Teh middle class (forked from the other thread)

[Avestan]

You make a lot of reasonable points here (or at least I will assume you did because there is no way I am going to read that much text).

So your counter argument is that there's too much text to read? Astounding!

I don't think I made a counter argument - I conceded his point without being willing to actually read it. If you need a page to make a point on a message board, I think it is reasonable to assume most people are going to skip it.

No offense to anyone here, but none of us are Ernest Hemingway. I skimmed it and was not surprised by anything. I doubt more than 1-2 people did anything other than that.

[Avestan]

Hah! It must make you guys feel good to put everyone right of you politically into a very small box

Fixed:

Right now I am:

1. Bachmann
2. Bachmann
3. Palin

[Avestan]

double

[miir]

Oh lighten up!

[Avestan]

Oh lighten up!

Fair enough In all seriousness, I would not be caught dead voting for either of them or anyone who puts them on their ticket.

By the way - you can add Rick Perry to that list. If Perry is the Republican candidate, Obama will get my vote (and I grew up in Texas).

[Avestan]

i get that, and I hate to seem harsh, but bailouts hurt people too. Fixing one bad situation by creating others just does not seem right. Let's focus on the jobs issue - put the money to use in areas that will create organic demand (long term) for american workers. That is not construction projects that get awarded to political allies and crony capitalists.

1. Keep funding green energy initiatives. There is a chance that this could be the next internet (or maybe not), but we cannot afford to not be the leader here.

2. Tax breaks to companies who hire people over certain wage thresholds and keep them on staff for at least a year.

3. More taxes away from payroll based taxes and more towards consumption based taxes. This ends up being a tax on the rich because the rich consume far more than the poor and eliminates the biggest headwind that companies have right now in terms of hiring.


1 and 2 would be easier than 3, but we should do all of them.

The whole bailout mortgages thing is ridiculous to me. I rent despite being able to afford a home. I decided to rent back when banks offered me the money and I did not feel like I could afford it.

I did everything "right". Proposing that my tax dollars get spent to bailout the people who made bad decisions would be adding insult to injury because it would also serve to prop up home prices which I feel are still too high. I want to buy a house, but I will not do it until prices come down.

Tarp should be spent on promoting small business and tech in the united states. Give it to the folks who can actually create jobs in the form of tax breaks on new hires or payroll tax breaks for businesses under a certain revenue threshold. Let's not reward bad bahvior - we will only encourage people to do it again.

Raise taxes - cut entitlements. In polls, the American public supports balancing the budget based on 75% cuts and 25% taxes. Let's do that and call it a day. If we keep applying bandaids to the economy, we really will be Japan for the next decade.


ps. sold my gold this morning and bought TJX - I think the consumer confidence stuff is overblown! I think the market is up over the next month.

I don't necessarily want to put words in your mouth, because you didn't say this explicitly.. But a lot of the people who lost their houses and would be included in any kind of hypothetical bailout on their mortgage didn't make bad decisions.. They lost their jobs when the economy went to shit because of the people who did make bad decisions, and a plethora of reasons that I won't bother listing because we're all very familiar with them at this point.

At any rate, what you were saying seemed lop-sided and I just wanted to point that out.

[Funkmasterr]

In reality, fixing immigration needs two prongs, but one of the prongs does NOT need to be stuck up the Mexicans' asses. Wal-Mart, construction companies, and lawn services need to be hammered and fined, HARD. This would stop the DEMAND for their cheap, unregulated labor and help pay the bill for this shit. While I'm not in favor of another general amnesty, I am in favor of creating special visas for seasonal workers, and then taxing that ass.

Also, why, why, WHY IN THE FUCK are we spending billions of dollars every month enforcing the drug prohibition? Isn't it clear to everyone that the only people this benefits are the DEA and organized crime? I know the cops love it, because it lets them live their small-dick, roid-raging, tank-driving, door-busting fantasies, but does every town in the fucking country REALLY need a SWAT team and drug interdiction task force?

A ton of the illegal Mexican workers get fake identities because they work for someone who won't pay cash, so they pay taxes and can never file for a return/refund or reap any of those other benefits. Would the benefit of what you are suggesting bring in more money for the government than what they are getting from what I mentioned? I have no clue, but if not, it's probably not ever going to change.

And yes, the "war on drugs" is a fucking joke. The drugs being illegal lead to so much serious crime in this country it's sick. I'd bet all my money that the government turns around and sells the drugs from the big busts they make back to foreign governments/cartels and then it comes right back here again. The whole thing is a sad, sad fucking joke.

[Jice Virago]

I agree with all three of those, as they are sensible and, dare I say, progressive ideas. The key thing is we, as a nation, need to become a producer and innovator again. That is not going to happen without the bulk of the middle class having more disposable income to kickstart things, which is where I think most of the uber wealthy have a disconnect with reality. Hopefully the London riots will open some eyes about what happens when you essentially stagnate an entire generation under bleak economic opportunity. More importantly, hopefully we, as a nation, are the ones most readily able to make the transition away from fossil fuels once the oil inevitably runs out, because otherwise we are going to resumle a lot of those third world shit holes we have been creating across the ocean.

[miir]

Oh lighten up!

Fair enough In all seriousness, I would not be caught dead voting for either of them or anyone who puts them on their ticket.

By the way - you can add Rick Perry to that list. If Perry is the Republican candidate, Obama will get my vote (and I grew up in Texas).

Those two make Perry look pretty damn good!

[Xatrei]

Herman Cain gained a bit of notoriety for his rather doltish claim that as President he would not be willing to sign a law longer than three pages because it has too many words. He's since backtracked, given the sheer absurdity of his previous statement. My comment was a bit of a jab at your complaint that Jice's post was too much to read.

Right now I am:

1. Romney
2. Obama
3. Ron Paul

Avestan is a Herman Cain man, apparently.

[miir]

Even the super rich think they should be taxed more

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opini ... -rich.html

[Winnow]

I was really hoping Obama would tax the hell out of us. We need higher taxes to get things under control. This would allow the country to start its recovery while at the same time helping get a Republican back in office due to the tax haters!

[Jice Virago]

Your party is fucked in the presidential anyhow, since its going to come down to Crazy Eyes Bachman and Romney. No one in their right mind wants Bachman anywhere near the button and the GOPer base won't mobilize for a mormon who enacted the protoype for "Obamacare". Besides, the uber rich have figured out that they can get more done by buying state governments, anyhow, so they are going to phone this one in like they did with McCain. Expect a few key progressive seats in the Senate and House to be targetted, though, just to keep the gridlock going.

[Avestan]

I think it is almost certainly going to be Perry and Romney, not Bachman and Romney.

Bachman is a flash in the pan and will have faded from sight after the Iowa primary.

I hope Romney gets it - I currently believe that he is the best candidate on either side.

[Aabidano]

I hope Romney gets it - I currently believe that he is the best candidate on either side.

But would he have a chance to be a decent president? I'm not thinking so. In other circumstances I'd vote vote him, assuming he got the nod. I don't expect them to field an electable candidate. They're doing much better in martyr-mode, appeals strongly to the base. Choice of words has nothing to do with religion.

Assuming our government was functional and rational my preferences (today) might be something like:

1. Romney
3. Ron Paul
2. Obama

Would be a toss up between Ron Paul and Romney.

[Avestan]

Why not? I am really curious.

I like him because of his business and management credentials. For the first time in three decades, we would actually have someone in the white house who understands the details of the national economy as opposed to someone who relies on others to understand them. While I do not expect the President to be the expert in every issue - it sure would be nice in this case.

I also think he is the most moderate candidate in the race on either side.

[masteen]

I'll never vote for Romney because he's flip-flopped on many of the issues he stood for as governor of Mass. The man stands for nothing, and we already have plenty of that in DC.

Aside of his general crispiness, Rick Perry has overseen the policies that made Texas the national leader in uninsured workers. Fuck that.

I'm voting for Ron Paul, because at least he's not a crazy fundy dominionist.

[Spang]

I like Gary Johnson, but no one knows he's running.

[Sylvus]

Even the super rich think they should be taxed more

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opini ... -rich.html

Quoting this because people should read it and I think often times a link by itself gets ignored.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

...

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.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

...

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

[Aslanna]

Pfft Warren Buffet. What does that guy know about money. Go back to Margaritaville, ya bum!

[Aabidano]

Why not? I am really curious.

The unelected folks driving the train and the hard line "conservatives" aren't going to let him run without a firm commitment not to upset the apple cart. He's already signed Norquist's "I want to ruin the economy pledge" too.

No different than pre-election Obamagate with pharma and insurance. Or Cheneygate with the energy industry, etc..

Perry publicly supports folks that among other things believe freedom of religion is only for their definition of Christians. Doesn't even take reading between the lines, he's said so as recently as last weekend. Might have been the week before.

[Avestan]

Yeah - I am really worried about Perry. What a nutjob that guy is.

[Boogahz]

I just want him to gtfo of Texas already.

[Aabidano]

Yeah - I am really worried about Perry. What a nutjob that guy is.

Never really looked at him until recently, still haven't really. What's visible at a quick pass is enough to make me turn my back on him and anyone associated with him.

His religious beliefs are his, I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as he doesn't want to impose them on everyone else or use them as a direct basis of government.

Similar to Palin's Pentecostalism, go to it and good luck. That in particular while nearly incomprehensible to me isn't a deal breaker of itself. Again, just don't try and impose it on the rest of the country.

I've been in the south too long I guess, I know lots of Pentecostals, Primitive Baptists, etc... Most are young earth creationists & such. Someone who is otherwise sensible (in my worldview) being a member of that sort of sect doesn't really phase me anymore.

[masteen]

I just don't get how people can doubt the very scientific methods that have enabled them to watch these whackjob preachers on TV. So TV works, but all the paleontologists, archaeologists, geneticists, anthropologists, astrophysicists, and geologists are agents of the devil?

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Even the super rich think they should be taxed more

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opini ... -rich.html

Quoting this because people should read it and I think often times a link by itself gets ignored.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

...

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.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

...

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

OK....I love a hypocrite. If this fuck wants to bitch about taxes the rich are paying, maybe he could contemplate moving some of his manufacturing back inside the US to give American workers jobs, instead of offshoring to other countries where they can abuse the worker's rights to save a buck.

[Aabidano]

I just don't get how people can doubt the very scientific methods that have enabled them to watch these whackjob preachers on TV. So TV works, but all the paleontologists, archaeologists, geneticists, anthropologists, astrophysicists, and geologists are agents of the devil?

Neighbor is an RN who doesn't believe in germ theory, imagine that. Doctors that hold those views or claim too and still practice baffle me.

Good friend at work will happily show you lime encrusted workboots as proof against fossilization and use that as an segue into why dinosaurs & people co-existed 10k years ago, flood theory, etc... In the next breath he'll run into details on board and chip design in big optical switches, something he works on for a living.

Fear of the unknown may be what makes them create such an elaborate structure to live in. No one's completely sane, "if there's one thing you can't afford to have it's a sense of perspective"

[Spang]

OK....I love a hypocrite. If this fuck wants to bitch about taxes the rich are paying, maybe he could contemplate moving some of his manufacturing back inside the US to give American workers jobs, instead of offshoring to other countries where they can abuse the worker's rights to save a buck.

Workers' rights are routinely abused in the United States.

[Aslanna]

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

OK....I love a hypocrite. If this fuck wants to bitch about taxes the rich are paying, maybe he could contemplate moving some of his manufacturing back inside the US to give American workers jobs, instead of offshoring to other countries where they can abuse the worker's rights to save a buck.

But why are you defending (or simply ignoring) him being taxed at only 17.4%? Which is pretty much the whole point of the article which you choose to comment on with something not even relevant.

I don't get why he, being super-rich, can't comment on the tax rate he thinks he should be paying yet people like you who aren't super-rich have a problem with that and also are against the tax rate being raised with the elimination of the Bush tax cuts.

[kyoukan]

Berkshire Hathaway Heavy Manufacturing Concern. Oooh stop exporting all those Geico insurance adjuster jobs to China, you bastards!

The right can't open their mouths without lies and stupidity pouring out because that is the cornerstone of their ideologies.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

OK....I love a hypocrite. If this fuck wants to bitch about taxes the rich are paying, maybe he could contemplate moving some of his manufacturing back inside the US to give American workers jobs, instead of offshoring to other countries where they can abuse the worker's rights to save a buck.

But why are you defending (or simply ignoring) him being taxed at only 17.4%? Which is pretty much the whole point of the article which you choose to comment on with something not even relevant.

I don't get why he, being super-rich, can't comment on the tax rate he thinks he should be paying yet people like you who aren't super-rich have a problem with that and also are against the tax rate being raised with the elimination of the Bush tax cuts.

I could care less what he was taxed at. If his companies actually had the jobs here in the US instead of overseas, the taxes from the workers and the money they pump into the economy would have our economy MOVING instead of being stagnant and having people bitching about tax rates.

[Spang]

[Aabidano]

I could care less what he was taxed at. If his companies actually had the jobs here in the US instead of overseas, the taxes from the workers and the money they pump into the economy would have our economy MOVING instead of being stagnant and having people bitching about tax rates.

They're public companies, without a reason of some sort to do so they'll continue do more of the same. Look at GM & WalMart for a couple obvious examples. The obvious comment of "WalMart isn't a manufacturer" is true, but doesn't take into account the way their business model and contracts with suppliers operate.

The very people & deregulation, etc... you support ensure it won't happen.

Warren Buffet has always seemed like a decent guy, he's the only one I heard speaking against the derivatives market and refusing to invest in it before global the meltdown.

I've no idea who passed the regulation\legislation that did so and it's not been widely publicized either but anything that makes US R&D and manufacturing cheaper is a step in the right direction.

Well, anything short of abolishing unions, screwing people out of their investments & retirements, etc... anyway. Changing the tax code so companies like Google would have incentive to bring their income back to the US would be good too. Or just make it so that can't hide it in places like Ireland then bring it back to the US for free. Penalizing countries like China that don't allow us to repatriate income is another, or just doing the same to them at any rate.

*Edit - The largest retailer in the US by practice (since Sam Walton died) forces goods to be manufactured outside the US. In the latest twist, even the frozen corn they sell is coming from China. Over time most of the frozen foods and many others they sell have shifted to Chinese origin. Considering US global food exports, shipping & everything else the savings have to be minuscule. As a side-side note, given the Chinese' attitude towards human life I don't buy any food I know came from there. I don't buy anything from Wal-Mart I have the ability to buy elsewhere for that matter. Not so much a political statement as a "most of their goods are crap" one.

[masteen]

I could care less what he was taxed at. If his companies actually had the jobs here in the US instead of overseas, the taxes from the workers and the money they pump into the economy would have our economy MOVING instead of being stagnant and having people bitching about tax rates.

BRK is actually pretty good about keeping jobs in America. Yeah, they bailed from the textile industry 30 years ago, but a large part of their businesses are service and insurance, and there's no way to outsource that shit. If there's anyone who can legitimately and non-hypocritically criticize the top 0.1% from within their ranks, it's Buffett.

[masteen]

Interesting take on Warren Buffett's call to tax the rich by The Daily Show:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-a ... servatives
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-a ... de-is-over

TL;DW:
Eliminating tax loopholes for the upper 2% of Americans would raise $700 billion over 10 years.

To extract the same amount from the bottom 50%, they would have to not just raise their tax rate, but actually TAKE and SELL HALF of their assets.

Sounds fair, amirite?

[Zaelath]

Well, what do you think the market is for 50 million 2nd hand fridges? I'm not sure you're going to get your $700 billion.

I thought the "NPR COSTS $1 MILLION" part was pretty hillarious though. Not least because we fund our national broadcaster to the tune of $650 million a year, though that's radio, 4 TV channels, etc. I think for 9 cents a day (per person) they provide a quality service.

[Neroon]

All of those Fox News pundits should be forced to watch those clips over and over a la Malcolm McDowell in Clockwork Orange.

I wonder how many of them actually believe the crap they say (as opposed to just towing the line to keep their job).

[masteen]

Not to get all grammer nazi, but the phrase is "toe the line," not "tow the line."

[kyoukan]

There is a lot of money in right wing conservative punditry. It is also an extremely easy job because your audience does not scrutinize what you say. Sure the educated media and comedians skewer them all the time, but it is just as easy to write them off as communists and socialists (I'm not even being hyperbolic) than it is to try to debate their points.

If you are one of the most popular champions of the right, and can walk straight out of the Paul Revere museum and not know the answer to the question "Who is Paul Revere?" and not only do your supporters not feel shame, but they are actually outraged on your behalf that some glib, knowitall journalist would ask such a "gotcha" question, you know that you have a really sweet job.

Most of them know exactly what they are doing. But in America there are so many political pundits that you don't get any attention unless you are a fringe extremist whack-job. Just look at Ann Coulter back when Politically Incorrect was on HBO. She was one of Maher's best guests and could argue politics with anyone. Now she just runs around yanking her hair extensions out and screams "THE LEFT ARE TERRORIST THAT HATE AMERICA" and she sells 4 million books. Lou Dobbs was actually a semi-respected economist before he turned into the living embodiment of everything that is wrong with America. Can you even imagine a fat twat like Rush Limbaugh doing any other job? I wouldn't let that slob wash my fucking car.