What is supremely irritating to me is that the Republicans refused the original offer, gave a bullshit counter offer, then made a ridiculous PlanB bill, and wasted all this time trying and failing to play politics instead of actually comprising and trying to fix the goddamned problem.
What is supremely irritating to me is that the Republicans refused the original offer, gave a bullshit counter offer, then made a ridiculous PlanB bill, and wasted all this time trying and failing to play politics instead of actually comprising and trying to fix the goddamned problem.
>major parties >economics >fixing the goddamned problem lolwut?
Anyway, what was the original offer? It escaped my filters. Can someone offer it in pie-chart form? So far all the offers I've seen have been worse than sequestration.
Original offer was essentially 'Obama is unreasonable for not giving us everything we wanted and having the audacity to ask for tax increases on anyone. Give us everything or were not going to talk.'
Original offer was essentially 'Obama is unreasonable for not giving us everything we wanted and having the audacity to ask for tax increases on anyone. Give us everything or were not going to talk.'
That's the rhetoric. What was in the actual budget?
Sadly, I find it very depressing that American politics has gotten so insane that rope-a-dope strategies are considered legitimate.
Rope-a-dope is only a strategy if you're fighting a dope. Ergo...
Sad, but true. I wish the GOP was more along the lines of the "reasonable, but loyal, opposition" sort of thing ala the Tories in the UK. I'd like a GOP to be along the lines Eisenhower in the 50's (granted, he wasn't the opposition, but he was eminently reasonable), or even Congress in the 1960s or so, before the Southern Strategy, the Tea Party, and all the other crap the GOP has been trying to pull for the past 50 years.
I don't think there is a halfway point between no tax increase on anyone and increases on some. Once Boehner offered the million figure to counter Obama's $200/$250K offer wouldn't halfway be $600/$650K?
Warren Buffett himself said that $200/$250k was probably a bit too low, but he did propose a $500k amount. I can live with that.
I don't see a quarter of a million in household income as too low a bar for shouldering a little extra tax burden, especially since we're talking about a paltry (and frankly, utterly insufficient) single digit rise, probably of 2-3%.
Quarter million sounds like a lot but it may not be a lot depending on where you live and education expenses.
There is also the divorce factor. A divorced person may already be paying half their income in alimony or child support. Those percentage points are huge in those cases.
For example Nancy Lanza was getting over half of her exhusbands $450K salary in alimony/child support. An extra 5% of $450K is &22500. Doesn't sound like much from $450K but it is if 50% goes to ex plus 35% federal and 6% state.
That is how folks like me get fucked. Not everything is deductable and those couple of percentage points can really hurt.
On the flip side, taxes are at historical lows now. They were at historical lows (for the time they were first set) even at their slightly higher rates to be levied upon them. It's not like we're going back to the Eisenhower administration and it's 90%+ tax rate on the highest tax bracket.
Before I got custody about 20% of my income went out as child support. I can't deduct that so I had to pay income and payroll taxes on that money. Alimony is deductable but payroll taxes get paid by me.
Couldn't we change the laws so that alimony and child support act as % after taxes instead of total income? The 450k guy would get $265.5k after taxes, and then 5% of THAT ($13,275) would be the alimony and he walks away with 252,225. That seems (more) fair to me.
Alimony is tax-deductible. If half of your income goes to alimony payments, you figure your income tax AFTER that. It's like any other deduction. At least, that's what I've read in the tax code.
Child support is not tax-deductible. This is separate from alimony.
Also, it's not 5% of 225k. If we're hiking a marginal tax rate, it's an extra 5% on the amount over the start of the bracket.
I'm sorry, Steve, but are you expecting me to feel bad for someone because they have a pre tax income of 225k instead of 450k? Are you fucking serious? Do you seriously think that someone ending up with that much money is suddenly living like a pauper because they didn't get another quarter of a million dollars?
Sweet fucking Christ, if Kate or I had a salary of anything near 80k, not only would only one of us HAVE to work, but we could live like fucking royalty.
If you have that sort of income and are somehow not able to make ends meet, then you are a financial idiot.
Sweet fucking Christ, if Kate or I had a salary of anything near 80k, not only would only one of us HAVE to work, but we could live like fucking royalty.
Move down here to Boston. A teacher with tenure (which only takes 3 years to get) makes $88k. Its one of the few things I like about our teachers union. They also offer great benefits, like getting to hang out with us.
Anyway, yeah, that''s Capitalism. Everyone's not supposed to be equal. The workers are supposed to struggle and the aristocrats are supposed to live luxouriously. In the case of multi-millionaires, there's a case to be made that some of their extravagant income doesn't make their life significantly more luxurious, but 450k is a reasonable excess.
I don't mind not making six figures, and I don't mind the fact that other people do make that much. What bothers me is that people make that much and then have some sob story about how hard life is for them. Or when people making that sort of cash throw others onto a metaphorical sacrificial pyre to make even more money.
Ladies and gentlemen, once again it is time for a case study in the problems I have with the American fiscal left:
I don't mind not making six figures, and I don't mind the fact that other people do make that much.
This must be why you believe in wealth redistribution.
I What bothers me is that people make that much and then have some sob story about how hard life is for them. Or when people making that sort of cash throw others onto a metaphorical sacrificial pyre to make even more money.
How dare they use oppress us with their metaphors. Rhetoric is truly the greatest force against change there is.
Seriously, budget cuts may squish my guts but words will never hurt me. Who gives a shit what they say? I'll let Roger Ailes bitch and moan all he wants if it means we can get non-fucked up taxes and budget.
Boundless, bottomless greed is not capitalism.
Yes it is. From the extremists to the moderates, capitalism is a system designed to reward success but be liable to greed. From Smith to Rand to Obama, every educated capitalist has agreed on this. Capitalism dictates that greed is inherent in humans and that our society should be set up to use it as a motivator for individuals to do great work. To limit that greed is to introduce Marxism. It is to say that greed is a plague and should be quarantined, that one must limit the use of greed for the welfare of the masses. If that's what you believe then join Sanders, Debs, and myself, and own up to it. We can't progress as a movement until we stop using their words to mean our ideals.
Seriously, budget cuts may squish my guts but words will never hurt me. Who gives a shit what they say?
Nobody cares what they say, but laying off a bunch of workers to increase profit even though your company is already doing fine is not just talk. It's action that takes devastatingly from some to benefit others who don't need it. Asscactus. :P
Seriously, budget cuts may squish my guts but words will never hurt me. Who gives a shit what they say?
Nobody cares what they say, but laying off a bunch of workers to increase profit even though your company is already doing fine is not just talk. It's action that takes devastatingly from some to benefit others who don't need it. Asscactus. :P
Points for the imaginative insult, but he said that he specifically said that his problem was with the sob stories and metaphorical pyres. He said nothing of those lay offs.
I'll let GTMR speak for himself about the earlier statements, but I think you've misinterpreted him, Greg.
However, I will respond to you on this:
Boundless, bottomless greed is not capitalism.
Yes it is. From the extremists to the moderates, capitalism is a system designed to reward success but be liable to greed. From Smith to Rand to Obama, every educated capitalist has agreed on this. Capitalism dictates that greed is inherent in humans and that our society should be set up to use it as a motivator for individuals to do great work.
Yes, capitalism is based around what one might call greed, though I'd say that it's generally a poor choice of term and "greed" in that sense is not really a problem unless it is unmitigated by one's morality. People want things, but ruthless adherence to a bottomless pit of greed is not a necessity for capitalism to work. Capitalism merely requires people to want things (which indeed they do); having wants in addition to needs is hardly what I would call greed.
To limit that greed is to introduce Marxism. It is to say that greed is a plague and should be quarantined, that one must limit the use of greed for the welfare of the masses. If that's what you believe then join Sanders, Debs, and myself, and own up to it. We can't progress as a movement until we stop using their words to mean our ideals.
The point isn't to limit any such greed, but the negative consequences of unfettered greed. Moreover, the type of system that we're talking about here isn't really anything that should be called Marxism (though it does indeed have Marxist influences). After all, the system in question is still one based on a market economy - just one with government influence and regulation (i.e. a mixed economy).
Yes, capitalism is based around what one might call greed, though I'd say that it's generally a poor choice of term and "greed" in that sense is not really a problem unless it is unmitigated by one's morality.
Capitalism is based on the notion that one must create in order to live. It has no moral quandary starving paupers if they are unable to find work. It has no trouble leaving the workers to freeze in the cold if their labor is cheap. Its morality is the morality of the aristocrats that govern the society that uses it. When that morality is problematic and they have cemented their positions as fiscal deities, only the state can remove them from their thrones. The only logical solution is socialism.
People want things, but ruthless adherence to a bottomless pit of greed is not a necessity for capitalism to work.
I never said anything about capitalism working.
To limit that greed is to introduce Marxism. It is to say that greed is a plague and should be quarantined, that one must limit the use of greed for the welfare of the masses. If that's what you believe then join Sanders, Debs, and myself, and own up to it. We can't progress as a movement until we stop using their words to mean our ideals.
The point isn't to limit any such greed, but the negative consequences of unfettered greed. Moreover, the type of system that we're talking about here isn't really anything that should be called Marxism (though it does indeed have Marxist influences). After all, the system in question is still one based on a market economy - just one with government influence and regulation (i.e. a mixed economy).
In limiting the negative consequences on the masses, you also limit those individuals' benefits. Charity required by the state is socialist. I'm disappointed, Cheese. We have the same goals, however, you refuse to admit and/or accept what their nature is. My understanding was that knee-jerk fear of Marxism was an American phenomenon, and that overseas they were more open to it. However, your response is nearly identical to that of my domestic frienemies.
I could continue, but I'll let the voice of 95 years ago speak on my behalf:
Your union and your party embrace the working class. The Socialist Party expresses the interests, hopes and aspirations of the toilers of all the world. Get your fellow workers into the industrial union and the political party to which they rightly belong... This is [an era] that calls for men and women who have courage, the manhood and womanhood to do their duty. Get into the Socialist Party and take your place in its ranks; help to inspire the weak and strengthen the faltering, and do your share to speed the coming of the brighter and better day for us all.
Hey fuckhead, argue all the bullshit you want, but if you believe this guy should live in a box so that Donald Trump can buy a third jet, then you can die in a razor blade tornado.
Hey fuckhead, argue all the bullshit you want, but if you believe this guy should live in a box so that Donald Trump can buy a third jet, then you can die in a razor blade tornado.
What about my posts makes you think I believe that?
Hey fuckhead, argue all the bullshit you want, but if you believe this guy should live in a box so that Donald Trump can buy a third jet, then you can die in a razor blade tornado.
What about my posts makes you think I believe that?
I don't know who he directed that comment at, really.
Yes, capitalism is based around what one might call greed, though I'd say that it's generally a poor choice of term and "greed" in that sense is not really a problem unless it is unmitigated by one's morality.
Capitalism is based on the notion that one must create in order to live. It has no moral quandary starving paupers if they are unable to find work. It has no trouble leaving the workers to freeze in the cold if their labor is cheap. Its morality is the morality of the aristocrats that govern the society that uses it. When that morality is problematic and they have cemented their positions as fiscal deities, only the state can remove them from their thrones. The only logical solution is socialism.
You're offering a false dichotomy between pure capitalism and pure socialism when in fact both ideas have never really been tested, and in fact may be impossible to test in the real world.
People want things, but ruthless adherence to a bottomless pit of greed is not a necessity for capitalism to work.
I never said anything about capitalism working.
Regardless of that, it does. As implemented in the real world, capitalism mostly does work, and the adjustments to that system in the form of government intervention have worked (and do work) in limiting the downsides.
In limiting the negative consequences on the masses, you also limit those individuals' benefits. Charity required by the state is socialist. I'm disappointed, Cheese. We have the same goals, however, you refuse to admit and/or accept what their nature is. My understanding was that knee-jerk fear of Marxism was an American phenomenon, and that overseas they were more open to it. However, your response is nearly identical to that of my domestic frienemies.
Taxes are not the same thing as socialism, Greg. I do in fact support the presence of a welfare state, but that isn't socialism - social ownership of the means of production isn't involved. Sure, there is significant socialist influence, but it's a social market economy that we're looking at.
As for Marxism, while I wouldn't go so far as Rym in implying that the concept has no place in modern society, I don't think the term is particularly applicable to the social constructs we're actually talking about.
You're offering a false dichotomy between pure capitalism and pure socialism when in fact both ideas have never really been tested, and in fact may be impossible to test in the real world.
No, I'm offering a false dichotomy between current American capitalism and some sort of socialism I didn't really define. Having now read up a little bit more on the Social Market, I think it's totally reasonable. I'm not one of those nuts that wants to cut the security net to force the proletariat into revolt or anything. I still think it's wrong, but not as wrong as the system currently in play.
Regardless of that, it does. As implemented in the real world, capitalism mostly does work, and the adjustments to that system in the form of government intervention have worked (and do work) in limiting the downsides.
I take issue with this statement, but not because I was right. Capitalism may work in some places, but "mostly" it does not. In India and Brazil poverty runs amok, unfettered by the lack of government regulation. In Colombia and Nicaragua, indifferent governments do nothing to help the lower class. Across sub-Saharan Africa, the residue of imperialism can still be seen through economic exploitation form capitalist companies. I won't claim that capitalism never works (I was pointing out that my description of capitalism didn't include being functional, though it was rather ambiguous), but most of the capitalist world is dysfunctional havoc.
In unrelated news, I think my rhetoric is abnormally strong today (speaking exclusively in terms of form). I think it's because I stopped trying to moderate and started to just rant.
Taxes are not the same thing as socialism, Greg. I do in fact support the presence of a welfare state, but that isn't socialism - social ownership of the means of production isn't involved. Sure, there is significant socialist influence, but it's a social market economy that we're looking at.
Dammit. Wikipedia is my TV Tropes. In terms of my response, see above.
As for Marxism, while I wouldn't go so far as Rym in implying that the concept has no place in modern society, I don't think the term is particularly applicable to the social constructs we're actually talking about.
I'd say that Marxist criticism and analysis is relevant and will remain that way until/unless currency and class are abolished -- and it might still be relevant then. Marx's ideas for how to achieve utopia, however... it's questionable if they ever would've worked. The idea that the intelligentsia must lead the proletariat through the revolution, but the intelligentsia are bourgeois, and the proletariat must awaken on their own (ignoring Leninist theory); it gets pretty confusing.
When I said you're introducing Marxism, I really meant Marxist ideals, not the specific government he outlined in the Communist Manifesto (which I have downloaded on my iPad specifically because it's illegal in Missouri).
Regardless of that, it does. As implemented in the real world, capitalism mostly does work, and the adjustments to that system in the form of government intervention have worked (and do work) in limiting the downsides.
I take issue with this statement, but not because I was right. Capitalism may work in some places, but "mostly" it does not. In India and Brazil poverty runs amok, unfettered by the lack of government regulation. In Colombia and Nicaragua, indifferent governments do nothing to help the lower class. Across sub-Saharan Africa, the residue of imperialism can still be seen through economic exploitation form capitalist companies. I won't claim that capitalism never works (I was pointing out that my description of capitalism didn't include being functional, though it was rather ambiguous), but most of the capitalist world is dysfunctional havoc.
No economic system can possibly function effectively under a highly corrupt government. One might argue that capitalism naturally leads to corruption, but isn't that true of any form of centralisation of power?
The problem that needs solving is not capitalism but corruption, and history shows that merely removing capitalism does not solve that problem, and can in fact worsen it.
most of the capitalist world is dysfunctional havoc.
As for Marxism, while I wouldn't go so far as Rym in implying that the concept has no place in modern society, I don't think the term is particularly applicable to the social constructs we're actually talking about.
I'd say that Marxist criticism and analysis is relevant and will remain that way until/unless currency and class are abolished -- and it might still be relevant then.
So you're specifically talking about class struggles and Marxian economics, right? I agree that it's relevant, but it's definitely flawed in some ways. For example, the labour theory of value Marx's economic analysis is based on really doesn't seem to hold up.
No economic system can possibly function effectively under a highly corrupt government. One might argue that capitalism naturally leads to corruption, but isn't that true of any form of centralisation of power?
The problem that needs solving is not capitalism but corruption, and history shows that merely removing capitalism does not solve that problem, and can in fact worsen it.
most of the capitalist world is dysfunctional havoc.
Much of the developing world's corruption is rooted in their deep rooted connection with the old capitalist superpowers. I would argue that in many (perhaps even most) parts of the Second and Third World, the quickest and most efficient solution is proletariat revolt, but whether socialism specifically should be the result of said revolution varies.
So you're specifically talking about class struggles and Marxian economics, right? I agree that it's relevant, but it's definitely flawed in some ways. For example, the labour theory of value Marx's economic analysis is based on really doesn't seem to hold up.
I'm not sure that I agree with you about labour theory (I need to brush up on it), but I'll ceed the point because it's not important, and I agree with the broader statement your making.
As a side note, as I started to write this post Green Day started playing. I think I'm becoming an archetype.
Comments
>economics
>fixing the goddamned problem
lolwut?
Anyway, what was the original offer? It escaped my filters. Can someone offer it in pie-chart form? So far all the offers I've seen have been worse than sequestration.
There is also the divorce factor. A divorced person may already be paying half their income in alimony or child support. Those percentage points are huge in those cases.
That is how folks like me get fucked. Not everything is deductable and those couple of percentage points can really hurt.
Child support is not tax-deductible. This is separate from alimony.
Also, it's not 5% of 225k. If we're hiking a marginal tax rate, it's an extra 5% on the amount over the start of the bracket.
Sweet fucking Christ, if Kate or I had a salary of anything near 80k, not only would only one of us HAVE to work, but we could live like fucking royalty.
If you have that sort of income and are somehow not able to make ends meet, then you are a financial idiot.
Anyway, yeah, that''s Capitalism. Everyone's not supposed to be equal. The workers are supposed to struggle and the aristocrats are supposed to live luxouriously. In the case of multi-millionaires, there's a case to be made that some of their extravagant income doesn't make their life significantly more luxurious, but 450k is a reasonable excess.
Boundless, bottomless greed is not capitalism.
Seriously, budget cuts may squish my guts but words will never hurt me. Who gives a shit what they say? I'll let Roger Ailes bitch and moan all he wants if it means we can get non-fucked up taxes and budget. Yes it is. From the extremists to the moderates, capitalism is a system designed to reward success but be liable to greed. From Smith to Rand to Obama, every educated capitalist has agreed on this. Capitalism dictates that greed is inherent in humans and that our society should be set up to use it as a motivator for individuals to do great work. To limit that greed is to introduce Marxism. It is to say that greed is a plague and should be quarantined, that one must limit the use of greed for the welfare of the masses. If that's what you believe then join Sanders, Debs, and myself, and own up to it. We can't progress as a movement until we stop using their words to mean our ideals.
However, I will respond to you on this:Yes, capitalism is based around what one might call greed, though I'd say that it's generally a poor choice of term and "greed" in that sense is not really a problem unless it is unmitigated by one's morality. People want things, but ruthless adherence to a bottomless pit of greed is not a necessity for capitalism to work. Capitalism merely requires people to want things (which indeed they do); having wants in addition to needs is hardly what I would call greed. The point isn't to limit any such greed, but the negative consequences of unfettered greed. Moreover, the type of system that we're talking about here isn't really anything that should be called Marxism (though it does indeed have Marxist influences). After all, the system in question is still one based on a market economy - just one with government influence and regulation (i.e. a mixed economy).
I could continue, but I'll let the voice of 95 years ago speak on my behalf:
As for Marxism, while I wouldn't go so far as Rym in implying that the concept has no place in modern society, I don't think the term is particularly applicable to the social constructs we're actually talking about.
In unrelated news, I think my rhetoric is abnormally strong today (speaking exclusively in terms of form). I think it's because I stopped trying to moderate and started to just rant. Dammit. Wikipedia is my TV Tropes. In terms of my response, see above. I'd say that Marxist criticism and analysis is relevant and will remain that way until/unless currency and class are abolished -- and it might still be relevant then. Marx's ideas for how to achieve utopia, however... it's questionable if they ever would've worked. The idea that the intelligentsia must lead the proletariat through the revolution, but the intelligentsia are bourgeois, and the proletariat must awaken on their own (ignoring Leninist theory); it gets pretty confusing.
When I said you're introducing Marxism, I really meant Marxist ideals, not the specific government he outlined in the Communist Manifesto (which I have downloaded on my iPad specifically because it's illegal in Missouri).
The problem that needs solving is not capitalism but corruption, and history shows that merely removing capitalism does not solve that problem, and can in fact worsen it. So you're specifically talking about class struggles and Marxian economics, right? I agree that it's relevant, but it's definitely flawed in some ways. For example, the labour theory of value Marx's economic analysis is based on really doesn't seem to hold up.
As a side note, as I started to write this post Green Day started playing. I think I'm becoming an archetype.