ThinkFast: March 29, 2007
ThinkFast: March 29, 2007
The Justice Department apologized for a Feb. 23 letter stating that Karl Rove did not play a role in the attorney purge. The Department “released new documents showing that [Gonzales’ ex-aide Kyle] Sampson was the primary author of the letter, which was approved by the White House counsel,” which itself raises new questions of “whether the Justice Department and the White House worked together to mislead Congress.”
Insurgent attacks on Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone have increased recently, with attacks “on six of the past seven days, once with deadly consequences.” One State Department official also noted, “There are increasing attacks on the [U.S.] embassy.”
Meanwhile, two hours after two truck bombs killed at least 85 people in Tal Afar yesterday, “a group of gunmen, including Shiite policemen, began going door-to-door and assassinated 70 Sunnis.” The wave of revenge killings has continued this morning.
“Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928. … The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.”
The White House has undertaken a “bold, behind-the-scenes drive to advance a key domestic goal: immigration reform. … The intense effort — conceived by the president’s chief political strategist, Karl Rove — is intended to ensure that Bush will achieve at least one crucial policy victory in the last two years of his presidency.”
Air Force Gen. Lance Smith yesterday said that if President Bush’s escalation extends beyond the summer, “there is a ‘high probability’ that some Army units would have less than a year at home between combat rotations, further compressing the limited time to train and reconnect with families.”
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) is “holding up a popular bipartisan bill to crack down on cockfighting that was expected to pass easily in the Senate yesterday.” House bill co-sponsor Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) said that Coburn’s hold “testifies to the powers of these shadowy forces that allow this illegal and barbaric scandal to continue.”
Yesterday, the House unanimously voted to “improve the care of wounded soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan,” adding caseworkers and counselors to the military’s overburdened medical system.
And finally: We all know 2008 may see the first female or African-American president, but “few have focused on the related question”: are we ready for our first bald president in modern times? With potential nominees Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, we may soon “hail a follically challenged chief executive.”And thankfully, Giuliani’s long-time “unpardonable comb-over” has been “transformed…into a more accepting and natural-looking sweep-back.”
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The ignorance of this Administration is only superseded by their continuous adolescent buccaneering - amazing that people holding offices of prestige act in such an amoral, reprehensible fashion…..Indeed, they are “Fools on the Hill”.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:12 amwith the top 1 percent of Americans . . . receiving their largest share of national income since 1928.
Ah . . . 1928. Those were good times for America. And, we were poised for days of wine and roses. [sarcasm]
March 29th, 2007 at 9:16 amSen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) is “holding up a popular bipartisan bill to crack down on cockfighting.
The thing is, Coburn doesn’t realize cockfighting involves chickens.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:17 amAnother day of Bush Regime insanity and another day of hell for America!
March 29th, 2007 at 9:17 amThe Justice Department apologized for a Feb. 23 letter stating that Karl Rove did not play a role in the attorney purge.
Anyone think KKKarl will apologize? This Bushlicker is the epitomy of arrogance, fitting right in with W’s. They’ve become monarchy in their own ‘Right’. Bush was making jokes about the Gonzales scandal just last night. They can laugh at themselves about this, but bring out the big guns whenever they lash back at Congress.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:17 amLet’s see what ‘lil Sampson has to say today. I suspect he’ll lies his ass off, but then, that wouldn’t exactly be a new strategery, eh?
‘Foo me once…
bill to crack down on cockfighting - This will upset Jake and Patrick1
March 29th, 2007 at 9:24 amYes 1928 was a fabulous year for the wealthy elite in America, but then in 1929 the wheels came off the economy and the stock market crashed. The “Great Depression” with massive unemployment and bread lines. People forced to dig ditches to survive for a couple bucks a day.
The economic conditions today in America are mimicing the period just before the stock market crash of 1929. President Bush is another President Hoover and is causing an economic collapse. Be prepared everyone, because this time it might be worse than last depression.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:27 amreceiving their largest share of national income since 1928
Didn’t the stock market crash happen in 1929? Let’s review. Uneven income levels leading to a lot of working poor, wars costing billions upon billions, housing overpriced and now dropping, health care costs have increased, education costing more, inflation outpacing income increases, stock market experiencing “corrections” lately, etc.
I better get my cabin ready for permanent residence.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:27 amIncome inequality only proves that more people are now making more money. This is a good thing when we can get more American households over the $100k mark. We need to work to create a business environment that caters to this group and expands this group. What is wrong with more Americans making more money again? Is TP of the mindset that we need to work towards making more Americans make less then $100k?
March 29th, 2007 at 9:29 amInsurgent attacks on Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone have increased recently, with attacks “on six of the past seven days, once with deadly consequences.†One State Department official also noted, “There are increasing attacks on the [U.S.] embassy.â€
So where does McCain want to go get ice cream again?
March 29th, 2007 at 9:30 amSampson’s appearance before the Judiciary Committee in the US Senate will begin soon. He used to work there.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:31 amOne of the senators hearing his testimony, Orrin Hatch of Utah, is a former employer. Sampson served as counsel to Senator Hatch from 1999-2001.
Hatch has already said he wants the committee to go easy on him.
Comment by dlet — March 29, 2007 @ 9:27 am
Indeed…some chilling parallels…except that I doubt that we’d be able to recover from such a crash this time around.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:31 amHey! Earl Blumenauer is my Rep! Get ‘em, Earl! God knows, cockfighting is a worldwide plague. And to think I didn’t used to take you seriously.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:32 am#2 You know this is the “1928 redux”….the high before the crash! Just look at the stock market and it’s hypsarhythmia these days - just like 1928 before the fall. The ONLY reason the economy doesn’t appear to be totally tanked is due to our new fascist policies - where americans corporations outsource jobs and import illegal aliens to work for next to nothing….if we deported all illegals in this country, businesses would fail at this point. Who owns this country? China, for one….and Bush’s fascist corporations, for another….that’s who.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:33 amHatch-et Man’s advice to “go easy” is the kiss of death for Sampson! Details at 11:00.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:33 amare we ready for our first bald president in modern times
Eisenhower doesn’t qualify as modern?
March 29th, 2007 at 9:35 amBush and the Democrats immigration reforms, are the worst thing to happen for American workers!
March 29th, 2007 at 9:38 amIf Karl Rove thinks this issue will be Bush’s legacy, he’s right…a legacy to destroy the American worker!
Flake’s Bill says, businesses can only hire guest workers when they cannot find an American to do the job. What a bunch of crap!
All they have to do is say they couldn’t find an American, then go get their cheap labor.
When Circuit City announces they will lay off 3400 workers, and hire cheaper labor…that’s what all of this is about.
If you value your job, your way of life and your livelihood….you need to contact your Reps. and tell them… no more guest workers, illegal aliens and new Visa workers, until this horrible mess is under control.
On the Tal Afar killings, when I heard this news yesterday morning, I heard that off-duty Shia police were going around executing the adult males in Sunni homes. My first thought was “at least they’re only killing the fighting-age men in the homes and leaving the women and children alone.”
Then I realized how bad the news from Iraq was when “only killing the adult males” seems like a good thing. Despite whatever Iraqi bloggers “the President” quotes may say, I can not imagine the life my counterpart, a working family man in Baghdad, could possible be like.
But give this war some more time, I sure it will find new and worse ways to make the Iraqi life more hellish.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:38 amIndeed…some chilling parallels…except that I doubt that we’d be able to recover from such a crash this time around.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
I think we can recover when this does happen if the leadership is there willing to make the hard and tough decisions. With seeing how many of the American people of this era vote against their own best interests and are easily led by fear you may be right though. Our next depression may lead us to that ultimate fascist state.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:43 amThe wealthy elite survived the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed it. They had less parties, and ate less caviar, as most Americans suffered greatly.
President Roosevelt pulled America out of economic depression with the New Deal policies, but the GOP has destroyed every New Deal program, except Social Security which they want destroyed as well.
Roosevelt failed to carry out one recommendation: Abolishing the Stock Market completely. He was told to do this by economic advisors, but he refused to do it. The Stock Market is on the verge of crashing again, but Americans must demand that it be abolished if it happens. The elite like David Rockefeller must be given prison terms for this new crash.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:43 amComment by Roger_Roger
So you’re in favor of increasing the minimum wage?
March 29th, 2007 at 9:44 amImmigration reform? Isn’t that legalizing several million folks who’ll work cheap for big campaign contributors?
We need guest workers for seasonal work in agriculture. We need certain other guest workers, always for limited periods of time, for other work, but only after all currently legal workers have a chance to take the jobs at a livable wage.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:47 amRoger_Rhetoric sez:
You’re an unmitigated idiot. Check the current poverty rate and then try to tell that lie again.
Not if it’s at the cost of driving many, many, many more households down into grinding poverty.
Thanks to this administration that has declared war on the middle class, that’s exactly the environment we’ve had for the last six years…which is precisely the problem.
Again, if it’s at the cost of a lot more Americans making a lot less, there’s plenty wrong with it.
There’s more to your post, but seeing as it’s all based on the same faulty premise, there’s no point in addressing it.
I will leave you with this, however. All the success of those $100K + households you’re crowing about is built on the backs of the working poor. When that base collapses, as it did in 1929 and is threatening to do now, we’ll see how well your ‘privileged few’ do without those backs to stand on.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:47 amRoger_Roger,
There is nothing wrong with more Americans making more than 100K but that is not a static statistic, that money is coming from somewhere. It is redistribution of wealth. I know that Republic666ans don’t think that they are responsible for the redsitribution of wealth but of course they are, all government redistributes wealth through policy. The policy of this administration moves money up, period.
I happen to be near the 100K range, depending on what you want to count, not in adjusted gross numbers, but the point is that I pay more for all energy sources, certainly gasoline and while that enriches a segment of this society it has the opposite effect on me and most working class people.
Through this administrations policies the working class gets to pay for toll roads, more expensive electricity and gas, higher gasoline prices and as a result of higher gasoline prices putting inflationary pressures on our economy the working class also gets to pay more in interest rates. With this administrations loosening of credit card regulations people are being RAPED by credit companies. And the policies go on and on. Are people making money, you betcha, but a chasm is growing to finance that upward mobility.
Statistics are funny things. My favorite is jobs statistics, job growth is lauded when it occurs, unfortunately producing a car and washing a car are two entirely different jobs paying two entirely different wages.
I began by indicating where I fall in this economy, statistically. But let me tell you my experiences of the last few years, my money is flying out the window to those companies that this administration represents. Redistribution. And the chasm grows.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:51 amRocks > Roger forgets that those who make $100,000 a year are NOT millionaires. If and when the economy collapses, then all existing wages will drop severely. Someone making a $150,000, then might make $50,000. Or someone making $50,000 now, then might be only paid $20,000 or even less. Those who make $20,000, then lucky to make $7,000 or less. Plus most likely the unemployed ranks would swell to 25% to 50% of the adult working population. I call this process Haitianization, because in Haiti the 1% elite control, and own everything, and the majority population live in poverty or on the verge of being in poverty.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:07 am“We need to work to create a business environment that caters to this group and expands this group.”
or we could troll web sites and annoy people with nonsense. i do appreciate your channeling Kent Brockman:
“And I, for one, welcome our new telepathic parrot overlords “
March 29th, 2007 at 10:10 amBack in the 50’s and before, a president was known by his words and actions — so it didn’t make any difference whether they were attractive to look at.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:17 amSince then, superficial qualities, such as hairstyle, clothing, figure faults, etc., play a large role in a candidate - which doesn’t speak very well for Americans.
#23, TMM, if you look closely at that graph, and view the source of the graph here, you’ll note a couple of items:
* The poverty rate was unchanged from 2004 to 2005.
* The poverty rate started INCREASING in 2000… you know, at about the time of the dot-com bubble burst.
* The poverty rate started INCREASING at the tail end of Pres. Clinton’s term
* The poverty rate increase for four years, then leveled off
* The poverty rate started increasing at the end of Bush 1, reached a peak in 1995, then started decreasing (thanks in part to Clinton-era policies).
* The poverty rate looks to have increased about 1.5 percent since 2000, and is now level. Again, it started the increase at the end of Clinton’s last term.
Trends like these take a LONG TIME to manifest themselves. A policy change today (by ANY president) does not change the rate tomorrow… it takes years.
Some “war”… an increase of 1.5%, started in Clinton’s term, and now leveled off.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:18 am#25… are those figures just guesses, or do you have any data to back them up?
March 29th, 2007 at 10:19 am#27, too true… too much of an emphasis is placed on a candidates looks now.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:20 amin reference to my post #28… I didn’t mean to imply that Pres. Clinton had anything to do with the dot-com burst… it was just a matter of market forces… yes, sometimes a President, any President, can NOT control the market.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:21 amEconomic signs are not encouraging, that’s for sure. The rich are much richer and the poor much poorer, and the middle class is sliding downward at a rapid pace.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:22 amIt is obscene to me that the combined income of so few would equal the same in so many. Conditions are so lopsided, it is unsustainable.
There is no way the middle class, not to mention the poor, can save enough money to survive a collapse.
“Pres. Clinton’s term…Clinton-era…Clinton’s last term…Clinton’s term…
Comment by Dale — March 29, 2007″
March 29th, 2007 at 10:26 amDale,
Whatever occured during Clintons term occured while his administration was paying off George’s and Ronnies massive deficit’s. Dubya, and his Conserv666ative congress on the other hand has been spending money like drunken sailors for six years.
If I had the opportunity to hand out insane amounts of money that someone somewhere down the line would have to pay off I’m sure everybody, particularly those receiving that money would think I was an economic genius.
Statistics aside, the lower classes of this country are SUFFERING under this brutal regime!
March 29th, 2007 at 10:33 amDale > when an economy collapses, then wages fall severely. Wages could drop by 2/3 that I denoted or even worse by 3/4 or more. For example a wage of $200,000 a year dropping to $50,000 or less, that is if that job still exists. During the last depression wages dropped up to 90%. Unemployment nationwide was at least 25%. In some states as high as 50% of adult working population.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:34 am#34, sorry to interrupt the ranting with facts.
#35, so you’re just guessing at the numbers. Thanks.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:42 amDale > my numbers are based on the last economic collapse in 1929.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:45 amDale,
What did I say that wasn’t a fact?
March 29th, 2007 at 10:45 am#21 I am in favor of a minimul wage increase actually.
#24 I am againt a redristribution of wealth completely. I don’t care if the government is robbing the wealthy or the poor to give to the other. If you or I did that, we would got to jail for theft. I fail to understand how tax revenue actually helps the wealthy more then it hurts them since the top 10% of earners pay over 80% of all taxes already. You can’t believe this group gets back over 80% of tax revenue. My guess is they harder score 10% of the government take (could be wrong and they could get slightly more). Either way, they are still getting severely robbed in this case. How are the “poor” getting screwed anyways? They pay no tax and get over 80% of all tax revenue. That seems like a pretty big win if you ask me and sounds like a cherry sweet deal.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:59 am#38, actually, when you look at the national debt as a percentage of GDP, which economists agree is the most important measure, the debt-GDP ratio is slightly less now than it was in 1995.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:04 amThis is a good thing when we can get more American households over the $100k mark
Comment by Roger_Roger.
Then TripMasterMonkey:
Not if it’s at the cost of driving many, many, many more households down into grinding poverty.
There is NO other way, Trip.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:08 am#28 Imo, the dot.com bubble burst because of unnecessary rate hikes:
There was a bubble, but it wasn’t just in tech stocks: Their promise for profitability was based largely on e-commerce, which found itself mano a mano with the established point of sale. Either one could have become the slave of the other. Old money took a quick look at the economic map and engineered an undercut of e-commerce venture capital… which resulted in the US losing a technology foothold and thousands of jobs overseas.
I watched Greenspan do it, about the same time it was becoming clear that Bush was being engineered as the Rep candidate over McCain (beyond conventional wisdom).
Not being educated into any specific camp for economic theory, I’ve watched this unfold and wondered why no one said anything… and have yet to hear anyone agree or disagree.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:08 amRoger, the wealthy wouldn’t BE making that much money if the government weren’t greasing the wheels for them making it much easier for them to accumulate more wealth. THAT is what they get for their tax dollar.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:08 amWho are the “many, many, many more households”… I posted data that shows the poverty rate increased only 1.5%, starting in 2000, and has since leveled off.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:12 am#40 Who mentioned the national debt? Am I missing something?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:12 am#42, hmm, interesting theory… I’m afraid I don’t know enough about economic theory to argue for or against it.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:13 amI am againt a redristribution of wealth completely. Comment by Roger_Roger
Basically, you are in favor of slavery. Think about it.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:16 am#43 So in your world our government shouldn’t be helping our economy suceed, rather the government should put a bunch of sand in our wheels and make it incredibly difficult to get ahead?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:17 amI posted data that shows the poverty rate increased only 1.5%, starting in 2000, and has since leveled off.
Comment by Dale
Thats the problem with you. You are a farmer watching only for his own lands. There is a world out there, Dale.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:19 amAgain,
March 29th, 2007 at 11:22 amI’m proven right about Oklahomo’s.
Roger_Roger,
I’m not sure when we begin this discussion of taxes but are you asserting that “the rich” pay more taxes? C’mon now, they have lawyers to find loopholes all day, not to mention that the IRS doesn’t go after them anyways because they do have money for lawyers and the “rich” know that.
And Dale I’ll leave it at this, I work with disadvantaged people day in and day out and I KNOW FOR A FACT that their standard of living under this president has eroded substantially, your pie charts be damned!
March 29th, 2007 at 11:29 amJPark,
It’s just the usual obfuscation
March 29th, 2007 at 11:31 am#45… Rocks911 did in #34
March 29th, 2007 at 11:32 am#49, uh Juan, that makes no sense… I posted data that showed the poverty rate has leveled off, yet I’m a ‘farmer watching out for his own land’… is that the best you can do? You’d be better off spouting “Bush lied, people died”
March 29th, 2007 at 11:33 am#51, maybe the standard of living of the people you work with HAS eroded… but I presented data that shows the nat’l poverty rate has leveled off, yet people just want to rail about the evil “rethuglicans”
March 29th, 2007 at 11:34 am#53, ah yes, obfuscation with facts. Of course.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:35 amRoger_Roger,
“So in your world our government shouldn’t be helping our economy suceed…”
Thats just too rediculous to even deserve consideration.
“helping” as meaning what exactly and who exactly
March 29th, 2007 at 11:35 am“suceed” as measured how
No arguing with Dale now. He found his single graph that explains it all.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:37 am#58, the question arose about poverty levels, brought up by TMM in #23… in fact HE referenced the graph… I just pointed out some addt’l data points on the graph.
Truth hurts, doesn’t it?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:40 amDale,
I don’t give a rats ass about the poverty level. Does that really make you feel better citing statistics about the number of people in poverty?
What about the millions of Americans in the middle getting the squeeze?
I’ll be waiting for your next group of “facts” and “statistics”, meanwhile in the real world out here in America the vast middle class is having a tough go of it.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:42 am#39 That top 10% pay 80% of the taxes is a nice Limbaugh distortion that gets repeated so often that it gets taken as proof that the wealthy get screwed. The reality is that the picture is so much more complex. If you take it on level that just looks at income and takes then you must throw in the other part of the fact. I believe the actual number for that top 10% is that they pay somewhere in the neighborhood of 60% of the income taxes, however they earn 80%+ of the income. Now the disproportionate figure shifts a bit doesn’t it. Couple that with the rising number of Americans who pay no income taxes because their income is so low and you can see that the income tax burden has been shifted to the middle, which according to the WSJ back in 2003 was a good strategy for the administration to pursue. Easing the tax burden on the wealthy allows them more money for investment, or so the story goes. The reality is that investment can not occur without markets to sell to, if the middle class is seeing relative wages drop, then they have less disposable income to put into the market and thus less need for investment.
But I said you can look at this from more than one angle. Lets look at it from a total tax perspective shall we? When I take all my taxes (Social security , Medicare, federal and state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes on gas, phone cable etc…) I end up paying afar more disproportionate amount of my income on taxes than say Bill gates does. But that comparison would be disingenuous too because it would be unrealistic and purely argumentative for no purpose to say that Bill gates should spend the same proportion of his income on taxes as I do simply because of the enormity of the numbers on his part.
A third way to look at the tax picture is who benefits most? I would argue that our state department and military disproportionately represent the wealthy end of the scale. They are there to protect American interests, and what ware those interests? Are they perhaps businesses? There is a whole other argument here, but I’m not feeling like making it today.
#40 funny you should mention the national debt and economists. I recently completed my MBA and our economics professor discussed our national debt quite extensively, a conservative who described himself as such in class (but he is no ideologue as he pretty much said trickle down does not work nor has it ever worked). He is of the opinion that the massive every increasing debt is a bad thing, a very bad thing. As the debt rises so to does the debt service (interest) the more they pay in interest the less there is available for other programs. He saw the combination of massive debt coupled with what he thought were reckless tax cuts as being a crisis waiting to happen. Eventually the interest payments squeeze out more and more of the actual spending so infrastructure and societal need get shoved the the wayside in order that this debt be handled properly. Of course with so much of our debt being held by overseas investors, the interest is one more area where wealth is being transferred out of our country. Another problem comes when that debt is held by foreign countries, at what point does the United States become beholden to their debt holders? At what point do those foreign entities get to have a say in our policy in order to protect their debt? It is standard business practice for this to occur already, so when does the government emulate business?
#44 1.5% times 300,000,000 equals 4.5 million people.
#42 the bubble was very similar to the current real estate bubble. The dot com stocks were overvalued based on what their projected returns might be. Since this was a whole new segment of the economy we as investors and consumers did not know this and as the dot com economy began to form its self then we found out the true value of those various stocks and poof. But the economic downturn of 2001 (yes 2001) involved far more than the dot comers, manufacturing and other area’s suffered too. Today we have a situation similar to the 1980’s where the real estate market appears to be over valued. Loans are/were going out on property based on ??? and now we are starting to see that these properties are not worth the loan values paid for them. What the total effect is will be felt once the whole market shakes its self out.
#51 RR is right the wealthy pay more taxes, but not proportionally and yes they have the ability to pay people to help them minimize their tax bills. A good tax accountant or tax lawyer is well worht the money in tax savings that they can generate.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:44 am#48 So in your world our government shouldn’t be helping our economy suceed, rather the government should put a bunch of sand in our wheels and make it incredibly difficult to get ahead?
Moderation Roger. There needs to be balance. With the current administration we have givaways to corporations like Exxon (who clearly don’t need them). We are giving ridiculous sums of money to corporate farms (which doesn’t need it) while the independent farmer gets squat. We have tax laws that allow many large corporations to pay little to no taxes. We are wasting money on big business and doing nothing for small business. As a matter of fact franchises are considered “small businesses” according to the SBA so McDonalds gets millions in loans a year while mom and pop get the shaft. Companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Verizon, and Microsoft have already received SBA contracts. This is to circumvent the rule that small businesses are to get 23% of all government contracts. Taxpayers are subsidizing the development of drugs (gee, big Pharma needs all the help they can get. They are in dire straights).
I have no problem helping people get ahead. Can we please do that instead of wasting our resources on those that are already ahead??
March 29th, 2007 at 11:44 amSo which are you really worried about Rocks911… the disadvantaged, or the middle class?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:46 am#53 I don’t see debt in that post.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:47 amtalk about getting a headache - try following the tortured tracks of logic dale and roger throw down on economics and taxation…..hooooo-weeeee!
anyone who doesn’t like the size of their tax bill should choose to do something that pays less $ - then they won’t have to pay those taxes.
and remember - 88 cents of everyone’s tax dollar is getting spent on the military - not poor people, not schools, not highways, just 9Billion dollar a year sci-fi toys that don’t work, unarmored humvees for our soon-to-be-amputee troops in Iraq, and pissy beds for our Vets in VA care.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:52 amDale,
They are becoming one and the same.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:56 am#65… what’s so difficult? I gave two opinions, on the poverty rate and national debt vs GDP… and I gave data to back them up.
88% REALLY? Where’d you get *that* number?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:56 am#63 With declining real wages, sky-rocketing healthcare, the proliferation of low-wage jobs being created, high energy prices and fee growing exponentially at the local level to make up for less federal aid because of a trillion dollar tax cut you will soon not be able to tell the difference between the disadvantages and the middle class.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:58 am#66, I assume you mean the middle class and the disadvantaged are becoming one and the same? In order for that to happen, either the disadvantaged would have to be moving to the middle class, or the middle class would have to be moving to the poor… which is happening… and please, back up your ravings with *facts*.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:59 am#59
Truth hurts, doesn’t it?
Comment by Dale
Yes and you continue to use that single graph as a crux to everything being discussed. Oversimplification is a wonderful tool when used by someone who knows very little.
I am not saying I know a lot about the economics behind what is happening in the real world but at least I don’t pretend to.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:02 pm#68, data from the US Census Bureau says that the poverty rate has *leveled out* from 2004 to 2005… so how will you *soon not be able to tell the difference*.
Can ANYBODY show some facts to back up their statements that poverty is getting worse?
March 29th, 2007 at 12:02 pmmmark,
Cogent points. As your post indicates there are many many ways to measure the economy and it’s performance relative to income and taxation levels so reference to any one statistic is in my opinion a diversionary tactic for political points reasons.
I’m no MBA economist, I’m a firefighter and have been for twenty four years and my experience is that the great mass of our society is suffering, economically.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:04 pm#70, No, I’m using that graph to show that the poverty rate is not getting worse. I haven’t gotten involved in any other discussion (like the one that Roger_Roger is involved in).
So, you know what you know in the face of facts.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:06 pmDale,
Here’s my understanding of what a fact is:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact
I’ve used several facts, you just happen to disagree, and clearly you prefer charts.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:06 pm[…] Quote from Think Progress: […]
March 29th, 2007 at 12:10 pmSo, you know what you know in the face of facts.
Comment by Dale
No. I’m saying there are unknowns and there are knowns. There are the things I know that are unknown to me and there are the things that I don’t knwo that are unknown to me. Ya’ know.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:14 pmHey, easy on Dale, folks.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:15 pmRemember, he thinks Bill Gates was poor before MS.
As Mark Twain said
“There’s lies, there’s damn lies, and then there’s statistics.”
March 29th, 2007 at 12:17 pm#75, yeah, I know you know the knowns, and I know you know the unknowns. I also know that I know the unknowns and know the knowns. What I’d like to know, is do you know the unknowns that I know and not know the knowns that I don’t know.
Ya know?
March 29th, 2007 at 12:17 pmThere are the things I know that are unknown to me and there are the things that I don’t knwo that are unknown to me. Ya’ know.
Comment by dlet
ROTFL!!!
March 29th, 2007 at 12:18 pmYou could be SoD. :)
#71 Can ANYBODY show some facts to back up their statements that poverty is getting worse?
First off, I would need to know if you consider anybody above the government’s arbitrary poverty line middle class? If not, what is between the two?
March 29th, 2007 at 12:23 pm#72 I agree whole heartedly that more people are suffering under tyhe current economy than at any time since the early 1980’s. Only this time the gap between those who are caught with the short end of the stick and those who are holding the pot of gold is so much greater.
One thing not mentioned in these discussions on the economy and the gap is health coverage. I am so very fortunate to have decent health care coverage. This year my medical bills have been over $20,000 and without health insurance I would be screwed. And in my case I am 100% healthy. (I had to undergo a battery of procedures and tests becuase of an isuue that cropped up, the tests were all negative) Add on to my bills our normal stuff and them my kids have been sick this winter for the fiirst time in years along with my wife and suddenly I am looking at 25 - 30 k in medical costs. and the first quarter is nto over yet! I can easily see how one catestrophic medical occurannce could drive a family into poverty.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:23 pm#68, data from the US Census Bureau says that the poverty rate has *leveled out* from 2004 to 2005… so how will you *soon not be able to tell the difference*.
Can ANYBODY show some facts to back up their statements that poverty is getting worse?
Comment by Dale — March 29, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Well, there is this:
New York- The income gap between rich and poor in the
United States has increased significantly, The New York Times online
edition reported Thursday.
According to the report, new analyses of 2005 tax data shows that
the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income
as the bottom 150 million Americans.
Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the
average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap
from 1980.
The report cites Internal Revenue Service data analyzed by
economist Professor Emmanuel Saez of the University of California,
Berkeley, and Professor Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of
Economics.
If the economy is growing but only a few are enjoying the
benefits, it goes to our sense of fairness,” the report quoted
Professor Saez as saying. “It can have important political
consequences,” the professor said.
While total reported income in the US increased almost 9 per cent
in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available,
average incomes for those in the bottom 90 per cent dipped slightly
compared with the year before, dropping 172 dollars, or 0.6 per cent.
According to the report, the gains went largely to the top 1 per
cent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than 1.1 million
dollars each, an increase of more than 139,000 dollars, or about 14
per cent.
The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than 100,000
dollars, also reached a level of income share not seen since 1928,
according to the report.
Last year, according to data from other sources, incomes for
average Americans increased for the first time in several years, the
report said.
But because those at the top relied heavily on the stock
market and business profits for their income, both of which were
strong last year, it was likely that the disparities in 2005 were the
same or larger now, The New York Times quoted Professor Saez as
saying.
Saez noted that the analysis was based on preliminary data and
that the highest-income Americans were more likely than others to
file their returns late, so his data might understate the growth in
inequality.
According to the report, the Bush administration has argued that
its tax policies, despite cuts that benefited those at the top more
than others, had not added to the widening gap but “made the tax code
more progressive, not less.”
© 2006 - dpa German Press Agency
March 29th, 2007 at 12:24 pmAccording to the report, the Bush administration has argued that
its tax policies, despite cuts that benefited those at the top more
than others, had not added to the widening gap but “made the tax code
more progressive, not less.â€
They either have no shame in lying or they…..well they just have no shame.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:28 pmAs far a Coburn goes, I believe Oklahoma is one of only two states which currently allow cockfighting, and I believe until recently, dogfighting as well. He’s just sticking up for his constituents interests.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:29 pmI fail to understand how tax revenue actually helps the wealthy more then it hurts them since the top 10% of earners pay over 80% of all taxes already.
Baloney. When you factor in Social security payroll taxes, the middle class pay more. The wealthy’s contribution to SSI is capped at about $95,000 — after that, they don’t pay a dime on additional income. Their total taxes aren’t higher, as a proportion of their income.
And you’re very short-sighted if you can’t see how taxes supports all the parts of government that the rich use to enhance and protect their wealth. Prosecutors, to keep their investments safe; troops, to make sure another national entity cannot steal their wealth; public health agencies, so that they rich can leave their enclaves and hobnob with common folks with little worry of contracting a disease from eating in restaraunts, riding in elevators, or visiting a store. The list is quite long.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:30 pmThis is something I’ve never understood (and no, I’m not just trying to pick any nits). It was my understanding that SSI was meant to be a sort-of retirement acct; that you’d take out what you put in (and yes, let’s not get into any arguments about SSI running out of money).
So if a person, say, makes $200k, pays on $95k, he’s only getting out what he paid in, correct? IOW, he’ll only get out the same as someone making the limit of $95k. So if that’s the case (and this is an assumption on my part), then why *should* he pay into SS on any income over $200k?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:15 pmSo if a person, say, makes $200k, pays on $95k, he’s only getting out what he paid in, correct? IOW, he’ll only get out the same as someone making the limit of $95k. So if that’s the case (and this is an assumption on my part), then why *should* he pay into SS on any income over $200k?
Comment by Dale
THat’s not the point. You are talking about what someone could receive when the retire in the future. On the weekly paycheck the percentage that is taken out for SS is higher for lower income employees than higher income employees. That leaves the wealthy with a greater p[ercentage of their paycheck to invest(get richer), spend on commodities, burn, whatever. That is the point.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:31 pmDale, your comments on social security #85 are so far off base that it is no wonder at least 30% of the population is woefully unknowledagble on the subject of the Social Security Insurance Program. No Body gets out exactly what they pay in. Most get more some get less, it all depends on the length of your life time etc. For instance a friend of mine died 14 years ago leaving behind a wife and two children. He personally got nothing out of the system. He was 37 at the time so he was no where nnear retirement. However his children drew surviivors benfits (literally these benfits kept the family from selling their house and falling into poverty). Anyhow the kids draw until they are 21, so they should draw through college but the total draw has been about 26,000 or so. Which was far more than my frined had paid into the system at that point in his life. So there is a possibilty that you get out what uyou pay in, but the probablility is very low. Of course your thoughts on this show just how well the republican mi-information campaign to sell social security as a retirement program worked. There are a lot out there with similar misinformd views.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:32 pm#86, it’s my understanding that the percentage of your pay (up to the $95k cap) is the same regardless of your income (somewhere around 6.7%???) So if you want to pull a higher percentage from the wealthy, isn’t that just another example of a different tax rate?
#85 and #86; I understand that you won’t *necessarily* pull out what you put in, or you could pull out more. I’m talking in the abstract… let’s say that you put in 6.7% (or so) from your income, the SSA determines, from the amt you’ve paid in how much you should receive per month… correct? So if the cap would be extended to, say, 200k… then the person who’s paying in would get more out; correct?
Oh, and Mark, I haven’t gotten my info from any “republican misinformation campaign”… I’m just trying to find out… leave politics out of this. (pretend I’m a new Democrat :-)
March 29th, 2007 at 1:41 pmIOW, he’ll only get out the same as someone making the limit of $95k. So if that’s the case (and this is an assumption on my part), then why *should* he pay into SS on any income over $200k?
Comment by Dale — March 29, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
The point is he’s not pulling the same proportional weight as those who must contribute (by statute) on every dollar earned. He’s getting an undeserved break. You can’t make the case that the wealthy are pulling the wagon - they aren’t. It’s about everyone paying the same, as we are all supposedly equal. By shafting the system, the rich not only show their disdain, as Leona Helmsly did:”Only the little people pay taxes,” for the American concept of shared sacrifice for the common good, but they have little vested interest in seeing that the money is invested wisely. The last CEO of Exxon-Mobile walked away with a retirement package worth $400,000 million dorrars — yet he only contributed to the limit of the SSI cap, just like someone working two jobs to better themselves.
He should pay in on all his income, because that’s the American way. Or at least it used to be when they instituted the program. Let him fully contribute, and if he dies, his legal heirs can collect on his benefits in the same manner as the rest of us; his kids can draw payments until adulthood, and the rest goes into the fund. His legal spouse can collect throughout her life as well, and at her death, the remainder goes back into the fund.
Just like the rest of us.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:43 pmmillion dorrars —
Make that “dollars”
March 29th, 2007 at 1:46 pmBeing a hot button issue “immigration reform” will be the great “distraction” that the republicans will throw up in the face of all their other woes.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:50 pmGeorge’s alka selsa, pill.
Barfly, so how is the amt you *receive* from SSI determined? Is it not a percentage of what you put in? Let’s say you get 10%/yr of what you put in.
If there was no cap, and the Exxon-Mobil CEO put in (approx) 28m from his 400m retirement, should he then get 2.8m/yr *out* of social security? If the answer is yes, then I’d agree that there shouldn’t be a cap. If the answer is no, then I’d have to *agree* with the cap.
In other words, if there’s a cap on what you *take out*, then there should be a cap on what you *put in*.
(Again, this is all assuming he lives a relatively long time, etc)
March 29th, 2007 at 1:50 pmSo if you want to pull a higher percentage from the wealthy, isn’t that just another example of a different tax rate?
Comment by Dale
Why not just tax all their income like people below $95,000? Then when they retire they can pull a higher amount out with relation to what they put in. Then they can enjoy the lifestyle they are used to.
But for some reason our government hos decided that the wealthy should get to enjoy a higher percentage of their paycheck than the less advantaged.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:53 pm#93, yeah, that’s pretty much what I was alluding to in #92 (which probably wasn’t posted yet when you posted).
I could agree to no income cap on deductions if there was no income cap on withdrawals (which I don’t think is the case).
March 29th, 2007 at 1:58 pmIf the answer is yes, then I’d agree that there shouldn’t be a cap. If the answer is no, then I’d have to *agree* with the cap.
Ding! Ding! Winner!
He can draw out according to how much he put in, of course. But if the guy is a walking heart-attack waiting to happen (did you see any pictures of the Exxon-Mobil guy?), and he drops over, his funds are treated no differently than anyone else’s; survivors can collect the same as everone else, according to the formula, no more, no less. But earnings (sports figures, media figures, tv & movie stars), all would have to pay the same as the rest of us. How much did Oprah make last year? David Geffen? Barb Striesand? Sean Hannity? They are all getting a huge break, and that’s why you don’t hear calls for lifting the cap: it profits the wealthy quite well as it is. So don’t try making the case that just because the rich pay so much, they don’t get astronomically more in return. It’s fantasy.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:05 pmRemember the monolith in “2001: A Space Odyssey”?
Bizarre Hexagon Spotted on Saturn
To bad we’re too engrossed in our trivial, day-to-day greed to be bothered by such incredible wonders.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:46 pm#94
March 29th, 2007 at 3:11 pmDale
I would agree to the no cap on both sides in principle. But not knowing what that would do I would say maybe someone would have to do an analysis on that. To me it sounds better than what it is right now. More even. I don’t mind wealthy people investing their money to make more but when there is a distinct advantage just because they make more money it doesn’t sit well with me.
#9
“This is a good thing when we can get more American households over the $100k mark.”
Numnuts, do you have any concept of percentage? 10% is 10%!. Ok, using your logic that means that there are more “low income” workers than before also. (just in case 6th grade math escapes you: 90% of 100 is 90….90% of 1000 is 900!)
Rest of TPers, sorry didn’t mean to feed the troll.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:35 pmOF COURSE the IN-Justice dept. and the white house worked together to mislead and OUTRIGHT LIFE TO CONGRESS—THAT IS A TYPICAL Karl FAT-F*CK Rove SCHEME, and Rove IS THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING THE WHOLE CONSPIRACY. By the bye, I forgot to mention that NEVER HAVE I SEEN SUCH DISGUSTING and REPULSIVE CONTORTIONS OF JIGGLING BLUBBER-FAT and VILE CATERWAULING ULULATIONS by Rove at the Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner—-I AM SURE MANY OF THE AUDIENCE TOSSED THEIR COOKIES WHEN Miss Piggy Rove WENT INTO HER MINCING DANCE BLEARGGGGGGGG!!!!!! Only Rush Limburger’s “Whirling Dervish” SPASMS of ST. VITUS’ DANCE ON HIS WEBCAM BROADCAST COME EVEN CLOSE TO Rove’s DUSGRACEFUL DISPLAY OF HIS BLOATED CARCASE!!!!!
Violence EXPLODES in Iraq as white house downplays the situation by saying “things are not that bad…they are PEACHY….if ya don’t mind the PITS!!!!!”
Shiites KILLING Sunnis KILLING Shiites KILLING Sunnis KILLING Shiites KILLING Sunnis KILLING Shiites….HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM How can this VICIOUS CYCLE be stopped…..I KNOW, HOW ABOUT INTRODUCING SOME NEW VARIABLES….CHIMPya W. Bush, Karl FAT-F*CK Rove, Torticola DICKLess B(ugger) FRANKENCheney, Bujshland Uber Allies, Ahmadinejad, Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Iranian FANATIC Ayatollahs/Mullahs…..KILL ALL THESE SCUM WHILE YA Shiites and Sunnis ARE AT IT!!!!! YEAH!!!!! HAH!
Income Inequality—A TYPICAL Rovian STRATEGY OF DIVIDE AND CONQUER—–THE RICK GET RICHER, THE POOR GET POORER, AND THE MIDDLE CLASS REMAIN WHERE THEY ARE, MIRED IN THEIR SQUALOR!!!!
TIME TO BREAK FREE OF THIS UNNATURAL SITUATION AND START MAKING CLASSES MORE EVEN AND PUNISHING THOSE LIKE Rove and Monkey Boy CHIMPya WHO SEEK TO EXPLOIT IT FOR THEIR GAIN!!!!!
“Immigration Reform”? NO WAY JOSE! FAT-F*CK Rove WILL BE TOO BUSY DODGING SUBPOENAS AND TESTIFYING TO HELP CHIMPya FORMULATE, LET ALONE ACCOMPLISH ANY POLICY VICTORY—-Bushland Uber Allies IS DOOMED TO SINK INTO ITS WELL-DESERVED OBLIVION!!!!!
Less Than A Year At Home—TIME TO IMPLEMENT THE “SEVEN DAYS IN MAY” PROTOCOL, TAKE AWAY CHIMPya and Bushland Uber Allies POWER, FROG-MARCH THEM ALL TO GITMO AND HAVE THEM STAND TRIAL FOR HIGH CRIMES AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE MILITARY!!!!! MILITARY TRIBUNALS, OF COURSE!!!!! HAH!
WHAT IS IT WITH THESE REDNECK Okies? Coburn and THAT DISGUSTING PIECE OF HYENA-SHIT and SEWER-RAT Inhofe ARE PARTIAL TO COCKFIGHTING, ESPECIALLY THE TYPE THEY PULL THEIR FLYZIPPERS DOWN TO DO!!!!! YEEEEHHHHHAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!
They can improve the cure of wounded soldiers by FIRING INCOMPETENT MORONS AND BOOBS LIKE CURRENT ACTING HEAD FISH-MOUTH Pollock and her predecessor(should be PRE-DECEASED-OR) Kiley, TWO MONUMENTALF*CK-UPS!!!!!
Giuliani and Thompson COULD BE PRESIDENT IF HELL FREEZES OVER, WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY reougnant-repub rightwingnut crank fudge-pachyderms ARE DENYING GLOBAL WARMING, IN THE HOPES THAT CRAZY CLIMATE CHANGE MAKES HADES COOL AND ICY!!!!!
March 29th, 2007 at 6:05 pm