State of The Union 2012

[Hoss]

??

Are you talking about me pushing out facts or Gaspar?  I lost track...

No, talking about Gas.

[heironymouspasparagus]

No, talking about Gas.

Well, while I, too, was sitting here pounding furiously on the keyboard, I found ODS.  Funny!  Gotta love it!  Better than 'Santorum' or Prince Albert...

[nathanm]

Speaking of loony Republicans:

CNN/ORC Poll. Oct. 14-16, 2011. N=1,007 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
                              

"In general, do you hope that Barack Obama's policies will succeed or do you hope that his policies will fail?"

	Succeed	Fail	Mixed	Unsure
	%	%	%	%
10/14-16/11	67	25	7	1
Democrats	92	5	3	-
Independents	66	24	8	2
Republicans	39	51	9	1

[Red Arrow]

Are you talking about me pushing out facts literary exaggerations or Gaspar?  I lost track...

[Red Arrow]

Are you saying you agree taxes must go up?

Mrs Penfield would be ashamed of your reading comprehension.

[Gaspar]

Come on guys, you know that I'm not phased when you start in with the ridicule and name calling.

I made some simple observations.  I'm sorry if they upset you, but they are none the less true.

Many in this country have begun the short journey to serfdom under the assumption that soaking the rich is the solution to all problems.  This is neither new, or unique.  The President, who has always embraced this concept to some extent is now ready to push "fairness" as his primary platform.  This is not because it offers any cure, but because it satisfies a growing movement fueled by envy.

The problem with this platform is that it ignores the primary economic issues.  Growth, jobs, prosperity, stability are not addressed in any fashion by turning on the successful.  What is accomplished is fodder for passion alone.

Again, this is not new.  Every society grows to a point where the people become infatuated by the comfort of entitlement.  Politicians turn to courting the invidiousness of some because it is easier than fixing the problems.  Eventually this grows to a point where funding for entitlement must come from the means of the wealthy, and shortly after this the enterprises, and the innovations of all people must be turned to fund government programs.  As the programs grow larger and the funds smaller, eventually the duty of all mens labors will be to their government.

Our economy is not sick with the cancer of wealth.  It suffers from an illness of uncertainty, rising energy costs, employment expenses, domestic and foreign demand concerns, and raw materials shortages due to acquisition expenses.  

In short, businesses are afraid of tomorrow, so they tiptoe into the future.

The decisions necessary to cure this illness are not a mystery, they are very simple.  The primary medicine is energy, and the only thing restraining the physician is government regulation.  This elixir alone would render the other ills far less important, and easier to cure.

Governments don't like to give up control, and economic freedom threatens power structures.  Courting base emotions like envy are easy, for every successful man there are a hundred who dream of taking that success from him.  

President Obama was stuck in-between a rock and a hard place from day one.  He tried several academic remedies to our economic situation, but no theory proved successful.  Private enterprise was his salvation, but it was also his philosophical and political enemy.  His Kenyan techniques were applied to turn out stimulus from internal public structures in hopes that it would be enough of an explosion in capital to trickle out to private enterprise without leaving any direct fingerprints on it.  That did not work.  He tried giving away carrots, each with a stick attached so as not to appear to capitalist.  That also did not work.  

In the end, he is back to courting envy and entitlement.  He is back to reliance on the emotional desire within a large movement of people to take from others. The primary issues are simply too hard for him to tackle, but the gift of his tongue is all the power he needs to motivate the envious. . .and it is easy.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. – John Henry Boetker

[Hoss]

Come on guys, you know that I'm not phased when you start in with the ridicule and name calling.

I made some simple observations.  I'm sorry if they upset you, but they are none the less true.

Many in this country have begun the short journey to serfdom under the assumption that soaking the rich is the solution to all problems.  This is neither new, or unique.  The President, who has always embraced this concept to some extent is now ready to push "fairness" as his primary platform.  This is not because it offers any cure, but because it satisfies a growing movement fueled by envy.

The problem with this platform is that it ignores the primary economic issues.  Growth, jobs, prosperity, stability are not addressed in any fashion by turning on the successful.  What is accomplished is fodder for passion alone.

Again, this is not new.  Every society grows to a point where the people become infatuated by the comfort of entitlement.  Politicians turn to courting the invidiousness of some because it is easier than fixing the problems.  Eventually this grows to a point where funding for entitlement must come from the means of the wealthy, and shortly after this the enterprises, and the innovations of all people must be turned to fund government programs.  As the programs grow larger and the funds smaller, eventually the duty of all mens labors will be to their government.

Our economy is not sick with the cancer of wealth.  It suffers from an illness of uncertainty, rising energy costs, employment expenses, domestic and foreign demand concerns, and raw materials shortages due to acquisition expenses.  

In short, businesses are afraid of tomorrow, so they tiptoe into the future.

The decisions necessary to cure this illness are not a mystery, they are very simple.  The primary medicine is energy, and the only thing restraining the physician is government regulation.  This elixir alone would render the other ills far less important, and easier to cure.

Governments don't like to give up control, and economic freedom threatens power structures.  Courting base emotions like envy are easy, for every successful man there are a hundred who dream of taking that success from him.  

President Obama was stuck in-between a rock and a hard place from day one.  He tried several academic remedies to our economic situation, but no theory proved successful.  Private enterprise was his salvation, but it was also his philosophical and political enemy.  His Kenyan techniques were applied to turn out stimulus from internal public structures in hopes that it would be enough of an explosion in capital to trickle out to private enterprise without leaving any direct fingerprints on it.  That did not work.  He tried giving away carrots, each with a stick attached so as not to appear to capitalist.  That also did not work.  

In the end, he is back to courting envy and entitlement.  He is back to reliance on the emotional desire within a large movement of people to take from others. The primary issues are simply too hard to tackle, but the gift of his tongue is all the power he needs to motivate the envious. . .and it is easy.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. – John Henry Boetker

Wow.  (Just to clarify, that's not a *good* wow)

[heironymouspasparagus]

Quote from Gaspar;
Increased taxes on anyone should not even be a subject of discussion.


And of course he is right.  There is nothing to discuss - if the Bush tax cuts don't expire, the deficits will keep declining slowly like they have through Blowbama's entire term, but it means fixing the debt will take that much longer.  I can understand how that really wouldn't matter to someone with no kids, but everyone else should hang their heads in shame.  Gaspar, you got kids?

And I really am dying to know how your reading comprehension would interpret that sentence...

[Gaspar]

Quote from Gaspar;
Increased taxes on anyone should not even be a subject of discussion.


And of course he is right.  There is nothing to discuss - if the Bush tax cuts don't expire, the deficits will keep declining slowly like they have through Blowbama's entire term, but it means fixing the debt will take that much longer.  I can understand how that really wouldn't matter to someone with no kids, but everyone else should hang their heads in shame.  Gaspar, you got kids?

And I really am dying to know how your reading comprehension would interpret that sentence...

I think the meaning you gleaned from that is very different than what was intended.  When I said, "Increased taxes on anyone should not even be a subject of discussion," I said that because that action has nothing to do with solving the primary problem of stagnation of economic growth.

It's like saying "Wow, I'm starving" and having someone suggest "Well, then you should go mow the lawn!"

Mowing the lawn will not satisfy my hunger, even though it may make my home look more attractive.

Chances are that mowing the lawn will also make me more hungry.

This is simple deflection, because an increase in taxes on anyone not only avoids the problem but serves to exacerbate it.

Again, Heiron, we see that the discussion boils down to the fact that you want to see taxes on the wealthy increased.  That is a fine motive, and I will not continue into a discussion of the true intensions behind that motive, but it does nothing to solve the true problem.

Your reading comprehension was accurate, you simply were deriving your own meaning from what you read.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Wow.  (Just to clarify, that's not a *good* wow)

Its The Script.  You know how that works - 1984 Doublespeak-ese.  State every one of your undesirable characteristics and internal inclinations as the opponent's.  And then vilify.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I think the meaning you gleaned from that is very different than what was intended.  When I said, "Increased taxes on anyone should not even be a subject of discussion," I said that because that action has nothing to do with solving the primary problem of stagnation of economic growth.

This is simple deflection, because an increase in taxes on anyone not only avoids the problem but serves to exacerbate it.

Again, Heiron, we see that the discussion boils down to the fact that you want to see taxes on the wealthy increased.  That is a fine motive, and I will not continue into a discussion of the true intensions behind that motive, but it does nothing to solve the true problem.

Your reading comprehension was accurate, you simply were deriving your own meaning from what you read.

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

And as I have said repeatedly - once more in the attempt to break through The Shield of The Script - two things; reduce spending, increase revenue.  That means cut spending, of which too little is being done.  And let the Bush Cuts expire to reduce the deficits even faster than they are now.  And no, as I have actually said before, that will impact everyone - not just the 1%ers.


Deflection/dissemination/doublespeak...

[Red Arrow]

And I really am dying to know how your reading comprehension would interpret that sentence...

Please have your next of kin post your funeral arrangements here on TNF.  I would like to attend, to make sure you are really dead.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Please have your next of kin post your funeral arrangements here on TNF.  I would like to attend, to make sure you are really dead.

Ahhhhh...how sweet!!!  Luv you, too!!  (Hint; bring wooden stakes!)


But still - interpretation??

[Conan71]

There will always be unintended consequences and always have been.  It's the miracle of life.  smile happens. We make the smartest decisions we can based on fact and projection and then let the chips fall where they may.  C'est la vie and all that.  

Leveling the field will come with more taxes for the richies, sadly.  There's no way around it.  I'm actually in favor of all the Bush tax cuts sunsetting in 2012 but I'm pretty positive the upper tier will sunset first and the middle class cuts will be extended a couple of years. But carried interest, 15% capital gains rates, even just the billions of $'s we leave on the table every year because the IRS is understaffed, all of these things would make things more equitable.

And re: the richies . . . there's been simply no proof that the extra bushels of money they have has made them job creators (seen the unemployment rate?)  Once again, the trickle down mechanism we've been waiting for has failed to materialize, but what we have gotten are further excuses for why there aren't more jobs, and the excuses have boiled down to . . . don't make us feel awful about ourselves or we'll just hoard our wealth.  I don't buy it.  That's never happened in history.  People have never not invested money when there's money to be made.  My proof?  The drug trade.  Even crazy amounts of jail time can't dissuade people from chasing those juicy markets.  If the legit markets were juicy enough, if the return on investment was there, we'd see these fickle businessfolk invest with gusto.  But there's no money to be made because there's no demand because the middle class is evaporating before our eyes . . . .

But leveling the playing field is also about education, it's about entrepreneurialism, it's about social and spatial mobility and opportunity.  It's a big ole hairball that's been accumulating for years for a diverse number of reasons.  I think it starts with a more equitable tax set up but certainly doesn't end there.
 

(Warning: long Conan ramble)

Oil prices have hovered around $100 a barrel and gasoline between $3.00 and $3.75 a gallon for three years. That's sapped the consumer economy,  brutalized the poor, and helped to stifle job growth, but hey, smile happens!!!

Free trade agreements have resulted in the loss of millions of jobs overseas, but it's allowed us to export more goods manufactured by fewer Americans.  But hey, smile happens!!!

Obamacare is supposed to create lower cost healthcare, yet ever since the passage of this legislation, procedure costs and insurance costs keep going up in a desperate profit grab prior to new regulations (just found out our company's premium is going up 8.5%).  You don't think that's brutalized people without insurance or driven up payroll costs do you?  Not to mention the uncertainty to American employers who cannot plan budgets or payroll needs until they know for certain what this will cost them.  Damn the unintended consequences, we got health care reform!  Hey, smile happens!!!

(Our previous health insurer dropped out of the business as a direct result of that legislation.  So much for competition to help keep costs lower.  Don't you think it's hard to forecast costs from year to year when variables like health insurance keep rising?)

We created a huge new bureaucracy with Homeland Security and TSA which has choked foreign tourism to the United States (in case you missed that tidbit in the news last week http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/19/10192546-travel-experts-applaud-obamas-pro-tourism-measures) as well as air travel within our borders.  Rather than profile likely terrorists, security agents feel up 80 year old women and 5 year old children and make air travel such a hassle many people elect to drive even on long trips these days.  High fuel prices and lower passenger loads are choking the airline industry and killing airline jobs, but hey, smile happens!!!

The economy is in the crapper and your solution is "smile happens"?  That's not a solution.  Real jobs are lost when smile happens.  Costs to consumers go up when smile happens.

I don't see how there could be a more equitable tax set up than there is now.  Nearly half (or slightly over half depending on whose stats you look at) pay no federal income tax.  Lower income earners also qualify for all sorts of credits to help them along.  We give lower income earners all sorts of credits for all the kids they have, college tuition paid, childcare, etc.  We all pay into social security and medicare.  Everyone should be required to pay into their retirement or for a permanent disability and retirement healthcare plan, don't you think?

That said, letting the Bush tax cuts expire won't seriously affect job growth once the economy is in a full and sustained recovery.  Even prominent Democrats (including President Clinton) recognize that a down economy is not the time to start increasing income taxes or re-writing the tax structure.  Obviously the tax code seemed to work during the Clinton era, but we also were in an explosive growth mode due to a wealth of new technologies and the exploitation of the internet during the 1990's.  I don't think we need any new tax cuts at this juncture.  I won't vote for a candidate who promises that this next election either.  We simply need a leader who inspires confidence in the free markets, not fear and hatred of those at the top.  That's not how you create jobs, that's how you secure votes from the underclass, giving them false hope that penalizing the wealthy will make them whole.  

Even still, taxation like the Clinton era won't lift all classes.  Even a draconian tax code with a 90% maximum rate and reissuing money to the under and middle class wouldn't raise all classes, it would simply create a bigger entitlement mentality.  The wealthy would simply move their wealth to safe havens and the ruling oligarchy would retain most of the remaining wealth, it's proven time and again throughout history.  Cuba, USSR, anyone?  There will still be an underclass and no "economic" or "social" justice as the left is so fond of.  You don't lift the underclass by confiscating from the successful.  Those who have successfully gotten out of the underclass or moved upward in the middle class or moved from the middle class to upper class, didn't do so via any sort of wealth redistribution, economic justice, social justice or spatial mobility plan put forth by the government.  They did it via their own efforts and motivation to improve their lot in life.  There's no shortage of grants, loans, free Vo-Tech programs, and low cost in-state college tuition programs that people simply don't take advantage of.

You've been sold a bill of goods with the rhetoric of social justice, economic justice, and social and spatial mobility.  The government simply cannot create enough incentives nor high paying jobs in the government budget to raise the entire middle class.  That's a fairy tale campaign promise and nothing more.  You cannot illustrate a specific model with real numbers to show how this mechanism works, because it doesn't exist.  I implore you to search to your heart's content and other than vacuous figures or theory, you will not be able to come back with a model that shows if you take X amount from the wealthy or raise the tax rate by a given amount, you can create X amount of net jobs which are all above the poverty line.

Social and economic mobility is available for those with work ethic, imagination, and education.  The people I hear complain the loudest are not doing anything to mobilize themselves.  What productivity has come out of someone sitting (or sh!tting should I say?) at an occupy rally for four months?  None.  It's gotten the attention of the media, but it's not brought that person any closer to gainful employment.  Bitching about the problem  and not looking for work or attempting to get education in a field that will bring gainful employment is being a part of the problem.

It would appear you've been indoctrinated with the idea that money will cure any problem.  We've tossed billions upon billions into education and paid some of the supposed best and brightest to lead the education system through one reform after another and yet, we still have an education problem.  It's not the facilities, it's not the teachers, it's the lack of priority placed on education and bettering ones self within the home.  If the parents are not examples of success and/or they constantly shove a paradigm of hopelessness and dependency into their children's heads, education will never be a priority and that child will end up in the underclass.  A parent stressing the importance of education and being there to mentor their child's education will do far more for social and economic mobility than a thousand tax increases on the wealthy.

[Gaspar]

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

And as I have said repeatedly - once more in the attempt to break through The Shield of The Script - two things; reduce spending, increase revenue.  That means cut spending, of which too little is being done.  And let the Bush Cuts expire to reduce the deficits even faster than they are now.  And no, as I have actually said before, that will impact everyone - not just the 1%ers.


Deflection/dissemination/doublespeak...

I am glad you are open to a reduction to spending.  Where should that come from?  All agencies across the board or a chosen few?

How much do you think that the "top 1%" pay in taxes?  For instance, Romney just released his tax returns.  He paid about 15% over the last two years returns (13.9%, 15.4%) .  Most of his income was from investment.  If he paid 15% in taxes on investment income, what does that make his tax rate?

I'll give you some help.  When you purchase a stock in a company, you become a partial owner, and are granted corporate governance rights.  All of the profits of that company are taxed (usually at the corporate rate of 35%).  So, as an owner, income on your investment is taxed at 35% (sometimes as high as 44.75%).  When you sell your ownership in that company, or are paid dividends, you are taxed at 15%.  So, Mr. Romney's taxes on investment were somewhere between 50% and 60%, but since these are filed on separate forms, we only see the 15% and that in convenient for vilifying the wealthy.

Now, when you also consider that on top of that 50% to 60%, Mr. Romney also gave an additional 15% of his total income to charity.  10% probably went to the Mormon Church, and the rest to various groups.  This means little because the only charity that most liberals care about is government.

The 1% is responsible for paying a significant amount of taxes.  Far more than the middle or lower classes are responsible for.  In fact when you look at the true bottom line you see a tax structure that looks something like this.


Now, nothing posted above will make a lick of difference.  This is a total waste of my time because the motivation to confiscate the wealth of the successful is based solely on emotion.  Envy is the prime mover here.  The important subject of economic growth is rendered meaningless as all conversations can be turned on the subject of "fairness" because envy is a basal brain emotion that carries more power than higher thought.

Heiron, I know from your posts that you are intelligent.  There is no reason for you to fall prey to the disconnected idea that somehow tax increases on anyone are a remedy to our economic situation.  Yes, they may help the debt, but cuts in the ridiculous spending increases we've seen will do that far better and also help to reduce some of the uncertainty caused by what is perceived as a lack of control.