This is my blog and them what doesn't like my rules can go elsewhere. New rules: I'll allow commenters to spew bile in my face, but not on a cut-and-paste basis. In other words, the same bucket of bile can't appear twice.
Just as it was ever-so-amusing to receive death threats from the defenders of the Prince of Peace, so to was it guffaw-worthy to called a Nazi by a member of the Bush Borg. The Bush family, of course, received much of the family fortune doing deadly business with Adolf and the gang. The ties between the right and the American pro-fascist crowd are of long-standing. And the south, let us recall, tried to establish a proto-fascist oligarchy right here on this continent. (Can we call the Confederacy the first attempt at a fascist state? A one-party government based on slavery, racism, militarism, and supernaturalism sounds pretty damn fascist to me.)
Tell you guys what, though: You didn't like my tough words? You don't like being called addled Jesusmaniac hillbillies?
Okay. I'll apologize. I'll eat a heaping plate of crow. UNDER TWO CONDITIONS:
Condition 1: I want an assurance that all southerners everywhere will never again use terms of opprobrium to describe Californians, New Yorkers, blue staters and Democrats. I've been hearing those insults all my damn life, even from southerners I thought I had befriended. Speaking in an arrogant, condscending, more-moral-than-thou tone has become such second nature to southerners -- and to fundamentalists from every region -- that they probably do not even realize when they are doing it.
Methinks our red-state friends want to spew vitriol all they want, while insisting that their opponents must always observe the rules of Fair Play. Sorry, but no. I give as I get. I stop returning fire when I stop receiving fire.
Condition 2: Start paying your fair share. Californians receive about 80 cents for every dollar we pay in to the Federal government. Nearly every red state takes in more than it pays. The folks in those states also vote for politicians who seek only pork, pork and more pork for their home districts. (And why not? The money comes from those blue state saps!) Then those same voters choose a prez who borrows tons of money from the Chinese and the Japanese, money which the blue states -- not the red ones -- will have to repay at steep interest.
Change the numbers and I'll change my attitude. Continue to act like leeches and I'll continue to call you leeches. The drawback of the whole "freeloader" gig is that you have to sit there and take it when your funders decide to spit in your face.
Oh...I loved being called an elitist! My lady and I are going to get a huge laff out of that tonight, when we take the pooch along to grab some drive-through.
54 comments:
Joseph, Joseph...
I'm completely on your side. You're getting vilified and that just eats at you. You're enraged, and I don't blame you.
All I can say is, I agree with you totally. BUT.
You're letting them get the best of you, and that's not good. I'm a longtime fan and I've never seen you so wrapped around the axle. Sure, you're human, and these sonsabitches would try the patience of a saint, which we ain't.
But you owe it to yourself, first of all, to stand aside and just let the shit fly by. Put your honest anger to work to nail the bastards with the sort of zingy interpretive reporting you do better than anyone.
If you continue to let them use up your time and energy with pointless rage, they've won.
You'll do yourself a service, and us too, if you'll step back, take some deep breaths, and then come back and keep to the reasons you started this blog in the first place.
Keep tucking it to the bastards with facts, and with your perceptive, unique analyses. That way you win, and they lose...instead of the other way around.
Believe me, I know what you're going through, and "Christ you know it ain't easy."
A sincere and sympathetic supporter.
Joseph,
Are you paying your fair share? Simply being a resident of California, or any other blue state, doesn't mean that you're paying more in federal income taxes than a given individual of a red state.
If you're paying your fair share for the federal budget, then I applaud you, because it most likely means you are a productive member of society (which I would conclude means you do something other than write on your blog). But I suspect that you are not paying your fair share of the federal budget, and that people like me are picking up the tab for people like you.
I, unlike you, have no contempt for those who are less fortunate than I am, provided they make efforts to improve their lot and strive for self-reliance.
Joseph,
There's a good case to be made against red-state insularity, ignorance, hypocrisy, sanctimonious free-loading, etc., but you didn't make it the first time around, and you're not making it now.
The people who throw the insults at the so-called west and east coast elites (the "reality based community") are the establishment class and paid propagandists of the Republican party, not deluded rednecks.
In a word, you insulted the wrong people, and somewhat gratuitously at that.
I suggest you move on. When Bush apologizes for killing 100,000+ Iraqis and 2000+ Americans and for lying to the American public, you can trot out your hillbilly apology. Until then, let it go. Nothing you say will satisfy these people anyway.
Don't even acknowledge the comments these wackos make. They are not the sorts you can reason with nor should you try. They make me sick and I don't blame you for wanting to lambast em but refrain. They just aren't worth it. You have plenty of fans that know where you are comming from.
(note to self: PROOF READ. ALWAYS PROOF READ!) That last sentence should read "You have plenty of fans who know where you are COMING from."
Thanks for the comments. Actually, I've been enjoying myself lately -- readership has gone up, and I've delivered my message to the red staters, which is where it ought to go. They don't like hearing it, which is understandable.
My comments were not about my own share of the tax burden, but about my state's share -- and by extension, the share paid by all blue-staters. The red staters still seem to be under the misapprehension that they have lessons about frugality to give us liberals. And it just ain't so. Prok has vastly increased in this Republican congress; I seem to recall that Conason had a few choice words to that effect in the latest Observer.
As for insulting the wrong people: Well, this all gets back to that old Beatles song, doesn't it? The one about the little piggies and the bigger piggies? At present, the bigger piggies wouldn't have quite so much power if the little piggies weren't so easily brainwashed.
It's hard to awaken a brainwashed person. Shock therapy may do the job.
And don't fret the typos. I make plenty.
Joseph,
It's all very covenient for you isn't it? To quote, 'My comments were not about my own share of the tax burden, but about my state's share -- and by extension, the share paid by all blue-staters'. Of course they're not about your share of the tax burden, because, unless you demonstrate otherwise, I'll continue to assume that you don't pay your share of the tax burden. And thuse, by your own logic, simply because you live in a state that has a disporportionate amount of wealthy people in its population, you feel some entitlement to invoke your personal views on a majority of the national population.
The tax burden is placed on those members of our society for whom the labor market has assigned a higher market-place wage (value is the word I would have used, if not for the judgmental connotation of the word, which I have not intention of implying).
Your support of progressive taxation while demonstrating open contempt for people residing in relatively poorer states is the ultimate hypocrisy, for which I have requested your reconcilliation on multiple occasions, and to date you have failed to provide. So even temporarily absovling you of your own personal shortcomings when it comes to the federal tax burden, I reitrate my request for your reconcilliation.
Your continued intellectual inconsistency is telling and apparently will presist unless and until you provide such a reconcilliation.
It's your blog, and thus your right to continue to dodge this inconsistency describing red-staters as "leeches" while at the same time avoidng your history of supporting progressive taxation. And until you censor me, I will continue to post comments requesting that you to describe why your desire for steeply progressive taxatiion doesn't lead to the logical conclusion of poor states having wealth transferred to them from rich states.
Just a few thoughts for the high income gentleman (M. Jed?) who seems to think he's contributing more to the national cause than Joseph, thanks to his higher tax bracket:
1) if you want to reduce the dispute to individual level, you've got it exactly backwards: the Americans who pay the most tax, in nominal terms, are the biggest freeloaders of all, for the simple reason that they get enormous benefits from the Federal Government, quite unlike Joe Sixpack -- or Joseph.
I'm talking about Federal business subsidies ($400+ billion annually), untold pork (hundreds of billions) which goes to finanicial elites (the *real* elites of the country), implied financial guarantees for private investors (trillions in housing agency bonds, buyer of last resort for the stock market, bailer-out of failed enterprises, guarantor of looted banks and pensions, etc) and the "defense" and local policing budgets (verging on a trillion a year) which is overwhelming dedicated *not* to protecting us again Osama, but to protecting private wealth, here and abroad. Most Americans, needless to say, don't have much personal wealth to protect, particularly when nearly a third of U.S. children live in poverty. Or do you want to argue that since these kids aren't paying taxes, they're the real freeloaders?
Cheney and Bush undoubtedly pay more taxes than any contributor to this blog, but I don't think anyone would want to argue that these two clowns are getting poor value for their money. Conversely, a teacher or postal clerk in the 28 or 31% Federal tax bracket -- which is more than double what Cheney pays on his passive investment income -- has some reason to complain.
2) moving now to the disparity between States. Joseph makes a perfectly reasonable point. The so-called "heartland" would be bankrupt in a matter of days without the support of the "socialist" states on the East and West coats. Why, if folks in these places are so self-reliant and scornful of government, do they accept welfare from commies in New York and San Francisco?
For that matter, how about you, M.Jed? How much does your business or employer rake in from the Feds, and what's the value of subsidized services for which you're not paying your fair share?
And, I forgot to add: the issue isn't whether Joseph supports progressive taxation, but why "folks" who claim *not* to support it, and who say they despise the nanny state, happily accept government welfare?
Of course, that's not quite true either: the "folks" who really get the handouts are the elites, not Joe Sixpack. The most the locals can hope for is a little trickle down at the malls.
Just dandy, isn't it Jed -- if you're Bush or Cheney, or counted among the cronies?
First, let me be clear, I'm not talking about nominal tax payments - I'm talking about as a percentage of pre-tax income, and while I'm sure you'd like to hang that heartless - "he doesn't care about children" sign on me, it doesn't apply - since children don't have pre-tax income.
Now to the response - more flawed logic on this morning's "Anonymous" comment. If tax revenues are disproportionately directed towards protecting wealth, as you state, then the wealthy blue states would be getting a higher proportion of federal tax dollars instead of the other way around. Further, given your hypothesis, if high income individuals disproportionately benefit from all the great things that the government does, why wouldn't high income people demand higher instead of lower taxes? Maybe "What's the Matter With Kansas" should be re-written with rich people as the subject.
As a reminder, I'm a Liberatrian, I support a flat tax an all income and I deplore the two-party system. I've asked Joseph for a reconcilliation of supporting of a steeply progressive tax system. I understand your point about passive investment income - even if it's incorrect - but is not relevant in this discussion. Our current progressive tax system progresses on wages, partnership, and interest income. Taxes on dividend income and capital gains are a flat rate. Municipal bonds are tax-exempt, but as a result they pay a lower rate than would be dictated based on their credit risk.
Without Jospeh's response, but knowing his support of a steep progressive tax system, I can only assume he'd prefer marginal tax rates to be higher for those in the higher brackets. Those people who are the ones creating the jobs.
As for your point child poverty, I do feel bad for them as it's not their fault. Adults, however, need to take more responsibility when deciding to have children. Also, I don't know where you get your data from, but in 2003 the U.S. Census Bureau put poverty for people under 18 at 17.6%. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/img/incpov03/fig10.jpg
Futher, poverty statistics in this country are very misleading because they're income based and not consumption based. There was a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times by Nicholas Eberstadt on this topic. Per his column - poverty rates are higher in 2004 than in 1974. "The soundings from the poverty rate are further belied by information on actual living standards for low-income Americans. In 1972-73, for example, just 42 percent of the bottom fifth of American households owned a car; in 2003, almost three-quarters of "poverty households" had one. By 2001, only 6 percent of "poverty households" lived in "crowded" homes (more than one person per room) - down from 26 percent in 1970. By 2003, the fraction of poverty households with central air-conditioning (45 percent) was much higher than the 1980 level for the non-poor (29 percent)."
The "pork", which any fiscal conservative deplores (and, as the commentary from the recent highway bill indicates, for which Bush has undoubtedly irritated his base) is cloaked in "jobs creation" like building bridges to nowhere. This is how politics gets done, and as I've said before I deplore the two party system. By this logic, the government should take a "Cool Hand Luke" approach, and just hire the unemployed to dig holes and refill them all day long - thus creating jobs. Since both sides of the aisle need to demonstrate job creation on their watch (wasn't lack of job creation why Bush was supposed to lose the 2004 election?) we're stuck with this unless voters start taking the time to understand basic economics.
There's so much more to pick apart in your post. But I'll stop for now.
Sorry - forgot to sign the last one.
I can't pick apart the above comments point by point, but I must say this: Pork has always been a problem, yes, but it became much worse when the GOP took over everything.
See here:
http://www.observer.com/opinions_conason.asp
As for supporting progressive taxation -- tell me, was there something about the economic health of America in the 1950s and 1960s you DIDN'T like? And yeah, I know the Euros have tons -- TONS --of their own problems but you cannot deny that Mr. Average French Dude and Mr. Average Dutch Dude and so on have a higher standard of living than his counterpart in America presently enjoys.
I gave up scraping after Utopia in my 30s. I'll leave that to the Liberatarians and the Marxists and the Nazis and other cultists. These days, I ask myself: "What has been tried? What worked? Who lives or lived better than we do, right now (or within recent memory) -- and what can we do to emulate them?"
Oh lordy, Jed. You've confounded two separate issues -- a process which began when you suggested that Joseph pays lower taxes than you do, and hence has no standing in the argument. The issues at hand, before your obfuscation took place, are quite simple:
1) why do red-staters, who claim to deplore government and government welfare, take payments from more productive, wealthier states? It would be easy enough for Tom Delay, Dennis Hastart and Bill Frist to opt out of these welfare programs (both obvious and disguised) and refuse government wealth transfers which benefit their states (or, to be precise, rich individuals in their states). In the absence of those funds they'd have two choices: raise local taxes or cut programs. Isn't making such decisions what individual responsibility is all about? Why rely on the hated nanny state, or New York liberals for hand-outs?
2) the question of individual wealth and taxes has nothing to do with red/blue states. Individuals with high incomes -- wherever they may live -- get far more benefits for taxes paid than does the working poor and the middle-class. Still worse, the poor and the middle-class are financing every dollar of upper-income tax cuts and will continue to do so as long as "we" run a deficit. When Bush says he wants to eliminate the "death tax" or make the earlier tax cuts permanent, he's really saying he wants to the middle-class to assume the financing burden for the rich.
3) the notion that upper income people who receive tax cuts "create jobs" is a myth dating back to the long discredited notion of supply-side economics ("trickle down economics", to be plain). Even the "creator" of supply-side economics (a certain Milton Friedman, whose neo-liberal policies have been disastrous all over the world) admitted supply-side economics wasn't a theory, but rather a pretext to lower taxes for people fundamentally hostile to government.
And if cutting taxes for the rich creates so many jobs, where have those jobs been hiding during the last five years? And why has average income actually gone down (after inflation), since the 1970s? Of course, there *was* job creation during the Clinton years, and a very small rise in personal income (already long gone, thank to Dubya), but, curiously enough, that was the result of *higher* taxes.
3) It's too time consuming to take you up on jobs programs (the problem isn't lack of direct government job creation, but rather regressive tax policy which discourages job and economic growth, in favor of making the rich richer) or the effect of a flat tax.
However, I will take you up on this one. You wrote:
"Further, given your hypothesis, if high income individuals disproportionately benefit from all the great things that the government does, why wouldn't high income people demand higher instead of lower taxes? Maybe "What's the Matter With Kansas" should be re-written with rich people as the subject."
In states like California and New York, upper-middle class and rich people actualy DO in fact vote of higher taxes, which is one reason the faith-based red states aren't living in the third world.
Rich Republicans don't vote for such increases because they know perfectly well that they'll get their services WHETHER OR NOT they pay taxes. Government will sell off its assets, steal it from social security trust fund, borrow the money from China or get it from the middle-class (it's currently doing all of the above).
Now that reflects a highly developed sense of personal responsibility....
I've never said Joseph has no standing in any argument because he pays lower taxes than I do. I said that using Joseph's own logic, which is that red-state residents should have to live with the policies dictated by blue states because blue states pay a disproportionate share of taxes, is the same as saying that poor people should have to live with the policies dictated by rich people for the same reason he gives.
U.S. Senators and Representatives have no control over local or state taxes. They represent their states at the national level, and have control over federal taxes. Also, Dennis Hastert is from Illinois, which has been reliably blue in at least the last three presidential elections.
The lowest-earning 40% of the population doesn't pay any federal income tax, so I don't really understand on what basis you claim the working poor benefit less than the rich - they're essentially getting all of their federal government for free.
Government will spend all the money it receives and then some. Even liberal economists acknowledge that Milton Friedman's supply-side theory was in order to slow government spending, it had to be starved of revenues.
Go back and look at GDP growth data following reductions in marginal tax rates. GDP growth accelerates.
And again, please, get your statistics accurate and take care with your terminology. You said "average income [has] gone down since the 1970's". First, I'm going to assume you meant median, because as Paul Krugman likes to say, when Bill Gates sits down next to me at my favorite bar, the average income of the people in the bar just increased pretty dramatically, but I don't feel much richer. Second, as with your previous post, your facts are simply not true. p. 3 of http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf
shows median household income.
Liberal economists have argued that woman entering the workforce accounted for all the the improvement in household income, but that also is false. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p02.html
So, it's hard to place any credibility in any of your economic analysis, since either through lack of knowledge/understanding, or through an intentional effort to mislead, several of your statements have been easily discredited.
As for the jobs -
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3
once again I'm not sure whose data your using, but unemployment has been steadily dropping since June 2003. Bush signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 on May 28, 2003. Clinton championed the unemployment rate when he ran for re-election, yet the unemployment rate was exactly the same in November 2004 as it was in November 1996.
It's funny how old Europe, which has an even more progressive tax policy, has such higher unemployement and slower GDP growth. If the U.S.' regressive tax policy is such an impediment, why wouldn't old Europe have much better unemployment or GDP growth statistics?
And actually, in states like California, New York, and Illinois, it's primarily their large urban centers that cause the states to be red, not the upper-middle class residents.
Yes, indeed, Jed, we live in the best of all possible worlds.
Under Republicans, job growth is up, GDP is up, and the poor are delighted because they don't pay federal taxes. Republican policies are working spendidly, we really couldn't hope for a better life or more fiscal soundness, and its all thanks to Bush, Rove and Cheney. Anything wrong with the country is obviously the fault of the liberals.
Before we bring out the champaign, let's look a little closer.
"I said that using Joseph's own logic, which is that red-state residents should have to live with the policies dictated by blue states because blue states pay a disproportionate share of taxes, is the same as saying that poor people should have to live with the policies dictated by rich people for the same reason he gives."
I don't get it; poor people *do* live with policies of rich people. Isn't that what you want? Or did you propose to change that policy, and free the poor from the self-interested ideology of the right-wing rich? If so, I applaud you. When do we start?
---------------------
"U.S. Senators and Representatives have no control over local or state taxes. They represent their states at the national level, and have control over federal taxes. Also, Dennis Hastert is from Illinois, which has been reliably blue in at least the last three presidential elections."
U.S. Senators and representatives represent their regions, last time I checked. If these regions want to be self reliant and get off the dole, they need only instruct their senators and representatives to cease taking welfare from NY and Ca. Obviously, local taxes will be enacted at the local level. What could be plainer? Do I really have to take you by the hand? Or are you so desperate to score points that you're prepared to be silly?
As for Denny Hastert, the guy who claimed George Soros got his money from drug deals (Denny apparently doesn't read the business press, and himself prefers bribes to drug deals) -- he's indeed from Illinois. So what? Doesn't he represent the same regressive policies as Frist and Delay? Doesn't he support wealth transfers from the coasts to the benighted "heartland"? What's your point? Or is it just more desperation?
--------------------
"The lowest-earning 40% of the population doesn't pay any federal income tax, so I don't really understand on what basis you claim the working poor benefit less than the rich - they're essentially getting all of their federal government for free."
First of all, the working poor pay payroll taxes -- the most regressive tax of all, and which flow into general revenue -- sales taxes and a host of other local and excise taxes.
As for getting the federal government "for free", did it ever occur to that they're working for what amounts to slave wages, for the purpose of making other people very rich and very comfortable? Sound like a good life to you? Of course, they're getting the federal government for free, and they can always die in Iraq if Macdonalds won't take them, so they should rejoice, I suppose, at their wonderful life.
And, of course, the rich get nothing from government. They don't benefit from government contracts, they don't benefit from government protection of their wealth here and abroad, they don't benefit from government promotion of business interests, don't benefit government subsidies of business, don't benefit from government bailouts, etc. In a word, the rich get absolutely nothing in this country. I wonder why they stay?
----------------
"Even liberal economists acknowledge that Milton Friedman's supply-side theory was in order to slow government spending, it had to be starved of revenues."
Agreed. Friedman wanted to bankrupt the government, so he claimed that cutting taxes was the way to make everyone rich -- a deception you also attempt to perpetrate, when it's convenient (or did you forget?). As for liberal economists -- they're more than happy to "acknowledge" that the whole supply-side thing was a fraud. And, of course, Friedman's policies do indeed bankrupt governments. Just look at Argentina. Something to look forward to here, no? Just keep cutting taxes on the rich, and maybe we'll get there sooner than anyone could hope. Got your gold bullion yet?
-------------
"And again, please, get your statistics accurate and take care with your terminology. You said "average income [has] gone down since the 1970's".
Average wages have gone down. That's the point. People work harder and longer, for less. To the extent household income has stabilized, it's the result of two wage earners.
Statistics aside, if you really think everything is so wonderful, why is the working public persuaded otherwise? Of course, it could be the dastardly liberal media.
-------------------
"So, it's hard to place any credibility in any of your economic analysis, since either through lack of knowledge/understanding, or through an intentional effort to mislead, several of your statements have been easily discredited."
Oh, please. None of my claims has been discredited, while yours (alternately trumpeting and trashing supply side economics?; claiming that the poor get more from government than the rich?; and that we really life in the best of all possible worlds, despite evidence to the contrary?) -- suggest what -- dementia?
--------------------
"It's funny how old Europe, which has an even more progressive tax policy, has such higher unemployement and slower GDP growth. If the U.S.' regressive tax policy is such an impediment, why wouldn't old Europe have much better unemployment or GDP growth statistics?"
First of all, people don't work for $5.50 an hour in France and Germany. And they have health insurance, and enjoy a host of other social benefits unthinkable in this country. They also do far better when unemployed, than do the working poor in the U.S. On top of that, U.S. unemployment statistics vastly understate the actual numbers. So the comparison unemployment stats is meaningless.
As for GDP, much of the growth in the U.S. ecomony actually represents productivity gains and declining wages -- in other words, transfers from poor to rich. In any case, slightly higher GDP in the U.S. doesn't translate into greater wealth and well-being of the society as a whole. And the numbers aren't all that dissimilar anyway, between the U.S. and old Europe. In some cases, U.S. growth is actually behind European countries. If you want to use GDP as proof of the superiority of American system, you won't get very far.
--------------
this is my last post on this subject. You describe yourself as a libertarian, which suggests to me that you're invested in the identity -- it's something of a religion for you.
Yes, indeed, Jed, we live in the best of all possible worlds.
Under Republicans, jobs are plentiful and rich, GDP is glorious, nobody gets cancer and the poor are jubilant because they don't pay federal taxes. And it's all thanks to Bush, Rove and Cheney. Anything wrong with the country is obviously the fault of the liberals.
Before we bring out the champaign, however, let's look a little closer at your claims.
"I said that using Joseph's own logic, which is that red-state residents should have to live
with the policies dictated by blue states because blue states pay a disproportionate share of taxes, is the same as saying that poor people should have to live with the policies dictated by rich people for the same reason he gives."
I don't get it; poor people *do* live with policies dictated by rich people. Isn't that what you want? Or did you propose to change that policy, and free the poor from the self-interested ideology of the right-wing rich? If so, I applaud you. When do we start? I propose a $15 minimum wage. How about you?
---------------------
"U.S. Senators and Representatives have no control over local or state taxes. They represent their states at the national level, and have control over federal taxes. Also,
Dennis Hastert is from Illinois, which has been reliably blue in at least the last three presidential elections."
U.S. Senators and representatives represent their regions, last time I checked. If these regions want to be self reliant and get off the dole, they need only instruct their senators and representatives to cease taking welfare from NY and Ca. Obviously, local taxes will be
enacted at the local level. What could be plainer? Are you so desperate to score points that you're prepared to be silly?
As for Denny Hastert, who is the guy who claimed George Soros got his money from drug deals (Denny apparently doesn't read the business press, and himself prefers bribes to drug deals) -- he's indeed from Illinois. So what? Doesn't he represent the same regressive policies as Frist and Delay? Doesn't he support wealth transfers from the coasts to the benighted "heartland"? What's your point? Or is it just more desperation?
--------------------
"The lowest-earning 40% of the population doesn't pay any federal income tax, so I don't really understand on what basis you claim the working poor benefit less than the rich - they're essentially getting all of their federal government for free."
First of all, the working poor pay payroll taxes -- the most regressive tax of all, and which
flows into general revenue -- as well as sales taxes and a host of other local and excise taxes.
As for getting the federal government "for free", did it ever occur to that they're working for
what amounts to slave wages, for the purpose of making other people very rich and very comfortable? Sound like a good life to you? Of course, the poor get the federal
government for free, which defends their oil wells, their bullion deposits and their Swiss chateau's for nothing, and the young poor can always die in Iraq if Macdonalds won't take them, so they should rejoice, I suppose, at their good fortune.
Meanwhile, the rich get nothing from government. They don't benefit from government contracts, they don't benefit from government protection of their wealth here and abroad, they don't benefit from government promotion of business interests, don't benefit government subsidies, don't benefit from government bailouts, etc. In a word, the rich get absolutely nothing in this country (just look at poor Dick Cheney). I wonder why they stay? Could it be the burgers? Then again, alot of these patriots are finding that it's very profitable to setup a P.O. Box in the Bahamas.
----------------
"Even liberal economists acknowledge that Milton Friedman's supply-side theory was in order to slow government spending, it had to be starved of revenues."
Agreed. Friedman wanted to bankrupt the government, so he claimed that cutting taxes on wealth was the way to make everyone rich -- a deception you also attempted to perpetrate, a few posts ago (or did you forget?). As for liberal economists -- they're more than happy to "acknowledge" that the whole supply-side thing was a fraud. And, of course, Friedman's policies do indeed bankrupt governments. Just look at Argentina. Something to look
forward to here, no? We may get there sooner rather than later. I suppose you'll blame Bill Clinton?
-------------
"And again, please, get your statistics accurate and take care with your terminology. You said "average income [has] gone down since the 1970's".
Average wages have gone down. That's the point. People work harder and longer, for less, with fewer or no benefits and much less job security. If you really think everything is so wonderful, why is the working public persuaded otherwise? Of course, it could be the dastardly liberal media.
-------------------
"So, it's hard to place any credibility in any of your economic analysis, since either through lack of knowledge/understanding, or through an intentional effort to mislead, several of your statements have been easily discredited."
Dear dear dear. None of my claims has been discredited, while yours (alternately trumpeting and trashing supply side economics; claiming that the poor get more from government than the rich; and that we really live in the best of all possible worlds, despite evidence to the contrary) -- suggest what -- dementia?
--------------------
"It's funny how old Europe, which has an even more progressive tax policy, has such higher unemployement and slower GDP growth. If the U.S.' regressive tax policy is such an impediment, why wouldn't old Europe have much better unemployment or GDP growth
statistics?"
First of all, people don't work for $5.50 an hour in France and Germany. And they have health insurance, and enjoy a host of other social benefits unthinkable in this country. They also do far better when unemployed, than do the working poor in the U.S. On top of
that, U.S. unemployment statistics vastly understate the actual numbers. So the comparison of unemployment stats is meaningless.
As for GDP, much of the growth in the U.S. ecomony actually represents productivity gains
and declining wages -- in other words, transfers from poor to rich. In any case, slightly higher GDP in the U.S. doesn't translate into greater wealth and well-being of the society as a whole, just as higher corporate profits don't translate into higher wages. And the numbers aren't all that dissimilar anyway, between the U.S. and old Europe. In some cases, U.S. growth is behind European countries. If you have to use GDP as proof of the superiority of American system, you're already desperate.
--------------
Tthis is my last post on the subject. You describe yourself as a libertarian, which suggests
to me that you're invested in the identity -- it's something of a religion for you, as your posts clearly indicate. Arguing about religion is rather a waste of time, for the non-believer. When I'm so far gone that I'm prepared to admit that the working poor get the Federal government for free, while the rich have to pay for it, I'll look you up.
Joseph,
Ever notice anything funny about the right-wingers and Bush apologists who turn on this site, most recently M. Jed, who brings to mind "pommero"?
They all come armed with website links which don't prove their points, each of their successive posts adduces still more red herrings, logical inconsistencies and false charges, and they never bother to answer previousy discredited claims. And they all seem to have loads to time, which is funny in M. Jed's case, since he claims to earn so much money.
Could these guys be on the payroll? I'm inclined to believe it. They're a little too sophisticated and brazen for amateurs....
You know, I have heard that comeback about jobs all my life, and frankly it pisses the hell out of me.
Sorta like the way rightwingers and capitalists always say "Hey, life is tough" -- while going out of their way to "make it so." Yes, that's their preferred world, in which life is as tough as they can make it for us -- and, natch, as easy as possible for them.
Man, aren't the elite just featherbedders? And don't they like to talk lofty like they work hard?
Every rightwinger and capitalist groupie thinks he can nail every pertinent comment about social injustice by saying, "Yeah, but no poor man ever gave me a job."
Well lemme tell ya, Jed and all you Jedi out there: No rich man ever "gave" me a job either. All my life I have had to take over a job somebody like you only grudgingly hired me for. And had to work, work, work, mostly as a wage slave, mostly at jobs that were somewhere on the Low to High shit scale.
And why is that? Because you self-conceited Job Creators, along the way toward making a Pile of Money for yourselves, found it necessary to pay me and the millions of other hard working people like me a PITTANCE for work that deserves more money, more respect, under better conditions, etc. etc. etc. and so on. Much of it that would have been better left undone.
You know what kind of working world you've created? Work that eats away at people's life when they could be doing something more humane, more worthy, and more fun, and better for the human race, which I happen to belong to—do YOU?
Don't try to wiggle and say it's not true. You know it's true.
Furthermore, nobody ever gave me opportunity. I made my own opportunity. I had to scratch and push to get what I got, and I hated having to do that in YOUR world of "business," YOUR "economy" (it never was mine), playing by YOUR inhumane, disgustingly aggressive, inconsiderate rules.
Pardon me if I get intemperate, but this Work Ethic is a con, and you know it. If you're such job-creating humanitarians, why don't you create some jobs that are life-enhancing, joyful, creative and delightful?
When you "create jobs," what you mean is, turn a key and get a weenie to do some dishonest toil you wouldn't do yourself.
Why don't you create opportunity instead, in real terms: opportunity for real people to do real things that make their lives better and happier?
Ha, not so easy, is it.
OK, now I'll sit back and watch you try to pick holes in what you know in your heart (if you have one) is unanswerable.
I must say I never make posts like this, but today is an exception. Somebody has to speak the truth about what it means to work in America.
Couple comments on M. Jed, one substantive, one picky. Substantive first.
1. I think we should all be grateful to M. Jed for giving us a classic workshop in the blinders worn by those who infest the right and the moneyed classes. The degree of the gentleman's self-delusions is astonishing!
Some of his points are so transparently self-aggrandizing...I wonder if he recognizes this. I wonder if he has no clue just how manifestly unfair and undemocratic his views are? Or does he just think they're natural? (As in "natural rights" and all that hogwash.) I wonder whether M. Jed also believes in the divine right of kings?
2. Now for the picky point, and I admit it's trivial. But M. Jed's persistent misspellings and misuse of a few words and phrases do give an odd impression, as if the gentleman's thinking is going on through a kind of mental static. Perhaps there really is a greater degree of ignorance there than he realizes? The misspellings are all of a piece with the logical fallacies, the self-delusions...
I do recall, though, that it usually is true that a writing disorder is the outward manifestation of a thinking disorder. If this is the case, M. Jed has my sincere compassion, and I apologize if I have said anything offensive.
Hey Jed,
If things are so great in this country under George "Nobody Could have Anticipated" Bush, why is it that 30 or 40 years ago a skilled or semi-skilled unionized factory worker could own a home, put 2 kids through college, drive 2 cars, not have a worry in the world about medical care, take a beach vacation every year, and do it all without credit card debt or home equity loans, much less the fear of bankruptcy when a kid gets sick or if he comes down with bronchitis?
Could it be that, in those days, which preceded the great "supply side" revolution (which, incidentally, didn't end during Clinton's term), income was distributed in a somewhat more reasonable manner?
Or is there another and mystical reason in the libertarian playback as to why the U.S. has the greatest disparity between rich and poor of any industrialized nation, and the worst medical stats, and the highest poverty levels, and the highest debt load, and the largest prisoner population, etc., etc. etc. -- other than the fact that the system is rigged against working people?
In that respect, the U.S.'s marginal advantage in GDP, compared to some countries in Europe, is laughable. What good does it do American working people?
I said "So, it's hard to place any credibility in any of your economic analysis, since either through lack of knowledge/understanding, or through an intentional effort to mislead, several of your statements have been easily discredited."
You said, "Oh, please. None of my claims has been discredited"
You also said, "when nearly a third of U.S. children live in poverty". In fact, in 2003 it was 17.6%.
You also said, "where have those jobs been hiding during the last five years". In fact, since peaking in June 2003, unemployment has been in steady decline.
You also said, "average income actually gone down (after inflation), since the 1970s" In fact, real average hourly earnings (2003 dollars) for the decade of the seventies averaged $14.56 and peaked at $15.03. For the period from 2000-2003, real average hourly earnings (2003 dollars) averaged $15.17, and troughed at $14.95.
You also said, "To the extent household income has stabilized, it's the result of two wage earners", which I had addressed as being false in anticipation of your comment. In fact, median income for men in 2003 (in 2003 dollars) was $29,931. The highest it reached in the 1970's was $28,892.
Since you have gotten these relatively simple issues wrong and apparently were not trying to purposely mislead others who are reading this string, on what basis am I to assume that you have sufficient understanding of the economic theories of Nobelaureate, Milton Friedman, whom you apparently blame for the Argentinian default.
Separately, in response to an earlier reply by Joseph. You're drawing economic comparisons from when the U.S. was still on the gold standard? Anyway, here's one for you in 1959 the U.S. poverty rate was 22%. Now its about 12.7%. And wasn't JFK the original supply-side president?
And in response, to a different Anon. post, "[t]oo sophisticated and brazen for amateurs"? In some circles, that may qualify me as an "intellecutal elite". Maybe I should send this week's check back to Mr. Rove.
I don't get it, Jed. You're trumpeting current wage figures which are only slightly better, and sometimes worse, than the 1970s.
Is this wage "growth" supposed to be an advertisement for Republican supply-side economics? At a time when housing, energy and medical costs have soared? When CEO and executive salaries have gone through the roof? When the wealthy have gotten far wealthier, and the middle-class can barely hold on?
Are you so far removed reality, that you promote zero wage growth as a sign of the success of Republican economic policies? Or was zero growth the intention all along, and that's what you're crowing about?
Then again, don't answer. It will just be more mud and nonsense.
Oh hell, Jed, I swore I wouldn't post again on this thread, but you draw me right back in.
Mea culpa, child poverty is not the 33% of American children I previously claimed. In 2004, it was 17.6% as reported by the census bureau, up from 16.7% in 2003. So we're talking about approximately 1/5th of American children living in poverty (the rate is almost certainly approaching 20% now) rather than the 1/3 I previously reported. That's well above 13 million children, which is a dandy endorsement of supply-side economics, and the Bush presidency.
Note that poverty has gone up every year of the Bush term, reversing the Clinton trend, when it declined every year. Not good in either case, but hardly an endorsement of Republican economic policies.
As for wages -- your own figures indicate wages have either stagnated or dropped for most workers over the last 30 or 35 years. And we haven't yet accounted for inflation where it hits working people the most (housing, medical care, energy, etc.), far more than the CPI suggests. On top of that, working people were hit with tax hikes in the 1980s, thanks to the social security "adjustment" and increased local taxes, to pay for Federal cut-backs. So, in effect, net wages have dropped. What's so difficult to understand? You're own figures lead to exactly that conclusion.
As for two wage households, you write: "In fact, median income for men in 2003 (in 2003 dollars) was $29,931. The highest it reached in the 1970's was $28,892." So this proves what? That moms work at Walmart because they enjoy it? Did you fail to notice that income has barely budged in 35 years, while the prices of essential goods services (not accurate reflected in official inflation figures) have skyrocketed? Is this wage stagnation supposed to be an endorsement of Republican policies? If so, what would a failure look like?
As for all the wonderful job growth we've gotten since 2003 -- this growth has been among the slowest on record for post-recovery periods, and can't begin to compare with the Clinton era or the Clinton recovery. You also fail to note that most of the jobs created are of very low quality. But if you want to boast of low job growth and lousy wages, be my guest.
As for my competence to take on Nobel laureates -- who's sounding like an elitist now? Is it your view that common people like me should leave the big debates to our betters -- including you, presumably? I guess I don't know my place. Sorry, massa, I'll try to be humble in future, and take all my instruction from deluded idealogues of the right.
Okay, we'll turn the page in the "progressives for America" guidebook and talk about inflation. Should we selectively exclude only the items that keep inflation down or am I allowed to include food and clothing in the statistics? Maybe the working poor don't need food or clothing. Oh, and you forgot to include education costs (I think they're on page 37 of your primer) in mentioning items for which prices are increasing faster than the overall CPI.
Getting back to reality and valid statistical analysis, while there some arguments that CPI understates actual inflation (primarily because of the use of rent prices instead of purchase prices for housing) most economists believe that CPI overstates inflation because consumers adjust their purchases towards items for which prices have increased comparitively less away from items for which prices have increased comparitively more.
So when you say "we haven't yet counted for inflation where it hits working people the most (housing, medical care, energy, etc.), far more than the CPI suggests." you somehow want to create a new measure of inflation that takes items that are inflating the most while excluding items that are inflating less (as I previously mentioned, food and clothing are two such examples).
And despite the recent accelerated inflation in energy prices (which are captured in CPI data), energy prices are less than they were in the late-seventies and early-eighties. At the same time, household energy expenditure as a percent of disposable income has been in a very rough ballpark range of 40%.
Another of your statements, "On top of that, working people were hit with tax hikes in the 1980s, thanks to the social security "adjustment" and increased local taxes, to pay for Federal cut-backs." On this, unlike you, when I see the data, I'm able to acknowledge what it says. And based on the federal data, I'll say that with specific reference to the 1980's you are accurate. I haven't seen the local data, but based on your track record, I'm reluctant to put blind faith in your accuracy.
The total (including payroll taxes) effective federal tax rate for the lowest quintile of income earners went from 8.0% in 1979 to 10.2% in 1984. In 2002 it was 4.6% For the second quintile of income earners it went from 14.3% in 1979 to 14.8% in 1985 to 10.8% in 2002. And for the third quintile of income earners it went from 18.6% in 1979 to 19.2% in 1981 to 14.4% in 2002.
If it's elitist for me to point out when someone is spewing false facts, on which that person is basing their argument, and to correct misinformation by providing impartial, uninterpreted data, than I'll gladly accept the label. If you want me to respect your opinions, base your arguments on real data instead of misleading interpretations of such, and respect those who are more intelligent than both you and me combined. I'm a lesser economist than Milton Friedman and I'm not ashamed to admit it - nor should you be. But I strive to understand his teachings - and so should you all.
Jed -- I've refuted so many of yours substantive claims, patiently, one by one (to which you never bothered to respond), that I'm not going to continue the process -- on and on, forever.
What you seem incapable of understanding is, the economy is poor for most Americans, as is the quality of life in general, and the nature of public discourse. There's a reason: long-standing government policy and the corporate megaphone. If you were able to see this fundamental reality -- that things are not good, even by the standards of traditionally conservative economists -- you might be less disposed to look for justifications for supply-side, neo-liberal policies.
As you noted previously, you're a "libertarian". Do you really think society is organized around fundamental, unchanging truths or truisms, to which it's obliged to conform, to please you?
Your argument really comes done to this: you're persuaded that your self-serving ideas about the economy and organizing society are correct, and these ideas currently prevail, so therefore society must be in great shape. The actual reality is irrelevant to you. You're not even aware -- or can't admit -- that two family members have to work these days, to support themselves.
I wish you luck of it. People who live by manias usually come to bad ends, but that could well be true of all of us, thanks to the influence of your ideas. It's miserable to have to admit that people like you rule the country now, but that's the case.
When the social history of this era is written -- assuming, of course, we survive as a species -- you'll be one more pathology in a sorry human history of them.
It's very hard to wish you well.
Could these guys be on the payroll? I'm inclined to believe it. They're a little too sophisticated and brazen for amateurs....
..Haven't you begun taking your meds again YET!?!
I'm Canadian, for starters. I've seen enough of what your thinking can do to this country, to not wish it upon yours.
home mortgage in california
Information => home mortgage in california
Thanks for the info, I added you to my favorites.
If you are interested in home business opportunity seeker
, I have a home business opportunity seeker
site.
Feel free to drop by and tell me what you think.
Great Blog! I was searching for "adverse credit london", and found you!
Thanks for the posts. Keep up the good work.
If you get the time try my Credit Repair site and get a free Credit Repair Report!
Great site folks, been looking for this kind of information. I have a related bankruptcy credit repair site also. You may want to take a look some time. bankruptcy credit repair I'll definitely be back.
Hey, you have a great blog here! Put together well. I have a credit free msnbc.msn.com report site website and will bookmark you. My credit free msnbc.msn.com report site site is simple and covers a lot of the same stuff.
I was surfing through a few blogs and came across yours and wanted to say very nice job on the content, so I have bookmarked your site for future
reference.
Just in case you are interested I have a investing property
site. It pretty much covers investing property
related stuff.
Stop by Sometime :-)
I like your blog - good info. If you don't mind, I'm going to bookmark and link to it. I have a simple credit experian report website with credit experian report related stuff. Check it out!
Your blog contains the phrase work at home based business opportunity which I found very interesting. Building a home based business is not that difficult but many people are just not suited to the special demands and comitments that a work from home business demands. I have developed an article based web site that discusses these work at home based business opportunity issues. Stop by when you can. Great blog.
Hi, I was searching blogs, and came onto yours fantastic blog.
I have a niche site. It pretty much covers credit report score.
Keep it up. I'll check back later im sure.
I will bookmark this blog. I enjoy the yopic of taxable income I have a blog here on income. taxable income
mortgage loan refinance and debt consolidation will help you get out of debt forever! mortgage loan refinance and debt consolidation mortgage loan refinance and debt consolidation
Nice Blog, I think you may find this blog interesting and useful as wellcredit card deal
This blog is awesome! If you get a chance you may want to visit this ebook website site, it's pretty awesome too!
Getting and staying in shape doesn’t have to be dull and boring! Try some of these fun singapore healthy lifestyle fitness activities to make your workout time more enjoyable.
MUSICAL EXERCIES – Put on your favorite music and do some yoga! No need for slow, elevator music. Move to your favorite beat. Or pop on the headphones or earphones and grab your MP3 or cassette player or handheld PC and bike to a nearby park. Too cold or rainy? Then head to a mall or other enclosed area where you can walk. Caution: make sure you are alert while listening to music with headphones or earphones.
FUN IN THE SUN – Check out the latest tanning solutions and try fun, scented versions with funky, multi-colored sunglasses. Grab your cassette player or MP3 player and favorite tunes. And pack some flavored water, new flavored health bar that you’ve been dying to try and some frozen berries in your carryall for breaks and have a “sense”-ational time.
FITNESS CLASSES – Try out a new fitness class for fun. Enjoy a full water aerobics workout with less stress on your joints. Grab some colorful water gear and swim to the beat. Or try a dance or Jazzercise routine. No need to commit long-term, just ask about popping in for a class or two to check it out and enjoy. Meet new friends and get fit all at once.
VCR / DVD – Head to the library or local rental store and grab a fun fitness video or DVD. Crank up the sound when your favorite tunes come on and join the taped workout participants in the privacy of your own home.
GYM / FITNESS CENTER – Dig out those coupons you’ve been receiving in envelop mailers and those money saving coupon magazines. Again, no need to commit long-term. Just head on over and use the free or low-cost trial / invitational period and enjoy!
JOURNALING – Spice up your logging routine with an inexpensive new journal from a discount or dollar store nearby. Crate snazzy charts with colored markers. Add bright colored stickers for each workout. Paste or tape clipped pictures of your goals throughout the covers and inside sections. For example, paste pictures of that vacation spot you want to travel to with your new, healthy YOU wearing a new swimsuit.
So add some fun in with your singapore healthy lifestyle fitness activities. Wake up your senses with new taste, smells, sights, touches and sounds. Forget that “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” stuff. Workouts plus play make Jack a fun, fit boy! Finally check out what makes it fun **here**!
Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
I have a lapd live scannersite. It pretty much covers lapd live scanner related stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
Hi, this is a good blog on improvement motivation school self. How often do you post new articles so I can come back in time?
If you are interested I also have great content on improvement motivation school self at improvement motivation school self
Again thanks
Interesting topic this improvement motivation school self, isn't it? One can't learn enough about it. You can have a look at my improvement motivation school selfto give you some new ideas.
the best place to find adult personals canada in my opinion is adult personals canada
You can find lots of stuff adult personals canada related just click
adult personals canada
I have recently started reading blogs and came across your blog about work at home assembly and wanted to let you know that it must take time and dedication keeping a blog going. I have a website about work at home assembly and it keeps me really busy. Looking at all these blogs I think I may need to start my own blog one day. Keep up the good work. One day blogs may replace TV and newspapers for those of us who spend our time on the internet.
fiber supplement is a great resource for this type of thing fiber supplement
Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
I have a american express credit cards site. It pretty much covers american express credit cards related stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
Great blog you have my friend..
I have a debt settlement debt negotiation site. Pretty much related to this site.
Drop by and take a look..
Warmest Regards.
Hey, Just came across your neiman home loans blog. Great work indeed. I also have a neiman home loans that may interest your readers. Would love you to stop by for feedback
Nice post. direct merchant bank
Good Blog
Please visit
Advanced Business Marketing
and leave a comment.
Informative blog you have here. Here is mine tv shopping
Greetings: ##Name## I was just out looking for information about Promissory note, and found your site, and even though, Policy is not exactly what I had in mind, it certainly got me to take notice. Nice read I now know why I found you when I was looking for Promissory note. I am glad I stopped by for a look, thanks
Dropped in for a visit, Blogger, while researching stuff on
Passive Income from Home based Business. Your posts on Policy gave me food for thought. I'm
particularly looking for information and ideas on Passive Income from Home based Business, and the fit
wasn't perfect - but I found my visit worthwhile. Feel free to visit me
and leave a comment on my site or even submit an article about
Passive Income from Home based Business if you prefer.
The back links will help both of us. Bye for now.
Post a Comment