Did you know?

Our debt jumped by $328 billion on Thursday when the government finally paid off all the money it had been borrowing – using accounting tricks – to keep the debt from going up for a few months? A new record was set. Not a peep about this from most of the LSM.

We are on pace to almost double our debt with every presidency it looks like. Our kids will sure love us for this beautiful future we are leaving them. Other people’s money! Forward!

Comments are closed.

  1. AlexInCT *

    That includes all of both parties.

    Agreed on this part, but I think anyone claimign we do not have a problem with $17 trillion of debt hast to be a Keynesian dickwad that’s not very good with reality. especially when ignoring the over $160 trillion in unfunded liabilities out there as well. If we do not start forcing control on spending sooner than later it won’t happen.

    Thumb up 4

  2. Seattle Outcast

    Just do what Carter did and engage in runaway inflation to devalue the dollar. Problem solved.

    Of course, those 25% prime rate mortgages were an issue, and so was the unemployment, but never mind….

    Thumb up 2

  3. Iconoclast

    Part of the problem is that people who don’t.pay taxes are allowed to vote, which is part of the reason O got re-elected. Say what you will about Romney’s 47%, but I’m convinced there is some truth to it.

    We’re doomed…people are willing to sell out our future for an Obamaphone.

    Thumb up 9

  4. Seattle Outcast

    No representation without taxation.

    Maybe it’s time for that little mantra to come back. You want to vote? You need to have some skin in the game.

    Thumb up 4

  5. AlexInCT *

    Agreed SO. We need to do something about the fact that people that do not pay into the system can elect people that rip off the people that do, all so they can get some table scraps after the political class gorges on the excess.

    Thumb up 3

  6. Hal_10000

    http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/dependency-and-romneys-47-percenters/

    22 percent receive senior tax benefits — the extra standard deduction for seniors, the exclusion of a portion of Social Security benefits, and the credit for seniors. Most of them are older people on Social Security whose adjusted gross income is less than $25,000.

    Many of the rest pay payroll taxes but have a combination of taxes and income that eliminates income tax liability. If you’re income is under $50,000 and you’re not a single childless person living in an apartment, your income tax liability is usually way smaller than your payroll tax liability. And for many combinations of deductions and income, it is zero or less than zero. You can actually thank Bush for a lot of that. The Bush tax cuts effectively removed tens of millions of people from the tax rolls and those were the ones Obama didn’t want to touch.

    Thumb up 0

  7. hist_ed

    “Just do what Carter did and engage in runaway inflation to devalue the dollar. Problem solved.

    Of course, those 25% prime rate mortgages were an issue, and so was the unemployment, but never mind….”

    I fear this is really what is going to happen-it also benefits debtors with fixed rate loans. Millions of mortgage holders out there who would be way ahead with some serious inflation. I don’t think, in the end, it will be big runaway inflation. We’ll just see a sustained decade long period with inflation in the high single digits. They need to uncouple SS from it somehow (some sort of new inflation calculator that is pinned to Pokemon cards, Natural gas prices and OJ memorabilia).

    Thumb up 6

  8. richtaylor365

    Stipulating that your link is accurate, 22% receiving benefits means 78% don’t, and are tax payers. And of that 22%, what percentage of those folks pay income taxes on what little they do earn and receive federal benefits as supplemental income?

    The point being is that seniors do pay income taxes, some pay a whole hell of a lot of income taxes. The notion that seniors are all retired and do not work, or are all poor and live on the cat food that their meager SS checks provide is really non sense. Most not only pay income taxes, but they pay taxes on whatever savings they have accrued, whether that be a pension or a 401K. Seniors are not monolithic and do not vote as a block so on the rare chance and an idiotic movement would spring forth where tax paying folks wanted to actually cut out that 47% from the voter rolls, I would bet that most seniors would not feel “disenfranchised” at all but just might be on board.

    Thumb up 4

  9. Hal_10000

    Rich, you misunderstand the statistics. 22% of that 47%. That’s about 17 million seniors or about 40% of the total retired population.

    My point is not that seniors are parasites, since they’ve earned their retirement. My point is that if you describe that 47% (actually 43 now) as parasites, you’re describing a lot of seniors and working poor as parasites.

    Thumb up 0

  10. Hal_10000

    I don’t think, in the end, it will be big runaway inflation. We’ll just see a sustained decade long period with inflation in the high single digits.

    Traditionally, inflation has been how you deal with debt-driven financial crises. Milton Friedman wrote a whole chapter in his book “Free to Choose” (a must read) about how the Fed made the Depression a lot worse with deflation.

    However, I think we’re moving past the point where inflation would provide any relief. If we get that kind of inflation, it will because the Keynesians have dusted off the Phillips Curve again. They deliberately caused inflation through the 60’s and 70’s based on that piece of garbage.

    Thumb up 1

  11. hist_ed

    I think it’s baked in the cake. There is no way to go on the dollar printing spree that we have been on and not see inflationary pressure. And, depending how you calculate, we already are. Core inflation removes food and energy costs-that’s is a pretty big chunk of the average household’s spending right there that is not reflected in official inflation numbers (and it gives greater weight to housing costs-perfect thing to help you low ball inflation in the last few years.). In the run up to 2012 an economist (no dammit no link, would have to dig for this one) ran the numbers using the inflation formula from the late 1970s. He came up with 6-8% for the past few years. Given the unemployment, that would have been a hell of a misery index.

    It might really be the only solution that works. It would wreak havoc with the world economy (US debt is the new international gold standard) but would get the gov out of its hole.

    Thumb up 4

  12. AlexInCT *

    I think it’s baked in the cake. There is no way to go on the dollar printing spree that we have been on and not see inflationary pressure. And, depending how you calculate, we already are.

    They might do a good job of hiding hit but inflation has been happening. Look at the price of food. Packages got smaller but price stayed the same, or prices have jumped drastically. Look at any energy product. The only reason gas and oil are not killing people is that the depressed world wide economy has given us a pause. Look at how many businesses in the food industry have gone belly up because their margin was squeezed so badly that they couldn’t sell enough if they raised prices but couldn’t keep prices as low as they were.

    Constantly printing money reduces the value of your currency. If you want to see the declining value of the dollar, just travel somewhere you did 5 years or more ago, and see how much more it costs to do and how little you now get for your dollar. And while one can argue that a devalued dollar has benefits, I say that they do not come close to the cost. Especially since the fucking idiots will keep printing money and won’t be deterred from their stupidity just like we ask in Zimbabwe. After all, they and Mugabe share the same beliefs about wealth redistribution. And spare me the holier than thou speech about how it is wrong to compare Mugabe to the democrats: the only difference is Mugabe’s PR people aren’t as craven and effective as the LSM is for the democrats.

    Get ready to pay $5000 for a loaf of bread.

    Thumb up 0

  13. Mook

    My point is that if you describe that 47% (actually 43 now) as parasites, you’re describing a lot of seniors and working poor as parasites.

    I find it a leftist tendency to attempt to conflate EARNED benefits, such as SS and Medicare, which were paid into the system over a lifetime of working.. conflating them with UNEARNED benefits such as welfare, food stamps, unemployment benefits, housing subsidies and Obama phones… I’ll also add SSDI to that list, as that program has been morphed into a welfare program.. and to some extent this also holds true for government pensioners who contributed little or nothing into their pension plans yet receive often-lavish benefits.

    I’ve been in the “working poor” category earlier in my life and I never took govt. benefits. I’ve known many others who have been in the same boat at some point or points in their life. You deal with it by cutting your expenses, working extra jobs if you can find them, and “making do”. And when you bounce back, save for a “rainy day”. Most of those able bodied working poor who do accept govt. benefits are themselves parasites to some extent.

    Seniors who paid their contribution into SS and Medicare for decades cannot be considered “parasites” any more than calling someone a parasite who expects that a paid up life insurance policy be paid by the insurance company. Having said that, I still believe that those seniors who pay no income taxes should pay something, 5% or 7% of their income.

    As RichT said, the vast majority of seniors understand the distinction, and most of them are outraged at vast numbers of younger able-bodied parasites who pay no taxes and take unearned benefits.

    Allowing those who contribute little or nothing but who take unearned benefits to vote is a recipe for disaster. They have no ‘skin in the game’ and are incentivized to vote to take other people’s money.

    Thumb up 2

  14. Hal_10000

    Mook, I think we’re agreeing. The “47%” has nothing to do with benefits or handouts or anything like that. It was defined by Romney specifically as those who do not pay income taxes. About 40% of retirees do not and most of the working poor do not (although both pay payroll taxes). That’s the way the tax code is written.

    If we’re talking about handouts, the biggest one is Medicaid, which covers about a quarter of the population. Food stamps overlap that as does welfare, although in much smaller numbers. Santorum claimed that half of Americans are dependent on government, but that included social security and Medicare, which no one would consider to be the equivalent of welfare.

    Thumb up 0

  15. CM

    As RichT said, the vast majority of seniors understand the distinction, and most of them are outraged at vast numbers of younger able-bodied parasites who pay no taxes and take unearned benefits.

    What about the seniors who took unearned benefits?
    How many of these “able-bodied parasites” are there?
    As I understood it, the vast majority of the 47% (almost all of whom do actually pay some taxes, even if it’s just sales tax) only qualify to pay no federal income tax because their jobs don’t pay well enough (because the gains always and increasingly go to the upper 10% of the population).
    There are so many reasons why Romney’s nonsense was such simplistic ideological garbage.

    Thumb up 0

  16. AlexInCT *

    What about the seniors who took unearned benefits?

    Well, I would start with an investigation there. If they are getting Medicare & SS and still are getting other welfare, something illegal or seriously wrong is going on.

    How many of these “able-bodied parasites” are there?

    I can’t give you the exact number, but on a single statistic – the number of people collecting disability from SS – the numbers have grown by frightening leaps & bounds. And I recently saw a news show that basically pointed out the majority of these new people are faking disability and getting it because they are desperate and can’t find a job. This phenomenon is not limited to abusing the disability system only. The collectivist vote buying system is buckling from rampant abuse, because the left likes people sucking on the government’s teat more than anything else, as it helps them with their agenda to control who the winners and losers are. Someone that needs your handout is far easier to keep down than someone that has the freedom to do whatever in a booming economy. That’s why they are not that concerned that the economy sucks either.

    As I understood it, the vast majority of the 47% (almost all of whom do actually pay some taxes, even if it’s just sales tax) only qualify to pay no federal income tax because their jobs don’t pay well enough (because the gains always and increasingly go to the upper 10% of the population).

    Apples and oranges, but par for the course when it comes to creating a strawman argument.

    Since we all need to buy things, we all pay sales taxes. Some because they buy more things, pay even more of those taxes. Some buy heavily taxed items, and some don’t. But not everyone pays income tax. And even when you pay income taxes, there are differences. Some states don’t have income taxes, and some do. The most expensive states charge 10% in sales taxes. We are all fucked into paying the feds on a ludicrous sliding scale, if we are productive. That is a problem. A very big problem. The money collected from income taxes is a far bigger item than that from sales taxes. If they were only using the money from sales taxes to prop up the bloated government and welfare state, I wouldn’t bother arguing with you, but both of those exist because of the income tax. Without it they would go under. The feds rip everyone off on a sliding scale that’s intended to punish success and allow them to buy votes.

    I also want to stress that I always have the choice to not buy something, which allows me to avoid the sales tax. I do not have the choice not to earn an income, unless I want to be one of the losers that sucks on the government’s teat. That’s no real choice for me. I hope, though seeing how collectivists feel about healthcare costs I should assume they are going to think this is just fine, nobody will argue that I should earn less to avoid higher income taxes or to avoid paying them at all. Fuck people that are that jealous of what other people have/make and this idiotic belief that because I am productive I can be fleeced to prop up a system that’s anathema to me. I should also mention that I am incapable of avoiding my income tax obligations, because I am not a democrat. They seem to have no problem not paying taxes, while demanding everyone else do.

    There are so many reasons why Romney’s nonsense was such simplistic ideological garbage.

    Only if you don’t understand the way things really work and suck Obama & Team Blue cock.

    Thumb up 3

  17. Mook

    Hal, I don’t disagree with a word of what you just wrote.

    What about the seniors who took unearned benefits?

    It wasn’t that long ago that you only had to pay into SS for 9 or 11 years in order to draw benefits. A lot of people who are now seniors gamed the system in order to work that minimum number of years and then go on to draw a government pension, sometimes multiple govt. pensions, and it was also abused by the parents of immigrants who came to the US late in life, worked and contributed a minimum into SS, and then receive decades of SS payout benefits. They paid in minimal and took out far more than they contributed. Simple math tells you that’s a big problem and big drain on our system.

    As for other unearned benefits which largely didn’t come into existence here until the 1960’s (how did people survive without them!?), the biggest problem with assistance being given out by govt. instead of private charities is that govt. is horrific at distinguishing between who is truly needy, and who is simply a lazy corrupt piece of shit who is abusing the system.

    In my observations over the years, and I have seen plenty, the vast majority of the non-elderly on the dole, are on the dole because they choose to. Every week I see individuals in line in the grocery store using food stamps, virtually every one of them with an expensive smart phone, nice jewelry and usually driving a decent car, sometimes a VERY nice car. Government makes it easy for them to scam the system, and the payouts have become generous. For example, there has been countless cases of food stamp recipients selling their EBT card benefits for cash and drugs. It’s rampant. Just look at the massive percentage increases in SSDI disability recipients and food stamp recipients over the past few years.. and those increases are on top of already crazy-high levels.

    Romney was dead right in overall picture with regards to his comments. Too many people have no skin in the game and truly are incentivized to vote to take other people’s money. Not “ideological garbage”, but a truthful realistic assessment of human nature incentivized by massive govt. deficit spending and few-strings-attached entitlements.

    Thumb up 2

  18. CM

    Well, I would start with an investigation there. If they are getting Medicare & SS and still are getting other welfare, something illegal or seriously wrong is going on.

    I mean when they were younger. Say they were on welfare for a year back in their 40’s? Do they qualify as parasites? If everyone is going to get labelled then you surely you need a cut-off? Is there a formula?

    And I recently saw a news show that basically pointed out the majority of these new people are faking disability and getting it because they are desperate and can’t find a job.

    Ok but instead of a ‘news show’ ‘basically pointing’ this out, how about some evidence we can explore?
    Who is enabling these people to fraudulently claim they have a “a severe disability (or combination of disabilities) that is expected to either result in death or last at least 12 months, and which prevents them from working at a “substantial gainful activity” level”. Presumably they need to have this determined by a medical professional?

    The collectivist vote buying system is buckling from rampant abuse, because the left likes people sucking on the government’s teat more than anything else, as it helps them with their agenda to control who the winners and losers are. Someone that needs your handout is far easier to keep down than someone that has the freedom to do whatever in a booming economy. That’s why they are not that concerned that the economy sucks either.

    Yes I think I understand the narrative – I was asking for some supporting evidence.

    Apples and oranges, but par for the course when it comes to creating a strawman argument.

    Not sure what you mean. The fact is that the ‘47%’ that gets bandied about relates specifically to federal income tax, not tax generally. And the reason it’s gone up is that more people qualify for Earned Income Tax credits, because more and more jobs don’t pay very well. So these people aren’t just lying around doing their utmost to support your narrative, they actualy are working. It’s just that their jobs pay such shitty amounts that they need tax relief. Pay rates are now so heavily disproportionate that greater and greater distortions in terms of tax are required to keep the whole thing from falling over.

    because the left likes people sucking on the government’s teat more than anything else

    If that’s the case then why are so many on the left gainfully employed?

    I also want to stress that I always have the choice to not buy something, which allows me to avoid the sales tax.

    But if you only earn enough to live on then you don’t have that choice. Yes, you’ll not pay federal income tax because you don’t earn enough, but as you’ll be spending it all you’ll pay whatever sales tax is required (as you say, depending on your location).

    I do not have the choice not to earn an income, unless I want to be one of the losers that sucks on the government’s teat. That’s no real choice for me.

    Most people don’t have the ability to get their employers to pay them more, and therefore not qualify for the EIT credit. But apparently, according to the Narrative of Ideological Simplicity, they are working AND sucking on the government’s teat. I assume they should really be working out what a reasonable amount of tax should be and sending it to the government?

    Only if you don’t understand the way things really work and suck Obama & Team Blue cock.

    Yes, of course.

    Thumb up 0

  19. CM

    As for other unearned benefits which largely didn’t come into existence here until the 1960′s (how did people survive without them!?),

    A greater proportion of revenues were spent on wages. Low-paying jobs paid enough to live on. But since then more and more revenues go into profits for senior managers/CEOs and hungry investors. Now there are a far greater number of jobs that don’t pay enough to live on.
    It would be an interesting social experiment to see what would happen if all EIT credits were ended overnight.

    Thumb up 0

  20. AlexInCT *

    I mean when they were younger. Say they were on welfare for a year back in their 40′s? Do they qualify as parasites? If everyone is going to get labelled then you surely you need a cut-off? Is there a formula?

    Move the goal posts much? If you go by this idiotic methodology, then everyone at some point or another got a break. The 47% Romney referred to are not people that “used some service at some point in their life” – especially a long time ago when the system wasn’t suffering form the rampant abuse it is now, and people that were on it were more likely than not qualified – but they are people mostly the life long unproductive, a lot of people that started in the last 5 years, and this group are currently sucking at the government’s teat, planning to do so into perpetuity. These are the people that vote for a living instead of working for one.

    Ok but instead of a ‘news show’ ‘basically pointing’ this out, how about some evidence we can explore?

    I would tell you to google it, but based on the fact that in your country a search that gave me over 40 million hits produced a “nothing found” response for you, I think you might not find anything yet again. Yes, that was sarcasm. So let me give you a quick hit from Forbes and even from Huff Propaganda.. I tried to find that annoying commercial I see practically 20 times a day when I work from home telling people to call Attn. such and such, even if you have already been denied on multiple occasions, because they can get it for you!, but had no success.

    Not sure what you mean. The fact is that the ’47%’ that gets bandied about relates specifically to federal income tax, not tax generally

    So why did you bring up sales taxes then?

    And the reason it’s gone up is that more people qualify for Earned Income Tax credits, because more and more jobs don’t pay very well.

    And why do you think that’s happening CM? I will give you a hint. We have discussed these issues here, repeatedly. It has to do with the policy that believes government should pick winners and losers and redistribute wealth. We even discussed the biggest culprit, a law that will basically make most people part time employees and bleed them dry for a service that will suck. When we refer to it and to point out who has fucked these employees and all American in general we use the name of the emperor that signed it into law to refer to it.

    If that’s the case then why are so many on the left gainfully employed?

    Mostly because they gravitate to entities that waste money without anyone ever having to produce shit or end up losing their jobs. Its not a coincidence these people gravitate to government, academia, and other such institutions where pedigree and purity of political thought are more important than producing anything of value, within a budget, and on time. And even these leftists are hurting under Obama. Check out how well Obama’s most solid lefty and voting demographic is doing. Then look at his next most solid demographic and what he has done for them. And the Bureau of Labor statistics’ participation rate begs to differ. The number of employed Americans is at 63% and has not been that low in any recession.

    Their ranks are dwindling though. Class warfare’s end product is a two tier system with an elite that has all the wealth and the rest being serfs.

    Most people don’t have the ability to get their employers to pay them more, and therefore not qualify for the EIT credit.

    Really? Is that perhaps because they have no skillset that would allow them to do so? If you offer the same things as everyone else, and there are limited jobs, reality dictates that you are not going to be paid much for that job. Econ 101. Supply and demand. Oh, I am sure you will now chime in with the living wage nonsense, but that kind of stupid thinking is precisely why we are in the trouble we are in.

    A greater proportion of revenues were spent on wages. Low-paying jobs paid enough to live on. But since then more and more revenues go into profits for senior managers/CEOs and hungry investors. Now there are a far greater number of jobs that don’t pay enough to live on.

    Workers of the world unite!

    And then they wonder why we are running out of other people’s money. BTW, I, and many others like me, have a 401K and these investments are tied to those profits. I want more of them so I can retire and not rely on a system that has robbed me for 35 years and will likely not pay me a penny when it goes belly up in the next decade from overload.. That is, if people that think like you don’t take it all away from people me, because we are evil for planning for our own retirement and working hard. And they will confiscate this so they can buy votes from what will then likely be a much larger number than today’s 47%.

    Class warfare and envy of what others have just is disgusting.

    Thumb up 3

  21. CM

    Move the goal posts much?

    It’s not ‘moving the goalposts’ at all. There are a number of different scenarios, and many of them put people in the “47%” even though they aren’t part of any problem.
    The problem is making such simplistic claims as Romney did. Yes he was doing so to a select few for a specific purpose and obviously did not realise it was going to be seen or heard by a larger audience. But then people start agreeing with it, even though they have the opportunity to work out that it’s not even remotely accurate.

    If you go by this idiotic methodology, then everyone at some point or another got a break.

    In my view the 47% is a pointless dog-whistle statistic because in reality it includes a whole range of different scenarios. Not even just students, the elderly, severely disabled people, etc etc, but also other people who aren’t working but have done so at various other times in their lives, and/or will do again. So you’d need to actually break it down into the relevant groups in order to have any sort of meaningful discussion. Otherwise it’s just an ideological bumper sticker that you put on to get supportive horn-honks from people who are just like you.

    The 47% Romney referred to are not people that “used some service at some point in their life” – especially a long time ago when the system wasn’t suffering form the rampant abuse it is now, and people that were on it were more likely than not qualified – but they are people mostly the life long unproductive, a lot of people that started in the last 5 years, and this group are currently sucking at the government’s teat, planning to do so into perpetuity. These are the people that vote for a living instead of working for one.

    Yes they are what Romney referred to, otherwise he would not have used the specific number – 47%.
    How many are actually in that sub-group that you are talking about then? What proportion are they of the entire potentially-working population, or the whole 47%? You seem think it’s a high proportion of the latter – but what statistics do you base this on?

    So let me give you a quick hit from Forbes and even from Huff Propaganda.. I tried to find that annoying commercial I see practically 20 times a day when I work from home telling people to call Attn. such and such, even if you have already been denied on multiple occasions, because they can get it for you!, but had no success.

    Sounds like they’ve made implementation improvements. Well over half of application are rejected, even after all appeals are exhausted. One in five men and nearly one in six women die within five years of being approved for benefits. There is plenty in these links to tell quite a different story about these issues:
    http://blog.thearc.org/2013/10/07/another-media-hit-social-security-disability-programs-get-facts/
    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/10/16/2787821/facts-disability-insurance/
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donna-meltzer/social-security-disability-programs_b_3014961.html

    E.g:

    As noted by Kathy Ruffing at CBPP, Social Security’s Chief Actuary Steven Goss, and Brad Plumer at The Washington Post, the recent growth in SSDI is largely due to demographics. Two factors have played the largest role: baby boomers entering their high-disability years and women entering the workforce in large numbers in the 1970s and 1980s so that more are now “insured” for SSDI based on their own prior contributions.

    The increase in the number of children receiving SSI benefits in the past decade is similarly explained by the increase child poverty. From 2000 to 2011, the number of poor children skyrocketed from about 11 million to over 16 million, and more than 1 in 5 U.S. children live in poverty today. Since SSI is a means-tested program, more poor and low-income children mean more children with severe disabilities are financially eligible for benefits. Importantly, the share of low-income children who receive SSI benefits has remained constant at about 3 to 4 percent.

    Additionally, as highlighted by Elizabeth Lower-Basch at the Center on Law and Social Policy (CLASP), there is no evidence of a large-scale shift from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to SSI. In fact, the decline in TANF enrollment from 1996 to 2011 is more than 20 times the magnitude of the increase in SSI child enrollment during that period. Evidence for a shift from TANF to SSDI is also lacking. The share of SSDI disabled worker beneficiaries with dependent children has actually fallen since 1996 (when TANF became law), from nearly one-third to about 20% in 2011. While loss of TANF might lead a person to apply for SSI or SSDI, being poor is not enough to qualify for disability benefits–an applicant must also meet the strict disability standard.

    So why did you bring up sales taxes then?

    To point out that the 47% relates to federal income tax, not just tax generally.

    And why do you think that’s happening CM?

    I’ve already suggested why.

    We have discussed these issues here, repeatedly. It has to do with the policy that believes government should pick winners and losers and redistribute wealth. We even discussed the biggest culprit, a law that will basically make most people part time employees and bleed them dry for a service that will suck. When we refer to it and to point out who has fucked these employees and all American in general we use the name of the emperor that signed it into law to refer to it.

    But it’s been happening for decades, and not just in the US. Large corporations, who employ a large number of low-wage employees, determine how to allocate their revenues. They determine that they need to pay dividends to shareholders (to compete with other companies who also dish out dividends) and the people at the top demand higher and higher pay (again, to compete). Beyond a certain level it’s a race upwards, but below that that much more of a race downwards. That’s the reality, and it seems to be accelerating. Which is why the whole system (constantly requiring government top-ups so more and more people can continue to play a part in the economy by buying stuff) doesn’t seem sustainable.

    Mostly because they gravitate to entities that waste money without anyone ever having to produce shit or end up losing their jobs. Its not a coincidence these people gravitate to government, academia, and other such institutions where pedigree and purity of political thought are more important than producing anything of value, within a budget, and on time.

    Wow. Amazing. So they’re not that much better than the ones who can’t even be bothered working?
    What about all the people on the left that work for private business?

    Class warfare’s end product is a two tier system with an elite that has all the wealth and the rest being serfs.

    I certainly agree that there is a two-tier system emerging, but as outlined I think it’s just a continuation of what has been happening for decades. A lower and lower proportion of earnings is being paid out in wages, especially at the bottom (resulting in the introduction and continuation and expansion of things like the EIT credit system). A higher and higher proportion flows around at the top (as well as being spent on other non-labour investment in the company).

    Really? Is that perhaps because they have no skillset that would allow them to do so?

    It’s because they’re doing a job that employers only have to pay that amount for. Sure, an individual may be able to learn a new skill and get a better paying job (depending on their ability and what sector they are in), but that job they left will be taken by someone else who. The job itself won’t pay more. The sheer number of jobs that don’t pay enough won’t decrease, They’re increasing. And jobs that paid well previously pay less now. You’re still going to have an increasing number of jobs that don’t pay enough to live on (to any comfortable degree). You have to deal with that snap-shot in time. Which is what the EIT credit system is meant to do. Yes EVERYONE should aspire to reach their potential, but that doesn’t do anything for everyone’s current situation.

    If you offer the same things as everyone else, and there are limited jobs, reality dictates that you are not going to be paid much for that job. Econ 101. Supply and demand. Oh, I am sure you will now chime in with the living wage nonsense,

    I’ve said many many times (so I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up) but the economics of disproportionate incomes is all that’s needs to recognise this as an issue for the economy.

    but that kind of stupid thinking is precisely why we are in the trouble we are in.

    The economy is screwed because people with low paying jobs get paid too much? Wow, I’d like to see the working behind that theory.

    Workers of the world unite!

    Trying to change what I’ve said into ideological dogma doesn’t change reality. I’m not advocating for anything, just saying.

    And then they wonder why we are running out of other people’s money.

    Not sure how that follows from what I said.

    BTW, I, and many others like me, have a 401K and these investments are tied to those profits. I want more of them so I can retire and not rely on a system that has robbed me for 35 years and will likely not pay me a penny when it goes belly up in the next decade from overload.

    Absolutely fair enough. Why wouldn’t you. But those profits appear to come at the expense of wages below a certain job level. I’m not advocating for anything, just saying.

    That is, if people that think like you don’t take it all away from people me, because we are evil for planning for our own retirement and working hard.

    That’s a silly thing to say. Why not try to stick to what is actually being written?

    And they will confiscate this so they can buy votes from what will then likely be a much larger number than today’s 47%.

    Oh ok we’re going to ignore all that then and just go make to ideological chanting. Ok, well sorry for wasting your time then.

    Class warfare and envy of what others have just is disgusting.

    Again, sorry, I was fooled into thinking you were interested in an actual discussion. You just wanted to hold up your sign again though, clearly.

    Thumb up 0

  22. CM

    That ‘47%’ has now shrunk to ‘43%’. I guess 4% just amazingly Saw The Light and all of a sudden realised that they’re responsible for their lives and aren’t victims. Or, it could be that temporary tax cuts ended and the economy improved.

    By 2024, the tax policy think tank projects that only about one-third of households won’t be paying any federal income taxes.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101015065

    I guess that means the Republicans will be winning landslide elections.

    Thumb up 0

  23. CM

    From same link:

    So who makes up the 43 percent?

    Williams’ analysis found that about 29 percent of all households include people who are working, and subject to payroll taxes, but don’t have a federal income tax bill. That could be because of deductions or other tax breaks.

    Another approximately 10 percent are elderly, and they likely aren’t paying federal income taxes because they don’t have much income beyond Social Security.

    A smaller portion—about 3 percent—are making less than $20,000 a year and therefore aren’t subject to federal income tax because they are too poor.

    That leaves about 1 percent of taxpayers who have other special circumstances, such as they are already paying foreign taxes.

    A clear indication of why Romney’s reliance on this measure was indeed “ideological garbage”, and it still is.

    Those who pay no federal income taxes aren’t all low wage earners. Thousands of people who have income of more than $200,000 a year have been able to zero out their federal income tax bill, according to data from the Internal Revenue Service.

    Williams also noted that many people who are part of the 43 percent may not even know it, since most people don’t do their own taxes and those that do can easily get lost in the complexities of our famously dizzying tax code.

    So almost all of those paying no federal income tax are either retired, or are actually working.
    How classic that ‘thousands’ of Romey’s ‘47%’ don’t pay federal income tax because they’re too wealthy.

    Thumb up 1

  24. CM

    We need to do something about the fact that people that do not pay into the system can elect people that rip off the people that do

    They have no ‘skin in the game’ and are incentivized to vote to take other people’s money.

    etc

    Except (from Hal’s link):

    A map put out by the Tax Foundation of the 10 states with the highest and lowest percentage of filers with no federal tax liability shows that the states with the highest percentage of non-filers are, by-and-large, states that typically vote Republican, while the 10 states with the lowest percentage of non-filers tend to be Democratic-leaning.

    It’s an easily debunked myth that poor people will automatically vote Democrat (or in this country Labour or Green), let alone do so in order to rip people off. They might be more liable to, that’s about as much as you can claim.

    Thumb up 0

  25. Mook

    It’s an easily debunked myth that poor people will automatically vote Democrat

    Talk about a ddisingenuous strawman arugment.. NO ONE says that ALL poor people will automatically vote Democrat. But on ON AVERAGE, it’s indisputable fact that poor people are much more likely to vote Democrat. I imagine the percentages voting Democrat are highest among poor people who take unearned entitlements vs. poor people who don’t.

    Just because a state is overall red doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have large concentrations of poor people on welfare who tend to vote Democrat. That point seems to have escaped you.

    Thumb up 2

  26. Mook

    greater proportion of revenues were spent on wages. Low-paying jobs paid enough to live on. But since then more and more revenues go into profits for senior managers/CEOs and hungry investors.

    Although you demand others to substantiate their assertions with citations, you could never hope to substantiate this hair brained claim. Who taught you to believe that?

    In pretty much every category, the standard of living was much lower in the 60’s and 70’s as compared to later decades. Homes were smaller with fewer of them with air conditioning as compared to now. A smaller percentage of the population in the 60’s had cars or phones. Kids and adults had smaller less expensive wardrobes. Life expectancy was lower. Yet people were not starving on the streets because there was no government welfare.

    The average family on welfare now lives better than a middle class working family in the 60’s. What happened is that a lot of “wants” in the 60’s morphed into “needs” in later decades.

    Thumb up 4

  27. AlexInCT *

    The average family on welfare now lives better than a middle class working family in the 60′s

    Actually Mook, it is much worse. Today’s welfare recipients – those sucking at the government teat the hardest and not working at all – are doing better than employed middle class people. And that’s not compared to the 60s, that’s right now. Anyone pretending this imbalance isn’t dispicable, and an encouragement for more of this behavior, is a fucking biased moron.

    Thumb up 3

  28. richtaylor365

    How classic that ‘thousands’ of Romey’s ’47%’ don’t pay federal income tax because they’re too wealthy.

    Wealth is not the reason this particular group pays no federal income tax, but you knew that already, didn’t you? And just because they have write offs or other deductions that zero out their tax liability (this year) does not mean that in other years they can get away with not paying any federal taxes, but you knew that too, didn’t you?

    I’m trying to figure out why you are working so hard to convince folks that those paying no federal income taxes are not all deadbeats, you don’t think everyone knows this, You don’t think Romney knows this? Someone mentioned the 47% and Hal erroneously threw in seniors as part of that group, show me one person on this blog or anywhere else that thinks seniors should not have the right to vote.

    I’m not surprised that the left (and you) took something that was not meant for public dissemination but only to whip up the base, the group he was addressing at the time, and ran with it. The equivalent would be Obama attending a breakfast with the CBC and calling all Tea Party’ers racists, the likes of Maxine Watters and Fredericka Wilson have already done that, but nobody would dare sneak a camera inside and film him unknowingly, totally different motivation.

    I’ll grant that the right needs a better slogan, a better definition for those that really are deadbeats, those that willingly do not contribute for their keep, come up with a figure that better encapsulates that group, whatever it is, and we can start using that as the poster boy for entitlement reform.

    Thumb up 8

  29. CM

    Talk about a ddisingenuous strawman arugment..

    Bullshit, that’s a key part of the ‘buying votes’ narrative which Alex and others regularly run here. It’s never qualified, it’s always a simplistic slogan/mantra.

    Just because a state is overall red doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have large concentrations of poor people on welfare who tend to vote Democrat. That point seems to have escaped you.

    No, you’re right, I do acknowledge that, and did think about it after I’d posted it and shut the pc down.

    Although you demand others to substantiate their assertions with citations, you could never hope to substantiate this hair brained claim.

    Are you suggesting that demands for evidence are unwarranted? Does this place exist on received wisdom? I thought it was supposed to be better than Daily Kos etc?
    If I was Alex I’d be allowed to abuse you and tell you to go and fucking find out yourself, you fucking biased moron. But I’m not, so I won’t.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_productivity_and_real_wages.jpg

    In pretty much every category, the standard of living was much lower in the 60′s and 70′s as compared to later decades. Homes were smaller with fewer of them with air conditioning as compared to now. A smaller percentage of the population in the 60′s had cars or phones. Kids and adults had smaller less expensive wardrobes. Life expectancy was lower. Yet people were not starving on the streets because there was no government welfare.

    However gas (to run those cars), health care (to help people live longer) and education (which is increasingly required for getting and keeping a middle-class job) all have gotten notably more expensive in recent years. If you work these things back into the equation, Americans are spending as much on basics now as they ever were. Also – the real reason that so many middle-class families can afford all those iPads and iPhones is that they now have a second wage-earner helping to pay the bills. So families have more stuff, but they have managed to afford that stuff only by being two-income families, with ever less family time. There is also far greater volatility (plunges in income far more prevalent).

    Anyone pretending this imbalance isn’t dispicable, and an encouragement for more of this behavior, is a fucking biased moron.

    You post that link and accuse ME of being a “fucking biased moron??!! Jesus H Christ.

    Thumb up 1

  30. Hal_10000

    Someone mentioned the 47% and Hal erroneously threw in seniors as part of that group, show me one person on this blog or anywhere else that thinks seniors should not have the right to vote.

    Erroneously? Not to dredge this up again, but you can’t get to 47% unless you include the seniors who don’t pay income taxes because their income is too low (about 40% of the total # of seniors).

    Thumb up 0

  31. richtaylor365

    Not to drudge this up again, but seniors make up about 1/5 (22%) of those folks that do not pay income taxes, yet when someone mentioned the 47% group, the implication being those with “no skin in the game” you threw “seniors” into the mix, not “a small percentage of seniors” or “some seniors”. And as I have pointed out above, that is not accurate, ALL seniors have skin in the game because they either pay taxes now or have paid taxes (for many many years) in the past.

    But this highlights my point earlier that a new definition in needed for this ever increasing class of indolents. That 47% number is too ambiguous and far reaching.

    Thumb up 4

  32. CM

    Wealth is not the reason this particular group pays no federal income tax, but you knew that already, didn’t you? And just because they have write offs or other deductions that zero out their tax liability (this year) does not mean that in other years they can get away with not paying any federal taxes, but you knew that too, didn’t you?

    You missed the whole point of the ‘47%’? Romney specifically used the people who pay no federal income tax as being the ones who take no responsibility for their lives, and see themselves as victims. So (in the same mindlessly-simplified terms) the exact opposite of the thousands in that group who have income of more than $200,000. The fact that his group includes these people is an even greater example of how stupid the claim was. Not only do many of those people vote GOP, but many who are poor and/or old and pay no federal income tax also vote for the GOP.

    I’m trying to figure out why you are working so hard to convince folks that those paying no federal income taxes are not all deadbeats, you don’t think everyone knows this,

    It certainly doesn’t seem like it, based on the comments being made. Taking away the right to vote based on the amount of tax being paid – that’s simplistic and extreme as a raw tool.
    “Yeah you might have earnt over $200K but because you were able to reduce your tax liability down to nothing you’re not allowed to vote”.
    Now CLEARLY that is not what was intended, but that’s what happens when you over-simplify for the purpose of slogans/mantras/narrative results in. It’s no different from someone making blanket ideological statements and suggestions on the basis that “rich people are greedy and selfish”.

    You don’t think Romney knows this?

    I have no doubt; politicians never let the truth get in the way when throwing red-meat to their supporters.

    Someone mentioned the 47% and Hal erroneously threw in seniors as part of that group, show me one person on this blog or anywhere else that thinks seniors should not have the right to vote.

    See Hal’s response – you can’t even anywhere close to 47% without including seniors. My link above says that 47% is now 43% and continues to decrease, and of the 43% almost a quarter are seniors. Over two-thirds ARE working, but don’t have a fed tax bill because of deductions or other tax breaks.
    Which again goes to show how misleading the ‘47%’ figure is. It was a terrible stat to try and hang his argument around.

    I’m not surprised that the left (and you) took something that was not meant for public dissemination but only to whip up the base, the group he was addressing at the time, and ran with it. The equivalent would be Obama attending a breakfast with the CBC and calling all Tea Party’ers racists, the likes of Maxine Watters and Fredericka Wilson have already done that, but nobody would dare sneak a camera inside and film him unknowingly, totally different motivation.

    Why wouldn’t people talk about it and hold it up for ridicule? Why wouldn’t a lot of people genuinely be offended by it?
    Romney was certainly throwing it out to whip up the base. To a certain degree, as I say, it’s understandable (and certainly not surprising) that politicians use whatever works to whip up their base. What should be far more concerning IMHO is that his obvious-oversimplification found such strong support from some people after-the-fact (when people had time to actually consider it). It’s as concerning and sad as when people dishonestly tried to argue (blatantly, in the cold light of day even) that Obama was talking about their businesses when he said “you didn’t build that”. That was a phenomenal bit of weirdness.

    I’ll grant that the right needs a better slogan, a better definition for those that really are deadbeats, those that willingly do not contribute for their keep, come up with a figure that better encapsulates that group, whatever it is, and we can start using that as the poster boy for entitlement reform.

    Absolutely. Threatening to take voting rights away, and agreeing that half the population consider themselves victims and won’t take responsibility for their lives, and all just vote themselves more money is patently counter-productive and makes people look like stereotypes. This is the kind on nonsense which no doubt turned a lot of moderate people away from voting Republican, even when they didn’t actively support Obama.
    The actual discussion (about welfare rules etc) is, of course, very legitimate and important. But it seems impossible to get anywhere because it’s all slogans, mantras, unsupported claims, generalisations/simplifications, and/or based on anecdotes.

    Thumb up 0

  33. CM

    And as I have pointed out above, that is not accurate, ALL seniors have skin in the game because they either pay taxes now or have paid taxes (for many many years) in the past.

    And some non-seniors on “unearned” welfare now have spent decades paying taxes into the system. There are a multitude of scenarios. Which is why it’s very hard determine an “unearned” threshold.

    That 47% number is too ambiguous and far reaching.

    Yep, it’s about as close to completely meaningless as you can get. Romney might as well have used a baseball statistic. Actually that would have been far less damaging because it would have been far less offensive, and equally as wrong.

    Thumb up 0

  34. balthazar

    Ahh CM busted out the tired old. RED STATES TAKE MORE IN GUBMIT CHECKS!!! Bullshit. Which has been fucking explained to hinm so many times.

    THE MAJORITY OF RETIREES GO SOUTH TO TRADITIONALLY RED STATES WHEN THE CANT PAY THE FUCKING TAXES OF BLUE STATES ANYMORE YOU DIPSHIT.

    Thumb up 1

  35. CM

    Ahh CM busted out the tired old. RED STATES TAKE MORE IN GUBMIT CHECKS!!! Bullshit. Which has been fucking explained to hinm so many times.

    No, it hasn’t. But that’s irrelevant anyway. It was something I threw out unnecessarily, and I shouldn’t have, for obvious reasons. But way to miss where I acknowledged that.

    THE MAJORITY OF RETIREES GO SOUTH TO TRADITIONALLY RED STATES WHEN THE CANT PAY THE FUCKING TAXES OF BLUE STATES ANYMORE YOU DIPSHIT.

    Wow you ALMOST completed a sentence without a MISTAKE. I think that’s the CLOSEST I’ve ever seen. Perhaps IT MIGHT HELP if you TYPED IN CAPITAL LETTERS ALL THE TIME?

    Thumb up 0

  36. hist_ed

    If y’all can take a break from the pissing match above, check this out from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/business/economy/in-fed-and-out-many-now-think-inflation-helps.html?_r=0

    As I said above, inflation is coming (really it’s already here if you don’t use “core inflation” as you benchmark). Now the NYT trots out some economists who say “Hey inflation is a good thing.” Apparently our new Fed nominee agrees. The article even explains how declining real wages is a good thing. Hold on to your savings (or move them) the government is here to help by making everything more expensive.

    Thumb up 0