Archive through December 15, 2010

 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15243
Registered: May-04
.

I linked to the story because it is a "fact" that it exists. That's all I did, I provided a link to an article in the news today. Don't think you can once again tell me what's in my posts or in the Constitution. Am I calling the linked article "less than believable"? You just do not understand, leo, I'm not calling it anything. I planted a seed, and it is up to the reader to interpret what grows from that seed or not to allow the seed to mature into anything. I suppose you missed this link; http://mediamatters.org/research/201009160031, while you were busy jabbering.


"The question mark implies a query."

That's rather difficult to discern considering your gammatical skills sometimes need polishing. Like this, "Fact is, I have a question?" What? you're asking yourself whether or not you have a question? I don't know what you mean, leo, you are too possessed with complaining about things without offering a solution that you even miss the point - and the grammatical structure - of your own posts. But I am suppose to make heads and tails of your nonsensical posts?!



How plain do I have to make this for you to understand I'm not particularly interested in conversations in this thread? Why? Because as they progress the parties become more and more embittered with each other - as you appear to be doing now. I stated at the beginning of this I wasn't looking to make enemies and I'm not interested in forging a grudge against anyone. What you're interested in doing I haven't been able to determine since you only seem to have one issue you repeat over and over. What you repeat constantly is not a "fact", it is your solutionless opinion and, unless you actually post facts which support the issue and the solution, I don't care one whit about opinions in this thread. That growth outstripped inflation is a "fact" but it is not a relevant fact when you consider the relationship between growth and inflation is normal and "inflation" is not the critical issue of growth any more than the number of cabinet posts is a determining factor in growth. But you seem to attach meaning to anything you think can be distorted into a support for your already achieved conclusion. That is not critical thinking, that is just making up jibberish.

I would "care" if you had your solution in place and you proposed real, meaningful facts without ranting interpretations to support your position. But your position as it exists needs no further attention according to Bartlett - the article which you introduced and which you now wish to ignnore. I agree with Bartlett in this instance, a solutionless gripe is not worth the time it takes to acknowledge.

That's what was sated at the very beginning of this thread, leo. I've tried to maintain that sense of detachment by presenting facts which the reader can use as they please with no interpretation from me. I don't care for your "issue" because you have no solutions, just a constant b!tch.


"WOW, a criminal offense. I missed the % sign in my quote. I should be shot.
If the messenger is to be shot, turn the weapon on yourself."


Don't try that sh!t on me, leo. First, I simply pointed out your error and you have no reason to get p!ssed at that. The statement "top 10 of US taxpayers" is there in the post. You either take responsibility for what you post or you do not. I apoligized earlier in this thread for an error I had made. But, if you think insulting me rather than being a man about this is how you wish to procede, then I suppose I know where you are coming from at this point in this thread.

Second, I am not griping about your lack of proofreading skills. "The Top whatever % pays" has been a long running conservative line of BS for years. I already assumed you were just regurgitating what they have been feeding you.

My point of contention is with the rest of your sentence ... ""While the top 10 of US taxpayers PAY 70% of all tax, what is the INCOME %age they represent?"

You are far from being correct when instead you prefer to be so lazy as to accept the figures provided in the Forbes' article without question and without actually understanding what is being said in the article vs what you have said vs. what are the facts of the matter. The top whatever "%" do not pay "X"% of ALL taxes. Plain and simple. The rhetorical line employed in the article - while not supported by any factual reference - has been a deception employed by the right wing for years. If you were half as smart as you claim to be, you would understand this and you would not rely on such bogus claims.


You have also used this impass as another excuse not to do any research to answer your own question in the second half of the sentence. I provided you both a seed and a method to make it grow and, what do you do? You don't water it. You p!ss on it. Read what the article says and read what you wrote. Then figure out what is wrong between the two and the deception being employed by the Forbes' writer and the conservative argument. Then, if you would, answer your own question about the percentage of income the top "?"% represent.


It's very simple, leo, it just requires some critical thinking rather than constant detachment of your brain. And it also requires you do some fact finding rather than ranting.


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15246
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42538.html

"Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell went on Fox News Channel Tuesday night, where she blamed the national media for interfering with her campaign and swore off any further interviews with news outlets outside her state." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42526.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42510.html

http://www.politifact.com/

"Beck links clean-burning stoves to plot to 'build global governance'" http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201009220011


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15247
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39308639/ns/business-forbescom/
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1619
Registered: Oct-07
Let me see if I have this straight?
YOU post a link and disclaim any knowledge of it and just put it out there for 'your consideration'? So far so good?

I post a link and am held to account for everything the link says? I'll try an experiment. I'm going to link something that exists. I haven't looked at it, but it is an 'award winning' documentary. We'll see if I'm held accountable 'because it is a "fact" that it exists'.




Personally, and I can't prove this, My opinion is that YOU spend more time watching Beck et al than I do. I'd rather watch roller derby then Beck.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15249
Registered: May-04
.

At the risk of repeating myself; if you do not care for the course this thread has taken, you might want to consider no longer posting to this thread. I don't understand your confusion here. I did not claim I supported the Forbes' article but there was no reason not to post a link for an item in the news. I did not voice an interpretation of the article nor did I endorse the article, did I? On the other hand, if, "I post a link and am held to account for everything the link says", refers to the Bartlett article, then, yes, you should have been aware of what was said in the article. You especially should have been aware Bartlett flatly dismisses the very issue you continue to grind into the ground. The Forbes' article doesn't require a genius to figure out, only a hyper-partisan who detests Obama would swallow any of his "facts". And the "facts" on tax payments you chose to use have no supporting references. Yet the Bartlett article is one you did endorse. At the time you posted the link you also said, "This Forbes article may be on to something, but did he get to the bottom of it?" (https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1890089#POST1890089 Like it or not, leo, my simply posting a link is not in the same league as your calling out an article which you believe makes good points - even when the author of those points says you are full of hot air and need no further attention. Maybe, if you weren't so intent on filling each and every post with a rant, ...




As to roller derby vs Beck, I suspect you popped for the Tivo.

.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1621
Registered: Oct-07
Jan, maybe we can agree on something:: Tivo, is in fact, one of the great technological achievements of the late 20th century. Record all the stuff you want, but unlike VCR media, you are unable to loan it to a buddy. I'm sure their must be hacks, but I don't know of an easy way to copy off of TIVO so I could burn a DVD and either archive it or loan it out. People that 'tape' stuff are happy. The money people are happy. The copy protection people are happy. What's not to like?

Roller Derby is to sport as Beck is to News/Commentary.

To recap the tax arguement, if the top (pick a percentage) group of tax payers pays 50 percent of all taxes and has 80 percent of all income, I'd agree.....a problem exists. If the same group which pays 50 percent of all taxes has say.... 40 percent of all income, than it is possible a case of inequity could be made. I wouldn't go so far at the quoted example numbers, since the code is after all progressive in that those with more ability to pay, should pay more. It is a matter of opinion where the equities lie. Even if the bottom 1/5th of income earners pay NO tax, they still pay other regressive taxes, like sales, property and various car fees.(though typically on less valuable cars and property)

Jan, This is a serious suggestion. You should run for some kind of office. If you think anyone would dispassionately analyze your 'platform' and approve, then best of luck.

Here in California, to the extent the Governors race is good example, the advertising 'electioneering' is torturing the truth unto death. Jerry Brown, who if memory serves, is anti death penalty, Jesuit trained (educated?) former governor has now come out as an advocate of prop. 13 (property tax relief) has claimed to work for death penalty execution (look up Rose Bird court in California) and that he was fiscally responsible (He left the state in debt) VS the mostly unknown Meg Whitman. Here we (Californians) go again. I'll look up what fact-check has to say about Meg.

Arnie went into office after Grey Davis was summarily given the boot. Cruz Bustmante, the LT Gov, got zero traction and he's not been heard from in years. Yet Arnie, the 'Republican' folded almost immediately after election and became even a bigger hack than Davis. I haven't looked at the numbers, but California's budget continues to grow at an a huge rate, to the point where the States bond rating has been lowered to A- (Standard & Poor's). Still investment grade, but several steps from 'tops'.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15250
Registered: May-04
.

So you aren't even going to do the research to find the facts you should have in order to make a rational statement?! Geeeeez, leo!!!

I provided a link and a clue to a portion of what you had asked and even that is more trouble than you care to go through to find a simple fact.


"Roller Derby is to sport as Beck is to News/Commentary."

Not at all. The logic in roller derby is of a circular nature. Beck's is non-existent.

.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1622
Registered: Oct-07
Roller Derby is just an excuse for mindless violence. Kind of like another non-sport...the currently popular UFC.... In the sense of 'public spectacle' indeed, Beck and Roller Derby are about on par.
Are we going to end up arguing about SPORTS, for Pete's sake? I won't have it! I promise....you can have the LAST word on sports and I won't say a thing....Unless of course, in the unlikely event you pick on the Bears.....LOL.

Are you ref'ing my governors race comments? You're right. I don't care. California currently is dominated by a legislature which spends like they invented money. California budget is rarely on time (against statute requirement) and we are so far in debt it has ceased to be fodder for late night comics. The 'fiscally conservative' Governator proved unable to terminate huge debt. I'm not even going to judge whether all that spending was necessary or NOT. Sacramento drove down the state's bond rating and when FERC proved impotent to help us with our power crisis made sure our electric rates were among the highest in the nation. Only a few states on the East Coast exceed California's cost...and some by a pretty good margin! OUCH!

http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html

http://www.sen.ca.gov/budget/budgethistory.pdf

I'm not even going to attempt any analysis. Our state budged peaked at OVER 140 Billion for 2 years in a row...before somebody decided to pull the plug. One of the bond measures on the last ballot was for HI SPEED RAIL. $10billion was actually approved on the Nov. 08 ballot. see link:
NOTE: the only possible connection to make money is not listed. California has been kicking around a hi-speed rail link to Las Vegas for decades.
IF you'd ever driven the 300+ miles from say.......Orange County to Vegas, across a couple hundred miles of stinkin' desert, speed traps and incredible heat, you'd know why somebody would find that an attractive route!
AND I'm not trying to pull the 'expert' card here, but I rode hi-speed stuff in Europe. It was better than jet smooth and at 180mph, crazy fast. You couldn't focus your eyes on anything closer than a couple hundred feet from the train. ZOOM. NOTE:: European rails are welded continuous piece. NO clicking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail
Sorry about posting a Wiki, but it gives a pretty clear overview and is concise.

I'll look up some tax numbers, maybe tomorrow. I have to bake bread, and intend to hack away at the stump in the front yard. Wanna help? Good for aggression and great exercise. A 6lb maul can be managed and I'll supply the safety glasses and ice water. I work about 40" at a stretch, every other day. Another couple weeks and the stump'll be a goner. I spent all day in class today....7 1/2 hours...a short day. Woodshop is interesting and by next year, this time, I could be working on my Magnepan reframe project. That MDF's gotta go.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1623
Registered: Oct-07
One other, minor thing::
At the last page break, your post about my use of 'there' and 'their' came to the top.
Well, I'm obviously no grammarian. I write like I speak, and the 2 words sound alike to me....so I write 'em alike. Maybe I've improved since I looked up the usage rule.

When I took the 12th grade Florida State HS grad exam, I got over 430 of a 495 possible. 4 sections of 90+ including a 99. I got a 56 in English! My English Teacher threw an eraser at me.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15251
Registered: May-04
.

ON THIS DAY

On Sept. 23, 1952, Republican vice-presidential candidate Richard M. Nixon went on television to deliver what came to be known as the ``Checkers'' speech as he denied allegations of improper campaign financing.


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15252
Registered: May-04
.

"One other, minor thing::
At the last page break, your post about my use of 'there' and 'their' came to the top."



The rest of the "thing" is that surprisingly the Bartlett issue is also within that same post. I encourage you to go back up to the top and read the exact same "thing" you've been going on about since the beginning of this thread and my then as now response to your inability to move forward with factual evidence. IMO your factual evidence budgets have increased in CA is unconvincing. You seem to be of the single minded nature that nothing should be more expensive than it was in 1952 and the fact they are not is sure fire proof of government meddling, corruption and malfeasence. Considering CA has over the last 60 years led the Nation in many productive ways and has a budget which is what? the fifth largest in the world comes from the many innovations which have occurred in the state. Once again only my opinion but many of CA's problems can be traced back to the years when Reagan was Governor and began to dismantle the social contracts with its citizens while quietly feeding taxpayer $$$'s to his friends and cronies. One has to wonder where both CA and the Nation would be had Reagan not discontinued the free college education programs. But the college students protested against Reagan's heavy handed approach to governing which rewarded his friends and donors and he thought it best to not fund education if it only led to educated citizens who saw through his cronyism and his belief there was a Communist in every classroom. The rich get richer and the less than rich and connected get soaked and less able to see what is going on at the top. On that we agree.



There was a recent NYT article which stated the probable fate of O's proposed high speed rail system. The few states which had early on signed onto the program were backing out due, they claimed, to (suddenly realized?) budget shortfalls which did not allow for the 20% of the system's cost which would fall on the state budget. Of course, if the Fed's would pick up the entire cost of construction and future maintenance, the states would be happy to take part in the riches and benefits of the system. Oddly you might think many of those states which are backing out are run by Republican led Governors or Legislatures which are feeling the pressure of the Tea Party.

I see the Republicans have issued their "Pledge to America" today. It proposes to cut spending to 2008 levels across the board. Since they didn't invest in infrastructure during their years in control - which is certainly a reason for bridge collapses which kill citizens and electric grid problems which exacerbated the Enron style tactics of price gouging - you can kiss goodbye any hope of a high speed rail ever being implemented in the US for the next generation at least. The Greatest Nation on Earth is being demoted to a second class Nation by other countries who take energy and infrastructure investments as vital parts of their economy. We are so far down the list in education and health care achievements that it is difficult for me to understand how certain talking heads can justify such a lack of concern for our present and future generations. These are the things only a Government can do effectively, by motivating an entire citizenship to take pride in the accomplishments we can achieve and not to rest on our laurels of fifty years ago. Leaders must lead and motivate and not just to the best price on the newest Apple product. Here in Texas - next in line in size to CA - we have many of the same problems as the numerous programs and projects which were once the pride of a Nation (many like the Space Program fueled by Federal dollars) have been or are being shut down as we face an $18 billion state budget shortfall. And our long serving (10 years since taking over from W) Governor runs for yet another term based on his accomplishments. Texas ranks at the bottom of so many lists that say we are constantly falling behind while Gov. Good Hair panders to the idiots by suggesting we might secede from the Union.



Writing colloquillally is not crime, particularly in a non-formal setting like a forum. Writing like you speak is a terrible habit to allow yourself to get into. I'm sure your English teacher told you it says you do not care enough about your audience to write with intelligence and precision.


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15253
Registered: May-04
.

What and who are "small businesses"? Remember when we spoke of the Republican's constant claims of Democratic "job killing" plans? It wasn't true. Now, as Forbes releases its list of the the Nation's richest individuals we hear John Boehner truthfully state only 3% of the country's "small businesses" account for 50% of all "small business" income.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#39316659

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#39316685

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#39316833


As to the Koch brothers mentioned in the first link;
http://www.forbes.com/profile/david-koch

http://www.forbes.com/profile/charles-koch

View these two brothers as the founders of the CATO Institute and the money behind many of the "independent" think tanks which we've mentioned here who will not report the source of their funding. As "corporations" do you know the limitations their must abide by when contributing to political campaigns? How much have you been paying attention to?

.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15255
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-b-larson/10-major-new-health-refor_b_7367 66.html
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1625
Registered: Oct-07
Dinners 'on' so i'll just answer a single point you made:

4 billion $ in '64 / '65 is about 28 billion in 2010. The State budget in 2010 was about 110 billion, or about 4x the rate of inflation. To reduce this to a per capita number, I need population data which I have yet to look up.

California's population in 1960, an easy number to find, was just under 16million. Today, it is over 2x that.....so, real spending, per capita, looks to have about doubled.

If I use the budget from just a few years ago, which peaked at over 140 billion, the result is somewhat worse.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/futures/pdf/rev-achanging.pdf

California population per USC, a reasonable source. I'll look for some detail data::
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1626
Registered: Oct-07
http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-los-angeles/bell-california-audit-reveals-50m-m ismanaged-funds

Bell is a small town in Southern California, population of about 40,000 persons.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15258
Registered: May-04
.

"Postcards From the Pledge"; http://www.thedailyshow.com/
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15260
Registered: May-04
.
Link to "Watch this" thread;
https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1902743#POST1902743
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15261
Registered: May-04
.


Would you buy a used care from this man? How about a used Republican?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/sep/23/gop-ad-guru-fred-dav is-versus-truth-o-meter/


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15262
Registered: May-04
.

Politics Texas style; http://www.politifact.com/texas/article/2010/jun/21/bill-white-revisits-debt-spe nding-increases-rick-p/
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15263
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/glenn-beck/statements/

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910190048

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rush-limbaugh/statements/

"Limbaugh: "If you voted for Obama, you deserve to be unemployed" and "in misery""; http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2010/09/23#0039


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15264
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42700.html


"GOP's big money men return"
"Since Obama took office, ten of the most active conservative donors identified by a POLITICO analysis have contributed $19 million to Republican candidates and the political committees that boost them -- a pace that far eclipses their giving at this point in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles, according to professional fundraisers, as well as anything big Democratic donors have done.

But the tally does not take into account the money these donors may be giving to the proliferation of right-leaning groups registered under section 501©4 of the IRS code -- the groups that Obama attacked last week for airing a "flood of deceptive attack ads sponsored by special interests using front groups with misleading names." By law, the groups aren't required to reveal their contributors' identities -- only their overall fundraising tallies and expenditures months, and only months after Election Day."
; http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42662.html

.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15275
Registered: May-04
.

"Jamie Court debates singer Pat Boone and the
Beverly Hills Tea Party"

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15278
Registered: May-04
.

The legacy of Reagan, tax cuts, spending, government growth and increased Federal revenue.

"Those who oppose higher taxes and are fed up with record levels of U.S. debt may pine for Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of lower taxes and smaller government.

But it's worth considering just what Reagan did -- and didn't do ...

Soon after taking office in 1981, Reagan signed into law one of the largest tax cuts in the postwar period ...

In 1986, Reagan lowered individual income tax rates again, this time in landmark tax reform legislation.

As a result of the 1981 and 1986 bills, the top income tax rate was slashed from 70% to 28%.

Despite the aggressive tax cutting, Reagan couldn't ignore the budget deficit, which was burgeoning.

After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988. (By comparison, this year it's projected to be 9% but is expected to drop considerably thereafter.)

So, despite his public opposition to higher taxes, Reagan ended up signing off on several measures intended to raise more revenue.

"Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said ...

There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.

The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue ...

Annual federal tax receipts during his presidency averaged 18.2% of GDP, a smidge below the average under President Carter -- and a smidge above the 40-year average today ...

Reagan's behavior might not pass muster with those voters today who insist their Congressmen treat every proposed tax increase as poisonous to the republic.

"By today's standards, the Gipper would easily qualify for status as a back-stabbing, treacherous RINO [Republican in Name Only]" ...

Thanks in part to the increases in defense spending during his administration, Reagan also didn't really reduce the size of government. Annual spending averaged 22.4% of GDP on his watch, which is above today's 40-year average of 20.7%, and above the 20.8% average under Carter ..."


http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15279
Registered: May-04
.

"Tom Coburn; International A**hole of Mystery"
http://www.thedailyshow.com/

"Worst"; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/# 39449653

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=coburn%20blocks%20aid&ty pe=

http://www.google.com/search?q=coburn+blocks+aid&hl=en&ei=eQCmTO_6MIP98AbZ1cmJAg &start=10&sa=N

"By today's standards, the Gipper would easily qualify for status as a back-stabbing, treacherous RINO [Republican in Name Only]" ...



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15280
Registered: May-04
.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201009280025
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1639
Registered: Oct-07
RE: MediaMatters Glenn Beck article.

The comments are the best part. Scan thru 'em.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15282
Registered: May-04
.

You mean like these?

Beck: "I think we're headed for a civil war." On his June 23 radio show, Beck pointed to the immigration debate in Arizona and said, "I think we're headed for a civil war." He added: "I've talked to a few senators off the record about what's going on, and I'm not sure what this is yet so I can't verify -- I mean, it has been verified to me in the Senate. But I just -- I don't want to tell you I think I know what's happening here yet because these people play so many games." Beck has also claimed that commerce disputes between states mean "you are heading for civil war" and has suggested that President Obama is pushing the country "into an area where civil war" is possible.




Long ago I learned never to trust anyone who uses the simple phrase "these people" or anything similar to paint an entire group of people - a group to which you then get to decide who belongs and who does not - as the "enemy". Anyone with any sense of history knows it is easiest to control how individuals think when you have created an invisible army of enemies whom only you can point to and understand.


"Sheeple" comes to mind here.



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15356
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-12-2010/eric-cantor

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-12-2010/exclusive---eric-cantor-ex tended-interview-pt--1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-12-2010/exclusive---eric-cantor-ex tended-interview-pt--2


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1679
Registered: Oct-07
No, Jan, NOT what Beck said, but the comments from people reading that stuff. I'll look for it again and be more specific, but I found the comments the best part. A couple of good slams and some good observations.

People.....don't seem to learn. It wasn't THAT long ago the Joe McCarthy ruled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy

The best FILM portrayal was in The Manchurian Candidate where James Gregory played Senator John Yerkes Iselin whose lines were right from the McCarthy script.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15358
Registered: May-04
.

Fear is a powerful tool. Unknown, unidentified and unseen fear even more so.
 

Gold Member
Username: Chitown

Post Number: 1516
Registered: Apr-05
Keep fear alive.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15359
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.rallytorestoresanity.com/
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15365
Registered: May-04
.

"Another area where Mr. Obama and Republicans have skirmished over what their plans mean is their proposal to cancel remaining stimulus spending. In a recent Internet address, Mr. Obama said that the Republicans would "scrap all the incentives for clean energy projects, including those currently under way."

Republicans said that was untrue. According to Brendan Buck, a spokesman for the Republican campaign effort, the part of the pledge that promises to "cancel unspent 'stimulus' funds" refers only to money that is "unobligated." That means, he said, that money that has already been committed would still be paid out, even if it has not yet been spent. Only $18 billion of the $787 billion stimulus program remains unobligated."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/us/politics/16campaign.html?th&emc=th


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15366
Registered: May-04
.

"In 2004 Bush had made the promise (Remember promises? The Repubs keep saying O "promised" unempolyment wouldn't rise above 8.5% - which he did not promise.) to halve the budget deficit; http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000922.htm

The Repubs backed him on this while year after FY they passed deficit budgets until 2008 when the projection was pushed back to 2012 - three years after Bush left office. The promise was made at a time when Republicans did not control either House of Congress and were all but certain to loose the WH in the coming elections. Unfortunately, in 2008 McCain was forced to revise the promise of a projected balanced budget by 2012 once again - well, sort of ...

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadly, no one thought to first consult with the presidential nominee of their party. In April, just two months after promising to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term, John McCain gave up his pledge to erase the deficit by 2012.

Before abandoning his balanced budget pledge during his Pittburgh address yesterday, McCain had made it a feature on the campaign trail. For example, during a February 15th rally in La Crosse, Wisconsin, "McCain promised he'd offer a balanced budget by the end of his first term." He told the audience that he could end the red ink by 2012:

"I've got to give you some straight talk: I doubt, given the deficits we're running, that I can propose a balanced budget in the first year. But that's my goal. It has to be our goal, because we're mortgaging these young people's future."
Alas, McCain's life as a deficit hawk was a short and unhappy one.

Even as Mr. Straight Talk was promising a 2012 end date for the budget deficit, his top economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin was reading from a different script, instead targeting the end of a McCain second term in 2017. And he should know. A month later, Holtz-Eakin, an architect of the McCain tax plan, admitted, "It will make deficits expand up front, no question." Just a day before McCain's April 15th economic address, Holtz-Eakin previewed the campaign's new position on balancing the budget:

"I would like the next president not to talk about deficit reduction."

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001068.htm



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




You can see the record for Bush's deficit spending through 2007 here; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/02/AR2008020202042. html

The 2008 FY budget would be the first approved by a Democratic Congress in 12 years.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But even in the unlikely event that he were to get his way, the budget deficit would jump sharply, from $163 billion in 2007 to about $400 billion in 2008 and 2009 -- partly the result of the new economic stimulus plan. Such deficits would rival the record deficit of $412 billion of 2004, though administration allies argue that shortfalls of that size now represent a smaller share of the overall economy and are thus more manageable.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/02/AR2008020202042. html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What you do not see in the budgets as they stand are the costs of two unfunded wars. Bush never once put the cost of the Afghanistan or Iraq wars on the fiscal year budget - both were done as "emergency" supplementals each year for seven years. So add another $200-250 billion per year to the actual deficit figures.

.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15402
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43883.html
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15437
Registered: May-04
.

"The new health care law will "force seniors into Barack Obama's government-run health care program."



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/oct/22/dan-coats/health- care-law-forces-seniors-barack-obamas-gover/


"Donohue: "If everybody practiced what the Catholic church teaches in terms of s*xuality, you wouldn't even have people dying of AIDS"
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201010250002


"Kilmeade says Hawaiian birds will 'redo their chromosomes' to 'adjust' to football stadium lights"
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201010250006

And these are the same logical, well informed and studious people who claim climate change isn't real. Lead on, oh brave ones!!!




http://mediamatters.org/research/201010210037



.





.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1730
Registered: Oct-07
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Federal Data for debt. Not enough historical data for me, but have a look.
Between public holdings and intragovernmental debt, we are in it for 13,000 billion dollars.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15507
Registered: May-04
.

"ONE dirty little secret of the 2010 election is that it won't be a political tragedy for Democrats if a Tea Party icon like Sharron Angle or Joe Miller ends up in the United States Senate. Angle, now synonymous with racist ads sliming Hispanics, and Miller, already on record threatening a government shutdown, are fired up and ready to go as symbols of G.O.P. extremism for 2012 and beyond.

What's not so secret is that some Republicans will be just as happy if some of these characters lose, and for the same reason.

But whatever Tuesday's results, this much is certain: The Tea Party's hopes for actually effecting change in Washington will start being dashed the morning after. The ordinary Americans in this movement lack the numbers and financial clout to muscle their way into the back rooms of Republican power no matter how well their candidates perform.


... cooler empirical data reveal the truth known by the G.O.P. establishment: An August CNN poll found that 2 percent of Americans consider themselves active members of the Tea Party.

That result was confirmed last weekend by The Washington Post, which published the fruits of its months-long effort to contact every Tea Party group in the country. To this end, it enlisted the help of Tea Party Patriots, the only Tea Party umbrella group that actually can claim to be a spontaneous, bottom-up, grass roots organization rather than a front for the same old fat cats of the Republican right, from the Koch brothers to Dick Armey's FreedomWorks. Tea Party Patriots has claimed anywhere from 2,300 to nearly 3,000 local affiliates, but even with its assistance, The Post could verify a total of only 647 Tea Party groups nationwide. Most had fewer than 50 members. The median amount of money each group had raised in 2010 was $800, nowhere near the entry fee for the country club.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/opinion/31rich.html?nl=&emc=a212

.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1760
Registered: Oct-07
3rd parties have historically acted as 'spoilers' and any ideas they have of the popular variety are quickly co-opted by either or both of the other parties. 3rd party 'success', to the extent that actually exists is also their doom.
No surprise that even if T-Party manages to field a candidate for President in 2012, the best/worst (up to your point of view!) they can hope for is to soak enough votes from the Republicans and the most 'conservative' independents to tip the result toward the Dems. Only the most Alienated of Dems will tip that way, while America's committed indies will still hold much power.
To the extent that Reps respond, and a lesser extent the Dems, the T-Party will be pretty much a historic footnote by say.....the national election of 2016.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1774
Registered: Oct-07
https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-video89508/659578.html

Jan, you call ME a ranter?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15518
Registered: May-04
.

Levi Johnston gets a platform, disses Sarah

He may have no political experience, no knowledge of how to run a campaign and abysmally low popularity ratings around Alaska, but Levi Johnston finally has a platform! TMZ reported Wednesday morning that the man most famous for being Bristol Palin's baby daddy will focus on "better schools, less crime and more jobs for citizens of Wasilla and neighboring Palmer" during his mayoral run. Or that's what his rep told TMZ anyway.

Can we thank Barbara Walters for Levi's announcement? When he appeared on "The View" last month, he got a tongue-lashing from the hosts for not having a clear running agenda. Yet before Whoopi and pals rejoice, we'd like to point out that Johnston has chosen a platform that just about anyone could have come up with.

It may have taken him months to find his message, but Johnston seems to be getting the hang of one politician trait: mudslinging. He told TMZ on Tuesday that Sarah Palin is "not qualified" to be president. He also commented on her remark to Entertainment Tonight about running for president if there is no one else qualified to take the reins. "That makes no sense because someone always runs for President," Johnston told TMZ. "[Sarah] wouldn't go through with a campaign even if she was nominated."


http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1011/levi_gets_a_platform_disses_palin.htm l


Palin, Rove have recently sparred over Palin's qualifications to be president
http://mediamatters.org/research/201011030010


Levi is as smart as Rove!


Or, is it the other way around?


ROTFL!!!








A weary Bristol soldiers on

The gossip sites are starting to wonder why Bristol Palin hasn't been kicked off "Dancing with the Stars." TMZ suggested on Tuesday that there might be some sort of conspiracy: "Nobody can explain why Bristol Palin has managed to stay on 'Dancing with the Stars' despite the fact that she sucks at dancing," the site said. Is it the power of Sarah Palin that's behind her daughter's popularity? It is the tea party? Or maybe it's just that people really like Bristol Palin. Either way, the Alaskan isn't going anywhere.

On Tuesday night's elimination round, the "Bristallion" (as her dancing partner Mark Ballas has called her) started to show her frustration. She said that she is ready to go home. "I'm exhausted. This is week seven now. I've been away from home for two months. I'm tired. I want to go home. I want to see my son," Bristol said in her confessional. The tears started to rain down. "I'm just exhausted," she said again as Ballas comforted her.

But "DWTS" voters want to keep Bristol in a ball gown. After a very long continuation of Monday night's 200th show celebration--including performances by Taylor Swift and Rod Stewart--came the moment of truth: Bristol and her partner Mark stood on the chopping block along with Kyle Massey and Rick Fox.

While the tension built, the contestants talked about their stress levels and how they keep the nerves from getting the best of their waltzing legs.

"Bristol you were very emotional last night, how difficult is it to be away from home?" asked host Brooke Burke. "It's extremely difficult. I love dancing and being out here, but it's very difficult to be away from my family and just Alaska in general," said Bristol. As for how she keeps her anxiety levels down, she said "right before I go out on stage, I just tell myself to be calm and take deep breaths...in a competition like this, you have to manage stress the right way, otherwise it could destroy you on the floor."

Well whatever Bristol is doing, America's "DWTS" voters like it. After much drum rolling, Bristol and Mark were declared safe. Mark leapt up like a frog in a tuxedo while Bristol covered her face in shock. A lot of hugging and spinning and OMGing followed.

In the end, it was the 6' 7" Rick Fox whose dancing shoes were taken away. He graciously bid adieu to the stage and the five remaining couples.


http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1011/a_weary_bristol_soldiers_on.html







.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15519
Registered: May-04
.

A Pageant for Patriots

Apologies to all those aspiring Miss Americas out there: being crowned the most beautiful and well-rounded woman in the country does not have the cachet that it used to. In 1960, the pageant had a television audience of 85 million, while in 2010 the pageant drew a mere 4.5 million. Yet a new beauty event --the Miss Liberty America pageant--could breathe some new life into the old routine.

Founded by artist Alicia Hayes-Roberts, the pageant, which will take place in Las Vegas in July 2012, inspired blogosphere buzz after Mother Jones labeled the event "the first-ever Tea Party beauty paegant [sic]" ...


... to qualify as a Miss Liberty America contestant, women have to boast at least a 3.5 grade point average. In another twist to classic pageants, the women also have to be registered to vote, be CPR certified and must be proficient in the "handling, use and safety of firearms
" ...


... According to the pageant website, Miss Liberty America is "is dedicated to discovering America's elite feminine patriots and giving them the opportunity on a national stage to showcase their patriotism, intelligence, talent, and beauty. The ultimate mission is to promote Liberty, the military, and the documents of our founding fathers." The women will be judged on personal interview, swimsuit (all contestants will wear one-piece bathing suits), beauty, eveningwear, talent, marksmanship and knowledge of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence ...


... As for the physical handling of firearms, women will be shooting targets and be judged by a panel of military personnel. "There was actually somebody that said, 'I can see it now, a stadium where the women are shooting and someone gets killed,'" said the pageant founder.

http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1011/the_new_miss_usa.html



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15520
Registered: May-04
.


Did you vote for one of these people?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/oct/30/without-further-ado- your-guide-campaign-seasons-pa/

Shame on you!


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15521
Registered: May-04
.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011030008
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15526
Registered: May-04
.

""You must never confuse faith ... with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be."

The Stockdale Paradox


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1785
Registered: Oct-07
No matter who voted for who and what the results were....and if you agree with 'em or not, some words of wisdom stick with me.

'Be careful what you wish for, you may get it'.........
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15530
Registered: May-04
.

On Nov. 6, 1860, former Illinois congressman Abraham Lincoln defeated three other candidates for the U.S. presidency.





I know, leo, look at how much our budget has grown since 1860.




.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1796
Registered: Oct-07
Actually, Jan,
The budget was pretty much just cruising along until the passing of INCOME TAX then with all that revenue available and seemingly unlimited deep pockets, things went nuts.
Have some data: Many charts in link have 'DEBT' in the title for some strange, inexplicable reason.

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html


Or how 'bout the Federalist Papers viewpoint? Surprising stuff and not at all 'anti tax' as some would have you believe.

http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/TaxingFederalism?OpenDocument

I know what you're gonna say about Lew Rockwell. Good stuff, anyway, no matter what you may think.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/adams7.html

Don't worry, Jan, We are living 'In Interesting times' and it is the youth of today who will get the bill.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15535
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/320774/watch%3A_bill_maher%27s_bril liant_takedown_of_the_rally_for_sanity/#paragraph2
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15538
Registered: May-04
.

http://factcheck.org/playersguide2010/
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15554
Registered: May-04
.

Just the other day I happened upon Beck's radio show for a few minutes. At the time he was prepping his audience for his "Soros" expose. At the same time he was crying about how "These People" have ruined the name of Glenn Beck. Which we should all recognize as a constant right wingnut ploy; cry about how R's and C's are constantly under attack and how they are always the disadvantaged group. Then, in the next sentence, tell us about how R's and C's make up the vast majority of this "center right" Nation.

Glenn Beck draws criticism over latest Holocaust comments; http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/201...ocaust-comments



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1822
Registered: Oct-07
Link went to generic yahoo page....didn't find Beck.

That being said, Beck is not to be ignored. Right? Wrong? Just a fact that he has a following that Votes. So, like it or not, 'ya gotta deal with the guy.
Can mainstream D's ignore him? Probably, since the voter overlap between Beckites and the mainstream of the Dems is about ZERO. However, as his ideas gain traction, to the extent they do or don't, you've got to take him and his followers into account. Also, while an unwatched pot never boils, an Unwatched (crack)pot may overflow at a moments notice........(I liked that turn of phase)
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15556
Registered: May-04
.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201011110027
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15558
Registered: May-04
.

http://people-press.org/report/675/
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15565
Registered: May-04
.

Republican lobbyists on rise again; http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45114.html
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15567
Registered: May-04
.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011150014
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15568
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.politifact.com/

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM182_101115_report_nov.html


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45185.html


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15569
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR108/ERR108.pdf
 

Silver Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 316
Registered: Oct-10
No disrespect to anyone (yes I said that and meant it sincerely), but I have two questions.

Jan, why did you start this thread in an audio forum? Should it not be in a political forum, or if none can be found on myspace or facebook or some other place?

Everyone else who has posted in this thread so far, why did you? Why not say "Hey Jan, let's meet on (insert name of political or general blog) and discuss it there."?

I am not going to post anything regarding where stand on any polical issue here in this forum, nor do I go by Superjazzyja(me)s anywhere but here simply because I refuse to discuss politics here or have something I said elsewhere dragged into here. IMO, it just doesn't belong here.

Again, no disrespect to anyone, just something to think about. Cheers!
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15572
Registered: May-04
.

There are topics other than audio discussed on this forum. The thread is clearly identified as non-audio in nature. No one is getting hyperbolic about what's posted here and they shouldn't. Anyone is free to post anything they wish though I would encourage anyone posting to stick to facts and not Glenn Beck's type of crap. Stay non-partisan by using non-partisan web sites rather than, say, the Drudge Report and everyone will appreciate what's added. I try to post facts which might slip by the average person. If someone considers pointing out the hypocrisy of an individual who claims partnership in the party they identify with is being partisan, then I would encourage everyone to consider hypocrisy is even handed and pointing it out is not meant to paint with a borad brush but merely point to the individual in question. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are obviously partisan and cannot be relied upon for factual accountings. You may disagree but IMO anyone who spends several hours a day telling you to hate anyone who does not look, think or talk like you is, in my book not to be trusted. As I've said on this thread, anyone who includes in their claims the words "those/these people" (or an unidentified "they" as in Beck's, "They are hoping ... ") shouldn't be trusted. One point of this thread is to raise the awareness of propaganda techniques when you see or hear them.

Anyone who clearly contributes to the campaign funds of the major parties or promotes a singular view of how all this operates is a partisan. For example, Michael Savage's opinion that liberalism is a mental disease makes him a partisan. Sean Hannity appearing as the headliner at a Republican fund raiser makes him partisan. Fox News contributing directly to the Republican Party makes them less than trustworthy overall. Employing a half dozen obviously potential Republican Presidential candidates as "commentators" or "analysts" makes your news service less than trustworthy. In short, know your sources to be good and do your best to check whatever you post. I obviously cannot stop anyone from posting anything they wish but I would hope staying in the middle of the road will help everyone rather than just a few.

If you prefer to read what's posted, that's your business. If you prefer not to read the posts and links, that's also your business. I've never seen a "political" forum that was civil to all involved. So far, this has been a very civil thread and the participants can still discuss audio in other threads. If only that were the case more often.


.
 

Silver Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 320
Registered: Oct-10
Okay, fair enough and I can certainly imagine how ugly a political forum would be. I've witnessed some political debates in non-specific blogs that got quite brutal. Well, if you and others want to do that, enjoy. I'll stick to audio as it pertains to this forum.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15573
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/nov/12/factsheet-reducing-n ational-debt/
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1837
Registered: Oct-07
Put all government employees into the SS system. They'll fix it then.
Eliminate the special retirement for those hacks.
Make 'em pay more for there own medical programs too. Eliminate custom airport parking where it exists. Make 'em fly commercial except in 'dire emergency'. If they want first class, let 'em pay the difference up from say...Business Class. Most already DO fly commercial, but there is NO reason for the Congressional Leadership to have access to Airforce Biz Jets. Keep an eye on the NEW Republican leadership to see if they 'lead by example'.....

Allow people to control how their SS 'contributions' (right!) are invested. Maybe give people 3 or 4 choices.

Military and all the bennies would be continued...education / health / BX privileges and the rest.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 13455
Registered: Feb-05
Pay us a fair and competitive wage and then perhaps you have an argument, Leo. Makes me sick when folks think that the answer to inadequate services for all is to take away from some rather than to give to all. State of Oregon employees gave up fair wages for better benefits in a deal struck long ago and now we have to fight to get the State to live up to their own bargain.

No one says that we shouldn't bear some of the burden of stretched State budgets (and we do with unpaid furlough days) but do keep in mind that our business is up by a large margin.

Twelve years ago my office in a small college town we had 86 scheduled social service intakes per month of which 50% were no shows. Last month we set an office record with 694 intakes (all shows)...with not one more worker. I did over 100 myself...that's twice what the entire office did 10 years ago for a month. Workers are dropping dead, committing suicide, quitting, and so on. The workload is very, very heavy. Compound that with the vicarious traumatization suffered by folks that face angry, desperate, dying, beaten people all day everyday and you have a recipe for disaster.

The local twenty something year old kid who manages the Blockbuster Video with a HS diploma makes more money than anyone I work with. Yup, we government employees are getting flat out rich, preposterous!

BTW we are in the SS system.

I apologize for the interruption.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1839
Registered: Oct-07
The US Congress is not in the SS system.
The number of federal employees making 6 figures+ has radically increased in the last few years. Not Obama's fault, but a systemic failure.
I'll find out about the various state retirement systems. Here in California we just had a major scandal involving a town called Bell.
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/residents-of-bell-calif-cheer-arrests-in-c orruption-scandal/19643907
Enough money down the drain to give your entire office a raise, or a performance bonus.
THAT is the kind of stuff that has people's blood boiling. The unfunded retirement for the state workers, who in California are not THAT abused, is a preposterous sum. The mayor of San Diego a few mayors ago, signed off on a pay raise she would never see only to reap the benefits in her retirement fund.
Here is a brief overview of the San Diego pension mess....sorry for it being a Wiki, but it is a reasonable, short summary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_pension_scandal
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 13457
Registered: Feb-05
The US congress folk are a minuscule percentage of Gov't employees.

The pension messes were signed off on by short sighted politicians looking to screw state workers with promises of better benefits as long as "we don't have to pay you now". Dumb a s s as that may have been, some 35 years later when career public servants who have spent the last 30+ years underpaid come to collect we have excuses as to why we shouldn't have made the bargain with you in the first place. Pay up or shut up is what I say. Man up and live up to your end of the bargain.

Most of the gov't employees who are double dippin' or who have sweetheart retirement deals have retired and will soon be dead and those of us who are left have far less lucrative deals. Not to mention if you weren't in management your deal wasn't all that to begin with. A colleague of mine just retired with a monthly retirement of $1200 per mo after 32 yrs. Her medical premium will be over $1000 per mo until she can get medicare. She'll be living phat, no. When it comes to the experiences of the average, every day gov't worker, you came to a gunfight with a knife, Leo.

BTW, social services in California are administered by the County not the State. The California equivalent to Oregon's DHS (Department of Human Services) is different in each county and many of them are overwhelmed with work.

You continue to point out small scale examples of a much larger systems and state that we are all sucking the public teat dry, yet your friends (whether you know it or not) are more than happy to show up a our doors looking for benefits for their families and we are happy to serve.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1840
Registered: Oct-07
http://www.opm.gov/retire/pre/fers/index.asp
Link to FERS...Federal Employee Retirement System.
Read thru and see how it compares to your retirement prospects. This is for the rank and file people..who do the work.
Congress? They've got a nice little system set up.
Please read the 'summary' in the provided link.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf
I especially like the 'not to exceed 80%' part.
But DO read the summary. It had some surprises and YES, Congress IS part of the SS system, with a few provisos....like senior members can still be part of the previous system and new members are part of FERS......both can be with or without SS.......You've got like 4 choices.

You know, Art, nobody forces anyone to work anywhere when they think they can get a better deal somewhere else. I quit a quite well paying job last year. Hadn't had a raise (nobody got one) for 2 or 3 years. Board apparently didn't get the 'lean' memo and hired another board member....raising board costs about 12%. People were fired or quit and not replaced. Production levels went up and were projected to go up ......a lot.....with the addition of about 100% more manufacturing floor space.

Art, you can also come to California...spend a couple days here as my guest. I'll take you to DMV and let you see a real CF. You think you've got a lot of work? Last week California DMV computer system went down and people hung out for HOURS with lines a hundred feet long.....like the premier of some 'Major Motion Picture'.

And furthermore, Art, don't be putting words on my paper. I've looked at....months ago....some pay scales...I think for your state. I wasn't impressed by hi salaries. Who is sucking the life out of this country? Maybe greedy (fill in blank...you choose) . Or perhaps income redistributionists. People work best when they work for themselves.

I assure you that when I file for retirement I won't be doing much better than your friend. I wonder how our income, either total $value or career, compare to our post-retirement benefit? I wouldn't be surprised to find your friend doing somewhat better in that regard, given the low wages this person made.

Another factor, and I have no idea of the facts, is the structure of the retirement funding. Does Oregon or other states have a lockbox / investment system? My SS money was on-budget and spent. My ROI is fixed by law and not by how good the investments do. A decade ago, the county north of here...Orange County by name, had a huge retirement mess.
Here is link to current system overview. I wish when I worked I had all this.......
http://egov.ocgov.com/ocgov/Info%20OC/Departments%20&%20Agencies/Human%20Resourc es%20(OCHR)/Employee%20Benefits/Benefits%20Overview

enjoy.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 13463
Registered: Feb-05
People work best when it's from a place of passion, whether for themselves or for others. You are full of right wing cliches...these may be genuinely felt by you, I couldn't possibly know and you probably don't know how much I share your disdain for government waste (or waste in general). You just need to keep in mind that it's a condition that's endemic to large organizations not just government. HP was no better than the State of Oregon with one big difference. My colleagues and I get to help people in a tangible way. When I worked at HP we produced ink cartridges...we helped Carly's predecessor's and that's about all. We operators didn't make squat.

BTW, the reason we keep our lines a bit less than 100 ft (most of the time) is because we dedicated ourselves to a different way of doing business. Oregon leads the nation in on time benefits issuance. Come into my office tomorrow and if we have an appointment available (if we don't we guarantee one the next business day) and if you follow instructions as to what you need to bring to your appointment, verfication of your last 30 days income and your ID, I guarantee that if you are eligible you will walk out of the office with your benefit. No bullshit here just flat out customer service.

Not sure what your retirement is, Leo and I wouldn't assume that's outstanding. But you saw our wages and just now commented on the low wages my colleague earned. What would be your preference. Live well for 30 years and more humbly for the balance or never live well. Hopefully you won't take long to answer that.

No one forces us to take the jobs we do and I'm grateful everyday I go to work and I'm grateful every time my job leads to positive outcomes for the population I serve...and Leo, I ain't alone...I'm just sayin'!

I've enjoyed this, Leo. Hope you are having a great evening!
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1841
Registered: Oct-07
You are very right about organizational size vs perceived efficiency. Large corporations and large government are mindless. So, the American people continue to funnel vast amounts of money UP to an organization in which adjacent parts overlap and sometimes even conflict. Department Of Agriculture has (or had?) Tobacco subsidies. Paid to the growers. Than, along comes the FDA and the No Smoking campaign. My taxes fund both. FEMA was ready....apparently for nothing. Who ever ran FEMA when Katrina hit was run out of town. Somebody had to take one for the team.
Every organization is also peopled by ......people.....most of whom are simply trying to do the best they can with the resources they are given. Resources are almost always considered 'scarce'. Be they paper clips or computers. So that leaves regular people in private or public sector employ always trying to do more with less. Public outcry at high taxation? The bottom 5th of income earners pay very little into the system compared to each 5th going 'up' scale.

So why does the government continue to grow? EACH and every time some crisis comes along the fingers point in every direction but.....The solution always seems to be MORE. More taxation. More programs. More government. Let someone else do the work and pay more. By definition, I already pay too much.

I even have the germ of a solution. You kind of gave it to me, or helped distill a thought that was rattling around. The solution? LOCAL. I'll bet you know many of the people you serve. They are part of your town. You try to help instead of building the kind of dependence that fuels 3 generations of welfare recipients. My neighbor lady was a successful semiconductor engineer. Even had her own consultancy for a number of years. Real Bright.....smart kid, too...and hubby. She is now involved at some executive level in adult reading programs. I doubt she's making the kind of loot she did in the semiconductor industry...but I saw her the other day and she was fine. She works local on a local problem with a local solution. Many volunteers of which I'm starting in the loop. You go to a training 'seminar' first.

Check out one of my favorites...Milton Freedman.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/milton-friedman-on-greed/

Jan would accuse me of some logical flaw in bringing Freedman into this, but listen to what the guys says.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15574
Registered: May-04
.

If you know your logic is flawed, why present it? Greed is Greed no matter who presents it as something other than Greed. Which major religion or philosophy - other than that TV evangelist in the $8k suit and shoes - instructs you to be greedy? Which claims you are not your brother's keeper? Or, which does not suggest it will be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven?



"So why does the government continue to grow? EACH and every time some crisis comes along the fingers point in every direction but.....The solution always seems to be MORE. More taxation. More programs. More government. Let someone else do the work and pay more. By definition, I already pay too much."

In case you've forgotten the obvious, we are still operating two wars which are costing us - the US taxpayer - some $2 billion per week. Not "us" exactly as not one of the Repubs elected to office this month has even mentioned paying for the wars' cost. That will go under the table for another decade at least to be passed to future generations while the current budgetary axe will be taken to social programs as shown in the CATO Institute's suggestions for reducing the deficit in the above post; http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/nov/12/factsheet-reducing-national-debt/ No War Tax, no any tax to cover any portion of that continuing cost or to repair our faltering infrastructure or actually invest in small businesses which will move us into a new generation of energy independence. There will just more tax breaks for the richest percentage of incomes and calls for less corporate taxation (both of which will benefit the Koch brothers who founded the CATO Institute while feeding a school child breakfast will not) when virtually no major corporation has payed any tax for years. The concept of allowing overdue taxes to be repaid at roughly 5-10 cents on the dollar is being floated again. The same program was initiated under W (one reason revenues went up when W "cut taxes" - the corporations hadn't paid taxes for years and they were offered a deal at pennies on the dollar) and now the corporations are expecting the policy to continue. Why should they pay taxes when, if they simply hold out, construct tax shelters through their lobbyists' efforts and political contributions and hire more tax lawyers, they can drop their "fair share" of the "tax burden" by 95%?


The US Ranks 26th out of the top 30 Nations in the "rich countries club", the world's leading economies, when it comes to overall tax burden.

http://www.ekonomifakta.se/en/Facts-and-figures/Taxes/Taxes-and-GDP/Tax-as-a-per centage-of-GDP/


"We would have a deficit problem -- an economic problem -- if the right's narrative of "runaway government spending" had some basis in reality. But it doesn't. Using data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development -- the "rich countries' club" whose members represent most of the world's leading economies -- Sabina Dewan and Michael Ettlinger showed that between 2004 and 2007, the U.S. ranked 24th out of 26 countries in overall government spending as a share of our economic output. Only Ireland and South Korea, both relative newcomers to the club, had a more "limited government" than we did during that span.

That share will rise in the coming years as the baby boomers move into their golden years and we offer health insurance to millions of Americans who couldn't previously afford it, but given that our spending was about 7 percentage points below the OECD average -- and almost 20 percentage points beneath that of big spenders like France -- we still won't have a very "big" government relative to the rest of the developed world."
http://www.alternet.org/story/148915/why_the_deficit_is_simply_not_an_economic_p roblem_now%2C_or_in_future_decades

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/10/oecd_spending.html


I'm going to use the Alternet and Center for American Progress sites here simply because they can lead you directly to the information in question. The actual OECD webpage is extremely dense and complicated; http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=EO85_MAIN You're certainly welcome and encouraged to browse the articles in any of the sites as there is a wellspring of information to be found, in some cases some more view point oriented than others but almost all fact checkable if you're willing to dig for facts and not just accept BS rhetoric.


"Put all government employees into the SS system. They'll fix it then.
Eliminate the special retirement for those hacks.
Make 'em pay more for there own medical programs too. Eliminate custom airport parking where it exists. Make 'em fly commercial except in 'dire emergency'. If they want first class, let 'em pay the difference up from say...Business Class. Most already DO fly commercial, but there is NO reason for the Congressional Leadership to have access to Airforce Biz Jets. Keep an eye on the NEW Republican leadership to see if they 'lead by example'..... "



The "new" Repub leadership is still the "old" Repub leadership, only a few deck chairs have been rearranged. Stopping Obama from being a two term President - by denying him any success whatsoever - is their main goal as witnessed by Kyle's hypocrisy on the START treaty ratification and McCain's continued belligerence and hypocrisy on DADT. Achieving anything other than that is not likely to happen as, for example, none of the Repub Representatives now want to be on the House Appropriations Committee which would recommend the actual cuts in spending advocated by the right during the campaigning season; http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45250.html

leo, what you've posted is still swatting at gnats while ignoring the fact the foundation of the house is crumbling. Eliminate custom airport parking?!!! What % of the debt of any state or the US Government does "custom airport parking" consume? Leo, your hatred of Federal and State employees is quite palpable, but it is just more ranting about inconsequential nothings. You allow yourself to be distracted by small thinking items which do nothing to address the larger structure of the issue. I certainly don't think calling a cop on the beat, a first responder or a soldier in the field a "hack" is going to help you make your case. You paint with too broad a brush and you think in too small of a term.



"Allow people to control how their SS 'contributions' (right!) are invested. Maybe give people 3 or 4 choices."


The brilliance of the libertarians, tea party and the Repubs once again shines through. Scream about spending and about reducing the size of the government, then come up with suggestions which raise both the Government work force numbers and the spending required to facilitate your programs. Geeeeez, leo! What?! just pay all the new employees peanuts (literally!) and then complain about their health benefits?




The American public is just plain stupid.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45400.html


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15575
Registered: May-04
.

" The bottom 5th of income earners pay very little into the system compared to each 5th going 'up' scale."

That is, of course, BS. Not only is it inaccurate and meant to mislead it simply preys upon prejudices and the desire to look down upon others to blame them for a situation you cannot control yet you continue to vote for. That's pure Beck/Limbaugh/Savage/Hannity/Norquist/Luntz etc. BS!


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15576
Registered: May-04
.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20101119/ts_yblog_theticket/millionaires -to-obama-tax-us
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1842
Registered: Oct-07
The issue of progressive taxation is not easy or easily reduced to sound bytes. However, some facts may help.

1991/2004 tax foundation data::
by '5th'..... %income...... % fed...... Total
........................ inc gov trans ....... tax ............. st.+loc+fed
80/100..... 41.5%..... 52.8%..... 48.8%
60/79 ........ 21.0% ....... 22.2% .......22.4%
40/59 ...... 15.4% .......... 14.1% ........14.8%
20/39 ...... 12.2% .......... 8.3% .........9.6%
1/20 ....... 9.8% ........... 2.6% ..........4.3%

Based on these numbers, I'll stand by my statement of who pays what into the system. And furthermore, to accuse me of some kind of prejudicial behavior when it is YOU who are exhibiting same, is completely disingenuous.

And Please, show a little respect. You know how I feel about the word 'palpable'.....It makes me ill. It's like I said something bad to you about the Walloons....

The above numbers show the regressive nature of our current tax system...The top 'quint' earned just over 40% of all income and paid about 1/2 of taxes. By the time you are making peanuts, the amount of taxation is also substantially reduced. You can make up your own mind about who should pay more....or less.....or should wealth above a certain level simply be confiscated.

Other taxes, like lotteries and sales tax are regressive, hitting the least affluent most. Also, the marginal tax rate has been as high as 77% in years past and is at near-historical lows.

I'd love to know just how much all the special perks for our wonderful Congress cost. Don't I remember the AirForce turning down some additional aircraft of the BizJet variety that Congress wanted 'em to buy? Wonder who would have gotten to use them?

The AlterNet article assumes facts not in evidence. That money will be spent and that Americans somehow 'demand' these services. Any reasonable model of government growth includes 2 major drives of such growth. The push of government 'down' to people and the pull 'up' of people demanding more services. The availability of an open ended tax system has been insufficiently addressed in all these chats, since the assumption among others is that anything the government wants, it gets, without regard to little impediments like the Constitution. In a well-past post, Jan even floated the idea that government health care could somehow be justified by a Supreme Court decision compelling a man to provide inoculations to his children. I could never quite make that connection.

In months of exchanges I don't think we've made a lick of progress.
I've been asked open-ended, no-answer questions several times in this exchange. Now, I've got one for you. Since the US is 26th in the list of taxation as a %age of GDP obviously a point was to be made. What was the point? Where SHOULD we be on this list? The top would make you happy? Or the Bottom? I see France is near the top.... a Stellar example of good governance if ever their was one.

And Jan, you NEVER acknowledge those areas in which we agree. You've got some wacky image of what I think in mind which no amount of anything will shake. As a matter of fact, I agree with you about the war and it's insane costs being deferred to the future. I've already apologized to my nieces for the s*it storm coming down the pipe to the ruination of the entire generation.
We might even agree about the 'recycled' Republican 'leadership'. I expressed my disgust when Bush announced his choice for VP......Chaney has an unequalled record as a looser and hack. Rumsfeld? Rove? Nice. But you should also be aware of some of the winners Obama has hanging around. (or had, in the case of Rahm) The future Mayor of Chicao? The Newark of the Midwest? Tony Soprano would live there, but can't find good Cannoli. Also, since you mention some HUGE amount of money being spent on these 'wars', what is Obama doing about it? Coming up with ways to spend even MORE money? Bush I don't think ever vetoed a cush spending bill. Will or has Obama? Will the new Congress manage an EarMark moratorium?

Cheers.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1845
Registered: Oct-07
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt


Overview of US debt. Being a Wiki, please check out anything you have a doubt about, using other sources.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15579
Registered: May-04
.

"Based on these numbers, I'll stand by my statement of who pays what into the system. And furthermore, to accuse me of some kind of prejudicial behavior when it is YOU who are exhibiting same, is completely disingenuous."


OK, you do that. But you haven't shown where you got your numbers nor where I have exhibited any "prejudicial behavior". You can't just say, "Here! I decided this and now everyone has to live with what I decided".

The entire "taxation of the rich" is nothing more than a stinking red herring pushed upon the public for decades and accepted by the media as a viable argument when there's nothing which has proven the rich are in anyway being deprived or held back by their paying back into the system which afforded them their benefits and the majority of what they have acquired. To pay back for the benefit of the United States as a Nation was at one time thought to be the basis of our Democracy. Now and for the last thirty years (if not the last 150) we as a Nation have exonerated greed as our driving force - the ability to make money while doing nothing - and we look to those who tell us it's alright to be greedy as "leaders" and, should your neighbor not have the basic necessities, that's their fault and life isn't fair. The majority of wealth has gone to the "rich" over the last half century at a rate not seen in this country since the days of the Robber Barons and the gap between rich and poor has grown ever wider - especially in the last decade. The middle and lower classes have had their incomes effectively frozen until their real world dollars have actually shrunk in comparison to 1960 levels and their personal debt has risen to historic levels. All the while the middle class has been told to invest their fortunes in real estate and on Wall Street both of which have now turned sour for them and the result is the wealthy are taking more wealth rather than supplying it. Major corporations pay little to no taxes and CEO's pay no more in most cases in certain taxes than do their secretaries. Any income over $106k is not subject to Social Security or Medicare taxation and many billionaires pay the same effective tax rate as the person who cleans their office. Deferred stock options add to the wealth of the already wealthy while relying on the middle class to actually hope for higher corporate profits often at the expense of laid off middle class employees.


I have never understood how the Repubs convinced so many people to actually vote against their own financial well being. However, looking at the growing divide between rich and poor in this Nation along with the near extinction of the middle class and the shift to this being a service based ecomony (servicing mostly the wealthy) vs a manufacturing or agricultural based economy tells me I don't have to feel sorry for those making $1/2 million or more. They will game the system and they will survive - it's what they do.



"You can make up your own mind about who should pay more....or less.....or should wealth above a certain level simply be confiscated."


I love the way you toss around "confiscated" as if you get nothing back in return for making the country stronger with your contribution. You aren't paying for anything it would seem when you watch as the US fights two wars, spends billions chasing terrorists, have this and that service done for you or provided to you and yet you can only think the government "confiscates" your money.


"The AlterNet article assumes facts not in evidence. That money will be spent and that Americans somehow 'demand' these services. Any reasonable model of government growth includes 2 major drives of such growth. The push of government 'down' to people and the pull 'up' of people demanding more services."


So you're telling me the people of the US have the right to expect lower quality health care, shorter live spans with greater risks of life long and terminal diseases? That the average American doesn't expect their food, water and air to be safe and non-toxic? Their homes and automobiles to be safe? You want me to believe most people would rather privatize air safety state by state than have a government which provides for the entire Nation's safety? You would put a halt to anything that you say does not benefit you directly and constantly? You wouldn't care if an insurance company cancelled your policy the day you reported cancer being found? Or, you would but you wouldn't care if they did it to someone you don't know? You don't care whether school children are receiving at least one good meal per day, going to home to adequate housing and resources or whether they actually receive an education which makes future generations of Americans competitive with the rest of the world?

Because those are the "facts not in evidence" which you would have found had you actually read the article and the linked information. The US has reached a level of substandard health care, shorter life spans with greater diseases, higher poverty, hunger and levels of uninsured along with a decline in education and a crumbling infrastructure. If you simply are too partisan to take in any information which disagrees with your "no government" ethos, then you are welcome to live with the results of such neglect. Refuse all government services. Only drive on private roads - hey, you! get off my freewways! - and eat whatever you can find no matter where it came from or what was sprayed on it or added to it to preserve it over the years. Stop using the public utilities and create your own water, gas and electrical plants. If the well is poisoned or the gas leaks, don't expect any help from anyone. Don't expect the police or fire
departments to provide any services - kick a GI. Stop using any government regulated airwaves for TV, radio or the internet. Live what you preach and not the halfassed BS that parades around expecting services to exist and claiming to be proud of the US while you pay nothing for those services or for the betterment of the Nation. Those are the "facts not in evidence" whenever I hear anyone complaining about government services and how their wealth is being confiscated.



"Jan even floated the idea that government health care could somehow be justified by a Supreme Court decision compelling a man to provide inoculations to his children. I could never quite make that connection."


Well, leo, I have to say there are alot of connections you don't seem to make with your single minded anti-government non-logic. Trust me that a judge will make the connection for you.



" Since the US is 26th in the list of taxation as a %age of GDP obviously a point was to be made. What was the point? Where SHOULD we be on this list? The top would make you happy? Or the Bottom? I see France is near the top.... a Stellar example of good governance if ever their was one."


Slamming "the French" is also getting a litle old, don't you think? If the French are happier, healthier and live longer than the average American, what does that tell you? If you had read the article instead of just complaining about government, you would have found the answer to your question. What apparently won the electoral victories for the R's this season was the frustration of many over the inefficiency of government. No mandate was handed to the Repubs as they remain even more reviled than the Dems and at about half the popularity of Obama. However, people are frustrated with the inefficiencies of how government operates. If we pay several times the amount of money into our health care system and get worse results, then efficiencies must be made up. If the US investor sits on $2 trillion in assets while complaining about China buying GM stock, then those US investors are literally betting against the US economy. If the reality of the right wing myth is we are not highly taxed and government spending is not even close to the middle of the pack when compared to "lesser" nations, then our system is seriously out of whack and needs a revision. The question then becomes do we wish to continue to decline or do we wish to retain the "Great American Dream" most of us were brought up expecting? If you're driving a junker and your neighbor's driving a Corvette, how do you assess how much things cost? If you want a junker, you don't pay for anything. If you want a Corvette, you have to accept the reality that Corvettes cost money and you need to reform the situation so that your tax dollars are spent efficiently. As is, most on the right will simply accept the mantra that extending unemployment compensation is bad but borrowing hundreds of billions to extend the deficits they decry just for more tax cuts to the already wealthy is not. When you consider that tax cuts to the wealthy have not proven to successfully create jobs and that wealthy investors are sitting on $2 trillion until they are assured of a 20% return per annum and a nickle on the dollar tax rate, then the illogical conclusions of assisting the wealthy in their drive to further widen the gap between the classes becomes all to painfully absurd.


"And Jan, you NEVER acknowledge those areas in which we agree. You've got some wacky image of what I think in mind which no amount of anything will shake."


You'd make it easier to do so, leo, if you simply stopped ranting on senselessly about how you hate government "hacks" who park close in and how you are having your "wealth" confiscated.


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15581
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/08/health_lawsuit.html
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1851
Registered: Oct-07
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/wp1.pdf

This is not the exact source for what I posted, but has much more data and the dreaded analysis.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15582
Registered: May-04
.

A 117 page document?! C'mon, leo! After the first 30 pages I gave up.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1853
Registered: Oct-07
Well, Jan, the facts are there even if you think they are a little 'tedious' to get at. You may want to try to read thru some of just the data tables. The author 'slices' the data a couple different ways which you may find interesting. The quintiles we are so fond of can be done by dollar amount or number of filing returns in each group. The results are slightly different for each method.
I'll find my original table, which is much easier to read. The numbers are clear. As the percentage of income by fifth goes up, the percentage of total taxation also rises.



By your model, all income should simply be confiscated and spent where it'll 'do the most good'.
Glad Congress is on our side, aren't you?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congress ional_performance
Is Rasmussen and acceptable source?
How 'bout this?
http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm
Pick your favorite.

If....maybe not a big IF, Congress 'stalls' with the split between House and Senate, I'll be curious to see what happens to approval ratings. I'd also like to see a correlation between 'number of bills passed' vs 'number of Presidential vetoes' and house/senate composition.

Many of our Northern friends come to the US to get ....elective services which would take forever in the Canadian system.

Does our wonderful health plan, being all things to all people address the supply of Doctors? I've not yet heard that addressed. How many Doctors would recommend that their children become Doctors? Has the number of applications per Med School opening increased or decreased?
I personally know 5 Doctors who have left practice to go into other parts of medicine or quit altogether.
2, a husband / wife team sublet their practice and hired another Doctor who has since left in a pay dispute. I have yet to meet the new Doctor.
The Doctor who (above) left the practice may have even gone back to Mexico. She was a little blond gringa who spoke pretty good Spanish and was able to communicate with my Mother In Law. Extremely thorough, she was plain old one of the best MDs I'm likely to ever know.
A Demotologist left practice recently. She was fairly young, and very good at her speciality. She also went towards the Cosmetic end of things and may have joined the husband / wife team above...that is speculation.
And finally, my GP of long standing left practice to attend her aged mother. This is not a technical quit, but I do note the several conversations we had about the business of medicine. All forms of insurance and finding good help are just 2 of the issues we talked about.
To the extent the new health plan allows Doctors to just practice medicine, it'll be a good thing. If paperwork increases, all bets are off.



You know, Jan, you don't appear to be what I'd call a 'Constitutional Fundamentalist'. You may argue with the term.....I sorta just made it up, but really, the country seems divided along 2 lines (among the thousand other dichotomies) in that group 'A' and group 'B' read the Constitution in 2 basically different ways. 'A' believes in original intent and 'B' likes to weave meaning into the document that would have the framers apoplectic.

And yes, I'm afraid a judge will 'make the connection'. In terms such that only a lawyer just off lithium could follow.

You tried a diversion again. Where SHOULD the US be on your taxation list? You point to this list like it actually has meaning. Well, it doesn't. Unless you can point to some additional data, this list is just so much shredder bulk.

Enjoy your Holiday....Eat Slowly and chew well. I'll be doing at least the ham out on the Weber. If there is any demand, I'll make a Pizza out there, too. cooking indirect on a pizza stone makes the crust really good.....I'll make the dough up in my bread machine!
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1854
Registered: Oct-07
Jan, what are we really arguing about?
I'd say 'the future'.
To the extent you agree, post back. 'Ya can't fix the past, but you sure can influence the future.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15583
Registered: May-04
.

"As the percentage of income by fifth goes up, the percentage of total taxation also rises."

This is news?! It takes 117 pages to say that?!!!



Leo, when has the tax system in the US not been set up as a progressive system? The more you earn, the higher your rate of taxation. The issue then becomes who actually pays what per centage of their total income back toward taxes and fees - the basic cost of living and progressing as a society? The tables in your link are not all that informative about that. First, grouping the divisions into 20 percentiles is not an effective way of showing real world taxation and wealth. It's been stated over and over again the real wealth exists within the top two per cent (and most specifically within the top 0.02%) who have benefitted the most from the tax system and American wealth generation over the last fifty years. Yet removing that small number from the top twenty per cent would skew the results the article wishes to portray. As noted in the article (roughly betweeen pages 22-24), local and state fees and taxes are a greater burden on the lower income household than on the higher. It's much more difficult to find a lawyer to get you out of paying sales tax, cigarette tax, gasoline tax, etc. than it is to find a lawyer to get your inheritance tax reduced or to establish your personal income as a corporation and therefore shift the taxation away from anything reflected in those 117 pages. The article actually says very little for all 117 pages it takes to say not a thing. Overall, I'd say your link spent 117 pages to say what they wanted to say on page 1 and not to actually say anything useful.


"By your model, all income should simply be confiscated and spent where it'll 'do the most good'."


I've never said anything of the sort. But it is consistent with the attitude you've displayed over the course of this thread for you to jump to that conclusion.


"Glad Congress is on our side, aren't you?"


So, you're saying the generally poor opinion of Congress' job approval ties them to my attitudes regarding taxes? OK, even that's a stretch for anything you've come up with so far. Now you're just posting nonsense to fill up space now, leo.

None of the anecdotal reports of doctors leaving their profession or moving to a different area of work - a dermatologist?! Really?!!! you're gonna tell me a dermatologist left the field because of what? Medicare payments?!!! C'mon, leo!!! - says anything other than doctors do leave their profession to find work in other fields. It's been that way for decades. The money is in research and elective procedures and not hands on doctoring. GP's are such because they prefer to be GP's and not research technicians. Specialists make their money and move into inventing a special tool or techniques they thought would benefit their old profession. Saying doctors are not life long doctors proves what? Leo, you are just throwing spaghettti at the wall to see what sticks. It's a lousy way to make pasta and it's a lousy way to debate.


" ... group 'A' and group 'B' read the Constitution in 2 basically different ways. 'A' believes in original intent and 'B' likes to weave meaning into the document that would have the framers apoplectic."


I see, you've spoken to the framers of the Constitution to know this, eh? In your view, what you think is always right and what anyone else thinks is always wrong. Show me where the Constitution mentions medical procedures, pharamaceuticals, corporations, automobiles, airplanes and trains, radio and television, space and satellite communications, terrorism, establishing military bases overseas, covert operations or invading nations which have done the US no harm? These and hundreds of others are functions of interpretation, leo. If there were no interpretation of the Constitution, we would still have thirteen colonies and we would not need the Supreme Court at all. So, please, try to accept that what you prefer to think doesn't always match up with reality.

I presented no "diversion". Stop trying to put words into my posts and ignore what's actually there. The question should be, where on the list of "industrialized Nations" does the US wish to reside in terms of health care, lifespan, education, opportunity, etc? None of those qualities simply exist without cost and effort. That you totally ignored what the article proposed, that the American public has been told they can have all of these things and more without cost and that the results of such thinking have sent us toward the bottom of the list in virtually ever area other than military spending, is simply typical of what you choose to ingore in order to argue all your wealth is being "confiscated" and nothing else matters.



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1857
Registered: Oct-07
With the government taking over an increasing share of the economy, thru legislative writ, the ability to 'grow', provide jobs and allow social mobility is being compromised.
Recent history shows fed spending at about 20% of GDP. Recently it has been running closer to 25%.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politifact-federal-revenue-lowest-in-59-years-as-sh are-of-economy/1134974

Jan, have YOU apologized to any or your young relatives? I have. And for the reason you cite. Undeclared / marginally declared wars without end or 'exit strategy'. Thousands of Billions of dollars down the rathole with minimal accounting.
I hate to go back to the Constitution, but isn't the Congress supposed to declare war?
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Vox/?20030224-0
The President is indeed 'Commander in Chief'.....after such declaration. Wasn't their a 'Gulf of Oman' resolution? Maybe I've got the wrong war.

Well Jan, what is it than? 'Stop putting words into my posts'....like you have a habit of doing to me? Maybe you have forgotten all the horrible stuff you've called me. You presented that tax list and implied the US needed to be somewhere else on that list.....Well, the list is meaningless and you know it. How much more money would go down the tubes if we were say....FIRST on such a list? Would we be spending more smarter or just more?

And, as for the framers, I've tried quoting their words before without effect. You've even done a little mocking at such quotes. I don't know, maybe you think we are all more sophisticated today, or they were just a bunch of elitists with an ax to grind. That the list you mention is NOT mentioned in the Constitution pretty much means that it is a States Rights issue via the 9th and 10th amendments. Federal Powers are clearly enumerated. Just an example: There is minimal or no cross-state-line competition between health insurers. Well, if that is true, how can that part of it be an interstate commerce issue? Let 'em compete across state lines and than you'd have a better case.

You are assuming facts not in evidence when you say that a relationship exists between national spending and the list of goodies you present. No such correlation exists. But you are, of course, free to present such data.

Jan, Where do you see the world and US in 20 or 30 years?
Where would you like to see it? What would it take to make your vision real?
If you had some power or influence over events what would you spend your capital on?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15584
Registered: May-04
.

"With the government taking over an increasing share of the economy, thru legislative writ, the ability to 'grow', provide jobs and allow social mobility is being compromised.
Recent history shows fed spending at about 20% of GDP. Recently it has been running closer to 25%."



Read your own article, leo. Historically the government steps in to play a role in any recession. It's laid out in historic terms in the very article you linked to and the spending has historically been on both the Republican and Democratic sides. And, in case you've forgotten, we are still in historic times. This idea of Government as the last resort has been US Government policy under both Democratic and Republican administrations and legislative branches for the last 70 years. Even those who say they oppose Government spending are holding out their hand when it comes to Social Security and Medicare. If you really wish a return to Hooverville's and bread lines, then you and I have so little in common any discussion of moral responsibility is useless.

Your statement regarding "the ability to 'grow', provide jobs and allow social mobility is being compromised" is fallacious and not based in reality. Which is where I find most of your statements. You post things which contradict what you state - such as the Bartlett article - and then you continue to argue baseless propositions which literally go against what you have shown your "authorities" believe. We cannot simply cut spending - and most particularly spending for things such as close in parking - and expect that will take care of our fiscal problems. Your own article says exactly that. In times of recession, the Government steps up spending to stimulate the economy. It's been that way for decades and will remain that way unless we want a return to Hoovervilles. Spending, deficits and debt are by themself not the issue; http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/12/george-w-bush/for mer-president-george-w-bush-defends-his-fiscal-/

We went through this at the very beginning of this thread. To constantly clamor about your money and that of the super rich being confiscated is where you always return. You never make a point, you just repeat the same thing with another article which disproves what you've said or, in the case of the 117 page document, proves nothing which isn't already common knowledge regarding a progressive tax program. You loves you's red herrings though!

You don't like taxes and you don't like government employees. That's really all you've had to say over the last few hundred posts, leo. You go off on tangents such as this "Gulf of Oman" - which doesn't mean a thing to me. Congress provided Bush II with authorization to use "whatever means necessary" and Bush took that as an implicit permission to invade two countries - neither of which had any defensive power against the US yet both of which have held us at bay for the better part of a decade. Anyone who opposed Bush and the neo-cons were slandered, exposed as something they were not and steam rolled into semi-submission. Have I apologized to anyone for that? No, I protested both wars and I have no one to apologize to. One nephew is a g@y Repub who follows party line for the most part and the other is in Afghanistan on his third tour of duty. Am I supposed to apologize for politics I disagree with and the actions of the other which I opposed?

But what does that have to do with the Government taking over the economy? Nothing, yet you jump from one topic to the next like a frog in a hot frying pan. Other than you hate taxes and you hate Government employees, I don't know what to make of most of what you post.

I haven't called you any "horrible stuff". Let's not play that stupid conservative game of "Poor me, I get called horrible stuff by liberals". You post and I respond, that's how this works. You're the one who made any of this an issue. I began the thread to post facts and you wanted an argument over certain conservative ideas. I disagree with those ideas. You seem to be the one suggesting a return to Hoovervilles and that you know the Constitution better than anyone with opposing ideas of the framers' intent. You're the one who constantly harps on your hatred for Government employees with their close in parking permits.


"You presented that tax list and implied the US needed to be somewhere else on that list..... "


I presented the link to the article and copied a short passage from the article. That's all I did. Look; https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1918168#POST1918168

Neither I nor the authors of the article "implied" anything that I can see. You, on the otherhand seem to have no problem with the US not even being on the list of developed Nations. leo, the point of the article is stated quite clearly in the paragraph I copied into the thread, "We would have a deficit problem -- an economic problem -- if the right's narrative of 'runaway government spending' had some basis in reality. But it doesn't." It doesn't look to me as though anything is being implied there, it's a simple statement of fact based upon the evidence then presented. That you once again prefer not to accept facts as they exist is nothing new for this thread. You have your narrative in your head and nothing is going to dislodge it - especially not facts to the contrary. My opinion is the facts should be a basis for a real discussion but that doesn't seem to work for most on the right who realize they can make up whatever they want and no one on their side will question the statements and those on the left who ask questions are simply dismissed as liberal biased elites and the "lame stream media" types. The right has successfully created their own little universe where only what they care to believe matters and smears are how you win points and elections. Remember, 30% of Republicans still do not believe Obama is a citizen of the US. I don't know the numbers but I'm confident when I say a similar per centage thought Bill Clinton had Vince Foster killed. You can't have a discussion with someone who prefers hate to reason but hate is what fuels many of the topics we respond to. The right has done a good job of keeping balls floating in the air for use at any time so as not to have to engage in a substantive debate of facts when hate will suffice.


"And, as for the framers, I've tried quoting their words before without effect. You've even done a little mocking at such quotes."


See? like that. I haven't mocked the words of the Constitution. I have mocked the idea that you and the rest on the right who claim superior knowledge of the framers' intent can actually do so. But, again it plays into the narrative of the right, there are people who know certain things and then there are people who do not. Now which of those positions would you rather be in? Obviously, people like Frank Luntz have done a remarkable job of vilifying anyone and everyone who does not march to The Party line. As I've said several times, do not trust anyone who uses the words "these/those people" or who spends four hours a day telling you to hate someone who disagrees with you. What happens is you get like Bristol Palin who wanted to win Dancing with the Stars just to show all "those people" who hate her mother and herself. You begin to think people hate you for what you are (a Palin) rather than who you are (someone with less dancing talent than others) and you begin to hate them first. Where do you go in a discussion when one side has already decided the other is wrong and anyone who disagrees hates you? Doors are closed and levels of communication are already shut down.


"You are assuming facts not in evidence when you say that a relationship exists between national spending and the list of goodies you present. No such correlation exists."


"Goodies", eh? By "goodies" I suppose you mean things such as good, affordable health, long life, happiness, freedom from the tyranny of other's ideas and respect in the world for achievements? If those are the goodies you mean, leo, then your statement is simply and patently false. The US spends more on health care than any other developed Nation and yet we have the highest incidence of cancers and fatal diseases among the "rich" Nations of the world. We spend more on health care and have a higher incidence of child mortality than all but a few far less wealthy Nations. We have higher and higher rates of poverty and hunger even while the gap between have and have not continues to widen and corporate profits continue to rise. The gap between the wealthy and the rest has consistently grown deeper and more irreversible over the last few decades as the middle class debt has increased. And on and on ... There are few who do not believe our system is responsible for placing the education of children and their nutrition on a downhill slide. If by "correlation" you mean we spend and yet receive poor results, I suppose not many would argue that. That other Nations spend and get better results which move them ahead of us in international stature is the thing we need to address. However, we do not seem capable of ever having that conversation when the system has been established that anyone not siding with you is against you and you never need to listen to an opposing opinion.



I began this thread to present a few facts which I thought might be of interest to anyone who cared to look. That was my only intent. You're the one who continually posts about how we need to cut spending, cut taxes and ignore anyone who can't keep up - even when facts say otherwise. You're the one who continues to post your hatred for Government and your extreme dislike for Government employees. I just respond when I see such closed minded silliness appear in this thread.


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15586
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2010/nov/21/sheldon-whitehouse /whitehouse-says-companies-get-tax-break-moving-job/
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15588
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/nov/23/top-5-falsehoods-abo ut-bush-tax-cuts/


http://www.factcheck.org/








.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1862
Registered: Oct-07
Jan, I'm in the kitchen baking....It's my time of year out there. Bread going and cookies to make.

Just one point. I've never said anything bad about government employees. I've said nice things, even. It's the system which is corrupt, not the people, especially at that worker level. Here in California, even the much hated DMV has good people. The attitude cases get the 'bad press' as usual.
It is a fact however, that if you are not satisfied with your job, you are still free to seek other employ.

And talk about mental double sided tape. If I'm not mistaken, it was our Congress which passed the law allowing corporations to take the 'offshoring' tax deduction for moving jobs overseas. It isn't a Republican OR Democratic problem. It is a systemic problem. And yes, we've talk lots about 'Follow The Money'.

Where do you stand on the continual devaluation of the Dollar?



I would really love your opinion about where the future will lie. Please address what you would like and perhaps where you think we are actually headed.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15591
Registered: May-04
.
"Where do you stand on the continual devaluation of the Dollar?"


Where do I stand? To the left usually. The value of the USD is a Catch 22. Inflation/deflation/stagflation/job growth/recession/boom/wage increases/healthcare/lay offs/real world assets/on paper assets, etc. vs. that new 72" HiDef TV on sale this weekend. When the US consumer stops working solely for Wall Street and returns to working for themself, I'll be for that. When someone is no longer rewarded for failing miserably, I'll be for that.

I was against the Bush stimulus plan which just gave away $300-600 per person of borrowed money. Of course, I was against most of the Bush policies which amounted to living like a frat boy with someone else's credit card. To just borrow more money from the Chinese to give it away or waste in such an irresponsible manner was poor policy from the get go when actually managing the economy would have done a better job all the way around. However, to speak to the "continual devaluation" of the dollar means we have to go back 150 years. I don't think this thread is ready for that.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2010/nov/24/virginia-tea-party-pat riots/virginia-tea-party-says-dollar-has-lost-98-percent/


IMO we are headed towards further inequity between those who have and those who have less and less. When the Nation manufacturers virtually nothing other than military weapons and the economy is based upon "service" with the vast majority being in the financial realm, people are betting against their own futures. The entire concept of Beck's gold purchases comes down to counting on the Apocalypse and a $140 can of peaches.



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1864
Registered: Oct-07
Jan, put a checkmark on this date in your calendar.

Catch-22 is about right. American consumers demand cheap and lots of it. China is more than happy to supply this 'need' and take US dollars.
The whole thing is weaved together and I wouldn't know where the end of the string is. Gov policy making it easy/profitable to export jobs. Wallstreet has its revolving door with the government.Give aways? Take aways? Tax code for sale? Regulatory nightmares with convenient gaps?

Now, I know you don't want to hear THIS, but I saw something last nite that really feeds the paranoia frenzy of many people. Yep, Jessie Ventura and his 'Conspiracy Theory'. I managed to tune in to the economic meltdown episode. One guy who was drowned out was talking about mortgages, the attendant securities and the cross betting that occurred. The recent lawsuit makes this 'old news' but the extent, once you start reading about it was remarkable. Proving 'white collar' crime is difficult, but it would appear they'd have to add federal resort space to accommodate the influx if all indictables were found guilty.
The one that got to me was the GoldMan Sachs boys and the great number of them who have been back and forth over the years between government and private service. Doesn't anybody worry about that? The list of Goldman people now in or formerly in government at high levels is pretty extensive. Included are treasury secretaries of both Bush and Clinton. Ventura ran a list by buy I was too stunned to press record. I'm sure it's all in the public record. I'd like to know where those guys served and when / if they went back into the private sector.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1867
Registered: Oct-07
http://www.businessinsider.com/quantitative-easing-cartoon-2010-1

I hope this works.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15592
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/magazine/28FOB-idealab-t.html?_r=2
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15593
Registered: May-04
.

I've seen "Conspiracy Theory". I lost track of how many times in each episode Venture says something like, "What are they gonna do? Shoot a f'ing ex-Governor?" This is Alex Jones reduced to a 44 minute format with a script that plays to the average IQ of the television audience. While there is a place for scepticism when it comes to the Three Card Monte game being played with taxpayer dollars, I think you might do better reading a few of the well researched and objective books about the financial crisis.

Who financed the cartoon? Must have been Alan Greenspan since his name was never mentioned and his failures are being blamed on Bernanke. No mention either of Jim Cramer; http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=jon+stewart+jim+cramer+you+tube


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15594
Registered: May-04
.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1874
Registered: Oct-07
If you are a fan of that sort of thing::

http://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/Message.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group


2 of my personal favorites
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1875
Registered: Oct-07
I think the greater point about Cramer might be.....
'If you had taken his advice for the last (xxx) years, and started with 1000$, how much would your portfolio now be worth?'

NONE of these pundits are 100%. Maybe not over 60%. During the HeyDay of 'let's all invest', 'The Motley Fool' couldn't go wrong.....

Bear Stearns, indeed.

From the Huffington Post, (don't say it!, I know!)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/05/bear-stearns-execs-blame_n_564535.html
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15596
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/29/small-business-taxes-fact_n_789037.html
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1918
Registered: Oct-07
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704271804575405311447498820.html

I started looking into this kind of stuff, since the Congress is apparently going to pass an extension of the 'Bush' tax cuts. We'll see how THAT works out in the next couple weeks.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15650
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/weekinreview/05numbers.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=by%2 0the%20numbers&st=cse
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15662
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_12132010.html?hpid= topnews&wpisrc=nl_fix


The political problem with the deficit

1. None of the nine most-mentioned options for solving -- or at least addressing -- the nation's long-term debt issues garner majority support in a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, data that suggests the tremendous political problems inherent in trying to address the country's fiscal health.

Of the nine choices offered, only three take anywhere close to a majority. Reducing Social Security benefits for wealthy retirees garners 49 percent support as does eliminating the mortgage interest tax deduction for mortgages over $500,000 and for second homes. Forty-eight percent of the sample support a gradual increase in the age at which people are eligible for full Social Security benefits.

Other proposals are far less popular. Eliminating the tax deduction parents can take for children under 18 received just 34 percent while just 21 percent of people support at 15 cent increase in the gasoline tax.

Contrast those numbers with the fact that a majority -- 56 percent -- of people in the poll said that the government should work to reduce the debt now while just 40 percent said it should wait until the economy improves and you begin to grasp the difficulties this issues poses for politicians.

On the one hand, voters want action now on reducing the nation's debt. On the other, not a single proposal that would begin those reductions garners a majority support.

Politicians -- particularly in the current climate of constant campaigning -- are reluctant to tackle any issue that the public doesn't seem inclined to support. (Look at the lukewarm -- at best -- reaction to President Obama's debt commission report for evidence of this reality.)

There is one (potential) silver lining in the poll. Two-thirds of people believe President Obama is "sincere" in his desire to reduce the deficit while 51 percent said the same of Republicans.

Given that the public distrusts politicians on just about everything, those numbers provide a hint of optimism. Still, with not even a single deficit reduction proposal able to crest 50 percent support, it will be a long political slog to address the country's debt problem
; 1_148453_AFbHjkQAADbpTQiACA7nSkEeouw,1_147354_AFPHjkQAAU0lTQhO%2FwFQwjB6wLE,1_14 5193_AFbHjkQAAYLnTQgq5QT1EUlwsgg,1_144426_AFPHjkQAATtNTQglcg4lAhxZVSo,1_129764_A FbHjkQAALRRTQcsKApD%2FUQ17TM,&sort=date&order=down&startMid=0&hash=89f44f7a7debb 4f338c6ef29f47ec01a&.jsrand=7527653,http://us.mc810.mail.yahoo.com/mc/welcome?.p artner=sbc&.gx=1&.tm=1292427990&.rand=12nmnu0n0mgpr#_pg=showMessage&sMid=0&&filt erBy=&.rand=636747311&midIndex=0&mid=1_150564_AFbHjkQAAIgbTQis%2Fw8GAWcK2RA&f=1& fromId=newsletters@email.washingtonpost.com&m=1_150564_AFbHjkQAAIgbTQis%2Fw8GAWc K2RA,1_148453_AFbHjkQAADbpTQiACA7nSkEeouw,1_147354_AFPHjkQAAU0lTQhO%2FwFQwjB6wLE ,1_145193_AFbHjkQAAYLnTQgq5QT1EUlwsgg,1_144426_AFPHjkQAATtNTQglcg4lAhxZVSo,1_129 764_AFbHjkQAALRRTQcsKApD%2FUQ17TM,&sort=date&order=down&startMid=0&hash=89f44f7a 7debb4f338c6ef29f47ec01a&.jsrand=7527653


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15665
Registered: May-04
.

"Mr. President, in the year 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income," Sanders said. "The top 1 percent earned 23.5 percent of all income--more than the entire bottom 50 percent. That is apparently not enough. The percentage of income going to the top 1 percent has nearly tripled since the 1970s. In the mid-1970s, the top 1 percent earned about 8 percent of all income. In the 1980s, that figure jumped to 14 percent. In the late 1990s, that 1 percent earned about 19 percent."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/10/bernie-s/bernie-s anders-viral-speech-says-top-1-percent-ear/


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1945
Registered: Oct-07
Jan,
What is so surprising about the poll results to which you refer?

I'm all in favor of reducing the budget just so long as my benefits are not effected. At least, that is the popular opinion.

I'm sure that raising SS age, means testing for benefits and nixing the mortgage interest deduction for large mortgages would supply about 5 minutes of federal expenditures.

Who cares if a debt reduction proposal is 'popular'? Piss everybody off equally and call it a day.

Just don't continue to spend MORE money than we have.
« Previous Thread Next Thread »



Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us