This says to me, its Friday & Mark is breaking the 10th commandment early today...trying to convince people they're entitled to a 'fair share' of what someone else has earned.
It also says to me, Mark doesn't want to defend the President's latest actions, because they're indefensible, so he resorts to purporting the rightousness of his faith's orthadoxy and the standard class envy we've all come to know & love.
Having difficulty on the interwebs, dave? Scroll down and read the post entitled "Yay For Them." I'll be happy to field any of your hypocritical comments on executive privilege in that thread.
As to your comments here, as usual your are completely missing the point. It's not healthy for the economy when the wealth of this country is completely so concentrated at the top. I've offered you testimonial after testimonial of people like Nick Hanuer and Warren Buffet who have said as much and still you continue to pretend that consumer spending doesn't matter. Couple this with your continued caricature of Democrats and it's such a load of fictional bullshit that I doubt I can present you with any facts that will change your mind.
I think also might want to rethink the "someone else has earned" statement as that is a complete fucking fantasy. All wealth is earned? Really? What about inherited wealth?
More importantly, how is it earned? Before the crash in 1929, the wealthy of this country engaged in stock pools. Do you know what those are? How is that earned? Similar practices go on today. Remember, dave, most of the wealthiest people in this country (the .01 percent) didn't "earn" their money and offer nothing substantive to our society. They are the money guys, dave, and I guarantee you that they are smoking a big cigar right now and are very happy to have you carry water for them in your "titanic struggle" against the "Marxists."
Time for you to tell me to go put my Che T-Shirt on.
Remember, dave, most of the wealthiest people in this country (the .01 percent) didn't "earn" their money and offer nothing substantive to our society.
Typical lefty talking point opinion as fact.
New York University economist Edward Wolff has done the best work I’ve seen on the contribution of inheritance to wealth inequality, and his latest paper, coauthored with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Maury Gittleman, is chock full of relevant data on the matter. In 2007, the last year Wolff and Gittleman look at, wealth transfers (mainly inheritances, but also including gifts) made up, on average, 14.7 percent of the total wealth of the 1 percent (more specifically, the top 1 percent in terms of wealth). Interestingly, inheritance’s share has declined over time. In 1992, 27 percent of the wealth of the top 1 percent came from wealth transfers. Wolff and Gittleman also find that because wealth transfers generally make up a bigger portion of the wealth of poor and middle-class people, they actually reduce wealth inequality, in aggregate. “Our simulations show that eliminating inheritances either in full or in part actually increases overall wealth inequality and, in particular, sharply reduces the share of the bottom 40 percent of the wealth distribution,” they write. So while there’s no doubting that the rich are inheriting a lot of money — 14.7 percent of the wealth of the top 1 percent isn’t nothing, after all — it remains the case that inheritance does not increase wealth inequality.
Well how about that? Your envy politics tripe is still ignorant and stupid.
Being an economics authority, I should just leave it to you to do what's 'healthy' for the economy?? Sounds remarkably similar to leaving my healthcare to you because you know what's best for us all there too. Have a great wknd, Che-boy!!
I've not read the entirity, but the abstract sums it up pretty well: "We find no systematic relationship between top income shares and economic growth in a panel of 12 developed nations observed for between 22 and 85 years."
It's not envy politics, guys. It's "health of the economy" politics. As this chart shows, when more wealth is concentrated at the top, bad things happen given we have an economy that is driven by a middle class engine.
It certainly doesn't mean that there won't be disparity. That's a give with capitalism and just fine with me. But when it is so great that our economy stagnates (as it is now), it is a detriment. Trickle down and supply side economics simply don't work and we've seen this time and again.
Oh, and 6kings, I was talking about the .01 percent not the 1 percent.
Politically speaking, then here is some education for you about that .01 percent.
Consistently, Democrats have been slightly more reliant on The One Percent of the One Percent than Republicans
Looking at the top recipients of One Percent of the One Percent money among current House and members (measured by share of their itemized* donations coming from The One Percent of the One Percent), Californians and Democrats dominate. Six of the ten House Members relying most on The One Percent of the One Percent are from California. Seven of the ten House Members are Democrats.
Senators most dependent on The One Percent of the One Percent also are more likely to be Democrats. For the 2010 election cycle, seven of the top ten candidates most reliant on The One Percent of the One Percent were Democrats.
Democrats are hypocrites and benefit most from the .01 percent. From corporate money, Lawyers, and ideologues, they are huge beneficiaries yet continually claim Republicans are the party of the rich.
In the 2010 election cycle, the top metro area for The One Percent of the One Percent were New York, NY (2,981), Washington, DC (2,095), Los Angeles, CA (1,358), Chicago, IL (1,244) and San Francisco, CA (1,047).
Big surprise there.... not!
Fascinating information at that link.
And so M, are you advocating confiscation of this concentrated wealth? You want to tax it into oblivion? I mean, we can't have Ted Turner buying up all land in the west, now larger than 3 Rhode Islands right? Can't have Larry Ellison buying a Hawaiian island now can we? Especially since they are just going to pass that money down to 'unworthy' relatives right?
Let's give it to the Government so they can burn it in a big fire. That is about how well they handle money.
when more wealth is concentrated at the top, bad things happen given we have an economy that is driven by a middle class engine.
You've yet to say anything other than 70% of the economy is consumer spending. ???? And????
Is 70% ideal? Should it be 80% or should it be 50%. Without quantifying that topic, throwing out the number is meaningless.
Further, simply stating that the majority of the economy is middle class spending still does nothing to prove that it is the driving force of the economy.
I have said many things after that. You aren't listening.
It's common sense and logic, GD. If more people have more money, than demand for goods and services goes up. Then businesses start hiring again when they have more customers. If they have less customers, they won't hire.
And so M, are you advocating confiscation of this concentrated wealth? You want to tax it into oblivion? I mean, we can't have Ted Turner buying up all land in the west, now larger than 3 Rhode Islands right? Can't have Larry Ellison buying a Hawaiian island now can we? Especially since they are just going to pass that money down to 'unworthy' relatives right?
No, I am not advocating confiscation. The government can only do so much. An overall of the tax system is a start...a fair and progressive overhaul in which people and corporations don't get to slide through so many loopholes and subsidies.
After that, the wealthy of this country need to see the folly of what they are doing and start supporting policies (both public and private) that encourage greater wealth among more people. Rather than plowing new depths of greed, they should think about how the instability of the economy affects their personal wealth. Many like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Nick Hanauer are already doing this.
Obviously, they are still going to have a great deal of money and there will always be inequality but when you reach the tipping point (as seen in this photo) that's when the shit starts to happen. The insatiable greed needs to end and I know for a fact the government won't be able to stop it.
And that folly is what exactly? Making more money then you think they should? Just how do you determine how much is enough and after that is too much? Prove to me that there is something here other than envy!
juris, it's not me that's the problem. It's the fact. Just as the cost of something is what you give up to get it is true, so is the fact that the health of our economy is dependent on consumer spending meaning the middle class. When inequality is greater, unhealthy things happen. If it weren't that way, it wouldn't bother me at all.
In fact, this would be a fine example of how I'm not really a socialist. You won't catch me bitching about inequality if the economy is healthy. We've had plenty of times throughout our country's history in which there were rich people, middle class people, poor people, and a great economy. Unemployment was low and if you weren't working, then you didn't want to work. If you were poor, it was likely your own fault. I say "likely" because obviously there are always going to be some people that are victims of circumstances. But that's not the case today nor was it in 1929. Very wealthy people were greedy, the government did nothing, and ordinary people paid the consequences.
GD, I'm not necessarily advocating the fact that it is a good thing that consumer spending is 70 percent of our economy. We are a nation of over consumption. In many ways, we live to consumer and not create. We crave input and not output. So, there is an argument to be made that it is not to our advantage to have that number be so high. As I have mentioned many times, our society is far too materialistic for my tastes and we have lost the urge to pioneer.
I don't have an answer for you as to the ideal % because I don't know. I'm simply dealing with the facts of the situation now. Are you advocating government policy that would alter that %? I know I wouldn't. Overall, I would say that it's always better to have a healthy middle class with wages that aren't stagnate and that wants to spend money in the economy. But to what degree...?
M: In fact, this would be a fine example of how I'm not really a socialist. You won't catch me bitching about inequality if the economy is healthy ... Are you advocating government policy that would alter that %? I know I wouldn't.
Um, Mark, you most certainly would and have done so:
That sure sounds like you arguing for government redistribution of wealth. Although, with your, shall we say, idiosyncratic, understandings of the meanings of some words, maybe it really means, "every child should be hugged every night" or some such. You're not an old-timey socialist who believes the state should own the means of production, but you're a True Believer in the power of the state to bring about a more perfect society. It just needs more money and power to Do Good. And to control the evil impulses of greedy people. That's all.
No it isn't, because if it was you could've actually answered the question - how much is too much. You won't - or can't - say. All of those words and not an answer - just dissembling. It is an article of faith for you, plain and simple. I wouldn't even argue about it if you would admit that - but you parade intellectual dishonesty as a badge. Fuck that.
I don't believe in Christian sin and that is all this is - a retard preacher going on about the devil.
But by advocating policies that transfer money from one class to another you are doing just that.
I'm not advocating that but this statement really betrays a complete misunderstanding of the role of government in our society. The government does not take the fruit of the hard earned labor of rich folk and give it to lazy poor folk to buy flat screens. The government taxes everyone and distributes the money all over every class. From the CEO who gets tax breaks to the corporation who gets subsidies to Joe Smith who gets food stamps to Jane Doe who gets the benefits of US Army research into breast cancer. It's everyone, GD, and that's a real problem that you can't see that.
In so many ways, that's the greatest disservice (or Cult programming) that is being done to 40 percent of our voting public right now...a great lie. But, hey, that's all you guys have. None of your solutions have worked thus far so keep peddling your BS.
Larry, I'd be more than happy if the very wealthy of this country all got together (without the government interfering) and stabilized this economy by investing in the middle class. Think they will do it? If so, how would that sit with you? Not well, I'd imagine. Of course, the middle class have to invest in themselves as well by recognizing that many of those jobs aren't coming back and we are now in a global economy.
No it isn't,
This isn't a point that I'm trying to prove, juris, it's a settled fact. If you don't think so, then demonstrate how reality isn't real. Good luck. Making a statement doesn't mean that's it's automatically right but that's RWBD (right wing blog douche) getting in your way again.
how much is too much. You won't - or can't - say.
I believe I already said that I didn't know. Yet you still play the games because you can't resist, can you? If I'm not sure about this, then I must not be right about ANYTHING! That's it, juris. You got me! Heavens, where's my fainting couch?
stabilized this economy by investing in the middle class.
The most meaningless drivel ever recorded...or the most sinister. So, since the economy is driven by the middle class (70% consumer), government is the best for taking from the top and middle classes and 'investing' in the middle? How exactly? Giving them cash? Building roads? Paying solar companies to fail?
The government taxes everyone and distributes the money all over every class
From ... tax breaks to ... subsidies
Ok. Except two posts earlier you said:
over(haul)sic of the tax system ... people and corporations don't get ... loopholes and subsidies.
So the government distributes money to all classes, except you don't want them to distribute to certain classes anymore. And then you say you are not in favor of redistributing the wealth? WTF do you call that then?
Tax all - check Tax rich more - Mark wants
Distribute to all classes - check Distribute to all except rich and businesses - Mark wants
Nope, any way you slice that you want to redistribute the wealth. I know it. Most ppl here seem to know it. You probably know it. But you won't cop to it. You can't have an honest discussion unless you are honest with yourself first.
The most meaningless drivel ever recorded...or the most sinister.
I'm sorry, I don't speak RWBD. You'll have to translate.
And they are already doing it in the form of places like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Only folks with your sort of ideology would characterize charities and business foundations as "sinister."
WTF do you call that then?
The government redistributes wealth to everyone, GD, not just the poor. If you are going to complain about one, you should be complaining about the other.
I think we can both agree that overhauling the tax code is a great idea not simply for the little guy but also for corporations and the wealthy. An overhaul, mind you, that doesn't allow for a bus drive to pay a higher tax rate than a multi-millionaire. That's Reagan, GD, not me. Do you agree or disagree with him?
Only folks with your sort of ideology would characterize charities and business foundations as "sinister."
That isn't the government and was not being characterized as sinister. Apparently you can't follow simple questions. How do you invest in the middle class?
The government taxes everyone and distributes the money all over every class.
Really? You think this is all good and proper? It is fair to take from the working and middle class to deliver some goodies to the upper class - because you take some from the upper class to pay off some of the lower classes?
I believe I already said that I didn't know.
So you don't know how much is too much, but clearly we are all to see that we've crossed a line that you can't draw. You just don't realize how stupid that is?
The government redistributes wealth to everyone, GD, not just the poor. If you are going to complain about one, you should be complaining about the other.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Alright everyone - stop what you are doing and start looking for the pins, cause M is completely unhinged.
I'm afraid you are going to have to explain why you think I've become unhinged, juris, because my statement is accurate. Taxpayer money funds rich people as well as poor people. Having trouble with those stupid facts again?
How do you invest in the middle class?
There are many ways to do this without the interference of government at all. Local trade associations could be more financially supported. More free clinics could be set up at churches or community centers. People could donate their time to improve schools. We certainly see this all the time on a small scale but imagine what would happen if that 50 trillion + of private wealth in this country would be used in such a fashion.
I actually saw this in action in my hometown in WI. A very wealthy member of the community used about 90 percent of his money to redevelop large swaths of the lakeshore and the downtown area. The town was more or less rescued and has been doing quite well since.
I've often wondered what would happen to you libertarian and conservative types if wealthy people started doing this. Would you say or do? Honestly, I think your heads would explode.
Bus drivers don't pay a higher income tax rate than multimillionaires.
We're talking about effective rates here. The same comparison was held recently with Warren Buffet and his secretary. My wife and I pay an effective rate of around 30 percent. Mitt Romney pays half of that. This is why the tax system needs reform.
Taxpayer money funds rich people as well as poor people.
Oh, the statement is true alright M - it is the context that shows you've lost whatever marbles you once had.
I may be a victim of ideological bias - but at least I have a compass. You are nothing but one contradiction piled on top of another glued together by the morality of carnival barker.
I've often wondered what would happen to you libertarian and conservative types if wealthy people started doing this. Would you say or do? Honestly, I think your heads would explode.
Oh horseshit, Mark. Once again you prove that you don't really pay any attention to what people have actually written here and elsewhere, you simply imagine the meaning you need in order to get your poutrage on. My cat has better reading comprehension than you often exhibit.
You know what libertarians and conservatives would do, you mindless twit? We'd say something along the lines of, "Good for him! It's his fucking money and he can do whatever the fuck he likes with it." What is it about the idea of personal liberty that is so incredibly hard for you to understand?
I think it's sad that once again we've gotten away from the original intent of a post. Look at the date points indicated in this chart. Doesn't anyone see a correlation between the two and wonder why that is? You guys talk a good game about facts and logic. Well, here they are. It seems to me that each of you is avoiding the issue and hurling out drivel in the hopes that you will distract people away from the truth of this message. It didn't work with me.
Mark, I know you don't think that people read the comments but I do. I was referred to this site by a friend of mine who works at Politico who thinks you are hilarious. There are people paying attention to you and you are making a difference. I have no doubt you are convincing people if even by the sheer dickheadedness of the comments of by some of your "fans."
Doesn't anyone see a correlation between the two and wonder why that is?
Why don't you elaborate on what that causation is - since that is more important than simple correlation. I've asked M for that and he isn't up to it; I'd be plenty happy to hear it from someone.
Thanks for the kind words, Tara and welcome. I hope you stick around but will understand if you don't want to deal with the 11 year old boys that are under the impression that they have "won" in my comments section.
Funny how M always makes such a point about thanking a sock-puppet for the kind words - and the sock-puppet never says anything more, least of all an actual contribution to the discussion.
39 comments:
This says to me, its Friday & Mark is breaking the 10th commandment early today...trying to convince people they're entitled to a 'fair share' of what someone else has earned.
It also says to me, Mark doesn't want to defend the President's latest actions, because they're indefensible, so he resorts to purporting the rightousness of his faith's orthadoxy and the standard class envy we've all come to know & love.
Happy Friday, everyone!
Having difficulty on the interwebs, dave? Scroll down and read the post entitled "Yay For Them." I'll be happy to field any of your hypocritical comments on executive privilege in that thread.
As to your comments here, as usual your are completely missing the point. It's not healthy for the economy when the wealth of this country is completely so concentrated at the top. I've offered you testimonial after testimonial of people like Nick Hanuer and Warren Buffet who have said as much and still you continue to pretend that consumer spending doesn't matter. Couple this with your continued caricature of Democrats and it's such a load of fictional bullshit that I doubt I can present you with any facts that will change your mind.
I think also might want to rethink the "someone else has earned" statement as that is a complete fucking fantasy. All wealth is earned? Really? What about inherited wealth?
More importantly, how is it earned? Before the crash in 1929, the wealthy of this country engaged in stock pools. Do you know what those are? How is that earned? Similar practices go on today. Remember, dave, most of the wealthiest people in this country (the .01 percent) didn't "earn" their money and offer nothing substantive to our society. They are the money guys, dave, and I guarantee you that they are smoking a big cigar right now and are very happy to have you carry water for them in your "titanic struggle" against the "Marxists."
Time for you to tell me to go put my Che T-Shirt on.
Remember, dave, most of the wealthiest people in this country (the .01 percent) didn't "earn" their money and offer nothing substantive to our society.
Typical lefty talking point opinion as fact.
New York University economist Edward Wolff has done the best work I’ve seen on the contribution of inheritance to wealth inequality, and his latest paper, coauthored with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Maury Gittleman, is chock full of relevant data on the matter. In 2007, the last year Wolff and Gittleman look at, wealth transfers (mainly inheritances, but also including gifts) made up, on average, 14.7 percent of the total wealth of the 1 percent (more specifically, the top 1 percent in terms of wealth). Interestingly, inheritance’s share has declined over time. In 1992, 27 percent of the wealth of the top 1 percent came from wealth transfers.
Wolff and Gittleman also find that because wealth transfers generally make up a bigger portion of the wealth of poor and middle-class people, they actually reduce wealth inequality, in aggregate. “Our simulations show that eliminating inheritances either in full or in part actually increases overall wealth inequality and, in particular, sharply reduces the share of the bottom 40 percent of the wealth distribution,” they write. So while there’s no doubting that the rich are inheriting a lot of money — 14.7 percent of the wealth of the top 1 percent isn’t nothing, after all — it remains the case that inheritance does not increase wealth inequality.
Well how about that? Your envy politics tripe is still ignorant and stupid.
Being an economics authority, I should just leave it to you to do what's 'healthy' for the economy?? Sounds remarkably similar to leaving my healthcare to you because you know what's best for us all there too.
Have a great wknd, Che-boy!!
Oops...forgot to list this 2010 Harvard study.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1603369
I've not read the entirity, but the abstract sums it up pretty well: "We find no systematic relationship between top income shares and economic growth in a panel of 12 developed nations observed for between 22 and 85 years."
(Go England! Euro 2012!)
It's not envy politics, guys. It's "health of the economy" politics. As this chart shows, when more wealth is concentrated at the top, bad things happen given we have an economy that is driven by a middle class engine.
It certainly doesn't mean that there won't be disparity. That's a give with capitalism and just fine with me. But when it is so great that our economy stagnates (as it is now), it is a detriment. Trickle down and supply side economics simply don't work and we've seen this time and again.
Oh, and 6kings, I was talking about the .01 percent not the 1 percent.
Politically speaking, then here is some education for you about that .01 percent.
Consistently, Democrats have been slightly more reliant on The One Percent of the One Percent than Republicans
Looking at the top recipients of One Percent of the One Percent money among current House and members (measured by share of their itemized* donations coming from The One Percent of the One Percent), Californians and Democrats dominate. Six of the ten House Members relying most on The One Percent of the One Percent are from California. Seven of the ten House Members are Democrats.
Senators most dependent on The One Percent of the One Percent also are more likely to be Democrats. For the 2010 election cycle, seven of the top ten candidates most reliant on The One Percent of the One Percent were Democrats.
Democrats are hypocrites and benefit most from the .01 percent. From corporate money, Lawyers, and ideologues, they are huge beneficiaries yet continually claim Republicans are the party of the rich.
In the 2010 election cycle, the top metro area for The One Percent of the One Percent were New York, NY (2,981), Washington, DC (2,095), Los Angeles, CA (1,358), Chicago, IL (1,244) and San Francisco, CA (1,047).
Big surprise there.... not!
Fascinating information at that link.
And so M, are you advocating confiscation of this concentrated wealth? You want to tax it into oblivion? I mean, we can't have Ted Turner buying up all land in the west, now larger than 3 Rhode Islands right? Can't have Larry Ellison buying a Hawaiian island now can we? Especially since they are just going to pass that money down to 'unworthy' relatives right?
Let's give it to the Government so they can burn it in a big fire. That is about how well they handle money.
It's not envy politics, guys.
Sure it is, you just won't be honest about it. You've never been able to make a connection to the overall health of the economy.
when more wealth is concentrated at the top
See, right there you switched from income to wealth, which are not the same.
when more wealth is concentrated at the top, bad things happen given we have an economy that is driven by a middle class engine.
You've yet to say anything other than 70% of the economy is consumer spending. ???? And????
Is 70% ideal? Should it be 80% or should it be 50%. Without quantifying that topic, throwing out the number is meaningless.
Further, simply stating that the majority of the economy is middle class spending still does nothing to prove that it is the driving force of the economy.
I have said many things after that. You aren't listening.
It's common sense and logic, GD. If more people have more money, than demand for goods and services goes up. Then businesses start hiring again when they have more customers. If they have less customers, they won't hire.
And so M, are you advocating confiscation of this concentrated wealth? You want to tax it into oblivion? I mean, we can't have Ted Turner buying up all land in the west, now larger than 3 Rhode Islands right? Can't have Larry Ellison buying a Hawaiian island now can we? Especially since they are just going to pass that money down to 'unworthy' relatives right?
No, I am not advocating confiscation. The government can only do so much. An overall of the tax system is a start...a fair and progressive overhaul in which people and corporations don't get to slide through so many loopholes and subsidies.
After that, the wealthy of this country need to see the folly of what they are doing and start supporting policies (both public and private) that encourage greater wealth among more people. Rather than plowing new depths of greed, they should think about how the instability of the economy affects their personal wealth. Many like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Nick Hanauer are already doing this.
Obviously, they are still going to have a great deal of money and there will always be inequality but when you reach the tipping point (as seen in this photo) that's when the shit starts to happen. The insatiable greed needs to end and I know for a fact the government won't be able to stop it.
need to see the folly of what they are doing
And that folly is what exactly? Making more money then you think they should? Just how do you determine how much is enough and after that is too much? Prove to me that there is something here other than envy!
And you just said alot without saying anything at all.
What if the economy was 100% middle class spending?
Or 0%?
What is the ideal %?
Is it to our advantage to change the 70% number you bandy about? If so do we want it to be higher or lower?
If you can't answer those questions first, you can't advocate for policies that mess with that.
juris, it's not me that's the problem. It's the fact. Just as the cost of something is what you give up to get it is true, so is the fact that the health of our economy is dependent on consumer spending meaning the middle class. When inequality is greater, unhealthy things happen. If it weren't that way, it wouldn't bother me at all.
In fact, this would be a fine example of how I'm not really a socialist. You won't catch me bitching about inequality if the economy is healthy. We've had plenty of times throughout our country's history in which there were rich people, middle class people, poor people, and a great economy. Unemployment was low and if you weren't working, then you didn't want to work. If you were poor, it was likely your own fault. I say "likely" because obviously there are always going to be some people that are victims of circumstances. But that's not the case today nor was it in 1929. Very wealthy people were greedy, the government did nothing, and ordinary people paid the consequences.
GD, I'm not necessarily advocating the fact that it is a good thing that consumer spending is 70 percent of our economy. We are a nation of over consumption. In many ways, we live to consumer and not create. We crave input and not output. So, there is an argument to be made that it is not to our advantage to have that number be so high. As I have mentioned many times, our society is far too materialistic for my tastes and we have lost the urge to pioneer.
I don't have an answer for you as to the ideal % because I don't know. I'm simply dealing with the facts of the situation now. Are you advocating government policy that would alter that %? I know I wouldn't. Overall, I would say that it's always better to have a healthy middle class with wages that aren't stagnate and that wants to spend money in the economy. But to what degree...?
Are you advocating government policy that would alter that %? I know I wouldn't.
But by advocating policies that transfer money from one class to another you are doing just that.
M: In fact, this would be a fine example of how I'm not really a socialist. You won't catch me bitching about inequality if the economy is healthy ... Are you advocating government policy that would alter that %? I know I wouldn't.
Um, Mark, you most certainly would and have done so:
href="http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2008/11/sunday-reflection.html">realize that their stock answer is that they don't want the government to be the entity to re-distribute wealth. Alright, who then? Who has the power to help people as much as the US government?
That sure sounds like you arguing for government redistribution of wealth. Although, with your, shall we say, idiosyncratic, understandings of the meanings of some words, maybe it really means, "every child should be hugged every night" or some such. You're not an old-timey socialist who believes the state should own the means of production, but you're a True Believer in the power of the state to bring about a more perfect society. It just needs more money and power to Do Good. And to control the evil impulses of greedy people. That's all.
Miserable damn tags. Preview is your friend.
It's the fact.
No it isn't, because if it was you could've actually answered the question - how much is too much. You won't - or can't - say. All of those words and not an answer - just dissembling. It is an article of faith for you, plain and simple. I wouldn't even argue about it if you would admit that - but you parade intellectual dishonesty as a badge. Fuck that.
I don't believe in Christian sin and that is all this is - a retard preacher going on about the devil.
But by advocating policies that transfer money from one class to another you are doing just that.
I'm not advocating that but this statement really betrays a complete misunderstanding of the role of government in our society. The government does not take the fruit of the hard earned labor of rich folk and give it to lazy poor folk to buy flat screens. The government taxes everyone and distributes the money all over every class. From the CEO who gets tax breaks to the corporation who gets subsidies to Joe Smith who gets food stamps to Jane Doe who gets the benefits of US Army research into breast cancer. It's everyone, GD, and that's a real problem that you can't see that.
In so many ways, that's the greatest disservice (or Cult programming) that is being done to 40 percent of our voting public right now...a great lie. But, hey, that's all you guys have. None of your solutions have worked thus far so keep peddling your BS.
Larry, I'd be more than happy if the very wealthy of this country all got together (without the government interfering) and stabilized this economy by investing in the middle class. Think they will do it? If so, how would that sit with you? Not well, I'd imagine. Of course, the middle class have to invest in themselves as well by recognizing that many of those jobs aren't coming back and we are now in a global economy.
No it isn't,
This isn't a point that I'm trying to prove, juris, it's a settled fact. If you don't think so, then demonstrate how reality isn't real. Good luck. Making a statement doesn't mean that's it's automatically right but that's RWBD (right wing blog douche) getting in your way again.
how much is too much. You won't - or can't - say.
I believe I already said that I didn't know. Yet you still play the games because you can't resist, can you? If I'm not sure about this, then I must not be right about ANYTHING! That's it, juris. You got me! Heavens, where's my fainting couch?
stabilized this economy by investing in the middle class.
The most meaningless drivel ever recorded...or the most sinister. So, since the economy is driven by the middle class (70% consumer), government is the best for taking from the top and middle classes and 'investing' in the middle? How exactly? Giving them cash? Building roads? Paying solar companies to fail?
I tell ya, you and economics just don't mix.
The government taxes everyone and distributes the money all over every class
From ... tax breaks to ... subsidies
Ok. Except two posts earlier you said:
over(haul)sic of the tax system ... people and corporations don't get ... loopholes and subsidies.
So the government distributes money to all classes, except you don't want them to distribute to certain classes anymore. And then you say you are not in favor of redistributing the wealth? WTF do you call that then?
Tax all - check
Tax rich more - Mark wants
Distribute to all classes - check
Distribute to all except rich and businesses - Mark wants
Nope, any way you slice that you want to redistribute the wealth. I know it. Most ppl here seem to know it. You probably know it. But you won't cop to it. You can't have an honest discussion unless you are honest with yourself first.
The most meaningless drivel ever recorded...or the most sinister.
I'm sorry, I don't speak RWBD. You'll have to translate.
And they are already doing it in the form of places like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Only folks with your sort of ideology would characterize charities and business foundations as "sinister."
WTF do you call that then?
The government redistributes wealth to everyone, GD, not just the poor. If you are going to complain about one, you should be complaining about the other.
I think we can both agree that overhauling the tax code is a great idea not simply for the little guy but also for corporations and the wealthy. An overhaul, mind you, that doesn't allow for a bus drive to pay a higher tax rate than a multi-millionaire. That's Reagan, GD, not me. Do you agree or disagree with him?
Only folks with your sort of ideology would characterize charities and business foundations as "sinister."
That isn't the government and was not being characterized as sinister. Apparently you can't follow simple questions. How do you invest in the middle class?
If you are going to complain about one, you should be complaining about the other.
Dude, you're mental. You are the one doing the complaining here - not me.
Bus drivers don't pay a higher income tax rate than multimillionaires.
We Are the 99% of commenters!
And we demand ... stuff.
Like reading comprehension and logic from the blogger. Is that really too much to ask for from a public school teacher?
The government taxes everyone and distributes the money all over every class.
Really? You think this is all good and proper? It is fair to take from the working and middle class to deliver some goodies to the upper class - because you take some from the upper class to pay off some of the lower classes?
I believe I already said that I didn't know.
So you don't know how much is too much, but clearly we are all to see that we've crossed a line that you can't draw. You just don't realize how stupid that is?
The government redistributes wealth to everyone, GD, not just the poor. If you are going to complain about one, you should be complaining about the other.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Alright everyone - stop what you are doing and start looking for the pins, cause M is completely unhinged.
I'm afraid you are going to have to explain why you think I've become unhinged, juris, because my statement is accurate. Taxpayer money funds rich people as well as poor people. Having trouble with those stupid facts again?
How do you invest in the middle class?
There are many ways to do this without the interference of government at all. Local trade associations could be more financially supported. More free clinics could be set up at churches or community centers. People could donate their time to improve schools. We certainly see this all the time on a small scale but imagine what would happen if that 50 trillion + of private wealth in this country would be used in such a fashion.
I actually saw this in action in my hometown in WI. A very wealthy member of the community used about 90 percent of his money to redevelop large swaths of the lakeshore and the downtown area. The town was more or less rescued and has been doing quite well since.
I've often wondered what would happen to you libertarian and conservative types if wealthy people started doing this. Would you say or do? Honestly, I think your heads would explode.
Bus drivers don't pay a higher income tax rate than multimillionaires.
We're talking about effective rates here. The same comparison was held recently with Warren Buffet and his secretary. My wife and I pay an effective rate of around 30 percent. Mitt Romney pays half of that. This is why the tax system needs reform.
Taxpayer money funds rich people as well as poor people.
Oh, the statement is true alright M - it is the context that shows you've lost whatever marbles you once had.
I may be a victim of ideological bias - but at least I have a compass. You are nothing but one contradiction piled on top of another glued together by the morality of carnival barker.
I've often wondered what would happen to you libertarian and conservative types if wealthy people started doing this. Would you say or do? Honestly, I think your heads would explode.
Oh horseshit, Mark. Once again you prove that you don't really pay any attention to what people have actually written here and elsewhere, you simply imagine the meaning you need in order to get your poutrage on. My cat has better reading comprehension than you often exhibit.
You know what libertarians and conservatives would do, you mindless twit? We'd say something along the lines of, "Good for him! It's his fucking money and he can do whatever the fuck he likes with it." What is it about the idea of personal liberty that is so incredibly hard for you to understand?
I think it's sad that once again we've gotten away from the original intent of a post. Look at the date points indicated in this chart. Doesn't anyone see a correlation between the two and wonder why that is? You guys talk a good game about facts and logic. Well, here they are. It seems to me that each of you is avoiding the issue and hurling out drivel in the hopes that you will distract people away from the truth of this message. It didn't work with me.
Mark, I know you don't think that people read the comments but I do. I was referred to this site by a friend of mine who works at Politico who thinks you are hilarious. There are people paying attention to you and you are making a difference. I have no doubt you are convincing people if even by the sheer dickheadedness of the comments of by some of your "fans."
poutrage
[golf claps]
Larry that is simply brilliant.
Doesn't anyone see a correlation between the two and wonder why that is?
Why don't you elaborate on what that causation is - since that is more important than simple correlation. I've asked M for that and he isn't up to it; I'd be plenty happy to hear it from someone.
Add to that, explain the correlation between the lowest point on the posted graphic and the lowest point of the economic doldrums of the 1970's.
I remember 1976 so don't try to tell me that a low % automatically = good.
Effective tax rate Mark? So you are ideologically opposed to sales taxes or value added taxes right?
Oh, and I think Tara is a sock puppet.
Thanks for the kind words, Tara and welcome. I hope you stick around but will understand if you don't want to deal with the 11 year old boys that are under the impression that they have "won" in my comments section.
Politico, huh? Hmm...
Funny how M always makes such a point about thanking a sock-puppet for the kind words - and the sock-puppet never says anything more, least of all an actual contribution to the discussion.
That is sad... very, very sad.
Maybe they have more important things to do than comment on a political blog as in...living their life with real people.
Maybe they have more important things to do than comment on a political blog as in...living their life with real people.
Implying that all commenters here are sock-puppets? That no one here is a sentient human? That every commenter has no life?
Patterns ST tell us something - an order that isn't just random.
Implying that all commenters here are sock-puppets? That no one here is a sentient human? That every commenter has no life?
Well, I don't know about all the commenters, but I've have had real doubts about the blogger being sentient...
Post a Comment