge paying taxes?
You're the one who accused me of not knowing the difference between philanthropy and taxes.
Your response to me pointing out estate one of the richest 1% paying no taxes (and that estate is not at all post-tax money!!!) with a suggestion of charitable donations in some attempt of misguided partisanship.
Here is situation - Steve Jobs paid no fucking capital gain taxes for at least a decade, he hasn't sold a single share since 97 and simply borrowed against his shares postponing taking tax. Then he croaks and estate now magically forgiven all past capital gains!!! What the fuck?! Our tax code when it comes to top marginal tax is broken, and don't try to make this partisan issues.
Someone earlier asked how much should 1% pay in taxes. Well, clearly more than estate of Steve Jobs did.
Someone earlier asked how much should 1% pay in taxes. Well, clearly more than estate of Steve Jobs did.
"More" seems to be the standard lefty answer when that question is asked. Which is what usually prompts the rest of us to ask the original question in the first place.
I know when I want to make a point about taxes I always look for data compiled by a UC Berkley Professor who works for the Obama administration with a history of advocating socialistic economic theories like Keynesian economics.
So if they are still paying a lower rate, and since Obama is the President. How does it make you feel that Obama still has it that way even after his first year and a half with a super majority in congress?
I'm sure your will say something absurd like it's still Bush's fault. Or the republicans are at fault even though Obama had a super majority. If he couldn't get it done with a super majority, that leads me to believe some democrats didn't ride the Obama wagon! So again... how does it feel to have your President still toting this tax for the wealthy?
We elected Republican president, you proceeded to attack him for being too liberal and now trying to get Evangelical Ayatollah elected.
Well your back, you answered the question with regular fashion of not answering it. So from your NONE answer I take you're pretty disappointed that Obama is still taxing the wealthy less (according to you). Don't you just love Irony?
you answered the question with regular fashion of not answering it.
Not quite. You do not understand what you are asking and/or trying to bait me into saying something that you could later misrepresent.
You asked "How does it make you feel that Obama still has it that way even after his first year and a half with a super majority in congress?"
What you should have asked is following - Do you think that any president, even with super majorities, has enough influence to dictate policy? Do you think that policy that was enacted was correctly prioritized?
What you asked boils down to "Have you stopped beating your mother? Please answer with Yes/No".
That's a blatant gross oversimplification but let's assume you're making a valid point. Does that then mean that you're willing to take back everything you've ever blamed the conservative leaning presidents for, since no "president, even with super majorities, has enough influence to dictate policy."
"In the last two years, super PACs raised more than $180 million -- with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people and roughly 20 percent from corporations," Johnson wrote in the Feb. 24 article.
This is why we need higher taxes on 1% - so less of this happens.
"In the last two years, super PACs raised more than $180 million -- with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people and roughly 20 percent from corporations," Johnson wrote in the Feb. 24 article.
This is why we need higher taxes on 1% - so less of this happens.
You are failing to remember that the financial, energy, and agricultural sector along with military industrial complex has spent the last 30 years ensuring the strategical placement into key Government positions form Ex-Employees ensure that they can railroad anything coming down the turnpike that is For the People by the People.
See: Goldman Sachs, Boeing, GE, 3M, MonSantos, and pick any major Energy Sector Corp.
"In the last two years, super PACs raised more than $180 million -- with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people and roughly 20 percent from corporations," Johnson wrote in the Feb. 24 article.
This is why we need higher taxes on 1% - so less of this happens.
You are failing to remember that the financial, energy, and agricultural sector along with military industrial complex has spent the last 30 years ensuring the strategical placement into key Government positions form Ex-Employees ensure that they can railroad anything coming down the turnpike that is For the People by the People.
See: Goldman Sachs, Boeing, GE, 3M, MonSantos, and pick any major Energy Sector Corp.
Bingo.
If only solving our problems, financial and political was as easy as taxing the crap out of the 1%.
"In the last two years, super PACs raised more than $180 million -- with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people and roughly 20 percent from corporations," Johnson wrote in the Feb. 24 article.
This is why we need higher taxes on 1% - so less of this happens.
So what happens when you tax the said 1% into oblivion and they take their money overseas? You seem to be out of touch with reality if you think they will keep their money here when they could take it elsewhere.
What's wrong with having real tax reform & auditing the fed? We need to get this debt and the way we tax corrected the right way. Instead of using a broken tax system that will only tax more. Do you really think taxing the wealthy more will get rid of the national debt? Come on man, stop being so damn naive. Once the Government starts getting more revenue they will simply spend more, Or did you not pay much attention to Obama's budget proposal?
There is a difference between Income and Wealth. Taxing the top 1% of Income will really only effect making over $344k a year. While I agree the top 1% of income earners should be paying there fare share, and if you look at the income tax brackets by raw % they almost are.
It's the top 1% of WEALTH that needs to be dealt with. The taxation of income is a set levels, while the taxation of capitol gains from non-income WEALTH is set at a flat 15%. Those individuals who no longer have an income but deride their gains from capitol gains on WEALTH due to investments and interest from previously taxed monies are the ones who are holding the key to the fucking gold mine.
I think its also worth noting the "carried interest" issue, where you manage other peoples money at the Cap Gains tax rate on your income.
While I do not have any problem with 15% for investing your own money, getting taxed at that rate to manage/invest other peoples money - especially vast sums of govt and institutional investments is a crock and a half. Thats where a good deal of the chicanery and corruption comes into play as well.
If only solving our problems, financial and political was as easy as taxing the crap out of the 1%.
No, but "taxing the crap out of 1%" is a good start.
this is the same 1% that pays 37% of all income taxes in this country? anyone in the commune ever read you the goose and the golden egg? how much is fair?
In fairness, the right has had this idea that we can just borrow money and still spend like mad. Maybe thats changing, and maybe the claims of change are just political rhetoric.
Though Sinij, Dems do like spending other peoples money.. very much so. You yourself hang out here and argue in favor of spending more of other peoples money on things that you personally think are rights/important, like health care and etc.
Not all Dems and situations are equal either. Clinton and Newt for example, were relatively responsible and taxes and revenues rose but some spending was cut and some things reformed. Ended up with a balanced budget and we didnt need to print so much money. Obama on the other hand was quite a bit less reasonable for the first 2 years of his term. The spending has reached insanity levels, though part of this was from idiotic ideas and programs that Bush initiated.
In most respects, Obama has actually been a continuation of Bush - except for being even worse for civil liberties, and implementing Obamacare. Same cronyism? Check. ( Check out all the Obama donors that got huge govt paydays after his term began, Solyndra is the most talked about but just the tip of the iceberg ) Same Authoritarian disregard for the Constitution? Check. ( In fact you could argue Obama is even worse, trying to make recess appointments when Congress isnt even in recess - Bush at least didnt do that despite the Dems blocking his appointments ) Same proclivity to throw hundreds of billions of dollars at problems in an ineffectual manner? Check.
He even continued the Bush wars. ( He didnt exit Iraq, the Iraqis effectively kicked us out. ) Heck, he has even started other interventions and foreign military expansion. Its frankly amazing that the neocons dont worship the guy.
I do think socialist is technically inaccurate to describe Obama. He is a Authoritarian secular Neocon. Honestly, outside of gays and abortion.. he fits the mold almost perfectly. And health mandates arent new to the GOP or Neocons either, Newt was for one until Obama implemented one.
Its just so hilarious that the media plays up different labels and people argue and bicker as if there is a real difference between most of the GOP and most of the Dems. Sure, the Dems are playing the populist "eat the rich" tune - for the cameras, and because they know it wont pass. Even if massive new taxes did pass, Pelosi would ensure that the Dem allies were protected and that there were plenty of loopholes that the truly wealthy could exploit. Its just the middle and upper-middle classes that get truly hammered.
Its all a crock on both sides of the isle, its all the same hypocrasy. sure there is a plurality on the left who truly believe in govt controls leading to prosperity, and a plurality on the right that genuinely wants to control wombs and bedroom behaviour - but the vast majority of the Establishment on both sides of the isle may as well be the same party, that plays to regional differences with their rhetoric.
Larry Mishel has a systematic breakdown of the reasons for worker income stagnation since 1973. He starts with the familiar divergence: productivity up 80 percent, the compensation (including benefits) of the median worker up only 11 percent. Where did the productivity go?
Over the past four years, American municipalities have laid off well over a hundred thousand teachers. They've also been firing policemen, firefighters and social workers, but I think it's the firing of teachers that makes the point clearest; it keeps going on and on. (Fresh teacher layoffs are happening this spring in Las Vegas (1,015), Flint (237), Sacramento (400), Gary (169), Cleveland (700), San Diego (1,534) and Los Angeles (9,500).) If you are a regular American who can't afford private school, you are now seeing the quality of your child's education slashed because the federal government is cutting its assistance to cash-strapped states.
Quote:
Who should pay? Arguably, no one at all, at least not right now. There is an argument to be made that America should be borrowing and spending far more money right now on needed expenditures like teacher salaries and infrastructure upgrades, since negative real bond yields means it's actually cheaper to borrow the money and pay it back later than it would be to pay for things with taxes right now.
Except when the debt/GDP ratio gets so high that the overall interest payments eat up significant portions of your tax base, meaning the only way to ever improve your debt/GDP ratio is to inflate your way out of it by printing more fiat currency. Which the dangers of have been heartily discussed here and in the world at large.
Strategic borrowing makes sense when going from 0% debt/GDP, but the picture is different when you are already sitting at 100% debt/GDP.
Having interest payments grow faster than tax income is not sustainable.
Even without factoring in the secondary and tertiary effects, and secondary and tertiary arguments revolving around who gets taxed, what the max sustainable tax base could be with higher taxation, what the money gets pent on, how much gets wasted, proper role of govt etc... our current debt/GDP and rate of real economic growth as measured in terms of real wealth production (as measured by production of real goods/marketable services) is already very high.
As far as cuts, I think homeland security and the military should be chopped as well as other services.
Also sinij, FYI I am still working on my response to the productivity/compensation graph you posted some time ago. It has actually been fascinating, I hope to have it finished reasonably soon. Quite a bit of original research going into that (I plan to use it beyond the discussions here), and I just have not had time to complete it. (Havent even played GW2 weekends, literally working 7 days a week the past couple months).
Over the past four years, American municipalities have laid off well over a hundred thousand teachers. They've also been firing policemen, firefighters and social workers, but I think it's the firing of teachers that makes the point clearest; it keeps going on and on. (Fresh teacher layoffs are happening this spring in Las Vegas (1,015), Flint (237), Sacramento (400), Gary (169), Cleveland (700), San Diego (1,534) and Los Angeles (9,500).) If you are a regular American who can't afford private school, you are now seeing the quality of your child's education slashed because the federal government is cutting its assistance to cash-strapped states.
Quote:
Who should pay? Arguably, no one at all, at least not right now. There is an argument to be made that America should be borrowing and spending far more money right now on needed expenditures like teacher salaries and infrastructure upgrades, since negative real bond yields means it's actually cheaper to borrow the money and pay it back later than it would be to pay for things with taxes right now.
You do realize that most of those jobs were linked to federal money given to states for a limited time and they knew the money would run out and the jobs would be lost????
These are State jobs not Federal jobs, so once again the feds have fucked up by trying to look like the hero but then wait when no one is looking and take it away, then come out and say holy shit look at all the jobs lost we need more taxes.
I am a regular American and I can afford to pay for private school. I also pay for my kids to go to public schools but since they do not attend public schools I get screwed on my taxes.
Tell me how a private school and spend more the half the money per kid and get the same or better results then public.
It's not about pushing more money into public schools, which has yet to work, its getting the broken public schools to work.
BTW not all public schools are broken or broke. A lot of the the schools in my area are above national standards because they work hard at it, not bitch about not having enough money.
If you go to the places where they got the info and graphs you will notice that the rest of the research shows that since the 80's the income growth was pretty much across board increases. The rich have always been rich that's why we call them rich.
What you seem to propose is Socialism.
That's were we all live in Cotton Candy Land and monkeys wipe our asses.
If research presented by that article to be believed, so is 90%+ of all Americans.
Just because most of us would LIKE for things to be fair doesn't mean that we want the government to come in and take from some to give to others under their definition of what is fair.
Our system isn't perfect, but its the best one ever tried. And, as far as fair goes, our system does a pretty good job of rewarding hard work and risk while providing a comfortable living for folks who work hard and take little, if any, risk and allowing you to survive in, what we call, poverty if you choose not to work or risk anything.
If research presented by that article to be believed, so is 90%+ of all Americans.
Just because most of us would LIKE for things to be fair doesn't mean that we want the government to come in and take from some to give to others...
Why are you building "government to come in and take"? It wasn't mentioned in the article I linked nor brought up be me.
What is amazing is that we as society agree that current level of wealth inequality is unacceptable. Better and more affordable education, stronger oversight over crony capitalism, transparency in lobbying and progressive taxation...
Lots of things could and should be done.
My old point still stand (and linked article does a good job highlighting it) - concentration of wealth at the top is detrimental to society. Wealth concentrated in too few hands corrupts the system and promotes even more concentration of wealth.
Why are you building "government to come in and take"? It wasn't mentioned in the article I linked nor brought up be me.
What is amazing is that we as society agree that current level of wealth inequality is unacceptable. Better and more affordable education, stronger oversight over crony capitalism, transparency in lobbying and progressive taxation...
What are you proposing then?
The voucher system seems to work for schools, but as long as our representatives are being lobbied by the teacher's union, that won't happen. Private schools provide better education for less money per pupil with greater teacher accountability, period. Amazing what can happen when the government isn't involved.
I agree about the crony capitalism, which is bred by big government and murky lobbying tactics. Get rid of the D.C. offices and send all the representatives and senators home. They can debate via telecom. That way they are closer to their constituents for accountability purposes and decentralized to make lobbying more difficult.
We have a progressive tax system. If you think we don't then you've clearly never paid attention to your tax forms.
I think there is agreement that lopsided wealth concentration is not a good thing. In fact I would be the first to say that it is indicative of a society with major underlying issues, and an indicator of potential social unrest.
@sinij : The differences are what we believe to be the underlying causes and solutions.
Regarding the wealth issue in of itself, and ignoring the other aspects for a second... if I have read your views correctly, you seem to view lopsided wealth as a cause of problems, whereas I see it as a symptom. Which is why I do not particularly think that raising taxes and redistributing money is particularly effective in the long run.
An analogy would be that if we say the country is sick with HIV, lopsided wealth is one of the colds that it catches because the underlying immune system is compromised. Taking some cough medicine (raising taxes and redistributing wealth) might help us feel better temporarily... but does nothing to address the worsening underlying issue. Eventually the various diseases resulting from the underlying condition will get so bad as to no longer be treatable, and the patient will die. Unless of course you identify the underlying source of the problems and prepare effective treatments while the patient still has the strength to survive them.
Basically I just consider the bulk of liberal proposals to be "feel good" solutions, which pursuing would be the equivalent of chasing our tail.
My biggest beef with them, is that almost all pursue action at the federal level. Achieving meaningful reform at the federal is something I consider a literal impossibility if it comes by means of initiating additional actions and/or powers. Because the Federal Govt has almost zero accountability. Federal agents in any dept can basically do almost anything they want, or look the other way as convenient... and with few exceptions nothing will blowback on them.
Many Fed agencies already do not even obey the law, like the TSA ignoring court orders. Madoff didnt get away with his scam because there werent laws against it... the regulators were all either intimidated or bought off. Megabanks launder tens of billions for drug cartels and write off the whole episode with a couple hundred million bucks of fines. Bushes get elected and funnel billions to Haliburtons and other cronies, Obamas get elected and funnel billions to various donors, Kennedys, Gores and etc... One in the name of making the world safer via military, the other in the name of fighting global warming. Its all the same, and none of them get called to account.
People do not even comment on all the smaller businesses that get hosed by the govt. Under Bush I personally know a company that went bankrupt because they had to pay millions of dollars to a crony Bush company that was affiliated with Homeland Security to "clean up" a plant disease that is very common in South America because some made it through customs. ( It was a "biological weapon" hah) Ofc anyone who really wanted to use it to infect our potato crop or something could easily sneak it over (and obviously not report it when routine labwork on your crop detects it...) but sense does not matter to govt... only the dollars.
So, who should watch over the govt? The people? Well it doesnt happen, and cant happen. Never mind the corrupt and collusive media, too much goes on for most people to begin to follow the events... let alone do anything about them. With trillions of dollars at stake (literally) and only two parties to buy off... what hope can there possibly be of ever getting an honest Federal Govt? None, the numbers involved (number of people/time required to pay attention/time available/influence/number of events to watch/etc)quickly show it is utterly and completely impossible. Concentration of power by definition reduces the accountability of those in power.
Dont we have little enough accountability of govt already? Why would we want even less?
When liberals start talking about reducing the power and corruption of the Fed Govt, and implementing solutions at a level of govt that is realistically possible for the electorate to hold accountable in a meaningful way then I will be all ears.
Why is wealth inequality such a big deal? So what if 60 million americans own most of the wealth? 3 million of them pay 40% of the taxes. The lower two and a half quinitiles not only pay no federal taxes, but also receive some sort pf welfare payment! So this massive transfer of wealth is pissed away year after year. The people who have wealth or are capable of earning it support themselves and half the country.
This class warfare baiting is so cliched its tiresome. There is no way to even out wealth. There will always be inequality. Anyone put in charge of redistribution of wealth will help themselves and their friends to it. Dont marxists ever tire of the same drivel? it seems that people who care about wealth inequality are basically begging. they dont want to work withinthe system to improve their lit but would rather someone take it from a rich guy and hand it over.
Over the past four years, American municipalities have laid off well over a hundred thousand teachers. They've also been firing policemen, firefighters and social workers, but I think it's the firing of teachers that makes the point clearest; it keeps going on and on. (Fresh teacher layoffs are happening this spring in Las Vegas (1,015), Flint (237), Sacramento (400), Gary (169), Cleveland (700), San Diego (1,534) and Los Angeles (9,500).) If you are a regular American who can't afford private school, you are now seeing the quality of your child's education slashed because the federal government is cutting its assistance to cash-strapped states.
Quote:
Who should pay? Arguably, no one at all, at least not right now. There is an argument to be made that America should be borrowing and spending far more money right now on needed expenditures like teacher salaries and infrastructure upgrades, since negative real bond yields means it's actually cheaper to borrow the money and pay it back later than it would be to pay for things with taxes right now.
The problems with this are severalfold:
1- scale. there are 180,000 people employed by LA Unified. 9,500 is like 5% of that. 2- unions. the 9,500 teachers laid off werent the worst ones, but the newest 3- non teachers. in most districts there are more non teachers than teachers, also with unions and collective bargaining rights, and finite resources. add to this the enormous bloat at the california dept of Ed and you have a lot of waste. 4- pensions. thank god stockton was dominoe number one and some sanity was injected into the pension system. cant happen soon enough imo
i say all this as a teacher. my once noble profession has been dragged in the shit and is now viewed by taxpayers as full of greedy, lazy, grasping parasites. our pensions and benefits are too lavish. it cannot be sustained.
if they want to talk about giving back 3 things need to happen: 1- every third non teacher needs to be fired 2- the dept of education needs its budget slashed by 90% or more 3- all non social security systems need to be outlawed. id be happy if social security was too but lets be reasonable
"3- all non social security systems need to be outlawed. id be happy if social security was too but lets be reasonable"
This is very standard argument. Conservatives (not my POV, but you asked me to defend this point) point out that tax outlays are wealth transfer and discourage wealth generation.
Such argument is usually countered by pointing out that for true equality starting point must be the same, that not everyone who falls through the cracks had as fair shot at "making it" as you or me.
"3- all non social security systems need to be outlawed. id be happy if social security was too but lets be reasonable"
Can you expound upon this one please?
As you may ir may nit know, a vast portion of the middle class do not pay into social security. Teachers, police, firemen, railroad workers, state, local, and county officials ALL pay into their own retirement systems. They dont pay into social security. In a county like the one I live in, which is in Californias central valley, about 90% of the people who arent on welfare work for the government in spme way. The other 10% own dairies and the tiny number of local businesses. All the other jobs are McJobs. Every place in town takes food stamps. I digress.
So the first problem is that most of the tax base doesnt pay into the system. The second problem is that there is no longer a work-credit component to social security. 2 examples: one of my loser students, a gang member covered with tattoos, father one an illegitimate child at age 15, is recieving 900 dollars a month from SSI for his "anger problems". When I heard that I probably could have qualified, myself. Second example, my cousin married a foreigner, brought her mom over. mom become a citizen, signs up for social security, she heads back to the Philippines drawing as much as my dad, who paid the max into the system since 1980.
So like many, many problems with the govt, it has to do with a) special protected classes excusing themselves from societal obligations ( see Mandarins), and b) a lack of distinction between those who controbute to society and those who cling like lampreys to societies throat.
In my opinion, any time you pay or otherwise compensate people who arent earning it through work, you will fail. Do any of you think that the workers of the future are going to pay 50% tax rates so you can draw your retirement of $75,000 a year for the last 25 years of your life?? When I retire the country is going to be 25% hispanic and half of those will be foreign born. they will not want to subsidize the white mans lifestyle by picking his food, cleaning his house, then handing over half their earnings to pay his retirement.
Why is wealth inequality such a big deal? So what if 60 million americans own most of the wealth? 3 million of them pay 40% of the taxes. The lower two and a half quinitiles not only pay no federal taxes, but also receive some sort pf welfare payment! So this massive transfer of wealth is pissed away year after year. The people who have wealth or are capable of earning it support themselves and half the country.
This class warfare baiting is so cliched its tiresome. There is no way to even out wealth. There will always be inequality. Anyone put in charge of redistribution of wealth will help themselves and their friends to it. Dont marxists ever tire of the same drivel? it seems that people who care about wealth inequality are basically begging. they dont want to work withinthe system to improve their lit but would rather someone take it from a rich guy and hand it over.
next topic please
I generally agree with most of your points.
What I was pointing out, is that historically - a large unbalance tends to indicate problems. There will in fact always be inequality. But the ratio of inequality can be a telltale sign of some larger issue.
In this case, the issue is govt interventionism and corruption. I say that it is in fact govt that is the ultimate source of this, and that more govt will end up making the problem worse not better.
In a free market, wealth does not accumulate in the hands of so few people via market forces. Without govt at the highest levels aiding and abetting the elites and favoring them, wealth would be more distributed via natural market forces.
To my blue collar mind, the idea that people can make a living, much less get rich, by moving piles of money around and creating NO real wealth is abhorrent.
Crony capitalism is as bad as socialism. It even has its own -ism: fasc-ism. it, and the welfare state, must be destroyed
I tend to agree with you Cheerio (although I don't know how much blame I'm willing to place on EVERYONE on Wall Street, businesses do need investors) except for the fascism=crony capitalism part. Any socialist state where the government controls the businesses,through back channels, could be described as cronyism because even in socialist states the corporations are often still "owned" by the powerful/elite players who are getting favors from those serving in an official capacity.
Fascism is simply socialism with some "ra ra state, we're better than everyone" thrown in, thus the NAZI party, national socialist party. And let's be realistic, what socialist nation doesn't say that it is better than all other nations? I don't know exactly how the fascists got linked to the political right, but all the evidence points to the other side. Eugenics - Left, Socialism - Left, State run media - Left, Giant government with nearly/or complete control - Left...
Communism - a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
Fascism - a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
The difference here (which is deplorable) is that the dictionary attempts to make communism sound soft and cuddly by leaving out the dictator bit and calling it a "system of social organization"...
Any student of history can tell you that soviet Russia, North Korea, China, etc all operate just like the definition of fascism.
And since I brought it up, everyone wants us to believe that China is all soft and cuddly now because they are moving from communism to "state capitalism." What in the holy flying hell is the difference?
Cheerio, not that I completely disagree with you on "moving money around" point... but do you know what fiat money system is?
It means that money value is what we agree it is, without any kind of backing. It can be created, valued or destroyed in a pretty much any manner or way you can imagine. Policy controlled via lobbying and "investment" banking controlled via capital are probably two major way that do influence. In effect you have "money" creating rules on how "money" works.
Ohhh yes. "moving money around" to make money, without creating real wealth, can really only be done with fiat money.
I think its truedestructiveness is apparent when you look at all types of runaway debt- mortgages, student loans, credit cards- and the "soft taxation" of inflation. Since we have decoupled from gold all these problems have skyrocketed.
As i tell my students, money is magic, it only works because we all believe in it.
Fascism advocates a state-controlled and regulated mixed economy; the principal economic goal of fascism is to achieve national autarky to secure national independence, through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[21] It promotes regulated private enterprise and private property contingent whenever beneficial to the nation and state enterprise and state property whenever necessary to protect its interests
I remember reading Mussolinis biography and there was a lot of talk about economic control. He managed to get all the big business on his side, and describedfascism as the State and corporations working together, which makes sense. The giant corporations love regulation because it helps force their small competitors out of business.
The point I was making is that, in an economic sense, crony capitalism is the same as socialism. From the middle class viewpoint I have, they produce the same results: less competition, fewer choices, shabbier products.
Ohhh yes. "moving money around" to make money, without creating real wealth, can really only be done with fiat money.
I think its truedestructiveness is apparent when you look at all types of runaway debt- mortgages, student loans, credit cards- and the "soft taxation" of inflation. Since we have decoupled from gold all these problems have skyrocketed.
As i tell my students, money is magic, it only works because we all believe in it.
I think what sinij was referring to was the fact that in its proper form, venture capitalists/banks perform a vital service - they basically produce "opportunity". You have an idea/skill/successful biz/etc, the financial guys can give you an opportunity to create/utilize/expand/etc by loaning you capital to build/equip/hire/etc and be successful. In return, if it works, they get back more money that they loaned you.
However the way the system currently works, if you are ultra wealthy/connected you can form mini cartels with your peers and get the govt to directly or indirectly back/loan/give you cash in return for your political/financial patronage. This is not limited to political donations, but often even more complex schemes where for one SMALL example (out of many) the Fed (mentioned fiat currency) will print up cash to loan to say Goldman Sachs at 0% interest - and even pay a distribution fee to GS , that Goldman turns around and loans out for profit. Goldman might even securitize the loans, and sell them off. If it goes bad, Goldman just gets more free cash from the Fed and repeats the process until they can squeeze cash out of the transaction.
Goldman might also loan to various patrons of the system, who in turn do whatever with it. Since it was loaned to a shell/holding corp of various sorts not the patron directly, the patron typically just takes a portion in terms of fees/etc, and if the venture is unsuccessful then oh well. Often a patron will hand cash to a patron that hands cash to a patron , and somewhere along the line a buyer for whichever security/company/investment/etc will be sought after.. often giving the impression that it is a viable investment with committed funding if needed. Then the poor guy at the bottom of the pyramid finds out he was sold a turd, and no further funding is forthcoming.... unless of course they play ball with the cronies.
Since the Fed has no accountability they can throw money at already monied insiders, and can also include their friends and friends of politicians who might otherwise be for holding them accountable in the loop. Its a patronage system.
There is of course much much more detail and ways that the corruption occurs, but it really is a topic of research in of itself.
But I think this type of thing is basically the type of thing sinij was referring to, and if so he was 100% correct.
I think what sinij was referring to was the fact that in its proper form, venture capitalists/banks perform a vital service - they basically produce "opportunity".
While my post didn't go into "proper form", above agrees with my point of view. Investment is absolutely necessary for properly functioning economy, but don't confuse it with high-speed trading, hedge funds, naked shorting, derivative markets and number of other "money games" that compromises the system by artificially inserting middle man. This is even before you take into account cronyism and other abuses of political system Derid mentioned. As I said many times before - capitalism is inherently self-corrupting system with concentration of wealth being key corruption vector.
I think what sinij was referring to was the fact that in its proper form, venture capitalists/banks perform a vital service - they basically produce "opportunity".
While my post didn't go into "proper form", above agrees with my point of view. Investment is absolutely necessary for properly functioning economy, but don't confuse it with high-speed trading, hedge funds, naked shorting, derivative markets and number of other "money games" that compromises the system by artificially inserting middle man. This is even before you take into account cronyism and other abuses of political system Derid mentioned. As I said many times before - capitalism is inherently self-corrupting system with concentration of wealth being key corruption vector.
I would say it is corrupting when the Fed Govt becomes too labyrinthine and opaque to provide any sort of real accountability.
The wealth concentration in this country has occurred in parallel to the increasing size and expenditure of Govt and increasing power and lessening accountability of the Fed. Normally this type of wealth concentration cannot occur in a free and competitive market, it happens when the govt is underwriting/aiding certain insider groups.
Capitalism may be self-corrupting, but so is every single political and economic system known to man. So mentioning Capitalism in particular is rather disingenuous.
so we are all in agreement that big money cartels, connections between power abd money, fiat currency, are all huge problems leasing to our destruction. One person seems to beliege this only happens under capitalism. hmm
in soviet union, party members had their own, superior stores and cacation houses in china they have express lanes (congressional license plates) in cambodia only party members could have cars in the old days only the king could wear purple
when you account for human nature, every system is corruptable. the one thing that capitalism has been able to do, that no other system has done, is increase everyones standard of living exponentially.
the poor in america dont starve, they get diabetes the poor have smartphones, tvs, air conditioning, clean water, hot water, cars, many own a house. on a global scale, no one in the us is poor.
that is capitalisms claim to fame. the socialism many here seem to favor will not work for the us. Who will subsidize our defence the way we have protected europe and the western hemisphere? china?
![[yes]](/images/graemlins/default/89.gif "[yes]"){kind=small}
