In my reporting, I regularly travel to banana republics notorious for their inequality. In some of these plutocracies, the richest 1 percent of the population gobbles up 20 percent of the national pie.
But guess what? You no longer need to travel to distant and dangerous countries to observe such rapacious inequality. We now have it right here at home — and in the aftermath of Tuesday’s election, it may get worse.
The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana.
C.E.O.’s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001. Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.
That’s the backdrop for one of the first big postelection fights in Washington — how far to extend the Bush tax cuts to the most affluent 2 percent of Americans. Both parties agree on extending tax cuts on the first $250,000 of incomes, even for billionaires. Republicans would also cut taxes above that.
***So we face a choice. Is our economic priority the jobless, or is it zillionaires?
I think we all know the answer to that.
burnspbesq
It seems clearly to not be in Obama’s nature to draw lines in the sand, but this is one that needs to be drawn. The Bush tax cuts must be allowed to expire. Absent that, nothing else that might be attempted to reduce the deficit will matter.
jcricket
Step 1: Tax cuts for the rich + corporations
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Economic success for everyone
I understand that the rich and corporations don’t want to pay taxes, don’t want regulations restricting their ability to do whatever they want, etc. My 4-year old doesn’t want to eat his broccoli and doesn’t like it when I say it’s “bed-time”.
What bothers me is that the 90% of us who will never, ever, ever benefit from Step 1 above are convinced that Step 1 is key to Step 3, when all evidence points to the contrary.
Until we get that through our thick skulls (on this note I partially blame voters and partially blame Democrats for failing to make this clear) we’re doomed to a California-like economic fate.
Unabogie
As always, the question isn’t why zillionaires want tax cuts. It’s why that guy in the Ford Pinto with the Nobama sticker over the broken taillight wants to cut their taxes as well.
That’s what makes my brain hurt at 3:00 am.
Unabogie
@jcricket:
Great minds, etc., etc.
Xenos
When did we hit the tipping point when the elites became so wealthy and powerful that the rest of us are powerless, in a democracy, to bring them to heel? Wherever it is, we have passed it.
The only people doing OK are those who are in service, in one way or another, to the plutonomy.
Napoleon
@burnspbesq:
And a second reason, it effectively will completely destroy what is left of the New Deal. What FDR would have birthed BHO will have strangled.
jcricket
@burnspbesq: I guarantee the tea parties, Republicans and our corporate overlords will immediately stop talking about deficits in 3…2…1… now.
The Bush tax cuts are what, like 50% of the future deficit, with defense spending and Medicare making up the bulk of the rest, and SS some small % (5?). But instead all we get is “we must get rid of SS, fund Medicare indefinitely, never cut defense spending, cut taxes for the rich” and then through the magic of, well, magical thinking, cutting some % of programs that make up less than 20% of total spending and almost none of the spending growth, we’ll eliminate the deficit.
ARGH!
WyldPirate
The Dems and Obama will bend over like the bitches they are.
1. Bush’s Tax cuts for the top 2% get extended at a probably underestimated cost of 70 billion per year added to the deficit.
2. Extended unemployment insurance benefits not extended. 15 months of Cobra subsidies expire. Millions end up without insurance and without any support. Repubs and Dems cite expense and adding to the deficit too costly.
3. Repubs skewer Obama and dems on “adding to the deficit” and profligate spending for extending tax cuts without offsets.
4. People get even more pissed at inequality. Swallow faux populism of Snowbilly Palin. Palin elected in a landslide,
Our stupid populace reaps the government its ignorance sows.
Southern Beale
See! Rand Paul was right! We all DO work for rich people!!!!
MikeBoyScout
If cutting taxes for the uber wealthy gave us more jobs we would be up to our asses in jobs by now.
shirt
We’ll know when when the American kleptocrats have succeded: when Canada starts building border fences to keep us out.
WyldPirate
@jcricket:
Evidence doesn’t matter to a bunching of fucking ignorant–both willfully and proud of it–moutherfuckers in our populace.
Most of these dumb fucking hicks think they are on the verge of being “rich” at 50K per year. They actually think they are in a higher income percentile than they are in many cases. They drastically underestimate the share the top 1% has
Besides–their white trash ass isn’t poor–poor is the darky or Mexican down the street.
jcricket
@Unabogie: I think it’s three things.
One, Republicans have everyone convinced taxes/government is evil/incompetent/etc – so why bother paying for the stuff the government provides since they suck at doing it. 40 years of “government is the problem” and are we surprised that no one understands why funding government is a good thing/beneficial.
Two, the “rest of us” are as childish as the rich people. Who wouldn’t love paying no taxes and getting unlimited services. I know I would. So you have a party going around, with support from “think tanks” and “conservative economists” and “TV talking heads” that tax cuts actually lead to revenue increases.
Three, everyone seems to think it’s someone else, undeserving who is getting all those “government benefits”. That people in homeless shelters, calling domestic violence hotlines, needing food stamps, or kids in poor public schools, parents without healthcare/jobs, etc. – “that’s not me, and those people should have made smarter choices”. What boggles my mind is that 90% of the time, it IS those people. So you have people on food stamps voting to cut welfare. Or people who can’t afford college voting to cut pell grants. Or sometimes, in a twist, it’s just old people saying, “I don’t need a school”, so they vote against school levies/funding, but fully expect unlimited “shit old people need” funding.
sherifffruitfly
(shrug) Electorates deserve what electorates vote for.
The current US electorate is more concerned with black Presidents and brown latinos and brown folks from the Middle East, and teh gheys, than they are with their own economic well-being.
Such things are every voter’s right to decide for themselves. A stupid, bigoted electorate is a downside of any democracy.
Mako
No link to the article? Try’n to keep us from clicking away? Is that why the the little title at the top says “This blog will pay for itself” every other refresh?
Davis X. Machina
The perverted Calvinism that is our de facto state religion is a major obstacle to any change in this.
As it is, the little progressivity in the tax code is just a blasphemous attempt to substitute fallable human judgment of legislatures for the ineffable Divine Wisdom in how the outward signs of His election should be distributed.
Krugman keeps on saying economics isn’t a morality play, but if he’s right, why are all those bums in those seats waiting for the curtain to go up, so they can see the reprobate damned be punished and the righteous be rewarded?
Karmakin
There’s actually a growing religious base to it.
If God wanted there to be no poverty, then he’d do something about it. But because there is poverty, it must be that the poor deserve it because they don’t believe in God enough. And if they believe and and spread the word just a little bit harder, they’ll eventually be rewarded with wealth and power. Also, the rich and powerful must be blessed by God, so you shouldn’t “punish” them for that.
It’s called Neo-Calvinism. And whenever you see people “thanking” God for their success/victory, it spreads just a little bit further.
It’s an Amway nation folks.
jcricket
@WyldPirate: I think WyldPirate is sadly right. Republicans secret sauce is being able to have their cake (perception as fiscally conservative, blame Democrats for spending/deficits) and eat it to (cut taxes, increase spending, blow holes in deficit, etc.).
2006 and 2008 shows us that the public does periodically get it, only the problem is the damage has by then been done. I shudder to think in 2012 or 2014 how long it will take and how hard it will to be to climb out of the hole.
Getting unemployment back to “normal”, closing the deficit, funding SS, dealing with the uninsured, cleaning up the environment – these problems will take us decades to fix, if we even bother to. And in the meantime those who suffer the results of Republican policies will probably never recover.
Sly
In related news, at least pretending to be officers of state courts for the purpose of debt collection is still illegal..
I could say something condemnatory, but I’m actually impressed by the company’s unimaginable audacity and sheer evil.
The Other Chuck
Clearly the solution is to give them more and bigger tax cuts.
Karmakin
@Davis X. Machina: Get out of my brain!!!
One more thing. The culture wars are not “dead”. We’ve just surrendered them where it mattered. Where people are upset at Obama and Co. is the lack of interest in fighting these wars. Fighting poverty requires a culture war. Fighting for sustainability requires a culture war.
Yes, these facts are VERY VERY sad. But they are true.
Ross Hershberger
Jesus said “You always have the poor with you’.
So I guess no need in the Christian world to do anything for them. Lost cause. Move on.
The Other Chuck
@Unabogie:
Cuz them libruls want taxes and he hates him some libruls but good and if them libruls didn’t run things then tax cuts would work. The modern conservative movement, from social values, to foreign policy, and indeed now economic policy, runs on pure spite.
pablo
I’m retired from a couple jobs, but am working at a Fortune 500 company in a low (30,000) wage job to help make ends meet. On a daily basis I have contact with my firms CEO (I work at Corp. headquarters.)
Shockingly I ran the numbers.
My CEO makes my yearly salary EVERY FUCKIN’ DAY!
Unabogie
@WyldPirate:
Your screed has become tiresome and boring. Now is the time on Balloon Juice when we dance.
Cacti
If median household income had grown at the same pace as executive compensation since 1980…
It would be over $200,000.
Trickle down has been trickling up for 3+ decades now.
Davis X. Machina
@Ross Hershberger: There is another Christian tradition, that of Dom Hélder Camarra: “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist.”
Don’t hear too much about that one, leastways not in this country…
arguingwithsignposts
@Mako:
I’m beginning to suspect you’re a DougJ spoof.
Karmakin
@Davis X. Machina: It’s called Liberation Theology
Click on the link and scroll to the bottom to the last part. You’ll see why the Catholic hierarchy has been sinking into the morass for quite a long time now.
Pancake
Since these wealthy folk already pay most of the income taxes (top 5% pay about 60% of total) in this country, maybe they should get a break and let some of you shiftless folk start paying. Just saying.
dr. luba
OT, but there’s no puppy/kitty thread this am. Non Sequitur rocks.
P.S. What, no preview?
arguingwithsignposts
@Pancake:
Why, it’s pancake. What’s the matter, dude, got tired of the “change” nym?
I’m not even going to try to explain to you how utterly stupid your little talking point is, but hey, nice of you to try. Bring the “A” game next time, ‘kay?
Polish the Guillotines
@Pancake: Wow. I’m glad you posted. It reminds me I was going to make pancakes for breakfast.
jcricket
@The Other Chuck: There’s a guy at the place I used to work who actually said, “I’m actually in the middle on most issues, but I’m voting Republican to piss liberals off”.
Yep, it’s all just a game.
This is a guy who takes the city bus from his pretty-much-rural house, and you just know he thinks that it’s liberals and darkies in the cities who are suckling off the government teat, not his subsidized lifestyle (far fewer rural people = costs more to get roads, sewer, buses, mail, etc. out there, yet we don’t charge them for it).
The Other Chuck
@Pancake:
Actually they pay approximately 937% of income taxes.
I mean when you start with complete fabricated bullshit, why even let mathematical possibility get in your way?
arguingwithsignposts
@The Other Chuck:
Using McArdle’s calculator again, I see. It’s clearly 9367%.
aimai
@burnspbesq:
As I think it has been said before, the correct locution is “Bush’s tax hike must be allowed to come into being”–Bush and his congress engineered the current situation by pretending to sunset the tax cuts. This tax hike is totally planned–by the republicans–and they ought to have to eat it rhetorically.
aimai
D-boy
@Karmakin:
This made me laugh . . . and cry
garage mahal
Watching the Sunday news hacks was pretty depressing to say the least. Randy Paul, Mike Pence, DeMint – all of them went out of their way not being specific about anything, knowing the public is a dumb as stump and won’t notice or care about things they will just do legislatively away from the cameras. Worse, the moderators are completely clueless about the issues not knowing how to ask a substantive followup question. About the only consensus from the Republicans was that yes we must protect the 2% at the expense of the poor, sick, and elderly. . And Democrats cannot beat that. On top of that we must borrow hundreds of billions to protect the tax cuts, something that never gets mentioned but certainly Democrats will get blamed for.
But Pence is waiting for the Lord to tell him his new calling. So there’s that.
I hate being a Democrat.
Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people)
@Pancake: Yeah you’re right. We should all line up to clean their houses, wash their cars, cook their meals, and polish their knobs since they do so much and we do nothing at all but spend their hard-earned tax money. After you.
Davis X. Machina
@Karmakin: Don’t have to tell me — I was Jesuit-trained and worked for the order during the high-water period of the movement — when Father Arrupe was Superior General. I know and/or was taught by people who knew Cardinal Romero, and the Martyrs of El Salvador and their examples were always before us.
Right now I’m excited because The Gospel in Solentimane has just been re-issued.
Sly
@Davis X. Machina:
You can thank John Paul II and Ratzinger for the massive decline of the Liberation Theology tradition within Catholicism. Paul VI loved him some social justice, and his Populorum Progressio encyclical reflects probably the best traditions of the modern Church. To wit:
Read the whole thing. It’s actually quite breathtaking in its scope.
And this was all diligently attacked by Ratzinger, who in the mid-80s when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was publicly calling Liberation Theology a “Marxist myth.” John Paul himself, who made conciliatory gestures in public, more out of political expediency than anything else, gave him full support behind the scenes.
Judas Escargot
@sherifffruitfly:
Such things are every voter’s right to decide for themselves.
For themselves, sure: My problem is, they’re going to be dragging me down with them. With 21st century globalization, they’re deciding my fate as well, whether I like it or not.
I’ve reached the point where I could honestly say “well if 69% of the US white working class want be plutocracy’s betches for the next two decades at least, who am I to interfere?” with a clean conscience. My empathy for that 70% died on Tuesday night.
But then that pesky reason and logic thing reminds me that where go they, so go (eventually) I.
Damned shame, too: It was getting to be a very nice Republic, until Fox news and the GOP turned it into mob democracy.
Joseph Nobles
The recession is over for them. It’s not over for us.
PIGL
@The Other Chuck:
because this can’t be said enough, I’ll say it again for you, in your very own words:
It’s true. It’s a combination of a few smart evil people, and any number of the dumb and mean.
Nick
@burnspbesq:
I agree, but he’s finished if they do. No way he wins reelection then.
and the tax cuts will be back in 2013.
Zifnab
So the solution to spurring on the economy is to stop spending money. The solution to unemployment is to fire off a bunch of government employees and give their salaries to the wealthiest private industrialists and bankers. The solution to improving the trade deficit is more free trade with other impoverished nations.
And anyone who tells you differently is an unserious amoral vagrant hippie.
arguingwithsignposts
@Nick:
I think the below $250,000 tax cuts could be extended and the upper class rates raised with little political blowback for Obama in terms of Dem voters.
And I think keeping those cuts for the next few years, at least, makes sense with the recession.
Nick
@Pancake: This is joke right? Otherwise, I’d like to punch you.
burnspbesq
@Pancake:
Dumbfuck, the battle over progressive taxation was fought a long time ago. Your side lost. As they should. Who benefits most from having a state apparatus that protects the institution of private property? That’s right, the ones with the most private property.
Ross Hershberger
@arguingwithsignposts:
Except that our new GOP overlords in the House absolutely will not permit that without the megarich getting their tax cut as well. Stalemate. Shit sandwich or shit casserole? Take your pick.
Nick
@arguingwithsignposts:
I don’t think there would be any blowback from that in the long term. In the short term, the GOP will win the message war, which is mainly why the Democrats didn’t hold votes on that before the election.
That said, the best policy to get all the tax cuts expire, for everyone, because if we want to get rid of the deficit, we need to actually sacrifice to do it.
Davis X. Machina
@Judas Escargot: I don’t think Lenin ever visualized the dictatorship of the Lumpenproletariat.
Citizen_X
I would just add this quote TCG gave us earlier; a great steaming cup of STFU served to the Teabaggers, and (more importantly) their rich masters, courtesy of one Ben Franklin:
arguingwithsignposts
@Nick:
Slow down there, hawse. I’m not on the austerity bandwagon at this point. talk to me again when unemployment is back down a couple percentage points.
gVOR08
I used to use a line that ‘If Democrats have their way, the U.S. will end up looking like a socialist hell-hole like Sweden, while if Republicans have their way, we’ll end up looking like the Phillipines.’ I quit using the line after I looked up the Gini coefficients and found income distribution here is already more unequal than the Phillipines.
Nick
@arguingwithsignposts: raising taxes is not austerity. It eliminates the deficit as a legitimate excuse for not doing anything
Republicans are not going to be able to argue we can’t expand Medicare if we have a $100 million surplus.
Linda Featheringill
@Judas Escargot:
Love your name!
arguingwithsignposts
@Nick:
The deficit has *never* been a legitimate excuse for not doing anything. You assume the GOP is going to change messages regardless of tax cuts or tax hikes or whatever.
burnspbesq
Here’s an idea:
If the Bush tax cuts are extended, take the money you don’t pay in taxes as a result of that and give it to ActBlue, or the ACLU, or the Sierra Club, or your local dog and cat rescue organizations.
MattR
@Citizen_X: Thanks for reposting that. I don’t know how I missed it the first time. I just wish I had seen it on Wednesday during a Facebook conversation with a libertarian who was outraged that California passed Prop 25 requiring a simple majority in the Legislature to pass the budget.
Nick
@arguingwithsignposts:
No, but they won’t have a $1.3 trillion deficit to throw around and scare people with.
burnspbesq
The Republicans are always going to lie about fiscal policy. Lying is as natural as breathing for them. They will pay lip service to deficit reduction, while vehemently denying that their wars and their tax cuts and their Medicare Part D are responsible for the deficits. They will continue to do it as long as it works. And it always works.
Sly
@Nick:
You’re making the assumption that Republican arguments are in any way conditional on objective observations of reality. Do you honestly think they deserve that kind of intellectual credit?
Besides, tax policy at this point will have little to no effect on the core problem facing tax receipts: poor consumer demand. And all this talk about the deficit and the best ways to curb it are ultimately counterproductive, because it operates on the principle that deficit reduction is goal worth pursuing to the exclusion of all other considerations under present circumstances. It isn’t.
Zifnab
@Nick:
Well, I think Krugman and others have argued persuasively that tax cuts are poor economic stimulators. By extension, we can assume tax hikes don’t do much to inhibit economic growth.
That said, I don’t think we should raise taxes to battle the deficit. I think we should raise taxes to increase government spending, particularly by funding jobs programs. If my taxes go up 3%, and the economy grows 4%, I’ll consider it money well spent. But if we’re just going to raise taxes to appease the deficit fetishists, then it’s money ill spent.
We have already sacrificed. The housing bubble? The stagnant wages? The rising gas prices? The falling dollar? There’s your sacrifice. The problem isn’t that we haven’t sacrificed enough. It’s that we’re not getting much return in our attempts to appease the gods of fiscal responsibility.
Nick
@Sly:
You’re making the assumption that Republican arguments are in any way conditional on objective observations of reality.This is about Republican arguments being based on reality. They’re not. This is about neutering their message. It succeeds because they can point to irrelevant things like the deficit and made feasible arguments out of illogical conclusions.
Do we want to win the message war, or don’t we?
wasabi gasp
Fuck ’em. I say say we empty our piggy banks all over the bastards and make ’em pay 100%. Let’s see how they like it when they’re stuck with all the income.
Nick
@Zifnab:
That’s basically what I was trying to say…by closing the deficit, it makes it easier to argue for more spending.
It’s hard to argue we can’t spend more when we’re not already in a hole.
“If they do this, we’ll have a deficit” is a much harder message to sell than “We already have a deficit, they’re making it worse”
Tom M
Republican support for a new tax cut being enacted (the existing law requires the tax cuts to go away) is why Paul Ryan(Liar-Wisc), Darrell Issa (Crazy-Calif.) and McConnell Fake-Ky) are on the Sunday news shows talking about the government problem being a spending problem not a revenue problem.
None of the hosts bothered to point out that federal revenue in FY2010 totaled less than 15% of GDP compared to the long term average of over 18%. Since the problem is spending (yes, on
defenseoffense) then raising taxes on small business in a slow growth economy, would be wrong.You have to admit, they’re good. Not correct but good.
Cermet
@Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people): Please, pancake is too busy licking their shit encrusted ass’s to do any real work.
Sly
@Nick:
If it situates deficit reduction as a goal worth pursuing in the short term, winning the “message war” will be a Pyrrhic victory.
Nick
@Tom M:
You can blame the producers of said shows.
Jack
@Nick:
At the end of the Clinton years a large swathe of Americans believed that Clinton had massively increased the deficit instead of creating a huge surplus. If you take away the 1.3 trillion number, they’re just going to switch to saying ‘we’re 1.3 trillion in debt’ because far too many voters have no idea what the difference is between debt and deficits.
Nick
@Sly: We’ve already lost the argument over whether or not the deficit is important.
so yeah, it would be a Pyhrric victory, but a victory nonetheless.
Nick
@Jack: Then it’s hopeless. I don’t know how we win the message war.
arguingwithsignposts
@Nick:
Dude, we are *never* going to win a message war on the deficit. Period, end of story. You yourself said it would be a “pyrrhic victory,” which is not a victory at all, imho.
cleek
the ostensible goal of tax cuts of the wealthy is to ensure that rich people have more money to spend, yes?
hasn’t the same thing been accomplished by the fact that the wealthy are making more than they used to?
why hasn’t that stimulated the economy?
robertdsc-PowerBook & 27 titles
So has anyone bothered to explain how the “middle-class” tax cut is going to be paid for?
Nick
@robertdsc-PowerBook & 27 titles:
with the elimination of the tax cuts on the rich
arguingwithsignposts
@robertdsc-PowerBook & 27 titles:
Ideally, the middle class – who actually need the extra money – will put it back into the economy, thus spurring growth and leading to further tax income in the future. The rich, who pay a lot of their taxes on capital gains (at a lower fucking rate than people who work for a living) and already have more money than God would know what to do with, not so much.
But that’s just a theory I’ve heard.
Nick
@arguingwithsignposts: but this is the problem. We sit here and yell that Democrats suck a message, then admit when challenged, that they can’t win anyway
Sly
@Nick:
Then you’re kinda copping to the notion that political majorities are and end in an of themselves, and not a means to advance beneficial policies. And the argument wasn’t so much lost as it was never really made in the first place. You can chalk this up to several reasons: Voter ignorance, Democratic ignorance, Republican venality, etc.
As has been said, we don’t have a spending problem. We have a revenue problem. The only way to address the revenue problem is through widely-distributed economic growth. When spending cuts are imposed, they’ll largely target the urban population. You know, the people who Real Amurkins don’t care about and who already vote Democratic. And even after those people are further immiserated, the long-term debt position still won’t see any improvement. And because we’ve contracted the size of government spending when consumer demand is low, we’ll essentially have doubled-down on the recession.
What do you think Republicans will argue to suburban and rural voters then?
Corner Stone
I said it in a previous thread but will repeat, not dealing with the tax sunset issue will be looked back on in the next few years as one of the most incompetent political and policy decisions ever.
edited a little
Corner Stone
@Nick:
No, this is what *you* do all day.
jcricket
@Jack: It’s almost as if facts don’t matter to conservatives. No, that can’t be it.
I just read an article about how we’re going to have an “all cuts” budget in WA state to close the $2b deficit. Of course those “cuts” mean real pain to real people, and will probably worsen/lengthen the recession (just like the Depression-spiral, only on a smaller scale).
And who will get the blame? The people, who voted down every tax increase? The Republicans, who claim you can just cut “fraud, waste and abuse” and magically close the deficit hole? Or the Democrats, who accurately warned of the reality of the situation.
My bet is on #3.
Nick
@Sly:
which Republicans turn around and say “stop spending and we won’t need revenue” and then make up a bunch of stupid examples of reckless spending and half the country will nod their heads and go “waste of money”
Nick
@Sly:
cut more
jcricket
@Sly: That true conservatism hasn’t been tried. Or that brown-skinned foreigners are trying to blow them up and/or take their jobs (or both!). Or that if we only cut taxes even further, magical ponies will sprout forth and shit money for everyone.
The truth, quite clearly, doesn’t matter – to the party that denies evolution and global warming, all that matters is power. George Orwell was right:
burnspbesq
@Tom M:
I don’t suppose any of them mentioned any specific program they wanted to cut.
Nellcote
@Nick:
*90+% of people got tax cuts last year
*the deficit was reduced last year
Starting with those two, they seem pretty simple and direct, yet haven’t broken through. What can be done about that?
Mako
@arguingwithsignposts:
Just tryin’ to help out. Everybody’s got to get paid. If it weren’t for newspapers we’d have nothing to talk about here but cats and dogs, eh?
Nick
@burnspbesq:
No, and Christiane Amanpour actually pushed Rand Paul on this
burnspbesq
@Sly:
Actually, no, that’s not the only way – and by saying that it is, you are buying into the Republican framing.
The other way to address the revenue problem is by raising taxes. There is no viable solution to our fiscal problem that doesn’t involve either significant increases in individual income tax rates, a major broadening of the income tax base, or a VAT.
arguingwithsignposts
@Corner Stone:
Seconded. I think there are good examples of Dems messaging, but it’s a very uphill battle, and I do not agree that they should sacrifice everything to win an unwinnable war.
Sly
@cleek:
What rich people buy has less of an economic impact than what poor and middle-class people buy, and as a group rich people spend less than middle-class and poor groups.
First, middle-class and poor people spend a much higher percentage of their income on necessities. If you’re making, say, 50,000 a year, you’ll be spending a higher share of that income on housing, food, clothing, etc. That is spending that must happen, and means you’ll have less for discretionary spending.
Second, there are far more poor and middle-class folks than there are rich folks, so their extra discretionary spending actually supersedes that of the wealthy. If you keep their tax burden low, that spending will increase. If you keep the tax burden on the wealthy low, because less of their purchases are necessities, they have less incentive to spend it.
wilfred
When has that not been the choice? When politics becomes this, then history will be over. In the meantime, it will be some new bullshit tomorrow.
burnspbesq
@Nellcote:
Hypothetically, you could start by blowing up the transmitter of every radio station that carries Rush Limbaugh.
Sly
@burnspbesq:
Given current levels of GDP, income distribution, and unemployment levels, there is no tax policy under the sun that will produce a budget surplus inside ten years. It’s a matter of mathematics.
Nick
@arguingwithsignposts:
And I’m the one who gets mocked for saying “nothing can be done?”
If we can’t win the message war on the deficit, we can’t get much done progressively on the economic front. It’s that simple.
Steeplejack
@Nick:
Justin H. Bieber on a tricycle, Rand Paul is such a douche. I’d love to hear where he pulled that “average federal worker makes $120,000” stat from. I’m assuming it’s from his ass but will wait to hear otherwise. But not holding my breath.
arguingwithsignposts
@Nick:
quoting Rand Fucking Paul:
I would personally like to see the term “average” taken out and shot behind a barn somewhere and banned from political discourse.
And shorter RP: The solution is, of course, to bring everyone down to Mall-Wart level wages!
arguingwithsignposts
@Sly:
Cleek is snarking, fwiw. But as to this:
Here’s one very good messaging idea that dems could use: following a dollar as it flows through the economy, or a paycheck as it does so. Showing where the money goes, how it impacts everyone, and how middle and low-income people spend more of their earnings propping up the real economy. It would have to be a catchy commercial, 30 seconds, probably. But I think it could score some points.
Nellcote
If capital gains were taxed at the same rate as income would that cover that top 2% taxcut? Since corporations are now “persons”, shouldn’t they be taxed at the same rate real people are? Why can’t offshore tax dodges be shut down?
burnspbesq
@Nick:
There’s a big ol’ lie in there. The most reliable data available, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, puts average Federal employee pay at around $68K. And keep in mind that there are relatively fewer minimum-wage jobs in government than in the private sector, and government employees typically are more highly educated and experienced than private sector employees.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_much_should_a_government_employee_make
Yes, Rand Paul told a whopper. Was he challenged on it?
burnspbesq
@Sly:
And if you wait two years to address it, it won’t happen for twelve years. That is no fucking excuse at all for failing to act.
Nick
@burnspbesq:
Of course not. But that’s Obama’s job, isn’t it? News reporter should be forced to do that!
Sly
@arguingwithsignposts:
I realize, but its always important to note that progressive taxation has firm footing in economics. It isn’t just a moral argument. Making sure middle-class and poor folks have more money to spend actually contributes greatly to economic growth.
The problem in messaging is that the extreme myopia of your average American business executive has metastasized into the mainstream consciousness. And we have to burn it out. That takes time and diligence. Conceding ground on the immediate importance of the long-term debt position doesn’t contribute to that; it actually hurts it.
arguingwithsignposts
@burnspbesq:
Other than the fact that 12 years is only two years longer than 10. the GOP argues SS is insolvent based on it decreasing payouts in 30 years. Calvinball doesn’t respect rules of math.
Mister Papercut
@burnspbesq: I wonder if that $68K fed average also includes locality pay. I can’t imagine that the augmented salaries of D.C.-area fed employees wouldn’t skew the figure upwards, too.
arguingwithsignposts
@Sly:
Totally agree there, which is why I think austerity is the wrong way to go at the moment.
apologies if i misconstrued your attempt at explanation.
Corner Stone
@arguingwithsignposts: Messaging becomes a lot easier when it’s based on good policy.
You don’t need nuance to sell people on good policy.
IMO, we’re seeing the desired outcomes in policy.
Sly
@burnspbesq:
Yes it is, actually. Or, at least, its an excuse to delay action until there is economic growth that will fuel an increase in government revenues.
Nellcote
@Corner Stone:
um, student loan reform?
arguingwithsignposts
@Corner Stone:
Somewhat. Pen1s Navy and the Newt still think SS is bad policy, and seem to have a lot of oldsters tagging along in their stupid circus. I agree it’s easier, but we have a severely fucked up media/education system in that regard at the moment.
DFer
@Corner Stone:
This is incredibly naive.
burnspbesq
@Nellcote:
For openers, because we live in a world where we respect national borders and the sovereignty of other countries.
If I am a US-based multinational that chooses to manufacture products in Ireland because it makes it easier to sell into Europe, and I have an actual factory and actual employees in Ireland, and the Irish factory pays me a royalty for the IP embedded in the product that is consistent with market rates, why should the income from that sale be taxed in the United States rather than in Ireland?
burnspbesq
@Mister Papercut:
DC’s not the only place where Federal employees get locality adjustments. I got one when I worked for the IRS in Orange County. At the time, it was NYC-North Jersey, LA-OC, SF-SJ, and maybe Boston and Chicago.
arguingwithsignposts
@burnspbesq:
ahahahahaha! You are funny. Tell me another one.
arguingwithsignposts
Can my comment about Pen!s Navy come out of moderation, plz?
burnspbesq
@arguingwithsignposts:
OK, jackass, you knew perfectly well that I was referring to the “world” of international tax policy. But that’s OK, have your moment of fun.
arguingwithsignposts
@burnspbesq:
Admit it, you hung that one over the plate, dude.
To the question at hand:
I would not necessarily qualify that as a tax “dodge” like those which funnel offshore earnings through banks in the Cayman Islands, for instance, which is what I believe (I could be wrong) was what Nellcote was referring to.
ETA: It occurs to me that if we really wanted a proper global economy, we could set some sort of world tax (or rate) on multinationals. I don’t know how that would work precisely, and it’s a unicorn pony, but it’s an interesting thought exercise.
Tom M
[email protected]: No, it’s not the producers’ fault, it’s that the hosts of these programs have several days to prepare for an interview. All through the time leading to the election, every Repub. of note was on the teevee and every single one of them evaded the question of what they would cut. Yet, on the Sunday news programs not one host was truly prepared for the interview. Do they not imagine what these guys might say? Jon Stewart has said that his ability to show politicians making fools of themselves requires interns and a VCR. Don’t the Sunday shows bother to review the guests’ prior comments?
Stewart’s rally spoke to this issue of the talking heads, including Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, and the Fox heads, Hume, Wallace inter alii, and their ability to do an interview.
No retorts, no calling out guys like Ryan, McConnell etc. I don’t expect a guy like Schieffer do to it, he’s an old friend of the Bush’s, but the others?
Corner Stone
@Nellcote: Yes?
Corner Stone
@DFer: Well, the “nuanced” version is really a smashing fucking success, isn’t it?
Mako
@burnspbesq:
“…when I worked for the IRS…”
Tax accountant? You might have been wrong about that whole Metro-before-Tyson’s Corner controversy, but can we be BFF, say, in February?
Moses2317
It is more than just the planned Bush income tax increases that are at issue here. There are also critical issues regarding the estate tax and the middle and working class tax cuts that were in the stimulus package, that are scheduled to expire at the end of the year.
We should all
1. Call your Representative and Senators and tell them that you want:
a. A vote before the end of the year on a three year extension of the stimulus package tax cuts and tax relief on income below $250,000
b. To oppose any effort to give further tax cuts on income over $250,000
c. To oppose any effort to eliminate the estate tax or to reduce it below its 2009 levels
2. Contact the White House – 202-456-1111 – and urge the President to publicly promise to veto any effort to give further tax cuts on income over $250,000 or to eliminate the estate tax
More info at my blog post on this here
Winning Progressive
Mister Papercut
@burnspbesq: Right, that’s just the one closest to me. But it seems that there’s big pockets of federal employees in all those areas, where Randy’s “private employee” stat would include burger-flippers in flyover country that don’t have a federal gummint analog.
It’s such a bogus comparison that takes no more than 5 seconds of critical thought to lead you to “Hang the fuck on, Randy…” (Dear Press Corpse: You realize that you are allowed to challenge politicians when they talk utter bollocks, right? sigh)
Corner Stone
@Moses2317:
The current tax scheme will be “extended” for two more years at which time they will be made permanent.
It’s going to be all or none and President Obama has already conceded that the answer won’t be “none”.
Moses2317
@Corner Stone: Well, that is the conventional wisdom right now, but it is why we all need to start calling Congress and the White House to move the result to something better.
Winning Progressive
Corner Stone
@Moses2317: I disagree with calling it “CW”. The President has already said as much in at least two different places.
The D’s didn’t do anything about it months ahead of the vote, during a time when they could have use it to wedge into the correct messaging position. They sure as hell aren’t going to stiffen their spines on it now.
Obama will sign an extension.
DFer
@Corner Stone:
just because one thing doesn’t work doesn’t mean automatically, the opposite does.
that’s incredibly simplistic.
Karen
@Karmakin:
This. This is the New Prosperity Church.
Let’s forget the scandals with the Catholic Church for a moment.
Churches used to be dedicated to helping people and yes, spreading religion but at least they were helping people. The Catholic church has a history of helping the poor and helpless, especially mothers and children. Charity used to be commonplace in churches, when someone was in need they could turn to their church.
That doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. Now it’s as if the poor and desperate aren’t even human to the New Prosperity Church.
But they should be careful. As breadwinners who had six figure salaries are now competing for jobs paying $9.95/hr, they’re within striking distance of falling into that “not human” group themselves.
arguingwithsignposts
@Karen:
Well, to be fair, there are still a lot of churches that do great work to help the poor. they usually don’t have tv shows, however.
ETA: “The Catholic church has a history of helping the poor and helpless, especially mothers and children.” And they also had a history of promoting “Pope’s sons” to high office, and protecting pedoph1les, and pushing inquisitions, etc. It’s a mixed bag with most religions in that respect.
JCT
@pablo:
Way back when I was an intern in a big city hospital (before anyone paid attention to how many hours we were working), the senior house staff would warn us to never, ever calculate our hourly wage because we would fall into a stupor and they would be stuck doing our work. Try to avoid the “bad math” because that way madness lies as Sarah Palin would say.
arguingwithsignposts
@JCT:
which always gets me. “Don’t think about how little you’re making, because it would be depressing.” How about upping the fucking wages, douchebags? Maybe then it wouldn’t be so depressing.
Why does the avg. worker have to get shit on? Because they don’t wear designer suits?
Moses2317
@Corner Stone: I guess I refuse to be defeatist on this. If we progressives want policy to reflect what we want, we have to keep making our voices heard by Congress, the White House, the media, and the public. And the tax fight is one early place to begin this fight.
And keep in mind that one of the reasons that Congress did not act on this before the election was that the Blue Dogs were too scared to do what was politically right. With many of the Blue Dogs having nothing left to lose, now that they have lost re-election, perhaps they will now be willing to do the right thing.
Winning Progressive
Corner Stone
@DFer: Jesus, that’s your interpretation of my comment that you don’t need nuance to sell good policy? Talk about simplistic.
Nick
@Moses2317:
I agree with you, but even if we could pass it through a lame-duck House, it’s not going to get through a 58-42 Senate, because no Republican has the incentive to break a filibuster, they have the incentive not to. They’d be teabagged before the New Year.
DFer
@Corner Stone: Then WTF was this;
supposed to mean?
Oh I’m sorry, it’s supposed to mean “I have nothing to say”
Moses2317
@Nick: That is likely true. But let’s have that fight, because it is one that we win publicly. Let the Republicans be the one’s holding middle class tax relief hostage in an effort to try to give even more money to millionaires.
Winning Progressive
Corner Stone
@DFer: No jackass. Good policy is a strong message to start with. It makes for easy sound bytes. You don’t have to equivocate too damned hard with good policy.
The nuance that a lot of D’s have been accused of relying on haven’t gotten their messaging machine too far. Which is what we are discussing here.
Hey, I like calling people names too. But I usually have something to hang on them when I do it.
Your one liner was a stupid response since it had little or no relevance to what I actually said.
Corner Stone
@Moses2317:
I agree, and IMO we should have had that fight six weeks before elections. It was pretty clear at that point that Blue Dogs were gonna take a flea bath in the election. The issue could’ve been used to prop up the D’s, whether the Blue Dogs wanted the outcome or not.
arguingwithsignposts
@Corner Stone:
Well, what if “good policy” so defined, is not politically feasible (I’m thinking global warming here, specifically as a test case). Good policy is green energy, carbon tax, HSR, etc. Explain how easy soundbites are working on that one?
(not disagreeing here, but more generating discussion)
DFer
@Corner Stone:
Republican policy makes for easy soundbites. You see the thread you’re walking on here?
Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people)
I can’t believe no one mentioned that Reagan’s budget director (David Stockman) appeared on This Week and said that both *tax increases* and *spending cuts* are needed to make our way out of this financial mess. He also called for means-testing on social security starting yesterday. Mike Pence looked like he wanted to chloroform Stockman at certain points during the discussion. I just loved the way they agreed to “respectfully disagree” with one another.
Corner Stone
@arguingwithsignposts: I think at this point everything has to be framed with how it creates jobs. Whether it’s strictly true, or a stretch, you have to hammer at job creation IMO.
Everything has to be about the economy/jobs for the next two years. Put good policy out there and make the R’s lie/obfuscate/do what they do at every turn.
Corner Stone
@DFer: Alright you win this rhetorical back and forth.
You’re too boring to continue this with.
Nick
@Moses2317:
Is it really?
and when taxes go up, the people are going to blame…the Republicans?
We have a lot more to lose here than they do because if they stand firm, the end result will be our fault because…who else raises taxes?
Nick
@DFer: wow pwned.
Corner Stone
@Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people): IMO, means testing would be a death blow for SS. I’m against it.
Moses2317
@Nick: Well, this is why we decouple the middle class tax relief from tax cuts focused on the wealthy elite. Propose legislation now proposing extension of the tax relief on income under $250k and the stimulus package tax cuts, pass it through the House, and dare the Republicans to filibuster it in the Senate. If they do, then focus our messaging entirely around that for the next month and a half. If they don’t, then we get a parting victory from the Democratic Congress.
Of course this plan could go wrong but the options (either extending all of the tax cuts now, or kicking this to the Republican Congress) are much worse.
Winning Progressive
Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people)
@Corner Stone: No Republican politician currently in office will touch means-testing and you’d know if you’d seen Pence’s reaction. Pence talked about changing social security rules for those who are now 40 years old and younger (the Republicans understand only too well who voted for them last Tuesday). Pence avoided using the term “means-testing” and tried to stay as vague as possible while promoting the tax cuts will solve every problem talking point. Stockman looked at Pence like he was crazy. I almost fell out of my chair when I heard Stockman talk about the need for tax increases.
arguingwithsignposts
@Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people):
Interesting how the people who talk about means-testing from the right are never for removing the ceiling on SS contributions.
Nick
@Moses2317: That was exactly the plan before, but again, the problem is, the Republicans have NOTHING to lose by letting them all expire. They will never be blamed for tax hikes.
wasabi gasp
Pops totally punched out that Hippie.
RaptorFence
Better video link (from History of the World: Part I)
Nellcote
@burnspbesq:
Perhaps I meant tax-shelters. But does the same principle apply to places in the Bahamas that aren’t much more than p.o. boxes, where neither goods or services are produced by corps.?
Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people)
@arguingwithsignposts: What is the argument for keeping a ceiling? I’ve never understood it. It’s being going up though – the FICA wage limit was $90,000 in ’05 and is $106,800 now. Don’t see why it can’t go up to $250,000,000 next year ;-).
arguingwithsignposts
@Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people):
Honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever heard an argument for it. I don’t believe in a cap at all. 90 to 106 isn’t much in the grand scheme of things. And, btw, I think they should charge SS tax on all that investment income too (maybe it is, IDK). Fuck the rich.
Cacti
@Nick:
Even with locality pay, no federal employee below GS-13 step 10 makes $120,000 per year.
Triassic Sands
Given the opportunity to do a little something to rectify this abhorrent situation, the egalitarians of Washington State voted almost two to one (65-35) against an income tax on the wealthiest Washingtonians.
Something similar happened in Alabama several years ago. The incoming governor (a religious, right wing Republican) surveyed conditions in his state and decided the rich needed to carry a greater share of the burden in order to fund education, programs for the disabled, etc. So, the governor proposed a tax increase for the wealthiest Alabamans. The people voted it down and a greater percentage of the poor people voted against it than did the wealthy.
We’ve become a nation dominated by stupid people. And the stupidity is distributed somewhat differently from the wealth. Rich Americans know exactly what is in their best interests.
Today’s Seattle Times (online) has the headline:
So, when things are bad, the voters step up and make things worse.
Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people)
@Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people): Whoops. That should read “…been going up…”
@arguingwithsignposts: Maybe the catfood commission will include raising/eliminating the SS ceiling as a “fiscally responsible” option. We’ll see.
jcricket
@Triassic Sands: This is the article I was mentioning up-thread. But you know that Democrats will get the blame for the cuts to social programs.
People, because they are stupid, and Republicans lie to them, and the media doesn’t do their job – believe there’s rampant fraud, waste & abuse in government. They believe there’s all kinds of frivolous government programs just ripe for the cutting without impacting the masses at all. They believe overpaid guv’mint workers and lazy union hacks are the reason every infrastructure project takes a long time and costs so much.
It’s no wonder California Democrats have been using budget gimmicks for 30 years rather than cutting services. Seems the only way to ensure we don’t plunge into a depression given the situation.
Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people)
@Triassic Sands: Reading the comments section, I see many conservative Washington voters are perfectly happy to have 140 kids in a classroom and their next desire is to raise the retirement age for state workers to 75 (or have them work till they die), defund their pensions and have them shoulder 100% of their health care costs. A very compassionate conservative bunch out there in Washington. They’d probably strangle the kids in “Waiting for superman” for having the audacity to desire a good education.
frosty
@Cacti: My guess is that the $120,000 includes all benefits and the $60,000 is just straight wages. It’s the kind of shitty twisted math I’d expect out of these asshats.
And screw averages, they’re meaningless. Let’s talk about the median.
frosty
@jcricket: But there is rampant waste, fraud, and abuse in government. You know it and I know it. It’s in the DoD budget.
There’s a brand new National Infantry Museum in Ft. Benning. I have nothing against it, but why didn’t it come out of the Park Service budget instead of DoD? It doesn’t contribute to the national defense any more than the Gettysburg battlefield historic site.
jcricket
@frosty: That’s silly. Every single cent spent by the DoD keeps us safe. You know the military and defense contractors are actually working for below cost, because they are TRUE PATRIOTS ™. How dare you malign then.
But seriously – that conservatives have everyone convinced there is rampant excess in every single area of the government, except by far the largest one with no revenue source of its own is a true testament to messaging and never underestimating the stupidity of the American public.
superdestroyer
Isn’t income diversity just a side effect of ethnic/racial diversity. Maybe income diversity has increased because the U.S. has become a very good country at creating and importing poor people while doing everything it can to punish the middle class and making it harder to move up to the upper middle class?
Will income distribution get better with the Obama Plan of making health care a terrible career field but keeping investment banking/finance as a good career field?
Does anyone really suspect that an administration filled with upper class Ivy Leaguers really cares about the middle class and want to help them move up the economic ladder?
Triassic Sands
I’m less worried about who is going to get blamed, then I am about what is going to happen to people. I think it is fair to say that people will die because of these cuts. Governor Gregoire, a spineless POS if ever there was one, has run away from tax issues for the past six years. She could have used that time to try to hammer home to people that Washington’s tax system is grossly unfair and real people are suffering real damage because of it. Instead, in true Democratic form, she just folded her tent and went home, leaving the poor and disabled to fend for themselves.
Gregoire said after Tuesday, she “gets it.” The people want an all-cuts budget. It’s amazing how easy it is for her to simply give up, when she’s never really tried. She deserves blame.