Log In | Register
For decades the corporate media has force-fed “conventional wisdom” free-market economic nonsense to the American public. We have been told that it’s good to give more and more to the wealthy few, that it’s good to send jobs and money out of the country, and especially that that the people who run the big corporations are better and more “efficient” at deciding what’s best for the rest of us. As those decades passed we watched as the wealthy few get wealthier and fewer, while the rest of us – the 99 percent – fall further and further behind. But we have had it explained to us that our lying eyes aren’t seeing what they are seeing, and that the obvious isn’t what it is. We have been seemingly powerless to change this.
Here are five “conventional wisdom” doses of economic nonsense that we have been fed:
1. Business does everything better than government.
2. Rich people are “job creators.”
3. Government and taxes take money out of the economy.
4. Regulations Kill Jobs
5. “Protectionism” hurts the economy.
5 Conservative Economic Myths Occupy Wall St. Is Helping Bust
Article Source: AlterNet.org
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (307)
So as we see all around us today, the economic conventional wisdom nonsense that we were force-fed for decades didn’t work, messed things up, and people finally got fed so much if it that they are fed up. The #occupy crowd got fed up and showed up. They sleep in the park and on sidewalks, marched, and took the batons and pepper spray that seem to always come at us when we protest. They persisted, and awakened the rest of us. Now it has spread to cities across the country.
- 53 votes
Breaking through "Double Speak" (1984==Aldous Huxley) is like being able to breathe freely after being locked in an airtight room...
- 41 votes
I particularly like the one about gov't and taxes taking money out of the economy. I was just having a discussion with my family at dinner last night, about the 10th anniversary of war in Afghanistan. One of the things we covered, was how the military spending has been a boon to the economy. On a smaller level, think of all the layoff of "public servants" like teachers and cops in recent years: sure it cuts government spending a little, but it also cuts community wealth and spending significantly as those previously employed become jobless. Nevermind the less direct costs of having fewer teachers and cops in our communities. We keep cutting government, and we'll have no public servants, no services, only the politicians will find a way to protect themselves and continue to get paid.
- 36 votes
I'm not sure how the whole cause/effect thing manages to escape the right.
There is an unmistakable timeline. When supply-side theory was implemented beginning in the early '80s, the decline of the middle class began. The numbers prove it -- this isn't hard to research. As trickle-down took hold and the sidebar parts of that philosophy -- deregulation, Wall Street bottom line trumps all, mindless tax cuts, outsourcing/downsizing, hate-the-government messaging, etc -- took root, the decline intensified. The whole thing came to a head with the free-for-all that the housing, financial, and energy markets became, and that December 2007 through 2008 crash was inevitable.
Cause and effect. This whole mess isn't an accident. The denial from the right just isn't rational. I see essentially two categories of deniers: either they're hopeless ideologues, or they've made a killing by screwing over the rest of the country and they want that gravy train to keep on rollin'.
- 34 votes
He's been here several times before under different variations of that user name. Same MO as always. It must be tough to be that desperate for attention.
- 27 votes
Hang on.....I thought this wasn't a liberal movement......I though these people represented the "99%"...which would by definition include conservatives and even full bore right wing nutjobs.
- 12 votes
The conservatives have made it quite clear that they oppose OWS and stand firmly beside the economic pirates on Wall Street. Remember - they are thumping their chest over 53% instead of the 99%.
Quislings.
- 28 votes
they are thumping their chest over 53% instead of the 99%.
I find this hysterical! 53%? WTF? They are being so literal - and, of course, missing the entire point in the process.
- 17 votes
Sure
How about taking a history lesson for the causes for WWII. Protectionism near the top of the list.
3. Government and taxes take money out of the economy.
Laf, their explanation for this is hysterical. The government does not have a dime that it does not first take it from someone else.
- 14 votes
It's nice someone is finally trying to deflate those dogmatic balloons puffed up out of nothing but myth and legend...
I find this hysterical! 53%? WTF? They are being so literal - and, of course, missing the entire point in the process.
It's SOP in the GOP. Obtuse willful ignorance one day, blind literal "misunderstanding" the next, and cagey cynical courtroom defenses of the "It depends on what the definition is" variety on the day after.
- 21 votes
-Sigh- Another alterNet article without basis in reality. Shall we?
1. Business does everything better than government.
Strawman argument. Nobody is arguing this. The argument is that the Federal Government is overextending it's powers into arenas it should not be involved in. Again, pure strawman argument.
2. Rich people are “job creators.”
A second strawman argument. The idea is that those with access to capital are the job creators, not rich people. This can be done with a middle class person who gets a business loan. The capital in this instance is garnered from a banking institution. This is also true of business venture firms. They have a collection of capital they can use to invest in ideas and business. By taxing the capital in the business ventures or over regulating banks investments, it cuts down on job creation. Alternet really needs to learn what strawmen arguments are.
3. Government and taxes take money out of the economy.
Umm... It does. Current studies show that the ratio used in keynesian models is plain wrong. Obama use the multiplier of 4 in his estimations of effects on economy by government spending. 2 Recent studies show this number varies between 0.8 (a negative return on government spending) to 1.2 (A favored return on government spending).
Robert Barro’s work and research by Valerie Ramey, an economist at the University of California–San Diego, on how military spending influences GDP. Both studies found that government spending crowds out the private sector, at least a little. And both found multipliers close to one: Barro’s estimate is 0.8, while Ramey’s estimate is 1.2. This means that every dollar of government spending produces either less than a dollar of economic growth or just a little over a dollar. That’s quite different from the administration’s favored multiplier of four.
Damn, did I just ruin his narrative with actual studies? Whoops.
4. Regulations Kill Jobs
Regulations do two negative things: they increase the cost of goods and services, they increase the barriers to entry.
On the first point. A widget in a heavily regulated country will always cost more than a widget in a less regulated country: see solar panels from China and US. This creates a net trade deficit as the end consumer utilizes costs as well as quality in their assessment of goods.
On the second point. Over burden regulation makes it prohibitively more expensive for a non market entity to enter the market. This reduces competition for good creation. This can be seen in such regulation as California's regulation on signage. The easiest/cheapest way for a new restaurant to advertize is through signage. Local eateries lobbied the local government to disallow large signs (of course grandfathering in their own). This has lead to a statistical decrease for new diners to new restaurants. By increasing regulations, competition has been hurt. Currently the easiest way for legacy business to maintain their market share is by lobbying the government for increased regulations: See Apple.
5. “Protectionism” hurts the economy.
God, do I even need to discuss this one. I'll just post this:
At first, the tariff seemed to be a success. According to historian Robert Sobel, "Factory payrolls, construction contracts, and industrial production all increased sharply." However, larger economic problems loomed in the guise of weak banks. When the Creditanstalt of Austria failed in 1931, the global deficiencies of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff became apparent.[12]
U.S. imports decreased 66% from US$4.4 billion (1929) to US$1.5 billion (1933), and exports decreased 61% from US$5.4 billion to US$2.1 billion, both decreases much more than the 50% decrease of the GDP.
According to government statistics, U.S. imports from Europe decreased from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million during 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe decreased from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade decreased by some 66% between 1929 and 1934.[14]
Anyone Arguing for protectionism is an idiot. Plain and simple.
- 9 votes
Hang on.....I thought this wasn't a liberal movement......I though these people represented the "99%"...which would by definition include conservatives and even full bore right wing nutjobs.
Most of the right-wing nutjobs and conservatives probably are part of the 99% if you go by the numbers. They just have yet to figure out that they're playing the useful idiot role for the 1%.
The one-percenters sipping single-malt and mocking the OWS demonstrations are not too likely to invite their useful idiots over to say thanks and offer them a drink, y'know. Service entrance is around back.
- 12 votes
More misrepresentation and demonstrations of a severe lack of understanding from the closed liberal minds at AlterNet.org
5 Economic Rules that Leftist Extremists fail to comprehend.....
1.) Business (meaning the private sector) DOES do EVERYTHING better than government except one thing......create unnecessary bureaucracy. Government does that better than anybody...and bureaucracy is like putting glue in a gear box. It just gums up the works.
2.) Rich people ARE the "job creators."
Have you EVER been hired for a job by a poor person? When was the last time an unemployed assembly line worker hired you to work a full time job that they paid you for? When was the last time that a person forced to live on welfare hired you for a full time job that they paid you for? The answer to all of those questions is......rarely, if ever.
3. Government and taxes DO take money out of the economy.
This is more true than not. Oh sure....occasionally those monies come back into the economy, and it does so at the approx.rate of less than $.30 on the dollar. They use the money to fund their overspending.....and normally, they are spending that money on themselves, to some measure.
4. Regulations DO kill jobs
That is especially true for THIS administrations' regulations. They have killed literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs all across this nation. In the manufacturing sector, in the energy sector, in the transportation sector and many others.....the over-regulations of the EPA and the DoE alone, just to name two of the bigger culprits, have cost more than 500,000 jobs in the last year to 18 months alone. They have done so by shutting down coal mines, oil drilling, natural gas drilling, the nuclear energy market, and numerous other...not to mention the forced closing of hundreds of car dealerships all across this nation.
5. "Protectionism" hurts the economy.
High tariffs, trade imbalances, anything that restricts trade with our partner nations is utterly wrong and should not be tolerated.
- 5 votes
LOL - in teapublican campaign talking points, the wealthy have become "job creators" without discussion about how the "job creators" have spent the past ten years parking their money offshore as well as creating jobs offshore
businesses taking over government functions are getting paid by tax payers to perform the functions: where exactly are the savings? and don't holla Halliburton
however, do think think Camden, GA where the incarcerated are being used as firefighters (let's hear it for privatized prisons and their dirt cheap labor force) http://firecritic.com/
- 12 votes
an added observation to my comment at 1.21
Camden, GA is using the incarcerated as firefighters because it's cheap labor, right? Well, check this out:
The inmates would not be paid for their work, but upon release they would be able to apply to work as a firefighter 5 years after their conviction dates instead of the normal 10.
http://jacksonville.com/news/georgia/2011-10-09/story/camden-county-considering-inmate-firefighter-program-0
Are the newly hired, former incarcertated expected to be paid at the level of when they were incarcerated bearing in mind Camden County is using the incarcerated to save money. Where's the money coming from to pay the former incarceraed real wages once they leave jail and want work as firefighters?
- 5 votes
deregulation..............on this very subject, from Bernie Sanders (I.):
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=2e21ae1b-42b6-4d43-9228-369e0602b5b4
- 5 votes
1. Business does everything better than government
Can you give me 3 examples of what government is better than business at? Doubt it.
2. Rich people are “job creators.”
So you are saying poor people create jobs? Really?
3. Government and taxes take money out of the economy.
Out of $44,495 I have made so far this year the government and taxes have taken $11,948.19. Thats not counting the taxes on everything I buy at the grocery store or any other store for that matter.
So yes the government has taken $11,948.19 from me and out of the economy.
4. Regulations Kill Jobs
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=3ede3e93-813f-4449-97e6-0d6eb54fbc9e
5. “Protectionism” hurts the economy.
Conservatives who argue that we should have less regulation, lower wages, fewer benefits, fewer consumer, worker and environmental protections are really arguing that we should abandon democracy
Who said we should have lower wages and less benefits and fewer consumer and worker protections?
- 5 votes
So yes the government has taken $11,948.19 from me and out of the economy.
NO, because that $12k has gone to firefighters to protect your house, to the police to protect your house, car, and YOU, the library, the schools, the military. The roads you drive on to/from work, the lights you use to SEE on that drive, etc, etc, etc...
And EVERY dollar they spend goes RIGHT BACK INTO THE ECONOMY!
- 18 votes
@Happy To See You (in re: post #1.21)
You are quick to try and divert/redirect but fail to actually answer any of the questions/statements with any factual evidence. Please address this point; when was the last time you were hired to work at a full time job by a person that was "financially challenged" (aka "poor")??
Do you have a job now?
What type of industry do you work in?
Is YOUR employer poor?
The only honest answer is no. Your employer is "rich", NOT poor!
ANY businessman will tell you, very plainly, that it is the uncertainty of the current economic environment that is making them sit upon their money. Business does not care about what we call politics....except for how bad the last two administrations have been for this nation. They have caused this.....BOTH sides, not just Bush II!
- 3 votes
Business does not care about what we call politics
Complete and total horse@!$%#. I can rattle off a huge number of trade associations and their associated lobbyists as counterexamples.
- 11 votes
I have a friend that calls each of those 5 points the gospel of free market capitalists, or as i so fondly refer to them as, "Free-Market capitalist Idiots". Not one of my neo-conservative, free-market, capitalist-philosophy friends have or ever will have enough money to benefit from the insane philosophies they have been brain washed with. They repeat cliches to me like "I have never had a poor man write me a paycheck" and the "Top 10% are responsible for 90% of the GDP". Absolute idiotic and insane rhetoric. Our workers have to learn to compete with that worker in Punjab. I scream "How can an American compete with a fellow that lives like a king in his country on $18,000 USD a year?" They do NOT get it and I am so tired of trying to negotiate it with them. I can explain it to them but I can not understand it for them. They have to make the decision not to be idiots any more.
- 9 votes
"Business does not care about what we call politics"
Complete and total horse@!$%#.
Yep. I would think that the US Chamber of Commerce might serve as proof to the contrary...
- 11 votes
5 Economic Rules that Leftist Extremists fail to comprehend.....
DL,
Point One: Not everyone who disagrees with you is a "Leftist Extremist". You may not be able to wrap your head around this, but trust me: I'm no "leftist extremist".
Point Two: Everything you're selling is the same trickle-down nonsense that got us into this mess to begin with. Supply side has failed everyone BUT the top 1%. It's garbage. We cannot afford any more of it.
- 15 votes
Supply side, trickle down economics has a history of severe failure everytime it has been put into practice in this nation.
- 9 votes
NO, because that $12k has gone to firefighters to protect your house, to the police to protect your house, car, and YOU, the library, the schools, the military. The roads you drive on to/from work, the lights you use to SEE on that drive, etc, etc, etc...
And EVERY dollar they spend goes RIGHT BACK INTO THE ECONOMY!
But that is not what happens. The money goes to Solyndra, or it goes to Nancy Pelosi's husband, or other political crony's. We are talking federal tax dollars here, not your local taxes.
It happens when BOTH parties do this, and it happens all the time. It has happened so much, that we are trillions of dollars in debt.
That money goes right into the pockets of those you hate, the rent seekers who seek to suck off of the government teat by providing bribes and funds to the politicians that you vote fore.
Suckers
- 2 votes
But that is not what happens. The money goes to Solyndra, or it goes to Nancy Pelosi's husband, or other political crony's. We are talking federal tax dollars here, not your local taxes.
Oh yes, it IS what happens. But you are right, some of it is wasted. And the government needs to avoid waste, just like any other entity does. But the waste is vastly outstripped by the good that the government does.
Pretending all it does is waste and fritter is simply dishonest.
- 9 votes
And this is different from it going to the Boss's no good son's mismanaged project how?
I've worked for the Federal Government, and I have worked for large, profitable, Fortune 50 companies. The level of waste, fraud, and incompetence was no different. The problems you mention are inherent to large organizations, period. There is nothing magical about private industry, nor is there anything automatically evil about government enterprise.
- 12 votes
I've worked for the Federal Government, and I have worked for large, profitable, Fortune 50 companies. The level of waste, fraud, and incompetence was no different. The problems you mention are inherent to large organizations, period.
Truth.
Sometimes also contributing to waste and fraud in the private sector --- the inevitable multiple layers of middlemen, each one taking their slice of the pie.
Health insurance is a very good example. How many people push paper on your medical insurance issues between you and your doctor? Every single touch generates a bill, and that bill ultimately comes back to the consumer.
- 9 votes
Oho!!
The apologist brigade is out in force! Defending their supra-religious dogma with such powerful belief based self-righteousness... no-one must be allowed to dare question the "truth" without repercussion. The faithful have prayed on this and know that economic pyramid theory isn't a theory at all - it is found truth delivered unto the world by his Holy Friedmanite, His Holiness Ronald Reagan. Heretical countervailing opinion to the Immaculate Economy's power to move fairness and value directly to those most deserved of wealth and power must be put down for those living atop the Great Heap.
Oh money, who art of Heaven
Hallowed be your game...
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
On earth as it is in Heaven
Give us the day our daily graft
And give us, Lord, more abject indebtedness
as we shall remain unforgiving in our debt recovery
And leadeth us not into fairness or righteous brotherhood,
but instead deliver us from such socialist evil
- 10 votes
6. Bad economies can work themselves out.
7. All oil companies that the United States deal with have a great track record for safety and environment.
8. If the president does it it's not against the law unless he, and to be politically correct today ( or she ), is anything but an ultra-neocon-corporate sucking-conservative.
9. Trust the banks and Wall Street.
Another great seed mweaver !
- 6 votes
@Rorschach......
You appear to be quite eager to be critical but, like many on the left you fail to present any tangible, coherent points/arguments/alternative solutions to any of these issues. Unfortunately, all you have done is to simply issue forth whatever rhetoric you think applies. An accurate understanding of economics denotes that none of those five points have any direct correlation with "trickle down economics".
That has to do with tax breaks and other regulatory benefits for large businesses/the rich.....the 5 points I mention have nothing to do with that.
This is not intended to be directed at you, Rorschach. Few on the extreme fringe of any sociopolitical group realize where they actually reside within the continuum. According to numerous psychological studies, a majority percentage of those that are, by all accounts on the extreme, actually believe themselves to be in the middle of their given ideology.
I say again, I do not, in any measure, imply that you are one of those. I am simply stating a truth.....
- 2 votes
a majority percentage of those that are, by all accounts on the extreme, actually believe themselves to be in the middle of their given ideology.
Well... that explains TEApublicans. No argument there.
- 7 votes
Debating with the reactionary right is almost invariably like shooting fish in a barrel. Let's look at some of the oft repeated teapublican canards:
Did a poor person ever give you a job?
Probably not, but that proves nothing. How did that person become poor? To quote Hannibal Lecter, "First causes, Clarise." Poor people are poor often because of the rich in that country. Was he or she a slave to a plantation owner, a child laborer in 19th Century America or Dickens England? Was the worker a wage slave before labor laws? Obversely, how did that rich person obtain his wealth? Was he the scion of a mogul? People aren't born rich or poor unless they are already living in a society with a hierarchical distribution of wealth. In India, they still have a rigid caste system. A lower caste person, through no fault of his or her own, will likely remain in that caste. That might be an extreme, but Horatio Alger would not recognize today's America. There is less social mobility today than perhaps anytime in our history. The disparity in income and wealth in America puts us near the bottom of the list of nations. We're right there with Cameroon, Madagascar, Rwanda, Uganda, Ecuador. China is far more egalitarian than we are.
Rich people become rich because they live in economies that have better technologies, better businesses, better institutions, better infrastructure-- and those are all things that are the result of collective action (i.e. taxes) of the society over generations. Oh, that's something government does better than business. Go figure. Let's expand on that.
State led development has out-performed market led development all over the world and even in the good old U.S. I can rattle off a large list of nations (China, Brasil) but I'd prefer to see rightwingers go for the bait. With very few exceptions, all of today's rich countries, including the UK and the US, have grown rich through a combination of protectionism, subsidies and other policies, like indicative planning. If you righties doubt this, please study what's come to be called "The Asian Miracle."
The government takes money out of the economy. The government doesn't have even a dime that it didn't steal from the economy.
A "dime"? Are dimes found in nature? Are quarters, dollar bills, Benjamins? Didn't the government mint and print them? You want to buy my used Lexus? Let's see, I don't need a chicken. Can you pay me in dollars? (That would be the government.) Thanks for giving me 13,000 dollars for my car, but I've decided I don't want to sign over the deed. What are you going to do? Call the police (government)? Sue me? (Government.)
And of course, government run healthcare the world-over outperforms our inefficient, greed-based for-profit system.
Taxing the rich is tantamount to socialism.
Well, no. In fact, the policies that most resemble Stalinist Russia are today's pro-rich policies. Just as Stalin concentrated economic power in the Politburo's Central Planning Committee, the U.S. has turned its economy over to a centralized committee of bankers, hedge fund managers and other corporate titans.
Okay, rightwingers, send in the conversation.
- 8 votes
"2. Rich people are “job creators.”
Too busy trying to avoid taxes....
- 5 votes
space guy
Sure
How about taking a history lesson for the causes for WWII. Protectionism near the top of the list.
Is that before or after the "Final Solution" or was Hitler looking for a cheap source of caviar? Or are perhaps you're thinking of Japan not liking it when Western nations withheld oil during their trek through the Chinese country side?
- 3 votes
@Jesse-Az -
My right-wing wacko brother and all of his right-wing wacko friends (and there's A LOT of them - literally thousands of them - on his facebook page) believe all 5 of those right-wing economic myths in the seeded article, and spew out the right-wing falsehoods daily.
- 6 votes
By taxing the capital in the business ventures or over regulating banks investments, it cuts down on job creation.
jesse (#1.17). This is dogmatic nonsense repeated by conservatives like it were holy writ.
There is no reputable study that shows a causal relationship that translates into the paleoconservative supply-side shibboleth of reduced taxes = increased capital investment. I challenge you to prove the assumed causal relationship. No double talk and circular arguments, no post hoc ergo preciptor hoc claptrap, or "everybody knows" nonsense; no anecdotes or references to third-hand pronouncements from out there in right-radio bubbaland, just show us the research and the data.
All that anyone can say is that there should be a correlation between decreasing taxes = increased potential investment. It's just as likely (more likely really, in today's world) that the "found" money from business tax reduction will be hidden under the corporate mattress, shoveled into offshore havens, or passed out to the management oligarchy.
Businesses might spend that increased profit for capital investment, or job creation, or increased pay and benefits for employees, or R&D, but then again they might not. The fact that corporations are hoarding tens of billions of dollars, not hiring, and not investing suggests the latter.
The problem is, of course, that nobody on the right wants to admit the king has no clothes. For nearly 30 years they've been building an economic house of cards of the unsubstantiated, half-baked nonsense of supply-side trickle-down economics and now they can't get out.
Again, if you want to sell snake oil like this you either have to prove it, or drop it. Show us the data.
- 11 votes
@Jesse-Az
By taxing the capital in the business ventures or over regulating banks investments, it cuts down on job creation.
Taxing the capital in the business ventures does NOT cut down on job creation whatsoever. Further, typically, regulation of banks investments and regulation of business in general, has minimal (close to no) impact on jobs, while also providing significant benefits for the US economy and the people of the US as a whole.
With regard to taxing capital gains (e.g., gains resulting from investing capital in business), only new or initial investment (on the primary market) has any real potential to lead to job creation based on investment. HOWEVER, this is NOT where most of the "investing" is done. Rather, most investment occurs in the secondary market. That is, most (the VAST MAJORITY) of investment resulting in capital gains to taxpayers is typically not much of an investment (if any) at all in the company associated with the financial product (e.g., stock), but rather is simple transferring a previous investment from a first entity (e.g., first stockholder) to a second entity (e.g., the purchaser of the stocks from the first stockholder), because the second entity is willing to pay the first entity some financial consideration to obtain the financial product relating to that previous investment. The first entity may realize a profit from that transaction, but normally that's about it. There has been NO new investment in the company. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to tax AT LEAST those capital gains as ordinary income (as opposed to the currently much lower 15% tax rate), as doing so will have ZERO - NONE - NADA - ZIP impact on job creation.
Further, taxing capital gains relating to primary market investments as ordinary income would NOT negatively impact job creation whatsoever either. As multi-billionaire businessman/investor, Warren Buffett stated in his recent editorial:
"Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
I didn't refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone - not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 - shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain.
People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. 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."
- 8 votes
@1.27
DLMaston
@Happy To See You (in re: post #1.21)You are quick to try and divert/redirect but fail to actually answer any of the questions/statements with any factual evidence.
Your commentary is moot. Here's the reality: Camden County, GA is broke and looking for solutions by using the incarcerated as a slave workforce.
[redundant but worth repeating] The proposed solution is to save money by using the incarcerated for free labor.
A few years after the incarcerated leaves jail, the individual will be able to apply for a paid job as a firefighter. So long as the county is using free labor from jail, where would be the incentive to hire anyone who will cost the county money?
- 3 votes
All that anyone can say is that there should be a correlation between decreasing taxes = increased potentialinvestment. It's just as likely (more likely really, in today's world) that the "found" money from business tax reduction will be hidden under the corporate mattress, shoveled into offshore havens, or passed out to the management oligarchy.
Exactly! now one tax method that DOES actually result in reinvestment and new jobs (although corporations try to pretend they are the same thing) is tax CREDITs. The difference between the two being that with a tax cut you let them keep the money and say " um if its ok with you.... would you reinvest that money we let you keep and make some new jobs instead of giving your self a bonus..... pretty please", where a tax credit gives you money back for creating a new job. No new jobs, no tax credit. It is so simple it's funny, yet the government can't or doesn't want to figure it out.
I find it funny though. If companies put the millions and millions of dollars they donate to political parties every year into actual jobs, then everyone would benefit. A) The companies would be spending the same amount of money, just putting it in a different place. B) lots more jobs created, putting people to work which in turn generates more income taxes for the government and finally C) politicians would have more incentive to actually perform because their re-election would be determined based on their effectiveness instead of bank roll.
- 4 votes
...and the number one myth is:
The filthy rich is controlled by the Republicans.
It is clear that the Democrats are backing the Wall Street protesters for no other reason than to pin our economic problems on the Republicans through class warfare. If these protesters are serious about their position, and I believe they are, then they would resist unions and the Democrats from high-jacking their cause since 60% of the "filthy, evil rich people in America" are in fact DEMOCRATS themselves!
- 2 votes
Camden County, GA is broke and looking for solutions by using the incarcerated as a slave workforce.
[redundant but worth repeating] The proposed solution is to save money by using the incarcerated for free labor.
Why shouldnt they make them work? Taxpayers pay for them. They have shelter and food. Its not supposed to be a stay at the holiday inn. They should make them work all day everyday. Maybe actually make prison somewhere they dont want to be.
They could all learn something from Joe Arpaio.
The filthy rich is controlled by the Republicans.
they would resist unions and the Democrats from high-jacking their cause since 60% of the "filthy, evil rich people in America" are in fact DEMOCRATS themselves!
I'm going to repeat this slowly... because every seed we get the same contention.
it is not wealth or riches that makes people "filthy" or "evil" it is what the wealthy DO and what their sense of social responsibility is that matters.
If you're wealthy and have no problem with, and in fact feel its time to be, paying more in taxes; if you don't use your wealth to skew the playing field into a special wall protecting your wealth and robbing opportunity from millions... then you are neither filthy nor evil.
If, however, you cannot stand the idea to be parted with even a small percentage more and feel no obligation to society at all; if you use your wealth as a weapon to politically club the lazy good for nothing peons so far below you they aren't worthy of even piddling respect... then you are filthy and evil.
Most Dems don't seem to be so zealous of their wealth that they'd sink the country rather than be parted with a few percentiles more... while most GOPbag elites seem completely unwilling to share in the downsides of our economy.
Just because there are more wealthy Democrats than Republicans doesn't mean they are as callous and selfish as their Republican counterparts. Most of the wealthy Democrats I've met seem to have a real and deeply felt sense of civic duty and social justice. That's why they are in the party they are. They understand and feel the word "empathy" while the other party revels in ridiculing the very notion as weak and somehow inferior.
Evil and filth is not measured by ones bank account... it is measured by what you do.
- 6 votes
Forced work without pay is slavery, whether one's in prison or not.
- 3 votes
Let's say for a moment that Obama gets another term. Do you honestly think he can give you what you want when he surrounds himself with CEOs like GE's CEO Immelt? Do you really think your protest will cause our RICH Congress to impose sanctions against the RICH even though they get enormous donations from them? Seriously, do you really think your demands will be fulfilled when the majority of the RICH are Democrats themselves?
Wall Street protesters have RICH Democrats protesting next to them demanding loop holes to be closed even though they currently use those loop holes to pay lower tax rates then the average tax paying citizen. Why don't you chase them out? Here, I'll answer that question for you. Because this whole protest has more to do with getting Obama re-elected then to fix America's tax code problems.
Evil and filth is not measured by ones bank account... it is measured by what you do.
Then why do the protesters blame the top 1% if ones bank account doesn't matter?
- 1 vote
Because this whole protest has more to do with getting Obama re-elected then to fix America's tax code problems.
So glad you are able to see inside the mind of EVERY protester, and know what they think. Some people actually DO care, and want the right thing done. Stop watching Fox News, you'll see more of them.
- 4 votes
So glad you are able to see inside the mind of EVERY protester, and know what they think. Some people actually DO care, and want the right thing done. Stop watching Fox News, you'll see more of them.
The protesters throw around 99%. They appear to know what everyone in America think. Some people have real achievable goals and will take it to the voting booth. Stop blaming some news channel that you don't even watch.
Because this whole protest has more to do with getting Obama re-elected then to fix America's tax code problems.
I have yet to see any pro-Obama or pro-Democratic Party signs from any of these demonstrators. For that matter I can't really remember seeing any anti-Republican ones either. There are probably a few of each but mostly they're notable for their rarity. Their message is, as some of the tea party used to be before it was wholly ingested into the Republican fold (color me not surprised) largely "a pox on all [political party] houses."
- 6 votes
Continue comparing apples to rotton eggs all you want. I'm not buying.
Wall Street protesters have RICH Democrats protesting next to them demanding loop holes to be closed even though they currently use those loop holes to pay lower tax rates then the average tax paying citizen.
Suggesting people should attack folks on the basis of simply ther wealth alone? Then that's exactly the "class warfare" that "conservative" politicians and FOXganda are trying to portray as going on already. Why should the majority of the protester who AREN'T engaging in class warfare start to do so just to support YOUR contention that it doesn't matter what a rich person DOES that matters... just the fact that they have wealth. Using tax loopholes is NOT the same thing as gaming the system by paying politicians off. It is NOT doing the same thing as those who use their wealth to drive OTHER citizens down further and fruther into the muck and mire of despair. To suggest that OWS is partisan and leftist on the basis of such a morally bankrupt and notional brand of logic is to be, yourself, much more partisan than the protesters themselves are.
- 5 votes
Stop blaming some news channel that you don't even watch
But I DO watch it. Just long enough to turn my stomach. The ridiculous partisanship, and absolutely poor journalism of Fox make the WaPo blush.
- 4 votes
onenativeson,
Suggesting people should attack folks on the basis of simply ther wealth alone? Then that's exactly the "class warfare
So finally a liberal admits that Obama is pushing class warfare!!!
Fred Evil,
Could you give some examples of these things that have turned your stomach? And not just an accusation of partisanship or poor journalism. Give a real example.
illegitimae,
Forced work without pay is slavery, whether one's in prison or not.
First off Im pretty sure they do give them a small amount of money. Plus they are getting food and shelter for free.
But even if they didnt, so what. If they dont want to be forced to work for nothing or next to nothing all they have to do is stop being a @!$%#ing criminal. Pretty simple.
- 2 votes
If you dont want to work without pay, dont go to prison.
I will repeat what I have already said. Prison should be a place that when someone gets out they say, That place was so bad I will never go back.
It shouldnt be a place for criminals to go and work for pay, get free housing, free meals, play basketball, workout at the gym, and watch cable TV. It should be the worst experience of their lives.
- 1 vote
The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.
-Dostoyevsky
- 5 votes
Follow-up to #1.47.
Interesting to note that when you challenge economic conservatives to prove their tenets about such slapstick notions as 'supply side' or 'trickle down' economics, or ask for research data that shows a real cause-effect relationship between business tax cuts and increased capital investment/jobs, they simply fade away from the discussion. Or redirect to another bit of bogus right-wing social or economic dogma.
Come on guys (in particular in this seed the original poster Jesse-AZ in #1.17, and others here such as DLMaston, StoneyT ) if you can support these claims, show us the proof.
Don't declaim, explain; don't posture, prove.
- 2 votes
So finally a liberal admits that Obama is pushing class warfare!!!
Twisting words and warping meanings eh?
Well, can't say I didn't expect it. If you honestly cannot look at the example of apologism I quoted and see the difference in your characterization of President Obama's agenda and that poster's actual words' implications then there is no reason to even attempt dialogue. I prefer to discuss things with those who engage in rational thinking rather than blind reactionary nonsense.
Additionally I don't take your mistaken "liberal" label as anything but a compliment. There are a lot of things I am about which "liberals" take issue with and the reverse is just as true. However the negative connotation which TEAbaggery has made of of the word over the course of generations is also something I not only take issue with but totally reject:
- If liberals believe in a womans choice to do with her body as she wishes... then they are better than those arrayed against them.
- If liberals want a level playing field for working men and women rather than a heavily slanted one way road supporting only the wealthiest of elites and multinational corporations... then they are better than those arrayed against them.
- If liberals fight for some of the things that I fight for... then, again, they are better than those arrayed against them and I will stand next to them and fight too.
- 7 votes
Prison should be a place that when someone gets out they say, That place was so bad I will never go back.
If you think prisons are fun places, why don't you go in as part of an investigation and see what they're like. I hope you don't mind the rape part.
- 3 votes
Adipicacid,
The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.
-Dostoyevsky
Nice try but not quite. That would be reffering to the people in the prisons not the conditions in the prison.
onenativeson,
Suggesting people should attack folks on the basis of simply ther wealth alone? Then that's exactly the "class warfare"
That was from your post. There is no twisting and warping involved.
And that is exactly what Obama has been trying to do for a while now.
Oh, and if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck........
illegitimae,
If you think prisons are fun places, why don't you go in as part of an investigation and see what they're like
When did I say that they were fun places? That onenativeson is twisting and warping.
Do you not think they have cable TV or basketball courts or weight lifting equipment? They do. Should they? Hell no.
No, it wouldn't Stoney. How you treat someone who is completely within your power says far more about you than it does about them. Why do you want to utterly ruin the lives of non-violent offenders? Do you have deep-seated revenge fantasies that need to be worked out?
- 5 votes
onenativeson,
Suggesting people should attack folks on the basis of simply ther wealth alone? Then that's exactly the "class warfare"
That was from your post. There is no twisting and warping involved.
I didn't post that Obama was engaging in class warfare. YOU take my statement, insert your belief that asking for assistance from the wealthy is an attack on them, and then TWIST my statement into something it patently is not. You specifically warped what I said; so deny all you want... I'm used to that brand of rabid denialism from today's weak TEAbrand of "conservative". I guess readers should get used to it from you too.
- 7 votes
Adipic,
Here we go again. See this onenative this again is twisting and warping. When did I say anything about ruining their lives? I didnt. But judging by your statement...
Why do you want to utterly ruin the lives of non-violent offenders?
That would imply that you think its ok to ruin the lives of violent offenders.
Actually I think I implied the opposite.
Prison should be a place that when someone gets out they say, That place was so bad I will never go back.
Remember when I said that. Wouldnt that have made their life better? By convincing them to do better for themselves and to never go back to prison. And that is speaking of criminals in general no matter how major or minor the crime.
onenative,
Lets try this again.
I didn't post that Obama was engaging in class warfare
I know you didn't specifically say Obama was engaging in class warfare. BUT....
Suggesting people should attack folks on the basis of simply ther wealth alone? Then that's exactly the "class warfare
Suggesting the middle class should attack folks on the basis of their wealth is exactly what Obama has been trying to do. So in a roundabout way yes you did admit it.
- 1 vote
Remember when I said that. Wouldnt that have made their life better?
Does beating a dog when it misbehaves automatically make its life better?
- 4 votes
Adipic,
Are you calling criminals dogs or are you saying that they beat prisoners?
Beating them is against the law.
Could you please try to make a statement that is relevant?
- 1 vote
No, I am stating that harsh treatment does not improve lives. That was rather obvious, but you'd rather dismiss it as irrelevant?
- 4 votes
No, I am stating that harsh treatment does not improve lives. That was rather obvious, but you'd rather dismiss it as irrelevant?
Really cause I thought you said...
Does beating a dog when it misbehaves automatically make its life better
But since you want to bring up dogs.
What happens to dogs that attack people? Which I guess is like someone committing a crime.
They either shoot them or euthanize them. But no matter how you do it or what you call it, they kill them.
So, dogs that follow strict rules and listen are better off.
I'm not going to engage my time with a chasing squirrels argument.
You took what I said, inserted YOUR delusion of what the President is doing, and tried to be cute with a jab at the President with your personal twist on what I said.
Despite your emphatic but utterly specious attempts to pretend otherwise...
That is twisting words. That is warping meaning and intent.
That is what "conservatives" and TEAple do best... as they really can't do anything else with anywhere even close to the same level of complete mastery.
In the end your twisting isn't a bother. The blind denial is. Nothing... absolutely nothing will change your tone deaf TEAtune... and it isn't anyone's sisyphian task to try.
I leave the "pleasure" of this one's company all to you Adipic. I'll check back to vote you up as I suspect your comments will deserve it.
- 3 votes
Stoney, I am finished with arguing about the color of the sky with a blind man. It will lead no where productive.
- 4 votes
I would give up to if I had no argument. But good excuses guys or girls, whatever.
This is beyond huge, it's global, and, most importantly, it is eye-opening. People are being forced to reconcile their past passivity and ask themselves - "Did we really sell away our freedoms for the illusion of upward mobility? Now we have neither!"
- 26 votes
You got it, and just in time for elections year. I hope it continues to grow and shake things up. If anything, it keeps the pressure on Washington and Big Business.
- 25 votes
great revelation euterpe....we have neither because people who vote for "free markets" and "capitalism" do for that same reason they are conservative religiously....they go to church and get brainwashed by some political preacher, just as they have been brainwashed by the religion of the so called "free market enterprise" and "capitalism", neither of them are free, and when they are allowed to go unfettered without any solid regulation, the rich always claim all the rewards, the elite always have total control....if I remember correctly, isn't that what the rightwing said about communism? that the elite will have all the wealth and total control there as in the case of the Soviet Union?
- 6 votes
"Did we really sell away our freedoms for the illusion of upward mobility? Now we have neither!"
What freedoms do you not have now that you had 30 years ago? What rights have been abridged?
You want upward mobility?? Stop looking for security. The two have ever been incompatible.
- 4 votes
Jack -
Did you miss the news about the "Patriot Act" ?(no relation). That enormously abridged our rights. How about deciding magically that corporations are citizens? Just because we still have guns does not make us free. All threats to freedom of speech and freedom of the press are far more serious - that is why our Founding Fathers dealt with them first. When the government can intercept all of our phone calls without a search warrant, we have lost a lot.
The thing is, these things happen subtly, so we do not notice. Or, we think that anyone who is not doing anything wrong should not mind government snooping. Yet, we should notice that the government objects strongly to citizens "snooping" (think Wikileaks) on them.
Thomas Jefferson said "The people have the right to know everything about their government, while the government has the right to know virtually nothing about the people".
- 13 votes
What freedoms do you not have now that you had 30 years ago?
We have a bought media that no longer reports the truth and panders to the party line, actually influences elections, just to gain corporate market share.
We have people being harassed and spied upon for walking into mosques.
We have laws that racially profile and then uses unemployment as the excuse
Those are just off the top of my head.
You want upward mobility?? Stop looking for security. The two have ever been incompatible.
Last I checked no one is upwardly mobile in Somalia, unless they pick up a gun and join the thugs. Surely you're not advocating that for us. People need safeguards and regulations to maintain confidence. They'll spend more if they feel they are living stable lives.
- 13 votes
What freedoms do you not have now that you had 30 years ago? What rights have been abridged?
Funny thing: I often ask right wingers to name the rights that have been taken away by liberals as they often claim. I have yet to have a single one of them come up with just one such lost right. On the other hand, I think a good case can be made that if economic (the fruits of savings and investments being handled ethically and responsibly) and environmental (untainted food, clean water, clean air, etc) security are considered rights, the Republican party, in particular, has been mounting an assault on those rights for generations now. Of course, I would have to admit that there have always been a handful of DINOs to help them out.
- 6 votes
Did you miss the news about the "Patriot Act" ?(no relation).
Granted. That wasn't about upward mobility, though. That was one of those "sacrifice liberty for security" moves. It also wasn't subtle.
How about deciding magically that corporations are citizens?
The idea that my personal freedoms are limited in any way because some corporation can run a political ad is one that I reject. It implies that I possess so little intellectual wherewithal that I will not be able to make my own decisions because I saw something on television.
We have a bought media that no longer reports the truth and panders to the party line, actually influences elections, just to gain corporate market share.
How has this reduced your rights? What specific right does this take away? Can you not vote how you want? Can you not campaign for the candidate of your choice?
We have laws that racially profile and then uses unemployment as the excuse
Help me out on this one. Which law are you talking about and what example are you referring to?
Last I checked no one is upwardly mobile in Somalia, unless they pick up a gun and join the thugs. Surely you're not advocating that for us. People need safeguards and regulations to maintain confidence. They'll spend more if they feel they are living stable lives.
What.....in the hell.......are you talking about? What I am talking about is upward mobility...in America.
The great myth of the last hundred years in America is that upward mobility is possible working for someone else. Generally, that's not how you get anywhere. Going into business for yourself is risky, scary, and perilous, but it has always been a foundation of upward mobility.
- 4 votes
What.....in the hell.......are you talking about? What I am talking about is upward mobility...in America.
Jack, we're already on our way to being Somalia. Show me a single candidate who isn't bought by special interest. That's the point - the nature of elections today means you have to be in bed with special interest just to raise the funds to get on the ballot. Where do you think we'll end up if we don't challenge this?
The great myth of the last hundred years in America is that upward mobility is possible working for someone else.
I don't think you thought this statement through. There are many CEO's and CFO's who have made out just fine.
- 6 votes
I don't think you thought this statement through. There are many CEO's and CFO's who have made out just fine.
Here is one of our liberal myths, and we need to make up our minds here. On the one hand, you suggest here that these CEO's and CFO's are evidence that upward mobility is achievable through climbing the greasy pole of corporate life. On the other hand, they represent the 1% of America's privileged elite. Well which is it?
Keep in mind, in order for these guys to be examples of upward mobility, they had to be low on economic ladder at some point. Most of these corporate guys were not.
Entrepreneurs, on the other hand, are guys who typically start with nothing or very little, and work their way up. Most of them never get big enough that you know their names. They get to where they have 10 employees and make $300k/yr. They own plumbing companies, or dry cleaners, or Subway franchises or insurance agencies. They risked all of the very meager things they had at a shot to be their own boss, and made it.
- 2 votes
Here is one of our liberal myths, and we need to make up our minds here. On the one hand, you suggest here that these CEO's and CFO's are evidence that upward mobility is achievable through climbing the greasy pole of corporate life. On the other hand, they represent the 1% of America's privileged elite. Well which is it?
And I'm going to point out a libertarian myth, that most liberals somehow begrudge well-deserved compensation. Most CEO's aren't in the top 1%. In fact, I'm in the top 5%, and I don't begrudge the proposed tax increase, and I'm a liberal. There's something seriously wrong when you make the analogy that OWS are against all corporations. They are against unfair practices brought to us by a lack of oversight - things like how Koch Industries, privately held, btw, can get away with calling themselves a small business, when their owners are billionaires. They are against the environment that allows corporate funds to infiltrate our governing process and, effectively, shuts out the voice and the needs of the individual.
Entrepreneurs, on the other hand, are guys who typically start with nothing or very little, and work their way up.
No problem with them either, except for those who vote against their own best interest; preach deregulation and low taxes, and then want their business bailed out by FEMA when a hurricane strikes. I think these people silently acquiesce unfair corporate practices, and then blame government when their customers no longer have enough disposable income to support their business. I direct you to post #3.2.
- 5 votes
Jack, we're already on our way to being Somalia. Show me a single candidate who isn't bought by special interest. That's the point - the nature of elections today means you have to be in bed with special interest just to raise the funds to get on the ballot. Where do you think we'll end up if we don't challenge this?
Ok. We're just not, repeat not, on our way to becoming Somalia.
You've got a very good point. The way our campaigns are financed is creating problems. It's definitely something we need to address.
Let's don't lose that very excellent valid point by dressing it up with "we're becoming like Somalia".
This is my only real problem with OWS. They have a very excellent, valid point that the way we finance campaigns has created huge problems. This point is being lost in an avalanche of confused message, lack of focus, absence of coherent proposed solutions, and zombie makeup.
- 2 votes
This point is being lost in an avalanche of confused message, lack of focus, absence of coherent proposed solutions, and zombie makeup.
They've got your attention though, got you asking the right questions, instead of wasting time on birth certificates. That, imo, is their aim. I find their lack of focus refreshing and real. If you consider that they are trying to represent all of the imbalances that exist for the 99%, and the fact that they aren't hiring marketing guys to "message" their purpose, I think they've done rather well.
- 8 votes
euterpe-1641499
This is beyond huge, it's global, and, most importantly, it is eye-opening. People are being forced to reconcile their past passivity and ask themselves - "Did we really sell away our freedoms for the illusion of upward mobility? Now we have neither!"
It seems like we got a walk-on part in a war.. *and* a lead role in a cage, doesn't it?
- 1 vote
I can understand the frustration of the 99%ers, and their protests.
As a natural consequence of borrowing during the boom, the middle class is left with a ton of debt. A fool and his money are soon parted, so have fun with the payments.
The rich are rich for a reason. They don't go into debt unless it makes them money. The middle class were given a chance to crush themselves with debt, and they took the bait - hook, line and sinker. This proves that the middle class is quite foolish when it comes to money. Anyone who spends more than twice household income on a house has the mind of a work/spend/debt consumer, and not a rich investor.
But to return to the protesters. The tea party reacted fairly swiftly when Obama used taxpayer money to give to Wall Street. So here we are 2 years later, nothing has really changed, and now the 99% are all upset? Where were they when Obama gave the rich their tax money?
Credibility issue here. Aren't these young hippies a few days late to the party?
- 4 votes
It seems like we got a walk-on part in a war.. *and* a lead role in a cage, doesn't it?
LOL! That a scary statement - sorta true too.
The tea party reacted fairly swiftly when Obama used taxpayer money to give to Wall Street.
Oh, is that what happened? Thought the Tea Party was formed to protest Bush's overspending. Oh well, and the spin continues...
Aren't these young hippies a few days late to the party?
You can thank the Tea Party for these so-called "hippies" protesting today. There's only so much corporate sponsored destruction that can be wielded before people start to respond.
- 6 votes
Oh, is that what happened? Thought the Tea Party was formed to protest Bush's overspending
It really got in gear when Obama was spending wildly, when the federal tax revenue decreased due to the crushing mortgage debt of the consumer - which is going to stay for quite some time. The reaction was swift enough to put dems out of office in 2010.
Fast foward to October 2011. I don't see any series of events that could cause the Occupy protests. Obama has been neutered for about a year now, and the slovenly middle class consumer is still vomiting up their massive mortgage debts incurred during the boom. The worst hangover the middle class has seen in quite some time. Perhaps they would like to buy "more house"? Ugh... sick to my stomach.
The rich only go into debt if it makes them money, and watches their debt very closely relative to income. This is why they are rich.
The foolish "consumer" class gets into massive debt regardless of their income, and this was demonstrated loud and clear during the boom. Perhaps a family making $100,000 thinks they'll be 'richer' if they buy a $500,000 house versus a $160,000 house. That bill has got to hurt.
So the contrast between the rich and middle class gets much greater when the opportunity to spend 3 to 5 times household income on a house is presented during the boom years, 2003 to 2009. A rich person wouldn't dare spend that much. But a "work and spend" consumer? Most certainly.
- 1 vote
You forget, Rickeroo, that the rich wouldn't be rich without the middle class.
- 6 votes
You forget, Rickeroo, that the rich wouldn't be rich without the middle class.
Not at all. I understand that for one person to get rich, he's got to convince legions of middle class, to the detriment of their own finances, to buy his products.
Now the middle class find themselves drowning in mortgages, and wonder why they are worse off. Fools - all of them.
- 1 vote
They've got your attention though, got you asking the right questions, instead of wasting time on birth certificates.
Not really. If you're the kind of conservative who is willing to pay attention, you are not the kind who was looking for a birth certificate.
The implication is that everyone didn't already know there were problems. We all know there are problems. Most of us have known for a long time. I do not need it "brought to my attention" that big donors buy campaigns and candidates, any more than I need it brought to my attention that bankers are the most inept group of bastards in history. If we look back into history we see that this problem has existed for thousands of years. Indeed Jesus himself was betrayed by his banker.
The $64thousand question is "what do we do about them?" The vast majority of ideas I've seen would make things much worse than they are now...and now is quite bad enough, thank you.
It's like protesting against it being hot in Texas. Unless you have a plan to fix it...you're just oddly annoying.
- 1 vote
The $64thousand question is "what do we do about them?" The vast majority of ideas I've seen would make things much worse than they are now...and now is quite bad enough, thank you.
What do you mean by "making things worse"? How can things be any worse than the complacency you demonstrate in your post? This is the very reason why we are in this situation both economically and politically. We don't want to deal with the problem - we just want to bitch and moan - and then protect our little piece of the ever-shrinking pie. That gets us nowhere.
Here's the difference I notice - the youth don't have your onus: they are in the process of building something for themselves. They don't have to go along to get along - they don't have to settle.
- 2 votes
What do you mean by "making things worse"?
Dude. Seriously. Where to start....
- I have heard proposed a 50% capital gains tax.
- I have a presidential candidate advocating a flat tax.
- I have congressmen advocating nationalized healthcare.
- I have naive children determined to "close the loopholes" in the tax code.
- I have congressmen advocating business tax cuts.
- I have multiple presidential candidates advocating a 2500 mile fence.
- I have congressmen advocating business tax increases.
- I have idiots proposing a 1% transaction tax on all activity in financial markets.
- I have a thousand people with a thousand ideas about campaign finance reform...none of which will actually work and many of which will make damn sure we never have a fair election again.
How can things be any worse than the complacency you demonstrate in your post? This is the very reason why we are in this situation both economically and politically.
Here's the difference I notice - the youth don't have your onus: they are in the process of building something for themselves. They don't have to go along to get along - they don't have to settle.
??? Did your teenage daughter suddenly take over your keyboard?? Since when did how much someone cares about something relate at all to the quality of their solutions?? That's just childish. My five year old niece cares intently about puppy dogs. That doesn't make her qualified to head up the Humane Society.
How can things get worse??? Easy. Imagine you wake up next week and the stock market is at half of what it is now because some morons in Washington have decided the brightest financial minds in our country won't miss the trillion dollars we want to tax them and can't figure out how to do business in London instead of New York to avoid them.
Imagine all of the businesses that rely on those capital markets suddenly having no access to the cash they need to meet payroll, fund research, buy raw materials, and front shipping costs. Sh*t, the Chinese would be shipping jobs over here because they'd be able to get Americans to work for $1/day and a bowl of soup.
Imagine that after we "close the loopholes" in the tax code that all of these businesses stop doing the things we wanted them to do that caused us to create the loopholes in the first place. Imagine they stop doing stuff like building housing for the poor, investing in at-risk communities, or training massive numbers of Americans who graduate college and still think people can "loose" their jobs.
How can things get worse? In 2009, people were asking that about healthcare. In 2010, we answered the question with a law drafted in crayon by congressional interns who needed permission from Mom to stay at the office past 9:30.
So accuse me of complacency or whatever. I stand firm in my belief that the most important thing we need to do right now is not f*ck things up any worse than they already are.
- 2 votes
The one that has always amazed me is the old trickle down myth. For example, Newt Gingrich saying that taxing the rich would eliminate jobs. He said this with such arrogance, but there is no factual evidence to back up this claim. The factual evidence lines up in the opposite direction.
Rich Americans Save Tax Cuts Instead of Spending, Moody's Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/rich-americans-save-money-from-tax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html
Then there is Dwight D Eisenhower as the anti trickle down role model. He taxed the rich and corporations at a much higher rate than we do now, yet in the 1950's we had a near full employment booming economy with the gross domestic product growing in leaps and bounds. That's why our current generation of Republicans don't want to remember Eisenhower. They prefer Reagan, the first post WWII president to substantially add to the national debt due to tax cuts to the rich with excessive military spending.
- 27 votes
#3 - Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:12 AM EDTLet's face it, mike. They practice selective memory whenever it suits them. As do their counterparts, I might add.
- 18 votes
I suspect that the "selective memory" has a lot to do with how much money they're raking in by perpetuating the myth. As long as they can sell that snake oil to their uninformed or ideologically blinded followers, they're cashing in. The money may not trickle down, but the ideology trickles down plenty.
It's all about the marketing.
- 15 votes
The money may not trickle down, but the ideology trickles down plenty.
The most insightful comment I've ever seen - excellent analogy! FR sent, Rorschach.
- 11 votes
I think the Republicans don't know up from down. We have a trickle UP economy with the super rich getting super richer, the rich getting richer, and the multi national, multi billionaire corporations getting obscenely richer while paying little or no taxes due to loopholes. The richest 400 billionaires on the Forbes list own more financial wealth than half of all other Americans.
- 9 votes
1. Business does everything better than government.
Nobody uses the word "everything" "all" "none" unless they are ignorant. However, it is obvious that a five year old can see his parents dont have jobs, and that's because the EPA, some environmental group, some loyah from Harvard, or some politician said business is greedy therefore your mommy and daddy should not have jobs, because only the govt can create jobs, create wealth, and do it fairly to all.
2. Rich people are “job creators.”
Know any "poor" people who create jobs? We have all day.
3. Government and taxes take money out of the economy.
Which is it? Government or taxes? Oh, by the way, if you are not taxed, you get to keep your money and spend it as you please, which means you spend and consume, which means other people need jobs to create those consumables and run the cash registers, stock the shelves also, that's all part of what we call "the economy" . If the govt taxes you to death, your no longer have that money, so therefore it is logical to state that in fact, govt taxes do take money out of the economy.
4. Regulations Kill Jobs
What are regulations? Do they prohibit or encourage things? The word "regulate", means to constrict or discipline something. Now if that "something" happens to be the company that your wife works for, (or your Daddy, what's his name and what did he "used" to do?) and that company has to let your wife go because the regulation prevents the company from making a profit or even staying in business, then in fact regulation can kill jobs.
Some regulations are good ones and some are bad. The idea that all regulations are good is the most stupid phrase I have ever seen.
5. “Protectionism” hurts the economy.
That depends on "whom" are being protected or "what" issue is being protected against. Protectionism means to hide from harm, prevent harm, prevent disaster. Some protectionism is proper, some is not. If a country is "dumping" goods on the border knowingly below cost, what should that country do? Should that country say, oh well, our people are not productive, they should learn a lesson. No, that's not how to treat the family at home, is it?
Isolationism, on the other hand, is the notion that a country can provide all it's needs within its borders. Usually this is counter intuitive towards business but works as long as the economy is in a growth stage, there are plenty of resources, and new lands to conquer within the borders.
This article is a silly attempt to fool dumb people into believing in Communism.
OK... you have two choices in today's world economically.
Communism or Capitalism.
The Wall street hemp heads and useful idiots along with their Democratic Party supporters, from Soros to Clinton, to the Obominator to Peleolosi, are all Communists who use capitalism to fund their end goal of world domination through Communism
- 2 votes
black spider
Nobody uses the word "everything" "all" "none" unless they are ignorant.
Don't pay much attention to the party line, do you? Feel free to prove me wrong by quoting a rightwinger/libertarian that claims that the government can do something better than the vaunted private sector. We'll wait.
However, it is obvious that a five year old can see his parents dont have jobs, and that's because the EPA, some environmental group, some loyah from Harvard,
And talk about the pot calling the kettle black! LMAO!
Know any "poor" people who create jobs? We have all day.
Actually, a lot. A more curious question: Can you make an argument that doesn't use bumper sticker slogans?
govt taxes do take money out of the economy.
Yes, because when the evil government "takes money out", it doesn't spend it...apparently in your world, the money is just hoarded in some bloated bank account. (WTF is it with this line of reasoning????)
he regulation prevents the company from making a profit or even staying in business,
If only that actually happened someplace other than Republican/Libertarian imaginations. (In at least any statistically meaningful numbers)
The idea that all regulations are good is the most stupid phrase I have ever seen.
Who said that "all regulations are good"?
a silly attempt to fool dumb people into believing in Communism.
Speaking of which, maybe you should read up on the definition of "communism."
- 4 votes
com·mu·nism
noun /ˈkämyəˌnizəm/
- A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs
Web definitions
- a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership
- a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
- (communist) a member of the communist party
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
- Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless society structured upon communal ownership of the means of production and the end of wage labour and private property. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
- (COMMUNIST) [Marxist sense:] A person who works to bring about the overthrow of capitalism by the working class, and the transformation of capitalist society into socialism and then into communist society. ...
www.massline.org/Dictionary/CO.htm
- (Communist) A theoretical form of Socialism where all individuals are equal, all property is jointly owned, and all decisions are made by consensus of the collective without the need for "the State".
www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php
- (Communist) a person who believes in a social system where there are no classes and no private ownership of production.
www.nsh.sevier.k12.ut.us/mrs-albrecht/language-arts-9/225-nig…
As I said, one may choose between being either a capitalist or a Communist.
The Democratic Party platform is practically identical to the CPA platform, for example.
trying to get everybody to agree upon what truely constitutes "communism" or "socialism" is like trying to get everybody to agree what truely defines "christianity" (ironically If you read the bible you will find that jesus was a pretty big socialist).
The one thing that you can get almost everyone one to agree upon is what capitalist means...... Greed and Selfishness at the expense of anyone and anything.
- 2 votes
we aren't anywhere near that level of thinking. Good lord, how the hell do you see that as an actual goal of anyone in this countrY?
- 2 votes
Lets add to the list the fact that while a lot of people don't pay "income" taxes, the taxes they do pay are a bigger proportion of their income than it is for the wealthy.
TAXES:
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and
local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
Trailer Registration Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
- 17 votes
Its like if you have to ask how much something costs, Sunny, you can't afford it.
If you have to ask what the point is, you can't understand it...I'll go look for your sign...
- 16 votes
I am not really following your point. There is a percentage of the population that due to their income level does not pay income tax, but I don't think anyone is disputing they pay other taxes.
- 4 votes
no one is disputing they don't pay other taxes?....that is not true, I hear the rightwing say the poor and half the middle class don't pay anything which is a total and complete lie
- 10 votes
If you have to ask what the point is, you can't understand it...I'll go look for your sign...
Put in on and wear it, when you find it. You have a laundry list of taxes you would have us believe that the poor pay....like capital gains taxes, corporate taxes, and building permit taxes. I'm fascinated. So should we reduce the tax burden on the poor by eliminating corporate and capital gains taxes???
no one is disputing they don't pay other taxes?....that is not true, I hear the rightwing say the poor and half the middle class don't pay anything which is a total and complete lie
It's more semantics than anything else. While the poor do pay sales and payroll taxes, many of them get all that back and much more when they file their returns in the form of earned income credits, child credits, making work pay credits, and so on. This group of people is nowhere near 47% of the population, but they certainly do exist.
The thing I find most baffling is that liberals....who have championed these working poor for decades....cannot seem to get past this idiotic argument. They want to pretend that the working poor pay taxes we all know they don't pay....or pretend that cigarette tax is a mandatory thing....or other completely stupid ideas.
What they should be doing is defending the system they have created.
They should be saying "No. Single moms making $18k a year do not pay taxes, and if you want to tax them you can f*ck right off."
- 4 votes
I might change that slightly. "Single moms making $18K a year do in fact pay sales tax (very regressive) along with several other taxes. They do not generally pay income tax (although many, through ignorance, do not get the refunds they deserve). If you want to tax them more, or use them as a political soundbite, buzz off.
- 8 votes
try being single in Alabama where they tax food and clothing and gas and tags and auto license and then tell me they don't pay taxes
- 3 votes
try being single in Alabama where they tax food and clothing and gas and tags and auto license and then tell me they don't pay taxes
Let's do the math, shall we?
Single mom, 2 kids, $18k/yr. Estimates from http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/calculators/taxcaster/?s=1
- Total Income: $18k
- Total Deductions: $5700
- Total Exemptions: $10,950
- Taxable Income: $1350
- Taxes: $136
- Total Refund, assuming $0 withheld during the year: $6968
So let's take a look at these other taxes she supposedly pays:
- FICA, 7.65% * 18000 = $1377
- Alabama Income Tax, 5% * 18000 = $900
- Sales tax, Alabama avg 8.77% * $18k = $1579
- Total so far: $3874
So even after these other taxes are assessed, she is still tax flow positive by over $3k. Now, at this point in the conversation, my rational liberal friends will say..."OK, so she doesn't pay any taxes. She's raising 2 kids on $18k/yr. She shouldn't have to." They have a point. My saavy liberal friends will point out that supporting 140,000 of these women costs less than a single B2 bomber. They have a better point.
My insane liberal friends (I have 3) will continue to fight this losing battle about whether or not she pays taxes. They will throw in property taxes and employer taxes, even though these are clearly not her obligations. They will throw in gas taxes, parking tickets, trash bills and even tickets to the school play in feeble and desperate attempts to maintain a fantasy from which they wish to argue.
- 1 vote
The outrage here, Jack, unless I'm missing some kind of unlikely new inclination to irony on your part, would be that right wingers still trying to portray this working woman as not paying taxes or at least sufficient taxes and we should look first to raising her rates before asking a millionaire to cough up what would be chump change. Despicable is too kind a word for this thinking.
- 2 votes
Illegit
No what we are saying is we have to cut government spending because the the top 10% of earners are paying something like 90% of the taxes as it now stands. This working mother with two kids who do you think she will vote for when some left wing pimp promises her some more money ?
WW, you've got your numbers wrong. The upper 10% pay about 75%-80% of the taxes but own >95% of the country's aggregate wealth. If anything, they're (we're -- I'm in about the upper 5%) far undertaxed relative to our wealth. If we had a really fair tax system, we'd tax net worth and we could even do it with a flat tax which is something right wingers always say they want except when they don't as you will soon demonstrate.
- 4 votes
Sorry, that's way off. I looked at the stats on this again. The top quintile (20%) of income earners pay only 64% of the total income taxes so the top 10% are probably in only in the 40-50% range. But my total wealth figures are solid. Which makes the discrepancy even more glaring.
- 2 votes
The outrage here, Jack, unless I'm missing some kind of unlikely new inclination to irony on your part, would be that right wingers still trying to portray this working woman as not paying taxes or at least sufficient taxes and we should look first to raising her rates before asking a millionaire to cough up what would be chump change. Despicable is too kind a word for this thinking.
No irony intended. I understand the outrage. I just want us all to get to the actual point...which isn't whether or not she does pay taxes. The point is how much, if any, she should pay.
I would submit that we shouldn't be looking at her taxes but at her income, i.e., what does she need to take in (and keep) in order to be able to raise her children with decent/safe food, clothing and shelter. This is not not impossible to calculate. Eighteen thou a year for 3 people is just barely scraping by. Looking for ways to tax this person more is immoral, pure and simple.
- 4 votes
I would submit that we shouldn't be looking at her taxes but at her income, i.e., what does she need to take in (and keep) in order to be able to raise her children with decent/safe food, clothing and shelter. This is not not impossible to calculate. Eighteen thou a year for 3 people is just barely scraping by. Looking for ways to tax this person more is immoral, pure and simple.
Now we're there. THAT is a defensible position.
It also appears to be how it's currently being calculated.
- 2 votes
Comment collapsed by the communityThe jobs are gone. There will be no "creating" jobs in the US until we impose tariffs and import fees that keep the overseas export of American lively-hoods from being profitable.
The biggest myth of all is that corporate America has any allegiance to their country ay all. They are beholding only to their bottom line and their shareholders. They are American in name only.
- 14 votes
#7 - Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:45 AM EDTThe biggest myth of all is that corporate America has any allegiance to their country ay all.
The real myth is trying to attach morals to an inanimate object, a corporation. Despite what the bought SCOTUS passed in Citizens United, a corporation is a tool to make money. It needs to be regulated so it can be used ethically, and kept where it belongs, in our money-making tool-chest, not at equal level to the individual. Right now, it's open season for greed, and the top one 1% is using every dime they have to further pad their own pockets. They've made it virtually impossible for the rest of us to be upwardly mobile.
- 8 votes
The biggest myth of all is that corporate America has any allegiance to their country ay all.
If a Corporation were actually a person (not in the SCOTUS sense), it would be the scariest psychopath walking.
- 11 votes
"I gave my tax money to the Banks and Mega-corporations and all I got was this 'Thank You' card from China for all the new jobs."
- 11 votes
#8 - Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:00 AM EDTThey are now importing peaches from China! So when it comes time to impeach some of our legislators for indulging outsourcing so far, we can use rotten Chinese peaches.
- 8 votes
This is why the Republican Party is more like a cult than a political organization. It deals in myth rather than reality and the more its faith in these myths is challenged the more fanatical it becomes and the more strident it frames its insistence on adhering to the myth. Within the party it is an absolute requirement that these myths be promulgated or ostracism will surely be imposed. Purity of ideology trumps all fact or reality.
- 4 votes
#9 - Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:01 AM EDTWhy am I not surprised that the far right is ignoring economic history?
- 11 votes
#10 - Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:15 AM EDTIgnoring? You are taking an awfully large risk by assuming they ever read it to begin with. ;-)
- 13 votes
That would be because for each of these points there are a lot of situations where the articles conclusions are wrong.
- 1 vote
The audicity of them to think that we would go along with their love affair with serving the rich and the wanna-bes, is beyond my comprehension. At first I thought they were a clan suffering from bad cases of NARCISSISM but after listening to Cantor, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and long list of others defending this widespread corporate and finanical corruption, I think it's more of a SOCIOPATHIC disorder. Listen to em -- now they got "Joe the MFN Plumber!"
Go Wall Street "Occupy"
- 4 votes
#11 - Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:29 AM EDTWell.....we better keep giving the rich the tax breaks
I love these sort of quotes.
It's a fact that the 'rich' folks people gripe about pay the VAST majority of taxes.
A 'rich' person making $100MM in salary paying 28% tax shells out $28,000,000.
A 'typical' person making $20k in salary paying 14% tax shells out $2,800.
The 'rich' guy at 28% pays as much taxes as 10,000 'typical' people at 14%.
How can you say he isn't paying his fair share? 10,000 times more isn't a fair share?
- 4 votes
Is that supposed to sarcasm, or is that actually your "logic"?
- 11 votes
Don't ya hate it when math eliminates the BS and makes things simple?
Awesome.
What would be fair? 15,000 times more tax? 20,000? Please.
- 1 vote
A 'typical' person making $20k in salary paying 14% tax shells out $2,800.
A person making 20k is not paying $2800 in taxes. Most $20k earners get more back from the treasury than they pay in.
- 3 votes
A person making 20k is not paying $2800 in taxes. Most $20k earners get more back from the treasury than they pay in.
You're probably right, but I couldn't prove it...so went with the published rates for the math in that one.
Where do folks think that 'treasury' money that they get back comes from? The rich.
- 4 votes
If the 20k person is a "single mom", she gets a bonus check, based on the number of little illegitimate children she claims.
And if the 100million person is savvy enough, they get to hide the majority of their income with clever accounting tactics.
- 9 votes
And if the 100million person is savvy enough, they get to hide the majority of their income with clever accounting tactics.
The example said 'salary'. How exactly does one hide salary income? The company that paid it to you will file taxes, for sure noting that they paid it to you. Hell, they paid payroll taxes on it.
Where do people get this stuff?
- 1 vote
If the 20k person is a "single mom", she gets a bonus check, based on the number of little illegitimate children she claims.
Or legitimate ones....and what difference does it make?? She has to be working in order to get the bulk of the tax credits.
Is this really where we think we're going to balance the budget??? By taking away $4k from a single working mom?? No?? Then what's the problem??
- 3 votes
Religious -
It is disingenuous to only talk about the taxes the rich pay, without considering the drastic and accelerating concentration of wealth into the hands of the top 2%. The richest have gotten much, much richer due to government policies and bailouts. A miniscule increase in taxes for them is nothing. We desperately need to redress the imbalance in wealth. It is eliminating the middle class.
The wealth concentration is the most severe since just before the Great Depression. Once things are that out of whack, our economy cannot work until we move back to middle ground. That means not only reasonable taxes on the wealthy (reasonable in proportion to the benefits accrued to them) as well as rewriting many laws, and adding back in a few regulations, so we level the playing field just a tiny bit.
- 4 votes
It is disingenuous to only talk about the taxes the rich pay, without considering the drastic and accelerating concentration of wealth into the hands of the top 2%.
"I want what they have" is not a reason to take from someone else.
That means not only reasonable taxes on the wealthy
You mean a vast reduction in the taxes they pay? Fair would be the same rate for all.
- 1 vote
"I want what they have" is not a reason to take from someone else.
Thats a good little supplicant do the bidding of the uber wealth so that their children will be able to buy and sell gov't ...and your children
You mean a vast reduction in the taxes they pay? Fair would be the same rate for all.
They are. The wealthy are taxed 35% for their income up to 250,000, and anybody whos income is more is subject to the same rate. Progressive taxation is completely fair and is what Adam smith advocated.... taxation as a proportion to earnings. Income tax was never meant to tax lower income earners...it was created to reduce tariffs and foster consumerism.
- 4 votes
You mean a vast reduction in the taxes they pay? Fair would be the same rate for all.
Bullshat!
If you are talking about Herman's 9-9-9 plan from outer space. It would unfairly tip the tax burden to the working poor.
One guy makes $30,000 and can save only $1,000 He pays 9% on what he makes and 9% on what he spends. He will pay 9% of $ 59,000 , or $5,310 in taxes, or 17% of his income in taxes.
The rich guy makes $100,000 and saves $60,000 He can live on $40,000 comfortably He pays 9% of what he makes and 9% of what he spends or $12,600 total tax. That's 12.6% of his income in taxes.
The only way the first guy could get by paying 12.6% of his income in taxes would be if he could save 60% of his income and live on $12,000 a year...impossible
Nothing "fair" about it ...
- 5 votes
Leon I think Herb Cain mistook his economic plan with one of hi pizza deals 9.99 and they throw in twisty bread for free...
- 5 votes
The rich guy makes $100,000 and saves $60,000 He can live on $40,000 comfortably He pays 9% of what he makes and 9% of what he spends or $12,600 total tax. That's 12.6% of his income in taxes.
Who do you think makes over 100k and pays 12.6%. Nobody. Get a grip.
The IRS posts tax tables. Scream deductions all you like....that's why it's called AGR. Look it up, seriously... 82k to 171k is the 28% bracket. That's adjusted gross income.
WOW.
- 1 vote
First off RW is that you seem to be confusing the current tax code with the one Cain is proposing. Next, we are not taxed on AGI which is the bottom line on the front of the 1040; you are taxed on taxable income which is on the second page and follows the subtraction of deductions. Basically leon's numbers are accurate and is conclusion is reasonable. Flat taxes are not fair. And sales taxes are the most unfair (regressive) of them all so including that into the mix makes Cain's proposal the best thing since serfdom was invented.
- 1 vote
I'm not confusing anything. I'm talking about the CURRENT FEDERAL INCOME TAX CODE. Not some BS some politician is trying to sell.
So, again. Nobody making 100k is taxed at 12.6%.
It's at least twice that.
- 2 votes
So, again. Nobody making 100k is taxed at 12.6%.
You do seem to be quite confused RW. The scenario of these two hypothetical wage earners I have drawn illustrates the HYPOTHETICAL,( BS if you must), flat tax Herman Cain has proposed.
I am not discussing current tax code or current tax code percentages.
We know that "nobody making $100,000 a year is paying 12.6% in taxes. But under Cains 9-9-9 plan they would. You seem to have missed that.
You are the one RW who needs to get a grip... sheesh!
- 4 votes
Read from the beginning. He and I were NEVER talking about the 9-9-9 plan.
We were talking about what folks CURRENTLY pay in taxes.
Start at #12 - no mention of 9-9-9 until someone else brought it up.
Your comment #12.15 directly related to comment #12.12 which you quote and which was all about the 9-9-9 plan and then you definitely indicated that our current tax code would never give the results that leon had. Of course, leon was using the 9-9-9 plan and you were referring to our current code as you mentioned the 28% bracket. You're really confused or are just not reading the comments carefully. And then there's this to add to your confusion:
So, again. Nobody making 100k is taxed at 12.6%.
It's at least twice that.
I put the amount of taxable income of $100k through our current tax calculation and it came to just under an effective tax rate of 19.5%. You do know what "effective tax rate" means, I trust.
- 1 vote
religious -
I do not want to take what they have.
The real question is, why do you choose to pander to the wealthy?? (I assume you are not a billionaire, or you would hire "people" to post for you). Do you think that, if you stand up for them they will reward you in some way.
It is not in my best interest, nor in the interest of 99% of Americans, to encourage wealth redistribution to the wealthiest to continue.
When things are this far out of whack, the economy simply does not work.
I do not want "their" money, but I do want a measure of reasonableness. Why are you their spokesman and servant??
- 1 vote
It is not in my best interest, nor in the interest of 99% of Americans, to encourage wealth redistribution to the wealthiest to continue.
This is a fundamental truth. The wealth disparity in this country is a direct threat to a republican form of government with a representative democracy. We're already on the slide toward feudalization and Republicans seem to want to shove us headlong all the way down.
- 2 votes
(I assume you are not a billionaire, or you would hire "people" to post for you).
What makes you so sure that he hasn't Tom?
- 1 vote
If Clinton signed NAFTA wouldn't that seem to say that #5 isn't a conservative point? Also the article itself was too broad, a lot of situations can be thought of were the points don't hold.
- 1 vote
#13 - Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:11 PM EDTClinton signed Gramm Leach Bailey, as well....but don't tell anybody.
- 1 vote
I usually include a statement about the COMPROMISE strategy by which the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed. Democrats got their Community Reinvestment Act passed in exchange for Republicans deregulating Wall Street. That's why Clinton signed the bill.
Does that make Clinton to blame for deregulating Wall Street? Democrats should not have offered a compromise and I did not support both bills. Government should not be involved in the housing market and I do not support Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. The compromise can be blamed on the Democrats, but the fact remained three Republicans wrote the bill that deregulated Wall Street and it was pushed through congress by the Republicans. They bear the primary blame.
Both parties have their issues, and I do not feel compelled to defend Democrats.
When it comes down to what enabled the recession to happen, it was clearly the Republican legislation - the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 that allowed Wall Street giants to form once again, and the Modernization of Commodities and Futures Act in 2000 which gave Wall Street white collar criminals the loopholes in regulation that they needed for predatory lending, derivatives fraud, credit default swap gambling, the Enron scandal, etc... No leg to stand on here to divert blame. This legislation was slipped into an 11,000 page omnibus spending bill by Republican Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm, an ex Enron lobbyist.
In short, between both bills that got passed, Phil Gramm was the ENABLER for the 2008 recession.
- 11 votes
In short, between both bills that got passed, Phil Gramm was the ENABLER for the 2008 recession.
I wouldn't be that nice to him. I would call him the instigator, and Clinton et al the enablers.
I think the important point here is the one upon which we agree: you can't judge an elected official by what team he plays for. Neither party has a monopoly on right, wrong, good, evil, competence or ineptitude.
We know what Clinton signed. No one's giving Clinton a free pass here. Unlike right wingers with Reagan we actually do what the people we vote for do and don't put them on pedestals. It shows a poverty of argument that you think waving Clinton around will fix it for you.
- 2 votes
that should read "do know what the people we vote for do" and I should have added remember it, too.
- 1 vote
According to a Tax Foundation study even taxing the nation's millionaires at 50 percent and even eliminating loopholes and deductions would only reduce the deficit by 8 percent and the national debt by 1 percent.
Taxing millionaires at an effective tax rate of 50 percent would raise only $120 billion more, according to Tax Foundation calculations based on IRS data.
Yet surely Obama's advisors have crunched the numbers, and know that even taxing the rich 100% of their income will pay for only a tiny fraction of Obama's annual spending.
So why does Obama continue to propose policies that do not respect the facts? It is because of his idea of fairness.
Our president has made it completely clear that for him, making America a more fair country trumps mundane economic considerations. In a debate with Hillary, Obama explained that even if raising taxes on the rich brought in lower revenues -- as it usually does -- he would prefer it to more revenue because it is fair.
Obama would rather the country be fair than rich.
- 2 votes
#14 - Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:16 PM EDTI don't think its fair to say taxing the rich is the way to pay down the national debt and eliminate deficits. Obviously it must be a part of a larger program of SHARED SACRIFICE that eliminates tax cuts for the rich and tax loopholes for corporations.
It is extremely fair to say that America has been in over the top excessive military spending for many years. Republicans propose to increase that spending, which is fiscal insanity. We need to eliminate the pork, fraud, waste and duplication in the Department of Defense spending. That includes all of the contracts for items NOT requested by the military that always manage to find their way into the defense spending as pork going to someone's district or state to ingratiate themselves with their home voters.
- 9 votes
Independent -
I guess I missed your point. How did you get from complaining about how little taxing the rich will help to "Obama would rather the country be fair than rich"? Seems to me that, right now, the top 2% are rich, while the middle class is under serious assault. What harm do you see coming from taxing the rich a bit more? Do you object to any move that will only help cut the deficit a little??
Fair would be to get rid of the laws that have allowed and encouraged this concnetration of wealth.
- 4 votes
You don't think an 8% deficit reduction would be big? Do you know of any other sure fire way for the government to get an 8% return on anything right now? I'd give a nut to get 8% on my investments in these times. No wonder Republicans @!$%# up the economy AND the government's fiscal status so badly considering who votes them in.
- 3 votes
The protestors are united by an utter, unhealthy contempt for wealthy people, and they would be happy to take as much money from the wealthy as humanly possible. Moreover, en masse, they demonize a faceless enemy.
"The rich" is a handy caricature for whatever assortment of injustices these people believe ails them.
I am the enemy because I am rich?
- 3 votes
These protesters know a helluva more about why our economy tanked than right wingers, who still believe the most utterly ridiculous things about it, e.g., how it was all the fault of people who were sold bogus loans. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1999 specifically forbids lenders from lending to unqualified buyers. The lending and investment banking industry in this country were out of control in the first decade of this century. On the lending side, loaning to unqualified buyers often falsifying their credit worthiness without their knowledge to get the loans approved while on the investment side packaging these tainted mortgages liberally among thousands of MBS instruments and selling these piles of @!$%# by the trillions of dollars worth while also taking out credit default swaps on the so as to make money when these investments tanked as they knew they would. To be defending the people who did this, and continued to personally enrich themselves even during the worst of the recession even while their institutions were being saved from complete ruin by the very taxpayers they'd just finished screwing over is to be so blind and indifferent to criminality as it's possible to be. But ideology makes people think and do horrible things. And there's no ideology more entrenched in the purely ideological right wing than the myth the we need the rich in order to survive so let's just ignore it when they @!$%# us over.
- 4 votes
totally unfair assesment Independent...they are not happy with wall street being bailed out, with huge companies and banks paying no taxes, jobs being shipped over seas ect ect...its not hate for the rich, its hate for inequality or an even playing field...the overclass in America have made it almost impossible to work hard and become well off, they (the overclass) don't want the competition!
- 6 votes
Obama would rather the country be fair than rich.
You seem to be opposed to this assessment of of what Obama wants.
Can we deduce then that you would rather get rich unfairly? If you read your statement again that is what you are advocating.
I am the enemy because I am rich?
No IV the enemy is the system that allows some to get rich unfairly at the expense of working middle class Americans. The system that allows unfairness is the enemy , you are merely the symptom.
- 3 votes
Our financial markets have an important role to play. They’re supposed to allocate capital and manage risk, but they’ve misallocated capital and created risk. We are bearing the cost of their misdeeds. There’s a system where we’ve socialized losses and privatized gains. That’s not capitalism! That’s not a market economy. That’s a distorted economy, and if we continue with that, we won’t succeed in growing, and we won’t succeed in creating a just society.
Joseph Stiglitz
- 4 votes
#15 - Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:56 PM EDTIt's called feudalism. That's the type of economic system the Republican party is trying to put into place in this country.
- 4 votes
A person making 20k is not paying $2800 in taxes. Most $20k earners get more back from the treasury than they pay in.
You're probably right, but I couldn't prove it...so went with the published rates for the math in that one.
Where do folks think that 'treasury' money that they get back comes from? The rich.
This is absolute nonsense. Taxes are deducted from your paycheck every week. If you don't make enough to owe taxes you get back WHAT YOU PAID IN. It does not come from "THE RICH"!
You can't get back more than you had taken out!
- 1 vote
#16 - Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:09 PM EDTRight off the bat, a person making $20k is paying FICA of about $1350 (more if that 20k is just their taxable income). That money doesn't come back. The first $8500 of their everyone's taxable income (after the personal exemption) is taxed at 10%--so there's $850. The next $26k is taxed at 15%. So, if $20k is the taxable income, that's another $1750. So, we're really looking at nearly $4000 in taxes depending on what the $20k represents. What is almost always left out when talking about taxes is that taxing, say, a $250,000 income doesn't mean you're taxing someone grossing $250,000. The $250,000 would be after all adjustments and deductions that the person/couple is entitled to. We'd likely be really looking at people probably making nearly $400,000 gross income, maybe more, depending on how their deductions mount up. Currently, mortgages have to be above $1M before any limit on the deduction of interest payments kick in the size of the MI deduction alone could be $50,000 or more for someone like that. It should also be pointed out that many people in this category may have substantial capital gains as income which maxes out currently at 15%. That's why it's not only possible, but probably common that the net effective tax rate on many of these people is less than someone making half, or even less. It's bizarre and immoral.
- 2 votes
Oh, and by the way, that $400 k earner stopped paying for Soc Security when he/she passed $106,000 of gross income not including capital gains. FICA is not collected on this kind of income.
- 3 votes
This is absolute nonsense. Taxes are deducted from your paycheck every week. If you don't make enough to owe taxes you get back WHAT YOU PAID IN. It does not come from "THE RICH"!
Once you've done some math on the subject, you'll find it's not nonsense at all. Hold that thought...
Right off the bat, a person making $20k is paying FICA of about $1350 (more if that 20k is just their taxable income). That money doesn't come back.
But it does. I've demonstrated it in post 4.8, which I will save clutter by not repeating here.
http://mweaver1.newsvine.com/_news/2011/10/11/8268119-5-conservative-economic-myths-occupy-wall-st-is-helping-bust?threadId=3242798&commentId=58875065#c58875065
There are millions of American families who are "tax flow positive". That's not the point.
To my liberal friends...please do not see this "some people pay no taxes" thing like the Catholic Church arguing against Kepler and Galileo. It is fact, but it is insignificant to what your point should be. You should be arguing from a position of mathematical and philosophical strength, instead of defending an untenable position.
Your arguments should be things like:
If we took the $7k away from 1 million poor families, we would save a mere $7 billion. We spend more than that every 30 days in Iraq.
If you took $7k away from 1 million poor families, how much will it cost in increased crime? How much in increased food stamps and housing vouchers?
The Wallbangers don't have an answer to our economy. Their efforts are no less transparent than the Republicans, Teabaggers and Democrats who feel they have simple solutions to repairing an economy that was built on speculation and inflated real estate values. Complex problems do not require simple solutions. The truth is that the economy is failing and there is no easy solution to its repair. If one needs to place blame, go ahead and pick anyone. There is enough blame to go around for all.
#17 - Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:11 PM EDTMost $20k earners get more back from the treasury than they pay in.
Where does the "more" part come from?
- 1 vote
#18 - Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:16 PM EDTI don't see where the dollars actually come from.
The fed lives on taxes...if there are thousands of people out the getting a NEGATIVE tax bill (not a refund on tax paid via payroll deductions) every year then SOMEONE is paying extra to over it.
Simple math.
- 2 votes
I don't see where the dollars actually come from.
The fed lives on taxes...if there are thousands of people out the getting a NEGATIVE tax bill (not a refund on tax paid via payroll deductions) every year then SOMEONE is paying extra to over it.
Simple math.
Ah. Yes. Well, the math would be simple if we actually lived remotely within our means. Alas. As it stands, about 60% of her $7k is covered by the 53% of us paying actual income tax. The rest is covered through a loan in the form of US Bonds.
your right Patriot....for instance if it was not for taxes and government investment in the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System how could the wealthy ship their goods so efficiently with little cost....I would love them to try that in South America or Africa or even Russia....they wouldn't be able to perform the way they do....I guess the American brand of "socialism" benefits all.
- 2 votes
#19 - Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:17 PM EDT1. Business does everything better than government.
What? Who says this? I can't think of one person who says business does everything better than government. I don't see anyone advocating that Lockheed take over the Air Force or that GM should take over the army. I don't see anyone advocating that we go back to the days of different gauge railroad tracks. But there are government ventures that are run very poorly, like the mail, or Amtrak. This straw man that business does everything better is intended to discredit the idea that private enterprise does many things better when government interference can be minimized. Only anarchists want to shut down the government.
Other assertions in this first point are equally absurd in their extreme nature. For example:
But as we have seen, what actually happens in this kind of dehumanized "Force You" system (as in "F.U.") is that businesses are forced to cut every corner, cheapen every product, cut out every service, lay people off, cut people's wages while adding hours, gut benefits example:
Cheapen every product? What does this even mean? If government was good at making anything, they wouldn't have to contract out to private industry for everything they use. Where is the "government" factory? Government doesn't make the finest tanks, computer, televisions, or clothing in the world. Private companies do.
2. Rich people are "job creators."
Of course they are. Even when the government "hires" people to stimulate the economy, all they are doing is contracting with private businesses. At least that's what they should be doing. That would actually be a productive brand of stimulus except government tends to spend too much for those jobs. And when they just hire more bureaucrats to shuffle paper, they aren't actually producing anything at all.
But anyone with a real business will tell you that people coming in the door and buying things is what creates jobs. In a real economy, people wanting to buy things – demand – is what causes businesses to form and people to be hired.
This is true, of course. It's a consumer driven economy. But the middle class keeps getting tax cuts and welfare keeps expanding, and yet...the economy is still in the crapper. Sending someone a check for a $1000 just makes them pay down their debt by $1000. A job will get them shopping.
3. Government and taxes take money out of the economy.
It sure has taken money out of my economy.
In reality the taxes that government collects are invested in the "public structures" that create the prosperity and lifestyle we enjoy
Sure. In theory and if done right. But the Obama administration's stimulus spending hasn't had this effect. Report: Obama's Stimulus Did Nothing to Create Jobs
4. Regulations Kill Jobs
This should be obvious. Now, I am not against all regulation. I think we definitely need some, but we should always be trying to make as little as possible. Again, no one is saying eliminate all regulation. But legislators, who apparently have too much time on their hands, just love to make regulations. And some special interest always has a beef, for which the only solution always seems to be another regulation. This is a single case, of course, but I flipped the TV to "Lobstermen" last night and every captain of every boat was complaining about confusing government regulations. They lose their equipment and their harvest in the ocean because there's no way to efficiently navigate around the government regulations. And one captain was positively paralyzed as he and his partner tried to make sense of brand new regulations.
Then look at the banking industry. The fed keeps lowering interest rates, so there's no profit in lending. Congress outlaws a lot of the fees and penalties banks charge to people who don't pay on time or keep a minimum balance, so what happens? B of A decides they're going to just charge everyone for using ATM cards. So because it was so cruel and unfair to punish people who can't manage their finances, the rest of us responsible people get nailed with a new fee. Thanks Government!
5. "Protectionism" hurts the economy.
It does. Study economic history.
But the trade deals of recent decades have not been free or fair, and can't really even be called "trade." What has happened is countries sell to us but do not buy equally from us, causing huge trade deficits that have drained our economy and our jobs and our wages.
This is not an argument against "free trade." This is an argument FOR "free trade." China has long been protectionist and our toleration of their absurd policies has only hurt us, but I don't see anyone claiming this is "free trade." Not even China thinks that.
Wall Street got bailed out; Main Street was abandoned.
I wasn't thrilled with Wall Street getting bailed out either. Neither was the Tea Party, but they managed to protest without getting pepper sprayed or blocking the sidewalk. And by the way, Wall Street has largely paid back that bailout with interest. What was government supposed to do for Main Street anyway? Pay off everybody's mortgage? Would regular people have paid back the government like Wall Street has?
- 3 votes
#20 - Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:54 PM EDTI wasn't thrilled with Wall Street getting bailed out either. Neither was the Tea Party, but they managed to protest without getting pepper sprayed or blocking the sidewalk. And by the way, Wall Street has largely paid back that bailout with interest. What was government supposed to do for Main Street anyway? Pay off everybody's mortgage? Would regular people have paid back the government like Wall Street has?
did you forget they, the tea party, smashed peoples heads into sidewalks, smashed windows, even shot a member of the House...jeez how easy people forget
- 3 votes
Furthermore, whatever happened to the teabagger outrage on this? Now all their elected representatives seem intent on doing is getting abortion outlawed and taking us back to 2007 when all the economic crimes happened. They've completely abandoned (if they ever really had any) moral high ground. Turns out that was all just empty slogans and pious mouthings--standard right wing fare, in other words.
- 2 votes
Someone has to take care of the infrastructure in the country and pay the military. Since the rich refuse to do this on their own, taxes are necessary for the government to do it for them. There should be a limit on how much one person or corporation can take from our country instead of the tax system we now have to pay bills for the country and take care of the poor and disabled. American people first, corporations and the rich second. Everyone should have at least access to the health care system, food to eat and a roof over their head. This is the governments responsibility and we need strong leaders instead of the corporate whores we now have in DC to do their job.
- 3 votes
#21 - Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:24 PM EDT1. Business does everything better than government.
There are certain industries where the self interest profit motive doesn't seem to benefit all Americans: Warfare, health insurance, maintaining roads, responding to natural disasters, police.
2. Rich people are “job creators.”
Looks to me like they're just getting richer, still no jobs though.
3. Government and taxes take money out of the economy.
What's the point of having an economy if there's no one to protect you, no one to keep the roads safe, no one to educate our children, no one to insure you when you're old?
4. Regulations Kill Jobs
Unless your job is specifically to break the rules for profit...
5. “Protectionism” hurts the economy.
Naw, instead we'll just outsource jobs to create products that soon no one in America can afford even with the decreased costs of production.
- 4 votes
#23 - Tue Oct 11, 2011 3:17 PM EDTFor all you misinformed people who just throw figures out in the air you might want to do a little research. Some of us are not that stupid. Top 1% of households average income is 1.5 million dollars per year and they saved 79.5 billion dollars on their 2008 taxes. In 2009 it was even higher. This crap of going only by figures do not represent anything. There are wealthy people who pay less taxes than the guy that make 200,000 per year because they write off everything. Their accounts knows all the tricks. The man making $40,000 per year don't have the same opportunties the wealthy has when it comes to deductions. The wealthy saved 79.5 billion in taxes.
- 1 vote
#24 - Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:05 PM EDTThe grand-daddy of all economic myths is that of the "Invisible Hand," the quasi-religious notion that "The Free Market" will always provide optimal results when it is left alone to work things out. Supply and Demand curves are nothing but an attempt to dress this nonsense in what would appear to be more respectable mathematical attire, but don't let respectable appearances fool you. The intersection of supply and demand curves does not indicate an "optimal" result, it just shows where the market "clears." Least of all does it indicate a socially optimal allocation of resources.
- 1 vote
#25 - Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:27 PM EDTWow. A supply and demand curve is simply a mathematical reflection of an ecomnomic reality. It's a result, not a driver. Keep that aluminum foil hat on really tight so the aliens don't suck out your brain...... too late.
SeattleDad -- You conveniently ignore my point. Yes, the supply and demand curves reflect an economic reality, namely that there is a price and quantity combination at which a market will clear. That is ALL that it reflects. And keep the gratuitous insults under your own tinfoil hat, you aren't amusing.
- 1 vote
On protectionism ... Did anybody watch 60 minutes the other night? The CEO of GE was interviewed he said he was proud to be a globalist (New World Order talk) and explained that he bounced GE's money around in off Shore accounts to avoid paying taxes ... It is way past time corrections in the system is made ... GO OWS !!!! Occupy Everything..
- 5 votes
#26 - Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:57 PM EDTYep so was Goldman Sachs, They always play both side of the fence. Thats why the corp money has to be taken out of Politics if everyone is goig to get a fair shake.
- 3 votes
The fat cats contribute to both major political parties, to hedge their bets. They view it as a business expense.
- 1 vote
We need to shrink the size of government thus who is paying taxes or how much will not be nearly as big an issue. The issue is we borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend this will not work.
- 1 vote
#27 - Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:09 PM EDTMaking senseless comments does not address the amount we are borrowing.
Neither does even more senseless talk about greater tax cuts for the wealthy.
- 2 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
