Will: Americans are economically better off today than they were eight years ago.
By on Jun 16th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Will: Americans are economically better off today than they were eight years ago.
In a USA Today/Gallup poll released earlier this month, a record number of Americans — 55 percent — said that their families are worse off financially than they were a year ago. But conservative columnist George Will thinks these people are just misinformed. On ABC’s This Week yesterday, Will brazenly claimed that average Americans “are better off today than they were in 2000-2001.” Watch it:
(HT: Crooks and Liars)
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Ahhh, George, you poor, sheltered conservative, you.
Only those rich enough to get the Bush tax cuts have it any easier than 6-8 years ago.
P.S., Wasn’t it you that gave Cheney the talking point that China & Cuba are drilling for oil just 60 mi. off our coast? Thanks a lot. Now, Cheney’s running his mouth off as if that were a fact. Tell me, George, why do you get paid to lie?
June 16th, 2008 at 11:01 am“Will brazenly claimed that average Americans “are better off today than they were in 2000-2001.”
Oh? What fantasy world is he living in?
June 16th, 2008 at 11:01 amBut you’re all missing the point… “Americans”, in Will’s eyes, are the wealthy and powerful. We are just the tax base used to fund the “real Americans”.
PEACE
June 16th, 2008 at 11:04 amGeorge Will lie.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:04 am.
I was at the store the other day and thought…
Wow, a half gallon of milk now costs almost double what a whole gallon cost in 2000…
… And George Will thinks I’m better off, now?
.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:06 amWill should keep his ramblings to baseball. He’s much more of an expert on smelly, sweaty old jocks than he is at economics.
Kind of like McCrash, come to think of it.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:06 amYes, Canadians are better off. Canada, being in North America qualifies them as “Americans”.
The rest of us, Mexico included, are NOT.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:06 amOnce upon a time, I had some respect for George Will as a coservative thinker.
Now I see that the term is an oxymoron.
Cherry-picking housing data to demonstrate that the “average American” is better off today than eight years ago? How about real wages tracked against inflation, George? Let’s start there.
And how arrogant is it to imply that talking heads have the ability to convince Americans of something against all evidence?
Oh wait — scratch that last remark. I just realized that talking heads convinced Americans that Saddam was behind 9/11, against all evidence. Maybe George has reason to imply that Americans are as stupid as he thinks we are.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:08 amWhat data did he cite? His checkbook register?
You have an upcoming expense, George Will. Find a pen.
NO TO
June 16th, 2008 at 11:10 am2393 IRS
Date FOR
1/21/2009 Back Taxes, 2001-2008
George Shill: Americans are economically better off today than they were eight years ago.»
June 16th, 2008 at 11:10 amWhy do the people hate the people? Obviously the increased price of gas and subsequent downstream price increases, increased mortgate defaults and subsequent loss of value in their homes have done wonders for their standards of living! Couple this with job losses and the looming threat of inflation make everyone’s economic outlook just peachy! Take all this into account and you’ve just gotta vote for McInsane, ’cause only he can guaranttee that the richest 1% of the population gets their so-well deserved 84% of McInsane’s tax cuts! How, in God’s name, can Anyone say something as innane as this and expect to be taken seriously. What really scares me is that Republicans will continue spouting this innane drivel with dismal regularity between now and November.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:11 amImpeach Pelosi, Cheney and Bush and Save the Constitution!
I’m so glad that the other pundits and journalists (ha ha) at ABC News immediately jumped down Will’s throat for lying so blatantly……
June 16th, 2008 at 11:11 amYeah, for sure, I’m just “misinformed” about my bank balance and the fact that I run out of pay before I run out of pay period…
Yep. I’m just misinformed. OK. *eyeroll*
Up yours, you scumsucking assh*le.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:12 amI spaced the bottom portion of my post (#10) but it came out messy once submitted.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:12 amCome on America!
June 16th, 2008 at 11:12 amWho are you going to believe…
George Will or your own wallet?
Another BWTY.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:13 amWill: What are you going to believe. Me or your lying eyes?
June 16th, 2008 at 11:14 amBWTY [pronounced "beauty" meaning Believe What They Want]
June 16th, 2008 at 11:14 amXisithrus:
What’s BWTY?
June 16th, 2008 at 11:15 am19:
Gotcha.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:15 amWell, he doesnt seem to be following BWTY Left_Hacks ideology that Al Gore made us worse off.
So AL Gore made George Will better off?
I am so not confused.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:16 amWill brazenly claimed that average Americans “are better off today than they were in 2000.”
This is just a misunderstanding. Will obviously meant 2000 BC.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:18 amWill must rely on cherry picked stats, since it’s clear he doesn’t associate with middle class people, and their troubles and worries only interest him from an anthropological standpoint – like the mating rituals of pygmyies, or religious practices of the Eskimos. He couldn’t care less about them personally.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:19 amDumbass Will is A typical lieing reich winger…Their thought process is if we tell you, it will be so….Be sure to wear an expensive suit, belong in the top 2% of the wealthy and throw in a lapel pin when needed….
Give me and the rest of the average american’s a break and STFU…We are not better off and our cost’s for everything is much higher…Diesel fuel is up 64% and much of what we buy to eat is transported by diesel fuel….Guess who is raking in the profit’s.?..I thought it was bad when regan was pissing down our back’s and telling us it’s raining…..With bull shit bush and his crownies entire state’s are drowning and no one get’s a life jacket except the warmonger’s and billionair’s……Blessings
June 16th, 2008 at 11:21 amWhy he might be annoying
He is a bow-tie-wearing fancy-pants.
He has snobbish tastes and a prissy manner.
He dismisses ordinary Americans as ‘vulgarians.’
He goes on and on about how horrible television is.
He paints the Republican Party as the home of the intellectual and cultural elite – exactly the opposite of the ‘common man’ approach taken by George W. Bush (and many others).
His official biography suggests that ‘he may be the most influential writer in America.
http://www.amiannoying.com/(S(1kcasunzhnqezfeaxshy5n55))/view.aspx?ID=11986
June 16th, 2008 at 11:22 ambarfly,
June 16th, 2008 at 11:22 amMating rituals of Pygmies? Have you dated one, and, if so, please share with us ALL the erotic details!
/snark
I bet this crap packer was bemoaning the “out of touch elitism” of Barack Obama.
The mainstream media is a rotting cadaver.
-GSD
June 16th, 2008 at 11:25 amI guess the next time a bill collector calls me and says I am behind on my payment, I’ll just tell them that they are misinformed.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:26 amYou’ll show them, SpoxLogic.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:30 amMcCain should run on the question of whether folks feel they (or their country) is better off than they were when President Bush took office.
Mr. Will is a very smart man who says some very stupid things.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:34 amWent to the Washington Post web site but could not find a contact for George Will, anyone got an email address? He is just like all the rest of them, we have been telling our Congressional delegation how bad everything is and only two Representatives will even listen, both Democrats. The Republicans are delusional or either do not give a damn about ordinary Americans, and what they are going through. Certainly the Bush Administration could care less and all those that toady to it on his every whim. Let’s have change, real change……..Arrogance, Lies, Deceit, Greed,and Total Incompetence are the hallmarks of the present Administration.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:43 amI’m better off financially than I was 8 years ago, no thanks to (or rather, in spite of) this administration and its policies. But I know I’m the exception to the rule.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:44 amJust another cog in the great right wing spin machine-nary a scruple to his reportage!
June 16th, 2008 at 11:46 amZimzone Says:
I make it a practice never to date anyone with a blowgun. Call it a personal preference.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:50 amWill brazenly claimed that average Americans “are better off today than they were in 2000-2001.”
Wow. Talk about drinking the Kool Aid. Pundits like Will always like to claim that they speak for America but as we can see, they actually ignore America and speak only for themselves.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 16th, 2008 at 11:53 amI guess I am misinformed of the price of gas this morning when I filled up, after spending much more on the items I picked up at the grocery store too.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:54 amGeorge “Kreskin” Will came to this conclusion after having lunch at an Applebees salad bar with Bobo Brooks.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:57 am25% pay cut, 42 year old wife had to enter work force to make ends meet, gas tripled, food tripled, can’t afford to retire….ever.
Naw, not so much George. My life has went to hell since the War Criminal stole the office.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:02 pmWill has more than once implied that the role of corporations is to protect us from government. That’s his argument against limiting the role of big business in political campaigns. What’s odd about this is that there seems to be no political role for ordinary people in his worldview. We are just wards of the business community.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:04 pmYeah, George, I lost my job due to reduction in force the third time in that eight years, last Friday. I think you are full of crap.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:05 pmTelling an average American who’s trying to fill up their gas tank, feed their 2.5 kids, pay their health insurance premiums, and get by on less because they haven’t had a meaningful raise for the last few years that they are “misinformed” about their economic situation is like telling a soldier whose leg just got blown off that it’s all in his head.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:06 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
…is like telling a soldier whose leg just got blown off that it’s all in his head.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
______
Well, it’s a good thing the VA has been told not to diagnose too many cases of PTSD, then.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:12 pmlibforequity, your comment is delusional. The only way that it help low-income Americans to increase the personal incomes of multi-millionaries (god bless them) is if they decide to have their grass cut more frequently. If that sort of thing were happening, we wouldn’t have lost so many jobs under Bush.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:12 pm43:
False. Bush’s tax cuts have benefited the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the welfare of the nation. His cuts to the wealthiest Americans have resulted in deficit spending which will have to be paid for at some point. Thus they weren’t tax cuts at all, but a deferred tax shift.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:14 pmTrickle down economics = failure.
It’s a con and some people (#43) are still falling for it.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:15 pmI don’t just want to provide the poor with healthcare. I am up for providing it for all
June 16th, 2008 at 12:16 pmlibforequity Says:
Too bad for you the facts show you are totally misinformed or a bald faced liar.
Oh, sorry, I keep forgetting that Republicans are allergic to facts, like a
June 16th, 2008 at 12:22 pmCheneyvampire is allergic to sunlight.Wayne:
You’d think conservatives would get tired of being wrong all the time.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:24 pmWill is misusing the term average. I am sure if you looked at the whole spectrun of Americans, the gains of the rich and uber rich have gone crazy the last 8 years. If you average us all together, maybe the overall average did go up. I have a family member worth several tens of millions and at Thanksgiving the average worth of the families is very healthy. The next day though, not so much.
Averages can be misleading and misused. The average human has one nut and one ovary.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:26 pmYou’d think that Will would know the difference between the mean and median for the term average.
According to his definition, if all Americans made $1 per year and one American made a billion a year, the average american would be better off.
The Neocons have gotten away with this for over a decade now. When are the sheeple gonna learn ?
June 16th, 2008 at 12:31 pmEver notice that the people that have to say “This is true” are usually the ones that cannot distinguish it in the first place?
June 16th, 2008 at 12:33 pm@43, libforequity Says:
Bush tax cuts helped everyone and through some difficult times
what the GOPhuqing color is the sky where you live, dickweed?
friends, remember: In the Corporate State, corporat media are the State Media…
June 16th, 2008 at 12:33 pmOoohhh libforequity. You are one scary btch. Threatening on the internet. You have us all quaking…. Can I be you? Please, just for a day I can pretend to be the big bad libforequity?
P*ssy.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:39 pmnanlichi:
It’s all “facts” on the one hand and threats on the other. Typical.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:40 pmHmmm, is George trying to grow a stache or does he just have dust on his upper lip from Bush’s boots.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:42 pmlibforequity Says:
Wayne,
Show me some facts to prove me otherwise. Come on….!
Your whole post was devoid of facts.
The Internal Revenue data from 2006 shows exactly who benefited from the tax cuts and it wasn’t the middle class or poor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/business/05tax.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
June 16th, 2008 at 12:42 pmI can understand criticizing Bush for a poor economy – it’s on his watch. But the tax cuts put in by Bush have provided more money to middle and low-income families. This is true.
Not by any reputable measure. To even suggest Bush’s attention was turned toward lower and middle class just absolute misses the entire point of his presidency: Increase higher income wealth and re-distribute government wealth to private corporations.
You can be a shill for Bush, just please do so in a fashion that doesn’t make you seem foolish. The lower and middle class has not been on the right sides radar for over a decade.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:44 pm“With the economy beginning to slow, the current expansion has a chance to become the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a prolonged increase in real wages for most workers…
The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity — the amount that an average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation’s living standards — has risen steadily over the same period.
… wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1156824000&en=eae4ab9ab2ce13d5&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin
http://www.businessweek.com/careers/managementiq/archives/2008/05/the_bitter_amer.html
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20080220se
Enjoy. Then get back to us.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:44 pmFrosty, your point of deferred tax shift must have gone over her head. Pretty tough trajectory, I understand that head is 7 feet above ground and meaner than a tweaking pit bull.
At least in cyberspace.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:44 pmGasoline Price in March 2000 $1.54 a gallon, today at $140 a barrel, a gallon of gas in 2008 is $4.08.
This is a tragic statistic.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:46 pmnanlichi:
Heh.
:)
June 16th, 2008 at 12:46 pmlibforequity Says:
too much tax revenue is directed to the low-income (viz., those who make poor decisions, lack ambition…).
Unlike the vast majority of millionaires who made the smart decision, and had enough ambition to be born to wealthy parents.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:46 pmI love how uninformed wingnuts reduce the complex issue of poverty to simple character flaws.
I guess it makes sense from a psychological perspective; if the poor are poor because they have deficient character, then the relatively more successful wingnut must be a paragon of virtue.
Must be nice to have such potent powers of self-justification.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:50 pmStratRat Says:
Not by any reputable measure. To even suggest Bush’s attention was turned toward lower and middle class just absolute misses the entire point of his presidency: Increase higher income wealth and re-distribute government wealth to private corporations.
Good point. Here are the facts:
Treasury Department figures show that actual corporate income tax revenues fell to $132 billion in 2003, down 36 percent from $207 billion in 2000.
As a result of these low levels, corporate revenues in 2003 represented only 1.2 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (the basic measure of the size of the economy), the lowest level since 1983, the year in which corporate receipts plummeted to levels last seen in the 1930s.
http://www.cbpp.org/10-16-03tax.htm
June 16th, 2008 at 12:50 pmas wages stagnate, and prices spiral upwards on everything from chicken-breast jerky for my dogs (up 15 percent at costco in about a week), to eggs, beans, and other staples, dickweed Will toes the party line.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:52 pmOh, really? quel astounding…
I believe shoeless was just playing by the rules of debate that you had set when you said,
too much tax revenue is directed to the low-income (viz., those who make poor decisions, lack ambition, and do not work).
If you’re going to use broad and unflattering generalizations to make your point, you can hardly object when others do the same, can you?
June 16th, 2008 at 12:54 pmtokin librul, my dogs are addicted to those chicken jerky treats.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:56 pmWow. With a lack of reading comprehension this outsized, it’s no wonder this dude is a regressive.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:57 pmpremium gas prices:
June 16th, 2008 at 12:59 pmend of 2000 = $1.60 per gallon
end of 2001 = $1.28
end of 2002 = $1.63
end of 2003 = $1.67
end of 2004 = $2.00
end of 2005 = $2.40
end of 2006 = $2.55
end of 2007 = $3.28
6/9/08 = $4.27
Wingnuts tend to be reductionist in their thinking.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:03 pmIf you don’t see how equating “the poor” with those who make poor decisions, lack ambition, and do not work is a broad generalization, then you’re not capable of making a decent argument.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:05 pmlibforequity Says:
Yeah, Shoeless, all rich people are born rich. And they never work a day in their lives.
Let me ask all of you two questions:
1) Do you know what percentgae of all tax revenue comes from the rich?
2) How much of our tax revenue WOULD you like to see come from the rich? 100?
As a poster indicated, you are trying to discuss a complex issue (the tax code is over 1200 pages long) with a simple context; and that is not possible.
The fact is that only a few of us are doing better today than eight years ago: That is a fact which is not is dispute. Now how the incremental benefits were enjoyed by which portion of the taxpaying public is the subject of a possible discussion.
To answer your inane questions:
#1. That is easy to find at either the IRS or US treasury websites; I suggest you review them. Lots of statistics and you know what they say about statistics.
#2. That is silly as the tax code drives those calculations. Also missing is the shenanigans that a good CPA would employ to hide wealth or circumvent the tax colection process (off shore havens and tax advantaged investments).
I think what progressives want – and I am speaking only for me – is that as the upper income folks continue to make 50-250 times what the ‘average’ American makes, then maybe they should share more of their bounty with the country which makes it possible. That seems fair to me.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:06 pmThis is a pretty good distillation of the regressive view toward social policy, foreign policy, almost any policy except corporate policy.
Punishment is the way to get what you want. Cooperation is weakness.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:07 pmlibforequity Says:
Shoeless and Stratrat,
So let me get this straight: you don’t really care if the lower and middle class are doing better, just so long as greedy corporate America does not benefit. Right?
Your suppositions make no sense, so it would be impossible to comment on your point. The straw man you threw up (you don’t really care…) is a juvenile tactic which would get you thrown out of most debate clubs in a junior high setting. Please presume you are speaking with folks here at TP who have a fair amount of knowledge. Please try harder.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:10 pmibforequity Says:
Tokin,
I offered my opinion and asked that it be refuted by fact. How that makes me “toe the party line” I don’t know. I never see any toeing of the party line around here though.
You offered your opinion as “truth” and asked for it to be refuted by fact. When Wayne and I both offered facts to refute it, you ignored them. That’s what reveals you to “toe the Party line”.
Someone who was actually interested in discussion would look at the facts and links we offered, acknowledge them, and respond. You don’t do that. You simply move on to demonize the poor and then dispute that it’s a generalization.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:11 pmStratRat:
I agree. Those who reap the greatest benefits of a system they are lucky enough to enjoy should pay the most back into that system.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:12 pmlibforequity Says:
So in my opinion, if one lazy sob is getting my tax money, that is too much.
We need to punish people who do these things, not reward them.
Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
June 16th, 2008 at 1:13 pm‘the share of national income going to the richest 20 percent of households rose from 43.6 percent in 1975 to 49.6 percent in 2006, the most recent year for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics has complete data. Meanwhile, families in the lowest fifth saw their piece of the pie fall from 4.3 percent to 3.3 percent.’
link
June 16th, 2008 at 1:16 pmStatistics and anecdotal evidence suggest the opposite of what George Will asserted.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:17 pmFrosty Cupcake Says:
StratRat:
I agree. Those who reap the greatest benefits of a system they are lucky enough to enjoy should pay the most back into that system.
We also must come up with a way to increase the savings rate of the average American. I believe we have a negative savings rate, and it makes no sense to tax the interest if the savings balance is rather modest. A negative savings rate means we are living more payday to payday; and one or two emergencies could impact any family. It also means we are leaning more on our credit cards to fund our day to day needs like food and clothing. That cannot sustain a healthy economy. Do we have the political will to make the necessary changes?
June 16th, 2008 at 1:18 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
You offered your opinion as “truth” and asked for it to be refuted by fact. When Wayne and I both offered facts to refute it, you ignored them. That’s what reveals you to “toe the Party line”.
I think its time to flag the dishonest troll, since its here to disrupt and spread lies rather than discuss.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:19 pmlibforequity Says:
Those in the top tax bracket assume an incredible share of the tax burden.
Ohhh, the burden on those unfortunate rich people! I know, perhaps they could give away all of their inherited money! Then the terrible burden would be lifted from their shoulders!
June 16th, 2008 at 1:19 pmWell said, StratRat.
In addition I’d like to suggest that the wealthiest among us are afforded the greatest access to the tools of government, and require the greatest protection from that government (having the most to protect), so I think its’ reasonable to expect the wealthy to support the greatest portion of that government. The same applies to corporations.
From an economic point of view, the broader economy does better when the lower and middle classes do better. More economic growth more widely shared, less crime, more innovation. Trickle-down economics doesn’t work.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:19 pm‘How vast has our parallel universe of the ultrarich become? The Wall Street Journal now dedicates a full-time beat reporter, Robert Frank, to cover what he calls Richistan. Richistan did not suddenly appear on the American scene. Our top-heavy era has evolved from a heavily bankrolled effort by conservatives and corporations to instill blind faith in the market as the magic elixir that can solve any problem. This three-decade war against common sense has preached that tax cuts for the rich help the poor, that labor unions keep workers from prospering, that regulations protecting consumers attack freedom. Duly inspired, our elected officials have rewritten the rules that run our economy–on taxes and trade, on wage policies and public spending–to benefit wealthy asset owners and global corporations.’
Richistan…
June 16th, 2008 at 1:22 pmlibforequity Says:
Strat,
In response to #1: Found this data at http://www.american.com/ archive/ 2007/ november-december-magazine-contents/ guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes
In response to #2: I was just asking what percentage of income tax should the wealthy pay? It is a subjective question.
I think that any close anlysis of the current tax structure would find that the low-income do not pay any takes, that the middle class pay more tyhan they should and that the rich pay too much as well. I am not a republican thouhg many of my beliefs align with the republican party (though not all). I simply do not beleive that the gov’t is entitled to more of one person’s money than another peron’s. Those in the top tax bracket assume an incredible share of the tax burden.
I accept your statistics as being one study of many. Again, throw the same numbers at 6 different economists and you will end up with 6 different results – that is the nature of statistics.
My problem was the 26 years I spent as a commercial banker for Wells Fargo. If a customer made too much money, we had ways of mitigating that. If the customer needed more collateral, we fixed that too. If a customer needed more income, we had ways (legal and ethical) to alleviate that problem. We did all those things with ratios, statistics, and industry comparitives. Not too difficult; but not too accurate either. Numbers can do funny things.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:24 pmThanks for that, mary.
Please note that “libforequality” wants to balance the national budget on the backs of that 3.3% share of the national income, so that the 49.6% can rest easy.
Brilliant. Have you suggested this to McCain’s economic advisors? I bet they’d go for it in a heartbeat.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:25 pmAccording to Will, if your home is worth more than it was eight years ago, you are better off financially. That’s beyond disingenuous. Not to mention idiotic, given the way that finance companies made it far too easy for people to turn their homes into ATMs with home equity loans, all on the promise that home prices would continue to go up as they did throughout the housing bubble.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:26 pmDammit, I HAVE to stop using the word “an*lysis” in my posts.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:27 pmI think you will find, also, is that those who make 50 to 250 times what the average American makes do pay much more by percentage of income than the average American.
Baloney. Tally the total, including Social Security, and it’s not even close.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:30 pmlibforequity Says:
Trickle down does work,
The core tenet of supply side/trickle down/Reaganomics is the belief that the poor have too much money, while the rich don’t have enough.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:32 pmSure, “trickle-down” works for the rich, but it doesn’t work for the economy as a whole. It didn’t work under Reagan, and it’s not working under Bush. It leads to artificial booms, fueled by gimmicks like our recent housing bubble, but the gap between rich and poor inevitably widens. So it works against what you agree is true (middle class and poor doing better), but you’re still behind it.
I know you don’t care about that, because to you, the poor deserve to be trampled. It has nothing to do with lack of opportunity, lack of education, lack of access to decent-paying jobs. Poverty is all the result of character flaws, right? And thus, you resent any kind of assistance to the poor. You’re fine with your tax dollars going to build a school in Fallujah, but god forbid your tax money funds a school in inner-city Detroit.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:33 pmTrickle down does work, but I agree with the rest of your assertion here.
Um, no, it doesn’t work, as sound, sustainable tax policy.
It’s like pouring liquid gasoline down an open carburator: sure, it will rev the economic engine, but at too uneven a rate to actually drive anywhere.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:34 pmSocial Security is not atax.
Please. It’s a payroll tax, silly.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:35 pmPlease explain how I’ve misinterpreted this statement:
I think that any close anlysis of the current tax structure would find that the low-income do not pay any takes, that the middle class pay more tyhan they should and that the rich pay too much as well.
You want to cut taxes on the group that pulls in almost 50% of the national income, and increase taxes on the 12% of the population that pulls in 3% of the income.
What am I missing?
Side note: I guess the problem I’m running into with post moderation is that I’m spelling “anlysis” correctly. My bad.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:37 pmBuffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary
Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:38 pmNo, firend, I would not be surprised. I know the dropout rate in inner-city Detroit is over 50%, and that (on that basis) spending per pupil is high. The difference between you and me (well, one difference, anyway) is that I see a situation like that and realize that it’s dysfunctional. I consider ways to improve it.
You see it and decide that the people of Detroit or West Philly or South central L. A. deserve their poverty because they don’t appreciate all we do for them. So you’re content to abandon them to deepen poverty and escalate crime in their neighborhoods.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:42 pmlibforequity Says:
Strat,
No doubt there are many loopholes for the rich, but you are misinformed if you think the low-income do not manipulate the system as well. I guarantee you that there are many out there who do work on the side but do not report this income to their welfare officers, have live-in boyfriends and do not report this. These loopholes are geared toward the rich, but there are loopholes and deductions available to Americans at all levels.
Hmmm, I was going to respond to this, but then I read where you believe Social Security is not a tax. Of course, it is a payroll tax; everybody knows this who has ever looked at a paystub. At first I thought I was speaking with someone who knew a few things, but it appears not.
As a rule, I don’t normally disuss complex topics which have taken me a quarter century and a number of advanced degrees to learn with those who haven’t had the same exposure. That is not a slam on you, it just saves me lots of time not having to explain the fundamentals of complex economic theory.
Cheers to you.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:43 pmlibforequity:
Dude, don’t you know the rich have gamed the social security system, since it established a “cap” on the maximum amount of contributions into the fund? Then, after the trust fund has trillions of dollars in it, they use their political lackeys in congress to spend the trust fund on military expenditures, as well as everything else. So they invest heavily in defense stocks, and cash in on the increased military spending, that we’re paying for, with the taxes they don’t rightfully pay, because of the SSI cap.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:47 pmlibforequity Says:
Do you know how much is spent per-student in detroit
Much less than we spend per-student in Bagdad.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
June 16th, 2008 at 1:47 pmlibforequity Says:
How would you address the problemn in Detroit?
Send them to Baghdad?
Good catch, shoeless.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:51 pmI know I’m getting into this conversation way too, but please consider a couple of points:
1- The majority of your hard-earned tax dollars is NOT going to entitlement programs.
2- Your tax dollars do provide for adequate infrastructure and public safety in your community, which actually BENEFITS the wealthy more – you have more assets to protect, and you have more interest in having highways, bridges, etc. that will allow you to do commerce.
3- Your tax dollars also provide quite a bit of welfare for your fellow business-owners, in the form of farm subsidies and other programs that artifically keep prices of things like milk and cheese higher.
4- Dare I mention the military-industrial complex, including the entire supply chain that is making a KILLING off of the current wars – all on the backs of American taxpayers? You and I are paying for the no-bid contracts, my friends. And we are footing the bill for the millions lost to graft and corruption.
I’m all for ending the free ride for ‘lazy welfare cheats’, but let’s take a realistic look at where our tax dollars really go.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:51 pmOh, I see. That leaves two options:
One, you’re one of those “raise revenue by cutting taxes” folks
or Two, you agree with Cheney that “deficits don’t matter“. In which case, why tax anybody? Just borrow more money.
So in which unrealistic camp do you fall?
June 16th, 2008 at 1:52 pmI never said anything about raising taxes on anyone. But know that alot of low-income folks do not pay any taxes at all. And some, actually get a check at the end of the year (EITC).
I’m sorry, but I’m bored, so:
These low income folk you speak of, might get money at the end of the year, but it’s inaccurate to say they do not pay taxes – just that what they paid in is returned to them. The government still collected the tax money, and got to use it interest-free for nearly a year, before returning it to them.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:57 pmBarfly,
Do you know why they put a cap on Social Security “taxes”?
Read my post, #121
June 16th, 2008 at 1:58 pm“taxes”?
Are you a trust-fund baby? Is that why you don’t accept the concept of SSI being a tax?
June 16th, 2008 at 2:00 pmSays the guy who asked this:
The irony is so thick you could spread it on toast.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:03 pmThe gov’t uses all of our money interest free….including the rich’s.
But we’re not whining about the rich not paying taxes at all, just they are, and have been, getting an enormous break all these years. And when you factor payroll tax contributions, they pay substantially less.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:03 pmI did read #121, that is why I asked if you know why they put a cap on SS?
I gave you the reason, not the professed reason.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:04 pmlibforequity, have you bothered to notice how little of your federal taxes are paid to public schools these days? Way less than before Ronald Reagan started to decimate the system. That why, state and local taxes, sales and property have skyrocketed. All the regressive taxes have soared. Before this trickle down insanity middle income people used to be able to deduct credit card interest which is sizable to middle incomers but that was taken away and isn’t figured into percentages paid by middle incomers and neither is sales tax.
But yeah, let’s stop paying money so poor kids can go to school. It saves a lot of money paying for a full time prison cell instead. /sarc
June 16th, 2008 at 2:05 pm——————————————————————————–
libforequity Says:
——————————————————————————–
Shoeless,
I am sorry, where did it mention the cost per-pupil? And by the way, do not change the subject.
You right-wing a-holes always avoid any discussion about the cost of your Bushgod’s bloody war, while railing against any assistance for underpriviledged Americans.
Here, I’ll do the math for you. The current population of Iraq is about 27 million. Of those approximately half are under 18 years of age. Of those under 18, you can assume that about 2/3 are of school age.
That means there are about 9 million school age children in Iraq.
So far, we have spent $529 billion, and we still haven’t rebuilt most of the schools destroyed by your great leader.
$529,000,000,000/9,000,000= $58,778/student in Iraq.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:07 pmI did. I introduced it as an EXAMPLE, not as a topic.
Are you really this obtuse?
June 16th, 2008 at 2:10 pm.
How typical…
The name libforequity gave it all away…
WE HAVE BEEN FLAGGING THIS FOOL… NO?
.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:13 pmHere you go, lib. Educate yourself:
http://benefitslink.com/articles/RL32896.pdf
June 16th, 2008 at 2:15 pmlibforequity Says:
OK – I get it now …..I undersatnd. If I had those math and deduction skills I’d be pissed too!!!!!!!
If you weren’t a delusional, Bush sycophant, who grovels at the feet of his wealthy superiors, you would be pissed about them wasting $529 billion of your money in an unnecessary war.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:16 pmAnd of course you would not beleive anything I said becausde I am a to
e-the-line conservative.
Well, your guys’ track-record on truth is quite abysmal…
June 16th, 2008 at 2:21 pmFOR SPAMMING! Not to mention aggravated mopery. Trickle down economics work, that’s what you said right. Where’s your evidence?
June 16th, 2008 at 2:21 pmWell, you could scroll back up and look at what my topic was, but I understand that’s a lot of work for you.
My point, the one in which I used Detroit as an example of a school system you would oppose investing in, using your tax dollars, was to illustrate one difference in the way you and I view proper use of tax revenues.
That clear things up?
June 16th, 2008 at 2:25 pmStill doesn’t explain why you were so willing to change the subject and discuss ways to deal with Detroit’s school system, and then you criticized Shoeless for trying to change the subject.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:32 pmlibforequity Says:
I am pissed about my money going to programs that are largely ineffective.
You mean like the Iraq war?
June 16th, 2008 at 2:36 pmThere’s typically little waste in entitlement programs.
As for libforequity’s disdain for the EITC, I think of a couple I read about, a woman with terminal cancer and her husband forced to work part-time in order to care for her, who were in dire straights financially, when their tax preparer notified them that they’d be eligible for $4000 EITC credit. The terminally-ill woman cried in relief.
If libforequity has 5+ dependents, that’s already a significant tax break right there.
The government prints the currency; the government has the right to make sure that everyone gets a fair shake economically. Conservatives don’t “create wealth.” The government funds innovation and productivity. But some people, no matter what, and for some reason, are out to claim that government is the evil of all evils.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:38 pmCorporate hospitals are skimming billions in medicare funds and putting loads of work on auditors to make them accountable. It’s the government’s fault that compliance isn’t in their cards?
June 16th, 2008 at 2:42 pmlibforequity Says:
My point, Ralph, is that we are wasting too much money. So, rich or poor, I am pissed about my money going to programs that are largely ineffective. Does this make sense?
Then the price of the Iraq war and the missing 23 Billion must piss you off pretty badly then, no?
June 16th, 2008 at 2:48 pmAll I really want to know is this: how can someone who claims to be working three jobs to support six people spend four hours posting comments on a blog?
Unless, of course, one of those jobs is posting comments on a liberal blog.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:48 pmHe works for the RNC, the NRCC, and Americans for Tax Reform.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:59 pmI’m not one to pounce on those for their hardships in life, but if libforequity is going to lecture others on having children they’re unable to care for, why is he walking on thin ice and whining about having to work three jobs to raise the kids he and his significant other crank out?
If someone loses a steady full-time job and is forced to pick up multipe jobs to make up a lost income, I’m not knocking those people. But to take up the arrogant conservative hype that relies on the “we’ll call you if we need you” employment system without regard to a person’s day-to-day financial obligations, including that of raising children and their ever-increading needs, is preposterous. Talk about licking the hand that doesn’t feed you.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pmWayne Says:
Then the price of the Iraq war and the missing 23 Billion must piss you off pretty badly then, no?
He isn’t allowed to talk about that. If he does, he will get fired from his three jobs.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:20 pmWell, gee, if things keep going the way they are now, if Bush/McLame keep borrowing and spending like drunken sailors and giving all the money to their pals, the “trickle-down” theory will be proven correct – in that we Americans will all end up being nothing more than gardeners, houseboys and maids for the super-rich.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:24 pmReally lipofstupidity, your administration loses $23 billion here and $23 billion there and pretty soon your talking about some real money.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:34 pmLeftside Annie Says:
…we Americans will all end up being nothing more than gardeners, houseboys and maids for the super-rich.
Annie, don’t tell anyone, but that’s the plan.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:36 pmIO’m not sure that trolling on progressive websites under three different aliases counts as “three jobs”…
June 16th, 2008 at 3:39 pmLeftside Annie Says:
…we Americans will all end up being nothing more than gardeners, houseboys and maids for the super-rich.
libforequity’s three jobs?
June 16th, 2008 at 3:48 pmHow is that a broad generalization? I said too much is directed to the poor. So in my opinion, if one lazy sob is getting my tax money, that is too much. -=LFE=-
Well, when we stop spending 700 billion a year for alot of stuff we dont need you may have a point. Speaking of lazy SOB’s taking your tax money are you aware of how much the government hands out in subsidies?
June 16th, 2008 at 4:40 pmGeorge Will IS telling the truth, because he considers the richest AMERICANS Americans…The rest of us are peons to be run over in the quest to get the top 1% richer…
June 16th, 2008 at 5:21 pmtrickle down works, Libforequity…
for the richest Americans…
June 16th, 2008 at 5:24 pmWhen damn near everything he spends is written off as a tax deduction, how the hell would he know what the average American is going through with $4 gasoline and anything either made with or transported by oil going through the roof. He is as full of sh*t as a Christmas goose. I would love to see him on a fixed income try to manage in this economy. He is probably one of those making more than $200,000.00 that pay no income taxes. It is ass*holes like him that make so many gravitate to Obama. I would just love to have the oportunity to kick his hypocritical ass. At 75 I have no doubt I could as doughy as he is. He is another that had his lunch money taken away from him as a kid without resisting and is trying to get even.
June 16th, 2008 at 5:28 pmpeople like Libsforequity have swallowed hook and sinker the myth that wingnuts and conservatives love to put out there, that it’s not the corporations and their own class warfare on behalf of the rich that are to blame. Rather it’s the mythical “welfare queen driving a Cadillac,” it’s the “lazy American who refuses to help him/herself” (funny how they call people who work 3 jobs to support themselves lazy) and that it’s the fault of the brown people that people like LFE might struggle. They build up resentment against their scapegoats to distract the people whom they hurt through their economic policies in order to trick them into voting against their economic interests…
HALLIBURTON AND KBR WELFARE COST so much more yet you don’t hear conservatives talking about waste even though billions have gone down the financial black hole. Note LFE does not blame our government’s willingness to not hold these companies accountable for our tax dollars, because it’s the fault of “poor, lazy people.”
June 16th, 2008 at 5:29 pmucsbclassics53 Says:
“They build up resentment against their scapegoats to distract the people whom they hurt through their economic policies in order to trick them into voting against their economic interests”
Well said.
June 16th, 2008 at 6:34 pmlibforequity Says:
——————————————————————————–
Ralph,
How is that a broad generalization? I said too much is directed to the poor. So in my opinion, if one lazy sob is getting my tax money, that is too much.
I am not sure where you are at on the income scale but I am trying to take care of a family of six and work three jobs. I typically work 60 hours per week. So, it pisses me off when I see people I know who (1) make poor decisions time and time again; (2) choose not to work; and (3) have more children knowing they cannot take care of them. They do these things and you know where my tax money goes? to give them yet another helping hand when I am working my ass off to just get by.
We need to punish people who do these things, not reward them.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Sounds like you had too many children to take care of, but to your point you support a president who forces you to work three jobs to support your family yet you fall for the “welfare queen” argument when Haliburton and Exxon get BILLIONS in tax breaks.
You are the poster child for “What’s the matter with Kansas,” a fukcing moron voting aginst his own self interest. The STUPID is strong in this one.
June 16th, 2008 at 8:47 pmGeorge Will is a charlatan of the first order. He is the “moderate” who rushes in to excuse or explain the actions of his neocon brethren. He is the PC right wing pundit who too many believe. He is always there after the fact to clean up the messes made by the radicals he loves in his own party. Judging by many of the comments here, he’s not fooling nearly so many people these days, but he is still making a pile just like Rove and Delay and Feith and Matalin. Maybe one day he will be put out to pasture like the cow he is.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:18 pmvery condescending of you…pmavrk…not all of us have a worthless degree…or is a deadbeat, or smokes pot like the conservative stereotype of the bleeding heart liberal states…
tell a teacher who is trying to make ends meet in my area that $40k, $30-35k after taxes that he/she has a worthless degree, is a deadbeat, and plays the victim card…
someday I’ll be one, but I think it’s highly condescending of you to judge people whom you don’t even know much about with the help of your myths…
personal responsibility may sound like a good canard, but the problem with Republicans is that they selectively apply it. Should anything befall them, they always seem to blame someone else.
btw, I’m glad you’ve better off than you were 8 years ago, somehow working three jobs and managing to survive in this tough economy…
June 17th, 2008 at 1:33 amI take it that you have three jobs because you are enjoying them very much…
June 17th, 2008 at 1:36 amWhat George Will meant to say was that RICH people are better off that they were eight years ago.
Get your facts straight, George.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:08 amThanks, I hope you’re right pmavrk…I tend to get down on myself. Thanks for the words of encouragement…I was looking back at previous threads and I was touched by your response…
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:20 am