From JTO
I have not read any of the Federalist Papers in quite a while but remember them thematically very well. And I keep a thick bound published edition of them with my collection of history books. It is easily readable, and represents an effort by the nation’s political and intellectual leadership, to publicize and popularize their differing views of how a to-be-formed, and uniquely democratic government should work. the result was the ratification of the final draft of the U.S. Constitution.by each of the state legislatures – actually July 2, 1776.
Underlying the debate over all of the concrete specifics was a general wariness of the potential for the powers of the government they were creating to be misused by various factions for purposes contrary to the public interest. The solution was to build in safeguards to prevent any faction – at that time the farmers, merchants, traders, financiers, shippers, etc. – was to keep the system balanced among factions. This included a healthy skepticism about common people swept up in a cause and resulting in a radical government.
So skepticism runs through the entire document because these were all very smart and seasoned political participants – they were elected to these positions by their own legislatures. So running through the Federalist Papers and the Constitution itself, is the need to keep any faction from controlling the government. Thus the differing gems of office, separation of powers, election of the Senate by the legislatures, permanent appointment of judges, etc.
So there is something wrong the thought process of modern conservatives – who purport to demand a return to the principles of the Founding Fathers- that is consistent. This is the belief that the government should be “efficient”. The U.S. Government was never designed to be efficient. In fact, great pains were taken to prevent it from being efficient lest any faction get control of it. (If these people want efficiency, think of Mussolini committing to “make the trains run on time” – and lo and behold he did.). So conservatives want to return to the founder’s Constitutional principals to solve our problems, but they are ignoring the actual solutions the founders devised to create the document in the first place.
The correct date of ratification of the U.S. constitution by the state legislatures is March 4, 1789.
Obama said yesterday, “The private sector is doing just fine.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/08/obama_the_private_sector_is_doing_fine.html
I actually like Obama but when he makes statements like this, it proves just how out of touch with reality he really is.
This is typical Republican distortion. All you have to do is read the comment. In fact, the private sector is doing well with corporate and bank balance sheets cash rich and awaiting consumer demand growth to begin investing. And a very large portion of the private sector jobs lost have been recovered. The remaining jobs not recovered are primarily state/local employees in the private sector and construction jobs in the public sector. Not coincidentally, these are exactly the employment groups targeted by the additional stimulus package three years ago which the Republicans have refused – and continue to refuse – to support. And this is what is needed to create an up cycle in consumer demand until it becomes self supporting. Same argument as in the 1930′s. Same brain dead fiscal conservatives turning a recession into a depression.
Mitt Romney in his public comments this weekend has derided cops, firemen and teachers specifically with mocking statements suggesting rehiring them is the last thing we need.
It is sickening someone running for president would make these statements, while insisting his investor friends must keep their 14% income tax rates lest they go on strike from their careers as “job creators”.
Stupefying.
The problem that I have with the Federalist Papers is that they are often misinterpreted (and then quoted) as if their contents represent actual law. Comments are taken out of context and used by ideologues to support a rigid interpretation of the Constitution. For example, the Tea Party has an entire website devoted to such interpretations. In fact, we see these opinions streamed into our local Villager newspaper by local tea party activists.
Pertaining to this discussion — a friend, who works within an Economics department of a University sent this to me. It describes the parting words of an elderly, well respected Professor of Economics at the point of his retirement.
“A few hours later at the end of class, the professor said, “and now by virtue of old age and retirement, I’m going to give you some unadulterated opinion.” He said dismantling Glass-Stegall Act’s separation of types of banking functions was a really bad idea, and unless we create a new version of it, we are in for more trouble. He proceeded to say there has always been a small wealthy percentage of the US population, but he is personally disturbed by some things about the 1% that has emerged over the last 15 years: 1) their share of GDP has grown grotesquely large; 2) unlike the industrial magnates of the gilded age or modern geniuses like Steve Jobs, these guys have drifted into the financial sector where; 3) they produce ingenious new financial instruments that generate no jobs, and produce no useful goods or technology, but only wealth for themselves, and; 4) they did it so irresponsibly that they brought down the economy, and; 5) because they were not appropriately punished for this role, they are already at it again, and likely to cause more trouble and damage. He ended by saying, “If I sound preachy, well Amen!”
Just this once is a fraud. The rich pay 35% income tax while most of us pay 25% and some of us 15%. When you make up lies to defend your side and attack others you look foolish.
There are very few economists that would disagree with those statements. The basic insights that came from Keynes in the 1930′s were 1) bank collapses spread and by cutting off credit to businesses can collapse the overall economy; 2) the economy can get into a self- reinforcing downward spiral; and 3) financial markets gravitate toward speculative bubbles because of the short term competition for rewards. So the solution in the 1930′s was 1) to stabilize the banks through federal government guarantees of deposits; 2) aggressively grow government public works spending to address employment; and 3) separate speculative investment banking from the more mundane business of managing now-guaranteed deposits through the Glass Steagal Act.
This stabilized and broadened the capital markets exponentially because there trust in the system and has provided the foundation for the financing of
businesses, public infrastructure and technological innovation. Repeal of Glass Steagal has had the opposite effect.
And the Republicans want to go even further down this road. Unfortunately, they have popularized the notion that these regulations are the cause of the Current economic problems. And they are hoping the least informed are angry enough with their circumstances to support them politically.
It really is simply appalling.
Hi Mary,
JTO was off by 1%. He was refering to the Long Term Capital Gains Tax, the maximum for which was/is 15% 2010-2012 whether you have $50 in CG or $5 million. Furthermore, if your ordinary income tax bracket was/is 15% or less, your CG Tax is 0%*, again, no matter how much you profit you make.
Thus if a wealthy investor is married, father of two kids, and the sole proprietor of a business that netted $25,000 income in 2011, his “income tax bracket” would be 0% since exemptions and deductions would more than cancel out the $25k in income from his business. If he also sold some Apple stock he’d inherited from his dad a few years ago at a profit of $5 million, he would owe $0.00 in Federal Income taxes for 2011. THAT IS ZERO TAXES = 0% TAX RATE.
A very legitimate question is, “How does letting this guy make $5 million tax-free add jobs to the economy?” I can see how letting a BUSINESS make $5 million tax free MIGHT generate more jobs IF the executives plowed the $5 million back into the business instead of paying themselves $5 million in year-end bonuses, but a solitary individual???
*http://www.backtaxeshelp.com/tax-blog/filing-taxes/capital-gains-rates.html
“And a very large portion of the private sector jobs lost have been recovered.”
What planet are you on? You’re just as out of touch as Obama. Don’t let the fact get in the way of your rhetoric!
I was referring to Mitt Romney who paid 14% income tax last year after deducting a massive contribution to the Mormon Church reducing his 15% capital gains tax on his total income which he did no work to earn last year.
LD yes most of the private sector jobs lost have been recovered – the gap is public sector layoffs, unrecovered private sector jobs, and new entries into the work force which make up the current unemployed. These statistics have been broadly publicized through the media.
Dianne, That is another false fair tale. Jto is a liar and you are a story teller. 10% of the population pays 80% of the taxes and 50% of the population doesn’t pay anything but gets a rebate called an earned income tax credit. In your brainwashed extreme left world you have been programmed to believe the rich don’t pay and it is the little guy but you are far to gone to understand the truth. The days of tax and spend are over, our debt it to the crisis point. You are the same group trying to inform the people of Woodstock on prop 46? You stand no chance with your extreme left propaganda and commie fables.
These long term cap gains rates are parts of the Bush tax cuts package, initiated in 2005, expanded and extended in 2008, and extended again in 2012. They are currently set to phase out in TY 2013.
On the surface of it, they sound reasonable: “let the family who had very low income keep all of their asset-class gains”. In reality, it’s “let the rich guy who doesn’t have to work (and therefore no employment income) keep all of his investment profits”.
I’m not actually opposed to that. These investments were made with post-tax money in the first place, and it irks me to imagine the thought process behind “we shall be entitled to a portion of all good financial developments, even when we’ve already garnished a portion of the root-stock from which those gains occurred (and by the way we remain protected from all bad *personal* financial losses)”.
But the truth is, that LTCG Bush “tax cut” was sold as a reduction in taxes on the low-income. This is purposefully precise language meant to exploit the common confusion that ordinary people have, believing that “low-income” means “poor”.
Regarding private sector jobs, and the Republican ideal of private-public balance in general:
Private sector employment is back up to about where it was in 2009 when Obama took office, but it’s UP about 4 million jobs since early 2010 at the low point.
Public sector employment today is DOWN about 600k jobs since 2009, and DOWN about 1 million since the peak in early 2010.
You can argue about the right ratio of public:private employees, about the data modeling processes, about the birth-death calculations, about underemployment and withdrawal from the workforce, BUT:
If we’re being fair to everyone, based on the data we have and everyone uses, employment in the private sector is moving in the right direction (“doing fine”), and public sector employment is decreasing (which Obama considers “the wrong direction”, but Republicans should consider a great success).
(Source for all data: St Louis Fed, http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/ )
And for those who willfully take the “private sector is doing just fine” soundbite out of context:
Here’s what Obama really said, full quote:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jun/08/context-private-sector-doing-fine/
Under Obama, the unemployment rate has remained above 8% for a record 40 straight months. Over 23 million people in this country are either out of work, underemployed or just plain gave up looking for work.
Since limpdumb like to quote the Washington Post all the time, I think I’ll do the same:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-remarks-on-worst-job-growth-did-he-end-it-or-should-he-own-it/2012/05/18/gIQAkDKCZU_blog.html
“Obama comes in either last, second-to-last or in the bottom half among presidents since the Great Depression, depending on which way you look at the numbers.
The president said that policies from 2000 through 2008 produced the “most sluggish job growth we’ve ever seen.” Perhaps so, but the worst numbers on record occurred under his watch.”
I remember ole cue ball head James Carville saying in 1992 “It’s the economy STUPID” so for justhisidiot, limpdumb and the rest of you liberals “Its the economy STUPID” which is why Obama is going to lose. He’ll lose so badly that he might not even carry Connecticut.
Loadstar,
As a significant and patronizing aside – I want to express just how refreshing it is to witness the abject failure of the worst of your tactics. You know the accusations: ad hominem, inappropriate personal attacks, personal insults and childish name-calling.
You’ve been given undeserved 2nd, 3rd, 7th chances by many here – yet the bad behavior continues and the good news for us all is that when you indulge yourself in that puerile silliness, for the most part it is simply ignored. When you continually lash out with utter disrespect and insults, you simply receive no respect in return and such an oh-so predictable (weak) tactic is appropriately marginalized, ignored and ultimately defeated outright.
In fact, you’re often treated generously whenever your comments containing name-calling, etc. are parsed out such that the insults, etc. are ignored, while any substantive arguments On The Merits do receive response. You’re game is up, old sport, and though I’ve no hope you’ll ever truly ‘get it’, the collective reception and treatment of your abuse, insults, disrespect and name-calling is and has been effective in simply defeating these childish tactics (while your reasonable comments are rewarded with engaged response).
It’s also apparent that you’ve recognized this – that any responses you do receive are largely with regard to actual arguments you make, as opposed to anyone just ‘taking the bait’ when you call them an idiot or the like (such inane comments have become so typical and predictable most of us could write half of them for you).
Ultimately, your vitriol is impotent and, especially lately, proven a flat-out failed tactic.
I’m glad to point this out to you (again) and condescend to educate you, again, that you cannot reasonably expect to be taken seriously or be afforded any respect when you persist in making it personal and make your No. 1 priority to try (try, but continually fail) to hurt your opponent as opposed to making valid, reasoned argument On The Merits. Adults behave like Adults at The Cafe’ – join them because you cannot beat them.
Have a nice day and Thank You, old sport.
I know. This is a cheap way to blog. Sent the first response from a friend posted in this run to a colleague with an opposite view on things. So, here’s his response.
“”… dismantling Glass-Stegall Act’s separation of types of banking functions was a really bad idea, and unless we create a new version of it, we are in for more trouble.”
I agree completely. The underlying problem is that bank deposits are currently protected by FDIC.
As a result, the depositors don’t pay much attention to what the banks do with the money, giving the bankers a free hand to gamble as they wish;
if they win they become rich, and if they lose the government (taxpayers) bail them out. It wasn’t always that way. Jim Grant, a very smart guy
with his own newsletter, recounts the story of a bank in San Francisco during the 1840′s. There was no FDIC, and if the bank failed, the owners
were personally on the hook for every penny of debt. As a consequence, the bank in question carried a 25% capital cushion (currently we think 8% is OK).
When property prices shot up during the gold rush in 1849, the bank took out an ad in the paper stating that property was in a bubble due to the gold rush,
and they would no longer write ANY mortgages for new purchases based on the current valuations. Imagine that happening today! But back to the present.
We need to not allow banks to gamble with taxpayers money, which is what Glass-Stegall was about, and which we need to return to. Hasn’t happened yet.
1. 1% share of GDP is grotesquely large. So what? It’s the natural result of a richer world, in which everyone on average has more money. Are there still
problems with fairness for the other 99%? Yes, but generating instant billionaires like the founder of Facebook is a side effect, not a problem. A lot of
political discussion revolves around the ‘fairness’ of some people making more than others, but the real issue is why do we still have poor hungry people.
If we continue to grow world wealth eventually we can reduce the poor hungry people count. If someone becomes a trillionaire in the process, so be it.
2. ‘these guys’ is somewhat vague. Some billionaires have had a positive effect on the world, and Warren Buffett is an example of a financial guy doing
well for himself and the world. There are a lot of bankers however, who fit the description of parasite.
3. ‘new financial instruments that generate no jobs’ is too broad a description. The futures market, for example, allows a farmer growing corn to lock in
a price today, so that he can know how much he will make before he plants, and not be stuck with a horrific loss if the prices drop during harvest season.
I would say that futures are useful even though it is possible to speculate on the future price of corn and not grow any of it. Most of the people who made
the news with large gambles on interest rates or credit defaults, for example, are offset by hundreds of others who made similar speculations but were
wrong in either their direction or timing. People speculating and making or losing money has been with us for a long time, and isn’t a problem
AS LONG AS THEY ARE RISKING THEIR OWN MONEY. The problems start when banks do this risking depositor’s capital.
4. “They did it irresponsibly and brought down the economy.” Well they at least endangered the economy. But again, if they hadn’t been able to do this
with money backed by taxpayers, this wouldn’t have been a problem. You can’t get enough scale without a government guarantee behind you.
5. There isn’t anyone to punish. Well maybe legislators and regulators, but they never get punished. There was certainly some fraud in the sub-prime
mortgage market, there always is in any ‘hot’ market, but the underlying problem is the ability of financial institutions to take risks and not be responsible
financially for the results. Since the current regulations allow this, acting irresponsibly isn’t a crime that someone can be punished for. Note I’m not saying
that bankers don’t deserve to be punished for being irresponsible, but by the current regulatory system there isn’t any letter of the law to use against them.
The bank in San Francisco followed a much different path because of the banker’s personal liability. I don’t want to go back to
no FDIC, but in exchange for that support banks cannot be allowed to invest their capital in anything but conservative strategies. Figuring out what the
‘conservative strategies’ are is the next big challenge.”
Loadstar, stop transforming peoples’ names into moronic attacks. It makes you look like a five year old. Just stop. Admin, moderate.
Quoting Op-Ed analysis is not the same as quoting truth. Also, the article you reference doesn’t draw the conclusions that you do.
No one thinks the current numbers are good, or even acceptable. You’ve said nothing except that “the numbers are bad” and “my dad can beat up your dad” and “nanny nanny poo poo”. We agree with the first, and find the rest of it boorish.
Don’t feed the troll, you more reasonable people say? I agree, except that the troll gets fed every time a comment like this gets approved by the moderator. What kind of place do you want to run?
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show private sector employment declined from a peak of 116.6 million June 2007 to a low of 104.9 million January 2010, or 11.7 million jobs lost. Since then, private employment has increased steadily to a current high of 111.3 million, or 6.4 million jobs more than the bottom, representing a gain of 55% of the 11.7 million jobs lost. Thus, the statement that most private sector jobs lost have been recovered.
Now let’s play a little macroeconomics.
Public sector job losses totaled 2.3 million jobs peak-to-trough, and construction jobs declined 3.0 million additional jobs. So if the Federal government borrowed the money, at essentially at zero interest rates, so essentially cost free, they could restore say half the public sector and construction jobs, that would be an additional 3.1 million jobs, which would increase the recovery rate from 6.4 to 9.5 million jobs, or +/- 85% of lost private sector jobs, thus avoiding having a collapse of the financial system from turning into a depression.
And that is why Obama continues to support a large infrastructure bill to target the construction industry where job losses were concentrated; and John Boehner right now is delaying a vote on the transportation bill. And Mitt Romney is actually campaigning against rehiring lost teacher, police and
firefighting jobs.
Stupefying.
ML – you got it – this was never controversial for the reasons described. We don’t need a witch hunt among the wealthy or professional investors. But when there are systematic abuses that have had consequences for the country as a whole, we need to fix the structure of the system. In particular, we need to:
1. Outlaw derivatives that have no value added for the economy, and legitimize the rest through a clearinghouse as with the Chicago Board of Trade and as proposed under Dodd Frank.
2. Disallow investment banks from picking their rating agencies for bond offerings.
3. Break up the banks under existing antitrust laws.
4. Go back to a strict split between banking and investment banking; I.e., just restore Glass Steagal.
5. Aggressively prosecute securities fraud – treat this problem like the economic equivalent of 9/11 and get some of these people in jail.
6. Ban senior executives from the industry who created this mess – they did it in the S&L industry.
Until the decision makers pay a price personally – take every nickel they have and jail for some – the corporate fines are a joke – this will happen again – just as soon as they can get their man Mitt into the oval office. And we will pay the price.
4.
Awwwww, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA… Watch Andrew and Con cry like babies. Con, you are the worst of the worst here with your personal attacks and downright nastiness and YOU have the nerve to bitch about me? Now THAT is just too funny! You’re pathetic and no one with any brains takes you seriously.
And Andrew stop crying and whining like a spoiled little baby boy, how old are you, three or four? The FACT is no president has ever been reelected when the unemployment rate is this high and Obama will lose. You have to admit when the liberal Washington Post writes opinion pieces like this, it’s awfully bad for Obama and the Democrats, isn’t it?
I bet you cry and throw temper tantrums when you lose games, don’t you? With the way you’re behaving here, I’m sure I’m correct.
Justthisonce, I agree with 1-4, but I think 5 and 6 are impossible because I don’t think laws were broken. Focusing on not letting it happen again (the same way) would constitute reasonable government response, to me.
Obama has done nothing so far, which disappoints me. It’s pretty clear that Romney would not even consider doing anything.
To the adults here: I’ll ignore the hostile troll, but I don’t enjoy spending time in Admin’s living room after he shows up.
mary mapes,
Once again you are Parrotting the simplest propaganda found on AM Talk Radio and with zero back up for your incorrect assertions about who pays what in taxes – I’m sure you cannot prove your statement.
We’ve been hearing the Fairy Tale almost verbatim – do you not have original thoughts? “10% of the population pays 80% of the taxes and 50% of the population doesn’t pay anything”.
Have you heard of: Payroll Tax?
Sales Tax?
Property Tax (passed through to Renters)?
etc., etc.
IF you add ALL Taxes paid by your love-to-criticize the poor for being poor, no single group pays MORE as a percentage of their overall income. That is the Fact and is easily proven by merely adding literally ALL Taxes paid by a poor Family.
SO, marymapes, rather than ‘pay no taxes’, try the truth (or prove otherwise and show us all the actual math) – NO Single Group pays more in taxes as a percentage of their overall income than the poor. Can you satisfy the double-edged curiosity? WHY do you dislike and blame the poor so much? And WHY do you think it’s your job to protect, shield and revere the wealthy? ALL are American Citizens and deserve equal footing and respect. The poor have no identifiable negative traits nor do the wealthy – so why your clear prejudice?
Which group suffers more from the paying of taxes – the family which still has over $100,000 of honest, hard-earned and deserved wages/’disposable income’ left AFTER paying all taxes OR the family which started off with under $20,000 in total wages BEFORE all taxes mentioned above?
Please explain, Andrew.
Load –
If you had eyes to see it, my comment was also a veiled invitation for you to Join in the larger conversation in a civil manner instead of remaining on the margins, not taken seriously because of the insults.
You have to admit, for the most part, discussion lately has been civil – and the civil discussion of actual Issues, Policies, Ideas, etc. is far more interesting than the boring, predictable and tedious comments about who is a liar, idiot, moron and insulting variables on a persons name. It would be good for the discussion for you to join in on civil terms – please consider it.
Admin, sorry for being unclear.
There’s a school of thought that you shouldn’t write anything in blog comments that you wouldn’t say if invited into the blog owner’s living room for a conversation.
When the comments get hostile and personal, I don’t enjoy being in your metaphoric living room.
But it’s your living room, and my choice to visit.
Okay. Understood, Andrew. As you said, ignore Loadstar if you don’t want to know his opinion. The evidence suggests that he’s from Chaplin, has long-standing membership on the Republican CT Central Committee, has a long-standing record of this kind of behavior, and he is Rep. Albert’s campaign manager or treasurer. Three out of four of these qualify him for the Cafe whether others like it or not. I think his contrary opinions can serve as a reminder that we may not be always right.
Andrew I think I address #5-#6 in my response to ML’s article above. the Fed and FDIC can ban anyone from banking in the U.S. If they have a basis for it- this is a position of public trust with fiduciary obligations. There were thousands of such bans issued in the S&L crisis in the early 1990′s. Much of the reason for this was the time, staff and cost of prosecution against the public goal of cleaning up the system and getting it going again Again, the feds lost their leverage after the unconditional bailouts.
I don’t think anyone has a problem with Loadstar’s contrary opinion. What people have a problem with is his way of expressing it. As I’ve said here before, the constant name-calling and insults should not be any part of an adult conversation. I would never even allow my students to behave in such a way.
I believe it is possible to disagree without calling them “limpdumb”, “idiot”, “a spoiled baby boy”, “pathetic”…. These are just examples from THIS thread. Also, to be fair, I hate when people throw back names like “loadinyourpants”. It’s difficult to find a thread on here where someone did not resort to name-calling.
I’ve had many discussions on here with people, and have not always agreed with them. However, I’ve never resorted to name-calling. I agree with Andrew. I enjoy it here far less when the name calling and personal attacks start. I find it disgraceful. I feel this blog could still be successful and contain some meaningful discussions even if you censored out the childish behavior. However, it’s your show…
He denies being most of those things. I don’t care who he is or where he’s from.
But it has nothing to do with his qualifications. Nor does it have anything to do with his opinions. Opinions are interesting. Do you really believe anyone has an objection to his opinions?
I respect your inclusive attitude. I don’t understand why you let people defecate on your couch, but hey, whatever works for you. This is not a community resource, it’s yours. You are not obligated to carry his words, or mine.
And it’s worth stressing that this has nothing to do with Loadstar unless he is in fact the only person who requires this level of begrudging tolerance.
Regardless, enjoy, godspeed, etc. I promise I will never mention it again.
RE: Loadstar’s behavior – Pls re-read my comment directed at Loadstar, above – trying to suggest what has proven most effective against his insulting, disrespecting, name-calling etc.: Ignore it, marginalize it, treat it as it should be treated (as childish garbage deserving of zero response) AND to basically negatively reinforce / positively reinforce as though potty-training an infant. Bad behavior gets exactly what it deserves in civil blog. No one else here insults so constantly and with such petulant disrespect.
That utter BS behavior deserves to be called out as inappropriate and the message sent: Keep it up and you will be more and more marginalized and IGNORED (he cannot stand being ignored, believe me).
None of these ideas are new or original, but they are effective.
If posts are supposed to be anonymous, then there’s no reason to try to guess wo Loadstar is. In fact, I’m not interested in who he is, what he does, where he works, or what his political affiliation is. If he wants to share it fin, if not, then that’s the end of it. If he wishes to say who he is and what he does, fine, If not, it’s not fair to drop hints, guess, or insinuate who he may be. This is an anonymous blog or it’s not.
I still think he’s a troll, but I don;t understand why John is trying to identify him.
JK, Posts are not “supposed” to be anonymous. Furthermore, if someone chooses to use a pseudonym for scurrilous attacks, hiding their identity is not a sacred requirement. Here at the Cafe we have had another example when we flushed out Webpolice who tried to mask his IP but failed. Theron Parlin and I caught him while he was threatening the BOE, school administrators, me and Theron. The whole thing was wrapped up with a phone call. Search Webpolice to find that story.
mary mapes,
Any response to the above flat-out refutation of your own fairy tale propaganda regarding WHO pays what amount of taxes in America?
Please do supply adequate authority, back-up and detailed, specific Support of your naked assertions (otherwise they are far less meaningful and easily dismissed as mere propaganda).
Loadstar,
Because you seem to give Obama (and Fed Gov’t) so much credit for the Economy and Jobs situation, please tell us:
IS Obama also to blame for all the Economic and Jobs problems in Europe? Did he cause that high unemployment in Spain, Greece, et al? Do you consider that there are larger forces at work and that no single person can so easily and simply be Blamed for so many problems in the World?
By your simplistic ‘Blame Game’ logic it’s difficult to tell how you could possibly explain matters.
any bloviating by left wing extremists does not change the fact that just this once said the rich are in the 14% income tax bracket and that is a pure lie and the fairy tale by his defender is just that, a fairy tale. Attacking those who point out commie propaganda to hate the rich is typical of your programmers from media matters, msnbc, huffington post ect. We can expect much more attack on the truth from you left wing extremists, especially next week when the Supreme Court shoots down Obamacare and when you lose big in Nov election.
mary mapes,
Of all here, you seem by far to be the person most “programmed by propaganda” and your silly, almost laughable hyperbole is so vague as to be next to meaningless. IF you could simply manage actual arguments containing detail, fact, specifics, back-up and support then you may be at a starting point.
As it stands, your comments sound like those of a mere one-dimensional caricature who can barely articulate hyper-broad, generalized platitudes, cliche’s and pre-packaged hyperbole that’s already been repeated over and over and over and over (sounding as specific and original as someone on a soapbox screaming “Sinners must repent or face dire consequences from their evil ways and sinful lives!”). It’s embarrassing.
Honestly, WHAT are you truly saying? Justthisonce referenced a SPECIFIC circumstance regarding a SPECIFIC tax bracket associated with a SPECIFIC form/source of income within a SPECIFIC context – and, YES, it was a blended rate of 14% – a Fact already vetted, proven, illustrated, laid out in minute detail in the press, including FOX and numerous right wing blogs, etc. It IS true, you know, that certain specific incomes absolutely ARE taxed at specific rates depending on the actual tax rules and the actual nature/source of that income. You see, this is America and that’s how it works here.
Please, mary -make an effort! Do some homework because it’s actually painful to read so many of your comments in which you really embarrass yourself over and over. Why constantly repeat verbatim the hyperbole and propaganda you’ve been told to repeat?
If you can, please explain with honesty, specificity and in detail just exactly how it is a “fairy tale”? You have so very much to learn and, wow, your listening skills just seem non-existent. Now WHO, do you address with the recess-yard type “you left wing extremists” and why, exactly?
You’ve been proven so very incorrect so many times here, mary, and you really need some new material if you ever expect your comments to be taken seriously in any way. Are you sure that you’re not a ‘pretender’ or some ‘infiltrator’? Anyway, I’ll sure be looking forward to a better effort next time (please, mary?). ‘fairy tale’ indeed – a fact that Mitt R. himself would verify…
Wow, Mary.
He didn’t actually say that.
I quote:
“It is sickening someone running for president would make these statements, while insisting his investor friends must keep their 14% income tax rates lest they go on strike from their careers as “job creators”.”
A wealthy person with no W-2 or 1099 income but lots of investment income will pay 0% in Federal taxes this year. And last year, and the year before.
Romney paid 14% last year. Justthisonce was assuming that Romney’s “investor friends” would have a similar tax profile. Valid assumption or not, *that’s* what he said.
I thought Romney’s income tax rate was publicized a couple of weeks ago throughout the national media. Maybe Fox, Limbaugh and the John Birch News missed the story?
John:
I’m not sure I can agree. Perhaps I missed something, but comparing Loadstar to someone making threats is a stretch.
Someone reading through posts at the Café would be likely to figure that anonymous posting is accepted. There’s nothing mentioned here
http://www.woodstockctcafe.com/2009/03/15/draft-of-cafe-guidelines/#comments
about being identified by the admin if your wear on his nerves.
Again, I’m more than wiling to accept that I’ve missed something, but leaking out personal info on posters is not something I support.
They say crow is better served warm. I don’t know. It still tastes pretty bad. I have to retract my statement about someone paying zero taxes on $5 million in LTCG.
In #8 above, I stated that a guy in the 0% tax bracket who had $5 million in LTCG would pay no taxes and then referenced a chart at http://www.backtaxeshelp.com/tax-blog/filing-taxes/capital-gains-rates.html to support my assertation. I’ve gone back and looked at the chart and if I misread it, I would appreciate anyone in the Café pointing out how I did that. Assuming I’ve read their chart correctly, they (backtaxeshelp.com) lied. BTW, it appears that Andrew may have been misled about the “no taxes” thing too when he stated in #12 that the Bush tax cuts “let the rich guy who doesn’t have to work (and therefore no employment income) keep all of his investment profits”.
So when Mary called me a “story teller” from the “extreme left”, I decided to prove her wrong in the simplest of ways. Fill out a 1040 as if I were my hypothetical man. Well, it turns out the guy’s 2011 taxes would be more like $737k than zero. In other words, my hypothetical man would have paid about 14.7% on his $5,025,000 income. Given that I am as capable as any of making a mistake, try doing the exercise yourself. Assume $5 million in LTCG and $25,000 net Sched C income and nothing else. Fill out the guy’s 2011 1040 through Line 43 and then use the CG worksheet on page 37.
Con said that Mary was just parroting rightwing propaganda (#23) but I note that he did NOT call her a LIAR. He knows she thinks that crap is true so while she is wrong, she is not a liar.
Mary, take a page from Con’s book. There is a difference between saying something you believe is true when it is really false and KNOWINGLY telling a lie. Don’t call people liars when you can reasonably conclude that they are simply mistaken. Instead, take the time to research the source of their statements and gently prove them wrong. If they are intellectually honest, they WILL change their minds IF you can show them where they went wrong (see the first line in this post). On the other hand, if all you do is call them insulting names, where is their incentive to change or seek out the truth? Furthermore, when you said, “The rich pay 35% income tax”, you were mistaken; 35% is just the highest income tax bracket. This percent is applied to EARNED income over $349,150 for most taxpayers. However, “the rich” don’t usually get their hands dirty EARNING money and they also don’t make the big money on Dividends, which are also taxed as earned income, the so-called “tax on already taxed income”. Where they make the big bucks is in CG.
So unless a rich person is either incredibly stupid or his accountant couldn’t find a loop hole if it hung him from a yardarm, “the rich” are going to pay taxes at a rate well below that of the average working stiff. More in dollars, yes. But as a percentage of the money they take home, no. I’m not making a value judgment here, just a statement of fact. A couple, Married filing jointly, with $78 THOUSAND in taxable income would pay more than 15% of their taxable income to the IRS, a higher rate than my hypothetical $5 MILLION man.
Again, play with a 1040 and see for yourself what percentages CG income generates vs the same number of dollars of earned income.
Con, Andrew, and Dianne are simply dopes. Just this once claims that Romney is protecting his buddies 14% tax bracket. Great attack but try thinking. You can go to irs.gov and research what the tax brackets are instead of attacking without thinking. You will find that the rich pay 35%. Just this once tried to pass on the Buffet propaganda thing that he pays a lower rate then his secretary which is just a fraud conceived by extreme leftists. By the way your Buffet owes over a billion in overdue taxes. That is the problem of the left, they have prejudiced opinions on everything and very little facts( do we have to revisit the Travon Martin thing again?)You believe a certain way and you try to put little pieces of evidence together to support your prejudices. Kind of like reasoning with 9/11 truthers; every piece of fact provided becomes a new conspiracy. I know it is worthless to try because you extreme leftists are way too brainwashed to try to put a fact in front of, but when i see your blatant lies, i will still correct them.
JK, This information had already been posted by someone else about a month ago during the high point in Loadstars bad behavior. He’s been more agreeable ever since.
Again, Romney’s INVESTOR friends pay 15% taxes on their capital gains income, less various deductions. Thus Romney paid 14% on his income last year. Again, this was reported by Romney himself to the national media.
What is Loadstar talking about?
Mary, that’s incorrect.
Romney released his tax returns for TY2010, and he paid 14%[1] on his income. The “rich” do not pay 35%, but the “high-ordinary-income” do. “Rich” and “High-ordinary-income” are overlapping groups, but they are not the same.
There are many types of NON-ordinary income, but profits on investments are one of the largest. If the assets are held for more than one year, these profits are NOT taxed at ordinary income rates.
Romney paid 14% of his income (ordinary + investment) in taxes, there is ZERO dispute about that fact. He is rich. 14% is not 35%. Anyone (e.g. “his friends”, colloquially meaning “people like him”) with a similar tax profile (most income from investments, sizeable gifts to a church of their choice) will pay the same 14%, sometimes less. This is neither illegal nor disputable.
[1] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/24/tax-returns-show-romney-is-worth-millions-paid-3-million-in-taxes/
I picked Fox specifically so there’d be no argument about liberal bias, but feel free to Google[2] for yourself
[2] http://www.google.com/
You are entitled to your own opinions not your own facts. Capital gains, sales tax are different then income tax. There are hundreds of sources that explain who pays taxes and who doesn’t and what shares. Trying to compare capital gains with income tax is a slick trick by the left to try to confuse the uninformed. http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/do-the-rich-pay-their-fair-share-in-taxes/claim-that-rich-dont-pay-enough-based-on-perception-not-fact
Diane,
I was surprised by the chart you posted and did additional research[1], coming up with the same results as you did.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States
and others
The charts here (and elsewhere) support your assertion, because the first column is labeled “ordinary income tax rate”. Therefore, if your income is below the 25% bracket, your LTCG rate should be 0%.
And in fact a quote in the text says it explicitly: “In 2008–2012, the tax rate on qualified dividends and long term capital gains is 0% for those in the 10% and 15% income tax brackets.”
Backtaxeshelp[2] contradicts itself in the following quote, but corroborates what I found in a couple other places: “The special long-term capital gains rate is determined by the ordinary income tax bracket under which you fall. Tax rates for filers in the 10% or 15% tax brackets (including capital gain income) would be 0%.”
Contradicts because “ordinary income tax bracket” is not the same as “tax brackets (including capital gain income)”.
But corroborates other sources because I believe the last sentence in the above quote is correct: Your LTCG rate is not determined by your ordinary income bracket, but by the bracket you WOULD be in if your ordinary income and your capital gains were combined.
[2] http://www.backtaxeshelp.com/tax-blog/filing-taxes/capital-gains-rates.html
The distinction between “ordinary” and “capital gains” income is quite clear. Many people on the interweb get it wrong, though.
None of this supports Mary’s position that LTCG are taxed at ordinary income rates, obviously.
But I apologize for my errors above. I was surprised by that chart, and ran with my comment after incomplete research. Thank you for your correction. It doesn’t change the thrust of the argument (including the Buffett secretary stuff), but it does change the numbers and magnitude!
Someone should tell Wikipedia, and several others (possibly sourced from Wikipedia, re-emphasizing *that* old concern..!).
I’m not sure where I personally stand on progressive taxation, and I’m mostly in favor of a low capital gains tax rate. I still take issue with the way the Bush tax cuts were sold to the public.
Mary dear – People who have Earned Income greater than $379,150/year pay 35% on the excess over $379,150. That is not the same as “the rich pay 35%”. However, since most of “the rich” do not work, the bulk of their income is NOT “Earned” but rather “Capital Gains”. The maximum rate on Short Term CG is 28% and 15% on Long Term CG.
With respect to Earned Income, there four tax categories (Single, Married filing jointly, Married filing separately and Head of a household). Also, the 2011 Tax Table (1040 Instructions starting on page 74 for the first $99,999) is on a sliding scale from a low of 0.00% on the first $4 up to 21.6% ($21,610) on $99,999 for those filing “Single”. After the first $99,999, you use the “Tax Computation Worksheet” to figure your income tax. At $100,000 the “Single” tax rate is still 21.6% but this percent slowly rises till at $379,150 you pay just over 29% of your taxable EARNED income to the IRS. If you look at the table and do the math, you will see that even a person EARNING $2.270 BILLION/year still pays less than 35%, albeit, damn close at 34.999%. But using something a bit more realistic, say $1 million/year, the tax rate is 32.7%.
However, as I noted earlier, “the rich”, as you call them, don’t EARN their income. “The rich” already HAVE money so they do not have to WORK for a living. Instead, their INVESTMENTS make money and most of that money comes from selling stock during the year. If a “rich” person who lives off his/her stocks this way makes a profit on the sales, s/he will never pay more than 28% in taxes if ALL the CG is Short Term, or 15% if ALL the CG is Long Term.
So although the highest income tax bracket is 35%, that number applies ONLY to EARNED income and since really rich folks don’t work, they don’t pay income tax at that rate.
The rich don’t earn their income? Another extreme left talking point. Funny with all the rich avoiding their fair share of paying, how is it that the top 25% pay more then 87% of all taxes? The only rich people I am aware of recently avoiding paying their fair shar was John kerry registering his boat in R.I., Geitner, by cheating and claiming it was a turbo tax era and Warren Buffet by still owing over a billion from 2010. Quite simply the real data does not reflect what your propaganda says. I do understand explaining real data to you is fruitless and that you want to believe your own lies as facts and nothing I can provide will change your brainwashing. The plus is your bad sales job is not working, take Wisconsin as an example of what informed people do in the privacy of their own election booth. You have a tough year coming and you may as well understand that the Tea party was no fluke and is making a difference across the country. Your handlers won’t tell you this, but look at the real data on what is happening. Corrupt Connecticut is safe in communist hands for now, but your power grab attempt on Woodstock simply will never develop. Your smug arrogance now mixed in with bitter hatred and prejudice will only insure stronger victories against all progressives. Embarrased by Woodstock, like a Miss town with a klan problem? Stupid rednecks?
Mary, capital gains are income. This is not a trick.
Taxes on both are paid on US f1040, “U.S. Individual Income Tax Return”, and are under the heading “Income” on that form.
Sales tax is a “use tax”, not an “income tax”. It has nothing to do with the question. I’m not sure why you brought it up.
And once again (in response to your pasted link), citing editorial opinion is not the same as citing truth. This is a strange link to paste, since the refutations of the argument, by the same publication, are linked within the same editorial section. But maybe you didn’t read that far.
Regardless, whether it agrees or disagrees, opinion is not truth. You quoted that but don’t seem to understand it. Senator Moynihan doesn’t seem to be your sort of fellow, anyway.
Diane:
You wrote: “The maximum rate on Short Term CG is 28% and 15% on Long Term CG.”
Actually I don’t think that’s correct. I think short term capital gains are treated as ordinary income no matter how large the gains are. So the max STCG would be 35% today, 39.6% in TY2013.
Seems silly to quibble over the details when most dissenters are missing the entire picture, but here we are.
Also, this time I’m reading irs.gov[1] instead of the more digestible but less correct versions elsewhere. Check out what they have to say about LTCG, notably the last sentence:
“The term “net capital gain” means the amount by which your net long-term capital gain for the year is more than the sum of your net short-term capital loss and any long-term capital loss carried over from the previous year. Generally, net capital gain is taxed at rates no higher than 15%. However, for the years 2008 through 2012, some or all net capital gain may be taxed at 0%, if it would otherwise be taxed at lower rates. ”
That last sentence might be where all this confusion comes from. It is correct that a PORTION of your LTCG would be taxed at 0% if you had no ordinary income. The first $67,900 of it (married filing jointly). The remainder of it would be taxed at 15%.
So with no ordinary income, $100,000 of LTCG gets taxed about $4500. If you had earned that same $100,000 you would pay $17,400 in taxes instead.
[1] http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409.html
Do you honestly think that someone like Linda McMahon (Republican Candidate for CT Senate)- who became wealthy from the biggest scam going- collects a paycheck and pays 35% income tax. Hell no. She lives off investment dividends taxed at ~11%! This is why the wealthy are so adamant about preserving the Bush tax cuts and fund their lap dog republicans to fight for them.
Preserve middle class payroll tax cuts? Increase minimum wage? Keep student loan interest rates low? Provide affordable healthcare for the middle class? The Republicans will fight to the end against these initiatives- claiming that we cannot afford them, that we cannot spend more than we can afford.
The Republicans are only austerity hawks when it comes to the middle class investments.
Mary, do look up “earned income” and “unearned income”.
Oh, heck, I’ll do it for you.[1] No one here is inventing terminology.
[1] http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=176508,00.html
Regarding the “top 25% (of earners?) pay 87% (of income taxes?), I haven’t validated your numbers, but I will point out that even in a flat tax environment, this number will grow as the income gap grows. So the point you’re making, if accurate, doesn’t say exactly what you want it to.
But alas, I know I am wasting my time. For Mary, and everyone else, this sums it up fairly concisely:
http://xkcd.com/386/
The top marginal tax rates have fluctuated since 1913. They were 91% in the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations; dropped to +/- 70% in the Johnson and Nixon administrations; dropped to 50% in the Reagan administration; then to 28%-31% in the Bush administration; then increased to 39% in the Clinton administration; then down to 35% in the Bush-2 administration where they have held steady since. These are MARGINAL tax rates so apply only to the class of income over established levels.
I don’t think anyone is demonizing the rich – it’s a matter of insuring everyone pays their fair share of the cost of the government.
What we are seeing now is an outright assault on the government – right down to teachers, cops and firemen. Having underfunding the government for three decades, continually reducing taxes on those most able to pay, and deregulating the financial system to its own detriment, now the Republicans want to use the crisis they created in an outright assault on our system of government itself – right down to the cops, firemen and teachers.
As an aside, the rich pay the lion’s share of taxes because the bottom quartile pays very little as they have very little income, and because . . . you guessed it . . . the rich have by far the largest share of the income!
Con, why do you constantly twist people’s words into something completely different from what they said?
You claim I said this:
“Loadstar,
Because you seem to give Obama (and Fed Gov’t) so much credit for the Economy and Jobs situation”
when I really said this:
“The FACT is no president has ever been reelected when the unemployment rate is this high.”
I simply stated a fact. I’m not giving “Obama….so much credit for the Economy and Jobs situation” when I state a simple fact so don’t claim I did. If anything, I feel sorry for him because the voters will take out their frustrations on him when things are indeed beyond his control, just like they did with George Bush in 1992 “it’s the economy STUPID.”
And you wonder why I lose my patience with you. I’ll bet you see absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with your behavior, do you?
Loadstar:
Actually, you said “The FACT is no president has ever been reelected when the unemployment rate is this high and Obama will lose.”
I’m confused as to why you misquote yourself. Adding the period to imply that your quote is the full quote is oddly deceptive.
Anyway, it’s easy to get spun up in responses to you, because you often do the “the FACT is that the sky is blue and I hate blue shirts” sort of conflation of fact, opinion, conjecture. It’s hard to have a real conversation when it requires a paragraph to explain what part of the discussion you’re replying to. Not hard, exactly, just not worthwhile.
Look what you did there. You took a fairly objective statement (though of course “unemployment rate” is a loaded government term, and measurement is inconsistent over the years, and each recession and election is different, etc) and then tacked on a catcall that asserts your obvious and gleeful desire but has nothing to do with objectivity. The implication is that you consider this a good and worthy result, and no statement is made regarding your opinion of whether the cause is valid, so the assumption is that either you consider it legitimate, or just don’t care as long as anyone-but-Obama profits from it.
It’s a reasonable assumption. Con appears to consider it illegitimate, and is perhaps as enthusiastic about an ends-justify-the-means result in the opposite direction. (Try this: The FACT is that no Mormon candidate has ever been elected and Romney will lose. The FACT is that no one who tortures their dog and laughs about it has ever been elected, and Romney will lose. He might not even carry Mississippi!)
Honestly, I try to tune out whenever someone turns a conversation into a “Rah Rah, my dad can beat up your dad, USA #1″ sort of blather. Even when I agree with them.
And for the record, I’m about as far from the “Left” as you can imagine. I’ve never been accused of that before in my life. It’s kind of fascinating that I find myself in vehement disagreement — here, most often, and for reasons of style or belief — with a couple of people who use that word like an epithet.
Justthisonce: The “cops, firemen, teachers” argument is a snakepit. There are good people in that list, but the organization is as deeply corrupt as any this side of Chicago. Starving it might be the wrong thing to do, but the right thing has been tried too many times with zero success, and *something* has to change.
OK, Loadstar – I stand corrected. I was wrong.
Thanks for pointing that out with such humble civility,… (see Con’s new article. Admin).
SO LOADSTAR,
Back to the Subject:
SO – WHAT is to blame for the state of the American Economy in your opinion?
WHAT is to blame for the state of the European Economy in your opinion?
IS Obama to blame for any of the negative attributes of the American Economy? If so, which ones?
Do any of these same negative attributes of the American Economy exist in the European Economy? If so which ones? If so, WHO or WHAT is to blame for those negative attributes that are present in both the American and European Economies?
Loadstar – PS,
Once again, you have wasted a perfectly good Hissy Fit – this time on an incorrect accusation. I have to point out your mistake in that last comment where you write (about me) “You claim I said this:” because I did not claim you SAID any such thing, I expressed my impression. Read my comment again and you’ll see I’m correct.
There is quite a difference between me claiming you made a specific statement and me giving my impression about what “you seem” to think about a given subject (as preface to the actual question in my comment, BTW). I did NOT claim you wrote anything specific and I certainly didn’t attempt to quote you – my comment is quite clear on that. I’m surprised you got something so simple so wrong, but you did.
Anyway, let me ask you about your other language in that comment – what SEEMS like your need to broaden the (incorrect) accusation into a negative assertion about my overall behavior, which you claim is rampant, as your statement “why do you constantly twist people’s words…” shows – where did that come from? How can you possibly explain that highfaluten statement? I challenge you.
Truly, is there a petition going around about me “constantly” engaging in this practice? Do you have example after example of this egregious behavior? Or are you merely puffing up your comment some more? I’m truly curious why you felt it necessary to add that false and unsupported criticism.
It will be a challenge for you to explain this (or maybe you will dodge my direct, simple questions). It kind of puts your credibility on the line.
Con, that’s your “subject,” not mine.
I pointed out that Obama said the private sector is doing just fine which let’s face it, is a ridiculous statement and in my opinion, that shows he’s “out of touch.”
I also said that it’s a fact that no president has ever been reelected when the unemployment rate is this high which is why I think he’s going to lose.
You then started in with your usual nastiness and personal attacks (which apparently is acceptable for you but NOT for anyone else) then tried to create your own “subject” which I foolishly tried to respond to and now you want to keep going on yet another one of your tangents. I’m not going to play your little game so you just go right ahead and keep talking to yourself.
Loadstar,
As is so predictable with you, when you make a clear mistake and are challenged on it (Comment #60) you pull out the weak defense of yours to hide behind and fail to even have the courage to admit you made a mistake. Unfortunately, you do it so often I expected it.
Of course ‘the subject is mine’ – I see a glaring inconsistency in an argument and explore it. This time it was with regard to Blaming X, Y and Z for America’s Economy while ignoring the Guerrilla in the room which is Europe’s Economy because the Blame Logic falls apart when Europe is added to the mix. Can you follow that?
So let’s call it a ‘double dodge’ on your part – whenever you are challenged with an argument for which you don’t have your usual sophist retort or about which you simply feel a little shaky, you ALWAYS pull out that weak rationalization – it is tantamount to intellectual laziness by the cowardly lion (who is all blustery when bullying, but curls up right quick when faced with a real challenge).
The nice part, though, is everyone get’s to see it all and make their own conclusions and I get to spell it out publicly.
I am curious, though, WHY in the world you would find it so hard to merely say ‘You are right, you did not purport to quote me verbatim and therefore the basis of my comment was incorrect’. A small child can see that by what is already on the record – don’t you know you make yourself seem worse by denying what exists only a few comments back? Grow up, for goodness sake, and stand on your hind legs to make an argument if you continually insist on taking such aggressive stances. Don’t ‘curl tail and run’ simply because someone get’s the better of you through your own fault.
No shame in that until you call attention to it by some blustery excuse about not respond,ding, which lacks credibility all day long and further harms your already damaged reputation: ‘Oh, Loadstar? He’s the one who will argue right up until it gets difficult, but then he quits in fear of losing so it is not worth even starting with him…’
I challenge you again, here in front of Gods & Women, about your silly accusations (using Hyperbole, we all have noticed – see other comment on that). You make these blanket statements about negative behavior by me, but fail to ever back them up in any way – I officially call “BS” on that (in immature terms, that means I win unless & until you can prove each statement in full).
Again, corporate profits are at record highs, corporate balance sheets are cash rich, and bank balance sheets reflect record cash holdings. And most private sector jobs lost have been recovered. So in tha respect the private sector is doing fine.
The problem in the overall economy is a lack of consumer demand which is making banks hesitant to lend, manufacturers hesitant to produce, and difficult for corporations to sell their products. This problem would have been ameliorated if, as Obama keeps suggesting, the government borrowed money at near-zero interest rates, so essentially for free, hired unemployed construction workers who were hit the hardest by the recession (3.0 million unrecovered job losses) to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure, and had not laid off 1.5 million pubIc sector workers which aggravated the unemployment problem and thus the consumer demand problem.
The Republicans solution to all this is to reduce taxes on the wealthy, who have had their taxes reduced steadily the past 50 years; deregulate the financial system further even though past deregulation almost destroyed our economy; and to fire more public sector workers, aggravating the downward spiral of the economy.
And Romney says Obama doesn’t understand the economy. I mean, YIKES!
con, you are absolutely insufferable.
I proved you’re wrong and you keep insisting you’re not. I’m not “dodging” anything as there is nothing to dodge nor did I make any “clear mistake” as you claim. In your typical fashion you are completely irrational.
Obama is out of touch when he said “The private sector is doing just fine.” and no incumbent president was ever reelected with an unemployment rate that is this high which I why I think he is going to lose.
justhisone you said this:
“And most private sector jobs lost have been recovered. So in tha(sic) respect the private sector is doing fine.”
WOW, just WOW! I’ll ask you again, what planet are you on?
No, it is perfectly clear that you and Obamma don’t understand the economy and you’re refusing to accept reality.
That’s okay because just about everyone else knows you’re wrong and will vote for Romney and Obama will lose.
You can keep repeating your outrageous statements all you want in spite of what you think, repeating a lie often does NOT make it the truth.
Are all Republicans as smart as Loadstar?
Loadstar,
Can’t you even keep track of your own comments? I am not talking about your response to what Obama said or didn’t say, I’m talking about your comment claiming that I “misquoted” you, when I did not purport to quote you at all.
You really made quite a big deal out of it all, became indignant and your response made it seem like it was very important to you. Your mistake – where you are wrong – is that I never even tried to quote you so your claim that I MIS-quoted you was WRONG.
Here is what you said:
[BEGIN]
“You claim I said this:
“Loadstar,
Because you seem to give Obama (and Fed Gov’t) so much credit for the Economy and Jobs situation”
when I really said this:
“The FACT is no president has ever been reelected when the unemployment rate is this high.”
[END]
SO – I pointed out that I did NOT “claim” that you said anything in particular. Thus, you were wrong. Incorrect. You made a mistake. Do you finally understand this now? It is pretty simple stuff and I am surprised at how long it’s taken you to even get this far.
I believe it’s mainly because of your highly defensive nature – you just don’t seem capable of admitting when you’re wrong, of examining your own comments or challenging your own assumptions. Are you one of those “Cognitive Conservatives”? How do you explain your defensiveness? How do you explain how long it’s taken for you to grasp that what I am and have been talking about is your incorrect statement about misquoting you?
I have repeated the same thing several times; my previous comments are pretty simple and clear; those comments of mine have already laid out the ‘chain of events’ and made it abundantly clear that I was talking about your claim I misquoted you, but STILL after all that you cling to an unrelated misconception and INSIST that you are not wrong.
Can you possibly explain that?
The unemployment rate in 1976 was 7.7%, and the incumbent Gerald Ford lost. It was 7.1% in 1980 (so people were in fact better off then four years previous) and the incumbent, Jimmy Carter lost. It was 7.5% in 1984 and the incumbent Ronald Reagan won. It was 7.5% in 1992 and the incumbent George Bush lost.
I would conclude from this that the unemployment rate is not a sole indicator of reelection certainty.
Almost forgot. Unemployment was 16.9% in 1936 and 14.5% in 1940 and the incumbent in both cases, Franklin Roosevelt, was reelected both times.
More important, Obama currently leads the polling in all major swing states.
It’s a long time to November. Its going to be a close election. Simple minded,
single factor readings six months in advance are pointless.
Loadstar,
Thank you for your ‘strategic retreat’ (aka, “Loadstar’s Retreat”) when faced with a comment you’re likely unable to overcome.
Once again, Old Sport – why not simply “Join Them”? Get rid of the Anger, Pettiness, Personal Attacks, Insults, using names with insults inserted in them, etc., etc.?
After all, we are all Americans here and you have plenty to say and to offer that doesn’t include that other garbage (which has NO place here at the Cafe’ and which is commented on by most all newcomers who question ADMIN ‘why is Loadstar able to get away with inappropriate comments?’.
Please do consider it.