patrick.net

Peter P says

Off-shoring is not rent-seeking. It is a reaction to rent-seeking by unions and other regulatory bodies.

this does NOT apply in the manufacturing sector we have now.

The Chinese monthly wage is $300. Insisting on more than $1.70/hr when you're assembling product that is making the companies BILLIONS is not "rent-seeking".

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP/

I was posting that chart before the recent spike, and it was ugly enough.

If your ideology doesn't have an answer as to how EVERYONE in this country benefits from wealth creation and not just the 1-5%, get another ideology!

LVT would be necessary step. I remain unconvinced that it is a sufficient reform to reduce the income disparity and naked rent-seeking going on in this country.

In the right wing worldview 47% of the country are lazy louts taking from everyone else.

This is fucked up. The reality of our economy is a lot more uglier than that. The 1% (blue line in the graph):

are not taking their earnings from services to other members of the 1%; they are pulling this money out of the economic strata below them!

If your ideology doesn't tell you that is a problem, your ideology is defective.

Bellingham Bill says

But all these facts just bounce off your hermetic conservative reality bubble.
You guys are really bizarre people, either what you do is performance art, defending your book, or you're just unequipped to understand reality.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the pot is simmering

-----------------------------------------------
Bill,

Name-calling really doesn't make you look good. As I've posted in previous threads, when we run our households, and we live within our means, we don't run up credit cards, we pay w/ cash (or pay off the CC bils in full each month), we are seen as responsible, smart people. When we ask the gov't to have the same trait as we do, we are labelled 'bizzare' or 'extreme'. Ironic, huh?

When the average liberal realizes that we have a spending problem, and not a revenue problem, the sooner they'll realize that taxing the rich is a sucker's game.

..............."Obama’s tax hikes will, according to the White House, generate maybe $80 billion a year. Obama’s deficit IN OCTOBER ALONE was $120 billion. And President Obama has no serious plans for real spending cuts.".........

It may sound great to the avg. voter, and helped get Obama re-elected, but at the end of the day, you still have to pay your bills. So when Obama 'went pussy', and sent out Geitner to peddle his hilarious offer, what credibility does Obama have? After that stunt, how can we take him seriously in working w/ the GOP? The simple answer is we can't take Obama seriously.

Taxes got jacked on the rich in the UK, and they are leaving. Taxes got jacked in NY, and they left or are leaving. Look at California; it's a fuckin' fiscal mess. It's run by democrats. The whole state is going down the shitter, and you know it. They can't pay their bills, their budget is a joke. Entitlements, early retirement, and bloated state gov't are the reasons. Businesses, tax payers and the rich (ie the producers and not the takers) are leaving California and being replaced w/ illegals. Talk about a slow-motion train wreck. You are telling me Obama's 'plan' is going to work? Well, all we have to do is look at the piss poor job California has done, we can look at Europe and see the same results.. And you resort to name calling when I disagree?......Bizarre indeed.

Kevin says

Most people are borrowers.

Bottom 90% own 12% of the assets in this country.

They OWE 72.5% of the debts.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

AverageBear says

When the average liberal realizes that we have a spending problem, and not a revenue problem, the sooner they'll realize that taxing the rich is a sucker's game.

blah blah blah just blather from a bullshit ideological attachment to defending the wealthy in this country.

AverageBear says

After that stunt, how can we take him seriously in working w/ the GOP? The simple answer is we can't take Obama seriously.

The Republicans run the House and tax bills come from there. This is your show, make your bills.

It's up to the people to determine who's right on this, in 2014.

AverageBear says

Businesses, tax payers and the rich (ie the producers and not the takers) are leaving California

your core problem is confusing "rich" with "producers". COMPLETELY opposite from reality.

The reality is wealth and wealth-creation are INVERSELY correlated in this country.

To create wealth requires LABOR. Labor has been getting the shaft in this country since the 1970s, and we have the Gini curve to show this:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GINIALLRH

If your ideology tells you that increasing disparity is a good thing, YOU are fucked in the head.

AverageBear says

When we ask the gov't to have the same trait as we do, we are labelled 'bizzare' or 'extreme'. Ironic, huh?

This is not what you're arguing for. You are arguing to untax the wealthy compared to their current burdens.

This will worsen the systematic economic imbalances the 99% face in this country.

Your ideology allows NO countervailing of this nation's increasing wealth concentration of wealth flowing from the 99% to the 1%.

Quite the opposite, your ideology WORSHIPS it and will defend the mounting injustices until your victims refuse to be subjected to a broken system any longer.

I, too, want government to run balanced books. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Germany are my models.

Germany's revenue is 44% of GDP and has a 0.1% of GDP deficit.

Sweden revenue is 54% of GDP and they run a 2.2% surplus.

Denmark's revenue is 54.8% of GDP and they have a 3.2% surplus.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/2-23042012-AP/EN/2-23042012-AP-EN.PDF

Norway is of course well in the black thanks to their booming oil sector for 5M people (they pump 170 bbl/person per year), combined with their high-tax/high-service public sector.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443982904578044370554051386.html

The US, on the other hand, is taxing at 35% of GDP if that and running a federal 8% deficit, with trillions of unfunded liabilities coming thanks to our truly stupendous baby boom just hitting their mid-60s now.

If this nation wants a $6T+ government, we need a $6T+ revenue. Not all of this can come from the top 10%, no, since corporations and the top 10% "only" clear $5T or so in income.

The Iraq war combined with the 2001-2003 Bush tax cuts simply slaughtered the fiscal prospect of this country. We've been living in denial since 2004.

Republicans don't want to raise taxes because that will be an admission that they have been utterly wrong on everything since they opposed the Democrat tax raises of 1993.

And you guys in fact have been wrong on everything since 1993, and a lot further back, too.

The background reality is that taxes are going to have to double in this country, across the board. Not in amount per se, but "bite".

This is a small bug buried in our collective psyche -- some of us who are paying attention understand it, but the mental distress this is causing everyone is pushing this reality out of our discourse.

The transition to a high-tax economy, if it ever comes, will crush so many asset values -- the rents supporting them first, and then the values will fall.

This nation has screwed itself well and good since 2001 -- 1997 really when looking at the trade deficit:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=dkM

Frankly, I don't think we're going to pull our politics together to actually pass the massive changes needed.

I refuse to call these changes "reforms" since the problem isn't just making a bad system good.

Things are beyond "reform" now. We need a better way of thinking, mainly thinking that we can get something for nothing, something we've been chasing since the 1980s.

AverageBear says

when we run our households, and we live within our means, we don't run up credit cards, we pay w/ cash (or pay off the CC bils in full each month), we are seen as responsible, smart people.

The decision makers, that is the bill payers, the ones who actually make the decision to pay bills and the lobbyists and campaign donors who support those who make the decsion to pay our bills are in high tax brackets.

Only by putting the pressure on them to make the tough decisions, through progressive tax rates, will they do so. The tough decisions involve paying our bills and sometimes other sacrifice.

If you don't understand my point, think of it this way.

The message to those in the higher brackets (the powerful) should be this:

If you can help us figure out how to live within our means, then your tax rates can come down. But until then we pay our bills.

Instead we have this:

"Deficits don't matter. Starve the beast. Oh and jeepers, I have no idea why our increasing deficits seem to be correlated with increasing wealth disparity."

They want to argue that only by cutting spending can taxes come down. No damn it ! That's like saying I will only pay my credit card bill when I reduce my spending. But the higher the credit card bill is(the more I spend), the more I refuse to pay it.

Raise taxes until those high income powerful decision makers figure out how we can live within our means. Only the pain of actually paying our bills will cause us to figure out how to reduce our bills.

Is this really that difficult to understand ?

Work? Like those bankers that are out playing golf in the afternoon after a HARD MORNING of making deals and swapping lies? Before they go to their manicure spa appointment. Right.......

I guess the fact that some people cheat to get on disability means it should be lowered for everyone ?

I guess the fact that Bush screwed us over with his tax cuts most of which went to the wealthy (the last 10 years), and two unfunded wars (that Obama started putting on the books) and medicare part D, all of this spending that Paul Ryan voted for, is a reason why all senior should have to wait until 67 to start receiving benefits ?

WE all know means testing is coming for medicare whcih is one way the cost will be reduced, but raising the age doesn't seem fair.

Consider, as a prime example, the push to raise the retirement age, the age of eligibility for Medicare, or both. This is only reasonable, we’re told — after all, life expectancy has risen, so shouldn’t we all retire later? In reality, however, it would be a hugely regressive policy change, imposing severe burdens on lower- and middle-income Americans while barely affecting the wealthy. Why? First of all, the increase in life expectancy is concentrated among the affluent; why should janitors have to retire later because lawyers are living longer? Second, both Social Security and Medicare are much more important, relative to income, to less-affluent Americans, so delaying their availability would be a far more severe hit to ordinary families than to the top 1 percent.

Or take a subtler example, the insistence that any revenue increases should come from limiting deductions rather than from higher tax rates. The key thing to realize here is that the math just doesn’t work; there is, in fact, no way limits on deductions can raise as much revenue from the wealthy as you can get simply by letting the relevant parts of the Bush-era tax cuts expire. So any proposal to avoid a rate increase is, whatever its proponents may say, a proposal that we let the 1 percent off the hook and shift the burden, one way or another, to the middle class or the poor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/opinion/krugman-class-wars-of-2012.html?source=Patrick.net&src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB&_r=0

they need to cut the unemployment benefits. i know people who have no interest in looking for a new job because the fat unemployment checks keep coming.

A constant conservative charge against President Obama is that he is inherently anti-business. However, businesses keep defying the storyline by making larger and larger profits, rebounding nicely out of the Great Recession.

In the third quarter of this year, “corporate earnings were $1.75 trillion, up 18.6% from a year ago.” Corporations are currently making more as a percentage of the economy than they ever have since such records were kept. But at the same time, wages as a percentage of the economy are at an all-time low, as this chart shows. (The red line is corporate profits; the blue line is private sector wages.):

Corporations made a record $824 billion in profits last year as well, while the stock market has had one of its best performances since 1900 while Obama has been in office.

Meanwhile, workers are getting the short end of the stick. As CNN Money explained, “a separate government reading shows that total wages have now fallen to a record low of 43.5% of GDP. Until 1975, wages almost always accounted for at least half of GDP, and had been as high as 49% as recently as early 2001.”

kentm says

Here, averagebear you boob, if you want something real to bitch the Obama admin about you can use this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/30/bradley-manning-liberty-lost-america?wtf
"Compare this aggressive prosecution of Bradley Manning to the Obama administration's vigorous efforts to shield Bush-era war crimes

------------------------------------
Name calling doesn't make you look good. Trust me....Same goes for off-topic rants that have nothing to do with the conservation.

Now if you want to discuss how Obama's tax hike on the rich will help, please join in. In particular, I'm interested in how long the $80 billion that's generated w/ the 'rich people' tax hikes will last if Obama gets his way. Seeing that Obama's deficit alone was 120 Billion for ONE MONTH, it should last 3 weeks, at most? And you call this 'balanced' approach to the fiscal cliff? To me, the CONS outweigh the PROS in this tax hike....Finally, "How much is enough" for liberals to be satisfied w/ the rich paying more in Federal tax? 50, 60 75% (like France, IIRC)? Keep in mind the recent #'s listed below paint a picture that hard for even liberals to ignore....

....."Here’s the latest IRS breakdown on who paid taxes—and who paid nothing, but still got IRS “refund” checks anyway:

Adjusted gross income % income paid as fed taxes

$1 to under $10,000 -13.6

$10,000 to under $20,000 -11.5

$20,000 to under $30,000 -3.7

$30,000 to under $50,000 3.1

$50,000 to under $100,000 7.5

$100,000 to under $200,000 12

$200,000 to under $500,000 19.6

$500,000 to under $1,000,000 24

$1,500,000 to under $2,000,000 25.1

AverageBear says

with the conservation.

--------
I meant conversation....

marcus says

I guess the fact that some people cheat to get on disability means it should be lowered for everyone ?
I guess the fact that Bush screwed us over with his tax cuts most of which went to the wealthy (the last 10 years), and two unfunded wars (that Obama started putting on the books) and medicare part D, all of this spending that Paul Ryan voted for, is a reason why all senior should have to wait until 67 to start receiving benefits ?
WE all know means testing is coming for medicare whcih is one way the cost will be reduced, but raising the age doesn't seem fair

--------------------------------------
Now we are on to something. God forbid the Democrats even let us LOOK at where our $$ is going within these benefit programs. Here in Massachusetts, the Dem-run state senate shot down a bill that even LOOKS at welfare fraud. (EBT credit cards used for lap dances, booze, bail, lottery tickets)... They said the probe would 'cost too much'. Too fuckin' funny it's sad, really....IT'S CALLED REFORM, LIBERALS. Let's first LOOK, then decide where fraud exists, then remove it, while allowing benefits to continue to go the people that need it. But Liberals won't even allow this. Perpetuated insanity, I think....Recently, someone in my family passed away, after living in a nursing home. We are getting all sorts of unjustified bills for services not done by doctors and the nursing home. I think this should go under the microscope, but NOOOO, say the Democrats. This is called reform and NOT allowed. Well, time to wake up. Clinton had benefit/welfare reform (w/ some added pressure by Gingrich), and the sky didn't fall. Money was saved and helped the economy to continue to do well, and those that still needed help got it. I know, this makes too much sense, but I digress....

Marcus, the till is empty for Medicare. Obama's solution is already making it worse. He and Pelosi lied to us when they said Obamacare would save $$. Surprise, surprise!! It's not. Oh, and how come no liberals fail to mention that Obama already gutted Medicare to the tune of $716 BILLION. During the campaign, I laughed my ass off when Obama said the Republicans will cut Medicare, WHEN OBAMA ALREADY SWIPED 716 BILLION. How can anybody support Obama's #'s, when it's obviously a shell game?

Finally, when you say....."Bush screwed us over with his tax cuts"..... you do know that the $$ earned first belonged to the earners, right? hey, I encourage ANYONE to screw me over w/ tax cuts, every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Cheers.

Bellingham Bill says

blah blah blah just blather from a bullshit ideological attachment to defending the wealthy in this country.

----------------------------
Bill, on a smaller scale, the democrat run Senate here in Mass shot down a bill to look at EBT fraud, which has been confirmed ad nauseum. Does this make sense to you, or do you file it under "B" for "bullshit idelogical attachment to dending the wealthy in this country". Because from what I know, there are MANY tax payers who are NOT rich, but sending away TONS of State tax dollars that go to these losers who are abusing their EBT cards. Do you agree that this should be fixed? Looking at this from the state level, what are your thoughts to Mass EBT card abuse? Are you that opposed to looking for fraud? I think this story is relevant to the thread, ie, is a microcosm of what's happening now w/ our fiscal cliff problem, but at a state level.

Finally, if you care to respond, don't bore me w/ the whiney "oooh, the 1% have all the money" bullshit. It's a very tired, stale argument. However, I am interested in your opinion of our EBT abuse here in Massachusetts, and how the liberals here don't want to address it.

AverageBear says

Finally, if you care to respond, don't bore me w/ the whiney "oooh, the 1% have all the money" bullshit. It's a very tired, stale argument.

Is that how it works now? You can dismiss facts that you don't like because they are tired and stale?

OK--the US debt argument is tired and stale. Don't bore me with that BS anymore.

AverageBear says

the balance of 'producers' to 'takers' has swung to the 'takers'.

You are right. The 0.1% is taking from the productive middle class, who are the real makers.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GINIALLRH

Somehow you don't seem to notice that most wealth in America is inherited, not earned.

AverageBear says

For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance

Yes--so how about we create some jobs so that these people are working?? Believe it or not, the vast majority of them would rather work for a living.

With record profits in the private sector, why aren't companies hiring? It isn't lack of capital. It's lack of demand. And why is there lack of demand? Because all of the money is concentrated in the top 1% and they don't spend it. If the money isn't spend, there's no need to make products or services.

That's why the distribution of wealth is so important and why the economy stops functioning when it gets to current levels.

AverageBear says

Those that failed a few times, and either finally succeeded, or changed their plan to earn a living. God forbid they enjoy the rewards, after risking their own money, lives, and time.

Yeah, and those people with so much money from the tax break caused the housing bubble which crushed our economy. Money can be printed most indefinitely, but the resource to make the profit is limited. If you have less money to invest, you would be more selective.

So how did the last housing bubble got started? I remember it started because the bank lend money recklessly. And it was all because the investors demanded more profit by promoting the recklessness fervor.

Now, we are still insisting that we need more money for investment. Did we learn anything?

Bubbles are natural to mass movements. They are not good or bad. We just need to be conscious of their existence.

I believe that we need more middle class jobs in this country if you guys are talking about getting the money in the hands of people who will spend it on "products and services" to stimulate the economy. I don't believe that tax hikes or tax cuts for that matter will accomplish this. The problem is that companies view economy at the global level whether we are talking about the customer pool or the labor pool. Thus, the tax structure is largely irrelevant to the larger problem. Additionally, if we had more middle class jobs, perhaps people would actually spend their money on "products and services" instead of financing various shit on credit cards.

dublin hillz says

I believe that we need more middle class jobs in this country if you guys are talking about getting the money in the hands of people who will spend it on "products and services" to stimulate the economy. I don't believe that tax hikes or tax cuts for that matter will accomplish this. The problem is that companies view economy at the global level whether we are talking about the customer pool or the labor pool. Thus, the tax structure is largely irrelevant to the larger problem. Additionally, if we had more middle class jobs, perhaps people would actually spend their money on "products and services" instead of financing various shit on credit cards.

Or we just need to do away with class labels. People need to see employers as customers, not providers.

Bellingham Bill says

Eisenhower letter to his brother:

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

Yep. FDR had permanent destroyed the country.

This vapid argument needs to die regarding takes and providers. Are soldiers in our military takers? Are the police? Is the FBI, the CIA? Last I saw, they're employed by the government.

Do you really think people want to live on food stamps? I'm not sure how many studies you can cite saying yes. I can find quite a few saying no.

Are you ready for defense spending cuts? Because "private" industry with consistent 150 to 200% cost overruns (F-22, F-35) etc is killing our procurement budget.

As for "obama's budget", when the last serious Republican budget that incorporates substantive meaningful cuts? Unless you touch Social Security, Medicare and Defense Spending, you're just talking bullshit. Cutting millions from the FDA or NPR etc. isn't getting you anywhere.

Finally, the weird thing about the "takers" argument is that it's a lot of the "takers" propagating talking about cutting down on it when they're the beneficiaries. Just slightly hypocritical (like when the Republicans complain about Benghazi security after "cutting 476 million" from the security budget). Go figure.

DukeLaw says

Do you really think people want to live on food stamps? I'm not sure how many studies you can cite saying yes. I can find quite a few saying no.

Worse. These people have no wants. They only have others telling them what they need.

Yes. Public-private partnerships can be worse.

Whenever you exert too much governance, you get bullshit like that. Be it USSR or USA.

We ought to be systemically natural and individually willful.

AverageBear says

And you naturally tax the shit out of those small business owners who happen to net over $250K through their business, yet quite often take home less than 80K when all business expenses have been taken care of.

Business expenses? I thought they were above the line write-offs.

Nevertheless, 20-25% is a joke. Tax rate should not be higher than 15%.

tatupu70 says

AverageBear says

Finally, if you care to respond, don't bore me w/ the whiney "oooh, the 1% have all the money" bullshit. It's a very tired, stale argument.
Is that how it works now? You can dismiss facts that you don't like because they are tired and stale?
OK--the US debt argument is tired and stale. Don't bore me with that BS anymore.

-----------------------------------------------------
yes, Tatupu, that's how it works. Why? Because this thread is about the illogical requests from Obama to avoid the fiscal cliff, and how his 'balanced' approach to the spending problem, doesn't address the spending, but piles on more debt. I dismiss the tired 1% argument because it doesn't apply to this thread. Go start a 1%'er thread and I'll be happy to stick to the topic, unlike you.

Obamacare does not go far enough.

Government-provided healthcare needs to be an option for everyone. Healthcare is the last place you want for public-private collusion.

Clinton was awesome.

AverageBear says

You do know he raped Medicare of $716 BILLION this year before the election. You do know this happened, right?

Nope, he "raped" Medicare Part C, the idiot Republican addition to Medicare from the 1990s.

Next on the block is Medicare Part D, the idiot Republican addition to Medicare from the previous decade.

It's really amazing how much damage your idiot Republican congress did to this nation, 1995-2006. They didn't leave a stone unturned in their search for how to destroy this country.

Mission Accomplished!

Peter P says

Clinton was awesome.

------------------------------------
You know, even though I voted against him, Clinton was WAAAAAAY better than the current clown we have for president. He genuinely brought the country together. Yet he didn't promise this. Obama on the other hand did promise this, and has severed the country like I've never seen before. We can't even get a budget passed since he got elected.

Clinton was more conservative than many Republicans.

AverageBear says

Because this thread is about the illogical requests from Obama to avoid the fiscal cliff, and how his 'balanced' approach to the spending problem, doesn't address the spending, but piles on more debt.

Oh, my mistake. When I read this:

AverageBear says

For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance
For every 1.25 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance or works for the government.
110 million privately employed workers; 88 million welfare recipients and government workers and rising rapidly.
How is this possible? How can four American workers be paying THREE people either through welfare or a government job?

I thought you were discussing why the debt is so high and how we can reduce it. The wealth disparity is one of the core issues that has led to the deficit. Until we fix it, the economy will continue to underperform and tax receipts will be low.

tatupu70 says

The wealth disparity is one of the core issues that has led to the deficit. Until we fix it, the economy will continue to underperform and tax receipts will be low.

Again, wealth disparity is not an issue. It is somewhat desirable.

The only way wealth disparity can lead to the deficit is a misguided attempt to fight it.

Peter P says

Again, wealth disparity is not an issue. It is somewhat desirable.
The only way wealth disparity can lead to the deficit is a misguided attempt to fight it.

Nope. When 1% of the people have 30% of the wealth, it should be pretty simple to see that there isn't enough left for the other 99%. And that lots of those people will be on welfare/food stamps.

It's a lose/lose situation. Less tax revenues and more welfare spending. Surely you can see how that would increase the deficit.

tatupu70 says

Nope. When 1% of the people have 30% of the wealth, it should be pretty simple to see that there isn't enough left for the other 99%. And that lots of those people will be on welfare/food stamps.

Of course not. If the top 1% own any less we have a problem. Most people do not own anything and they are not entitled to owning anything.

When the richest family owns 1% of the GDP then we may have a wealth gap.

Just require welfare recipients to work and perhaps we will see a difference. With 99-week unemployment, who will want to work?

A lot of people have zero or negative net worth. This does not prevent them from living.

They will just work to live.

And sadly investment is now driven by excess liquidity.

Lockean Proviso is quite laughable.

Come on.

Greed is good, as long as you are greedy for something beautiful.

Quite the contrary, we are very supportive other people's greed. They should go get it. Just don't cry and insist that you are entitled to it.