-- Herman Melville
Showing posts with label class war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label class war. Show all posts
Friday, September 21, 2012
Quote Of The Day
Sept 21st, 2012
"Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed."
-- Herman Melville
-- Herman Melville
Friday, May 18, 2012
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Thomas Sowell Jumps The Shark
April 10th, 2012
Sigh. This is what passes for great thinking in the post "Derb" NRO offices?
In his column today, Thomas Sowell first regurgitates long debunked smears about half of Americans not paying their "fair share" (that would be the poor half).
That this is mendacious propaganda is illustrated HERE, HERE and HERE.
Sigh. This is what passes for great thinking in the post "Derb" NRO offices?
In his column today, Thomas Sowell first regurgitates long debunked smears about half of Americans not paying their "fair share" (that would be the poor half).
That this is mendacious propaganda is illustrated HERE, HERE and HERE.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Why No GOP Budget Proposal Can Be Taken Seriously
March 21st, 2012
Ezra Klein lays it out flat and explains why they are all so mercenary:
"The Republican Party has settled on four overlapping fiscal commitments that leave them with few other choices.
The Republican plans we've seen share a few basic premises. First, taxes are too high, and must be cut. Second, defense spending is too low, and should be raised. Third, major changes to entitlement programs should be passed now, but they shouldn't affect the current generation of retirees. That would all be fine, except for the fourth premise, which is that short-term deficits are a serious threat to the country and they need to be swiftly cut.
The first three budget premises means that taxes and defense will contribute more to the deficit, and Medicare and Social Security aren't available for quick savings. That leaves programs for the poor as the only major programs available to bear cuts. But now cuts to those programs have to pay for the deficit reduction, the increased defense spending, and the tax cuts. That means the cuts to those programs have to be really, really, really deep. The authors have no other choice."
That's it, in a nutshell.
"Taxes are too high" in spite of being at a 60 year low.
"Defense spending is too low" in spite of being at its highest level since World War II and consuming nearly 54 cents of every weapons dollar spent globally per year.
Gutting Medicare and Social Security won't provide rapid savings so the poorest Americans will just have to pay for pretty much everything.
Lastly, the deficit has to be slashed immediately by implementing all of the above... which will guarantee higher deficits.
That we are in a position where we have to address these proposals with any seriousness whatsoever boggles.
Ezra Klein lays it out flat and explains why they are all so mercenary:
"The Republican Party has settled on four overlapping fiscal commitments that leave them with few other choices.
The Republican plans we've seen share a few basic premises. First, taxes are too high, and must be cut. Second, defense spending is too low, and should be raised. Third, major changes to entitlement programs should be passed now, but they shouldn't affect the current generation of retirees. That would all be fine, except for the fourth premise, which is that short-term deficits are a serious threat to the country and they need to be swiftly cut.
The first three budget premises means that taxes and defense will contribute more to the deficit, and Medicare and Social Security aren't available for quick savings. That leaves programs for the poor as the only major programs available to bear cuts. But now cuts to those programs have to pay for the deficit reduction, the increased defense spending, and the tax cuts. That means the cuts to those programs have to be really, really, really deep. The authors have no other choice."
That's it, in a nutshell.
"Taxes are too high" in spite of being at a 60 year low.
"Defense spending is too low" in spite of being at its highest level since World War II and consuming nearly 54 cents of every weapons dollar spent globally per year.
Gutting Medicare and Social Security won't provide rapid savings so the poorest Americans will just have to pay for pretty much everything.
Lastly, the deficit has to be slashed immediately by implementing all of the above... which will guarantee higher deficits.
That we are in a position where we have to address these proposals with any seriousness whatsoever boggles.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Quote Of The Day - Here and Now Edition
Jan 30th, 2012
"Like his father, Mitt Romney worries about those who would demonize wealth and success. But, whereas George sought to ease their plight, Mitt seeks to demonize the demonizers.
It’s as though Mitt inherited all of his father’s noblesse, but none of the oblige."
-- Noam Scheiber on Romney's disconnect from the average citizen
It’s as though Mitt inherited all of his father’s noblesse, but none of the oblige."
-- Noam Scheiber on Romney's disconnect from the average citizen
Monday, November 21, 2011
Rand Paul Defends The 1%
Nov 21st, 2011
Yup. Via the Huffington Post:
"Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday that the richest 1 percent of Americans are taxed fairly.
"We hear that over and over again, 'The rich are not paying their fair share,'" Paul said in response to a question from ABC's Christiane Amanpour about whether Congress should raise taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit.
"The top 1 percent, the millionaires in our country, pay on average 29 percent of their income," Paul said. "That's what they pay on average. If the average carpenter who makes $50,000 to $75,000 a year pays between 15 and 18 percent. The top 50 percent of wage earners pay 96 percent of the income tax. The rich and the middle class are paying their fair share."
Yup. Via the Huffington Post:
"Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday that the richest 1 percent of Americans are taxed fairly.
"We hear that over and over again, 'The rich are not paying their fair share,'" Paul said in response to a question from ABC's Christiane Amanpour about whether Congress should raise taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit.
"The top 1 percent, the millionaires in our country, pay on average 29 percent of their income," Paul said. "That's what they pay on average. If the average carpenter who makes $50,000 to $75,000 a year pays between 15 and 18 percent. The top 50 percent of wage earners pay 96 percent of the income tax. The rich and the middle class are paying their fair share."
Of course, a growing majority of Americans completely disagree with Rand's assessment. What's more, this includes a majority of GOP voters.
What to do? What to do? Represent the will of the people? Or, serve your masters, Mr. Senator?
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Inequalstan
Sept 25th, 2011
I must admit, the new Chris Hayes weekend show is off to a fine start. Yesterday, he did a great job of exposing just how dishonest one very familiar conservative talking point really is. Oh, and he took a righteous shot at David Brooks, as well.
I must admit, the new Chris Hayes weekend show is off to a fine start. Yesterday, he did a great job of exposing just how dishonest one very familiar conservative talking point really is. Oh, and he took a righteous shot at David Brooks, as well.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Class Warfare?
Sept 24th, 2011
Krugman looks at the numbers:
"Detailed estimates from the Congressional Budget Office — which only go up to 2005, but the basic picture surely hasn’t changed — show that between 1979 and 2005 the inflation-adjusted income of families in the middle of the income distribution rose 21 percent. That’s growth, but it’s slow, especially compared with the 100 percent rise in median income over a generation after World War II.
Meanwhile, over the same period, the income of the very rich, the top 100th of 1 percent of the income distribution, rose by 480 percent. No, that isn’t a misprint. In 2005 dollars, the average annual income of that group rose from $4.2 million to $24.3 million.
So do the wealthy look to you like the victims of class warfare?"
No.
Krugman looks at the numbers:
Meanwhile, over the same period, the income of the very rich, the top 100th of 1 percent of the income distribution, rose by 480 percent. No, that isn’t a misprint. In 2005 dollars, the average annual income of that group rose from $4.2 million to $24.3 million.
So do the wealthy look to you like the victims of class warfare?"
No.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
The View From The Street
Sept 19th, 2011
The view from Wall Street, to be more specific. Follow the action on twitter.com using #OccupyWallStreet and on Facebook HERE
The view from Wall Street, to be more specific. Follow the action on twitter.com using #OccupyWallStreet and on Facebook HERE
A Vast Majority Backs Higher Taxes... Still
Sept 19th, 2011
Is the President's call to raise taxes on those who make more than one million dollars a year "class warfare" as so many Republicans have been suggesting? Well, not according to a vast majority of Americans. Period.
Bruce Bartlett did a round up today of every current poll that has asked Americans their opinions on the matter. He notes that "three-fourths of people support higher taxes and only 21 percent support the doctrinaire right-wing position." A screen cap of the results is shown below (the original is interactive and links back to each source).
Is the President's call to raise taxes on those who make more than one million dollars a year "class warfare" as so many Republicans have been suggesting? Well, not according to a vast majority of Americans. Period.
Bruce Bartlett did a round up today of every current poll that has asked Americans their opinions on the matter. He notes that "three-fourths of people support higher taxes and only 21 percent support the doctrinaire right-wing position." A screen cap of the results is shown below (the original is interactive and links back to each source).
Quote Of The Day - Here and Now Edition
Sept 19th, 2011
"This is not class warfare. It's math."
-- President Barack Obama on his latest revenue proposals.
-- President Barack Obama on his latest revenue proposals.
Class Warfare?
Sept 19th, 2011
Poor Rep. John Flemming (R-LA) is barely getting by. After "feeding" and taking care of his family, he only has about four hundred thousand dollars a year left over from his businesses. He just can't "create jobs" on that net profit. Mind you, he runs UPS stores and Subway sandwich franchises. Those workers are at or even slightly above the minimum wage.
I am sure you are weeping at the mere thought of his struggle.
Poor Rep. John Flemming (R-LA) is barely getting by. After "feeding" and taking care of his family, he only has about four hundred thousand dollars a year left over from his businesses. He just can't "create jobs" on that net profit. Mind you, he runs UPS stores and Subway sandwich franchises. Those workers are at or even slightly above the minimum wage.
I am sure you are weeping at the mere thought of his struggle.
Blaming The Unemployed, cont...
Sept 19th, 2011
This time, from Maine's "colorful" governor, Paul LePage. David Farmer writes for the Bangor Daily News:
This time, from Maine's "colorful" governor, Paul LePage. David Farmer writes for the Bangor Daily News:
"The world is truly topsy-turvy when the governor of the state starts blaming people who don’t have a job for unemployment.
But that’s exactly what happened last week.
But that’s exactly what happened last week.
Gov. Paul LePage, after a photo-op meeting with business owners in the state, took aim at workers. He said that Maine has 21,000 job openings and 24,000 people who are unemployed.
The problem, LePage said, is that our workers don’t have the skills necessary to take any of those jobs.
Never mind the recession, the housing collapse, offshoring and the fact that many of the folks who are unemployed live hours from where the jobs Gov. LePage touts are.
Unemployment is the fault of workers, who don’t have the right skills.
But don’t worry. Gov. LePage didn’t place all the blame on workers. He also included parents and guidance counselors.
Gov. LePage would like those folks to help lower their children’s expectations, because, you know, not everyone needs a four-year college degree.
"Quite frankly, one of the most disturbing things I heard today is our educational system is geared to send all students to a four-year college," Gov. LePage said." EMPHASIS OURS
The problem, LePage said, is that our workers don’t have the skills necessary to take any of those jobs.
Never mind the recession, the housing collapse, offshoring and the fact that many of the folks who are unemployed live hours from where the jobs Gov. LePage touts are.
Unemployment is the fault of workers, who don’t have the right skills.
But don’t worry. Gov. LePage didn’t place all the blame on workers. He also included parents and guidance counselors.
Gov. LePage would like those folks to help lower their children’s expectations, because, you know, not everyone needs a four-year college degree.
"Quite frankly, one of the most disturbing things I heard today is our educational system is geared to send all students to a four-year college," Gov. LePage said." EMPHASIS OURS
Thursday, September 8, 2011
The Coming Republican Tax Increase
Sept 8th, 2011
by F. Grey Parker
One of President Obama's central talking points in this evening's "jobs speech" was the call to extend the current "payroll tax cut." I think we, the people, can expect the Republicans not to do so.
Really. They are planning to raise taxes. Disproportionately on the poor. That's their plan.
Sara Murray writes today in the WSJ:
"The tax cut reduced an employee's share of the Social Security payroll tax to 4.2% from 6.2% for 2011, at a cost to the government of $111.7 billion."
As a regular reader of the Journal, this is very telling. It is not often that the editors of this particular outlet allow a tax cut to be referred to as a "cost to the government." In fairness, Murray's piece is not overtly participatory in the War on the Poor. She points to one factor that may have mitigated the policy's benefit:
by F. Grey Parker
Really. They are planning to raise taxes. Disproportionately on the poor. That's their plan.
Sara Murray writes today in the WSJ:
"The tax cut reduced an employee's share of the Social Security payroll tax to 4.2% from 6.2% for 2011, at a cost to the government of $111.7 billion."
As a regular reader of the Journal, this is very telling. It is not often that the editors of this particular outlet allow a tax cut to be referred to as a "cost to the government." In fairness, Murray's piece is not overtly participatory in the War on the Poor. She points to one factor that may have mitigated the policy's benefit:
Friday, September 2, 2011
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Plutocracy Graphed, ctd...
Jul;y 26th, 2011
HT to Mother Jones via Joshua Holland. How much further do we all have to bend over and grab our ankles before these "job creators" create some damn jobs? It's not an unreasonable question.
HT to Mother Jones via Joshua Holland. How much further do we all have to bend over and grab our ankles before these "job creators" create some damn jobs? It's not an unreasonable question.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Raise. Taxes. Dammit.
March 30th, 2011
by F. Grey Parker
I have never seen so many self-described "adults" issue public declarations that a glorious America can be achieved exclusively by allowing the rich to eat their cake and have it too. Honest liberals and conservatives are increasingly coalescing around what I have been saying for years; That is, that Reaganomic idealism is as naive as pure socialism. It is non-sustainable. It wreaks havoc over time. Most notably, it's childish. It is predicated on economic faith rather than statistical science. It's not a philosophy; it's a tee-shirt.
America faces a crippling crisis of revenue and not spending. Say it with me. "Revenue." The next person you hear who makes dire pronouncements about how "destructive" the United States' corporate or highest marginal individual tax rates are is either willfully stupid or they are lying.
One of the great ironies of the success American "conservatives" have achieved in utterly corrupting our tax code is that we, the American taxpayer, are essentially underwriting two thirds of America's publicly traded corporations. The right has, for all intensive purposes, begun nationalizing some of our businesses with the slick caveat that we receive no dividends for our investment. This is not hyperbole. For example, "Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings."
Exxon Mobil made no commitment to domestic workforce expansion. They made no commitment to invest in our infrastructure. They made no commitment to keep more of their currency reserves in country. In fact, in 2009 they outsourced 1 billion dollars in contracts to India alone. They did nothing for the United States of America that warrants middle class taxpayers forking over $156 million dollars. Unless we are investors. When do we receive our shares? This is the real government Ponzi scheme, not Social Security.
The supply-side argument for decades has been that the more we "let businesses keep" the more they will invest. That this has turned out to be so provably untrue is completely ignored by "free market" fundamentalists. There is no arguing with those in our country who have bought into this nonsense. It turns out that the more we let the rich keep, the more they keep. Surprise. Cash hoarding takes less work than "innovation." It also involves less "risk." Most importantly, it incurs the least "uncertainty" as far as financial choices are concerned.
My "radical" suggestion since roughly 2003, when I first actually read Bush 2's jaw droppingly stupid tax proposals , has been to suggest a return to the Eisenhower Era code. Seriously. I am endorsing the economic worldview of one of our nation's great Republicans. I am not the only one who has noticed the absurd vilification that this sort of talk receives.
Andrew Sullivan wrote recently:
"Income tax rates are now lower than they were under Ronald Reagan and far lower than they were under Eisenhower. And yet it has become a Norquistian non-negotiable that no taxes can be raised at all on anyone, let alone the beneficiaries of the last thirty years - and those who differ must be "leftists" - even when the US is facing debt of historic and dangerous proportions. Someone advocating what Eisenhower was perfectly comfortable with would be regarded by the Republican right today as a communist. And yet, of course, Eisenhower was emphatically not a Communist, whatever the John Birch society believed. In retrospect, he might even be seen as the most successful small-c conservative of the 20th century. "
Sully went on to cite a tough piece by Glenn Greenwald titled Billionaire Self Pity and The Koch Brothers which I also recommend.
It's worse than this, though. There really are no more loopholes to create when you've reduced the majority corporate tax burden to zero. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder may be tipping the hand we can expect to be played nationally by these folks. Having no other way to give our money to corporations in his state, he has now devised a scheme that actually raises taxes on the poor and middle class to do so. This is with no new expansion, construction or hiring guarantees. I am sure the corporations will do the right thing with our money.
The class war is on. The rich declared it on the rest of us. That they are winning is a testament not only to their long term planning and well organized propaganda, but to the inherent trust ordinary Americans had developed over several generations in a brighter tomorrow. They have used our own optimism against us. I'll spare you the frog in a cold pot metaphor but it is increasingly apt. The solution is also incredibly simple... Raise taxes, dammit.
by F. Grey Parker
I have never seen so many self-described "adults" issue public declarations that a glorious America can be achieved exclusively by allowing the rich to eat their cake and have it too. Honest liberals and conservatives are increasingly coalescing around what I have been saying for years; That is, that Reaganomic idealism is as naive as pure socialism. It is non-sustainable. It wreaks havoc over time. Most notably, it's childish. It is predicated on economic faith rather than statistical science. It's not a philosophy; it's a tee-shirt.
America faces a crippling crisis of revenue and not spending. Say it with me. "Revenue." The next person you hear who makes dire pronouncements about how "destructive" the United States' corporate or highest marginal individual tax rates are is either willfully stupid or they are lying.
One of the great ironies of the success American "conservatives" have achieved in utterly corrupting our tax code is that we, the American taxpayer, are essentially underwriting two thirds of America's publicly traded corporations. The right has, for all intensive purposes, begun nationalizing some of our businesses with the slick caveat that we receive no dividends for our investment. This is not hyperbole. For example, "Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings."
Exxon Mobil made no commitment to domestic workforce expansion. They made no commitment to invest in our infrastructure. They made no commitment to keep more of their currency reserves in country. In fact, in 2009 they outsourced 1 billion dollars in contracts to India alone. They did nothing for the United States of America that warrants middle class taxpayers forking over $156 million dollars. Unless we are investors. When do we receive our shares? This is the real government Ponzi scheme, not Social Security.
The supply-side argument for decades has been that the more we "let businesses keep" the more they will invest. That this has turned out to be so provably untrue is completely ignored by "free market" fundamentalists. There is no arguing with those in our country who have bought into this nonsense. It turns out that the more we let the rich keep, the more they keep. Surprise. Cash hoarding takes less work than "innovation." It also involves less "risk." Most importantly, it incurs the least "uncertainty" as far as financial choices are concerned.
My "radical" suggestion since roughly 2003, when I first actually read Bush 2's jaw droppingly stupid tax proposals , has been to suggest a return to the Eisenhower Era code. Seriously. I am endorsing the economic worldview of one of our nation's great Republicans. I am not the only one who has noticed the absurd vilification that this sort of talk receives.
Andrew Sullivan wrote recently:
"Income tax rates are now lower than they were under Ronald Reagan and far lower than they were under Eisenhower. And yet it has become a Norquistian non-negotiable that no taxes can be raised at all on anyone, let alone the beneficiaries of the last thirty years - and those who differ must be "leftists" - even when the US is facing debt of historic and dangerous proportions. Someone advocating what Eisenhower was perfectly comfortable with would be regarded by the Republican right today as a communist. And yet, of course, Eisenhower was emphatically not a Communist, whatever the John Birch society believed. In retrospect, he might even be seen as the most successful small-c conservative of the 20th century. "
Sully went on to cite a tough piece by Glenn Greenwald titled Billionaire Self Pity and The Koch Brothers which I also recommend.
It's worse than this, though. There really are no more loopholes to create when you've reduced the majority corporate tax burden to zero. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder may be tipping the hand we can expect to be played nationally by these folks. Having no other way to give our money to corporations in his state, he has now devised a scheme that actually raises taxes on the poor and middle class to do so. This is with no new expansion, construction or hiring guarantees. I am sure the corporations will do the right thing with our money.
The class war is on. The rich declared it on the rest of us. That they are winning is a testament not only to their long term planning and well organized propaganda, but to the inherent trust ordinary Americans had developed over several generations in a brighter tomorrow. They have used our own optimism against us. I'll spare you the frog in a cold pot metaphor but it is increasingly apt. The solution is also incredibly simple... Raise taxes, dammit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
