Democrats & Liberals Archives

Uncertainty Still Being Blamed, Evidence To Contrary Still Being Ignored

This last weekend Rep. Paul Ryan again blamed uncertainty for trouble in the economy. This shows how little the Republicans want to deal with reality on the economy and how greatly they wish to blame all of our troubles on Obama.

Today Center for Economic and Policy Research brought us two more pieces of evidence that contradict the GOP message on the economy:

If it were the case that firms would actually be hiring except for uncertainty then we would expect to see firms increasing the average number of hours worked per workers and also turning to temporary workers.

Businesses are doing neither of those things. The problem is still lack of demand, not uncertainty. The GOP cannot give up uncertainty as a cause of our problems though because then they have no anvil to toss to Obama while he's drowning.

Meanwhile Obama continued fighting the GOP over the economy today as he released his plan to tax millionaires higher to pay for budget priorities. One popular idea from the right has been that Obama never stopped campaigning. I challenge them to notice the difference now and the difference just three weeks ago in Obama's message and still insist he was always campaigning.

Obama has been hammering the GOP with a clear and concise message for a week straight now and he looks to keep that up perhaps until November of next year. So far this message is resonating with the voters. The GOP meanwhile never stopped hammering Obama for his golf game. I bet they'd rather he be golfing now for sure. Instead Obama has been standing in front of Americans and calling the GOP out for siding with the wealthy and big corporations over middle class small businesses and working class Americans.

Posted by Adam Ducker at September 19, 2011 1:10 PM
Comments
Comment #329472

Adam,

The right wing media, be it online or through radio, and TV, have excoriated Obama for his “desire to ruin America” since before he took office. What I find interesting though all of this is the right’s determination to ruin America merely to regain/retain power.
It’s a curious tact, and one fraught with danger to the entire country.
The GOP seems only interested in cutting, and only cutting that which is a percieved benefit to those in this country that can least afford it.
This “I’ve got mine screw, everybody else” attitude has become pervasive.
Where are all of the jobs that were to come from businesses after the tax cuts?
We all know why jobs are continually flowing out of this country. It’s because the bottom line is more important than America.

America made those businesses great, not the other way around. They could not have flourished any where else on the planet as they have done here, and now America is being abandoned by those that were made great by America.

Either we are all in this together, or we’re not.
Seems to me that the GOP, and the emp-tea party could care less.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 19, 2011 3:14 PM
Comment #329478


Uncertainty is the problem, but not the cause or the blame for what is happening with our economy.

The uncertainty is on the part of workers/consumers. Some blame the wealthy. Some blame the poor. All blame the government. Propaganda by both parties is important for preventing consensus and protecting the status quo.

Conservatives often tout the 1950’s as a particularly good decade even though the highest tax bracket was paying a 91% tax rate and corporations were taxed at 52%.

Posted by: jlw at September 19, 2011 3:57 PM
Comment #329482

Isn’t it possible that lack of demand is due to consumer uncertainty?
I for one, have not and will not, make a significant purchase for as long as the far-left is running the country. Much wiser to save and be prepared than to spend and be dependent.

Posted by: kctim at September 19, 2011 4:17 PM
Comment #329487

Kctim: “Isn’t it possible that lack of demand is due to consumer uncertainty?”

Certainly. But why won’t the GOP say that? They discuss uncertainty in terms of taxes and regulations on businesses and the rich preventing them from growing jobs. They do not discuss uncertainty in terms of consumers being unwilling to consume.

The GOP cannot admit the problem is consumers and not the businesses themselves. If they did they’d have to explain why they’re still defending big businesses and wealthy Americans instead of helping consumers. It’s easier for the GOP to say Obama’s policies are making businesses and rich people fear for their own bottom and their bottom line.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 19, 2011 5:18 PM
Comment #329490

Adam, I have no idea why the GOP doesn’t concentrate on both of them.
Consumer uncertainity leads to lack of demand. Lack of demand leads to to producer uncertainity. You add that to excessive taxes and regulations and you get what we have now. Throw that in with the coming havoc from our ridiculous debt, and smart people will play it safe.

I don’t fall for the Republicans are for the wealthy and the Democrats are for the middle class and poor, BS propaganda. I look at the whole picture and it doesn’t usually include somebody else’s money.
Much like Christians believe ‘thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife,’ I believe ‘thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wealth.’

Posted by: kctim at September 19, 2011 5:40 PM
Comment #329496

Kctim: “I don’t fall for the Republicans are for the wealthy and the Democrats are for the middle class and poor, BS propaganda.”

It’s not BS propaganda. It’s just a matter of watching what the GOP does and not what it says it will do.

To suggest it’s a matter of coveting thy neighbors wealth is to pretend it has anything to do with jealousy or yearning for something somebody else has. Instead it’s more like the Christian idea of being your brother’s keeper or carrying each other’s burdens.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 19, 2011 6:18 PM
Comment #329503
I for one, have not and will not, make a significant purchase for as long as the far-left is running the country.

I bet you would make that purchase in a heartbeat if inflation was greater.

Posted by: Warped Reality at September 19, 2011 7:00 PM
Comment #329514

To you lefties

What part of the puzzle does Immelt’s actions put him?

Laying off 24,000 here and hiring 15,000 in China. That gives Obama’s job czar a net of thousands more in China than in the US.

Why does the Administration give Immelt a pass?

You can’t blame Immelt’s action on the right or republicans. Yet those thousands of jobs are going to be lost and the democrats don’t give a sinking ship’s rats ass. Instead they promote Immelt into a position of authority. Sick. Just plain sick.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at September 19, 2011 10:05 PM
Comment #329517

The economy of the 2000s was a debt fueled economy supported by a housing equity bubble and cheap Fed money. The amount of cash out equity loans and mortgage refinancing during that period was astounding. The equity supporting those loans crashed but the debt did not. A full quarter of American households are underwater due to the housing crash. What does one expect under such a circumstance?

Well, not surprisingly, Americans are attempting to save and reduce debt, not enter into new debt. Banks are reluctant to lend to consumers with impaired balance sheets and when their own balance sheets are filled with junk sub-prime mortgage related instruments. Businesses are reluctant to invest in new production when consumers are strapped with debt and wages have been stagnant for decades.

The uncertainty hypothesis ignores the elephant in the room. There is nothing uncertain about the debt levels of the household sector of the American economy. There is nothing uncertain about the stagnation of wages over the past few decades. There is nothing uncertain about the limitations on consumer demand.

In my opinion, it is time for the pendulum to swing from economic policies favoring the supply side to economics favoring the demand side. Productive capacity has far outstripped the capacity of the American consumer to purchase the potential productive output.


Posted by: Rich at September 19, 2011 10:30 PM
Comment #329518

Tom Humes: There is not much to attack here I’m afraid. Obama didn’t pick Immelt as a perfect representative of the White House agenda. He wanted a business leader and to foster ties to industry through it.

Immelt’s actions in GE on jobs and taxes have made many liberals call for his removal from his administration role but it would be hard to find a business leader like him that isn’t doing the same thing in China as GE.

You act as if GE is only creating jobs in China now and Obama doesn’t want us to know that. GE is still creating jobs in the US. They’re just not going to stop creating jobs in China because of the optics of it.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 19, 2011 10:57 PM
Comment #329528

Adam
It’s BS propaganda. Most Republicans don’t have the ‘eat the rich’ mentality so leftists label them as being only for the rich. This plus promises of freebies gets votes.

I am not a Christian. I am my brothers keeper, NOT my neighbors or strangers keeper. I carry only the burdens of myself and my family, no one else.

Warped
Only the basic necessities my friend. Food and clothing. And even that is at a pretty minimal level.

Posted by: kctim at September 20, 2011 9:03 AM
Comment #329531
I for one, have not and will not, make a significant purchase for as long as the far-left is running the country.

kctim, the far left isn’t running the country. This is propaganda from the far right. Such a great example of how otherwise decent Americans are mislead by the extremist media of the right wing. This type of uncertainty is being used as a tool to keep our Country in the economic mess we see today.

Much wiser to save and be prepared than to spend and be dependent.

Saving is wise, intentionally putting off needed purchases due to ideology doesn’t strike me as wise. Intentionally dividing the country with ideological mythinformation as many on the right are doing will only serve to destroy the country from within. We have found the enemy and he is …. .

Posted by: j2t2 at September 20, 2011 9:40 AM
Comment #329533

kctim,

“I am my brothers keeper, NOT my neighbors or strangers keeper. I carry only the burdens of myself and my family, no one else.”

So what you’re saying is that while you are down there in your bunker, all snug and warm, you are cool with the idea that even if America is going to sh** you aren’t interested enough to do anything about it because the President is a freaking liberal.

The far right wing in this country has made their claim that Obama would ruin America a self fulfilling prophecy.

The emp-tea party should be proud.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 20, 2011 10:07 AM
Comment #329534

Kctim: “I carry only the burdens of myself and my family, no one else.”

I guess that’s fine as long as you’re honest about it. That’s not the nature of our country or our economy though and I’m doubtful it ever has been. That’s just a right wing agenda your side has been fighting for for a century.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 20, 2011 10:34 AM
Comment #329536

“That’s not the nature of our country or our economy”

Our country nor our economy have a nature. The “nature” of our country would be summed up as the average “nature” of all of it’s people.

Posted by: tdobson at September 20, 2011 10:57 AM
Comment #329540

Tdobson: “Our country nor our economy have a nature.”

Call it what you like. I would argue our country has never been a country of looking out for yourself and your family and ignoring everyone else.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 20, 2011 11:15 AM
Comment #329542

J2
Look at the dependency of this country and how it is funded and it is very clear as to who is running the country. Look at what is promoted and what is vilified, and it is very clear as to who controls the media.
The uncertainity is due to the far-left ideology that permeates our government. The ideology that dictates how I live my life because that is how its followers think I should live, because it is they, not myself, who knows what is in my best interest.

Funny how all the ‘ideological mythinformation’ supposedly comes from those who wish to be left alone.
Talk about propaganda doing its job in dividing the country.

Posted by: kctim at September 20, 2011 11:23 AM
Comment #329544

Rocky
First, it’s great to hear from you again. Really missed the back and forth with you during my exile.

You know I don’t live in a closed off world and that I don’t want to see the country going to hell. Our difference in opinion is in how we define those two things.
Placing myself and my family first so as not to be a burden on government does not mean I have a bunker mentality. Working and providing for my family and expecting strangers to do the same, does not mean it either.
And I define the country going to hell by the rights that are taken from us, not by the money not given to us.

Adam
No, it is no longer the nature of our country or our economy. We used to have a choice on who and how we chose to help. We used to believe that we were not entilted to the fruits and labor of others. We used to believe that the individual had the right to choose and not have his choices made for him. We used to believe that it was our individual duty to not be dependent on government.

Now, I fully acknowledge that we as country have done a complete 180 from that and that we will never have such freedoms again. That a culture founded and dependent on freedom has lost out to a culture dependent on government and is never coming back.
But, for the sake of my children and grandchildren, I refuse to give up fighting for them.

Posted by: kctim at September 20, 2011 11:55 AM
Comment #329545

kctim, you make the case for ideological mythinformation for me. Vague pronouncements that only one side promotes and vilifies, The biggest news outlet portrayed as a non player in the media, The conservative myth of “The ideology that dictates how I live my life because that is how its followers think I should live” and so on. The other far right types on WB constantly tell us conservatives are the majority, while we hear from you they are the victimized minority held hostage by the far left. Uncertainty or confusion?

Oh yes the myth from the far right of only wanting to be left alone. If it wasn’t for misinformation half truths outright lies and now mythinformation would the far right even exist?

The uncertainty spin from the right, while at the same time they vilify anyone trying to shed the old employer based health insurance system that has increased rates by double digits yearly for over a decade. Talk about uncertainty.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 20, 2011 12:01 PM
Comment #329557

obama is now touting what he calls the Buffet Rule. It’s more bullshit from the liar-in-chief.

Almost all of Warren Buffett’s income comes from capital gains taxed at 15 percent. He only pays himself $100,000 a year, which would be taxed at the top rate. Most of his wealth is untaxed as unrealized capital gains. So his effective income-tax rate is lower than his secretary’s.

Big deal.

Is obamawan suggesting that the capital gains tax be increased? Hell no. In fact, many economists recommend that it be eliminated.

Well then, what is obamawan’s motive. Duh…politics. He doesn’t care one wit about creating private jobs or reducing our deficit. It’s all politics…all the time with this clown.

My guess is that the obama has his bags packed and is just waiting for the eviction notice which will come in January 2013. Good riddance.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 20, 2011 6:26 PM
Comment #329560

Royal Flush,

Why should there be a difference in taxation on types of income? Why should wages and salaries be taxed at a higher rate than income from capital gains? Aren’t both income? In fact, you would think that income derived from actual labor and effort would be taxed at a lower rate than income derived from passive activity.

The bottom line from a fairness perspective is that one small segment of society (top 10%) is being taxed at a lower rate on their primary source of income (capital gains) while the vast majority of society is being taxed at a much higher rate on their primary source of income (wages and salaries).

The general argument is that low capital gains taxes encourage investment. But, that isn’t really very logical. Are people not going to invest their money because of capital gains tax rates? What are people going to do with excess cash? The real argument is that it encourages increased velocity of investment. Investors are more willing to turn over investments if there is the potential for a short term profit and low tax rates on gains. But, is that what is good for the economy in the long term. In my opinion, high velocity in investment portfolios has not been good for the economy. It discourages solid investments that will only pay off in the long term in favor of chasing short term stock, commodity and equity profits.

Posted by: Rich at September 20, 2011 8:15 PM
Comment #329566

Kctim: “We used to believe that we were not entilted to the fruits and labor of others.”

Clearly for you the poor having to pay less than the rich in taxes and having access to taxpayer funded safety nets is all about taking from one person that earned it and giving it to another that did not earn it. How very simplistic the world must be when you have no sense of community or shared responsibility outside of yourself and your family.

Royal Flush: “My guess is that the obama has his bags packed and is just waiting for the eviction notice which will come in January 2013.”

Yep. This one’s in the bag for sure. Why, you don’t even need to vote next year. Stay home, watch some Fox News, read some Ann Coulter perhaps. Take it easy.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 20, 2011 10:12 PM
Comment #329575

“Clearly for you the poor having to pay less than the rich in taxes and having access to taxpayer funded safety nets is all about taking from one person that earned it and giving it to another that did not earn it. How very simplistic the world must be when you have no sense of community or shared responsibility outside of yourself and your family.”

I have no problem with basic safety nets. I DO have a problem when the “poor” are living better than those who foot the majority of the bill. I’ll give you a case in point. Back in 1969 I got married and started looking for a house to buy for my bride and me. I worked for Southern Bell at the time with a couple of years seniority. At the time it was considered a pretty good job. The basic house in a subdivision around Atlanta sold for around $18,000.
With a VA loan I qualified for a loan of $14,000. A co-worker who had a child made as much as I did, but paid less in taxes because of the child. He qualified for a federal program called FHA-235 which allowed him to buy an $18,000 house and pay roughly half of the payment with taxpayers paying the rest. I was in a position of paying more taxes than him and had the “priviledge” of helping pay his house payment so he could live in a better house than me.

My house was big enough for a family of three, why should I subsidize his better house?

Throughout the years I’ve seen many similar examples of this happening.

Posted by: tdobson at September 21, 2011 6:49 AM
Comment #329580
I was in a position of paying more taxes than him and had the “priviledge” of helping pay his house payment so he could live in a better house than me.

Tdobson thanks for that bit of conservative mythinformation. The simple fact is FHA 235 was a loan guarantee program with a sliding mortgage rate. You paid nothing unless the neighbor defaulted.

Now tell us the one about the welfare queen making a $100k a year you knew personally.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 21, 2011 8:31 AM
Comment #329581

“Tdobson thanks for that bit of conservative mythinformation. The simple fact is FHA 235 was a loan guarantee program with a sliding mortgage rate. You paid nothing unless the neighbor defaulted.”

You are absolutely wrong, j2t2.

His payment on an $18000 house was $69 per month with nothing down on a 30 year mortgage. My payment on a $14,500, 30 year mortgage with nothing down was $114 per month. Tell me how that is “mythinformation”.

Posted by: tdobson at September 21, 2011 9:19 AM
Comment #329582

Reguarding the FHA-235 program:

http://findamortgage.com/online.resource/hud.section.235.assistance.program.asp

Posted by: tdobson at September 21, 2011 9:29 AM
Comment #329585

J2
Facts that do not fall neatly in line with your opinions are not ‘mythinformation,’ and there is nothing ‘vague’ about my ‘pronouncements.’

FOX has the greater numbers so of course it is a player in the media. What leftists refuse to acknowledge though, is that those on the right are not speaking ONLY of so-called news when they claim leftist bias. Opinion shows, interview shows, comedy, drama etc… 90+% promote leftists views.

“The conservative myth of “The ideology that dictates how I live my life because that is how its followers think I should live” and so on”

I love how you sluff this off as just a myth without any attempt of fact to prove the statement to be wrong. Please tell us how leftist ideology is not based on dictating how others must live, in order to reach that leftist utopia.

“The other far right types on WB constantly tell us conservatives are the majority, while we hear from you they are the victimized minority held hostage by the far left.”

The majority is made up of people who lean right, but who have also grown lazy and accepted that dependency on government is now the way things are. They have accepted that social security is now their retirement plan and that throwing money at government is how to handle those in need.

I believe far-left ideology, which places the needs of society way ahead of the rights of the individual, is what is holding our people “hostage.”
One does not need to be a leftist in order to be conditioned to accept that, either.

“…would the far right even exist?”

Yes, it most certainly would. The idea of either living free or living as told, is human nature. The idea of either taking care of oneself or having someone else take care of you, is human nature. The idea of either leaving me alone or give me what you have, is human nature.
Because of the principles of our nations founding, we are just now at the point where those lines and who supports what, are very clear.

“vilify anyone trying to shed the old employer based health insurance system that has increased rates by double digits yearly for over a decade”

And what happens when one wishes to keep that choice? They are vilified. Called uncaring, dumb rednecks, brainwashed, teahadists, rethugs etc…
One side is vilified for wanting to be left alone.
One side is vilified for not leaving people alone.

Posted by: kctim at September 21, 2011 10:17 AM
Comment #329586

Adam

Clearly for you, forcefully taking from one and giving it to another of your choosing in order to create dependency, is the answer to all problems.
How very simplistic the world must be when you have no sense of individual rights because it is YOU who knows what is in everybody else’s best interest and they should be forced to believe and care as YOU do.

That game is WAY to easy my friend.

“community or shared responsibility outside of yourself and your family.”

So you believe those who choose to be responsible and NOT be a burden on government are not a benefit to their community?

Posted by: kctim at September 21, 2011 10:28 AM
Comment #329587

Kctim: “So you believe those who choose to be responsible and NOT be a burden on government are not a benefit to their community?”

Sure, they’re a benefit. That’s not at issue.

Conservatives talk about a sense of entitlement from poor people but they ignore the sense of entitlement from wealthy Americans. The rich presume to be entitled to keep all the wealth they’ve amassed but forget that they didn’t achieve success all on their own.

If you stripped away consumers, working class Americans, wealthy investors, banking systems, regulations, and laws then no person would be successful. Owing more in taxes is not about force but about paying back into a system that fostered your success so that others have a better chance at success as well.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 21, 2011 11:08 AM
Comment #329588

Tdobson: “I have no problem with basic safety nets. I DO have a problem when the ‘poor’ are living better than those who foot the majority of the bill.”

So you didn’t qualify for a HUD loan because you were financially better off than your friend and that has you upset? I don’t get that really. What are other examples if you don’t mind sharing.

There is a growing perception from the right that the poor are not poor somehow because they have a cell phone or an AC. Maybe they have a car and a TV. You first start to discredit those receiving the aid and then you can erode support for the program itself? Is that how it goes?

Having lived in poverty I understand the urge to have things other people have even if it’s not that wise financially. But cutting out air conditioning does nothing to increase a person’s potential for bettering their situation. Now some complain a family can’t get food stamps if they’re spending it on the wrong things? This is the same mentality that has taken a program like SNAP and made it so expensive to administrate that we can’t help everybody that needs nutritional assistance in America. Everyone knows that anecdotal story of a family using SNAP to buy lobster meat so we better crack down. I digress…

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 21, 2011 11:21 AM
Comment #329593


Conservatives seem to be mistaken about one thing. This is not a, the people vs YOU or YOUR PEOPLE. Our system has been one in which the left presents ideas and the right presents ideas, while the people pick and choose among those ideas.

Wealth has never cared for this democratic process, but despite buy offs of politicians, and a huge propaganda machine, on many of the issues that we discuss, the people aren’t buying many of the conservative positions. They do not agree with the conservative position on the environment, on Social Security, on Medicare, on helping the poor, and other issues.

Posted by: jlw at September 21, 2011 1:35 PM
Comment #329594

Rich, Short Term Capital gains (ARE) taxed at ordinary income tax rates.

One example of a Long Term Capital gain is the gain reported on the sale of ones home owned for more than one year. Surely Rich, you are not suggesting that people who sell their homes and make a gain should pay ordinary income tax rates on that gain? It is not…ordinary income…is it?

If one understands capitalism, then one understands it is based upon the application of “capital”. When one invests “capital”, there is a risk of losing some, or all of it. Labor does not face that risk. If one is hired at a given wage, one can reasonably expect to receive a paycheck reflecting that labor contract.

A lower tax rate on long term capital gains is designed to encourage investment that fuels our entire economy.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 21, 2011 1:37 PM
Comment #329596

“So you didn’t qualify for a HUD loan because you were financially better off than your friend and that has you upset?”

No. What upsets me is what I have stated. I DO have a problem when the ‘poor’ are living better than those who foot the majority of the bill.

Posted by: tdobson at September 21, 2011 1:46 PM
Comment #329599

Food for thought from the NY Times.

“As The Washington Post reported: “The latest Obama plan ‘doesn’t produce any more in realistic savings than the plan they offered in April,’ said Maya MacGuineas, the president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. ‘They’ve filled in details, repackaged it and replaced one gimmick with another. They don’t even stabilize the debt. This is just not enough.’ The most disheartening development, MacGuineas and others said, is Obama’s decision to count $1.1 trillion in savings from the drawdown of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan toward his debt-reduction total. Because Obama has no intention of continuing war spending at last year’s elevated levels, that $1.1 trillion would never have been spent.”

A Financial Times editorial summarized my feelings: “American voters are not looking for champions of their preferred redistributive stance, but responsible attitudes to the country’s challenges. If Mr. Obama suggests a millionaire’s tax can save ordinary voters from pain, he will fail, economically and politically.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/opinion/friedman-are-we-going-to-roll-up-our-sleeves-or-limp-on.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 21, 2011 2:10 PM
Comment #329607

Royal Flush-
You would only pay capital gains tax on your home if you made over $250,000 dollars in profit on it, or if you didn’t used it as your primary residence.

Capital gains for assets held more than a year are taxed at the much lower rate of 15%.

But you already knew that, didn’t you?

et al.-
The Issue, I would say, is that there’s a lot of elitism built into the Republican policy that hasn’t clicked for most folks. Folks talk about encouraging investment, but despite the lower capital gains and income taxes for the rich, the jobs haven’t materialized. You can really only draw one conclusion from that: the lack of hiring is not due to overly high capital gains or income taxes. Nor is it a lack of cash, really.

We also can’t really attribute the lack of business investment due to the stimulus, because the stimulus is pretty much done. If it were an excess of government jobs, well, things have not gotten better over a period where several hundred thousand state, local, and federal jobs went on the chopping block. Wall Street was not reassured by the close approach to the debt ceiling, nor by the deal which called for immense cuts in government spending.

So what’s left? The output gap, and a lack of paying customers that goes along with it. The Republicans can kick the unemployed while they’re down, but the simple fact is, they’re all competing at five to one ratios for the same jobs, so even if every job sought is filled, you still have four times more applicants who still need a job.

Until we solve the employment problem, we will have an economic problem, and those are fiscally expensive in the long run. (which the Republicans, for some bizarre reason, want to maintain it for.)

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 21, 2011 5:16 PM
Comment #329608

Tdobson: “I DO have a problem when the ‘poor’ are living better than those who foot the majority of the bill.”

How are they living better?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 21, 2011 5:35 PM
Comment #329609

SD, I answered Rich’s question and you added nothing to the conversation regarding his question.

If one is talking about capital gains on equities, one must consider that the company which made the profits to distribute to stockholders, first…paid corporate income tax on those earnings in most cases. Add what the corporate income tax rate was to the 15% for the stockholder and see what the effective rate really is.

SD writes; “Folks talk about encouraging investment, but despite the lower capital gains and income taxes for the rich, the jobs haven’t materialized. You can really only draw one conclusion from that: the lack of hiring is not due to overly high capital gains or income taxes.”

Income taxes for the rich are NOT LOWER…where in the hell did you get that nonsense. Surely you don’t buy obama’s latest lie about the “Buffet Rule” since I have already destroyed that bullshit.

I never said that capital gains or incomes tax rates are too high. And, one can say that the stimulus didn’t create lasting private jobs. No one doubts that hundreds of billions in government spending can create temporary jobs.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 21, 2011 5:40 PM
Comment #329616

“How are they living better?”

I’ll answer the obvious for you AD, although I know it will fall on deaf ears.

In my example (which is true BTW) the person, I’ll call him MS, lived in a new, 3br, 1.5 bath split level sitting on appx .75 acres of prime real estate land and paid $69 per month. I lived in a 2 br, 1 bath ranch sitting on appx .5 acres of land that wasn’t in quite as good of a location. The land was worth less, and I paid $114 per month for it. The difference in our payments let MS afford more expensive clothes than I could afford, He could afford to take his wife out to better places and more often than I could and all the other things that $45 extra per month in 1969 could buy. That’s how he was living better, And I was having to help pay for his mortgage. Plus when he sold his house it was worth quite a bit more due to appreciation.

Posted by: tdobson at September 21, 2011 6:54 PM
Comment #329618

tdobson,

From what I can gather, the program that you are referring to (FHA 235) was repealed in the early 70s for many of the reasons that you cited, but most importantly for excessive defaults. It was a lesson that apparently was forgotten by both parties in the zeal to pump up housing loans to marginally credit worthy buyers. The American Dream Down Payment Act of 2003 repeated the mistake.

Posted by: Rich at September 21, 2011 8:41 PM
Comment #329619
And I was having to help pay for his mortgage.

And there is the fallacy of which I speak Tdobson. Your assumption is this other man didn’t pay taxes only you paid taxes. Because he had a child be qualified for a mortgage and paid for the expenses of a child with the extra $45 a month in saved mortgage payments you claim you paid with your taxes.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 21, 2011 8:42 PM
Comment #329623

“Income taxes for the rich are NOT LOWER…where in the hell did you get that nonsense.”

Royal Flush,

Please! Income taxes for the very rich are relatively lower than they have ever been. The effective tax rate for the top 400 was indeed less than 17% in recent years, a dramatic change in their tax rate over the past two decades. The reason is simple, the very top income families derive a majority of their income from capital gains, taxed at a very low rate. http://www.quickanded.com/2010/02/effective-tax-rates-of-the-richest-400-americans.html

Posted by: Rich at September 21, 2011 9:29 PM
Comment #329625

Rich & RF,
The very rich can obtain income through dividends, but more likely, they obtain it through municipal bonds, which do not qualify for either federal or state taxes. Income from Treasury bonds, notes, and bills are subject to federal taxes, but not state taxes, so those are secure too. The discussion about the wealth of the richest of the rich does not account for their goals: they invest for safety, not growth.

The concern about capital gains and other arcane forms of taxation is driven by Wall Street mutual funds and hedge funds. Enormous amounts of stock trades occur because of programmed trading. It creates a great deal of stock volume through constant, sometimes nearly instantaneous buying and selling. This kind of trading supposedly provides liquidity and more efficient distribution of capital.

Posted by: phx8 at September 21, 2011 9:51 PM
Comment #329632

Tdobson: “I’ll answer the obvious for you AD, although I know it will fall on deaf ears.”

I understand your example. I just don’t see how an anecdotal story means poor people are living better than…who? People that pay taxes? Better than who? Better in what way?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 21, 2011 11:48 PM
Comment #329635

“And there is the fallacy of which I speak Tdobson. Your assumption is this other man didn’t pay taxes only you paid taxes.”

I assume nothing, j2t2, I know MS paid taxes, and I realize his taxes helped pay his own mortgage. My point is that MY taxes also helped pay his mortgage allowing him to have an additional $45 per month to spend as he wished. BTW, HIS taxes didn’t help pay my mortgage.

“I just don’t see how an anecdotal story means poor people are living better than…who? People that pay taxes? Better than who? Better in what way?

I’ve explained “Better in what way?” in my example above, AD. As for” Better than who?” Me for one person and several co-workers for a few more, and I’m sure many more who were in at a similar pay level as I was. As far as it being an anecdotal story, sure it is, but one anecdotal story multiplied several thousands of times by everyone at my pay level makes it kind of significant.

It seems like you think it’s ok to screw over one person for the benefit of another. I don’t agree.


Posted by: tdobson at September 22, 2011 8:04 AM
Comment #329637

Adam

The rich ARE entitled to the money THEY have amassed and they don’t mind paying taxes to pay for the government to run. The problem arises when government always wants more and more in taxes to run individual lives.

Paying your taxes into a system that HELPED foster your success, so that it may continue to operate, is a choice one makes when becoming a business person.
It is ALL about force when you tax them again so government can run lives.

Posted by: kctim at September 22, 2011 9:16 AM
Comment #329642

Tdobson: “It seems like you think it’s ok to screw over one person for the benefit of another. I don’t agree.”

No one deserves to get screwed but I’ve yet to see you mention someone that got screwed in my opinion.

Kctim: “The problem arises when government always wants more and more in taxes to run individual lives.”

That would be a problem if it happened. Taxes are historically low right now and tiny increases in rates for millionaires is not the government wanting more and more.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 22, 2011 12:46 PM
Comment #329645

Rich wishes to combine “Income” tax rates with “Capital Gains” tax rates to prove his point that the rich pay lower rates of “Income” taxes than others.

Never mind that mixing apples and oranges doesn’t produce a hybrid. It remains just a mixture of the two, neither of which is identifiable any longer.

And, I supposed there are still some who don’t consider Social Security a “Ponzi” scheme.

Here are a few folks who believe it is.

Three Nobel laureate economists have testified that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Dr. Paul Samuelson called it “the greatest Ponzi game ever contrived.” Dr. Milton Friedman said it was “the biggest Ponzi scheme on earth.” Dr. Paul Krugman predicted that “the Ponzi game will soon be over.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 22, 2011 2:31 PM
Comment #329647

It happens every payday Adam and yes, it is a big problem.
Taxes are “low” and dependency is at record levels. Governments response is to steal from some and create even more dependency, even though we have record debt.

The uncertainity is absolutely justified for both, the producers and consumers.

Posted by: kctim at September 22, 2011 2:35 PM
Comment #329648

Regardless of RF’s belief that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, I am quite sure that he has no problem at all cashing his SS check every month.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 22, 2011 2:39 PM
Comment #329651

Rocky, I cited three Nobel laureate economists…pretty good company wouldn’t you say?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 22, 2011 3:09 PM
Comment #329652

AD,

“No one deserves to get screwed but I’ve yet to see you mention someone that got screwed in my opinion.”

So you don’t consider it being screwed over having to help pay someone else’s mortgage to allow them to live a better home than you while at the same time putting extra money in their pocket?

Posted by: tdobson at September 22, 2011 3:37 PM
Comment #329656

RF,

“Rocky, I cited three Nobel laureate economists…pretty good company wouldn’t you say?”

Regardless, it seems a bit hypocritical to criticize the supplier of your largess, and yet still laugh all the way to the bank every month.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 22, 2011 4:24 PM
Comment #329662

I find it extremely interesting that Rocky uses the word “largess” when describing my social security benefits.

Here are a few definitions of the word “largess”.

a gift or money given (as for service or out of benevolence); usually given ostentatiously

munificence: liberality in bestowing gifts; extremely liberal and generous of spirit

Generosity in the giving of gifts or money; The gifts or money given in such a way; A benevolent demeanor

(n.) the generous giving of lavish gifts (My boss demonstrated great largess by giving me a new car.)

I guess Rocky thinks of Social Security benefits as “Gifts” bestowed upon us by a benevolent government.

Sorry Rocky…I will go with Ponzi Scheme.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 22, 2011 5:54 PM
Comment #329664

Here’s another definition for you Royal;

Sarchasm: the gulf between the author of sarcasm and the person who doesn’t get it.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 22, 2011 6:11 PM
Comment #329667

Rocky is attempting to save face when he realized that he didn’t know the meaning of the word he used. I don’t care Rocky…go for it.

Apparently he has given up on defending Social Security as not being a Ponzi Scheme.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 22, 2011 6:36 PM
Comment #329668

“Rich wishes to combine “Income” tax rates with “Capital Gains” tax rates to prove his point that the rich pay lower rates of “Income” taxes than others.”

Royal Flush,

Yes, I do. They are both forms of personal income subject to federal income taxes. The total is the amount a person pays in income taxes minus deductions and credits. The total effective rate that a person or family pays is simple to calculate: divide the amount of income taxes paid by the amount of total income. The fact of the matter is that the top 400 paid an astoundingly low rate of taxes on their total taxable personal income (less than 17%) due to the dominance of capital gains for their income. j2t2 makes the additional point that even that analysis is misleading since much of the top 10% invest in income streams that are totally exempt from federal taxes, i.e., municipal bonds and other tax shelters.

Posted by: Rich at September 22, 2011 6:39 PM
Comment #329669

Royal,

“Rocky is attempting to save face when he realized that he didn’t know the meaning of the word he used.”

Synonyms for the word largess are also;

Boon, dole, handout, subsidy…

There are those in this country that depend on SS for their life, and have no other income. Surely the synonyms apply to them.
There are also those in this country that could do without SS, but are greedy enough to believe they have a right to take what they don’t truly need.

Which of these are you Royal?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 22, 2011 7:00 PM
Comment #329670

Thanks for the post Rich. I am sure that if the dems are successful in increasing their (top 400) tax rate it will save the nation.

I give you permission to continue to confuse “Income Tax” rates with “Capital Gains” tax rates. I hope some day you understand the difference and why it is this way.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 22, 2011 7:01 PM
Comment #329671

Rocky now uses these words…”Boon, dole, handout, subsidy”…to describe the Social Security benefits I receive under the Ponzi scheme.

That’s interesting, since FDR spoke of these benefits as “rights”. Of course, FDR was just bullshitting us then and you’re just doing the same now.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 22, 2011 7:05 PM
Comment #329673

So, Royal, When did SS become a Ponzi scheme?

Was it when it was enacted, when old people were dying because they had nothing?

Or was it when the GOP began it’s attempts to kill it off?

I wasn’t talking about rights, I was talking about needs. Perhaps if Royal cracked a Thesaurus he could find Ponzi scheme as a synonym of largess as well.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 22, 2011 7:41 PM
Comment #329675

Rocky wrote; “I wasn’t talking about rights, I was talking about needs.”

FDR said Social Security was a “right”. A Ponzi scheme begins with the first investor…and ends when there is no greater fool (sucker) to invest. By that time, all the money is gone.

We know with some certainty when the Social Security Ponzi scheme will run out of money unless changed. But of course, changes will be made to delay that happening so even more suckers can be drawn into it.

It is absolutely imperative that government continue to have the suckers agree with payroll deductions so government can suck it up and give it to someone more worthy than beneficiaries.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 22, 2011 8:00 PM
Comment #329677

Thanks for your response.

I give you permission to ignore the fact that personal income is taxed at different rates depending on the type of income (wages/salaries vs. capital gains and dividends).

I give you permission to ignore the fact that a substantial portion of income for those in the very high income categories is taxed at a very low rate (capital gains) and a substantial portion of income for that group is exempt from taxation at all (municipal bonds). You do remember the outcry of hypocrisy in the 2004 presidential campaign over low taxes paid by Teresa Heinz-Kerry due to her use of municipal bonds to shelter income from taxation.

The fact that there are “reasons” for this difference between taxation of different forms of income doesn’t change the fact that such differences exist and that a small segment of the population benefits disproportionately due that difference.

Conservatives make much to do about the progressive income tax brackets and that the “rich” are carrying a huge tax burden. In reality, when the total tax structure is taken into account, the effective tax structure is decidedly less progressive than commonly asserted or thought. http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf


Posted by: Rich at September 22, 2011 8:41 PM
Comment #329678

Kctim: “It happens every payday Adam and yes, it is a big problem.”

Taxation? Or an increase in taxes? Taxes have gone down for 98% of Americans in the last few years. Unless you’re a smoker or a millionaire you’re getting a break under Obama.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 22, 2011 8:50 PM
Comment #329679

Tdobson: “So you don’t consider it being screwed over having to help pay someone else’s mortgage to allow them to live a better home than you while at the same time putting extra money in their pocket?”

Extra money in the pocket? I guess I don’t follow that part of it.

I don’t know enough about the program to say if I support it or not but I do know you paid very little on other people’s mortgages. Our tax dollars pay for hundreds and thousands of programs. Having tiny fractions of pennies on the tax dollar you paid go to help out folks in your neighbor’s situation doesn’t sound like you getting screwed to me.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 22, 2011 8:53 PM
Comment #329681

“FDR said Social Security was a “right”.”

When did FDR say that the Social Security Act was a “right.”

Posted by: Rich at September 22, 2011 9:45 PM
Comment #329683

This is a very interesting article. What is taking place in MI is the result of decades of liberal Democrat control. The public sector union benefits and pensions are breaking cities and states. It is said that if the state takeovers of corrupt cities and school districts works, other states will follow suit. I believe we are going to see big changes, regarding unions, in the next few years.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/21/wards-of-the-state

Posted by: Mike at September 22, 2011 10:17 PM
Comment #329688

Adam

“Taxation? Or an increase in taxes? Taxes have gone down for 98% of Americans in the last few years”

My statement earlier said government ‘wants’ more and more, I think the universal health care fiasco is a good example of that.

We were talking about government always wanting more so that it can run individual lives, instead of running government as it was designed to do.
Every day, government runs individual lives and forces people to pay so that it can run the individual lives of even more.

And, btw, people like to use ‘everyday taxes’ to falsely claim that the rich do not pay their “fair share,” so if we are going to be consistent and take that into account here, taxes have NOT gone down for Americans in the last few years.

Posted by: kctim at September 23, 2011 9:11 AM
Comment #329690
A Ponzi scheme begins with the first investor…and ends when there is no greater fool (sucker) to invest. By that time, all the money is gone.

Oh here we go again, Perry has the “Ponzies” riled up with their misinformation on OASDI. SS is an insurance plan not a get rich quick scheme, tell me about any Ponzi scheme that wasn’t a get rich quick scheme. Tell me you were told that you would get rich from SS Royal.

We know with some certainty when the Social Security Ponzi scheme will run out of money unless changed

That doesn’t make it a Ponzi scheme, Royal, it makes it a target of conservatives attempting to destroy SS for the sake of their ideology.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 23, 2011 9:48 AM
Comment #329699

When did FDR say that the Social Security Act was a “right.”

Posted by: Rich at September 22, 2011

The Social Security pamphlet, published in 1936 reads… “Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you. … The checks will come to you as a right.”

I would also direct you to what is called…FDR’s Second Bill of Rights which includes…”The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 23, 2011 1:26 PM
Comment #329700

Rich writes; “The fact that there are “reasons” for this difference between taxation of different forms of income doesn’t change the fact that such differences exist and that a small segment of the population benefits disproportionately due that difference.”

A small segment of the population benefits…hardly.

87 percent of Americans making over $75,000 own stocks according to a Gallup report in April, 2011 with 54% of Americans owning individual stocks, stock market mutual funds or stocks in their 401(k) or IRA.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 23, 2011 1:53 PM
Comment #329702

Mike, thanks for the interesting link to the Michigan story.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 23, 2011 2:07 PM
Comment #329703

Back to obama’s “Buffet Rule”. I wonder if that means we should all withhold paying taxes as Buffet has done. His own company, Berkshire Hathaway, is still embroiled with the IRS over $1 billion in unpaid taxes. If Buffett really thinks he and his ‘mega-rich friends’ should pay higher taxes, why doesn’t his firm fork over what it already owes under current rates?

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 23, 2011 2:33 PM
Comment #329707

RF

As usual I think that the Buffet Rule will get twisted by our fearless fosdick leader and Mr. O will get Warren Buffet mixed up with Jimmy Buffet and want to have a special tax on Margaritas. This is so the drinkers of Margaritas pay an equal tax to those who drink Rob Roys, or martinis, or redneck beer. lol

Posted by: tom humes at September 23, 2011 3:00 PM
Comment #329710

Kctim: “…if we are going to be consistent and take that into account here, taxes have NOT gone down for Americans in the last few years.”

I don’t follow you on that one. Which taxes?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 23, 2011 3:49 PM
Comment #329715

It turns out this photo has not been photoshopped. It is real, and that’s America’s excuse for a president waving to the crowd.

Just imagine this caption under the picture: “Hello y’all, if you love me, vote for my jobs plan”…

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/09/unfortunately-not-a-photoshop.php

Posted by: Mike at September 23, 2011 6:49 PM
Comment #329716

“87 percent of Americans making over $75,000 own stocks according to a Gallup report in April, 2011 with 54% of Americans owning individual stocks, stock market mutual funds or stocks in their 401(k) or IRA.”

True, Royal Flush, but lets examine who owns those assets: “In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate.” http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

It should also be remembered that the majority of investment assets that are held by the average American are in IRAs or other forms of retirement related tax deferred accounts. The average Joe never gets to realize the lower capital gains tax while his financial assets are held in an IRA or similar accounts. He gets to pay taxes on IRA distributions as ordinary income when he retires and takes distributions.

Posted by: Rich at September 23, 2011 6:50 PM
Comment #329717

“If Buffett really thinks he and his ‘mega-rich friends’ should pay higher taxes, why doesn’t his firm fork over what it already owes under current rates?”

I thought that you said there was a controversy over what is actually owed under current rates. It is also clear that what Buffet was talking about was personal income taxes not corporate.

Posted by: Rich at September 23, 2011 6:55 PM
Comment #329718

If you love me, don’t pay any attention to my idiotic statements…

“We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad,” Barack Obama.

“It’s yet another humorous gaffe by the Harvard graduate, overlooked by most media for whatever reason. Like Obama saying Abraham-Come-Lately Lincoln was the founder of the Republican Party. Or Navy corpseman. Or the Austrian language. Fifty-seven states. The president of Canada. Etc.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/obama-gaffe-jobs-act-speech-brent-spence-bridge-ohio.html

Now I know why we have never seen his Harvard school records.

Posted by: Mike at September 23, 2011 7:06 PM
Comment #329719

“Now I know why we have never seen his Harvard school records.”

Mike,

Obama has a diploma from Harvard University Law School. It is public record. It says on that diploma that he graduated magna cum laude. The means that he was in the top 10% of his graduating class for academic achievement. Culling out a few gaffes from thousands of speeches and public appearances hardly proves that he is a dolt.

Posted by: Mike at September 23, 2011 7:20 PM
Comment #329720

The other Mike said:

“Culling out a few gaffes from thousands of speeches and public appearances hardly proves that he is a dolt.”

Your right Mike; but when you look at the past 2 years and 9 months of the decisions made by the stupid SOB, we can all come to the conclusion that he is a “Dolt”, and that is a kind word.

Posted by: Mike at September 23, 2011 7:30 PM
Comment #329722

The average Joe never gets to realize the lower capital gains tax while his financial assets are held in an IRA or similar accounts. He gets to pay taxes on IRA distributions as ordinary income when he retires and takes distributions.

Posted by: Rich at September 23, 2011 6:50

Why not tell the whole story Rich. Money placed in an IRA is a direct tax credit on the tax return for the year invested. Compared to that, even zero capital gains mean little for the average Joe. Most of my working years I and my wife tried hard to put the maximum allowed into IRA’s. It helped lower our tax bill and gave us an investment that grew without taxation.

Since I have reached the magic age when I must take minimum required distributions, I am taking the minimum out and paying income taxes on it. However, I am in a much lower tax bracket now than compared to when I was at my peak earning years when the tax credit for money I put in helped to reduce my tax bill.

Rich wrote; “A small segment of the population benefits…(from capital gains lower tax rate)”

I proved him wrong. He wrote…”True, Royal Flush…”

Now, since he can no longer argue his first proposition, he wishes to argue about the amount of assets, by class, receiving the lower capital gains rate.

NO THANKS. I don’t play that silly game.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 23, 2011 7:50 PM
Comment #329724

“Rich wrote; “A small segment of the population benefits…(from capital gains lower tax rate)”

I proved him wrong. He wrote…”True, Royal Flush…””

You proved nothing. I simply agreed with your statement that over half of Americans have an ownership interest in financial investment assets held in IRAs and 401(k)s. I also provided data that shows that the overwhelming percent of financial assets are owned by the top 1% and an astounding 80-90% are owned by the top 10%. Now, who benefits disproportionately from low capital gains and stock dividend taxes?

As for traditional IRAs and 401(k)s, they provide a deferred tax advantage. They are not a credit against the year’s tax obligation in which they are invested. The tax remains as an obligation. They can grow without yearly taxation until they are taken as a distribution. At which time, they will be taxed as ordinary income. Whether the IRA option is ultimately advantageous from a tax perspective depends upon the tax bracket a person is in at the time that they take the distribution. For most retirees, they will be in a lower income tax bracket and the IRA was a good tax planning mechanism. But, you already know that. My point was simply that stock and financial investments in an IRA or 401(K) will not realize the advantages of low capital gains and dividend taxation. The increase in capital gains and dividends in an IRA are not treated as capital gains, they are treated as ordinary income upon distribution.

Posted by: Rich at September 23, 2011 9:52 PM
Comment #329725

President Obama is a political genius. He single handedly has exposed the Republican Party by not doing or saying much politically against them, (until election time at least) and allowing republicans to step over their own feet in a race to see how many voters they can alienate all by themselves.

For years, republicans have pretended to care about working class people using wedge issues that they thought would sway the average voter. Guess what? It worked! For the last 20-30 years Republicans made good gains on Democrats with working class people. With Obama all that has changed. While some working class people may not like the President and may not have voted for him, or have ever voted for a democrat, they clearly know now that they cannot vote republican. By allowing the republicans to relentlessly attack him, he knew that they would eventually start saying some crazy s**t. And boy did they deliver! They have completely exposed themselves for who they really are, and who they really care about.

I know many blue-collar firefighters, police officers, and construction workers who would always vote republican, no matter what. The Republican Party could have simply continued their wedge issue campaigns and had these voters for life. That was until Obama became President, and they simply lost it. What’s more, Obama was smart enough not to fight back hard, and allow them to continue to say things that would turn these lifelong republican voters against them, and consider voting democratic.

I cannot tell you how many of these blue-collar guys actually had no idea what the Republican Party really stood for until Obama became president. They are now fully aware, and will not vote for republicans in the future. I seriously would not underestimate the intelligence or political savvy of this president.

Although both political parties have suffered over the past few years, one of them has truly been exposed and looks more and more like a fringe party. This is all thanks to a president who was calm, collected, and smart enough to know when to keep his mouth shut.

Posted by: tom at September 23, 2011 9:54 PM
Comment #329727

BTW, didn’t Reagan call Social Security a ponzi scheme? No, we wasn’t completely insane.

Posted by: tom at September 23, 2011 11:16 PM
Comment #329729

Mike on Obama gaffes:

Funny. I’ve always laughed at how quickly the right latched on to Obama gaffes (after President Bush flubbed every other word) and how it mocks Obama’s use of a teleprompter (as if no president has ever needed one until now). You call the president a dolt and a SOB because you disagree with his policies? We’re not talking about Mr. C average underachieving President Bush anymore, man.

Generally it takes an above average IQ to even pass college (let alone graduate school). You can’t really increase or decrease IQ without brain damage. So we know Bush was no dolt despite what the left always said about him. The trouble with Bush is he promoted a simple man image to win the election. He just liked to clear brush on his ranch with his dog driving around in his pickup truck. When you promote that you open yourself up to calls of being an old hick which we know he wasn’t. But it got him into the White House twice so I guess that makes him smart.

So what about Obama? Is he a dolt? A stupid person? Not even close. Somebody mentioned Magna Cum Laude. That’s all you need to know unless you think his distinction was given to him through affirmative action. I would not be shocked if you stated such a belief since you’re boiling over with anger for Obama.

This kind of name calling is distasteful and sad but I know the left has already started in with the same rhetoric against the new crop of righties that could win the White House in 2012 or 2016 and beyond. The cycle continues…

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 24, 2011 8:24 AM
Comment #329737

A friend of mine had a wife that was an idiot. Not an absolute idiot, just a plain idiot. What is the difference? She sent to ND law school. Graduated Magna Cum Laudde. She knew enough to give the prof the answers he wanted whether she agreed with him or not. She conducted herself in that matter throughout until she got her degree. She is still and idiot. So dumb she doesn’t even know what a paper bag is to fight her way out of. Ho hum. She is also a far left idiot. Cradle to the grave liberal. Ho hum. No she is not married to Obama.

Posted by: tom humes at September 24, 2011 12:59 PM
Comment #329741

tom humes,

I’m assuming your friend must not be to bright either if he would marry such a person. You seem pretty smart, why hang with morons? ;)

Posted by: tom at September 24, 2011 1:29 PM
Comment #329743

“Rich wrote; “A small segment of the population benefits…(from capital gains lower tax rate)”

I proved him wrong. He wrote…”True, Royal Flush…””

He wrote; “You proved nothing. I simply agreed with your statement that over half of Americans have an ownership interest in financial investment assets held in IRAs and 401(k)s.”

Over half of Americans is not a “small segment”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 24, 2011 2:20 PM
Comment #329746

Royal then why the “class warfare” mantra from the righties on this issue if your position is correct?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-b-keegan/the-imaginary-class-war_b_977836.html

Posted by: j2t2 at September 24, 2011 3:28 PM
Comment #329747

I read the link j2t2. The polls in the link indicate that Americans are willing to combine some tax increases with significant spending cuts to REDUCE THE DEFICIT. Now, libs are all about spending more money, not reduce the deficit.

The so-called “Buffet” rule is complete and utter nonsense. If applied as Buffet himself sees it, it is a rule not to pay the income taxes one owes, but rather, to fight paying taxes in court.

You would like me to believe that Americans support more taxes…for MORE SPENDING. I didn’t see that poll question, did you?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 24, 2011 4:02 PM
Comment #329750

“Over half of Americans is not a “small segment”.”

Royal,

Mainly in IRAs and 401(k)s as you state. As I have tried to point out, capital gains in IRAs and 401(K)s are treated as ordinary income and don’t qualify for the special capital gains tax.

I was referring to the segment of society that does benefit from low capital gains taxes. It is the top 1-10% who own 80-90% of financial investment instruments.

Posted by: Rich at September 24, 2011 5:18 PM
Comment #329752

Adam Ducker;

I will give you an answer to the first of your ridiculous statements and then I will stand on my statement that Obama is a stupid SOB:

“Generally it takes an above average IQ to even pass college (let alone graduate school). You can’t really increase or decrease IQ without brain damage.”

Have you ever heard most black athletes (the ones who attended college on a full scholarship) try to hold a conversation with sports announcers? Can anyone say, someone kept them in college because they played sports? Funny you bring up “affirmative action”. Unlike Obama’s birth certificate, I don’t believe anyone has seen a copy of his grade transcripts.

So I guess when Obama loses next year, what will that do for his intelligence level? I personally don’t believe he has enough sense to think for himself, or have the ability to understand what direction Americans want to go. He is surrounded with liberal socialist who are telling him, “just listen to us, everything will be ok”. I call him an idiot, because he is one, and it has nothing to do with him being black or a socialist. It has to do with pride, arrogance, and a refusal to listen to the American people. How many elections do the Democrats have to get their asses whipped, before they realize their folly? The left is handing the country over to the Republicans.

“This kind of name calling is distasteful and sad but I know the left has already started in with the same rhetoric against the new crop of righties that could win the White House in 2012 or 2016 and beyond. The cycle continues…

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 24, 2011 8:24 AM

I’m glad to hear you say the left was wrong in their personal attacks on Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Palin, Bachman, Perry, or just about anyone else who is a Republican or conservative. By the way Adam, in recent politics, who started the name calling and when?

Posted by: Mike at September 24, 2011 5:28 PM
Comment #329753

Rich, I don’t believe you understand who is investing in equities.

“Few investors pay attention to the power of institutional investors in the stock market — a major mistake considering the immense influence institutional investors have in the dynamics of the stock market. Research estimates institutional trading represents 70 percent to 80 percent of market volume - clearly the power of institutional investors is a force to be reckoned with.

First, it is important for the individual investor to understand who these institutional investors represent. You might be surprised to learn that the majority represent you or people just like you. The largest segment of institutional investors are comprised of pension and retirement funds from large corporations, government, school systems and other employment-sponsored retirement benefits.”

http://education.wallstreetsurvivor.com/Power-Institutional-Investors


Posted by: Royal Flush at September 24, 2011 5:51 PM
Comment #329754

Mike,

“By the way Adam, in recent politics, who started the name calling and when?”

That would be the John Quincy Adams campaign that basically called Andrew Jackson’s wife a whore.

“I’m glad to hear you say the left was wrong in their personal attacks on Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Palin, Bachman, Perry, or just about anyone else who is a Republican or conservative.”

There is nothing genteel about politics. If they can’t handle it they don’t belong there.

Get over it.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 24, 2011 5:54 PM
Comment #329755

Tom

He was a friend for a long time before he met that wench. He is the only person I approved of smokin’ pot. That way he could not remember some things. lol

Posted by: tom humes at September 24, 2011 6:17 PM
Comment #329758
You would like me to believe that …..

No Royal I would like to know why the righties are repaeting Ryans claim of “class warfare” at the top of their lungs on this issue if your position is correct.

http://nation.foxnews.com/undefined/2011/09/18/rep-ryan-accuses-obama-waging-class-warfare-millionaire-tax-plan

Posted by: j2t2 at September 24, 2011 7:27 PM
Comment #329760

Mike: I guess if I want to see illogical, fact free hatred of Obama I’ll know to come find you.

“Unlike Obama’s birth certificate, I don’t believe anyone has seen a copy of his grade transcripts.”

Say it with me: Magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. You think you achieve that by being a “stupid SOB?” Do you really need to see the grades that put him in the top 10% of his graduating class?

“So I guess when Obama loses next year, what will that do for his intelligence level?”

Nothing. If Obama loses next year his IQ will be the same no matter how many people voted for or against him.

“How many elections do the Democrats have to get their asses whipped, before they realize their folly?”

I don’t know. The GOP got whipped in 2008 and 2006 and they didn’t seem to learn a thing. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. I’m not even sure myself what you think they should realize.

“…or just about anyone else who is a Republican or conservative.”

What about Democrats? You know: Carter, Clinton, Gore, Kerry? Or Pelosi? Do they count? They’ve certainly been targets of your side’s rhetoric that you pretend to loath only when it’s launched at Republicans.

“By the way Adam, in recent politics, who started the name calling and when?”

I sure don’t know. Do you?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 24, 2011 7:40 PM
Comment #329761

Royal Flush,

It is not a disputable point that the top 10% own a massively disproportionate share of the financial, none-home, assets of the country. Estimates based on Federal Reserve data put that percentage in the range of approximately 80% with the top 1% owning about 40%.

Do you really, therefore, dispute the assertion that the top 1-10% benefit disproportionately from a low capital gain and stock dividend taxation scheme?

The fact that many Americans in lower income brackets have investments in stocks, mutual funds, bonds, is meaningless to the argument. The majority is held in IRAs, 401(K)s and other deferred taxation, retirement plans which do not provide for capital gains taxation on distributions. You pay taxes on the gains or dividends as ordinary income.

You can argue that low capital gain and stock dividend taxes are good for the economy. But, I fail to see how such a taxation scheme doesn’t disproportionately benefit the higher income brackets which control the vast majority of such investments.


Posted by: Rich at September 24, 2011 8:45 PM
Comment #329762

“Mike,
“By the way Adam, in recent politics, who started the name calling and when?”
That would be the John Quincy Adams campaign that basically called Andrew Jackson’s wife a whore.
“I’m glad to hear you say the left was wrong in their personal attacks on Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Palin, Bachman, Perry, or just about anyone else who is a Republican or conservative.”
There is nothing genteel about politics. If they can’t handle it they don’t belong there.
Get over it.
Rocky”
Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 24, 2011 5:54 PM

I guess we will have to put Rocky Marks in the same category as the idiot in the WH. Since when is John Quincy Adams considered recent politics. Your statements so ignorant as to quote me and the give an example hundreds of year old; real sharp.

As for politics not being genteel; why don’t you catch up on the comments being made in the posts. I was not the one complaining about calling Obama an idiot; it was AD. So direct your idiotic comments to him.


AD;

“What about Democrats? You know: Carter, Clinton, Gore, Kerry? Or Pelosi? Do they count? They’ve certainly been targets of your side’s rhetoric that you pretend to loath only when it’s launched at Republicans.”

I’m not the one crying about Obama being called an idiot.

Get over 2008 and 2006; they are history, but we do have recent elections (2010 and NY-9 in 2011)that are showing the the voters disgust for Obama’s socialist plans for America. Obama can’t even get his own party to suport his re-distribution tax hikes and jobs bill. You just keep your eyes open and watch as the democrats begin to try to distance themselves from Obama. I predict Obama will be a very lonely man in 2012, as democrats (especially the senators) try to show how conservative they are.

Posted by: Mike at September 24, 2011 10:05 PM
Comment #329767

Mike,

“As for politics not being genteel; why don’t you catch up on the comments being made in the posts. I was not the one complaining about calling Obama an idiot; it was AD.”

Yet you are the one constantly whining about the “attacks” on Bachmann, Palin, et al.

“Your statements so ignorant as to quote me and the give an example hundreds of year old; real sharp.”

Ignorance?

When exactly did the insults start?

Read some history once in a while.
Perhaps you might drop the arrogant pose, and be enlightened to know that the insults have never ended.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 25, 2011 2:20 AM
Comment #329797

Mike: “I’m not the one crying about Obama being called an idiot.”

Now calling out your disrespect for the President of the United States is crying? You can call him any name you want but you have no basis for calling the man stupid just because you disagree with his policies.

If your idea of an argument is to call people stupid and ignorant SOB’s because you disagree with them I bet you’re real fun around the dinner table at Christmas.

“…but we do have recent elections (2010 and NY-9 in 2011)…”

What about Democratic state victories in the Wisconsin recalls? Or the upset in the long time GOP NY-27? Or the Democrats holding on to CA-36? Are those history too? I won’t pretend the Democrats are on some strong footing but let’s not pretend either that Republican victories have been a complete rejection of Democratic ideology instead of simply displeasure with the economic conditions in the US.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 26, 2011 8:53 AM
Comment #329803

Rich, I am shocked, shocked I tell you to find out that the wealthy have more money than the poor. That the wealthy have more to invest, which is subject to capital gains,
than others.

There are reasons for the difference in taxation between earned income and capital gains. Most folks recognize these reasons and are comfortable with it. You are not. So What?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 26, 2011 1:21 PM
Comment #329811

Royal it seems the capital gains or unearned income is thought to spur further investment which in theory creates jobs, but as we have seen since the unearned income rates were decreased to 15% it has not lived up to the hype conservatives claim.

Do most folks still believe this fallacy? Not where I come from. Of course were not shocked to discover the wealthy have more money than us either. ;)

Posted by: j2t2 at September 26, 2011 7:37 PM
Comment #329827

Social Security is in trouble because the economy is in bad shape, politicians are scaring people into retiring as early as possible, and more people are trying to get disability instead since it pays more than early retirement.

Posted by: jack at September 27, 2011 11:17 AM
Comment #330714

I justwatches online required somecheap watches informationdiscount watches and was searching replica watcheson Google formens watches it. I visitedwomen watches each pageladies watches that came on rolex watchesfirst page andswiss watches didn’t got any relevant result then IOmega Watches thought to check out the second one andCartier Watches got your blog. This is what I wanted!

Posted by: watches online at October 18, 2011 9:27 PM
Comment #330866

we can offer you the best - goodugg boots winter
quality of supra shoes with the lowest price , so you will not
classic tall bootswant to miss our supra shoes on sale . Moreover , we have prepared a serials of privilege for our regular customers . Come on , classic short bootand have one , you will not be regret .

Posted by: dfcgh at October 22, 2011 3:50 AM
Post a comment