IGX

Yeah, that's what they say...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rep ... 64582.html

Not asking for much...

Sessions missed some: http://farm.ewg.org/

Kazuya Mishima wrote:Yeah, that's what they say...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rep ... 64582.html

Giving the poor too much is not remotely the problem in America.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... nequality/
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM[/youtube]

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Kazuya Mishima wrote:Yeah, that's what they say...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rep ... 64582.html

Giving the poor too much is not remotely the problem in America.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... nequality/
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM[/youtube]

You're too smart to believe that confiscating more $$ from the 1% and pouring it into programs that don't seem to be helping the poor escape poverty in acceptable numbers. So, what's your takeaway from the vid and the poorly performing welfare programs?

Mine is that this is exactly where TEA partiers and OWS occupiers should be able to meet and oppose the DC based Repuglicrat kleptocracy.

Gee, Republicans from the Senate Budget Committee issued a report blaming Obama? I'm shocked shocked shocked.

For instance, a CATO study found that an average household in the District of Columbia currently receiving the six largest federal welfare benefits (Medicaid, TANF, SNAP, etc.) receives assistance with a converted cash value of $43,000. In Hawaii, it’s $49,000.

Yeah, that CATO study was a steaming turd - as covered when it was posted here, the author never bothers to specify how many people actually receive these maximum benefits claimed and tries to hide the fact that the biggest chunk in Hawaii is housing assistance (and doesn't question how this feeds back into the economy - can't have an island tourist economy without poor people to service tourists).

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Kazuya Mishima wrote:Yeah, that's what they say...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rep ... 64582.html

Giving the poor too much is not remotely the problem in America.

Public programs effectively designed to keep the poor impoverished is.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:You're too smart to believe that confiscating more $$ from the 1% and pouring it into programs that don't seem to be helping the poor escape poverty in acceptable numbers.

First, it isn't the poor who are screwed in that scenario. It's pretty much everybody except a small minority.

And it's not that redistributing wealth is an efficient way to help the poor, which would be pretty tough to prove. It's that the top end of the 1% controls so much wealth, that at this point their "piece" of the pie will grow just via compounding interest. There is a very short list of ways to prevent that from happening outside of guillotines and taxes.

So, what's your takeaway from the vid and the poorly performing welfare programs?

There are a few problems:

1. The very wealthy retain too much of their income and wealth (either from compensation packages or investments). Compounding interest generates an incredible amount of wealth over time. This will continue indefinitely unless you tax high incomes.

2. Children of the 1% inherit massive wealth from their very wealthy parents, putting them in category 1 despite no merit whatsoever. This will continue indefinitely unless you tax the largest inheritances.

3. Americans over-consume generally.

4. Growing inequality is a serious problem, and you aren't going to turn poor kids into the Walton family with government programs. You tell the Walton children, "Sorry, your grand-kids don't get to be deca-billionaires because their great grand-pappy started Walmart."

5. There are too many banking shenanigans going on. Wall Street is a mess and needs to be significantly cleaned up.

6. There are too many media shenanigans going on. A lot of broke ass white people in Mississippi think black people are the problem, because their media feeds them lies.

7. Nobody is complaining about Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates being rich. Arguments about merit are straw-men.

Mine is that this is exactly where TEA partiers and OWS occupiers should be able to meet and oppose the DC based Repuglicrat kleptocracy.

Since any practical solution to this problem is going to have to include raising taxes on the wealthy, the Tea Party will never meet anywhere on this.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:You're too smart to believe that confiscating more $$ from the 1% and pouring it into programs that don't seem to be helping the poor escape poverty in acceptable numbers.

First, it isn't the poor who are screwed in that scenario. It's pretty much everybody except a small minority.

And it's not that redistributing wealth is an efficient way to help the poor, which would be pretty tough to prove. It's that the top end of the 1% controls so much wealth, that at this point their "piece" of the pie will grow just via compounding interest. There is a very short list of ways to prevent that from happening outside of guillotines and taxes.

So, what's your takeaway from the vid and the poorly performing welfare programs?

There are a few problems:

1. The very wealthy retain too much of their income and wealth (either from compensation packages or investments). Compounding interest generates an incredible amount of wealth over time. This will continue indefinitely unless you tax high incomes.

2. Children of the 1% inherit massive wealth from their very wealthy parents, putting them in category 1 despite no merit whatsoever. This will continue indefinitely unless you tax the largest inheritances.

3. Americans over-consume generally.

4. Growing inequality is a serious problem, and you aren't going to turn poor kids into the Walton family with government programs. You tell the Walton children, "Sorry, your grand-kids don't get to be deca-billionaires because their great grand-pappy started Walmart."

5. There are too many banking shenanigans going on. Wall Street is a mess and needs to be significantly cleaned up.

6. There are too many media shenanigans going on. A lot of broke ass white people in Mississippi think black people are the problem, because their media feeds them lies.

7. Nobody is complaining about Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates being rich. Arguments about merit are straw-men.

Mine is that this is exactly where TEA partiers and OWS occupiers should be able to meet and oppose the DC based Repuglicrat kleptocracy.

Since any practical solution to this problem is going to have to include raising taxes on the wealthy, the Tea Party will never meet anywhere on this.

Tax rates, no. Tax loopholes, resounding yes. The TEA party knows that the "reasonable and responsible" Repugs who opposed the budget fight that was the shutdown and debt ceiling battle are as corrupt as ObamaPelosiReid.

The following 30 profitable corporations paid no U.S. income tax from 2008-2010:

Company / 2008-10 Profits ($ millions) / 2008-10 Taxes ($ millions) / Effective 2008-10 Rate
Pepco Holdings $ 882 / $ -508 / -57.6%
General Electric 10,460 / -4,737 / -45.3%
Paccar 365 / -112 / -30.5%
PG&E Corp. 4,855 / -1,027 / -21.2%
Computer Sciences 1,666 / -305 / -18.3%
NiSource 1,385 / -227 / -16.4%
CenterPoint Energy 1,931 / -284 / -14.7%
Tenet Healthcare 415 / -48 / -11.6%
Atmos Energy 897 / -104 / -11.6%
Integrys Energy Group 818 / -92 / -11.3%
American Electric Power 5,899 / -545 / -9.2%
Con-way 286 / -26 / -9.1%
Ryder System 627 / -46 / -7.3%
Baxter International 926 / -66 / -7.1%
Wisconsin Energy 1,725 / -85 / -4.9%
Duke Energy 5,475 / -216 / -3.9%
DuPont 2,124 / -72 / -3.4%
Consolidated Edison 4,263 / -127 / -3.0%
Verizon Communications 32,518 / -951 / -2.9%
Interpublic Group 571 / -15 / -2.6%
CMS Energy 1,292 / -29 / -2.2%
NextEra Energy 6,403 / -139 / -2.2%
Navistar International 896 / -18 / -2.0%
Boeing 9,735 / -178 / -1.8%
Wells Fargo 49,370 / -681 / -1.4%
El Paso 4,105 / -41 / -1.0%
Mattel 1,020 / -9 / -0.9%
Honeywell International 4,903 / -34 / -0.7%
DTE Energy 2,551 / -17 / -0.7%
Corning 1,977 / -4 / -0.2%
TOTAL: On $160.341 billion in profits, they paid $ -10.742 billion in taxes, for an average effective tax rate of -6.7%.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Tax rates, no. Tax loopholes, resounding yes. The TEA party knows that the "reasonable and responsible" Repugs who opposed the budget fight that was the shutdown and debt ceiling battle are as corrupt as ObamaPelosiReid.

Not sure if you're referring to corporate loopholes or personal ones. The wealthiest people will continue to become richer regardless of what you do to corporate taxes, since they aren't corporations. You have to tax the people if you don't want inequality to accelerate.

I've never heard anybody in the Tea Party support an net increase on dollars paid by the wealthiest Americans in taxes. Quite the opposite.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Tax rates, no. Tax loopholes, resounding yes. The TEA party knows that the "reasonable and responsible" Repugs who opposed the budget fight that was the shutdown and debt ceiling battle are as corrupt as ObamaPelosiReid.

Not sure if you're referring to corporate loopholes or personal ones. The wealthiest people will continue to become richer regardless of what you do to corporate taxes, since they aren't corporations. You have to tax the people if you don't want inequality to accelerate.

I've never heard anybody in the Tea Party support an net increase on dollars paid by the wealthiest Americans in taxes. Quite the opposite.

How is that working out in very progressive Europe? Is their 1% suffering in comparison to ours or are they finding a way to protect their wealth as the fabulously rich are wont to do? Many TEA partiers support a flat tax w/very minimal deductions which should make things more "fair". After all, it's deductions that are where the rich protect their wealth vs. Joe Sixpack.

Also, corporate tax reform is necessary because:
1) Politicians are picking winners and losers limiting overall economic growth which most affects the 99%.
2) Corrupt CEO's and their lapdog boards are adding fabulous sums to their personal wealth at the expense of shareholders and employees - even when they're driving companies into the ground.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Tax rates, no. Tax loopholes, resounding yes. The TEA party knows that the "reasonable and responsible" Repugs who opposed the budget fight that was the shutdown and debt ceiling battle are as corrupt as ObamaPelosiReid.

Not sure if you're referring to corporate loopholes or personal ones. The wealthiest people will continue to become richer regardless of what you do to corporate taxes, since they aren't corporations. You have to tax the people if you don't want inequality to accelerate.

I've never heard anybody in the Tea Party support an net increase on dollars paid by the wealthiest Americans in taxes. Quite the opposite.

How is that working out in very progressive Europe?

I'm guessing from the way you phrased this, that you don't know the answer is "Much better than here." Wealth inequality is a much bigger problem in the United States than it is in most of Europe. But we're also worse than Canada, Australia, Japan; the rest of the developed world regardless of continent.

We also lag behind in economic mobility, so the children of extremely rich people are likely to remain extremely rich, while the children of the poor and middle class are also stuck.

Eh? Sweden has lowered it's tax rates to positive effect; France has raised theirs and is having all sorts of problems.

Our legislatures are greedy and in the pocket of corrupt businesses. Also, the average congressman's IQ is 91 after his first term

Clinton's welfare bill worked as intended - people were removed from public assistance programmes, states had more flexibility, unemployment decreased and there were fewer children living in poverty (even if spending wasn't reduced that much initially).

A large part of the success was the requirement that able-bodied people receiving assistance actually worked (or were out looking for jobs).

Obama's directive that the work requirement may be waived basically ended any of this.

Turdacious wrote:Eh? Sweden has lowered it's tax rates to positive effect; France has raised theirs and is having all sorts of problems.

The issue I was referring to was our vast wealth inequality. The fact that remedying that problem might slow economic growth seems minor by comparison.

If there's a Tea Party/GOP solution, it would be interesting to hear it.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Turdacious wrote:Eh? Sweden has lowered it's tax rates to positive effect; France has raised theirs and is having all sorts of problems.

The issue I was referring to was our vast wealth inequality. The fact that remedying that problem might slow economic growth seems minor by comparison.

If there's a Tea Party/GOP solution, it would be interesting to hear it.

I doubt that either the Tea Party or GOP see income inequality as the major issue. Economic growth and jobs would seem to be their focus. How much wealth confiscation would slow economic growth has to be a factor in any analysis.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Our legislatures are greedy and in the pocket of corrupt businesses. Also, the average congressman's IQ is 91 after his first term

From the NYT, they are shakedown artists who'd make a hardworking mafioso blush

... Politicians have developed a dizzying array of legislative tactics to bring in money. Take the maneuver known inside the Beltway as the “tollbooth.” Here the speaker of the House or a powerful committee chairperson will create a procedural obstruction or postponement on the eve of an important vote. Campaign contributions are then implicitly solicited. If the tribute offered by those in favor of the bill’s passage is too small (or if the money from opponents is sufficiently high), the bill is delayed and does not proceed down the legislative highway....Another tactic that politicians use is something beltway insiders call “milker bills.” These are bills designed to “milk” donations from threatened individuals or businesses. The real trick is to pit two industries against each other and pump both for donations, thereby creating a “double milker” bill.

We have a great "milker" affair in NYS. Only liquor stores can sell wine and hard liquor. Grocers want in on that action. Both sides pour money into various legislation to protect the status quo or move things forward for the grocers. Nothing ever changes because it's a cash cow for our public servants.

Spells seems to think that if we can just get these people to confiscate more $$ from the rich that we'd advance a more equal society.

Terry B. wrote:Clinton's welfare bill worked as intended - people were removed from public assistance programmes, states had more flexibility, unemployment decreased and there were fewer children living in poverty (even if spending wasn't reduced that much initially).

A large part of the success was the requirement that able-bodied people receiving assistance actually worked (or were out looking for jobs).

Obama's directive that the work requirement may be waived basically ended any of this.

I never thought I'd refer to Clinton as "not that bad." Yet, in comparison to the last two turds in a punchbowl, he wasn't all that bad. And anyone who's getting blowies in their office is to be championed, IMO.

baffled wrote:

Terry B. wrote:Clinton's welfare bill worked as intended - people were removed from public assistance programmes, states had more flexibility, unemployment decreased and there were fewer children living in poverty (even if spending wasn't reduced that much initially).

A large part of the success was the requirement that able-bodied people receiving assistance actually worked (or were out looking for jobs).

Obama's directive that the work requirement may be waived basically ended any of this.

I never thought I'd refer to Clinton as "not that bad." Yet, in comparison to the last two turds in a punchbowl, he wasn't all that bad. And anyone who's getting blowies in their office is to be championed, IMO.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/11/news/ec ... -payments/

Welfare reform: Efforts in the 1990s to reform the nation's welfare laws had the perverse effect of pushing more people onto the Social Security program for people with little work history. That has continued.
States and municipalities actually set up screening centers to test welfare recipients for disabilities, said John O'Neill, director of employment and disability research at the Kessler Foundation, a non-profit focused on disability issues. If any were found, state workers helped the people apply for federal disability benefits.
"They shifted their costs onto the federal government," said O'Neill.

Sure about that?

Somewhat.

I'm pretty jaded by the current shit show and the previous 8 years of shit shows before what we've got now.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Spells seems to think that if we can just get these people to confiscate more $$ from the rich that we'd advance a more equal society.

I'm saying growing inequality is a serious problem and there are very few ways of dealing with it. You can throw words like "confiscation" around, but raising taxes is something that was a perfectly legitimate move for Republicans until very recently.

When the problem is raised, and that solutions are limited, there seem to be a few responses:

1. Stealing from the rich won't make the poor or middle class (unproven and irrelevant, the serious problem is the nation's wealth in the hands of the extreme few, which taxation will solve easily)
2. Raising taxes will slow economic growth (current economic growth overwhelmingly benefits the rich. Slow growth is not in itself a problem, particularly if it solves the inequality problem, which is unsustainable)
3. Inequality isn't the main problem right now, it's X.

Reagan certainly seemed to have the right economic answers in 1979, but economic realities have changed, and the Tea Party would call Reagan's policies economic slavery today. Tri-Cone Clown Posse's 15 minutes are just about up, and they'll go the way of the Reform Party circa 1997.

The entire argument of either taxing the hell out of the rich or cutting off public assistance seems short-sighted at best.

Every civilized country has welfare programmes of some kind to help people who need it but I don't know a lot of other countries that structure things in the way the US does.

Increase funding for public health education, dish out birth control like Halloween candy, end the war on drugs, fund community colleges and other sources of adult education for job training and re-training and have some kind of real nationalized health care and in the long run, things would turn around. Even if spending doesn't decrease as much as many would want, you would be helping fund a literate, skilled workforce instead of the mess the country has now.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Spells seems to think that if we can just get these people to confiscate more $$ from the rich that we'd advance a more equal society.

I'm saying growing inequality is a serious problem and there are very few ways of dealing with it. You can throw words like "confiscation" around, but raising taxes is something that was a perfectly legitimate move for Republicans until very recently.

When the problem is raised, and that solutions are limited, there seem to be a few responses:

1. Stealing from the rich won't make the poor or middle class (unproven and irrelevant, the serious problem is the nation's wealth in the hands of the extreme few, which taxation will solve easily)
2. Raising taxes will slow economic growth (current economic growth overwhelmingly benefits the rich. Slow growth is not in itself a problem, particularly if it solves the inequality problem, which is unsustainable)
3. Inequality isn't the main problem right now, it's X.

Reagan certainly seemed to have the right economic answers in 1979, but economic realities have changed, and the Tea Party would call Reagan's policies economic slavery today. Tri-Cone Clown Posse's 15 minutes are just about up, and they'll go the way of the Reform Party circa 1997.

FWIW I agree w/you completely regarding how off balance our society has become. We disagree about how to solve it.

You seem to think that raising tax rates (confiscation) on the very rich will help. I want to increase taxes (confiscation) from that group by reigning in deductions and other politico-corporate kleptocracy schemes while demanding some level of accountability from the welfare industry. I want everybody to have some skin in the game, not just the middle class.

We're very different but we want similar things, just like TEA and OWS. Both groups know that the house has fixed the game. I don't know how to fix things but think a 3rd party might be necessary - or turn Darth loose in Congress for a few days.

How would increasing income taxes on the rich impact their wealth?

For example, my income is x, my wealth is roughly 5x. How would increasing the proportion of x the govt takes annually impact the latter at this point? It will increase the rate of increase going forward to a degree, but not the current amount?

EDIT: As a specific example, with tax increases at the fed and state level that kicked in this year, we maxed out my 401k contribution, which decreased my taxable income but will, over time, increase my wealth.