Alright so, you wrote a lot there. So this is going to be a long response. I'm going to try and more or less take this point by point.
OK, fam - I'll try to clarify...
The income of the top 1% has risen astronomically in the last 8 years when compared to the feeble growth elsewhere. This indicates that the rich are squandering money instead of creating jobs.Not really. The "job creators" line was bullshit in the first place. <snip-irrelevant>
<snip>And so instead of coming up with new policy ideas, they've decided to come up with new justifications for their old ideas.
Your statement here is partially correct. Yes, the 'job creators' bit was total BS. We gave tax holidays in the past, during the bush administration we gave corporations tax breaks, and personal tax breaks. What I mean to say here is that giving more money to corporations or the rich through tax-exemptions or tax breaks does not create jobs - it's a failing economic strategy to spur job growth. Also what I was saying is, when you later remove a tax break, businesses and owners will want to maintain the level of income they were used to, so likely you would see them revolt at that time, perhaps firing some employees or doing some tightening to maintain their high level of income.. We'll see what the case is when the bush-era tax cuts expire eventually...http://fwcon.wordpress.com/where-does-government-get-its-money-from/
- see taxation only - high/low taxation later..
Yes, we are going through something completely different, that we haven't experienced before. Therefore, we need new ideas to get out of it..
At the same time, most taxes come from the middle class, which was used to bail out the people that were a large part of the problem.
A couple of things. I don't think that you're right about the middle class' share of the tax burden. I think that it's the upper class and the upper middle class that pays most of the federal taxes. After all, we have a disgusting level of income inequality in this country and they have most of the money. It is true that the middle class often pays a higher proportion of their income in taxes, but that's not exactly the same thing.
This is actually what I meant. Thanks for clarifying that:
Here’s how to read this: 40 percent of taxpayers with incomes between 30K and 40K pay more than 12.9 percent of their income in income and payroll taxes; meanwhile, 25 percent of people with incomes over $1M pay less than 12.6 percent of their income in these taxes. This suggests that there are a lot of very-high-income guys paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries.
With respect to the bailouts, I'm not sure how this is supposed to cast aspersions against the entirety of the monied class. However ham-fistedly we dealt with the financial crisis, this was something that threatened to destroy the world economy in 2008 and was therefore in everyone's economic interest. <snip>
I am of the opinion that we should have only bailed out the homeowners, thereby bailing out bottom-up instead of top-down, which would have averted the housing disaster. What would you like to say? Here is a loan against your current loan - you are currently re-financed out of your shitty loan from the bank. Pay it back as usual. Or 2: banks - you have committed a crime. But that's ok - here's your money, and we will do it again if necessary. GM: here's money for you, as long as you pay it back, for being such dumbasses and running a crappy auto business.. thanks for all of your incompetence.
I would have rather said the former, as I'm sure Ben Stein would agree. Yes, we had to do something about it. Does that mean we employed the right thing? I don't think so. I would have left GM to do a bankruptcy restructuring program, just as many other multi-billion-dollar companies were forced to do. I don't care how large GM was. Something would have replaced it, and quite frankly they will go through bankruptcy protection again in the near future. Moot point. Also - why did our borrowing skyrocket if we supposedly got all this money back? Did we spend it elsewhere later? I want to see those figures..
I was pointing to the organizations that caused the mess in that statement, not the '1%'...
Also, the middle class paid for large stimulus packages that were only temporary in nature, which accomplished no form of monetary generations later, and when removed will have had no effect whatsoever on economic growth.
I'm not sure I understand your point. <snip - irrelevant garbling>
Let me rephrase: approximately 70% of taxation comes from what I would consider today's middle class - 300,000&v. When you use a stimulus package like we did - rebuilt roads and bridges - in an attempt to put construction workers back to work.. Did that part of it work? No. Most of the money went to machinery, then back to the contract owners. So in affect, you haven't changed anything. It also doesn't generate any future revenue, like we did with the Hoover dam. Also, a stimulus like this is only temporary. it's purpose is to have it in affect long enough that when you remove it, and the benefit gets removed, the jobs are back. Since the jobs for these construction workers aren't back, it has had literally a very small impact. Also, cutting taxes a little for people has also had a very small impact. Cutting taxes for corporations has had a small impact. Yes, it's affective over the short term. But long-term? I would argue to the contrary. This isn't Bonzai-economics. This is the reality of stimulus packages. 300Bln to create 1% domestic growth is a lot of money for very little interest.. What you actually want right now is to grow back into a healthy market. This is only going to happen by getting people to create jobs. (See my first link above)
This - http://www.epi.org/publication/policies_to_create_jobs/
This - http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/06/20/promoting-open-investment-policy-create-jobs-and-grow-economy
is an example of something that would work
So are these - http://www.populistdaily.com/politics/a-tariff-policy-to-create-jobs.htmlhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/2011/12/06/obama039s_clean-energy_policies_create_jobs_268651.html
I'm pretty damn tired of hearing retarded economists use taxation as a means for 'creating jobs'. It hardly budges anything. Call that bonzai economics, if you want..http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/07/news/economy/obama_stimulus_impact/index.htm
Warren Buffet stated that for the past several years, america has been in a class war, and that the rich have already won it. This is an example of an agreed-upon action by the rich community that they should be in control of the nation...
So you're saying that there is a uniformity or near uniformity of opinion among wealthy Americans that, prior to say, the 1980s or so, that the poor and middle class just had too much money, and that they, the rich, needed to enact a series of policies to see to it that this goal would be acheived? <snip>
I'm saying that I'm looking at two figures: 1. The wealth/job growth of most of the population vs. 2. The wealth growth of the upper-income population. You know what, let me just show you a chart, and see if you can figure out whether or not the 'rich population is owning up to their end of the bargain.' Who is using their money to create jobs? If they were creating jobs instead of getting richer, would we be better off? If we were in such an economic disaster, why are the rich generating vastly more amounts of money than they were prior to 2008? Fuck off..http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/the-fight-over-inequality/
I want to see what you can get out of just the above graph.. what can you infer?
As I've stated, I've stress-tested the system on the sixth anniversary march conducted by the OWS group.
What exactly do you mean here? <snip>
With respect to police brutality, fam, the media has always been deferential to police departments when they take controversial actions. I don't think this has anything to do with the aims of OWS in particular. They've been whooping black and brown people's asses, sometimes even killing us, for decades, which is why this is one of my favorite tweets ever:
And if we're talking about the NYPD in particular, man we can cry about the eviction of Zuccotti Park, but this is the same department that shot Amadou Dialo 41 times like it was okay.
I see your point now... I was shocked to see that only the police reports made news. Now you're telling me why. I guess that explains that. Would be good to know that the news isn't totally nuts.. However, I'm also looking at legislation that has been getting passed against your rights in the constitution. That worries me - even if it is in the name of 'protecting us from terrorists'. I don't think legalizing things that go against freedoms is the way to combat terrorism..
However, if what you are alluding to is true, this means that at least I still have some good friends. Good to know that not everyone has swallowed the red pill..
What I mean is nobody cared about OWS. I saw that as a problem. Nobody wants to report on police brutality, government abuse of power, etc. I find that very odd that groups like these are being shut-up..
At the same time, policies like SOPA, abortion rights, etc. were passed ridiculously out of time and scope against the will of the public's opinions. All of the people involved were in part or in fact, rich. This tells me that the rich community actually 'owns' all of these groups, and we are in fact, very corrupted as a society.
SOPA wasn't passed. And abortion rights? Fam, you're against abortion rights? Really? Please tell me that I misunderstood you before I go off on a rant.
I am not against abortion rights. My stance is it is not my place to tell somebody else whether or not they should or can have an abortion on an unwanted child or due to possible birth defects. However, states have been passing laws stating a baby is legal life 2 weeks before inception (see Arizona, etc.) We've discussed these things on this forum, I'll have you know that bit, bro..
The 'recovery' of this economic crises is a complete and utterly dispicable illusion.. Unemployment by population percentage is the figure to look at, and it hasn't budged a bit since 2008. This is a clear indication that we are going nowhere, even with all the spending we have done to save ourselves from depression.
Do you have a source for this? I was under the impression that the unemployment rate had been trending downward since 2009. See:
You are looking at the numbers given by corporate data. I read news about a week ago about April figures. It stated unemployment per population growth hasn't budged since 2008. That's the real number on unemployment..
The following might explain a part of what I mean..http://www.examiner.com/article/april-2012-unemployment-what-s-the-real-numberhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-04/unemployment-drops-but-fewer-americans-are-working.htmlhttp://www.bendbulletin.com/article/20120505/NEWS0107/205050367/
..I wish I could locate the exact news for you that showed that figure, however, news is very hard to go back and dig-up.. apologies fam.
Again, Warren Buffet, like a lot of liberals finds the current tax scheme to be unfair. If you actually look at polling data surrounding tax policy, you'll find that where we sit tends to define where we stand. Republicans are, for example, more likely to agree that the Buffett Rule is an "election year gimmick" than Democrats.
If I had it my way, my economic taxation standard wouldn't stop at 300,000. It would continue to rise in brackets astronomically, especially for the super-rich. People don't need 250mln dollars in the bank. Cry me a river if you think it's not fair to tax the shit out of the rich..
<snip>The only way I can see this relating to your point is that it demonstrates that, to the extent that they're already in charge, they're not very competant.
Yeah - the way I currently see CEOs is that they are incompetent... Running your own company into the ground repeatedly - I took strategic management. I was very good at it. These guys look like they don't care about the business AT ALL. I can't believe their strategies. They suck. Steve Jobs had a winning strategy - you want to know what it was? Ignore the shareholders. Concentrate on serving your customers and building a successful business. Compete through higher quality, innovation, and creation of new products and new market segments. Move products that don't work in their current segment into new segments. Satisfy unmet customer needs. It's that simple of a strategy, and it wins almost every time...
In conclusion, man, you've said a lot of things but you haven't made much of a point.
Sez you, bro