Poor bastards

Post #345,271 by drook 7/27/11 10:44:26 PM 7/27/11 11:02:44 PM Reply	Poor bastards Down and Out on $250,000 a Year -- http://www.thefiscal...50000-a-Year.aspx They take advantage of all tax benefits available to them, such as pretax contributions to 401(k) plans and medical, childcare and transportation flexible spending accounts. <snip> Even with an additional $3,000 in investment income, they end up in the red Â after taxes, saving for retirement and their childrenÂs education, and a middle-of-the-road cost of living Â in seven out of the eight communities in the analysis. <snip> Being in the red on a $250,000 annual salary may still seem surprising. But taking responsibility for their retirement and their childrenÂs future is costly. They are maximizing contributions to two 401(k)s--advice that's championed by almost every financial advisor in the country--and all flexible spending accounts available to them, and they are squirreling away $8,000 a year for their kidsÂ college educations. This is what people mean when they say $250k isn't rich. "Well of course you have to max out your 401(k) and the kids' education. After that, it's hard not to end up in the red." Yeah, and the 87.1% of the population that's making less than you doesn't even get to save for retirement before they end up in the red. Fuck you. [edit] Oh, and then there's this: Some of the expenses incurred by couples like the Joneses may seem lavish Â such as $5,000 on a housecleaner, a $1,200 annual dry cleaning tab and $4,000 on kidsÂ activities. But when both parents are working, it is impossible for them to maintain the home, care for the kids and dress for their professional jobs without a big outlay. I guess families with both parents working with combined income under $50k magically don't need to care for the kids or wear clothes to work. And the final numbers they assume for retirement include $8k for the college fund and $33k for retirement fund. That's $41k per year in savings, but the half the population making less -- median is $44k before taxes -- shouldn't look at that as rich. Like I said the first time ... fuck you. -- Drew Edited by drook July 27, 2011, 11:02:44 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #345,272 by beepster 7/27/11 11:00:57 PM Reply	Right. 80k in taxes just isn't enough...because that still leaves them more than min wage. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,273 by Another Scott 7/28/11 7:04:42 AM Reply	Non sequitur, as usual.
Post #345,279 by beepster 7/28/11 9:16:10 AM Reply	really? its in the article. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,280 by Another Scott 7/28/11 9:50:25 AM Reply	Where?
Post #345,287 by S1mon_Jester 7/28/11 11:01:49 AM Reply	I think he's looking here Meet the Joneses State income taxes, taken alone, are just $10,557. But factor in the gas tax ($2,679), property tax ($15,222), phone service taxes and surcharges ($350) and sales tax ($2,258), and the picture looks far different. Their total tax bill, including the AMT and payroll taxes: $78,276. Not quite $80K, but close. Of course, we're ignoring drook's point entirely. We're talking a couple that is making $250k a year. They've maximized their 401K and are putting 8K a year aside for their kids. And they might be 4k in the hole. There are a LOT of people who can't maximize their 401K...much less put 8K a year aside...and they're a lot more than 4k in the hole. So we make it easier for guys making 250K by lowering their taxes and make it harder on the people who can't put 8K a year aside for their kids colleges? And, lets be fair, the 250K folks GOT where they were by government assistance - they got those guarenteed college loans: Mr. Jones racked up $40,208 in student loan debt in undergraduate and graduate school, and Mrs. Jones borrowed $22,650 to get her undergraduate degree (both amounts are equal to the national averages for their levels of education).
Post #345,289 by malraux 7/28/11 11:47:57 AM Reply	Re: I think he's looking here Property tax is $15,000? That's 7 times what I pay for my 4 bedroom house. Just federal income tax for them is ~$50K. That's 20%. Not exactly a high tax rate, and it's approximately the same as a lot of the flat tax proposal rates. In Glendale, the Joneses can live reasonably well Â but not extravagantly Â in a three- or four-bedroom home valued around $750,000. The excuse given for this is that they can't be expected to move to a lower cost area mid-career. True, but you don't have to live in Naperville, either, to work in the Chicago area. What's being glossed over in this story is that these people are making lifestyle choices that are not available to people with lower income. $5K for a housekeeper? Seriously? Buy a Roomba and put up with some dust and clutter like we do. And like Simon Says, putting away $41K/year for retirement and college (tax free, incidentally) is a hell of a lot more than the vast majority of people can manage. The marginal value of extra income for these people is significantly lower than for the people making less than the Joneses are putting into their retirement fund. Personally, however, I'm more interested in people like hedge fund managers getting away with capital gains only on millions of dollars of income a year. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #345,290 by jake123 7/28/11 12:04:21 PM Reply	The whining that the rich have been doing for a few years has really been a sight to behold.
Post #345,292 by drook 7/28/11 1:15:11 PM Reply	Dammit, we lost If you can get them to ask the wrong question, it doesn't much matter what the answer is. That whole article was flagrantly, obviously wrong. But the issue isn't whether $250k counts as rich. The issue is the multi-millions-per-year folks not paying their fair share. Just as people making $250k aren't living in the same world as people making $40k, people making $100m aren't living in the same world as those making $250k. But yes, $250k is still damn well off. -- Drew
Post #345,293 by beepster 7/28/11 2:04:18 PM Reply	well.. your quote was something along the lines of "fuck'em." And I paid 12k in prop taxes in southern NJ for the house you visited. I drove 2 hours to work because I couldn't afford to live in northern new jersey...where home prices were 5x and prop taxes were 2x minimum. paid higher than average sales taxes. Paid about 25% of car insurance to the state fund (that was 3.5k/yr bill). Additive, even with a net effective fed tax rate of only 10-15% depending on the year, when I tallied my total tax burden in NJ it was around 50%. And I wasn't, and still am not, making 225k/year...nor will I likely ever make that amount. However, moving to FL has changed my tax and c.o.l. substantially. Want to talk about $1M and up as rich/jet set..ok...but given the cost of living in the areas where these 100-200k jobs are, for the most part...these folks are NOT rich. They're not poor, not uncomfortable, but they are not rich. Raising taxes on "rich people" would get much harder to object to, even by tea partiers, if you up that total...and with that you could up the marginal to make up that difference. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,296 by drook 7/28/11 3:25:06 PM Reply	How many people making $250k have their own jets? Tea Partiers had no problem objecting to that. They've been, if nothing else, refreshingly up-front about the fact that they will oppose any tax, of any amount, on anything and anybody. -- Drew
Post #345,297 by beepster 7/28/11 4:20:46 PM Reply	Re: How many people making $250k have their own jets? duh. T(axed) E(nough) A(lready)...that's their entire point for being. Good thing there's a majority of people that aren't members, isn't it? And Obama equally as guilty for talking about his tax plan as if those that own their own jets would be the only ones to pay in recent and past speeches. And your dismissing of the point I made entirely is indeed telling...you act as if those 200kers are living high off the hog, not paying their fair share...and they are paying 80k (35%) in cumulative taxes. They are NOT the people that are being used to portray the "evil rich" in these speeches...they are mostly better than average educated folks that worked their ass off to get a bit ahead of the pack...and the government is spinning everyone into a frenzy to pull them back into the pack with everyone else. Sorry, that's not what this country is supposed to be about. As I said, if you talk about the fund manager making 500 million...that's another story...one that is MUCH easier to sell...and one that will CLEARLY alienate the majority from the tea partiers. But that's where the plan departs from the rhetoric, now isn't it? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,300 by drook 7/28/11 4:36:30 PM Reply	The problem with that argument It sounds entirely reasonable. "Okay, maybe the rich should be paying a bit more. But people making $250k aren't rich, they're people who busted their asses to get where they are." Yup, that may be true. But if anyone concedes that point and says, "Sure, let's start at a million," then you know as well as I do the TP-ers will say that those people are hard working small business owners. And if you move it to 10 million then those people will be "job creators". TP-ers don't want to compromise. Take one step in their direction and they back up two more steps. At this point the president should just shoot for rolling back the Bush tax cuts entirely. If that means people making $200k and above take a hit, so be it. -- Drew
Post #345,332 by beepster 7/29/11 9:10:43 AM Reply	the tpers can't drive the bus there aren't enough of them. And you take EVERYONE ELSE, general republicans included, and marginalize them. Rolling back the bush tax cuts entirely hits EVERYBODY, not just those making over 200k. Might not be a horrible idea...but try and get that through ;-) Hell, with the dems offering plans that cut next to nothing and voting in block against the repo plan which isn't much better...maybe by this time next week we'll be bankrupt and sell ourselves to the Chinese for pennies on the dollar. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,353 by drook 7/29/11 1:40:58 PM Reply	That explains why Boehner got the bill passed last night -- Drew
Post #345,355 by beepster 7/29/11 1:54:34 PM Reply	getting zero dems helps that cause along quite well. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,358 by Another Scott 7/29/11 2:01:26 PM Reply	Having the majority is rough, isn't it?
Post #345,361 by beepster 7/29/11 3:22:59 PM Reply	not particularly. but I notice no uproar any longer about block no voting by a single party, do I? Bueller? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,362 by drook 7/29/11 3:31:49 PM Reply	[sigh] There is a difference When the majority says openly that their #1 priority is making Obama a one-term president, and their action confirm they don't give a shit what they blow up or who gets hurt along the way, then yeah, I have no problem with opposing that. -- Drew
Post #345,366 by beepster 7/29/11 4:31:47 PM Reply	no there is not except in your head. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,367 by Another Scott 7/29/11 4:37:10 PM Reply	You're actually a 'bot, aren't you. <sigh>
Post #345,369 by beepster 7/29/11 4:47:26 PM Reply	well... ...maybe on this one instance of a vote I'll forgive. problem is, though, it's been happening pretty much since the change. Silence. This time, they're fighting the good fight for their beliefs. Also convenient that y'all like this side better than the others. As church lady says...isn't that >convenient< Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,394 by S1mon_Jester 7/30/11 1:38:34 AM Reply	So you're saying that the Democrats are using the same tactics as Republicans?
Post #345,409 by lincoln 7/30/11 12:42:02 PM Reply	Of course he is that way he can easily rationalize the false equality of responsibility for the debt crisis. RepubliCANTS are totally responsible for this false crisis that they have manufactured to give them the opportunity to shove their ideology down the throats of Americans, who would never let such crap occur if they tried this under a different political scenario. "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow
Post #345,565 by Another Scott 8/2/11 8:10:53 AM Reply	About T.E.A. http://www.nytimes.c...s/02teaparty.html When Tea Party supporters were asked if the debt-ceiling agreement should include only tax increases, only spending cuts, or a combination of both, the majority Â 53 percent Â said that it should include a combination. Forty-five percent preferred only spending cuts. More than half of the teabaggers wanted taxes increased as part of the plan. And 100 - 53 - 45 = 2% wanted only tax increases. Hmmm. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #345,281 by drook 7/28/11 9:51:14 AM Reply	Liar The phrase "minimum wage" doesn't appear in that article. -- Drew
Post #345,294 by beepster 7/28/11 2:05:42 PM Reply	what...ever Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,382 by Another Scott 7/29/11 8:46:27 PM Reply	No, no. Not $250k/yr - $30k/yr is rich. http://www.cepr.net/...defines-qwealthyq The Washington Post once ran a front page piece questioning whether people who earned $250,000 a year, President Obama's cutoff for his no tax hike pledge, were really rich. However, it also features Robert Samuelson on its opinion page telling readers that seniors with income of $30,000 a year are wealthy. I'm not kidding. In a piece titled "Why Are We In This Debt Fix? It's the elderly stupid," Samuelson tells readers: "some elderly live hand-to-mouth; many more are comfortable, and some are wealthy. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports the following for Medicare beneficiaries in 2010: 25 percent had savings and retirement accounts averaging $207,000 or more." Let's see, we have retirees who have their Social Security checks, plus a stash of $207,000. If someone at age 62 were to take that $207,000 and buy an annuity this money would get them about $15,000 a year. Add in $14,000 from Social Security and they are living the good life on $29,000 a year. And remember, 75 percent of the elderly have less than this. To be fair, many of the people with $207,000 in savings will be older than 62 so their money will go further, but it is hard to believe that anyone can think of this as a cutoff for being wealthy, or at least anyone other than Robert Samuelson and his colleagues at the Washington Post. Cheers, Scott.
Post #345,383 by drook 7/29/11 9:05:32 PM Reply	Yup, just saw that So $250k per year isn't rich, but $207k for your whole retirement is wealthy. Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me. -- Drew
Post #345,386 by boxley 7/29/11 10:15:01 PM Reply	thats why the dems want a cut of your 401k 15% was floated last time Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #345,385 by beepster 7/29/11 10:07:38 PM Reply	go to the original article it doesn't say this... magnificent piece of spinning there... Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,387 by Another Scott 7/29/11 10:16:34 PM Reply	Dean reads the WaPo so I don't have to. ;-)
Post #345,388 by beepster 7/29/11 10:35:51 PM Reply	He got that one wrong basis of the article was that we're going to have a lot more old people that live a lot longer...so not reforming ss and medicare will kill the budget eventually. "By now, itÂs obvious that we need to rewrite the social contract that, over the past half-century, has transformed the federal governmentÂs main task into transferring income from workers to retirees. In 1960, national defense was the governmentÂs main job; it constituted 52 percent of federal outlays. In 2011 Â even with two wars Â it is 20 percent and falling. Meanwhile, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other retiree programs constitute roughly half of non-interest federal spending. These transfers have become so huge that, unless checked, they will sabotage AmericaÂs future. The facts are known: By 2035, the 65-and-over population will nearly double, and health costs remain uncontrolled; the combination automatically expands federal spending (as a share of the economy) by about one-third from 2005 levels. This tidal wave of spending means one or all of the following: (a) much higher taxes; (b) the gutting of other government services, from the Weather Service to medical research; (c) a partial and dangerous disarmament; (d) large and unstable deficits." Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,389 by Another Scott 7/29/11 11:28:48 PM Reply	Dean Baker has addressed those talking points many times. As have others. Samuelson's arguments are regularly shown to be faulty. http://www.google.co...&biw=1310&bih=880 Social Security is not in crisis and is not going to be in crisis any time soon. It needs minor tweaking. It is not contributing to the deficit. http://www.cepr.net/...-the-news-section http://www.cepr.net/...eligibility-to-67 http://www.angrybear...rity-summary.html Medicare is a problem because health care costs in general have been rising faster than GDP. It's not a Medicare problem - it's mainly a health care cost problem. More retirees are going to be entering the system over the next few decades as well, of course. That doesn't mean there's a crisis. http://www.angrybear...lling-part-2.html Our social insurance system doesn't require, say, 30 people paying in for each person collecting benefits to be sustainable. http://books.google....onepage&q&f=false Most people who argue that we need to cut Social Security and Medicare now to fix a problem 20-50 years from now are looking for a reason to cut them, not a reason to make them more sustainable. They're not looking to control the rate of increase in health care costs (c.f. their opposition to the ACA). The people who set these social insurance systems up, and the people who have adjusted them over the years, weren't idiots. These programs are not going to "kill the budget eventually" or "sabotage America's future". The threat to them is from the Pete Petersons and the Koch Brothers of the world, not Grandpa and Grandma Beep. The rate of increase in health care costs is going to moderate over time. It's already happening - http://www.angrybear...lation-curve.html . Reforms under the ACA and subsequent regulations and efficiencies will help the process along. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #345,397 by beepster 7/30/11 5:56:04 AM Reply	whoopie for him;-) just saying that the source article didn't call those old people rich, as was implied by the post. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,398 by Another Scott 7/30/11 6:02:41 AM Reply	It directly follows from the "logic" of the WaPo article.
Post #345,399 by beepster 7/30/11 6:04:49 AM Reply	no, it doesn't it takes a comment and spins it in a direction unrelated to the article. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,393 by S1mon_Jester 7/30/11 1:36:45 AM Reply	Isn't the military budget increasing? In 1960, national defense was the governmentÂs main job; it constituted 52 percent of federal outlays. In 2011 Â even with two wars Â it is 20 percent and falling. Meanwhile, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other retiree programs constitute roughly half of non-interest federal spending. Hasn't the military budget been INCREASING the last several years? The annual base defense budget increased from $295B in FY2000 to $549B by FY2011, an 86% increase, excluding supplemental funding directly attributed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and certain other expenses related to the "War on Terror." http://en.wikipedia....ending_Trends.png
Post #345,396 by beepster 7/30/11 5:54:33 AM Reply	by percentage. not dollars. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,400 by Another Scott 7/30/11 7:01:49 AM Reply	Of course... the Federal Government should do nothing more than it did in 1960, or 1940, or 1923 or 1895 or ... or 1792 depending on your view of whenever the appropriate Golden Age was. A more fair comparison would be between 1960 and 2000 - before the wars and before the Lesser Depression. 1960 % of Federal Spending: Pensions: 7.7 Health Care: 1.0 Education: 1.1 Defense: 35.2 Welfare: 2.0 Protection: 0.1 Transportation: 2.9 2000 % of Federal Spending: Pensions: 13.8 Health Care: 10.9 Education: 1.9 Defense: 11.1 Welfare: 5.4 Protection: 0.9 Transportation: 1.4 For completeness, 2010 % of Federal Spending: Pensions: 12.9 Health Care: 14.2 Education: 2.4 Defense: 14.6 Welfare: 8.7 Protection: 0.9 Transportation: 1.6 Yes, let's return to those golden days of 1960 when 40 million (22.2% of the population) was in poverty (census.gov). When we were building nuclear weapons like no tomorrow. When the USSR was shooting down US planes. When black students couldn't get lunch at Woolworth's. When voting rights were restricted in many areas of the South. Etc., etc. It's funny, isn't it, that many people who like to make arguments that things are too expensive and cite raw numbers never talk about what is paid for with those dollars? They're not a fan of "cost-benefit analysis". I wonder why that is... Cheers, Scott.
Post #345,403 by beepster 7/30/11 8:10:59 AM Reply	Funnier still is how when people rant against that growth..and speak of how it was...they always revert back to racism. You appear to be no exception. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,404 by Another Scott 7/30/11 8:59:08 AM Reply	<sigh>
Post #345,405 by hnick 7/30/11 9:23:20 AM Reply	Re: Funnier still It's not racism we are reverting to, it's feudalism. If there's racism involved, it's just a teeny teeny part. HTH.
Post #345,425 by beepster 7/31/11 1:31:40 PM Reply	Bullshit. Its right in there...always is.. the quote.. "When black students couldn't get lunch at Woolworth's. When voting rights were restricted in many areas of the South." Always there. You might think its teeny tiny. but its ALWAYS THERE. talking about going back to a smaller government "like it was"...99% of the time is met with..."oh, like when blacks couldn't drink out the same water fountains" or some such nonsense. Nother just did it..and then sighed when I called him on it... oh freakin well. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,432 by Another Scott 7/31/11 2:06:41 PM Reply	Your selective outrage is frequently tiresome. I gave several examples of what things were like in 1960: the poverty rate; a nuclear buildup and actual confrontations during the cold war; and civil rights issues that we've at least partially overcome. Part of the reason why things aren't like that any more is because the federal government spends more on social programs, is more active in civil rights issues, and spends proportionally less on the military now than it did then. I didn't pick 1960 out of my ear - it was in Samuelson's OpEd. It was his example of a time we should return to. My point, right there in this thread, is that talking about spending without talking about what the money actually buys is stupid. But you seemingly want to turn my comment into some rant about racism. It's rather tiresome that you can't stay on a topic. Go play your guitar or something and cheer up. Cheers, Scott.
Post #345,437 by beepster 7/31/11 4:19:38 PM Reply	Ah, its selective I see. So why don't we select the topic to stay on..instead of linking to things that change that topic to racism...which that one did? And gee...why does that seem to happen all the time? Oh, I dunno. Convenient way to stop an inconvenient topic. Possibly. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,468 by drook 7/31/11 7:37:49 PM Reply	Well you're sure trying to stop it Pensions: 12.9 Health Care: 14.2 Education: 2.4 Defense: 14.6 Welfare: 8.7 Protection: 0.9 Transportation: 1.6 Yes, let's return to those golden days of 1960 when 40 million (22.2% of the population) was in poverty (census.gov). When we were building nuclear weapons like no tomorrow. When the USSR was shooting down US planes. When black students couldn't get lunch at Woolworth's. When voting rights were restricted in many areas of the South. Etc., etc. That's 12 issues I count there. Two of them were about racism. He's not the one who keeps focusing on it. -- Drew
Post #345,474 by beepster 7/31/11 7:59:11 PM Reply	Try 5 and 2 of the 5 were. The rest were statistics. Not issues. Issues raised were the cold war and racism. And one of those statistics WOULD actually want you to go back to that age..as people that were in poverty for more than 2 or more months in the 2004-6 time frame was 28.9%...so at least on that front, we were better off back then. http://www.census.go...ics04/table2a.pdf Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,476 by Another Scott 7/31/11 8:15:53 PM Reply	How many people got Food Stamps in 1960? How many people got Medicare in 1960? Comparing apples to apples shows your conclusion that things were better in 1960 is wrong. http://en.wikipedia....rate_timeline.gif Cheers, Scott.
Post #345,491 by beepster 7/31/11 10:37:21 PM Reply	pilot started in 61. Act passed in 64. Hmm. And your census appears to differ from mine yet still shows no improvement since 65...for all that growth in government that is supposed to stop it. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,415 by Ashton 7/30/11 6:05:29 PM Reply	That dead horse won't hunt, especially amidst the urbane IGM of these parts. The idea that actual racism has [ever] vanished from the Puritan-programmed vox populi of Murica! is as ludicrous in 2011 --as it was ... a few days after the Emancipation Proclamation. Dunno where you've been, over your puppy-years--But I can recall epithets hurled [at ANYone 'different'] in my infancy: currently in vogue, to be seen-on-signs/heard-as-'bleeps', Beep -- especially at farRight-ful gatherings/mobs, On the Attack. (Ditto re the WarHawks' signs <VS> Americans gathered to protest the horror of continuing the Vietnam genocides.) The vocabulary/vernacular of the Right-fringes Today is as scurrilous, dehumanizing and Evull as.. anything that came from the Ministry of Propaganda/Göbbels, from 1927 on. I have heard these odious phrases since childhood and I remember them well: unclear what history-of-US version was inculcated into Your yout, but it must have been pretty sanitized. I was fucking-There, kid. You don't misremember shit like that, unless you only 'read about it somewhere', well before your time. {{sheesh}} with this both-sides-do-it pap, your staple of non-engagement dissembling.
Post #345,426 by beepster 7/31/11 1:32:25 PM Reply	if i bothered to translate that.. I'd probably think it was bullshit too. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,460 by Ashton 7/31/11 6:53:03 PM Reply	You won't eat your own dog food.. as usual. Can only wonder at your eyes glazing-over / not reading the content of blogs, blurbs and videos --the racial/xenophobic/misogynistic "Sign language" to be observed at many ~~Conservative~~ Reactionary gatherings: Just among those which make it into the corp. meeja; who knows about the regional un-reported variants? One need not impute ingrained racism's omnipresence in '11 political jargon: it's EXPLICIT. That is --if one chooses to See what one looks at, at all. True, though: there are fewer caricatures of Obama + watermelons. Not 0, but ... fewer. But it's not '12 yet, either.
Post #345,475 by beepster 7/31/11 8:00:30 PM Reply	that ain't it. its more along the lines of posting in english as a second language... but if dog food's your thing...ok. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,536 by Ashton 8/1/11 5:35:38 PM Reply	I empathize with that pain you suffer in 'crafting' English.
Post #345,540 by beepster 8/1/11 6:00:43 PM Reply	Clearly Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,593 by Ashton 8/2/11 2:41:15 PM Reply	Rep. Lamborn likens Obama to a "tar baby" http://www.salon.com...emium%29_7_30_110 "Tar Baby" -- from time to time, this ugly racially charged phrase has come up in our political discourse. Most often, the term is applied to a situation or a thing. John McCain, for example, used it to describe divorces. Likewise, Mitt Romney used it to describe the Big Dig. In both instances, the Republican leaders apologized for using such a loaded word -- even though they hadn't used it to describe an actual person. The same cannot be said for Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO), who used the term to describe President Obama in a statewide radio interview on Friday. You can listen to that interview here, which we examined on my KKZN-AM760 radio show this morning. Here's the key excerpt: LAMBORN: Even if some people say "well, the Republicans should have done this, or should have done that," they will hold the President responsible. Now, I don't even want to be associated with him, it's like touching a, a tar baby and you get it...you know you're stuck and you're part of the problem and you can't get away. It has been questioned whether the term "tar baby" is always a racist term. In 2006, Ta-Nehisi Coates explored this issue in Time magazine. "Is tar baby a racist term?" he asked. "Like most elements of language, that depends on context. Calling the Big Dig a tar baby is a lot different than calling a person one." In this case, that context is quite clear. [. . .] Of course too ... there's another category we've had noses-rubbed-in, till raw: The Tea Party, the debt ceiling, and white Southern extremism http://www.salon.com...emium%29_7_30_110 ..Complete with those cute spreadsheet/pie-chart graphics, supporting the regional diss. Just more Librul distortion, no doubt. Can't be anything to it. Both sides [must] do it. It's an even playing-field. There's no difference between Demos/Repos--it's all in our Minds. cha. cha. Extremist in defense of liberty is no vice--cha.cha.cha, Carrion.
Post #345,598 by mmoffitt 8/2/11 4:19:24 PM Reply	Colorado, eh? It's good to hear from one of the morally superior Northern States.
Post #345,497 by S1mon_Jester 8/1/11 12:37:44 AM Reply	Percentages and dollars. 2000 % of Federal Spending: Defense: 11.1 For completeness, 2010 % of Federal Spending: Defense: 14.6 That still looks like an increase to me. 14.6 > 11.1 Now, we could go back to the 35%....but to do that, we'd have to re-institute the draft. (That's why it was that high back then.)
Post #345,499 by beepster 8/1/11 1:23:52 AM Reply	or conversely reverse course on all the other stuff. But that would be inconvenient. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,500 by Another Scott 8/1/11 7:31:01 AM Reply	What would you cut, and how would you get enough votes?
Post #345,509 by beepster 8/1/11 11:50:06 AM Reply	Thankfully, not my job But I would start by looking at the workforce, and items like doe..as for votes...doing the unpopular won't garner them...part of the reason we are in this mess Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,511 by drook 8/1/11 12:03:31 PM Reply	What if the popular thing is also the right thing? Closing all businesses and putting everybody out of work would be unpopular. Does that mean we should do it? Republicans keep talking about their willingness to do the unpopular things, as though it proves how serious they are about fixing things. But what if the things they are willing to do are not only unpopular, but bad for the economy? What if they're unpopular with the majority of the population because they are bad for the majority of the population? Huge public works projects like the WPA would be very popular with the millions of people that they could employ. They would also fix the lack of demand that is crippling the economy. Don't pretend we're in this mess because leadership is unwilling to do things that are "unpopular". We're in this mess because leadership is unwilling to do things that are unpopular with the banking/financial industry. -- Drew
Post #345,541 by Ashton 8/1/11 6:02:35 PM Reply	You may underestimate Beep's comprehension of 'the poor' He realizes that these folks shall never aspire to/inhabit a Corner Office (or see an Armani-Suited one, live.) Perhaps he sees the necessity of these folks biting-the-bullet of their expectations of a decent society, one with the Galtian Rulez which Made Murica what it Is, today (in his macroscopic view.) 'Popular' is thus anathema to the ultimate Authority for digital-think Economics, that handy algorithm for maintaining the rule of the Haves over those who rarely employ such phrases as, the-velocity-of-money. Proles never could craft such a brilliantly-recursive scam as his patriots-in-arms who came up with mortgage-backed-securities, aka "reducing the risk factor to Zero" [Ours!--as they said to selves: not Everyone Else's] And $brilliance trumps every other aspect of (some peoples' idea of) what a society 'is about'. Doncha know? So you just don't get how these craft-y strategists program their recipes for infinitely expanding 'wealth'--for those smart enough to game the system, infinitely (there are lots of exponentials hidden in that mortgage secret formula: these folks think BIG. As infinity IS.) Ergo, screw your 'majority of the population'--those aims/desires/POVs all suck with the real $$Pros. Beep's just lookin-out for Numero Uno: is there anyone else in a zero-sum game?
Post #345,544 by beepster 8/1/11 7:42:28 PM Reply	That would hardly fit with my supporting, for example, more public works/infrastructure spending instead of bailing out wall street... but it fits perfectly with your made up version of the moniker. And, of course, the doubling in size of the fed over the past 30 years has done so much to help the masses..as everything in washington is done in such a selfless fashion. What. Ever. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,547 by Another Scott 8/1/11 9:43:35 PM Reply	You're making up stuff again... "And of course, doubling the size of the fed over the past 30 years..." http://www.gpoaccess...fy11/pdf/hist.pdf 1980: Federal Outlays: 21.6% of GDP 2010: Federal Outlays: 25.4% of GDP http://www.opm.gov/f...mentSince1962.asp 1980: Total Federal Employment: 4.965M 2010: Total Federal Employment: 4.443M HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #345,595 by Ashton 8/2/11 3:22:48 PM Reply	Y'know Beep.. I think that most realize that you aren't the [caricature-self] which you promulgate here--or nobody could stand being around you, and we know: they Can. Nevertheless, your predictable defense of the most extreme aspects of [whatever IS the latest brouhaha involving language -mayhem if not -murder] does constitute A Theme with few variations. Maybe it's just your religious-faith that Your variant of {n + many) Econ-theories: [what-ever! does that word connote? given the multiple dueling 'definitions' extant==each acolyte/'Economist' Sure that His God is Real and the others.. misled or nefarious] Is the One True algorithm, both necessary [and here's the clinker: sufficient!] == all ye need to know: to 'craft' a liveable? "fair"? humane?? society. (Some of us have come to learn that 'logic' is never.. enough; it's only a crude start; others Believe.) And if Murican vulture-Capitalism is the epitome of Economist 'thought'-to-date?? I'd say: q.e.d. But, wtf.. Carrion with the other True Believers. In a hundred years there will be all New People (or, perhaps when the nukes finally fly again.. not so many.) (Your idea of 'stirring-the-pot', via juxtaposing extremes: fits into all the web-lists of Logical Fallacies, now so neatly chronicled; but don't let that stop you; obviously that stance feeds some deep need of a psyche, eh?) :-0 People think that because they know the name of something ... they 'understand it'. --Richard Feynman
Post #345,510 by S1mon_Jester 8/1/11 11:51:08 AM Reply	No. the draft was in effect back then. Merely reversing course would NOT be enough. To hit 35% without a draft means you'd have to cut far FURTHER. Of course, I'm all for that. Can we get rid of TSA and their stupid full-body scanners?
Post #345,512 by boxley 8/1/11 12:06:25 PM Reply	the airlines pay tsa Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #345,515 by S1mon_Jester 8/1/11 1:04:55 PM Reply	Nope. They pay part of it, but after 9/11, they globalized a large chunk of it and the federal government pays that part. There have been lawsuits over the part the airlines still pay. As directed by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the major responsibilities of airline passenger and baggage screening is now handled by our agency. To assist in paying for the increased aviation security, Congress provided us with the authority to charge airlines a fee equal to their costs of passenger and baggage screening in 2000, to the extent that the September 11 Security Fee was insufficient to cover the agency's costs for aviation security. Airlines pay one-twelfth per month of their 2000 screening costs to TSA. http://www.tsa.gov/r...rcarrier_fee.shtm Even though the screeners at airport security checkpoints in the U.S. are employees of the Transportation Security Administration and those fancy new see-through-your-clothes machines are technically paid for by the feds, the airlines still have to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars per year for security theater. Several of them claim the TSA is overcharging to the tune of $115 million. An appeals court disagrees. See, the airlines used to be the ones that would foot the bill for airport security. After the TSA took over in 2001, it was determined that the airlines would continue to pay, but their share was capped at what the airlines spent during the 2000 calendar year. http://consumerist.c...sa-screening.html
Post #345,520 by beepster 8/1/11 2:43:48 PM Reply	Re: Nope. There is the excise ticket tax, fed security fee and pass facility charges on every ticket. Airlines were bitching because air marshals fly first class. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,521 by boxley 8/1/11 2:44:40 PM Reply	still a lot of money for theatre Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #345,524 by S1mon_Jester 8/1/11 3:37:20 PM Reply	And you think Congress wouldn't put that excise fee into the budget? A $42.3 billion defense budget bill passed by the House will cut $270 million from the TSA and eliminate collective bargaining privileges for TSA workers. http://townhall.com/...n_from_tsa_budget http://www.washingto...XmnaHH_story.html If it's all done via excise fees, the House can't cut funding.
Post #345,527 by beepster 8/1/11 4:13:35 PM Reply	Staffing eliminate collective bargain? Sounds like staffing issues to me. The ticket excise tax is just that..a tax. Generally its used as FAA funding..and PFCs are supposed to be "lock boxed" for airport development...but we all know how well those lock boxes work. Airlines are one of the highest taxed and most regulated "deregulated" industries we have. (jet fuel and payroll are 2 highest expenses...both taxed) and the revenue taxed at 10% before you get to the special security fees, etc. Combined with their cutthroat pricing model, its not much of a surprise that they don't earn profits. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,617 by S1mon_Jester 8/3/11 12:24:46 AM Reply	LOL....Here, let me emphasis it for you. Here...let me emphasis it for you. will cut $270 million from the TSA I'll repeat it again - how can you CUT TSA budget if they're not in the budget? Nevermind...I'll give up on whether or not TSA is in the budget. If the House can CUT their BUDGET once...they can do it AGAIN.
Post #345,618 by beepster 8/3/11 8:08:20 AM Reply	guessing your point is simply that the TSA is part of the government. On this, I don't debate you. Part of and paid for from the Dept Homeland Security. Sources of funds that are "supposed to" help pay are the items I was point towards...but in the end..its all one big happy source of revenue for them to blow. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,628 by S1mon_Jester 8/3/11 3:24:30 PM Reply	Want to know what's sad? The only ones who seem to be up for cutting back TSA (in particular the full-body scanners) are Tea Partiers. I'm finding myself agreeing with them.
Post #345,551 by lincoln 8/1/11 9:58:35 PM Reply	typical conservative response: "Cut everything, but don't touch the Pentagon's budget!" Yeah, I sure all those aircraft carriers, all those nuclear submarines, all those multi-million dollar F-35 jets just have al-Qaeda quaking in fear. NOT. "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow
Post #345,596 by beepster 8/2/11 3:38:14 PM Reply	wrong Pentagon is part of the workforce. a HUGE part of the workforce. and procurement and contracting practice in this area, especially in advanced weaponry is beyond broken. We could probably get the exact same capability with our armed forces..and better pay to active military, and still cut 20%. But that would kind of run counter to the thought that everything the government does is monumentally efficient...some people seem to think that around here. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,602 by Another Scott 8/2/11 8:08:51 PM Reply	Strawman much?
Post #345,603 by beepster 8/2/11 8:23:52 PM Reply	not here. stated a perceived position of some...but answered a response that alluded to me not thinking there was room in defense for reduced spending. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,611 by lincoln 8/2/11 9:46:07 PM Reply	you might think it but a super_majority of RepubliCANTS say it out loud nearly every single day. We have close to 1,000 military bases around the world, a military budget over 10x the next biggest spending country, and yet that's still not enough: I want to indicate today to my colleagues that Senator Coburn and I are working again on a bipartisan proposal to secure Social Security over the long term, we hope to have that done in time. To also forward to the special committee for their consideration. So, bottom line, we canÂt protect these entitlements and also have the national defense we need to protect us in a dangerous world while weÂre at war with Islamist extremists who attacked us on 9/11 and will be for a long time to come. http://thinkprogress...amist-extremists/ "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow
Post #345,612 by beepster 8/2/11 9:56:46 PM Reply	If you're going to say something about republicans how about linking to something with republicans in it. Instead, you give me a former one of yours. woohoo Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,614 by Another Scott 8/2/11 10:15:46 PM Reply	You can have him. He voted for your ticket after all...
Post #345,885 by Another Scott 8/6/11 10:18:19 PM Reply	Mark Thoma wasn't impressed with Samuelson, either. http://economistsvie...ement-reform.html [...] Samuelson's failures are even more egregious when one actually reads the Kaiser Family Foundation report which he cites as evidence for his position. To give you a taste: Half of all Medicare beneficiaries had incomes below $22,000 in 2010; less than one percent had incomes over $250,000 You can see where this is going; Samuelson is trying to co-opt a piece that is titled "Protecting Income and Assets" into an attack on entitlements. Skip to the summary of the report: While a small share of the Medicare population lives on relatively high incomes, most are of modest means, with half of people on Medicare living on less than $21,000 in 2010. The typical beneficiary has some savings and home equity, but asset values are highly skewed and are significantly higher for white beneficiaries than for black or Hispanic beneficiaries. The income and assets of Medicare beneficiaries overall are projected to be somewhat greater in 2030 than in 2010; yet, only a minority of the next generation of beneficiaries will have significantly higher incomes and assets than the current generation, with much of the growth projected to be concentrated among those with relatively high incomes. Racial disparities in both income and assets are projected to persist for the next decades. As policymakers consider options for decreasing federal Medicare spending and addressing the federal debt and deficit, this analysis raises questions about the extent to which the next generation of Medicare beneficiaries will be able to bear a larger share of costs. The upshot of this report contradicts Samuelson's argument. In reality, the very wealthy that would get means-tested out of Medicare and Social Security are few in number; if you want real program savings, you need to dig deeper. He is simply hoping none of his readers will click through to actually read the report. I don't even need to go into how Samueslson lumps together Social Security and Medicare and aging population and exploding medical costs for a narrow segment of the population. This is just a PR-piece that is part of an effort to rollback part entitlement spending. [...] I'm Shocked! Shocked! Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!