Guess I should reply to this


Ignorance is bliss indeed!


What WERE you talking about then? If you're talking about any policy other than taxation, why the hell are you bringing it up in this discussion?


Best way to get cash is to print more of it - coincidentally, the U.S. Government is the only agency authorized to print more U.S. dollars.

Taxing the top 2% more is NOT a good way to raise revenue long term, because the top 2% is the most volatile income bracket. It will be feast or famine for the treasury and will make long-term budget planning extremely difficult.

What we should REALLY be discussing is cutting spending - and not just discretionary spending, but entitlements too. Instead Obama created a new entitlement program - fantastic!

You don't know what stagnation means my friend. And you miss the point (yet again!). The point is that ALL income categories have done better in real terms since the 60's. And yes, the rich have done better than the poor and the middle class, but EVERYONE has done better. That's something to be applauded, not ridiculed.


Again, that is simply not true. The cost of necessities has gone DOWN in the last 40 years compared to the pace of inflation. That is exactly what I meant when I said that inflation for the poor is lower than for the rich. I'm sorry you can't wrap your head around it, but it's not that hard a concept.

As for "loansharking": to wit, poor people have access to credit now too! THE HORROR!


This is so misinformed, I don't even know where to start. Look, you're contradicting yourself. If income inequality is increasing wouldn't by your logic racial tensions also increase? Wouldn't culture and technology also take a hit?

But you're on the right track when it comes to Chile vs. Mexico and Brazil. Income inequality in the latter two are the symptom of a government controlled economy (something Brazil is fixing today). The income inequality in the U.S. is a symptom of meritocracy (although if we keep bailing out industries and letting the government take more control of the economy, we won't be that far off from Mexico). These are completely different issues. In the U.S. the rich get richer and the poor get richer - because market economy is a win-win game; in Latin America the rich get richer while the poor get poorer - BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES, which are win-lose at best and are lose-lose most of the time.


Let's not become a banana republic, OK?

No, you posted a message on a messageboard. That is a far cry from actually saying something.

I did both post a message on a messageboard and actually say something.

Say something is shorthand for saying something of value. What you posted had none.

On second thought, I am wrong; what you posted had negative value, since it was so incomprehensible, it actually made everyone reading it a little bit dumber.

:)

let's get back to nico guys

Ignorance is bliss indeed![/quote]

Your point was murky. Just what did you mean?



By treating one tax as an extrapolation of all.



I'm fine with cutting spending. Problem is: a) where? b) it's not going to happen until something more catastrophic happens.



The average wage has a bit more than doubled since '80. The cost of rent is 2.6 times higher, on the average. Buying a house costs 3.5 times more, on the average. Rent is about 2.6 times more, on the average. Beef and bread are like 5 times more, on the average. Gas has actually been pretty level, a bit more than double.

I don't think most people fully understand their finances and debt or their implications, and that being exploited I do find insidious. The teaching of economics in the country is a joke, and I don't think it's coincidental.



What? I said there are numerous factors, not always direct and not always black-and-white.



Has it not been well-established that America's social mobility has been eclipsed by much of Europe?

Brazil's possibly recovering for the long term, it'll be interesting to see. It is an increasingly free market, but they have also been installing plenty of government social projects. The Bolsa Familia project, for example. Of course, there has been pressure against it, as plenty think the poor are poor because they are terrible people.

The problem with the current bailouts is that they work within a system that is corrupt and unsustainable. We pretty much can both agree on this. Obama has sort of been stuck on this and realizes that: he can't (and perhaps, he doesn't want to) really reform a system that is just far too entrenched, but if all of it was bulldozed and built back up, the short-term would be a lot worse. And people aren't patient. I think we both agree that what is going on right now is totally fucked up and unfixable, until another economic catastrophe comes and sweeps whatever has been left standing out. And it's horrible to think more incredible suffering has to happen.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20101018/cm_csm/329606_1



http://www.ctj.org/pdf/irstop400.pdf

I skimmed through this and I have just one question. Does anyone know what the fuck they are writing? Tyler seems to have a grasp.

The US govt. is being bled dry by a bloated military industrial complex and a quasi-private healthcare industrial complex that is mostly subsidized by the federal, state, and local governments. Until those two massive sinkholes of tax money are addressed everything else amounts to a band-aid. The best band-aid would be to tax those with the most wealth, because the accrual of large sums of wealth in one individual is the most inefficent way to run an economy.

I find it odd how so many conservatives supposedly hate monopolies, but have no problem with richest 20% owning 84% of the country. Monopoly which was based on an earlier game called Finance, very simply but effectively shows the ultimate result of capitalism that is unregulated to restrain excessive wealth accumulation. A small percentage end up owning everything and the vast majority are basically broke. Wealth needs to be redistributed or a society will not improve. A correction will be inevitable, the only question is when.

We are whistling past the graveyard at the moment.

Well, clearly EVERYONE IS BENEFITING FROM THE SYSTEM.

I wasn't aware that conservatives (or libertarians) hated monopolies. Some argue that they are inefficient but those same persons usually do not argue that the monopoly must be broken-up. In fact, they point out that monopolies tend to not last long and that monopolies, like Standard Oil, were actually losing market share by the time they were broken-up.

I find it interesting that you think "that the accrual of large sums of wealth in one individual is the most inefficent way to run an economy" and thus suggest having one giant entity take all of the wealth and redistribute it--as if that would magically be efficient.

I found this interesting, though it is a bit outdated.

TAKE ALL OF THE WEALTH, yeah, nobody was suggesting that.

Tackling monopolies would be missing the point, as they are usually signs of something larger than the problem itself, yes.

I'm hoping you weren't posting that graph to lead into how there isn't real poverty in the US, like I've seen a couple do and suggest. The graph demonstrates that there is a huge difference between American poverty and, say, Thai poverty, where being poor means you live in a cardboard box. Nobody would dispute that. That being said, the fact that, say, Ethiopian poverty is worse than Thai poverty doesn't make Thai poverty less deleterious, even if it means you are constantly starving rather than "just" living in a slum or box. Plus, a lot of that material wealth is accrued through debt and hand-me-downs. No, there isn't mass starvation and risk of famine in the US. That's missing the point. It's civic concern.

The communist rag Slate had an interesting article on poverty and incarceration recently:
http://www.slate.com/id/2270328/

Delete double post

Some of that loss of market share was the result of being regulated by individual states such as Ohio and New Jersey before 1911. Also, at their peak (1900-1904) they controlled 91% of production and 85% of final sales. After that period, they stopped undercutting competitors and utilizing other economies of scale tactics due to the public outcry led by muckrakers like Ida Tarbell and others in a failed attempt to stave off a break-up under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

The inefficiency of Standard at the time (1905-1911) might prove my point, but it is difficult to assess how much their loss of market share was of their own doing to stave of anti-trust actions or their inability to react to a massive increase in the demand for oil at the time. The smaller companies at the time such as Texaco, Gulf, Union, and Sun were able to react more quickly. They didn't need to have so many board meetings, etc to decide to purchase a plot of land, a rig, or drilling rights. They were able to act quickly and increase their market share taking away some of Standard's.

In terms of conservatives hating monopolies, I guess it is only when the government is involved in issues like defense contracts, and health care delivery. All the ones I have known personally, argue against a company getting too much of the market share leaving their competitors unable to compete. I tended to work for those smaller companies that couldn't compete with the bigger companies.

Three or four years ago, Kevin Drum was arguing capital gains should stay at 15% or whatever the rate was at the time. I just don't understand how people that invest should get a huge tax break over people making money by their sweat and muscle. It seems inherently unfair.

A friend of mine at the time had a couple of million $ in stocks and had just gotten $120k from a dividend or stock share splitting. He was wondering what he wanted to do with this extra cash. He spent the next 3-4 months researching and deciding on how to invest. I thought what if that $120k was split into $1,000 and given to 120 people that had a yearly income of $20k. I bet they would spend it much more quickly and that money would ripple through the economy in a much more efficient manner.

In terms of efficiency of the economy, I don't understand how one person that has $10 billion is going to create much economic stimulus if he or she has an extra $50m, because of tax cuts. However, if 500,000 got $100 or 50,000 got $1,000 that money would be spent quite quickly and efficiently. The billionaire would most likely get a few million of it back over time from those individuals.

Basically, a working class family has very little in terms of discretionay spending after paying for essentials (housing, food, clothing, and transportation). While a billionaire has a small percentage of his or her budgert allotted to the "essentials". Yet, the billionaire's tax burden after capital gains are accounted is not much more than families much less fortunate. That is not only unjust, but grossly inefficient for the overall economy.

I remember all the gloom and doom B.S. stories the corporate media spun back in 1993 when the Clinton tax increase on the top income earners went into effect. Specifically, I remember a CBS Evening News report about how could the little guy survive when the rich couldn't afford their yachts and private jets. Somehow, the economy was able to survive the tax hike apocalypse. It not only survived but thrived, because the economy was more efficient in taking money that was not being used and distributing it back into the economy.

In terms of your chart, it is misdirection B.S. First of all, most of these items have dropped in price in real value compared to 1970. Secondly, many of the items were only a decade or so into mass production, so the increases look better than they actually are. Lastly, the biggest issue is it masks the stagnation of the American household over the past 4 decades.



http://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/main.htm



http://www.wic.org/misc/history.htm



http://kff.org/insurance/upload/7670_02.pdf


http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Sav ... P70581.asp

I can't find a number from 1970, if somebody has a link please post.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowners ... ted_States

[/quote]

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?art ... in_america


So, basically the non-elite American family has had to lose one spouse (usually the female) to the workforce in order to go deeper into debt, for a minimal increase in home ownership, poverty rates have risen, and health care costs have skyrocketed which leaves more families on the edge of financial ruin due to a catastophic health issue in the family. Quality of life in the family has been lost for minimal to marginal financial gain and higher risk of financial ruin. Doesn't seem like much "improvement" for 40 years of "progress".[/quote]

Hey Obama. Been Busy Today. So how are those DEMS doing today in the elections?

So the Chief Actuary of Medicare, Rick Foster, testified before Congress today regarding The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Here is a key passage between Foster and Tom McClintock (R-CA):





Here he is saying that Paul Ryan's "Roadmap" has a better chance of reducing cost than does The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=dJ2_wusv7Z8

I would have had less of a problem (though still opposed it) with The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act if it was not sold as something which would reduce health care costs. I generally think that politicians genuinely believe that their ideas will better our country and I think this is true of President Obama. However, I do not believe that any honest person actually thought that the health care plan that was passed would reduce costs. I cannot count the number of times that I heard we would add 30million people and costs would go down. This argument is still bandied about and the CBO's cooked books are used to support such nonsense.

PS. Charlie Sheen Also says he knows what he is doing!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wonder who will crash and burn first? The Democrats or Charlie Sheen?

I saw Obama fuck you last night, Grill. How was it?

w/e fool.....

Too shy to comment?

see that months and years later you are still wasting every night on the internet, wow, what a life..............

and so I don't waste anymore time on you....W/E!!!!!

Gov't Shutdown....another bad f up, President Obama.

For Shame!

You do not answer my questions because you think I waste my life? How does that make sense, Grill?

For Shame!