patrick.net

Wake me up when something original is mentioned.

Comparing people who work for the government with those who don't work and mooch off the system is thoroughly intellectually dishonest and betrays a fundamentalist capitalist approach to tax/fiscal matters.

Entitlemented says

Correction, Outsourcing started in mass in the 1970s, and is aligned with the rise of the foreign auto industry.

If I were dictator anyone who owns a car whose final assembly point is not in the US or Canada would not be eligible food stamps, welfare, unemployment payments, obamaphones, section 8 housing, and I would go back 10 years on auto records on this as well.

maxweber21 says

Some of those persons do work. E.g. the oft quoted 40% of Wal-Mart staff number.

The old Walmart argument is stale. It is a generalization to victimize Wal-Mart associates. Many work there to supplement other household income or are actually making a career of it and see working on the floor as a stepping stone into management or in some other area of their lives (ie night school, first job out of school, etc...). Wal-Mart is an excellent company whose supply chain management system is a wonder to behold.

Wal-Mart moves the product that Americans demand, in the most efficient and cost effective manner possible and pass the savings on to their customers. Blaming our trade or food stamp policies on a retailer is like blaming drunk driver deaths on liquor store owners. There is nothing wrong with Wal-Mart's business model. What they sell is merely a reflection of the products demanded by the public that are sold by most other stores anyway, only at lower prices.

Has nothing to do with Obama, neither with American workers.

It's Banladesh workers who produce stuff for you being paid 21 cents/hour or $1200 for human life.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/1200-life-clothing-company-pays-peanuts-families-factory/story?id=17814618#.ULe6MOQ71ew

All the rest is just a redistribution of goods, services and wealth made thru printed money.

We got a consumption bubble at the end of Clinton's. Since than every President and every FED char did everything to reinflate the bubble.

Absolutely the worst one was GWB.
Obama only follows his path.

dublin hillz says

Comparing people who work for the government with those who don't work and mooch off the system is thoroughly intellectually dishonest and betrays a fundamentalist capitalist approach to tax/fiscal matters.

Either (a) you never worked for the government so don't know what its like or (b) you always worked for the government and don't know any better.

Then for Romney, you workers are just slaves. And if you are 47%, you are just milking the system just like himself.

I don't understand how everyone misses the outcome of the tax increase for over $250k income.

It is a long term tax increase for the whole "middle class". Similar to AMT, but starts much lower.

With the pace of printing money we should expect a real inflation of about 10%-20%. In case it works, whatever is $250K today will be $125K in just 5-6 years. I bet the $250K won't be inflation adjusted, so soon we all pay the increased taxes.

JohnLaw says

dublin hillz says

Comparing people who work for the government with those who don't work and mooch off the system is thoroughly intellectually dishonest and betrays a fundamentalist capitalist approach to tax/fiscal matters.

Either (a) you never worked for the government so don't know what its like or (b) you always worked for the government and don't know any better.

Yes, I have never worked for the government, however, I know people who do and there's plenty of pressure there - caseloads, working with clients, overall stressful situations that come up rather frequently. How can this group be compared with some unemployed bums who sit around and watch tv all day at home and don't do shit but collect welfare?

michaelsch says

With the pace of printing money we should expect a real inflation of about 10%-20%.

Where did you get that number? I thought the 1% was making the inflation look like 0%, so the rest of us may feel but think there is no inflation. The 1% needs you to feel happy being where you are, slaves.

Work is for suckers in my world as well

dublin hillz says

Comparing people who work for the government with those who don't work and mooch off the system is thoroughly intellectually dishonest and betrays a fundamentalist capitalist approach to tax/fiscal matters.

--------------------------------------
Dub, I agree w/ your comment to a degree. That statement is painted w/ a broad brush....However, the growth of gov't (ie, jobs/positions) is far outstripping the growth of the "DPS", Dreaded Private Sector. I happen to be friends of some state workers, the 'worker bees' if you will, and even they shake their head when i bring up some examples of the sloth/slop of state gov't bloated idiocy. I think smaller gov't at the state level would reduce some of the stories of waste and nepotism/corruption listed below....

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/20221129no_casino_but_16m_for_taxpayer_gamble/srvc=home&position=2

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20221129gov_burgess_records_gone/srvc=news&position=also

michaelsch says

I don't understand how everyone misses the outcome of the tax increase for over $250k income.

It is a long term tax increase for the whole "middle class". Similar to AMT, but starts much lower.

With the pace of printing money we should expect a real inflation of about 10%-20%. In case it works, whatever is $250K today will be $125K in just 5-6 years. I bet the $250K won't be inflation adjusted, so soon we all pay the increased taxes.

Congratulations, you win dumbest comment of the day.

zzyzzx says

If I were dictator anyone who owns a car whose final assembly point is not in the US or Canada would not be eligible food stamps, welfare,

That's not how the general economy works. You have to trade to trade. The only way the US and other economies can survive is to cycle money in and out of the country. Closed economies simply don't work.

Specifically when it comes to cars and trucks, flip open the hood on most any car made by any company and there's going to be a very good chance that its going to have a multitude of parts from dozens of parts suppliers- some of whom make parts for totally different brands and brands both foreign and domestic. There's quite a few European, Asian, and American cars that have parts made by European, Asian, and American parts suppliers. Cars these days are designed, engineered, and marketed in multiple countries. A perfect example: The Buick Lacrosse. The exterior was designed in the US, its interior was designed at a Shanghai studio, and the drivetrain was developed in Germany. Simply put, even if a car's final assembly point is in the US, that doesn't automatically mean its "more" American than a car made outside the US. Its about the total number of American workers who put a hand into that product's creation. Even cars that are assembled here might be heavily foreign sourced. The latest trend in auto manufacturing is whats known as "Knock-down kits". As in cars might arrive from Korea, Germany, or some other place as a sort of quick to assemble kit and in the US factory that sticks it together, mostly what they're doing is simply assembling out of a majority foreign-produced parts.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/27/grayson-walmart-is-the-largest-recipient-of-public-aid-in-the-country/

woppa says

michaelsch says

I don't understand how everyone misses the outcome of the tax increase for over $250k income.

It is a long term tax increase for the whole "middle class". Similar to AMT, but starts much lower.

With the pace of printing money we should expect a real inflation of about 10%-20%. In case it works, whatever is $250K today will be $125K in just 5-6 years. I bet the $250K won't be inflation adjusted, so soon we all pay the increased taxes.

Congratulations, you win dumbest comment of the day.

To put it another way:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/WtNHuqHWefU

I used to work for the Federal Goverment. After getting in trouble for working overtime for free, because I felt that as a Civil Servant, I had a high duty to the Citizens - I got in trouble.

There are a few civil servants, but more takers. I saw so much unspeakable waste, mostly pushing paper, never making anything. So I felt like me working 70hours per week for the Government, and most others checking out at 5 everday was a bit too much.

There are some very dedicated people working in government. But in my experience in DC, they are the minority.

dublin hillz says

Yes, I have never worked for the government, however, I know people who do and there's plenty of pressure there - caseloads, working with clients, overall stressful situations that come up rather frequently. How can this group be compared with some unemployed bums who sit around and watch tv all day at home and don't do shit but collect welfare?

I've worked in both but mostly the private sector so that is what I was comparing it to. The for-profit private sector provides goods and services at a level that simply cannot be matched by government in almost any area that I've seen. There simply is very little incentive to be motivated to work harder than the average public employee union worker. Sure, there are some competent people who have a work ethic but they are out numbered by clock watchers.

errc says

Work is for suckers in my world as well

Why do you call them suckers? The 1% needs those suckers who are not aware that they are slaves. 99% works to make 1% richer. The 1% just pump more of their cash in as an investment to extract more from the suckers or slaves. Any questions?

Entitlemented says

There are some very dedicated people working in government. But in my experience in DC, they are the minority.

JohnLaw says

Sure, there are some competent people who have a work ethic but they are out numbered by clock watchers.

Both public and private organizations struggle with the principal-agent problem. It is not unique to government organizations. Large corporations, just like big gov, have plenty of clock watchers.

leo707 says

Both public and private organizations struggle with the principal-agent problem. It is not unique to government organizations. Large corporations, just like big gov, have plenty of clock watchers.

I'd say half of the staff in government administration positions are dead wood. I've worked in several corporations with over 10,000 employees, mostly as a consultant. The dead wood may be 1 in 10. IMHO, if you fired 25% of all government administrators the public wouldn't even notice.

Entitlemented says

After getting in trouble for working overtime for free, because I felt that as a Civil Servant, I had a high duty to the Citizens - I got in trouble.

You would get in trouble trying to work overtime "for free" even in the private sector if your title is considered "non exempt." In fact, you could be disciplined and if the issue continued, even teriminated. Companies have been retroactively sued for claims that they forced employees to work overtime off the clock and don't want to take that chance going forward.

woppa says

michaelsch says

I don't understand how everyone misses the outcome of the tax increase for over $250k income.

It is a long term tax increase for the whole "middle class". Similar to AMT, but starts much lower.

With the pace of printing money we should expect a real inflation of about 10%-20%. In case it works, whatever is $250K today will be $125K in just 5-6 years. I bet the $250K won't be inflation adjusted, so soon we all pay the increased taxes.

Congratulations, you win dumbest comment of the day.

Au contraire.

I forget, do soldiers count as welfare recipients?

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 and massive Wall Street fraud from all forms of legal accountability. Not a single perpetrator of those genuine crimes has faced court under Obama." (guardian.co.uk)

There's no need to make stupid shit up, there's enough real issues to tackle but instead you guys always diddle yourselves up over silly made up nonsense.

When democracy runs amok, the majority will no longer tolerate success.

Once the populace rejects the basic notion of wants and attainment, all is lost.

Peter P says

Once the populace rejects the basic notion of wants and attainment, all is lost.

missing in this typical right-winger catechism is the understanding that the wealth creators in this country are being sucked dry by rent-seekers -- in housing, natural resources, health services, and offshoring.

do you guys understand that your ideology is 99% bullshit?

Do you not understand how hard it is in this country for people just trying to make a living but having to face these multithousand dollar economics rents?

Churchill said real estate was the mother of all monopolies, and boy was he right. Maybe a trillion being siphoned from the workers to the predatory wealthy each year via this sector.

Health care, easily a trillion in economic rents.

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

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

I agree with Patrick on Land Value Tax. I think we should have government-run universal healthcare.

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

Yes, rent-seekers should be scrutinized.

However, this does not justify a welfare state in which wealth creation is punished.

If life is too difficult people should protest by refusing to procreate. Oh, that is happening already.

BTW, I think condoms, pills, and abortions should be free for all.

Peter P says

However, this does not justify a welfare state in which wealth creation is punished.

You've got it backwards.

It's only because there aren't enough decent paying jobs that we have the food stamps program and other govt assistance programs we do.

Keep in mind prisons are expensive too.

Please explain what you mean by "welfare state in which wealth creation is punished."

I agree that your dogma is 99% bullshit as BBill said above. Are you smart enough to get a glimpse of how stupid it sounds ? If I'm wrong PLEASE educate me.

By the way, regarding "I agree with Patrick on Land Value Tax." Just fyi, I'm pretty sure that BBill (previously "Troy") was to some extent the one who educated PAtrick about the Land Value Tax, and Georgism, or at least I heard him advocating it on here before Patrick. Not that it matters.

marcus says

Please explain what you mean by "welfare state in which wealth creation is punished."

First of all, if is increasingly easier to not work than to seek to be gainfully employed:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/when-work-punished-tragedy-americas-welfare-state

Most people are not opposed to helping paying for the welfare of people who are unable to fend for themselves. But the system is racked with people who make poor choices in their lives such as single unwed parents (why should society be expected to raise your children?) or "game" the system through bogus disability claims, expecting society to "take care of them". Government won't even enforce rules to prevent undocumented foreigners from receiving government assistance. Why? Because government bureaucracies justify their existence and growth by serving more people which is a perverse incentive indeed.

The question is, who pays the taxes and at what point do taxes become a disincentive to produce?

Disincentives to produce:

Highest corporate income tax rate in the world
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/27/pf/taxes/corporate-taxes/index.htm

Summary of US labor laws:
http://www.dol.gov/opa/aboutdol/lawsprog.htm#.ULosXphGqRA

Summary Major US Union legislation:
http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/eco_union_legislation.htm

There are a myriad of regulations such as ANWRR that prevent development of natural resources.

There are a myriad of regulations around environmental impact that must be followed, slowing development and thus adding to cost.

There are a myriad of protected or heavily regulated industries such as banking and mortgage banking in particular, solar, wind, ethanol, farming subsidies, energy subsidies and healthcare, and the military industrial complex that add an unnecessary cost burden on consumers and lock out competition.

I am not trying to make a judgment about the existence of the above laws and regulations, I am merely pointing out things that impact a producer and their decisions to source production in the USA.

What qualifies as welfare? subsidized student loans? Medicare? Public Roads? Any public utility? Police service? Fire Service?

So now the Republicans and Libertarians who agree with the article can -- with a straight face -- admit to hating the military, police, prison guards and border patrol guys who who steal money from tax paying citizens?

What's to become of the old who, during their working years built the roads you use, the houses that shelter you, the machines that do the work, etc? What if they deferred gratification, saved, slaved, raised children, etc? Better be careful what you advocate. We all get old. And it's a lot less fun than working.

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