Wednesday, July 6, 2011
I Reiterate
(And, yes, I apologize to the higher-ordered people out there for repeating myself) 1) I am FOR allowing Mr. Bush's tax-cuts on the upper income earners to expire (I'm even willing to round it up to 40%). 2) I am FOR taxing capital-gains at the same rate as regular income (possibly indexed for inflation). 3) I am FOR reducing the cap on mortgage interest deductions from $1,000,000 to $500,000. 4) I am FOR public financing of all elections. 5) I was FOR extending unemployment compensation last year (I may have even pissed Rusty off on that one). 6) I am FOR a health insurance plan that covers 100% of Americans and makes it illegal for them to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions (the author of the plan, a former Obama adviser) .....................................................................................................Now, if, in spite of all this, you still want to call me a corporatist for wanting the corporate income tax to be reduced (a tax, quite frankly, that numerous people smarter than anyone here have said hurts the working and middle class more than it does the rich folks), go ahead, I guess, call me a frigging corporatist. Just be prepared to be called a paranoiac partisan stooge in return....................................................................................................P.S. Hopefully I haven't alienated all of my conservative colleagues now. Probably not. Most of them seem to be a little bit more tolerant of dissent these days. More open-minded, too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
Will: There are signs that some folks in Washington are coming to their senses...John McCain (!!!) on the Senate floor yesterday said that we should close all Corporate loopholes as it would benefit the American people...He mentioned some farm subsidies like sugar, as well gas subsidies should be eliminated...keep in mind however he doesnt want to raise marginal tax rates on individuals. Even Eric Cantor said he would consider closing loop holes, but again I imagine that if perserving the Bush tax cuts is included in a deal the GOP will claim victory. I praise President Obama for holding his ground and I also praise those who are willing to compromise...
Will: a tax, quite frankly, that numerous people smarter than anyone here have said hurts the working and middle class more than it does the rich folks.
The fact that you've found numerous people to parrot your views isn't even remotely surprising.
Will: Most of them seem to be a little bit more tolerant of dissent these days. More open-minded, too.
Moderate arrogance is very annoying.
Marcus: I praise President Obama for holding his ground and I also praise those who are willing to compromise...
I've heard he may capitulate and put cuts to our safety net programs on the table. If he does I think he will have made his desire to be a one term president perfectly clear.
I won't be praising the Democrats if they capitulate... which I'm sure they will... the only question is to what extent?
But whatever the extent of the capitulation is... I'm sure Marcus will CALL it "compromise" and "praise" the capitulators.
Apparently that's what Moderates do. They enable the Radical Right. And then, when you point that out to them, they accuse you of being just like Ann Coulter.
Also, WTF is a "higher-ordered" person?
Moderate = Arrogant and proud.
Moderates = The "higher-ordered" persons society.
Marcus, I always thought that these "tax expenditures" would end up being part of the final compromise. There are tens of billions a year in unnecessary and moronic subsidies that they could easily get rid of and, yeah, I hope that they do.
You know what a higher-ordered person is, wd? A higher-ordered person is one who doesn't paranoiacally cherry pick one position of a person and infer from that position all sorts of sinister motivation/intent. It's a person who realizes that the vast percentage of people in this society aren't prone to ordering the blue-plate specials of people like Keith Olbermann, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and wd. It's a person who understands nuance and concepts such as "the double-edged sword" and "the laws of unintended consequences and diminishing returns". It's a person who understands that hero worship (especially if it's directed at a politician) is exceedingly dangerous. It's a person who's come to grips with the possibility that his side can sometimes be wrong and hypocritical. It's a person who doesn't make such ludicrous and inflammatory comparisons as Bush id Hitler, Obama is Hitler, etc..
In a nutshell.
I've never said anyone was Hitler. Also, when I said "I worship the ground" Bernie Sanders walks on... I was being slightly hyperbolic/using a figure of speech. I don't "worship" him, I just admire him. I do think he is a hero though.
I didn't ascribe anything sinister to your concern for the wealthy and corporations... I just think you are very mistaken. "Sinister" is YOUR word... I've never used anything close to it.
Will: in a nutshell.
I think you mean, "in an arrogant nutshell".
WD...I conclude you are hopeless. If we get a deal where the deficit is reduced, social programs are preserved and the pain of getting there is kept to a minimum, HOW is this CAPITULATION??? Do you hate America that much where you put your parochial interests ahead of EVERYONE else...is preserving your world view so important??? I condemn the Radical Right for embracing the same mentality. Given that fact, how dare you insinuate I (or anyone else.) am a parrot! I am a grown man and I reached my own conclusions my way. I was once a far left partisan just like you, but then I grew up a little...put my country ahead of party. You wanna call that ARROGANCE?! Arrogance is when you believe that you are right to the exclusion of everyone else. I've been around long enough to see BOTH political parties screw things up...You really need to get over yourself and your narcissism. YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS...NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Will, I am so done with this blogging thing...Good luck! You have more patience than I
Marcus, I never said you were a parrot. I have no idea what you're talking about. Also, I say you're arrogant, you say I'm a narcissist. It's the equivalent of a child saying "no I'm not, you are!".
If you can't see how the Democrats are being blackmailed into capitulation then I say there is no hope for YOU.
BTW, the American people care about JOBS. That should be our FIRST priority. That we are even arguing about the deficit NOW is proof that we've already lost (by "we" I mean Americans who think jobs should be our first priority and Democrats who are fighting for them).
"BTW, the American people care about JOBS. That should be our FIRST priority."
I agree on this. I also agree with the politician who argued that new proposals should be evaluated on "how does this increase jobs?".
"Democrats who are fighting for them"
There aren't too many who are fighting for jobs. Look at the recent Democratic attempt to hike oil company taxes at the height of the gas price spike. Not only would this have forced the oil companies to shed jobs, the resulting lifting of gasoline prices would have clobbered the economy even more.
Or the Democrats in the Administration blocking Boeing from opening up a new factory in the US (a policy which will likely force Boeing to open it in another country).
"That we are even arguing about the deficit NOW"
Well, there is a good reason not to forget this. Debt is mounting at a ridiculous rate, and the current President is amassing it at a rate 3 times heavier than that of his next-most-fiscally-irresponsible predecessor.
so, wd, are saying that I'm a benevolent corporatist? As opposed to being a sinister one?............Marcus, please reconsider. The well thought-out and measured comments by people like you and dmarks make me feel a little less isolated in this blogosphere.
At at time when oil companies are making record profits, removing tax incentives will do little to their job profile. There is no evidence that it would "have forced the oil companies to shed jobs". Tax incentives are questionable in the first place.
Will, dmarks promotes the corporatist agenda even more than you, and you're digging on his comments? That's scary.
I do not think corporatism is ever benevolent.
Anyway, I don't think you're a corporatist... I think you don't understand the implications of what you advocate.
BTW, I'm not calling you stupid by saying that either (although I know Marcus wouldn't believe me if he were to read my comment).
There are a lot of people who share your lack of understanding... namely everyone who votes Republican. I don't believe all those people are stupid, in fact some of them a quite smart.
WD said: "Will, dmarks promotes the corporatist agenda even more than you"
I don't promote it at all. You are making a false accusation. I oppose all corporate welfare, and believe in taxation and regulation on corporations. Actual corporatists would favor no taxes, no regulation, and subsidies.
My opposition to forcing union membership decisions is mainly because it takes away rights from individual workers (not because it inconviences businesses).
While I strongly support the anti-censorship part of the Citizens United decision, I strongly oppose the "corporate personhood" section.
Sorry, you are going to have to look elsewhere for corporatists.
----------
As for Will and his voting policy and understanding, it is quite condescending of you to say he has a lack of understanding because he does not share your political views.
dmarks: it is quite condescending of you to say he has a lack of understanding because he does not share your political views.
I don't think so. Doesn't everyone think their own political views are correct (otherwise why hold them). We can't both be right.
I thought it was quite condescending of you when you told me (in your self-appointed role of a language police officer) what I meant when I defended certain individuals against your slanderous accusations.
Corporations dislike unions as much as you do dmarks, but for different reasons (than the ones you state, which make no sense). They know they can pay less (not a fair wage, but a wage as low as possible) when there is no union. They are also (if they desire) able to push the workers around (since they have little recourse).
WD,your continued trashing of corporations shows you have no business sense what so ever.
The market rules....make your product as best you can at the lowest possible cost,as fast as you can.Do all those things well and you will win.
Of course those simple rules dont apply to government run businesses like the Post Office,Amtrack and the rest.They fail in spite of themselves.
Which of my reasons for opposing forcing unions on workers don't make sense, WD?
Let each worker choose.
Each worker IS able to choose. They can vote for or against a union. Or they can choose to work elsewhere.
Just like YOU said, "They have equal power come to try to make the deal, or walk away"...
You were talking about the hiring process, but I think the same sentiment applies here. If the potential employee doesn't want to join a union they can walk away.
I want to agree with Jerry on one thing, and with Rusty/dmarks on another. I agree with Jerry that, during these times of record budget deficits, a 3-4 billion dollar tax break to the oil corporations is probably not the best way to go.......And I agree with Rusty/dmarks that its the market place which sets the truest wages. In my line of work, for instance (long-term and rehabilitative care), the jobs that pay the most are O.T.s and P.T.s. a) There's a increasing demand for them and b) there's a humongous shortage of them (O.T.s, especially). C.N.A.s, on the other hand (while they do an extremely important job), are a dime a dozen. Now, this isn't to say that a C.N.A. can't shop around and do better. Some places are willing to pay much more in order to attract the better workers (it's also cost-effective in that you don't have to constantly train new people). But that's the choice of the employers.
What am I advocating that I don't understand the implications of, wd? A 40% top rate instead of a 70-80% top rate? Maybe it's you who doesn't understand the implications
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 72.6 million people work by the hour. Of these people, only 3.6 million make the minimum wage or less (4.9%). And 50% of this group is composed of young people. Add to that the fact that some of these minimum wage people are waiters/waitresses/counter people at coffee shops who also make tips. Now, this isn't to say that there aren't people struggling out there, but it does seem to show that its somewhat complicated.
dmarks: Debt is mounting at a ridiculous rate, and the current President is amassing it at a rate 3 times heavier...
Are you including the fact that GWB ran the wars off the books (by doing "supplementals") while BHO is accounting for war spending on the books (by including it in the budget)?
Also, on Friday's (7/8/2011) The Rachel Maddow Show, she had on an economist named Robert Frank who said, "We have a spending problem... we're not spending enough". This is why the Republicans are worried about the debt now and not when GWB was president. Their only concern is taking down BHO, not economic recovery.
dmarks: Look at the recent Democratic attempt to hike oil company taxes... Not only would this have forced the oil companies to shed jobs...
Take subsidies away from the oil companies (which I thought you were against) or raise their taxes and they would still be making record profits. They would lose money if they "shed jobs". Why would they do that? Out of spite?
I agree with Jerry. Rusty accused the wrong person of having "no business sense what so ever". Why? My guess is that he also has "no business sense what so ever".
Will: this isn't to say that there aren't people struggling out there ... its somewhat complicated.
Minimum wage jobs are only held by either: students, people who consider them "starter jobs", or losers who made lousy decisions? If you make more than minimum wage and can't get by it's because your lifestyle is to extravagent?
Is this what you're saying? Are these the suggestions by dmarks you are in agreement with? I don't know what the point is you're trying to make.
Stay in school. Defer getting pregnant. Drink at home instead of in the bars. Yes, most people on minimum wage are young people or secondary wage earners, and they don't stay on it forever.
"Yes, most people on minimum wage are young people or secondary wage earners, and they don't stay on it forever."
Exactly! That is why we need more livable wage jobs, not more minimum wage jobs...like they are getting in Texas.
"Exactly! That is why we need more livable wage jobs, not more minimum wage jobs...like they are getting in Texas."
The concept of livable wage is meaningless, as what one person can live on differs wildly from one person to another.
If you set this amount to be high, what you are doing is forcing businesses (mostly small business) to hand out unearned money. To become a charity agency, instead of paying people for the work they do.
Why not just pay people for the real value of their work instead? Nothing else makes sense.
I struggle with the minimum wage. On the one hand, I don't want people to have to rely on food stamps, etc., either. But, on the other hand, if there isn't in fact any downside by increasing the minimum wage, why don't we just raise it up to $20 an hour. That way we can all frigging kick ass. I don't know, I suspect that, whenever a shop or facility has to increase it's payroll like that, they probably either just trim somebody or pass the cost on to the customers.
I think the minimum wage should be 100 dollars an hour.
Businesses can't "pass the cost on to the customers"... that's another Republican fallacy.
Supply and demand determines how much profit can be added to the price of a product. If costs go down will a business automatically lower their price? No, they take the additional profit.
The same is true if costs increase. The business simply makes less profit, they can't automatically raise the price.
Also, they won't "trim somebody". If someone is fired then production decreases and so does profit. So, you think if the business is already making less profit because they have to pay each employee more... management would choose to further cut their profits by firing someone?
That doesn't make any sense.
The $100 an hour line is a joke btw... I'm pointing this out because I have doubts about whether or not you'll know it is a joke.
That is the first thing a conservative does when someone suggests the minimum wage is good... they suggest an outrageously high figure. I'm surprised you only went to $20.
Well, why not $20 an hour? I mean, if $10 an hour increases demand and nobody gets trimmed, wouldn't it stand to reason that doubling it would be even better?
Yes, it's supply and demand but raising the cost of a cell-phone 20 cents or the cost of a computer $3 or the cost of a cup of coffee a nickel (do you really think that Starbucks' customers are going to switch to Dunkin' Donuts?) isn't really going to alter demand all that much (especially if the pushing of wages upward is nation-wide).
So, you're a proponent of supply and demand for prices, but not for wages? Interesting. And if you do increase demand, as you say that an increase in the minimum wage would, wouldn't that also increase the cost of goods? Inflation, in other words.
We don't need to increase the minimum wage to $20. We just need to make it more profitable for companies to keep well paying jobs here instead of shipping them overseas. Rather than giving them tax benefits for moving jobs overseas, give them tax penalties.
Will said "On the one hand, I don't want people to have to rely on food stamps, etc."
That's what happens when the minimum wage level is boosted without regards to anything other than imagination, and businesses are forced to fire people, taking a low-wage job down to $0 income.
"why don't we just raise it up to $20 an hour."
Great point. ANY increase fails to take reality into account, and assumes that businesses (especially small businesses) have a printing press in the back room and can stomach any major financial blow no problem.
"I suspect that, whenever a shop or facility has to increase it's payroll like that, they probably either just trim somebody or pass the cost on to the customers."
That is exactly what happens.
I think, fellows, that the minimum wage is just something that we have to live with. a) It'll get raised. a) Prices will eventually catch up to it. c) It'll get raised again. Ad infinitum/Waiting for Godot/The Myth of Sisyphus.
WD said: "Each worker IS able to choose. They can vote for or against a union. Or they can choose to work elsewhere."
A perfect illustration of your contempt for workers' rights. You want workers to be fired for non-job-related reasons. For refusing to join political organizations. What you support is exactly like "the secretary has a choice. She can have sex with the boss. Or they can choose to work elsewhere".
Just like YOU said, "They have equal power come to try to make the deal, or walk away"... right?
You were talking about the hiring process, but I think the same sentiment applies here. If the potential employee doesn't want to join a union they can walk away.
Unions are no more political organizations than are corporations.
Well-said Jerry. Unions are worker's rights organizations, which is why conservatives hate them. They want the wealthy elites to have all the power and the workers to have none.
A boss forcing his secretary to have sex with him is more likely when the workers have no power and are desperate. This is why the wealthy elites and those who side with them want to eliminate unions and drive down wages.
They want a workforce comprised of desperate servile serfs. It's economic feudalism.
Will: Prices will eventually catch up to it... It'll get raised again.
So what you're saying is the minimum wage causes inflation? I think we should index it to inflation, so it goes up automatically.
Jerry said: "Unions are no more political organizations than are corporations."
Untrue. A major part of the operations of the big unions (UAW, etc) is to force members to pay campaign contributions, half of the time against the will and interests of the workers. In fact, these unions strongly oppose efforts to make it easy for members to opt out of campaign contributions. Just one example of unions power and thuggery in opposition to the interests of the average worker.
WD said: "Unions are worker's rights organizations"
Yet there are workers rights that they oppose.
"which is why conservatives hate them."
I hate unions because they force a large proportion of their membership to join. I do not hate the ACLU or any legitimate liberal organization. Because they do not bully their members. Let the unions be like the ACLU. Then they would be deserving of respect. Organizations where 100% of the members want to be in them.
"They want the wealthy elites to have all the power and the workers to have none."
Not true at all. In fact, I've been arguing for workers rights here, while you argue against them.
And this argument has nothing at all to do with wealthy elites. My point of view is of defending the workers, not those who bully and rob them.
Union workers have a greater say in the leadership and political activities of their union than corporate workers have in the leadership and political activities of their corporation.
Republican idea of "worker's rights" = Right to work for less.
"Real value wages" = rob workers to jack up corporate profits.
You reference the law of supply and demand for prices but not for wages. So, wd, how much do you want to pay a McDonald's prep boy, or a Walmart greeter? What, pray tell, would a fair wage for those jobs be?
Will: You reference the law of supply and demand for prices but not for wages.
Yes I do.
Will: So, wd, how much do you want to pay a McDonald's prep boy... What... would a fair wage for those jobs be?
$2 an hour? Unless you think that is too much.
According to Payscale.com, Walmart sales associates make between $7.70 and $11.50 an hour. I couldn't find what the greeters make. I mean, it's not exactly a hard job.
You realize that a minimum wage shifts the burden to pay a livable wage from the government to the businesses that employ low wage earners. If the low wage earner does not earn enough money to survive, their survival become the responsibility of the government, or in other words, all of us.
We pay for a basic level of survival either through price support of businesses that operate at the minimum wage level, or through our taxes in the form of social services and welfare.
That's the way our system works. It is called "providing for the general welfare".
Or people can get a second job, a roommate, forgo having kids, etc..............Your point is well taken, though. We all end up paying one way or another.
Post a Comment