Contributors

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Who's He Think He Is...Bo Diddley?

Heathers has always been one of my favorite films. I don't know if it's the dark humor or the fact that Winona Ryder is mega fucking hot but I've always loved it. I haul it out every year and proceed to laugh my ass off even after more than 20 viewings.

The characters of Kurt and Ram, classic adolescent bullies, remind me quite a bit of the right  these days. The first scene of the film finds both of them wondering who the new kid (Christian Slater's character, Jason Dean) is and why is staring at Veronica (Winona Ryder). "Who's he think he is...Bo Diddley?" Ram asks Kurt. The question, of course, makes no sense and it's quickly obvious to anyone with a brain that Ram is an idiot but I find myself of late having the same reaction when having a discussion with folks on the right these days. They, much like Kurt and Ram, can be characterized as this:

Idiot bullies saying things that don't make sense sucking me (and all of us, really) into their small mindedness and misery.

They can't stand the fact that someone might actually know more than they do. They don't like it when it's me and they REALLY don't like it when it's President Obama. Who's he think he is, Bo Diddley? At least they got the skin color right with him.

In essence, that was their reaction to President Obama's speech last Wednesday. Most of it made complete sense and, unlike the Ryan plan, was not partisan at all. It contained many spending cuts and restructuring ideas that are anathema to the Democrats. Since it also called for the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthy, it was branded with a red T and labeled as destructive. Translation: We also believe in welfare and want to make sure the wealthy hold onto their money since we revel in being piss boys and water carriers. 

I think they mix up the buckets sometimes:)

Let's dispense with a couple of myths once and for all. First, the wealthy are always going to have plenty of money. There weren't any wealthy people in the 1950s when they were taxed at 90 percent? I must have imagined all those lavish homes and diamond wearing women. So, enough with the apocalyptic brown shirt paranoia. Second, without a stable economy, they won't have ANY of their money. This is a point that seems to have been lost on them. They are so trapped in the peasant envy meme that they can't see that they need the middle class to drive this economy....to BUY THEIR SHIT. They need the services the government provides just as much as the rest of us.

The simple fact is that consumer spending accounts for two thirds of our economy. Now, I'm not a math genius but if there are less and less consumers spending money than how does that effect our economy? We will not be able to maintain any sort of stable framework with spending by such a small group people. The CitiGroup plutonomy document should be taken as a frightening warning and not as the biased ravings of the left.

Another important myth that needs to be ejected from the capsule is that top earners pay most of the taxes. The people that assert this aren't looking at the big picture. Well, actually, they aren't even entirely accurate. The top one percent paid 2 percent less of a share in 2008 than they did in 2007. The real fault with this notion, though, is lack of width of vision. Very wealthy people don't even pay that much in taxes.

The top income tax rate is 35 percent, so how can people who make so much pay so little in taxes? The nation's tax laws are packed with breaks for people at every income level. There are breaks for having children, paying a mortgage, going to college, and even for paying other taxes. Plus, the top rate on capital gains is only 15 percent.

This article does have some pretty surprising numbers and I say this knowing what kind of reaction I will get from the true believers when they read it but we've been over all of this before. Where we haven't been, however, is here.


Simply put, our economy will not survive with this sort of disparity. If two thirds of our economy is consumer spending and the average income of for the bottom 90 percent has declined this dramatically, how can we have any sort of stability? Combine this with the drop in national income and I'd say we have a whole lot of Marie Antoinettes out there that need to wake up. The bottom 90 percent need to wake up as well and realize that the top earners are making a butt load of money WITHOUT hiring. They don't give a shit about you so giving them tax breaks will absolutely NOT result in more jobs. Clean that plaque out of your head most ricky fucking tick.

So, Kurt and Ram, you guys need to wake up. Put aside your nonsensical bullying and open up your minds. Enough with the paranoia about socialism, fascism, statism, and wealth envy. By ignoring this ever growing flaw, you are actually moving us closer to what you fear. Set aside your true beliefs, need to constantly win an argument and admit that you are wrong. Conservative economic policies have rarely worked even on the micro level. They call it "trickle" down for a reason and our economy simply can't take any more of this abuse.

President Obama is trying to save capitalism and, by extension, your asses. So am I. His plan is the problem solver, not Paul Ryan's plan, because it actually has everything on the table in terms of addressing the debt. Relax. He's not coming to get you. He's not Hitler or Stalin.

And he isn't Bo Diddley either.

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes.

The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes.

The top 10% pay 65.84%.

The top 25% pay 83.88%.

The top 50% pay 96.54%.

The bottom 50%? They pay 3.46% of all income taxes.

The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%.

How much more do you want them to pay Mark? Remember how much money you had before you lost it all in CDO swaps? Did you go sailing on your yacht and light your Cubans with a hundred-dollar bill? You were one of those evil rich people weren't you?

Perhaps you should jettison your spend more philosophy, and ask for a government that isn't there to hold your hand whenever you need to cross the street.

Larry said...

The top one percent paid 2 percent less of a share in 2008 than they did in 2007. You silly twit, Mark. You didn't even understand the gist of the article at the link, did you? Your economic reasoning is about as well-founded as the scientific reasoning of the Intelligent Design/Young Earth crowd. They constantly throw out links to scientific papers that they misunderstand, too. The rest of their intellectual behaviour is quite similar, too.

Larry said...

Eat the Rich! and Feed Your Family on $10B a Day

Santa said...

One of my favorite films. Good points all the way around, Mark, and I say the personal insults have already started which proves your point about idiot bullies exactly. What exactly is a "skunk ape," Larry? And how is that a defense of your point of view? You have absolutely nothing and have to resort to personally attacking in the vain attempt that someone might listen. Hate, anger, and fear indeed.

william olsen said...

Anonymous, Mark has never said that he has a "spend more" philosophy. Neither has President Obama. Letting tax cuts expire doesn't automatically mean spend more. Spending cuts are in President Obama's plan which Mark has said repeatedly that he supports. Why do you unfairly characterize him like this? I'd really stop reading Ayn Rand as well. No one is advocating that the government hold their hand. That is pure fiction.

daniel said...

Larry-what do you think when you see the income disparity listed in the graph? Enough with the childish insults and links to religious leaders. Use your head!

Nikto said...

Anonymous said...

"The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes.

(blah blah blah excised)

"The bottom 50%? They pay 3.46% of all income taxes."

Okay, let's see how this works. Let's say we have 100 guys.

The top 1% is one of those CEOs that raked in $80 million dollars last year in bonuses, deferred compensation, stock grants, etc. Let's say his tax rate is 20% (it could be much lower, depending on all the gimmicks he uses, but since so much of it is not salary, the actual rate is likely to be much closer to 15%). His total tax bill is a whopping $16 million bucks!

Now let's say we've got 99 guys who all make an average of $50K. They pay an average of 40% in taxes (because of payroll taxes, local taxes, property taxes, sales tax, etc.). I'll just skip the 4 guys who make $250K -- they're just a rounding error in the grand scheme of things.

The CEO will pay $16 million in taxes. The 99 guys will pay $1.98 million.

That means the top 1% is paying 89% of all the taxes! It's an outrage! It's a travesty! It's socialism! It's communism! It's the end of the world!

Does Anonymous think that the CEO should have the same $20,000 tax bill that the little guys pay?

The reason the top 1% pays a third of all the taxes is because they make more than a third of all the money. But the people who trot these numbers out never mention that the wealthy are making more and more money every year, while the rest of us are making less and less.

The rich get much of their income in capital gains, which means they only pay 15% on that income. They don't pay payroll taxes on income above 100K or so. Those two things alone make the net tax rate on regular guys 30-40%, while it's only 15-25% on the wealthy. It's really quite simple: the wealthy pay taxes at half the rate regular people do (if they have a clue, and they always hire tax attorneys who know how to game the system).

Back in the day, the right used to clamor for a "flat tax" -- a flat 10% on income. Now that just isn't good enough. They want to pay the same TOTAL amount as any other citizen, even when they make a thousand times as much money.

After all, the rich don't use any more resources than anyone else, do they? Those eight or nine houses around the country don't need any streets or streetlights or water mains. Their private jets don't need any airports. Their oil and gas wells out in the middle of nowhere don't need any roads. They don't need any streets or other infrastructure around their skyscrapers. They don't need buses and freeways for their workers to get to their oil refineries and factories, or to deliver their refined gas and products to stores. They don't need ports to ship their goods to other countries.

And don't they pay every nickel needed to build those football stadiums that house their luxury corporate boxes while the plebes sit out in the rain?

Oh, they don't? You mean practically every stadium in the country is paid for by taxes levied on regular people?

And then to rub it in even more, they deduct the cost of those luxury boxes as a business expense, so you and I get to pay for them to watch a football game in the lap of luxury and laugh at the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

The problem with WHO, meaning a PERSON pays in tax is one conversation.

The REAL problem w/ the current American economy/Gov't revenue is that Corps do not pay ANYTHING!!! Too often they pay NOTHING, and yet somehow often even get refunds?!?!? Hmm, this sounds like those fictional stories about welfare moms driving Cadillac Escalades...Yet, it is easily verified! Corps pay nothing, yet the shrinking middle class pay a fair, yet increasing amount.

OK, want to say someone who makes millions a year out of just plain being clever, and adding jobs to the current society should get a tax break? Fine. I'll go with that. However, can anyone explain to me how it is OK for a giant corporation to pay nothing at all, while making billions in profits? Ohh, that's right, they make jobs for people. Hey, that's a good thing!

Seriously, I agree!

However, if the Corp. pays nothing in taxes because they create jobs, why does the CEO also pay less (if anything) in tax percentage than the lowest paid person their employ?

HERE is why we are paying too much in taxes, - which everyone, reading this or not - IS!

http://jackjodell53.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/you-bet-youre-paying-too-much-in-taxes/

However the real question I have for Mark is why he likes Ryder so much in "Heathers", when she is such a waif, while he is always going on about giant round butts being so appealing?!?!? I find neither extreme attractive. I like curves on a moderate size build, not that that has anything to do with anything other than my personal taste. Not that anyone's personal taste in women has anything to do w/ the largely political slant of this blog, I just found that odd.

- the "other" JC

6Kings said...

Hate, anger, and fear indeed.

Whatever. All I see posted continuously is emotional reactions coming from envy of other people's wealth.

I guess you could be right....
We Hate see stupid crap like these economic illiterate and envy driven rants proposing punishing successful people.
We are angry that we continuously point out your stupidity, inconsistency, and ignorance of your positions and yet all in vain.
We fear that you all vote and can't even get the fundamentals right about our economy and our country as seen in the election of Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and other incompetents.

Capitalism doesn't get saved by punishing success in spite of you saying so.

juris imprudent said...

Simply put, our economy will not survive with this sort of disparity. If two thirds of our economy is consumer spending and the average income of for the bottom 90 percent has declined this dramatically, how can we have any sort of stability?

Couple of notes. One, the left (and the environmental wingnuts) are determined to see our consumer economy end - as they see consumerism as tasteless, soulless and unsustainable (and I might give them two out of three). Two, the bottom has not "declined" - it is the relative position that has you so wound up. There is a reason you can never say why you are worse off because Gates or Buffett are so obscenely wealthy - it is because you aren't.

The top 1% is one of those CEOs that raked in $80 million dollars

This is telling too - notice the animus is always toward a CEO. Of course I will now be [or should I say again] accused of worshipping CEOs. But what the dogmatic left always overlooks is how many professional athletes and entertainers (actors, singers, etc.) are in the same tax bracket as that CEO. Only, they never mention how angry they are that Brad Pitt or Celine Dion or Tom Brady is so outrageously [over]paid. Take this for what it is, income disparity skyrocketed after the Curt Flood decision that began the era of free agency. Some people seem so nostalgic for the 50s and 60s - mostly people that didn't live through those eras.

juris imprudent said...

and yet somehow often even get refunds

How? You really have to ask HOW? Because when the govt is selling favors, who do you think is going to have the winning bid? Some shmuck like you?

Anonymous said...

"The reason the top 1% pays a third of all the taxes is because they make more than a third of all the money."

The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income. The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income.

The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income; the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income, and the top 50% earns 86.01% of all the income.


Compare the numbers, understand your error, and then decide if you would rather be on my side of this discussion. Your call.

That'd be irs.gov if you want to quibble about the data....

Anonymous said...

By the way Nikto, please re-read your post, and consider exactly what you are ranting against.

"The rich get much of their income in capital gains, which means they only pay 15% on that income"

Not only is that untrue and rediculous, but every word you write after that is pure class envy. WHAT DID THE EVIL RICH PERSON STEAL FROM YOU? Show me on the doll where Uncle Moneybags touched you!

rld said...

It almost seems like markadelphia and nikto think that tax revenue to the federal government drive the economy. If you are unhappy with the way things are at this moment, the democrats haven't changed a whole lot of things have they? Obama extended the Bush tax cuts.

Don said...

I love how you libs always bring up the need for Streets and Sewer Systems when talking about reduced funding to the government. Always go for those scenarios that hurt the consumer the most don't you? There are tons of other things the governemt wastes money on and that's what we're talking about...earmark garbage like studying pig odor, etc. You blame "the system". Well, like rld said, vote people in who will change the system. Obama clearly hasn't changed the system, and that's why you're writing about this stuff today with him as president - he's taking advantage of "the system" just like every other wealthy person. You don't want to acknowledge that so you blame "the system". If your guys can't change the system then don't waste your time campaigning.

Anonymous said...

Obviously, those fat-cats that want to keep more of their money want to kill women, and children with autism.

Anonymous said...

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/18/news/economy/us_credit_rating_outlook_lowered/index.htm

How can this be?!?!?

Mark, give them a call and explain why they just need to use debt management and risk perception.

If only someone had warned us about this eleven months ago...

Anonymous said...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/14/india-dollar-official-idUSB9E7F101B20110414

See? Nothing to worry about here. The USD will ALWAYS be the world's reserve currency. I don't know why India even has to reassure us that all is well.

ALL IS WELL!

Anonymous said...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42645647

Wow, I thought I was reading a World Net Daily editorial. When even cnbc is making fun of the democrats, there may be something to these headlines.

Mark Ward said...

Clearly, the downgrade by S&P is motivated by uncertainty. I think it also shows how perception, and not reality, has far too much weight in determining financial stability. I would use it as a call to action for both parties to show some willingness to compromise. Which party do you think is more willing to compromise?:)

How much more do you want them to pay Mark?

As long as you look at taxes simply from the "share" point of view, it's pointless to have a discussion. Besides, I've already detailed how I would tackle our debt.

Other JC-great comments. "Who" indeed. There is something about Ryder....I don't know....the black hair? I am more of a booty busting out the seems guy but she just does it for me. Ah, the mysteries of women...:)

envy of other people's wealth.

Nope. It's the recognition that the middle class, not the wealthy, drive our economy. This simple fact has been demonstrated in action many times. Time to set aside your beliefs and recognize the truth. One view (mine) saves the economy. The other continues to wreck it.

it is because you aren't.

Again, nope. I'm not rich but we do fairly well. If I just gave a crap about myself, then I wouldn't be upset at all. I care about the economy, juris, and conservative economic policies have been extremely detrimental. Liberal ones, while not perfect, have largely succeeded. But again, this all comes back to admitting fault-something that is anathema to the right.

Although I do hold out hope. Over the last decade of knowing Last in Line, he has admitted that trickle down doesn't work and rich people don't invest in the economy but give their money to hedge funds. A growing light, maybe?

juris imprudent said...

As long as you look at taxes simply from the "share" point of view, it's pointless to have a discussion.

I will be sure to remind the next leftie of that when s/he whines about the rich not paying their fair share.

One view (mine) saves the economy.

And you accuse other people of being true believers - but not yourself. Riiiiiiiiight.

As to your overweening and utterly unjustified sense of self...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704621304576267113524583554.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Again, nope. I'm not rich but we do fairly well.

I see, so the rich don't really fuck you over, you just like to say that as a dog whistle. Got it.

Anonymous said...

"Clearly, the downgrade by S&P is motivated by uncertainty."

I don't understand. It isn't "clearly" to me. Uncertainty about what?

Anonymous said...

"If I just gave a crap about myself, then I wouldn't be upset at all."

Of course. You are more reflective, and therefore more able to discern those causes that are truly worthy of forcing me to pay for, regardless of my opinions.

What happens when you run out of other people's money?

GuardDuck said...

Clearly, the downgrade by S&P is motivated by uncertainty. I think it also shows how perception, and not reality, has far too much weight in determining financial stability.

You do realize that perception is reality since we went off the gold standard?

Anonymous said...

...mounting deficits could inflict "serious damage" on the country.

- Barack Obama

He is so ignorant, Mark. Would you please explain to the President how we can borrow forever and never have to pay it back. Explain to him that it is all debt management and risk perception.

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10123622&postID=8394124403370031256&isPopup=true

Unknown said...

Tips and tutorials - Blog forum and directory Blogger and wordpress tips, SEO tips and tutorials, How to earn from internet,Forex,Forex bonus
Recent News
News,Newspaper,CNN news,BBC news,Fox news,Updated news,Best news,funny news, Newspaper forum,forex forum,phpbb dorum
Get Free Backlink Get free backlink on pagerank 2 website
Free Banner AddPost free banner add on pagerank 2 website
AllAll things about worlds best SEO site neotutorials.com
Newspaper Forum
newspaper forum, news, Newspaper,High pagerank news forum, forum of canada, Forum of Australia,news of united states
Bangla Blog
Bangla blog, Bangla news, Bangladeshi Blog site,Prothom alo blog,Somewherein blog
List Of All Post
Here you can easily see the list of all post at a glance.
PHPbb forum
A high pagerank dofollow forum using phpbb.