Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Good news for you guys though, Obama's gotten to the root of the problem:

“I know that there’s some folks who are angry about it,” he said. “They are confused about the extensions on the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and there are policy and political objections. Some people are saying, ‘Well, did we fight hard enough for our position? Did we position ourselves properly on this?

You're all just confused! No worries.

 

[jerphisch]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

For those that are upset that the current tax rates were extended don't worry, income taxes have already gotten much more progressive over the last 30 years.

Which is not at all related to their share of income increasing.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Eating out isn't a luxury? W T F? I don't think scooby has heard of an invention they call a crockpot - or of another invention called leftovers.

And **** the income tax; start taxing consumption. Assign the lowest rate to necessities like food and the highest rate to luxury items like jewelry (or perhaps a tiered rate system based on the cost of the good / service being purchased).

Lastly, income inequality isn't a problem. There is nothing stopping you from educating and bettering yourself so that you can get a higher-paying job than the one you have. There is nothing stopping you from living a frugal lifestyle and investing heavily for a secure retirement. There's a great deal of income mobility in this country - it's not like the bottom quintile of income earners this year are the same people 20 years from now.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Technology:

Growing up vs. Now's equivalent. (when it entered the childhood household of Patman)

Atari 2600 = a PS3 (1986... intellevision)
Cable TV (we had it as soon as it came out) = Cable and/or Dish with HD (1991)
VCR = a Blu-Ray player. (1990)
2 TV's = 4 TV's with an HD flat screen (1992)
A home phone = A cell phone plan. (dinosaurs)

My parents were married in 1979 and I was born in 1982. The world isn't exactly equivalent and things didn't exactly hapen fast back then. Your denial of progress technological progress and efficiency in society in the name of comparable purchasing power is absolutely stunning. In terms of real dollars less goes further. The fact you even mention these things belie this point... you ever notice that cell phones don't get stolen all that much anymore... every person up and down has a phone now.

By the way, you forgot personal computer... we didn't get one of those until 1994. Suppose I should count daddy's slide rule if we're doing this for 1960?

edit: eating out is certainly a luxury... you chose to be busier... you have every option not to listen to the competitiveness of society... but its not as fun... you chose that trade... you chose to pursue these things of your own volition and its not like you'd suffer all that much for not chasing those vocations.

in relative terms

so you're no closer to controlling industry than your own man... but you admit you're doing better than your old man.

The first thing I do when I get a chance in statistics classes... relative standing is interesting, but often pointless... comforting a woman who is in the 90th percentile for pregancy times by saying how much worse it would be for elephants in the 90th percentile is about as comforting as a kick to the balls. I'm sure I could come up with some more colorful examples. You know, its interesting that you are in comparable position to your old man but its pointless. Maybe if you want to be captain of industry its a real bugger... and there isn't a reason a man shouldn't want to pursue such things.... but in terms of aggregate wealth... you are nowhere close to your old man.

Envy is not a virtue.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

And **** the income tax; start taxing consumption. Assign the lowest rate to necessities like food and the highest rate to luxury items like jewelry (or perhaps a tiered rate system based on the cost of the good / service being purchased).

Define consumption. What isn't consumption?

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Yes, the only reason there are far more two-earner income families now than before is because of consumption. Brilliant analysis.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Define consumption.

Buying something - food, clothing, housing, transportation, etc.

Yes, the only reason there are far more two-earner income families now than before is because of consumption. Brilliant analysis.

Was this aimed at me? If so, my statement regarding my preference for a national sales tax had nothing at all to do with any argument regarding the existence of two-income households. What I was alluding to is the fact our society is very consumer-driven, and if we are to take this as a bad thing, then the obvious solution would be to change our tax system and collect revenue from this behavior rather than the productive behavior required to earn income in the first place.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Yes, the only reason there are far more two-earner income families now than before is because of consumption. Brilliant analysis.

Well, if them womens would've just stayed barefoot an' pregnant, we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

For those that are upset that the current tax rates were extended don't worry, income taxes have already gotten much more progressive over the last 30 years.

Hey dumb****...That just shows that income has become more imbalanced. A progressive tax structure is defined by its rates, not its collection.

You really, really, need to take Econ 101 again. And listen to the entire thing, not just the talking points you agree with.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Wel, I took a risk and dumped myself on the ledge. My bad. It's still a good book and I think Elizabeth is right.

Hey dumb****...That just shows that income has become more imbalanced. A progressive tax structure is defined by its rates, not its collection.

You really, really, need to take Econ 101 again. And listen to the entire thing, not just the talking points you agree with.

Don't bother. No one here has ever understood that. The middle class is shrinking and all the data supports that. And it's not shrinking towards being rich either. In 50 years the middle class will be all but extinct and we will have a two class system in this country which is against what I thought America was about.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

There's a great deal of income mobility in this country - it's not like the bottom quintile of income earners this year are the same people 20 years from now.

Citation please. The last studies I'd read about seemed to indicate income mobility was weakening in this country; in other words, a lot more of that bottom 20% is staying the bottom 20% (or at the least, they never get above the 40% quintile). That's been a long time, however, so maybe it's changed back.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

http://treas.tpaq.treasury.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

"There is considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy over the 1996 through 2005 period. More than half of taxpayers (56 percent by one measure and 55 percent by another measure) moved to a different income quintile between 1996 and 2005. About half (58 percent by one measure and 45 percent by another measure) of those in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005."

"The composition of the very top income groups changes dramatically over time. Less than half (40 percent or 43 percent depending on the measure) of those in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still in the top 1 percent in 2005. Only about 25 percent of the individuals in the top 1/100th percent in 1996 remained in the top 1/100th percent in 2005."

 

[goldy_331]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

The middle class is shrinking and all the data supports that. And it's not shrinking towards being rich either. In 50 years the middle class will be all but extinct and we will have a two class system in this country which is against what I thought America was about.

Citation please.

Yeah.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Yeah.

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticke...7.html?tickers=^DJI,^GSPC,SPY,MCD,WMT,XRT,DIA

There's one article. There's about 1000 out there.

And I posted a book reference earlier. It's in there as well.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticke...7.html?tickers=^DJI,^GSPC,SPY,MCD,WMT,XRT,DIA

Many of the stats that author cites are either dumb (the avg federal worker earning 60% more than the average private sector worker comes to mind) or have nothing to do with the middle class shrinking (CEO pay being several hundred times that of the grunt). If an ultra rich CEO makes 300x more than me or 400x more than me, that doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not I am in the middle class.

If you want to determine the size of the middle class and what it is doing over time, you have to study incomes over time (i.e. look at the link that I posted as that isn't some blowhard spouting crap for political/fear-mongering points).

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I don't know anyone who thinks there life is better or easier because they own a smartphone.

I think my life is better and easier now that I have a smart phone. Plus the cost is a wash, since I don't have to have internet at home anymore.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I think my life is better and easier now that I have a smart phone.

Wierdo.

 

[eaglehockeyrules]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Here are my observations...

Obama campaigned on the economy in '08, but continually blames Bush; the Obama admin has done nothing to get the economy corrected - Obama failed.

Obama campaigned on closing Gitmo Prison, but blames Bush; while Obama apologized to the world the prison remains open and 80% of those nice mulsims released under the Obama watch are back to committing terrorist acts in the mid east - Obama failed.

Obama campaigned for the gays, but while he does not blame Bush, he has said he is against gay marriage (after the election of course) and opted to leave it up to each state; furterhmore, Obama mired up the Don't Ask, Don't Tell problem in the court system - Obama failed.

Obama remains silent on the Assauge's release of US Classified material that can be used against us either legally, or as intelligence that compromises our sources - Obama failed.

Other issues...

- Obama has/had a D majority of House/Senate and still could not pass his social engineering issues
- 55,000 troops in Iraq still, OK "maybe" not combat troops, but why are they there
- Obama campaigned on ending the wars, yet added more troops and escalated fighting in Afghanistan
- gas is skyrocketing, over $3.00 a gallon in metro-Boston area
- deficit created by ObamaCare, cash for Clunkers, Stimulus
- Obama administration continues to use smart technology in Pakistan to kill suspected terrorists (where is Michael Moore or Code Pink?!)
- Obama does a lot of closed door negotiations (Healthcare and more recently Pelosi/Dems on the Bush Tax Cuts)
- unemployment is 9.8%
- the economy is in the crappah
- a 3 year extension on unemployment benefits
- no Olympics, no World Cup, and no gains at the G20
- Obama is one hell of a campaigner: roll up his sleeves, appears like an average guy, puts on his phony black preacher voice and can rally the audience

As they said against W in the '04 elections, "... it is the economy, stupid."

Where is my Hope and Change?

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Also, some of those stats in that article have a bit of a "Well no duh" quality to them don't they?
For instance:

61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.

It's almost like there's a recession or something!

Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.

Again, how is this surprising?

24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.

Stunning!

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Citation please. The last studies I'd read about seemed to indicate income mobility was weakening in this country; in other words, a lot more of that bottom 20% is staying the bottom 20% (or at the least, they never get above the 40% quintile). That's been a long time, however, so maybe it's changed back.

No, it hasn't.

In the meantime, we're slouching towards plutocracy.