Taxing the rich, FB conversation

R.W. posted this: 99 Percent? Top 25 Occupy Wall Street Backers Worth Over $4 Billion | NewsBusters.org 

J.W.: The point is not that they are rich. They are willing to take to tax hikes for the upper class. They support the fact that because they have more, they should give more. I've seen tons of signs of protesters even that say " I am the one percent and I stand with the 99" I don't think it's a big deal that they have the support of some wealthier individuals. 

B.R.: Your son is right. 

R.W.: Except that he's not. The protesters are not against people with money, they are after CERTAIN people with money. And these Liberals billionaires do NOT want their taxes raised. That is the big lie here. They want the INCOME tax raised ...but they don't pay INCOME tax they pay CAPITAL GAINS tax which is different. No billionaire I have seen has said we should raise Capital Gains rates. When Warren Buffet said his secretary paid more income tax than he did he was correct. Because his income doesn't come from a pay check, hers does! And the whole notion that because you have more, you should pay more is bullshit. Should you pay for a loaf of bread based on your income? We should all pay the SAME percentage. That alone would mean that someone making $200,000 pays 10 times as much as someone making $20,000. These protesters sit there in their Nike's and Levi's listening to their I-pods and talking on their Cell phones and those are brought to you by capitalism and corporations! If they want to place blame somewhere, put it on the government. These people who you don't think pay enough, are paying exactly what the government tells them they must. They are obeying the law as set forth by Washington. And if these Hypocrites think they should pay more, please show me ONE billionaire that has given more than the IRS said they owed. In my book, Millionaires and Billionaires are HEROES. They show that you can succeed in this country even if you start out with Nothing. They should be applauded not demonized just because they worked hard and made something of themselves and all these little punks can think to do is sit on their asses and complain that they don't have it easy. I have NO sympathy for the little whiners. 

Me: They have more, and they do give more. They pay a higher proportion of their income now than they did during Carter. Marginal tax rates are different than actual tax paid, and the rich pay more than they ever have. 

B.R.: But R.W., how do you really feel about it? 

R.W.: I know. I was actually excited and pleased that Jeremy jumped in. I respect those with view points which are incorrect a lot more than those with no viewpoints at all. I just read somewhere that if the tax rates were raised the way those Occupiers and Democrats in office wanted, it would only raise like 16 billion dollars more. In government terms that would last us about 15 minutes. I'll have to try and find that so my numbers are more accurate. My friend R.S. that chimed in usually has those figures either in his head or at his finger tips. Maybe if we are real nice he'll post them for us. My friend B.R. here, didn't wait for someone to hand him a job after college. He started his own theatre company. I respect that. My son J.W. has chosen a field that will ALWAYS be in demand, Math Teacher. How many of these protesters got a degree in communications or Renaissance art history, and now figure corporations should fall over backwards to give them a job. Randy has his own business. Should he be forced to hire 3 or 4 more people even though he doesn't need them? Of course he would have to give them Full benefits and a retirement package. These kids need to learn how the world operates before they start criticizing. And the poor things don't even realize that the Rich people supporting them are doing it for their OWN self interests, whether they be financial or political or both. 

B.R.: Thanks for the respect. I started a theater company in 2006. But I couldn't start one now, because of consumer spending that crashed in the recession. I don't need a handout from corporations or rich people, I need them to act in the interest of the nation's economy. Me: People act in their own interests. That is all that should be expected of anyone. If people decide to be charitable, that is also their business. No one, especially government, has the right to force people to serve the interests of others. No one has claim to anyone else's property. 

Me: As far as the rich paying more, we already know that whenever another dollar is taxed into government coffers, government spends $1.83. The problem is not, and never has been, a tax problem. It has always been a spending problem. 

B.R.: You're making an assumption that the only two ways to act are selfishly and charitably. Let's forget everything for a moment except salary ratios. The disparity between the average CEO's compensation and the average non-executive staff member's compensation has been growing exponentially for years. In 1965, the ratio was 20:1. By 1997, it was 115:1. That rate of expansion has continued. Let's agree on one thing: less Americans would struggle financially if this disparity eased up even a little bit. Right? We can agree on that? 

Me: How exactly will cutting CEO pay help you in any way? I am asking seriously. Oh, and I am not suggesting only two ways to act. And I did not day "selfishly," I said acting in their self interest. Further, it's not anyone's business if someone is acting selfishly, let alone in their self interest, or even charitably. Greed is a moral failing, and you can't legislate morality. 

B.R.: It won't help me, it will help others. I'm doing fine, I just have this nagging feeling that 8.6 percent of Americans could use some help. If a large company paid its executives a minor fraction less, it could afford to spend that savings on new positions that would not only help that 8.6, but likely help the business' bottom line by improving efficiency and productivity. It's a smart financial move AND it considers the state of their national and local economy. See, it's not my place to ask someone in the 1% for a handout, or a moral shift. But it is certainly my place to ask them to act like leaders and compromise for the sake of the 8.6%, who God knows have done enough compromising themselves. 

Me: I don't mean to be condescending, but do you know why a company hires people? Do you think it's simply a matter of having some dollars laying around doing nothing? Maybe you don't realize is it because there is work that needs to be done? What I'm saying is that what a CEO is paid is not relevant to how many people are hired. If 8.6% of people need help, may I respectfully inquire what you personally are doing to help them? Maybe you could take a cut in pay and hire someone? Or perhaps you could write a check to the soup kitchen and stop worrying about what others do with there own money? 

B.R.: A wise man said "be wary of philosophies that require minimum effort from - but provide maximum benefit to - the believer". It's willful ignorance to think that the size of a CEO's paycheck doesn't have an impact on the hiring of new employees. Every company I've worked for has wanted more staff members to delegate the ever-increasing workload, but could not afford the payroll expense of new employees. Corporate chains, multi-million dollar non-profits, independent production companies - they all want more people on the team, to make everyone's job more efficient and to hit their departmental goals. If corporations paid less to executives and more to new hires, the economy would benefit and more Americans would be employed.

B.R.: What am I doing? First, I'm supporting my girlfriend, who is one of the 8.6%. Second, I'm delegating parts of my job to an assistant, which I'm paying for with my own salary. Third, I'm having conversations like this. 

Me: Respectful inquires get huffy responses. 

Me: Willful ignorance? Restating your opinion is not an advancement of your argument. Try again. 

Me: If "they all want more people on the team," perhaps you could explain why corporations are being accused of holding back on expenditures resulting in high unemployment? It can't be both ways. 

B.R.: Rational conclusions get meta-conversational diversions. I can't explain corporations' actions, or lack thereof, that's why I'm saying they should stop holding back on expenditures that would create more jobs. 

Me: ‎*Sigh* I'm asking you to explain the contradiction. On one hand you claim that cutting CEO pay would free up dollars for hiring, but on the other hand corporations are supposedly hanging on to to a bunch of excess money and not hiring.

JFK and tax policy - FB conversation

S.B. posted this picture with the comment: yeah. I'm a liberal.


LIKE & SHARE - if you agree with JFK's statement... How is it, that 50 years later, Kennedy's inaugural speech is still unmatched in it's vision and motivational power?

Me: ‎"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."
– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

S.B.: Yep. And you know what the top marginal tax rate was in 1963 when JFK said that?

that's right: 91%. So the wealthiest Americans paid a 91% tax on the last dollars of their income. And yet, those were prosperous times, with a lot of people coming into the middle class for the first time. We built our interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon....

What is it today? 33%. Lower than it was than during the Clinton era, where again, the economy prospered.

Just filling in the rest of the story for you, Rich.

Me: In the early sixties, the top 1% paid 27% of all personal income taxes. Now, it is 37%.

Just filing in the rest of the story for you, Scott.

S.B.: From Wikipedia: "According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw the...ir income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[13] In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927"

Pardon me if I have a hard time believing that our current tax policies punish the wealthy. If that's punishment, then punish me, please!

Me: Good for them, and they are paying more taxes as a result. Doesn't change the fact the Kennedy advocated tax cuts as a means for economic growth.

I did not claim that our current tax policies punish the wealthy.

J.M.: Tax cuts can be good for the economy under the correct economic circumstances. Additionally, tax rates should be adjusted down or up accordingly. And within a properly regulated environment it works. But when loose regulations and low tax rates allow wealth to accumulate to a smaller and smaller percentage of the population the ability to be flexible becomes more difficult. And keep in mind that the middle class shared far more of that wealth in Kennedy's time. This is something the Norquista's can't wrap their heads around because it contradicts their flawed ideology that somehow the free market will correct itself. As we have seen over the past 3 decades, that hasn't worked. Call it trickle down or voodoo economics or whatever they want to call it today... it's the same thing.

Me: J.M., your whole presentation is premised on the assumption that the government possesses the ability to discern, manipulate, and then properly implement tax changes that will yield desired societal outcomes, or at least, outcomes that agree with your social engineering preferences.

However, there is no evidence whatsoever that such manipulations have done anything except harm the economy. The "experts" have failed every time.

Fact is, this country is teetering on the brink because of the very techniques you advocate.

And by the way, your condescending remarks are uncivil and unwarranted. I request that you make your case, if you have one, without the insinuations that people like me are stupid.

J.M.: Rich, this is something I like to call "Social Memory Lapse". You actually cited a great example (JFK) earlier, and then repeated the oft heard argument that government is incapable of implementing desired and fair outcomes. I'm not trying to pick a fight but it should be pretty clear using that example that government can and does a good job of taxing and regulating where needed. I would say it's gotten much more difficult in this current political environment due to the tossing about of terms like "social engineering".

J.M.: For example: Christmas is social engineering. A created for masses holiday and not actually rooted in Christianity. We've adopted it as one and jolly good and fine with me. But that is social engineering. Government is about protecting and promoting a society. If you and I only had the experience of not having a government we all might appreciate the good it does. Even when we perceive parts of it as wrong.

J.M.: And lastly, I was never at any point condescending. Simply being matter of fact. I've re-read my posts and can't find anything that would warrant that remark. Cheers and Happy Holidays!

Me:

‎1) JFK was not advocating the continual manipulation of economics, he wanted an across the board tax cut as a means of spurring economic activity and increasing revenues to the government. Trickle down.

2) Social engineering is an accurate term. The fact that you bristle at its use is unfortunate, but if you have a better term that describes government meddling in the economy, I'll consider using it.

3) Agreed about Christmas. There should be no governmental favor extended to it.

4) "Not having a government" vs. "good government" is a false binary equation. I did not advocate no government. In fact, please point out a national figure who has, or retract your statement.

5) You wrote, "This is something the Norquista's can't wrap their heads around..." Norquista suggests a mind-numbed follower of Norquist, which is first the introduction of an irrelevant tangent, and second it is coupled with a dismissive tag, "...can't get their heads around..." In other words, they're (or I'm) too stupid to understand your nuanced, clever positions.

That is condescending and insulting. But you knew that.

J.M.: Again on JFK and connecting it to my first post. Under the correct economic circumstances. Trickle down cannot be argued in that context as it can in today's.

J.M.: As for 2, it's simply not the same thing. We disagree.

As for 3, LOL... indeed. But we all can enjoy the time with family for the better at least.

As for 4, I'm merely pointing out one extreme to another and I'll leave the center of that argument for anyone's interpretative assumptions. My libertarian streak would rather less governing law in some areas and more in others were stark inequality and injustice exist.

As for 5, had I known your fondness for Grover, I might have been more gentle. I find the man wanting and have seen him continually stumble in the face of facts and return to unsupported arguments in his own defense which suggests he is less interested in how things actually work, and more interested in an ideology. It's not to say everything he promotes is a bad idea (corn subsidies is a good example), its just that the foundation of his beliefs are flawed. And the folks that are nodding their heads with him I fear are not really catching on to that and find it easier to accept the black and white view he is selling instead of thoughtfully evaluating what he is saying and shaping the message towards good public policy. And I think that shapes the rights view of Obama supporters as one way or the other when many of us disagree with him on fundamental issues. But I don't find Obama as cast in stone as Grover by any means. Far more flexible in my opinion. Perhaps too much in some areas, and not enough in others. That seems to be in stark contrast to those who follow Norquist.

So no, I didn't know that. How could I? I don't know you.

Me: No, you don't know me, but you assumed I held Norquist in high regard. In actual fact, I don't.

Which means you draw conclusions about people based on stereotypes, which explains why you are unable to understand what I am writing.

We all have these lenses that we filter data through. I'll leave it to you to sort out your own, as I will mine. In the meantime, we might wish to re-read each others' posts to ascertain what was actually being said.

J.P.: I know everyone likes the rage, but reality is revealed in a simple observation. That observation is not about Democrat or Republican, but rather conservative vs. progressive. The question is when did America (the United States to be precise) rise to great power status and why? Was it the result of conservative stand pat or progressive political ideology? Unless one engages in extraordinary revisionism and self deception, progressive policy led to great power status. Conservatism sought to maintain (by nature conservatism leads nowhere, since it seeks to maintain what is) what is: social inequity of all kinds -- take your pick. Institutionalized plutocracy, sexism, racism, imperialism, and religious orthodoxy. The Republicans that have made the difference (and a large one) were progressives. They overthrew orthodoxys such as slavery, monopolistic unregulated capitalism and the cold war as a never ending institutionalized conflict. When a Republican has a new idea, I'll consider voting for one, not before.

Me: Progressives progress? Tautology.

The church - being vs. doing

I had the pleasure of attending a class intended to introduce us to the basics of the new direction my church will be taking with you as the new pastor at the helm. Pastor, you did a lot of work on the study materials, covering a lot of ground in a very thoughtful and insightful way.

We were told that you would be welcoming suggestions for improving the study material, a courageous offer. Not many pastors would allow such vulnerability. A new pastor, in particular, risks a potential tug-of-war with “ambitious” parishioners. Yes, unfortunately there are people in congregations who look for opportunities for personal gain and position. So, offering this level of trust, while possibly fraught with peril, is nevertheless refreshingly without guile.

So, I am going to take you up on your offer. I do not want to impose my agenda or elevate myself. I also do not want to suggest in any way that you are lacking wisdom or expertise. This is submitted solely to present a perpective you might not have considered.

Also, I am not going to quibble over the organizational structure of the study materials, the verses selected, or the use of certain words or phrases. My presentation shall be based on a more organic critique, one which aims to get at the root of the matter.

The study material provided to us was, I assume, wholly prepared and written by you. Certainly it was written through your lens of understanding, for we all filter through our own understandings. Indeed, churches are built on various premises, doctrinal positions, and experiences. I think the study material reveals your particular perspective, passion, and anointing, which translates into what you believe is the calling of this church; that is, primarily evangelism and outreach.

Unfortunately, these are not specifically foundational. Such things do grow out of foundational understandings, but they are not themselves foundational. In fact, I would assert that if the foundational understandings of our church is unclear, miscast, or non-existent, any resultant ministry could be faulty. One cannot build a church without a foundation.

so, I want to know what those foundations are for my church. And, I have some input on what those foundations might need to be.

One particular concept discussed in the study material, the idea of partnership, is worth mentioning. The study material discusses partnership in the context of the obligations, activities, duties, and understandings that the individual needs to embrace. There is little or no discussion of the other half of the partnership, that is, what are the things we can expect from the church? One cannot partner with another party without knowing what that party is offering.

Further, this is only two strands of the cord. What about the third cord, God? Our partnership has a supernatural element, where the Holy Spirit informs the two other parties, bringing unity, vision, and purpose. Our human relationships in the church are only possible by having relationship with God.

Several weeks ago I asked you what you thought this church was called to be. You responded with various ministry ideas and activities, so I approached it again (as humbly as I could), saying something like, “Those are all good things, and churches should do those things, but I asked about being, not doing.” So, now that I have participated in this class I find myself returning to the same question I asked weeks before: What is this church called to be? It's a critical, foundational question.

I have my own opinons about what constitutes the foundations of a healthy church. These criteria here are in no particular order:

1) The pursuit and identification of God’s purpose, calling, and vision for the church. This must be continually reinforced with the congregation, a process sometimes known as “vision casting.”
2) A primary and ceaseless hunger for the presence of God. This is a purposeful, systematic, every day process.
3) An ambition to be a worshiping church. Worship invites the presence of God, and the presence of God carries the Word, and the Word tells us who we are, who God is, and what His heart is for us.
4) A place of safety and belonging for attendees, thereby facilitating holy relationships
5) A secure, mature, wise church leadership, composed of prophets, teachers, apostles, evangelists, and pastors. Rarely, if at all, is all of this invested in one man as titular head of the congregation. If any are not in place, the church will be unbalanced and ultimately dysfunctional.
6) Identity: We must be know who we are, and the church must know who it is.

Notice that none of this is an activity or a ministry. They are parts of what could be described as a state of being, a belonging, a platform upon which a church will be built. We start with being, and that is where we come to understand doing. We must know who we are before we can know what we will do.

We must begin at the beginning. We learn who God is as we simultaneously learn who we are in Christ. This comes via worship, teaching, pastoring, and the Word. We begin to learn the surpassing greatness of knowing and being known. Then our gifts discerned, identified, and nurtured so that they can be integrated into the purpose, calling, and vision of the church.

As I have written before, worship is central to everything else. By worship I do not mean the four or five songs we sing, the offering, and/or the obedient service we render unto the Lord. These are activities associated with worship, vehicles upon which worship can be carried... that is, various expressions of worship. But they are not worship itself. Worship is being in the presence of God.

Being.

It is from the foundation of worship we discover identity; being in the presence of God, hearing His voice, abiding in Him. From that we can build a church that honors God and ministers to people, and furthers His kingdom on earth.

Humbly submitted,

Rich

Media bias and the free market: FB conversation

I posted this picture, and we discussed it:

S.B.: it's just the free market, doing it's thing, Rich. You should be embracing it.

Me: Pointing out its bias is not the same as opposing them. However, part of the definition of free market is willing buyer and willing seller, i.e., full disclosure. The media continue to pretend that they are objective and fair, which is deception. That is not part of the free market.

S.B.: lol. so it's the free market until it fails to produce the result you want, right?

Me: No, it fails the test of the criteria free market: willing transactions between parties, an exchange of value, a legal purpose, and full disclosure. This is a major reason the mainstream media is a losing viewership/readership. It provides a faulty product.

S.B.: well what you describe, applies to MOST commercial transactions. When I go to Best Buy to buy a TV, THEY won't tell me what the repair stats are, what their margin is, what the environmental performance of their suppliers is, etc -- I can get that from third parties if I'm lucky, but the same is true in the media -- there are plenty of third party watchdogs.

Maybe we need more regulation to force better disclosure, etc? ;-)

Me: That's part of the self-correcting nature of the free market. Groups and individuals gather statistics and test products, then inform consumers, who then can enter into more informed decisions.

It is not a failure of the free market when one or another party is deceptive, it is a violation of the free market.

It is ironic that private parties like Consumer Reports, which effectively polices violations of the free market as a private entity, advocates policies (more government involvement) that would run them out of business.

Wal-Mart Occupied - editorial

Wal-Mart was Occupied on Black Friday. I happen to agree with some of Occupy’s positions, especially their opposition to the unholy alliance between big business and government. Government has done much damage to our country as a result of sweetheart deals, favorable contracts, and preferential treatment.

However, I think it is curious that the Occupiers support favoritism for local businesses, but oppose the very same thing for big corporations. Apparently the Occupiers are ok with government picking favorites as long as it is their favorites. Make no mistake, government is picking favorites. Government is deciding which companies deserve support and which ones do not. Government is assuming the power to influence your shopping choices, and it is perfectly willing to punish those businesses it deems unworthy.

Or did you forget about the $500,000 in extortion money Wal-Mart paid to the city a few years ago? Regardless of how much you might agree with those government-favored choices, there is no escaping that such activities are a violation of liberty, capitalism, and limited government. Government has no business interfering with peoples’ private, legal choices. The idea of government doing this ought to offend everyone.

I do like that Occupy is attempting to persuade peoples’ opinions by engaging in protest. Free speech is a powerful way to effect change. Of course, by doing this they are making a tacit admission that their real complaint is not with big business, it is with the shopping decisions of private citizens. You see, businesses can’t force people to shop at their stores. Businesses really have no power at all without people willing to part with their dollars. The power of ideas can influence that.

Occupy is not above criticism, however. I think it improper to enter the premises of a private business pretending to be shoppers and protest the activities of that business. Even worse, Occupy’s rap sheet now exceeds 400 incidents nationwide, including rape, vandalism, assault, and theft. No wonder Wal-Mart removed them. Kinda makes me yearn for the good old days of TEA party protests. Their sole crime was being accused of racism (falsely, it turns out).

I took the time to read some of the literature the Occupiers were handing out. They make some doubtful claims. For instance, one handout proclaims that local businesses are better for the local economy than chain stores. Being naturally skeptical, I decided to check it out. I did something I doubt a single Occupier did, I actually called the Bozeman Wal-Mart. I learned that the Bozeman store buys 12% ($12 million) of its inventory from local suppliers. They obtain local services, like snow removal, landscaping, and building repair, to the tune of over $500,000 per year. They spend thousands on local advertising. Payroll is $10 million. They gave over $220,000 to various charities. Their electric bill is $60,000 per month. Real estate taxes run $27,000 per month. 

All this is locally spent money. This calls to question the oft-stated notion that Big Box stores are bad for communities. But there’s more. There are unseen effects that positively impact the community as well. Out of town shoppers not only spend dollars at these stores, they shop at other local businesses. Consumers, by saving money on their purchases, free up their dollars to spend elsewhere. 

You might think I’m cheerleading for big business, but I’m actually cheerleading for free enterprise, the free and legal choices consumers make when unencumbered by the oppression of government. Of course as a local business owner I would prefer everyone buy their insurance from me. But I refuse to invoke the heavy hand of government to force people into choosing me. I am a true capitalist for better or worse. I offer the best product I can and leave it to consumers to decide what to do with their own money. 

That is the only edge any business is entitled to.

NPR, conservatives, and budget cuts - FB conversation

S.B. shared this: GOP Completely Fixes Economy By Canceling Funding For NPR
www.theonion.com

WASHINGTON—Unemployment plummeted and stocks soared Tuesday after Republican leaders fulfilled their promise to cut funding for National Public Radio, a budgetary move that has completely rejuvenated the flagging U.S...

S.Y.: Wow, what a relief. So on to world peace then?

S.B.: Yeah, according to Michelle Bachmann, all we need to do is close the US embassy in Iran.

You know, the one that we haven't had since 1979?

S.B.: (so it ought to be easy-peasy) ;-)

Me: Cancel NPR and a hundred (or thousand) other wasteful, useless government programs.

S.B.: yep. let 'em eat cake.

Me: What does the head of NPR make a year, $600,000?

S.B.: I've got no idea rich.

J.J.: That's a shovel-ready option!

J.P.: PBS and NPR provide an important spice in American culture. It's worth the modest investment. Look what has become of cable and what that's done to broadcast TV. The commerical mudwrestling over advertising space and the mindless and heartless statisical outcome of that has driven it to the inevitable optimized market result: the invisible hand would like to know whether you'd like a Coors Light or Bud Light with your Big Mac? How about a tasty Hostess Twinky and a 44 oz Coke for dessert? And how about the "educational" programming on cable TV? Ha!!! What a joke. Shows about aliens, the supernatural and other superstitious nonsense. It's turned into the equivalent of reading a supermarket tabloid. Is there good commerical programming? Absolutely, though you have to look pretty hard to find it in the wasteland of reality TV. Is there independent commercial programming? Nope -- independence costs something and there's no room in the commercial market model for such luxuries. So why does the right wing hate public broadcasting? Is it really about saving the tax payer a few bucks? Of course not. Watch Frontline, the Newshour and listen to All Things Considered and you'll know what's bugging them immediately. That sorta thing is precisely why they want to cut PBS and NPR. It used to be argued that if you were conservative, you had no heart, if liberal, you had no brain. From the looks of the new conservatives, they have neither and don't want to compete with such.

E.S.: My question is where can the GOP cut funding? And when does the spending stop? Yeah lets raise taxes on the rich! Why so we can spend even more? Or try and reduce the deficit? Ill bet the rich wouldn't mind a tax increase if they knew it wasn't going to be wasted.

Me: Hmm. I turn on "This Old House" and there's advertising for Lumber Liquidators, GMC, and State Farm insurance.

The supposed "wasteland" of commercial television does not justify NPR. Non sequitur.

J.P., someone disagrees, and for some reason you seem compelled to insult and denigrate. You can do better.

J.P.: It's useful to remind oneself that GOP policies haven't led to prosperity since early in the last century. One can persuasively argue that ending the stupidity of overwhelming state's rights and slavery through a civil war and ending crony monopolistic unregulated capitalism established good foundations for national wealth and power over the next century (the so-called American Century). Those were great GOP ideas prior to 1915. I doubt such ideologies would be supported by today's mob of neoconservative troglidites. The greatest period of prosperity was lead by New Deal Democrats (FDR's tribe) taking advantage of GOP progressive policies (TR and his tribe). Regardless of party affiliation, progressives are responsible for national wealth and power, not conservatives. Conservatives appear to have contributed very little of value. If you think you like the good old days, you know Leave it to Beaver and Mayberry RFD, you should brush up on who was controlling the Legislature from 1933 to 1994. With regard to what the GOP can cut... it's mythology. In review, Ronald Reagan expanded government while cutting taxes (exploding deficit spending). George HW Bush moderated that huge expansion and raised taxes though he couldn't turn back Reagan's deluge of spending by any means (he got the axe from the GOP base for trying). Bill Clinton ran a surplus effectively shrinking government though he didn't really want to. George W Bush expanded government and started an expensive and unnecessary war while slashing taxes. He never felt any reason to pay for anything. Obama is trying to prevent a total collapse of the US and global economy stemming largely from 30 years of struggles on tax and spending policy and failed financial sector deregulation in 1999. Basically, it can be said that no one has really cut back the government though one side claims it as a rhetorical plank as though they are a champion of such. I suggest that history indicates they're mostly full of crap.

J.P.: Rich: some things are worth a little hyperbole. I was a faithful Republican for 25 years as my close friends can attest. But this new group are not my Republican party -- that I inherited from long family tradition. It was a disappointment, but finally I had enough and had to decide between them and what I felt was in the national interest. George W Bush made that easier, but this new group... Wow, just wow! They need a time out.

Me: No one here is defending GOP policies. Conservative philosophy has not governed financial policy for many decades.

Bill Clinton did not give us a surplus. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Only Congress has the authority to appropriate and spend money. None of these presidents did what you claimed.

FDR presided over and extended the longest period of financial devastation the country has ever seen.

Everything you have written is false.

Your hyperbole was not generic. I expect an apology.

E.S.: GOP does not equal conservatism.
I do not support deficit spending no matter where it comes from.
It seems the only real cuts in our massive spending are coming from the right at the moment.
What would be ok for conservatives to cut to try and save us from collapse that liberals wouldn't harp on?
Fact: we cannot keep this spending up and expect to be okay.

E.S.: And we need more cuts than defense spending to balance the budget and i don't rule out those cuts.

Me: E.s., allow me to anticipate the next comment from the Left: So where were you when Bush was running up the debt and waging two illegal wars? Here's another: Bush is responsible for the huge debt, Obama is just trying to dig us out of the mess he inherited. Ooo, ooo! Here's a good one: Tax cuts for the wealthy are what is causing the debt.

S.B.: E.S., - quick: without resorting to google tell me how much federal funding that NPR gets each year? What % of the budget? How much impact will that have if we eliminate it?

A joke is really lost on the true believers, isn't it?

U.M.: Rich - tax cuts for the wealthy ARE what's causing the debt. How do you not understand this? It's really not complicated. Also, at this point if you support the republican party and you are NOT one of the top 400 richest Americans (and I'm guessing you're not) you're screwing yourself over. You are voting for people who are going to make things WORSE for you. NOT BETTER, WORSE. Ethan - the idea tha we can't afford public broadcasting is BULLSHIT. Plane and simple. Last year's taxpayer outlay for public broadcasting was $420 million. Meanwhile, corporate tax breaks cost the US $100 billion dollars annually. The combination of rampant greed and unabashed ignorance coming from the right today is sickening.

Me: And pick out a couple hundred other programs that can be eliminated as well. That's just the low-hanging fruit.

E.S.: Its probably very minimal but it doesn't change the fact that we can't afford it does it? Do u know that off the top of your head without looking it up?

U.M.: Scott- I just answered your question :) And yes, unfortunately you have to have a basic level of intelligence in order to understand sarcasm.

E.S.: Defunding that by itself wouldn't eliminate any of the deficit but combining it with many other federal programs and waste in all departments most certainly would help.

Me: U.M., your bare assertion does not establish fact. As mentioned before, only congress has the authority to appropriate and spend money. That's what they do, and their spending easily outstrips revenue.

Increasing revenue a dollar increases spending $1.83. Sorry, U.M, it's not a revenue problem.

I also noted above that I was not defending GOP policies. Perhaps you should read what is written before commenting.

Oh, and don't forget to add another profanity. That certainly establishes the power of your argument.

U.M.: Rich - The "low hanging fruit" that you speak of is all programs for low-income people. I know this, because I'm currently going to school for social work, so I'm right in the thick of it. Frankly I find it extremely offensive that you consider food & heating assistance (for example) for people wasteful. Also, anyone who knows me knows that I swear all the time. I'm done being polite to people who are running this country into the ground, sir.

Me: Maybe a little economic quiz is in order.

1) How much revenue will be produced over the next 5 years if we tax the top 10% of earners at 100%?

2) How much tax in total is paid by corporations of all sizes?

3) How much economic activity is provided for each dollar of Unemployment paid?

S.B.: E.S., actually, I DID know, because I've been a donor to NPR for about 15 years. the federal share of NPR's funding is apprx. $$3M/year. or about 0.00001% of the current federal budget.

So when someone says that efforts to defund NPR are primarily motivated by the desire to cut the deficit, you can be pretty sure they are full of shit. Because putting that much political capital into a move that affects about one millionth share of the federal budget is NOT going to get us there.....and trust me, it would be a big political battle to defund it.

So you can assume it's about symbolism, about striking a blow against intellectualism (the real demon of the political right at the moment, though that has not always been the case), and about "getting even" for a perceived political bias of those nasty NPR people.

Yes, we need to cut the deficit. THat's the point of the satire in the Onion -- even mentioning NPR or other miniscule programs like it in the deficiit debate, rather than focusing on those things that are large enough to matter -- THAT is a failure to take the issue seriously. But it is chronic.

You want to tackle the deficit? Tackle Defense. Tackle entitlements. START with the big stuff, where the effort involved (and the inevitable economic pain that the country will suffer as part of the "cure"), will be rewarded with actual progress.

If you want to SOUND tough on the deficit, but accomplish nothing, then sure, focus your time on miniscule programs and portions, sound righteous and accomplish nothing.

Me: U.M., you assume a lot, based on preconceived notions and prejudice. You don't know me, yet you judge me without evidence. That is bigotry.

Good for you, you swear. You must be proud. But maybe you can put a thought or two together and make an argument.

U.M.: Ahem: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10#

S.B.: you guys be nice. I hate deleting threads but will do so if people start acting like jackasses towards each other.

Appropriating Christmas - Christianity is good when it serves your agenda

The Nation sent me another email, capitalistically hawking their coffee mugs, t-shirts, and pencils. I clicked on the link, and this banner was across the top of their website.

The Left sure loves Jesus and Christianity when they can use them as a bludgeon. Cynical.

Signs that the election is heating up

You can be sure we're within 1 year of the election, because

1) Gas prices start falling
2) Unemployment lowers
3) Republicans are elevated one by one and systematically destroyed
4) Housing starts magically rise
5) The media trumpets Obama's "accomplishments"
6) The media attempts to pit one Republican candidate against another instead of Obama
7) Mentioning Obama's failures is racism
8) Republican initiatives are routinely described as hateful, greedy, or evil

The great whitewash of the Obama record now begins in earnest.

The Federal Reserve - FB conversation

L.B. posted this: Please listen to this message from Senator Dennis Kucinich. It only takes a couple of miniutes but lays out the way for the people of the United States to regain soveriegnty
The Fed Grants $7.77 Trillion in Secret Bank Loan - Now Do You Understand Occupy Wall Street? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUpXDZFtEHw&feature=share

Me: He correctly identifies the symptoms, then blames the private sector? The Fed, basically a part of government, is the conduit of funds for the government. The government decides to deficit spend, the fed prints the money, the government receives it and issues bonds to the Fed to cover the money it receives. Essentially, the government is loaning money to itself and the Fed holds the bonds it receives for printing the money the government. Something wrong with this equation, and Kucinich is part of the problem.

L.B.: You don't get it Rich! The Fed is not a part of the government, it is a privately held corporation owned by elitist world power brokers. The Fed essentially creates dollars out of thin air then we the tax payers have to pay them back with interest. Its a giant sucking sound coming out of your pockets to enrich world bankers. It is robbery of the first order and our government, yes Barack Obama, is enabling it to happen!

L.B.: PS The reason I used Senator Kucinich is because many of my friends are lefties and won't read or believe anything that comes out of the right wing media bias. Its great when one of their own gets at least a piece of the picture.

Me: I'm tracking with you, my brother. Kucinich is useful in that regard.

By the way, the Fed was created by an act of congress in 1913, and the board of the Federal Reserve is appointed by the President, but according to law is subject to congressional oversight.

L.B.: If the fed is subject to congress then explain why during the TARP bail out they gave the mega banks in the US and Europe 9 trillion dollars when congress only authorized 900 billion?

Me: It's a shocker I know, but congress doesn't always follow the law... especially when they can spend other peoples' money without limit.

Taxpayers fund public employees - FB Conversation

S.B. posted a link to an article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/02/25/the-wisconsin-lie-exposed-taxpayers-actually-contribute-nothing-to-public-employee-pensions/

M.G.: Are we surprised?? Recall Walker -- the puppet!!

S.J.: gov. walker is such a tool

Me: ‎"The pension plan is the direct result of deferred compensation- money that employees would have been paid as cash salary but choose..." If the taxpayer isn't the source for compensation, deferred or otherwise, then who is?

S.J.: the employee earned it

Me: Begging the question. What is the source of the money?

S.J.: bit of a circle there, i'm not saying state employees should not exist because their salaries come out of the tax base--am saying walker's a tool for saying workers need to "contribute more" to their pensions when 100% = 100%. he's a dishonest tool misrepresenting the situation and a real reason why unions are still needed.

Me: We need to be clear. All compensation paid to public employees, whether in cash, deferred income, or benefits like health insurance, comes from then pockets of taxpayers. Also, deferred income is not paid by the employee because the employee never received the money. Therefore, the taxpayer is funding it 100%.

S.J.: it's not being unclear, sticking to and not being diverted from the original point of the article which is walker's toolishness

Me: Would it be fair to say that the point of the article is contained in its title? "Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee Pensions."

Taxpayers fund the entire pension. Period.

S.J.: poorly worded, many headlines are (brevity, stupidity, etc.) but doesn't mitigate walker's earlier dishonest campaigning against state workers. whether working for the state or a corporation, a living wage for contributing to service or profit is due compensation. evaluating an individual position or performance is fair; inaccurately inferring that an entire class is unfairly receiving benefit is loathsome

Me: Sigh."If the Wisconsin governor and state legislature were to be honest, they would correctly frame this issue," advice the author himself ought to follow. The whole substance of the article (actually, an opinion piece) is a false premise, one that you are promulgating, is that The governor is wrong because the employee is paying for it. The fact, is the taxpayer is. Why is this so hard to see?

The governor was guilty of nothing more than imprecision. The writer is either misinformed or misleading.