State of The Union 2012

[nathanm]

Except for the facts behind the economic performance of our economy for the last 70 years or so.

It is amazing how for a while there raising taxes increased economic growth. You'd think the acolytes of St. Reagan would be against the loopholes in the tax code that allow the lucky duckies to get away with paying a very low income tax rate. I guess they don't realize that it was the 1986 loophole-closing and not the decrease in the marginal rate that brought tax receipts up.

[nathanm]

Don't you think it's hard to forecast costs from year to year when variables like health insurance keep rising?

Yes, but HCR did not cause it. It was already doing that.



The fact of the matter is that the situation we're in is a direct result of years of government policy by lobbyist steering us in the wrong direction. Perhaps we should fix those policies before we give up and tell people to just hope for the best.

Telling people to go out and get $10-20,000 in debt for a technical degree in an environment where the unemployment rate in that cohort is less than 1% below the overall average while a four year degree (and being over 25) nets you a much better chance at being employed. Of course, as you're well aware, that college degree is something of a boat anchor when your employment is at Best Buy or Target.

[Gaspar]

I'm sorry that makes me laugh and poke fun. I should be a better person, but I'm not. I just can't wrap my head around why on God's green earth you'd continually carry water for the group of people who have seen their after tax income triple since 1979.

Because I do not care in the least what someone else makes.  I actually admire people who amass wealth.  I have friends that started from nothing and are stupid-wealthy now and I am proud of them.  

The wealth of others affects me in no way.  It does not change my ambition, nor does it provide any benchmark that I wish to judge myself by.  If they make more, I am not harmed. . .unless I allow myself to be through the poisonous sickness of envy.  

You can tax a wealthy person 90% of their income, and if they still desire to be wealthy, they will.  Any tax, tariff, or fee you levy on them, they will pass to their product, service, or manufacture.  

The poor are not getting poorer, they too are becoming wealthier, your beef is that they are not doing it as fast as the wealthy, ambitious, and innovative.  

There is no such thing as a person's "fair share" of wealth. The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless. – P. J. O'Rourke

[nathanm]

The wealth of others affects me in no way.  It does not change my ambition, nor does it provide any benchmark that I wish to judge myself by.  If they make more, I am not harmed. . .unless I allow myself to be through the poisonous sickness of envy.  

You can tax a wealthy person 90% of their income, and if they still desire to be wealthy, they will.  Any tax, tariff, or fee you levy on them, they will pass to their product, service, or manufacture.  

The poor are not getting poorer, they too are becoming wealthier, you beef is that they are not doing it as fast as the wealthy, ambitious, and innovative.  

When you're quoting PJ, you know you've run out of ideas..

Actually, the wealth of others does affect you. No man is an island. I'm not going to bother writing a long screed about the ill effects of wealth inequality on a society and the extreme costs that it brings because I know it's a futile effort. I'll just say that this has been extensively studied and the studies are pretty easy to find on teh Googles.

Basic economics says getting wealthy at a slower rate (IOW, having a declining share of income) is in fact the same as getting poorer. (Inflation adjusted wage growth among nonsupervisory workers averaged 0.1% a year since 1979 and 2007. Higher incomes at the top drive the price of all sorts of things up, making them unaffordable to those lower on the income distribution. So no, economic understanding fail on that one. Even the Randian acolytes get this one, they just don't think it matters. What they miss is that at some point, there will be nobody left to sell their products and services to.



That ain't getting richer.

It's not about taking from the rich, it's about having a working society.

By the way, your claim of displacement has been debunked for years now. Even if it did hold true, I would say that it's good to have people pay income taxes. Including the corporate peoples. It promotes a shared sense of society and togetherness that is essential for holding a country together.

And if you think I envy people for being rich, all that shows is that you don't know jack smile about me. But yeah, keep channeling Atlas Shrugged. I know it was the best novel you ever read. It must be as much as it seems to influence your thinking.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The poor are not getting poorer, they too are becoming wealthier, your beef is that they are not doing it as fast as the wealthy, ambitious, and innovative.  

This is where you get tripped up every time - since about 1981, the real live "standard of living" income for all but the richest has actually been going down, so yes indeed, the poor are getting poorer.  And yest, the rich are getting richer at, and by hugely disproportionate and disparate rates and amounts.

[Gaspar]

This is where you get tripped up every time - since about 1981, the real live "standard of living" income for all but the richest has actually been going down, so yes indeed, the poor are getting poorer.  And yest, the rich are getting richer at, and by hugely disproportionate and disparate rates and amounts.

No, this is where you get tripped up.  Liberals still subscribe to The Law of Increasing Poverty.  This requires them to ignore income mobility.  "Poor" is not a group of people.  It is a snapshot in time.  15 years ago, I was one of the "poor."  Today, someone else lives in my apartment and works my old $hit job.  They actually make more than I did, and the apartment has been renovated, but only rents for slightly more than it used to.  They are better off, but still poor.  Today, I am middle class, and within the next 10-20 years I will be wealthy.  No one will stop me, because I won't allow it.  Failure can only be my fault.

The reality is that poor and wealthy move up and down (mostly up) in these snapshots.  "The Poor" and "The Rich" are not the same people from one day to another, yet their classification based on income remains the same.

[heironymouspasparagus]

No, this is where you get tripped up.  Liberals still subscribe to The Law of Increasing Poverty.  This requires them to ignore income mobility.  "Poor" is not a group of people.  It is a snapshot in time.  15 years ago, I was one of the "poor."  Today, someone else lives in my apartment and works my old $hit job.  They actually make more than I did, and the apartment has been renovated, but only rents for slightly more than it used to.  They are better off, but still poor.  Today, I am middle class, and within the next 10-20 years I will be wealthy.  No one will stop me, because I won't allow it.  Failure can only be my fault.

The reality is that poor and wealthy move up and down (mostly up) in these snapshots.  "The Poor" and "The Rich" are not the same people from one day to another, yet their classification based on income remains the same.

I hope you do get more every year, forever.  Hopefully it will be enough to get beyond the reality of 99% of the population.  I hope for the same for myself.

By the way, what color did you say the sky is in your world?

[Gaspar]

I hope you do get more every year, forever.  Hopefully it will be enough to get beyond the reality of 99% of the population.  I hope for the same for myself.

By the way, what color did you say the sky is in your world?

And I wish the same for you.

I have no power to change the color of the sky, but I can change what I think and feel about that color.

Blaming others because the sky is not the color you would like it to be will have little affect on the sky.

[Gaspar]

Cmon Nate, I figured you would be done with your response by now.

[Townsend]

Cmon Nate, I figured you would be done with your response by now.

Nate has God-like powers?

[Gaspar]

Nate has God-like powers?

He's a good critical thinker.  I'm sure he will have an excellent response.

[Gaspar]

Here is tonights game, have fun!


- If Obama says, "Let me be clear...", take 1

- "Millionaires and Billionaires", take 1

- "Fair share", take 1

- "high-speed rail", take 2

- There's an outburst during the speech, take 4

- You notice Joe Biden nodding in agreement, take 1

- "We can't wait", take 1

- If Speaker Boehner is seen shaking his head, take 2

- If Obama calls out SCOTUS, take 3 and yell out "Objection!!!" while pointing your finger at the TV

- If Obama tries to highlight ObamaCare as an accomplishment, take 1

- If Obama tries to highlight the stimulus as an accomplishment, take 1

- If Obama references Mitt Romney in mentioning ObamaCare, take 5. Mitt Romney supporters must chug.

- If Obama asks Congress to raise the debt ceiling, take 3 and yell out, "BUT WE'RE ALL OUT OF BEER!"

- "Green jobs", take 2

- Obama criticizes Super PACs, take 3

- If Obama mentions illegal immigration, take 3 from a Mexican beer or a shot of tequila, then announce your racism to the world for perpetuating stereotypes

-  "And there are those who say", take 1

[Red Arrow]

Here is tonights game, have fun! ...

I can't afford that much beer.  Well, I'm not willing to buy and drink that much in one sitting.

[Gaspar]

I can't afford that much beer.  Well, I'm not willing to buy and drink that much in one sitting.

Do it for your country.

[nathanm]

No, this is where you get tripped up.  Liberals still subscribe to The Law of Increasing Poverty.  This requires them to ignore income mobility.  "Poor" is not a group of people.  It is a snapshot in time.  

You might consider opening your eyes to sources not involved in your religion. If you did, you would know that income mobility, both intergenerational and intragenerational, has decreased significantly since the middle of the century.

This is not, as you attempt to argue, anything like the color of the sky. This is due to a systematic effort on the part of both political parties (at the behest of the Randian loons) to reshape the income distribution to look more like that of a third world country, largely through preferential tax treatment of income that mainly accrues to those at the top of the distribution. It's not a force of nature, it's a force of politics.

Edited to add: Perhaps the Wall Street Journal can explain it in terms you understand: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204224604577030720603515022.html