Contributors

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Temporarily Inconvenienced Millionaires

Yesterday, the Patriotic Millionaires, a growing group of wealthy individuals who are demanding that Congress raise their taxes, went to Congress and pestered the offices of Senators John Kyl, R-AZ, and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., Reps. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., minority leader, Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., and Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., assistant democratic leader.

They were led by entrepreneur and former AOL exec Charlie Fink who apparently didn't get the memo that innovators and the wealthy are under attack by vicious government regulators and idiotic moochers all bent on taking the fruits of their hard earned labor with the butt of a gun. Shit, man, didn't this Fink guy see what happened to Steve Jobs and Apple? The US federal government destroyed him.

Fink, who lives in Washington, D.C., said if the Bush tax cuts do not expire, the country "is digging itself a big hole by foregoing revenue." "Without revenue, we will never solve the problem by giving tax cuts to the wealthy while supporting two foreign wars," he said.

Patriotic Millionaire Robert Johnson, former chief economist of the U.S Senate banking committee, said that the current economic system is not broken, but it is "working on behalf of those who designed it in their favor."

"America is no longer based on markets and capitalism, instead our economy is designed as 'socialism for the rich' – it is designed to ensure that the wealthiest people take all of the gains, while regular Americans cover any losses," he said at a press conference this afternoon in Washington, D.C.

"It's a Las Vegas economy where regular Americans put their money on the table and the richest 1 percent own the house," he said. "And if the 1 percent happen to lose money, the 99 percent bails them out – covers their losses and then stands by watching while the house does it all over again."

Amen, brother.

Of course, the response to these simple facts usually consists of any or all of four of the following. First, the wealthy pay more than half of the total taxes. Second, their portion or responsibility of total revenue has doubled over the last 30 years. Third, half of Americans pay no taxes. Fourth, the wealthy pay a higher ratio of taxes paid to income earned than any other country.

All of their points are true but, as is usually the case, they leave out information and don't tell the whole story. A recent article in The Christian Science Monitor explains all of this in a very balanced way. Here are four graphics that take a serious and critical look at the whole picture.





In looking at all of this information, it's obvious that the various cheerleaders for the wealthy (or at least only some of them now that Buffet and the PMs are out lobbying to have their taxes raised) are not being honest. No one is denying that the half of the story they are telling is true. It's the other half that brings out the technicolor and shows us that we have some very serious problems with the way our country is being run by both public and private leaders. As Mr. Johnson said above, it's "socialism for the rich" and no longer capitalism. But why is it this way? How can people (and I'm speaking specifically of a few my regular commenters here in addition to the 40 percent of this country who votes GOP) who aren't wealthy continue to support Bizarro Capitalism? Sadly, the answer is simple.

Because they view themselves as temporarily inconvenienced millionaires.

63 comments:

last in line said...

I love how you guys continue to place yourselves in peoples heads and decifer their motivations. Whenever that happens, the people you are talking about never come out looking very good.

You and Nikto sure are posting a lot about bad stuff going on and policies you don't like, like tax rates. You are doing all that after your guy was elected. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts so why are you "speaking specifically to" commenters on here when the guy you voted for signed the extension? I know why - because playing defense sucks in politics -as in defending policies and votes....must stay on offense. May as well play the motivations game as well......

Nikto said...

As you may recall, Obama wanted to let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire, but on more than one occasion the Republicans held tax cuts for the poor and middle class hostage.

Obama didn't want to hit the less privileged with higher taxes when they were already down. So Obama was forced to compromise.

You can be sure we complained about the Bush tax cuts before Obama was elected. We also complained about the invasion of Iraq being completely unnecessary and actively harmful to our cause. And that was before we knew for certain that Bush was baldly lying to us.

The tax cuts, the two wars, and the financial malfeasance of investment banks and mortgage lenders devastated the economy on a scale almost as grand as the Depression. And like the Depression, it will take a decade or more to get completely out of Bush's debacle. To think that Obama could possibly resolve that catastrophe in three or four short years is, as Republicans love to say, laughable.

Because the United States is no longer a majority rule country (due to the Senate filibuster now being used for every single vote), Democrats had control of Congress for only a few months, after Franken was seated and before Kennedy died.

Republicans have been able to stop pretty much every bill they don't like for most of Obama's term. Their strategy has been to carp about everything and drag their feet -- even for policies that they originally advocated -- in order to run out the clock on Obama's term and make him seem a failure. They don't seem to care about running the country, they seem to treat the legislative process as a way to sabotage Obama's reelection campaign.

Since Obama hasn't been able to actually do what he wanted to because of Republican obstruction, very little of the blame can be placed on him for our current situation. He can't just go along with Republican solutions that repeat Bush's mistakes because they demonstrably failed and would cause us to sink further into the mire.

Ronald Reagan raised taxes when it was needed. Reagan also increased the size of government and increased the debt. George H. W. Bush raised taxes when it was needed, paving the way to a balanced budget during the Clinton years, a budget surplus and an expanding economy. So everyone knows what the right thing to do is.

But Republicans keep playing the game regardless of the harm it does to this country. But hey, they got theirs. So what do they care?

Cousin Paul said...

Apparently last in line has a perception problem because Nikto's post above is exactly what happened. Obama extended the tax cuts because it was either that or have the middle class get hit with higher taxes in a recession. He did the right thing and he governed as opposed to what your side does, last in line, which is do everything in its power to make government dysfunctional. That way, private industry can swoop in and run everything.

last in line said...

Higher taxes lead to higher spending, not lower deficits.

"We" complained about the invasion of Iraq from the git-go? You want to revise that history? I still have the original notes from the front emails where Mark supported GWB and the Iraq war.

>Republicans have been able to stop pretty much every bill they don't like for most of Obama's term.

They didn't stop the stimulus bill, the healthcare bill, Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, Cash for Clunkers, the GM bailout, mortgage bailouts, and the easing of the student loan that was done was done by executive order.

Republicans did not stop any of those.

And if Buffet wanted his taxes raised he would structure his monetary affairs that way. You both probably believe what Warren is saying in that regard. The actions have to match the words and they don't with him.

last in line said...

Thanks for your insights cousin paul. The republicans stopped the stimulus bill, the healthcare bill, and the financial regulation bill because they didn't like them.

Are you telling us that's what happened?

Mark Ward said...

Higher taxes lead to higher spending, not lower deficits.

If that's the case, then what exactly happened during the Clinton Administration? He left office with a budget surplus and taxes were raised before he came into office and after.

You both probably believe what Warren is saying in that regard.

Warren is looking at this problem from a systemic point of view. Any solo action on his part doesn't really mean anything. The problem here is breaking out of your catechisms on spending. Any chance you'll change your mind on this one? If not, there's not much point in having a rational discussion with you. We're not going to solve our debt problem and our economy problem simply by spending cuts alone. Revenue is going to have to be included.

last in line said...

"The Surplus" is one of the greatest big lie stories of that decade. In order to "restore" the surplus there first would have to have been one. There was never, at any time, a budget surplus. It was a projection - an accounting entry. The government never once took in more than it spent.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

When we finally achieved Clinton's balanced budget, it was only after the stock market had been rallying for several consecutive years and the many consecutive years of profit taking and economic growth finally culminated in that fleeting budget surplus to which you refer near the end of his tenure. Budgets are merely suggested by the President with congress approving the expenditures anyway.

Warrens actions don't mean anything - it's what he says. Thanks for that insight. Rational discussions are even harder to have with people who say that Republicans blocked every bill of Obamas that they don't like - with the exception of the healthcare bill, Dodd-Frank, the stimulus bill, the GM bailout, etc.

Then again, none of you have acknowledged that the republicans didn't stop those bills. But accordign to the new cousin poster, "that's exactly what happened".

A. Noni Mouse said...

He left office with a budget surplus

Is that Clinton's fault?

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 7

Quick which party was in control of the House of Representatives for the last 6 years of Clinton's term?

taxes were raised before he came into office

Quick, which party did that?

Answers

National Dept, Who's Responsible?

A. Noni Mouse said...

Then again, none of you have acknowledged that the republicans didn't stop those bills.

And it wasn't for a lack of trying, either.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, I don't get this at all. These Patriotic Millionaires are more than welcome to send extra money to the IRS, at any time, in any amount. Whats the problem here?
Why must they lobby for others to be forced to be as "generous" as themselves?
Generous in quotes, because I'm highly skeptical that these dauntless social crusaders have voluntarily sent one dime more to the IRS than they owe.

6Kings said...

We're not going to solve our debt problem and our economy problem simply by spending cuts alone. Revenue is going to have to be included.

Saying it multiple times still makes you look foolish each time.

You actually can balance a budget by cutting spending only - who knew? Well, pretty much everyone except you!

Not a Revenue Problem!

It's the spending, stupid!

Taxes won't make much difference because....SPENDING.

Ok, quantify that...

Quantified for you - recent history

Cousin Paul said...

These Patriotic Millionaires are more than welcome to send extra money to the IRS, at any time

No, they aren't. If you overpay your taxes, you are sent a refund check. This is one of those great lies that the right tells over and over again. It's simply not true. As Mark says, this is a problem with the whole system. Everyone needs to pay their fair share and they aren't paying it right now.

Mark Ward said...

"The Surplus" is one of the greatest big lie stories of that decade.

I thought we were talking about the deficit and not the debt which means that this

The government never once took in more than it spent.

isn't exactly true.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Take a look at Table 1.1 and the years 1998-2001. Note the column titled "Receipts" and compare it to "Outlays." During these four years, the government was spending less and taking in more. You said

Higher taxes lead to higher spending, not lower deficits.

We had higher taxes during that time then we do now and we spent less in terms of deficits which is the term you used. So, the two don't correlate. Take a look at some of the other dates in that table as well. Back in the 50s and 60s we had very high tax rates and still had surpluses in some of those years.

Now if you want to talk about debt then that's a whole different story. Having debt isn't necessarily a bad thing and historically it's worked to our advantage.

Mark Ward said...

Noni, regarding your link, does the author understand the concept of interest? Apparently not. And he's the one that talks about lying and doing the math...sheesh...

Well, pretty much everyone except you!

I guess by "everyone" you mean the right wing blogsphere. I'll issue you the same challenge I did awhile back to Noni. I'll go through each of your links and check their data if you find 4 liberally biased sites and do the same.

And you claim to be a critical thinker? Good Lord...

Monkey-Faced Fruit Bat said...

Any solo action on his part doesn't really mean anything.

Ah, so it's okay that he wants to raise taxes on people like him... even as the hedge fund he owns has spent the last decade fighting to avoid paying around a billion dollars in back taxes... that "doesn't really mean anything".

Just like Al Gore's zinc mine.

Just like Michael Moore's refusal to hire union labor.

But of course none of that damages the credibility of any of those people in your eyes, because

Warren is looking at this problem from a systemic point of view. Any solo action on his part doesn't really mean anything.

which appears to be a diplomatic way of saying "Democrat constituencies should only be expected to make rules, not to follow rules. It doesn't matter what any of those people actually do, because they say the right things, and that's the only part that matters."

Warren is looking at this problem from a systemic point of view.

Hah! Indeed...

GuardDuck said...

"America is no longer based on markets and capitalism, instead our economy is designed as 'socialism for the rich' – it is designed to ensure that the wealthiest people take all of the gains, while regular Americans cover any losses," he said at a press conference this afternoon in Washington, D.C.


What, you mean something like the government bailing out failing companies rather than letting them go bankrupt as has worked in this country for the last couple hundred years?

This is not a result of not taxing them enough - this is a result of the people in government playing favorites and making up the rules as they go. This is a result of viewing a company as 'too big to fail'. This is a result of saying something is 'too interconnected.'

This is a result of things that are firmly on the 'Markadelphia likes it!' list.

A. Noni Mouse said...

No, they aren't. If you overpay your taxes, you are sent a refund check. This is one of those great lies that the right tells over and over again. It's simply not true. As Mark says

You need to stop listening to what Mark says. He's usually wrong. For example, it is possible to make voluntary donations to help reduce the national debt. Here's a link to the U. S. Treasury's explanation of how:

How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?

A. Noni Mouse said...

Anon,

I just watched that video by the Daily Caller. Priceless! They're hypocrites! Every last one of them! They won't reach into their own pockets to "pay their 'fair' share", but they want to use the government to reach into someone else's pocket! They literally refuse to put their money where their mouth is.

I like what Mike Rowe recently wrote in one of the comments on his site:

If the government asks me to "do my part" in the same way that teachers, public sector workers, policeman and fireman "do their part, then my federal tax rate will drop from 36% to 28%. So will lots of others. This will cost the government hundreds of billions in tax revenue.

The truth is simple, but really hard for people to say. It goes like this. "We don't really want the rich to pay their fair share. We want them to pay an unfair share. We just don't like to say it that way because it makes us sound kind of unreasonable."


I think he nailed it.

Mark Ward said...

I believe the lie is that you can send extra money to the IRS, not the Bureau of Public Debt. My wife is an accountant and has assured me that if you overpay, they will send you a refund check. The BPD is a different organization under the same parent institution, the Dept of the Treasury. So, technically speaking (and I have been assured by several of you that precision IS required) it is false to say you can pay more in taxes if desire. The BPD is not a tax collection place. Quite frankly, the government is not a charity organization so this whole argument is (surprise, surprise) childish.

The question now becomes do we know if Buffet et al give money to pay down the debt? BofA just begged and got 5 billion from Warren so maybe he's already done so...anyone out there know?

-just dave said...

"…Everyone needs to pay their fair share and they aren't paying it right now."

Hmmm… As expected, it all comes down to that. Fairness. A rather amorphous concept, this 'fair'. What is fair? Is fair when we both walk into a supermarket to buy some milk, you're charged $2 and I'm charged $3 because I have an income at some level considered 'unfair' by the ruling class. Such a tiring concept, fair. Fairness of outcome is much more difficult to 'manage' than fairness of opportunity. We all can go to a public school, but since I study and you do not, resulting in a discrepancy in income, it is unfair? After payday, I go to eTrade and you go to the pub, but it is unfair that I reap benefits from my risk (being taxed a 2nd time on that same income…or are you proposing the gov't allow me to write off the loss should my investment tank?)? (And doesn't that investment grow companies, drive innovation and provide jobs?...Aren't there some ancillary benefits there?)

On a side note, Mark, perhaps your wife could advise these folk to adjust their pay structures so their income falls under a simple W2 as opposed to stock options, thus increasing their desired tax burden. …would be a simple way to skirt the IRS sending back their donations. I'm a little shocked these titans of industry hadn't thought of it, but it sounds like a golden opportunity to take a risk and start up her own consulting business.


In other news, the OWS, the 99%, the bums, the hoodlums, whatever you want to call them, have returned to the parks (hopefully after bathing) and are being arrested in droves. This still reminds you of the Tea Party group, yes?

last in line said...

Justdave makes an appearance!

Yep, they will always try to decide what "fair" is, and that line will always be set juuuuust above whatever they make for the year in income.

The debt that was paid down during the Clinton years was the debt held by entitites outside the US govt, and not debt held by the US Govt itself. Clinton did not balance the budget, nor eliminate the deficit. Article 1 in the US Constitution clearly states all money is appropriated by the Congress.

On to Buffett...

Fact #1 – Berkshire Hathaway does not pay dividends.

Fact #2 – With regards to Berkshires money, one of Mr. Buffett’s famous quotes is this – “Our favorite holding period is forever”. You only pay income taxes at any rate on realized appreciation. An investment with a holding period of forever incurs a capital gains tax of 0%, while all along the holder can be getting wealthy from appreciation. That very well could be one of the reasons Warren does not pay a lot of income taxes.

Fact #3 – He takes deductions, just like Mark and blk do. Let’s take a look at maybe the biggest one he takes advantage of - the charity loophole. For billionaires like Buffett, the single most important deduction in the tax code is for charitable giving. Middle-class earners can't give nearly as much money away to reduce their overall tax burden. We sure didn’t hear Buffett calling for the elimination of that deduction in the name of fairness.

Why not? Because he has sheltered the bulk of his fortune from federal taxes by putting them into his foundation that will give the money away. Is that an act of generosity? Sure is, but if the government's purposes are so vital, why doesn't he simply give the money to the IRS? Rebecca Quick of CNBC put that question to Mr. Buffett in 2007. His answer: "Well, that's a choice and it's an option…if I had to give it to a single individual, or make some young Buffett a multibillionaire, or give it to the government, I'd absolutely give it to the government. I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter's foundation, my two sons' foundations will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government."

I do think it's somewhat hypocrital, however, for the Warren Buffets of the world to argue that they ought to be taxed more, and then do everything in their power to pay as little in taxes as possible. Higher taxes aren’t going to hurt them at all – they’ve structured their affairs so that they show as little income as possible because income, not wealth, is what the govt measures when it levys taxes so they aren't going to pay the higher taxes anyway. If I have $1 million in a bank account, own real estate in several countries, incorporate my business in Singapore...it’s fairly easy for the very wealthy to stay one step ahead of the kids from the short bus at the IRS.

You pay attention to what they say, I’ll pay attention to what they do.

Mark Ward said...

are being arrested in droves. This still reminds you of the Tea Party group, yes?

See the photo I just put up today, dave. Continue with your deafness of tone at your own risk.

they will always try to decide what "fair" is, and that line will always be set juuuuust above whatever they make for the year in income.

Then why are there PM's to begin with? Sure they could pay extra in but as I keep saying, it's going to take a systemic effort. The government is not a charity, last, and tax dollars go to pay for things that everyone enjoys. The wealthy of this country have benefited greatly from America and can afford to help out with our current economic problems. I guarantee that if they do, they will still be very wealthy when all is said and done. And there will still be classes. But, as always, you are completely missing the point because you can't admit that there is a problem. Eventually, you will, though, when your bank account starts taking a hit because the inequality has gotten so bad in this country that our power will ebb. Honestly, it already has and it just hasn't affected you yet so it must be a made up liberal, Marxist plot.

You pay attention to what they say, I’ll pay attention to what they do.

Alright, fine. Let's try that on you. You say a lot of things about higher taxes and wasteful spending. Yet you have used or may use any or all of the following and be perfectly fine with it.

Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
US Postal Service
Roads and Highways
Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)
The US Railway System
Rest Areas on Highways
Bridges
Sidewalks
Public Water/Sewer Services (socialist toilet, shower,
dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)
FDA Approved Food and Drugs
Education for Children
Treatment at Any Hospital/Clinic That Ever Received Funding From
Local/State/Federal Government
Medical Services and Medications That Were Created/Derived From Any
Government Grant/Research Funding
Socialist Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape and
Velcro (NASA)
Use of the Internets, email, as the DoD's ARPANET was the basis for
computer networking
Foodstuffs /Meats/Pro duce/Crops That Were Grown With/Fed With/Raised
With/That Contain Inputs From Crops Grown With Government Subsidies
Public Education
Government grants/loans for higher education
Attending publicly funded or state colleges/universities

So, does that mean I should pay attention to what you do and not what you say? Like Buffet, it's clear to me that you want to see a change in how some of this stuff is funded but it has to be systemic otherwise it's little more than symbolic hence your rallying cries.

-just dave said...

So, your take is that the arrests, the drugs, the rapes, the filth, et al is simply conjured by the press for our consumption? These things didn't happen?

"The wealthy of this country have benefited greatly from America and can afford to help out…" It what way have they benefited that Joe Taxpayer hasn't? Oh how I loathe the mantra that people should give back…like services aren't bought and paid for.

But, hey, that's a nice list. I like lists. Are only the wealthy receiving these items? Is the postman delivering mail only to the rich, or just more quickly? Are special lanes reserved for the rich? These items are comsumed by all and paid for by all…well, not really paid for by all, just those who actually pay taxes, so maybe those who don't should move over and give me the right of way! ha ha

Point of clarification…When a conservative says they want "less government" or "less taxes", it does not equate to "no government" and "no taxes". I.e., the word 'less' and the word 'no' are not the same. …and I thought you worked at a school.

Mark Ward said...

So, your take is that the arrests, the drugs, the rapes, the filth, et al is simply conjured by the press for our consumption? These things didn't happen?

Well, they certainly didn't happen in the way your news sources are telling you. Many of the problems occurred in Oakland which has now been disavowed by the overall movement.

I won't deny that there have been problems here or there but they aren't the totality of their platform unlike the Tea Party whose entire raison d'etre is a gigantic problem. Ironically, the OWS movement and the TP used to have similar goals (anti-government-corporate favoritism). Now, though, the TP have opened their arms to corporate America. It likely won't be long before the OWS movement goes the same direction. This is both a good thing and a bad thing but that's a discussion for another day.

The main point I'm trying to make here is that your perception is off (what a shock). You've convinced yourself that the OWS protesters are just a bunch of Che lovers who are fucking and doing drugs. There are many folks like Dorli that are protesting...many people like you, actually, because whether you want to admit or not, you are part of the 99 percent. Sorry, but you are not a temporarily inconvenienced millionaire.

and I thought you worked at a school.

Wow, that's become a real classic lately. I'm not sure what that has to do with me recognizing how far right your party has moved, dave. The main part of it is libertarian to anarcho-capitalist now (copyright: juris imprudent). You've allowed a group of crypto fascist nazi airheads to control your party. For example, it is actually NO TAX, not less when Grover says so, right?

juris imprudent said...

Everyone needs to pay their fair share and they aren't paying it right now.

OK CP, why don't you tell us exactly what this "fair share" is? M refuses to do so, maybe you can.

juris imprudent said...

The main part of it is libertarian to anarcho-capitalist now (copyright: juris imprudent).

Jaysus - you can't get one fucking thing right, can you M?

I absolutely did not make that claim. In fact, I said precisely the opposite - that a-c is a minor faction within libertarian politics. You continue to mischaracterize everything you don't understand - have you any idea how annoying that is? Perhaps that is why you do it?

last in line said...

Oooooo, continue with it all at your own risk Dave. Danger is ahead for you!

I was talking about Buffets actions not matching his words (a point you either could not or refused to dispute) and you respond by cutting and pasting the Socialist Pledge that you have already posted on your blog before?

What does me using the federal highway system have to do with Warren Buffet saying one thing and doing another?

I’ve never said the government is completely worthless and I’ve never said the government hasn’t done any good. Keep arguing against positions I do not hold and then continue debating your own misrepresentation – it’s funny. Looks like it hasn’t sunk in so we’ll try it again...

I see the attempted strategy here - if a large percentage of people in our society receive a benefit at some point in their lives courtesy of the government, even due to things out of their control like a national highway system that was built well before they was even born, and then accept criticism from only those who have never received a government benefit, then goverment handouts/programs can never be criticized! Nice strategy there.

Remember that we cannot opt out of many programs. It's not like folks can opt out of social security or medicare at a young age. Are you really pretending that somebody who believes a particular government service should be changed or reduced has a moral obligation to forgo the use of that service? I, you, and everyone else reading this are under no obligation to forgo government benefits. Speaking for myself, I am subject to the obligations and privileges that go along with citizenship of this country. Do you really believe that critics of government programs have an obligation to endure the liabilities attached to the programs while forgoing the benefits?

As an example of what I am talking about - Remember that Obama thinks that folks as rich as him should pay higher taxes yet he took nearly $400,000 of deductions on his 2010 taxes and reduced his tax liability by $150,000. Does that make him a hypocrite? No it doesn’t. He believes that the tax code should be other than it is — which is in no way incompatible with availing himself of the benefits of the tax code as it currently is. Nothing in the tax code forces anyone (including you and blk) to take deductions btw.

My argument against the expansion of government is that government is extended into areas where it shouldn't be and in many areas it is inefficient and bloated. That does not suggest that the private sector is all holy and without fault and it sure as hell doesn't mean that the word "less" actually means "none at all" (hat tip to Dave).

In addition to all that crap, go ahead and assume that every program established by the government terminates when the bill's authorization expires. That’s not how government programs work. They don't come to an end, they become a part of next year's baseline budget, which means that if they don't increase by an arbitrary percentage each year, it's a "cut." So this years increase in federal spending for each program becomes next years baseline for budgeting. Super!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseline_(budgeting)

Government built all those brides, roads, and schools because individuals (in the form of businesses) provided jobs, that provided income, that allowed for taxation, that allowed government to exist.

The problems with the OWS movement are not here or there, they're everywhere (I sound like Sam I Am now). It may not be the platform but it is the narrative that people see - you've lost the narrative on the protests. I, nor Dave, never said we were temporary inconvenienced millionaires - you did.

The word Obama doesn't appear in any writings on the front page of this blog right now, just in a Romney quote. Typical.

-just dave said...

What are my news sources telling me? How would you know? And how do you know that YOUR news sources are telling you the news as it is? (I love the "I can read you mind" game…quick, quick, Mark, what news source am I reading now?)

"….and I thought you worked at a school."
I don't know who Grover is…My jab had nothing to do with politics per se, but your use of the English language. This goes back for years and is one of my earliest gripes about your writing. Basically, words have meaning. Why someone in the education field cannot grasp that simply boggles the mind. We say we want "LESS" gov't but you 'hear' that we want "NO" gov't and produce silly lists of all the wonders that gov't provides. We go back and forth and when you're finally cornered, you quickly put up another thread.

Last...sorry I couldn't make the fish fry but it might be fun to grab a drink sometime and team up on a new post here.

Mark Ward said...

I was talking about Buffets actions not matching his words

I don't think you understand what he is saying. Or you don't want to. Until you comprehend it, there's not much point in discussing it.

I’ve never said the government hasn’t done any good. Keep arguing against positions I do not hold

I call bullshit. You complain constantly about excessive spending and the only list you have ever put up here totaled next to nothing on programs that, if eliminated, wouldn't even make a small nick in spending. The real issue here is SS, Medicare, and defense spending. All three of these are programs you support, correct? Yet, without significant changes to all three programs, they will be the ones who contribute the most to spending. So, where to cut? It's not as easy as you might think and if you take taxes off the table (which I assume you have) it makes it even worse. That's why your caterwauling about government spending is a steaming pile.

you've lost the narrative on the protests.

Wait a minute. I thought you guys weren't about "winning the argument." Oh well...I guess if you say so then it must be true.

How would you know?

Because your framework for discussion (both thematically and stylistically) is Boaz's 14 points so it's ridiculously obvious what channel you watch for news.

Basically, words have meaning.

You mean like the word "socialism?" Or the words "anti-colonial Kenyan?"

We say we want "LESS" gov't but you 'hear' that we want "NO" gov't and produce silly lists of all the wonders that gov't provides.

dave, several of the candidates for your party's nomination have said they want to eliminate the depts of energy and education as well as do away with the EPA. That's "less" in your eyes as opposed to "none?" To me, if there isn't an agency regulating our nuclear energy that would mean that...there isn't an agency regulating our nuclear energy which means NO government.

Now, perhaps you don't support these positions. Quite frankly, that would be a relief so I, as I have said many times on here, I'm happy to be wrong.

We go back and forth and when you're finally cornered, you quickly put up another thread.

I'm not going anywhere, dave, so this tired and old line makes no sense. There's a post up every day on this site...sometimes two. I started attaching labels a while back which show that these sorts of threads and discussions are ongoing. In short, there is no "moving on."

I continue to present you with facts and compelling evidence that show how deeply flawed your ideology is in several key spots and you ignore them and resort to several of Boaz's 14 points. If there is even a slight wavering on your theology (taxes are an example of this), then it's onward to the ad hominem (how can Mark work at a school? He doesn't know what words mean. He's cornered and turns chicken and runs away). Somehow we never end up getting back to the facts I present...shocking.

Mark Ward said...

Here's a quote from Eric Schoenberg, a member of Patriotic Millionaires that speaks quite well to our discussion here.

[Norquist] raised an issue we get all the time which is, 'Well there's nothing stopping you guys from paying higher taxes, just send a check to the government!' And this to me is frankly an absurd position; I don't consider it to be a very serious argument. Government is not a charity and we can't rely on voluntary contributions from people to support the things that government does.

And I also said to him, 'Look would you be willing to sign a pledge where you're willing to forgo all the benefits that government provides? Are you willing to sign a pledge that says you don't want the U.S. military to protect you? That you will refuse to contact the police if somebody steals from you? That you will refuse to contact the fire department if your house is on fire? Because that's the equivalent! Why should you get a free ride? Why should you benefit from my willingness to support the government? Let's do it together.'

And he said, 'If I don't have to pay any taxes for it, I would forgo all those things!' To which my response was, 'Well there's an easy way to do that, move to Somalia!' And his argument was, 'Somalia doesn't suffer from too little government, it suffers from too much government.' I don't even begin to understand what that means, but again there's only so much you can go into in these conversations.


No shit. Said it better than I could have.

last in line said...

Oh I understand what Buffet is saying and I fully comprehend it. And you haven't disputed the fact that his actions don't match his words. His words will hold more weight with me when his actions match his words so maybe that movement needs a different spokesperson...he doesn't care about taxes being raised because he isn't going to pay them at that increased rate anyway.

You can call bullshit all you want but the facts say otherwise. Go back and read the healthcare plan I posted on this blog several times and you will see these 2 lines...

"The bottom line is the medicare is the best system we have right now in this country"

and

"I favor a medicare-style plan that everybody is on".

You're still asking us where to cut? You guys are in charge now so why are you asking us for policy solutions? Is that so you can win the argument on here or something? I never said it was easy - not sure where you came up with that. And I'm all about people winning and losing arguments on here, no problem with that at all. What changes would you make to those programs? What has Obama and the democrats said about those issues, then tell me how they have followed through on it.

And yes, you have lost the narrative which is why you and blk keep talking about the tea party so much. You aren't posting great things about happenings at the OWS protests, you keep complaining about the tea party.

Juris Imprudent said...

I call bullshit. You complain constantly about excessive spending

Bullshit yourself. Plenty of people here agree 100% that govt is necessary. I haven't seen one a-c on this site -- at least that I can recall. Honestly, they wouldn't bother with you or your yippee dog posse. Yet anyone that says "that is too much govt" is labeled by you as some kind of anarchist-antichrist.

Mark Ward said...

you have lost the narrative which is why you and blk keep talking about the tea party so much.

I keep talking about the Tea Party because that's essentially who runs the GOP right now and they are the biggest impediment to our country's progress. I'm doing whatever I can by pointing out the complete fucking disaster that is the libertarian utopia which the TP espouses. You can pretty much kiss most of that list above goodbye if they had their way. Now, you've told me that you think that list is fine by you. So why are you supporting the TP/GOP?

GuardDuck said...

Dude, if the tea party ran the gop then Romney wouldn't even be invited to the debates.

last in line said...

Haha, great point Guardduck - Romney isn't favored by the Tea Party and he's the frontrunner right now. Well, one of the frontrunners.

You talk about the tea party whenever people start talking about OWS on here.

A. Noni Mouse said...

I thought Buffet wants to pay higher taxes!

Buffett’s NetJets Sues U.S. Over $642.7 Million Ticket-Tax Assessment

Yep, looks like he just wants someone else to pay more taxes. What's that definition of hypocrisy again?

Oh, right:

1. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour, esp the pretence of virtue and piety.

Juris Imprudent said...

Bunch of whiny, shit-eating liberal/progs - all talk about fair share and none of them dare define it.

Juris Imprudent said...

Anyone? Anyone?

Buehler?

Mark Ward said...

I'll repeat Schoenberg's line above..

"but again there's only so much you can go into in these conversations."

Juris Imprudent said...

All too true M - particularly of people who make an argument and refuse to define or defend it.

Mark Ward said...

This is the most frustrating part of having this discussion with you and why it's honestly pointless. You begin by asking a question (just how much of a share should they pay) which: a) is a weasel question and b) doesn't come close to addressing the full scope of the problem. I then answer it in a wide variety of ways (all of which you don't like) and then you say that I'm not defining it or defending it. There's only so far I can go until you change.

I will say this, though, your link in the other thread from Larry Summers at least shows a step in the right direction. Of course, Summers was one of the architects of the collapse of 2008 so his claims necessitate some serious scrutiny. I will likely be turning this into a full post at some point. Thanks for the link.

GuardDuck said...

A weasel question Mark?

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

weasel word
n.
An equivocal word used to deprive a statement of its force or to evade a direct commitment.

[From the weasel's habit of sucking the contents out of an egg without breaking the shell.]


From the wiki on weasel word:

A weasel word (also, anonymous authority) is an informal term[1] for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.

Since a question is, by definition, a request for data or clarity then there cannot, by definition, be a "weasel question".

You made it up and it means nothing.

A. Noni Mouse said...

You made it up and it means nothing.

In other words, his objection is a weasel word! :-p ;-D

Mark Ward said...

GD, by your definition juris' question does, in fact, evade a direct commitment to examining the full extent of taxing the wealthy, His question also gives the impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, or in this case questioned.

But I was using the word "weasel" in terms of the following definition

"a sly or treacherous person."

because that's just where the question is rooted (Fox News Style). A similar example would be: Are you with us or with the terrorists? juris knows that I can't answer the question with a simple number so when I don't, he can do his usual "prove me wrong", "winning the argument" cyber dance and call me chicken which is (snort) in no way whatsoever childish:)

Speaking of childish, I thought we were done with the semantic games. You guys know what I meant and are, in fact, being weasel-like. I'd like to see some comments on the other half of the four images I put up in this post. I've stated and shown that the ones you guys harp on all the time are true. Will you admit the others are true? If so, how do you see that as a problem if at all? What does the juxtaposition of each answer in the four questions tell you? I know that you guys are critical thinkers so it shouldn't be all that hard.

GuardDuck said...

No it doesn't evade commitment Mark.

It is a starting point for communication.

You can't have a conversation about something being 'fair' without at least one of the parties actually defining what 'fair' is.

If you claim that the rich need to pay their 'fair share' it is not weasel like to ask who defines what fair is and what their definition of fair is.

In fact, even bothering to discuss the details of how much they make, how much they pay, how much others make or pay are all completely irrelevant and a complete waste of time until we have actually defined the metric of who is making the definition of fair and what that definition is.


Ten people sit down and eat dinner and the bill is to be divided 'fairly'. Before we start talking about how much each person makes, how much credit card debt they are holding, whether they are married with a high maintenance wife, how much they ate, how much they used the waitstaff etc, etc, etc. we actually have to decide what the definition of fairly divided is.

Juris Imprudent said...

Hey M fuck your evasions and your cowardice. You too cousin paul. You whine about "fair share" and you refuse to say what that is - just more, more, more.

Well I ain't no fortunate son!

There's only so far I can go until you change.

Beautiful, truly beautiful - so much narcissism, so much self-righteousness, all bundled up in 10 words. If my son had ever had you as a teacher, trust me, you would be in a new line of work. I'm just thankful that my tax dollars aren't paying you (though I can imagine that I am paying for just as bad if not worse).

Juris Imprudent said...

I then answer it in a wide variety of ways

Oh, and fuck your childish dishonesty.

Mark Ward said...

You can't have a conversation about something being 'fair' without at least one of the parties actually defining what 'fair' is.

Well, then you haven't been following this line of discussion. I've answered it many different ways (return taxes to Clinton era rates, reform the tax code, cut the loopholes for the wealthy etc etc) but all juris wants is a number to compare to the 57.5 percent they pay now. As I said in the other thread, this is the oversimplification game you guys play all the fucking time. There isn't an answer to this question because you can't solely look at this number. It doesn't operate in a vacuum and the rest of the information I've provided here proves that...information that no one has yet addressed, I might add, so your protestations about me evading questions are extremely hypocritical.

juris, relax. I called you on your bullshit and now you are having a hissy fit. Let's move past it and see if you are willing and/or capable of addressing the rest of the data I have provided here.

GuardDuck said...

Oh I get it Mark, you want to define the terms of the discussion.

Juris Imprudent said...

I've answered it many different ways

So when one of your students does NOT answer the question you asked, you give him/her full credit for just bullshitting it?

Under the Clinton tax rates the rich were paying less of a share than now - so apparently that is a fair share. I'm okay if that really is your answer, but I'll be surprised if it is. I am more inclined to believe that your envy is not so easily sated and your real desire is to tear down those that have what you don't.

Anonymous said...

...reform the tax code, cut the loopholes for the wealthy etc...

...which Democrats have spent the last year trying to prevent Republicans from doing...

Mark Ward said...

So when one of your students does NOT answer the question you asked, you give him/her full credit for just bullshitting it?

I don't ask weasel-like questions, juris. And a question like yours....it's a "how" question which means we're talking the highest level on Bloom's Taxonomy (evaluative). There are several right answers. It's also an opinion question which means it opens the rubric even further.

I'm okay if that really is your answer

But this is exactly my point as to why your question is BS. If the result of statutory rates going up to Clinton levels, loopholes and credits being eliminated, and the tax code being reformed so that people are paying a higher effective rate is higher overall revenue then it doesn't matter what share of the overall tax take is, right?

You're talking one definition of "fair share" and setting it in stone because that's the one that supports your ideology. Look at the other half of that argument in the first image in this post. See what I'm saying?

Juris Imprudent said...

I don't ask weasel-like questions

Fuck you M - there was nothing weasel-ish about it. It was a direct, simple question - define your terms. You want nothing but vagueries that you can hide behind when shit doesn't go your way.

You hide behind the weasel because you are childishly dishonest.

last in line said...

Didn't Bobby "the brain" Heenan (from old skool wwf) have the nickname The Weasel?

A. Noni Mouse said...

It was a direct, simple question - define your terms.

Exactly!

Look at the definition of "weasel words" again:

An equivocal word used to deprive a statement of its force or to evade a direct commitment.

The key word in that definition is "equivocal":

1. allowing the possibility of several different meanings, as a word or phrase, especially with intent to deceive or misguide; susceptible of double interpretation; deliberately ambiguous.
3. of uncertain significance; not determined.

(I didn't include definition 2 because it doesn't apply here. If you want to see it, click the link.)

THE solution to equivocation is precision, otherwise known as DEFINING YOUR TERMS!!!

Responding to a question asking for exactly that sort of clarification with a claim that it's equivocation is pure, unadulterated projection. (You know… that projection/flipping thing which you PRETEND we do.)

Here's the simplified version of this exchange:

Juris: Please clarify.

Mark: You're sowing confusion.

Every thinking person who understands the meanings of words: WTF?!!?

I am in complete agreement with Juris' comment.

A. Noni Mouse said...

it's a "how" question which means we're talking the highest level on Bloom's Taxonomy (evaluative).

The question you're dodging is "Define 'fair share'". That's FAR lower (thus simpler) on Bloom's Taxonomy:

Comprehension: Understand the meaning, translation, interpolation, and interpretation of instructions and problems.

You claim to have the answers produced by the high levels, yet you repeatedly fail so thoroughly in the lower levels. That's why we think you're full of [what's a good non-swearword to use here?]. When you cannot perform the lower level functions in the taxonomy, getting accurate higher level results Is. Not. POSSIBLE!!!

Heck, you frequently fail at the lowest level!

Knowledge: Recall data or information.

Mark Ward said...

It's not my fault that you guys don't read what I write. I've clarified this over and over again....even doing so again above. Yet, you continue with the childish baiting and dishonesty. I'm happy to continue a discussion about the wealthy paying their fair share of taxes if all relevant information is included. Thus far, you folks have steadfastly refused to include that information and continued with the games.

So, let's start simple. Look at the first image in my list. Comment on the "No" part of it and then let's look at both bits together.

A. Noni Mouse said...

I've clarified this over and over again

Where? Links and time stamps. That's all you need to prove that we're wrong. (You only need time stamps for this thread.)

Comment on the "No" part of it…

They can afford to pay more.

"From each according to his ability…"

There's that socialism thing again.

Juris Imprudent said...

so that people are paying a higher effective rate is higher overall revenue then it doesn't matter what share of the overall tax take is, right

Talk about a weasel ANSWER. You want them to pay more but you don't care if their share is lower?

Okay, I think I understand - you are hopelessly confused and have no idea what you are talking about and you just spew words out of your mouth like a cow drops turds - without any thought.

I think Orwell might have been taken aback at how far you have gone with duckspeaking.

Oh, and one other thing - you may indeed ask a student a question that could have more than one right answer - but that doesn't change that there are a multitude of wrong answers. Somehow I imagine that any BS answer gets full credit from you. Because you just don't know the difference.

Mark Ward said...

That's all you need to prove that we're wrong. (You only need time stamps for this thread.)

Well, that's never going to fucking happen. Admitting that you are wrong simply isn't in your nature. The way your ideology is set up is "all or nothing" so let's just dispense with that dishonesty right now.

Take a look at this old thread.

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2011/10/good-news-and-bad-news.html

It's essentially the same one we are having here. You guys have OCD about one piece of information and steadfastly refuse to look at all the facts. I point this out and then the school yard taunting begins or....

you are hopelessly confused and have no idea what you are talking about and you just spew words out of your mouth like a cow drops turds - without any thought.

ad hominem. I've had discussions like this with you guys for quite some time and when this ol' chestnut comes out it's usually a mask for hiding one's own inadequacies and/or laziness.

I will give you props, Hebrews 8:12, for at least making a small effort with this...

"From each according to his ability…"

There's that socialism thing again.


Uh...huh? Taxes are now socialist? Or is it just that progressive taxes are socialist? Does this mean that Ronald Reagan was a socialist?

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2011/10/ah-gip.html

I'm afraid I'll need some clarification here.

Juris Imprudent said...

The way your ideology is set up is "all or nothing" so let's just dispense with that dishonesty right now.

So sayeth the man who only sees black-and-white. Projection much M?

Alright M I will give you one more chance on fair share. If the rate is higher then you are happy, even if the wealthy are paying a smaller share of total taxes. Is that right? In which case - share really isn't a part of the equation. What matters to you is [the belief/feeling] that the more someone has (that you don't) the more that should be taken away from them (even if you never actually benefit from that). Does that sum it up correctly? If so, don't reply; don't try to weasel out of any of it.

Mark Ward said...

You don't have to give me another chance. I already said all this above. Share, as you are narrowly defining it with the typical hyper and irrational sensitivity to semantics, is indeed not really part of the equation as I have been saying all along. I am essentially saying the same thing that Reagan did in the video I linked. There are many other factors that should be considered. Speaking of that and more chances, what about the other information listed in these graphics? Anything?

Juris Imprudent said...

Share, as you are narrowly defining it with the typical hyper and irrational sensitivity to semantics

Pop goes the weasel! Weasel-word/question is another projection of yours; I get it now.

Share is pretty easily definable. Words have meanings, humpty - unless you are a duckspeaker, or deliberately attempting to obscure what you are saying. That is, either you are an unconscious hypocrite or a conscious liar. I prefer to communicate clearly - even if you don't like what I have to say.

So just don't say "fair share" any more, that would be okay. Say that you want the rich to pay a higher rate even if that results in them paying less of the overall tax burden (i.e. their share). Because that is what you are actually talking about.