Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, July 14, 2017

A new analysis by the Tax Policy Center finds that the tax cuts included in the Trump administration's outline for tax reform released in April could cut federal revenues by as much as $7.8 trillion over 10 years, and that the benefits would go almost exclusively to the top 5 percent of earners. The package, the TPC finds, would overwhelmingly help the wealthy. Including the tax hikes, the overall plan would give the average family earning under $25,000 per year a $40 tax cut, or a 0.3 percent boost in after-tax income. The top 0.1 percent, earning above $3.4 million a year, would get an average tax cut of $937,700, or a 13.3 percent boost in after-tax income:

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The most costly elements, according to TPC, are the corporate rate cut ($2.3 trillion over 10 years), the individual rate cuts (also $2 trillion), and the new lower rate for pass-through income ($2 trillion).

Pass-through companies -- owner-operated businesses whose profits are taxed as individual income -- are overwhelmingly owned by rich people, so cutting the top rate on income from them from 39.6 percent under current law to 15 percent under Trump's plan is a huge, regressive, cut.

It would also encourage tax evasion by spurring high-income people to stop earning wages from their employers and instead form pass-through businesses that their employers can pay instead, to take advantage of the new low rate.

Mnuchin and Cohn's outline included a few vague hints at ways to raise revenue. It promised "targeted tax breaks" for individuals and "special interest" breaks for corporations.

It promised to preserve the home mortgage interest and charitable deductions but implied that all other itemized deductions (such as for state and local taxes) were gone.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Sounds fair. Each poor rwing proxy voter gets 40 bucks for their votes, and their Massas get a cool Mil.

Maybe they can get health care they won't have for that 40 bucks, ya think?

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-13 12:03 AM | Reply

Is anyone surprised? Trickle Down won't die.

#2 | Posted by squinch at 2017-07-13 05:39 AM | Reply

#1

We're giving them the freedom, the opportunity to hunt for it high and low, from here to Kingdom Come.

#3 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2017-07-13 06:12 AM | Reply

And I'm sure Fox News is talking about this 24/7. For millions, if the conservative media doesn't talk about it then it isn't happening.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-13 06:51 AM | Reply

Maybe they can get health care they won't have for that 40 bucks, ya think?
#1 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2017-07-13 12:03 AM | FLAG:

Ted Cruz floated a Trumpcare amendment www.forbes.com that would do just that. Of course it would cover nothing and have a huge deductible, but who cares?

#5 | Posted by 726 at 2017-07-13 07:22 AM | Reply

Hey $40 would probably buy you a year's supply of baby aspirin and keep you from having a heart attack. Everyone say thanks to the GOP!

#6 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-13 08:36 AM | Reply

Bernie this morning on Mika and Joe talking about Trump's healthcare and tax cuts plans. Worth a listen:

www.msnbc.com

#7 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-07-13 11:58 AM | Reply

Here's the blurb:

Trump has to be exposed for the fraud he is: Sanders

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT., says Trump's policies are the most destructive in our lifetime, hopes the GOP health care bill can be defeated and says the US is less divided than people think

#8 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-07-13 11:59 AM | Reply

--Bernie this morning on Mika and Joe talking about Trump's healthcare and tax cuts plans. Worth a listen:

Nothing on tv talk, from Morning Joe to late night comedy, is worth a listen. It's all trash that makes the viewers stupid.

#9 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-07-13 12:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I am surprised the hear that the poor are now paying taxes - good for them!

#10 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-07-13 01:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

#10

Good little proxy voter.

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-13 05:18 PM | Reply

I am surprised the hear that the poor are now paying taxes - good for them!
#10 | Posted by MSgt

EVERYONE pays taxes, stop lying.

#12 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-07-13 06:08 PM | Reply

EVERYONE pays taxes, stop lying.

#12 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2017-07-13 06:08 PM | FLAG: Subject concerns Federal Income Tax Reform, so you want to claim that everyone pays Federal Income Tax???

#13 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-07-13 06:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Subject concerns Federal Income Tax Reform"

Why? A federal tax is a federal tax. And the vast majority of workers pay more in Payroll taxes than they ever do in Income taxes.

Besides, no elected (R) calls it "Income Tax Reform". Always "Tax Reform".

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-13 06:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#12 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2017-07-13 06:08 PM | FLAG: Subject concerns Federal Income Tax Reform, so you want to claim that everyone pays Federal Income Tax???
#13 | Posted by MSgt

Who cares? Cause the rich have been able to make most state and local taxes regressive. The ONLY measure is total tax burden. Or what do you think happens when the feds push medicare costs onto the states?

You are a mark, face it.

#15 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-07-13 08:07 PM | Reply

Here's an example even you might understand.

Do you pay tolls on a federal highway? Is that a federal tax?

Arguing over federal income tax is like arguing over taxes on yachts or caviar.

#16 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-07-13 08:09 PM | Reply

Do you pay tolls on a federal highway? Is that a federal tax?

Arguing over federal income tax is like arguing over taxes on yachts or caviar.

Posted by truthhurts at 2017-07-13 08:09 PM | Reply

No because I'm cheap. I'll drive back roads to save the money.

#17 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-07-13 08:11 PM | Reply

Then you pay extra federal gas taxes. The wealthy thank you for your contribution! :)

#18 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-07-13 08:13 PM | Reply

How do you provide a tax cut to people who get more money from the government than they contribute?

Do we call it a tax cut when entitlements are increased?

#19 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-13 10:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Subject concerns Federal Income Tax Reform, so you want to claim that everyone pays Federal Income Tax???"

Progressives will go to battle stations any time someone brings up who foots the bill for the military, the DoT, the FAA, and all the other programs that support 100% of the population, while being funded by roughly half that number.

That last thing you want to have to explain is that the entiled class is not really the 1% who pay the "fair share" of taxes for most of us...it's the bottom 40% or so who are provided with what would be considered an extravagant lifestyle (by most humans) for no other reason than they were born in the vicinity of those who were more successful than themselves.

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-13 10:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#19

No, but we do (and SHOULD) call it an entitlement when taxes are decreased for the rich.

#21 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-07-13 10:31 PM | Reply

"How do you provide a tax cut to people who get more money from the government than they contribute?"

Well, for starters, we elected one of them President.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-13 10:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Progressives will go to battle stations any time someone brings up who foots the bill for the military, the DoT, the FAA, and all the other programs that support 100% of the population, while being funded by roughly half that number.
That last thing you want to have to explain is that the entiled class is not really the 1% who pay the "fair share" of taxes for most of us...it's the bottom 40% or so who are provided with what would be considered an extravagant lifestyle (by most humans) for no other reason than they were born in the vicinity of those who were more successful than themselves.
#20 | Posted by madbomber

this is from an anti-tax website so you might get it

theeconomiccollapseblog.com

If you think the wealthiest pay more than their "fair share" their income than the bottom 40% you are delusional, I consider you a mark.

#23 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-07-13 10:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"That last thing you want to have to explain..."

You don't really have to explain that living in a modern country is generally preferable to living in a not-so-modern one, regardless of circumstance.

But you sure do love explaining it.

You seem to think we owe the rich something.

I'm not sure what. All I did was live in their country. If they don't like it, they can get the hell out.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-13 10:36 PM | Reply

www.motherjones.com

gee look at that chart, seems like the rich are doing quite well WRT taxes

The nation's most regressive tax code belongs to Washington, a state that was ranked by The Hill last year as the bluest in the country based on its voting patterns and Democratic dominance. The poorest 20 percent of Washingtonians pay an effective state tax rate of 16.8 percent, while the wealthiest 1 percent effectively pay just 2.4 percent of their income in taxes.

#25 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-07-13 10:40 PM | Reply

(WA has no state income tax, that's why it's so regressive.)

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-13 10:44 PM | Reply

"That last thing you want to have to explain is that the entiled class is not really the 1% who pay the "fair share" of taxes for most of us...it's the bottom 40% or so who are provided with what would be considered an extravagant lifestyle (by most humans) for no other reason than they were born in the vicinity of those who were more successful than themselves."

OK, so some rich f**k says that and then he gets his ass kicked or else his body guards prevent it but in reality he cannot be safe mingling with the average American. The reason the rich need to understand that the rest of us need to earn decent wages is answered best, yesterday, on Bastille day. The arrogant -------- of their day found out that there was a price to pay, like your head. Keep it up, Koch brothers etc. and you will discover that you can only let your greed go so far before history repeats.

#27 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-13 11:03 PM | Reply

"No, but we do (and SHOULD) call it an entitlement when taxes are decreased for the rich."

What do we call it for those who do get to pay less taxes because the rich are now paying their "fair share"

"If you think the wealthiest pay more than their "fair share" their income than the bottom 40% you are delusional, I consider you a mark."

And I consider you an ideologue who's unwilling to pull your head out of your ass. The poor will pay payroll taxes, which will eventually be returned to them in the form of Medicare or SS. But they will contribute little or nothing to the pot that funds the continuing operation of the federal government. That's really not something that's debatable.

"You don't really have to explain that living in a modern country is generally preferable to living in a not-so-modern one, regardless of circumstance."

If you have economic value, then every country is a modern country. Bill Gates isn't going to live in squalor regardless of where he calls home. The only difference between the US and somewhere like Bangladesh is that in the US the poor get to take money from the rich without having to provide anything in return.


#28 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-13 11:15 PM | Reply

"while being funded by roughly half that number. "

Absolute nonsense. A federal tax is a federal tax is a federal tax. Money taken from payroll taxes paid, and pay, for income tax cuts.

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-13 11:19 PM | Reply

"You seem to think we owe the rich something."

I know I do. Which probably means that you definitely do. Objectively anyways...

...but I'll hazard a guess that you think the rich owe you something right. You allowed them to be rich, after all.

"The poorest 20 percent of Washingtonians pay an effective state tax rate of 16.8 percent, while the wealthiest 1 percent effectively pay just 2.4 percent of their income in taxes."

Which would you rather have? 16.8% of $25,000 K, or 2.4% of $90,000,000,000.

(hint: one is $4,200...one is $2,160,000,000...you get math, right?)

#30 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-13 11:21 PM | Reply

"Absolute nonsense. A federal tax is a federal tax is a federal tax. Money taken from payroll taxes paid, and pay, for income tax cuts."

Initiate defensive maneuvers on my mark...

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-13 11:22 PM | Reply

"The arrogant -------- of their day found out that there was a price to pay, like your head. Keep it up, Koch brothers etc. and you will discover that you can only let your greed go so far before history repeats."

I'll side with the Koch brothers each and every time. This isn't really your thing Danni-I get that-but if you go to places like Ft. Brag, or Ft. Benning or Coronado, or Nellie, or any of these other places where specialized military units congregate...they're not Bernie supporters. They are overwhelmingly Republican. In the AF it tends to be more Libertarian, but the point stands.

These antifa tools are getting smoked by Trump supporters who are by and large as dumb as they are. In what world do you think a bunch of mediocre, passive-aggressive progressives are going to overrun a community dominated by A-types? Not saying it couldn't happen, but it won't be in your lifetime or mine.

By the way, I love how you've once again implied that you're gonna use violence if people don't do what you want them to do.

#32 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-13 11:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"You allowed them to be rich"

Society allowed it, yes.

"Which would you rather have?"

So now it's no longer about rates, but amount? You're nothing if not Gates???

I'm surprised you'd give up the game so easily.

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-13 11:29 PM | Reply

"But they will contribute little or nothing to the pot that funds the continuing operation of the federal government."

You Lie

Buy a pack of cigarettes, you pay federal taxes. Buy a gallon of gas you pay federal taxes, pay a toll you pay federal taxes. Have a phone? Pay federal taxes. Have cable? Pay federal taxes.

you are a proven liar

#34 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-07-13 11:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Which would you rather have? 16.8% of $25,000 K, or 2.4% of $90,000,000,000.
(hint: one is $4,200...one is $2,160,000,000...you get math, right?)
#30 | Posted by madbomber

income not worth liar, not many people have an income of $90Billion

and if everyone did, inflation would sap all the worth anyway

#35 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-07-13 11:46 PM | Reply

Also, state taxes allow for the "continuing operation of the federal government"-ever hear of matching funds?

#36 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-07-13 11:46 PM | Reply

It would be quite a feat if it was $40 for Ultra Rich and $940,000 for everyone else.....

Today I found out my 900sqft home, my parents owned when I went to high school in Cupertino is now worth $1.8Million ....

Really incredible...

(hint: one is $4,200...one is $2,160,000,000...you get math, right?)
#30 | Posted by madbomber

Stop being logical ... we are dealing with emotional midgets.....

You don't really have to explain that living in a modern country is generally preferable to living in a not-so-modern one, regardless of circumstance.

Thats what Chavez said ... how did that turn out ....

#37 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-07-14 12:25 AM | Reply

"You seem to think we owe the rich something."

I know I do. Which probably means that you definitely do

^
What do you owe the rich?

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-14 12:28 AM | Reply

Besides, no elected (R) calls it "Income Tax Reform". Always "Tax Reform".

#14 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

This is what a Literalist would say, when a Federal offical/legislator et al say Tax Reform its not hard to imagine they are talking about IncomeTaxReform .... only a literalist would complain.

#39 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-07-14 12:29 AM | Reply

"If you have economic value, then every country is a modern country."

Okay, let's say I'm in one of your favorites. North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela.

Please describe the features that imbue me with economic value, and provide me with privileges tantamount to those we enjoy here.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-14 12:31 AM | Reply

"The only difference between the US and somewhere like Bangladesh is that in the US the poor get to take money from the rich without having to provide anything in return."

So, which country is better?

The one where the poor get to take money from the rich without having to provide anything in return, or the other one?

Which would you rather live in?

I'm trying to see why the poor taking money from the rich is a bad thing. Wait, is it a bad thing?

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-14 12:33 AM | Reply

I honestly don't think I've ever heard a more compelling argument for redistribution, from a less likely source.

You can live in the US, where it's pretty decent, because poor can get money from the rich.
You can live in Bangladesh, where it's pretty crap, because the poor can't get money from the rich.

Remind the thread which country you prefer, MadB.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-14 12:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I see MB was here preserving his role as a proxy voter for the .01 percent's best interest.

But he'll prolly get more than 40 bucks in tax breaks.... maybe even 100!

While his Massas, who paid to have these tax laws written to their benefit, point and laugh at him.

#43 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 12:56 AM | Reply

- we are dealing with emotional midgets.....

Says Princes Andrea, who is waiting for people to lose their health care and die so she can buy a new sailboat with her tax cuts.

A prime example of a moral and mental midget.

#44 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 01:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

s

#45 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 01:27 AM | Reply

I'll side with the Koch brothers each and every time.

#32 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-07-13 11:29 PM | FLAG: useful idiot

#46 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-14 03:10 AM | Reply

By the way, I love how you've once again implied that you're gonna use violence if people don't do what you want them to do.

#32 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-07-13 11:29 PM | FLAG:

What, does she owe you royalties or something?

#47 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-14 03:11 AM | Reply

"when a Federal offical/legislator et al say Tax Reform its not hard to imagine they are talking about IncomeTaxReform"

IOW, you've been brainwashed into believing Income Taxes are the only federal taxes.

"only a literalist would complain."

Only a mark wouldn't care about the difference.

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-14 08:10 AM | Reply

Nonsense what are the % rate of the tax cuts. Thats the only way to see if its fair.

Are you claiming the upper income gets a higher % rate tax cut? I dont think that s right.

If all brackets were cut at the same tax rate then a person making more would get more money back. Thats fair thats high school math.

You can not compare the dollar amount some one gets back thats not FAIR you must ONLY compare the rates!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stop being ignorant on trying to fool the lower class high school dropouts that dont understand percentage rates.

#49 | Posted by tmaster at 2017-07-14 09:19 AM | Reply

"Nonsense what are the % rate of the tax cuts. Thats the only way to see if its fair."

At the bottom, less than one tenth of one percent. At the top, 13.3 percent.

"Are you claiming the upper income gets a higher % rate tax cut? I dont think that s right."

Well, you're wrong. Now what?

"If all brackets were cut at the same tax rate then a person making more would get more money back. "

Well yeah, if Income Taxes are the only taxes you're talking about.

"You can not compare the dollar amount some one gets back thats not FAIR you must ONLY compare the rates!"

Which I did. And the top folks get their rates cut MUCH more than the bottom folks.

"Stop being ignorant on trying to fool the lower class high school dropouts that dont understand percentage rates."

Take your own advice.

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-14 09:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

This was once known as the horse and sparrow method. If you feed a horse enough oats some of the seeds will pass through and the sparrows can get what they need from the droppings.

Well Most Americans are tired of being told to be happy picking through the ---- of the 1%

#51 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-07-14 10:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"You Lie"

Hmm.

Maybe I should have phrased it differently and stated that the bottom 50% of taxpayers will contribute nothing towards via federal income tax. Except for those entitlement programs that benefit them directly. It's the rich who pay for the programs that benefit the whole of the population.

You're right, that was my mistake...

#52 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 11:01 AM | Reply

"Except for those entitlement programs that benefit them directly"

How many times must it be pointed out the SS overcollections were the basis for your income tax cuts?

"It's the rich who pay for the programs that benefit the whole of the population."

Not as long as politicians use the payroll taxes in return for IOUs.

#53 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-14 11:05 AM | Reply

"So, which country is better?"

For the poor, the US is way better. But for the rich, where's the difference? if you're rich, you're not tethered to any specific country or region.

But I prefer it here, where I have rich people who pay my taxes for me. If it weren't for rich people, I'd be paying far, far more than I currently am. I'd probably have to move to Bangladesh.

#54 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 11:09 AM | Reply

"What do you owe the rich?"

At the very least, a thank you and a sense of appreciation for what they've done for us.

#55 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 11:11 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

It's the rich who pay for the programs that benefit the whole of the population.

Simply
Not
True

where do federal cigarette, gas and alcohol taxes go? Where do tolls from federal highways go? Are the 1% the only ones who pays these?

#56 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-07-14 11:12 AM | Reply

"Well Most Americans are tired of being told to be happy picking through the ---- of the 1%"

Without the 1%, they wouldn't even have that. Who do you think pays the bills in this country. In 2014, the top 1% paid around half the federal income taxes. Imagine what it would do to society if the top 1% stopped paying for the rest of us? Who would pay those bills? because the rich don't get that way in a vacuum, and you could execute each and every member of the top 1%, and it would do ---- all to increase the earning potential of everyone else.

#57 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 11:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Deflector shields to full!

#58 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 11:16 AM | Reply

"At the very least, a thank you and a sense of appreciation for what they've done for us."

Riiight.

"But I prefer it here, where I have rich people who pay my taxes for me. If it weren't for rich people, I'd be paying far, far more than I currently am. I'd probably have to move to Bangladesh."

Probably we'd get a handle on military spending, audit the Pentagon find hundreds of billions of waste.

#59 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-14 11:26 AM | Reply

It's the rich who pay for the programs that benefit the whole of the population.

#52 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-07-14 11:01 AM | REPLY | FLAG

FALSE. The poor pay into SS on every penny they earn while the rich only pay SS on a small % of their income. In addition Lifespan correlates heavily with income. The bottom 20% has a significantly shorter life expectancy than the top 20%. As a result if they do live long enough to collect SS it is for a shorter time and, since it is income based they collect significantly lower monthly payments. They rarely get back 50% of what they contributed. A person in the top 20% however collects much higher payments for much longer and often collect much more than they paid in.

In Addition poor people have to spend their entire income to survive and pay sales tax on every penny they take home AFTER TAXES.

You need to stop pretending that federal income tax is the only tax that matters.

#60 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-07-14 11:36 AM | Reply

"The poor pay into SS on every penny they earn while the rich only pay SS on a small % of their income."

That's true. They also contribute to Medicare via taxes. What they don't contribute to is paying for the military, or the Department of State, or the FAA, or the FDA, or one of the many organizations that keeps this country running.

"You need to stop pretending that federal income tax is the only tax that matters."

What do you mean by "matters?" The bottom 50% of income earners could drop off the face of the planet and it's not going to result in a loss of federal income tax revenue. So in that respect it doesn't matter at all. I was simply pointing out a tax that a segment of the population has explicitly been relieved of paying.

#61 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 11:51 AM | Reply

"What they don't contribute to is paying for the military, or the Department of State, or the FAA, or the FDA, or one of the many organizations that keeps this country running. "

Horse manure. Payroll taxes are currently used to pay for all those things. Other federal taxes are also used as well.

You're either ignorant of the truth, or uninterested in educating yourself. Or both.

#62 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-14 11:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Look liberals,

Madbomber is right. You cant keep switching the argument from apples to oranges, but he is correct in that a lot of poor people don't pay Federal income taxes. They always get a refund.

The top 20% is what keeps this country running.

Where do you think money comes from? It's not from the person who gets a refund.

#63 | Posted by boaz at 2017-07-14 11:58 AM | Reply

"The bottom 50% of income earners could drop off the face of the planet and it's not going to result in a loss of federal income tax revenue."

First, that line itself is a lie.

Second, folks who pay income taxes, but get back EITC, are counted as not paying income tax, even though the EITC is NOT a return of income tax.

Third, since a) the vast majority of workers pay more in payroll taxes over their lifetimes than income taxes, and b) the crappy "return" on SS is a tax in itself, you're clearly talking out your ---.

#64 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-14 11:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" lot of poor people don't pay Federal income taxes. They always get a refund. "

That's because two programs were bundled into one. By the Republicans. But again, EITC isn't a refund of income taxes. IOW, before these were bundled together on an income tax return, those self-same people were counted as PAYING income taxes.

"Where do you think money comes from?"

Well, about a third comes from income taxes, about a third from payroll taxes, and another third from other taxes, like gasoline, excise, ad valorum, etc. Why pretend otherwise?

#65 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-14 12:03 PM | Reply

"I was simply pointing out a tax that a segment of the population has explicitly been relieved of paying."

Then someone should point out the two main reasons for the spike--the increased Child Tax Credit, and bundling the EITC in with the income tax return--were both Republican ideas.

And that's not to say they're bad ideas. Bundling EITC with the income tax return does two good things: it reduces the bureaucracy, and it keeps people in the tax system.

My point being, you don't get to kill your parents, and then complain you're an orphan. If Rs want to bitch that not enough people are paying income taxes, they need to add the fact they're the ones who designed it that way.

#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-14 12:07 PM | Reply

"But I prefer it here, where I have rich people who pay my taxes for me."

So then how about you quit bitching about the fact that rich people pay your taxes for you?

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-14 12:13 PM | Reply

"You're either ignorant of the truth, or uninterested in educating yourself. Or both."

Are you addressing those payroll taxes collected in the present that are incorrectly used to fund programs other than medicare or SS?

"So then how about you quit bitching about the fact that rich people pay your taxes for you?"

Did it really sound like I was bitching about someone paying my fair share? That's not something one would tend to bitch about.

That's not really true. You tend to bitch about it a lot. Kinda like a spoiled kid who doesn't understand how hard life would be without someone to cover the cost of keeping them alive.

#68 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 12:23 PM | Reply

"Are you addressing those payroll taxes collected in the present that are incorrectly used to fund programs other than medicare or SS?"

I'm referencing them, and the fact your income tax cuts from Dubya were based on SS overcollections. I'm also pointing out as a savings plan, SS is lower than could be obtained on the open market, which is a stealth tax.

#69 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-14 12:47 PM | Reply

That's not really true. You tend to bitch about it a lot. Kinda like a spoiled kid who doesn't understand how hard life would be without someone to cover the cost of keeping them alive.

#68 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-07-14 12:23 PM | FLAG:

Absurd claim. The wealthy don't even pay their fair share, relative to the benefits they reap from society. Not by a long shot. Your fawning doesn't change the fact that society would be better off if they DID contribute their fare share.

#70 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-14 01:03 PM | Reply

"The top 20% is what keeps this country running."

To the extent that it runs at all, it runs for their benefit.

#71 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-14 01:05 PM | Reply

I only ask because taxes that are collected in the present and misused don't change the liability that remains on the books for that person. The government still owes them the services that they've paid for via payroll taxes. And that makes the fact that meeting this obligation means borrowing at some point in the future somewhat immaterial.

The government can take the payroll taxes collected in the present and put them in a lock box while borrowing to cover currentl obligations, or they can spend the payroll taxes in the present to cover current obligations with the understanding they're going to need to borrow in the future. None of this changes the fact that this individual will not contribute directly to current obligations without being compensates for it in the future.

#72 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 01:08 PM | Reply

"The wealthy don't even pay their fair share"

My goodness Dirk, how much should they pay? All of it?

But you're right, I would consider myself to be better off if there were a rich person who paid all my bills...leaving me free to drink the day away poolside.

#73 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 01:11 PM | Reply

#73 | Posted by madbomber
Quit your job and get a couple of baby mamas.

#74 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-07-14 01:15 PM | Reply

"My goodness Dirk, how much should they pay?"

Their fair share.

"But you're right, I would consider myself to be better off if there were a rich person who paid all my bills...leaving me free to drink the day away poolside."

Hardly the condition of the poor, your Randroid fantasies notwithstanding. As is, getting healthcare or a decent education is a near impossiblity. Meanwhile, the rich get richer and idiots like you cheer them on.

#75 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-14 01:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Quit your job and get a couple of baby mamas.

#74 | POSTED BY FEDERALIST AT 2017-07-14 01:15 PM | FLAG:

...and live on the street to avoid childcare payments?

#76 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-14 01:24 PM | Reply

"Their fair share."

"Hardly the condition of the poor, your Randroid fantasies notwithstanding"

Poor?

Are you here in the US with me? We have rich and less rich in this country. If you live at the poverty level in a single person household in the US, your household income is equivalent to the global medium. This country has some of the best in the world, and there are schools in every community in this country. I find it hard to believe you could possibly be this delusional.

If you want to help the poor, I get it, but it's going to require some searching if you want to do it in the US. And there's no reason. There's a whole world out there full of actual poor people.

#77 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 01:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If you want to help the poor, I get it, but it's going to require some searching if you want to do it in the US. And there's no reason. There's a whole world out there full of actual poor people.

#77 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-07-14 01:26 PM | FLAG:

Fallacy of relative privation.

And do you really mean to suggest that the poor in the US are in such good shape as to need no further assistance? You are satisfied living in the wealthiest country in the world but having a worse educational system, a worse healthcare system, worse crime, etc than countries with a fraction of the US' wealth?

You are the very definition of a useful idiot: fawning over the wealthy, and singing the praises of the status quo.

#78 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-14 01:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

And, of course, you are too morally bankrupt to recognize how much of the poverty of the rest of the world can be laid at the doorstep of the American 1%.

#79 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-14 01:34 PM | Reply

"Fallacy of relative privation."

No fallacy...median US household income is 6th highest on the planet. So you're going be challenged to objectively argue that USans have it bad. Not that you're even remotely capable of objectivity.

"And do you really mean to suggest that the poor in the US are in such good shape as to need no further assistance?"

I mean we don't have poor. Or to be more accurate we don't have poor who lack access to programs intended to help them. Look to Venezuela if you want a view of modern poverty.

#80 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 01:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"And, of course, you are too morally bankrupt to recognize how much of the poverty of the rest of the world can be laid at the doorstep of the American 1%."

By all means Dirk, enlighten me as to how the US made Zimbabwe poor...

#81 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 01:40 PM | Reply

While his Massas, who paid to have these tax laws written to their benefit, point and laugh at him.

#43 | Posted by Corky

I doubt they point and laugh. They do not want to know of his existence and could care even less.

#82 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-07-14 01:41 PM | Reply

No fallacy...median US household income is 6th highest on the planet.

#80 | Posted by madbomber

So what? Our cost of living, healthcare, and education completely wipes that income out.

There's a reason income mobility is higher in a bunch of socialist nations.

#83 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-07-14 01:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

By all means Dirk, enlighten me as to how the US made Zimbabwe poor...

#81 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-07-14 01:40 PM | FLAG:

Not alone: lots of Western colonialism helped. But how about IMF loans? And the usual corporate economic warfare: flood the market and drive local businesses out. Now you have a nice poor population: buy all the land and resources, exploit the labor force. If the government tries to stop you, bribe them or have your pals bail them out on the condition they stay out of your way.

Same old story, all over the world. But idiots like you want to pretend it is because Americans are just better, smarter, harder working, just like you want to pretend the rich are better than the poor (which is why they are rich).

#84 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-14 01:45 PM | Reply

At the bottom, less than one tenth of one percent. At the top, 13.3 percent. - #50 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-14 09:22 AM
Was that an intentional lie or an honest mistake. Go back up and re-read what those numbers actually represent.
"Take your own advice."


In Addition poor people have to spend their entire income to survive and pay sales tax on every penny they take home AFTER TAXES. - #60 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-07-14 11:36 AM

Just how high IS the federal sales tax now?

#85 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-07-14 01:48 PM | Reply

MB should listen to conservative economist Ben Stein rather than Rush Limbaugh.

The best economic growth in this country was during some of the highest tax rate years in our history.

And lowering them with high deficits, and creating higher deficits in absurd. Not to mention that the relationships between lower taxes for the wealthy and economic growth are purely imaginary.

They are about acquiring big donations for politicians, not stimulating growth or reducing the deficit.

www.youtube.com

www.mediamatters.org

#86 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 01:50 PM | Reply

"No fallacy.."

Looks like critical thinking isn't your strong suit, Randroid. Let me help: lmgtfy.com

"I mean we don't have poor."

Complacency it is. You do your country proud.

#87 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-14 01:51 PM | Reply

MadB you are playing the fool.

Chinese household income is a fraction of American household income. So Americans can buy more stuff, right?

Wtong. The Chinese economy has greater purchasing power than the American economy.

The global median income in America is a poverty income because it costs so much to live in America.

That same income goes a lot further in China.

Your, uh, world view, for lack of a better term, is built on the lie that purchasing power and cost of living is equal across the globe.

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-14 01:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Not alone: lots of Western colonialism helped."

Like western colonialism that emanated from the Soviet Union? Or the western colonialism that emanated from China, supporting Robert Mugabe's government?

That kind of western colonialism? You might want to study some history, lil' buddy.

"Now you have a nice poor population: buy all the land and resources, exploit the labor force. If the government tries to stop you, bribe them or have your pals bail them out on the condition they stay out of your way."

Here's the thing Dirk, when the Brits did what you outlined above, Zimbabwe (then known as Rhodesia) was one of the most prosperous countries in Africa. It wasn't until the government starting confiscating (not buying) lands and resources that the country became poor.

#89 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 01:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Go back up and re-read what those numbers actually represent."

Feel free to explain, since you clearly can't do math.

#90 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-14 01:59 PM | Reply

"Same old story, all over the world. But idiots like you want to pretend it is because Americans are just better, smarter, harder working, just like you want to pretend the rich are better than the poor (which is why they are rich)."

The phenomenon that has resulted in your smart, hardworking USans becoming rich is the same that has contributed to an unparalleled rise in the standard of living for a majority of the developing world. As of this moment, there are more middle-class people on earth than not, and you can credit that directly to globalization. The free markets have done more to lift this planet out of poverty than any progressive pipe dream could have ever hoped.

#91 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 02:00 PM | Reply

"Just how high IS the federal sales tax now?"

On what, gasoline? Beer? Liquor? Or are you pretending sales taxes by other names (excise taxes, for example) aren't sales taxes?

#92 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-14 02:01 PM | Reply

"The best economic growth in this country was during some of the highest tax rate years in our history."

So it was the tax rates that drove that growth, and not the fact that the US was the last industrialized country on earth capable of producing those heavy goods the world required?

#93 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 02:02 PM | Reply

"Or the western colonialism that emanated from China, supporting Robert Mugabe's government?"

China has definitely learned capitalist exploitation from the best....
Which only helps my point.

"Here's the thing Dirk, when the Brits did what you outlined above, Zimbabwe (then known as Rhodesia) was one of the most prosperous countries in Africa. It wasn't until the government starting confiscating (not buying) lands and resources that the country became poor."

Not a high bar to clear. And prosperity under such circumstances has a way of missing the working people: business and the rich do well. As for the government, they too learned corruption from the best. Leave a country with nothing (including reliable institutions) and chaos or oppression follows. What you are describing isn't a failure of socialism: It is the wreckage capitalism and colonialism leave in their wake.

#94 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-14 02:02 PM | Reply

"So it was the tax rates that drove that growth"

In part, yes. When the decision is re-invest or take money out, the higher the rate, the greater the incentive to re-invest.

I can give you an easy example if you don't understand the concept.

#95 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-14 02:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The global median income in America is a poverty income because it costs so much to live in America."

Interesting......the most expensive places to live in the USA are touted by folks like you as the best.

So, it's fine if it's a city but it's bad for our country?

"The Chinese economy has greater purchasing power than the American economy."

In -------, Alabama, the purchasing power is pretty high as well.

Is that a good thing?

#96 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-14 02:04 PM | Reply

"The phenomenon that has resulted in your smart, hardworking USans becoming rich is the same that has contributed to an unparalleled rise in the standard of living for a majority of the developing world."

What nonsense. That prosperity has been reaped by a fortunate few. A rising tide doesn't just lift all boats: it drowns those who don't own boats.

#97 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-14 02:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- there are more middle-class people on earth than not

Balderdash.

www.pewglobal.org

www.pewresearch.org

Half of world's wealth now in hands of 1% of population

www.theguardian.com

Most Americans No Longer Are Middle Class

www.npr.org

#98 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 02:05 PM | Reply

And don't forget that global capitalism is killing the world by inches. How much will your Randian idiocy be worth when the sea levels rise or the biosphere collapses?

#99 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-14 02:06 PM | Reply

the overall plan would give the average family earning under $25,000 per year a $40 tax cut, or a 0.3 percent boost in after-tax income. The top 0.1 percent, earning above $3.4 million a year, would get an average tax cut of $937,700, or a 13.3 percent boost in after-tax income.
www.vox.com

#100 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-14 02:06 PM | Reply

"- there are more middle-class people on earth than not"

Who is feeding you this -------?

#101 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-14 02:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#93

We had up to 90 percent rates into the 1950's and our last greatest year was 1973 after the world had well recovered from the war, thank you ever so much.

Progressive tax rates are as American as apple pie, even for those who prefer a ruling class to tell them what to do. Authoritarians are just like that.

#102 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 02:08 PM | Reply

"It's the inequality, stupid."

#103 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 02:10 PM | Reply

@#90 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-14 01:59 PM
[All bolding done on my part]The statement you replied to:
"Nonsense what are the % rate of the tax cuts. Thats the only way to see if its fair."
Your response:
"At the bottom, less than one tenth of one percent. At the top, 13.3 percent."
What those numbers actually mean:
"0.3 percent boost in after-tax income. The top 0.1 percent, earning above $3.4 million a year, would get an average tax cut of $937,700, or a 13.3 percent boost in after-tax income"
A change in after tax income is not the same as a change in the % rate of the tax cut. I asked (though I missed the ‘?') if you made a simple mistake in misrepresenting the article or if you knowingly lied about it. You then used that mistake on your part to claim that someone else was wrong. I'm sure you're very embarrassed now and will be offering a retraction of that.

#104 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-07-14 02:14 PM | Reply

"Progressive tax rates are as American as apple pie, even for those who prefer a ruling class to tell them what to do. Authoritarians are just like that."

I would say that progressive rates are Democratic, the Republicans have opposed them forever. Anything good for the working class and for the country is opposed by the Republicans and has been since the 1920's.

#105 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-14 02:15 PM | Reply

"As of this moment, there are more middle-class people on earth than not...."
#91 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER"

Cite, please.

#106 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2017-07-14 02:17 PM | Reply

MythBomber

The Pareto Principle and Wealth Inequality

www.pragcap.com

en.wikipedia.org

Capitalism is an economic system that flows wealth upwards, as with many other examples of the 80/20 rule, or the Pareto Principle.

Which is why progressive taxation is as American as apple pie.

#107 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 02:21 PM | Reply

Wealth Inequality in America

www.youtube.com

the video from the pragcap.com link

#108 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 02:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Company A has a good year. They had $10.8 Million in revenue and $10 million in costs. So they have $800,000 profit

Scenario 1: Conservative Nirvana. The corporate tax rate and capital gains rates are very low. So distributing the profit to the shareholders has a very low cost. So that is what they do. That money leaves the company and is gone. The company does not grow. It incentivises keeping wages as low as possible and deferring capital investment and maintenance.

Scenario 2: Past experience. Corporate taxes are much higher. Buying new equipment or investing in a new building OR GIVING THE EMPLOYEES A RAISE moves that money into the cost column and lets them avoid taxes altogether since we don't tax corporate revenue we only tax profit. The company grows and INCREASES ITS CAPACITY to GENERATE REVENUE. IN addition they have happier employees and lower maintenance costs because well maintained equipment doesn't break as often

Right now we are rewarding profit extraction rather than building a business

#109 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-07-14 02:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"What nonsense. That prosperity has been reaped by a fortunate few. A rising tide doesn't just lift all boats: it drowns those who don't own boats."

Globalization created a worldwide middle class that now represents the majority of the planet's inhabitants. That's billions of boats that have been lifted.

"Who is feeding you this -------?"

Economists, silly

"Burgeoning bourgeoisie - For the first time in history more than half the world is middle-class -- thanks to rapid growth in emerging countries.

www.economist.com

#110 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 02:27 PM | Reply

Income inequality is the delta between rich people and richer people...

#111 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 02:28 PM | Reply

Watching the 6 min video in #108 will increase most people's economic inequality understanding 100 percent.

#112 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 02:29 PM | Reply

Who is feeding you this -------?

That's what I want to know. Seriously.

#113 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-07-14 02:30 PM | Reply

"Right now we are rewarding profit extraction rather than building a business"

Bingo.

Money is fungible. It doesn't care whether wealth was generated or merely transferred.

Only us humans can tell the difference.

#114 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-14 02:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

www.economist.com from 2009 and incorrect anyway. The more recent numbers at the links in 98 differentiate between leaving poverty and entering the middle class, which is not the same thing at all.

#115 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 02:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Globalization created a worldwide middle class that now represents the majority of the planet's inhabitants. That's billions of boats that have been lifted."

So much for your source. And what happens to everyone else? A minute ago, you couldn't stop talking about global poverty.

#116 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-14 02:36 PM | Reply

= Globalization created a worldwide middle class

No, it did raise millions out of poverty, often at extreme costs to rights and freedoms, but getting out of poverty is not the same thing as entering the middle class, which is shrinking in this and many other countries as the 80/20 Rule continues on it's merry way.

#117 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 02:37 PM | Reply

Let's just compare America to America

In America in the last 40 years only a select few have higher purchasing power than they did 40 years ago.

True ourworking poor aren't dirt farmers

Dirt farmers OWNED SOME DIRT

our working poor have to pay the mortgage of their landlord plus a bit of profit. Every one of them would happily work just as hard as anyone ever has for 40 acres and a mule.

This concept that our poor aren't really poor is just Conservative BS.

If you have to work 20 years without a vacation and have nothing to show for it because every penny goes to surviving long enough to get to work the next day then yes you are poor

#118 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-07-14 02:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"That's what I want to know. Seriously."

I posted a link. And that's just one source. For those who understand and follow economics, this isn't new. Depending on the methodology used in the study the numbers may change a little, but the underlying fact remains that globalization has done more to lift people out of poverty than any other force in the history of humanity.

"www.economist.com from 2009 and incorrect anyway."

What is it you want to dispute? Would you like something a little more recent. Would the Brookings institute suffice?

Or are you going to have to read it on MotherJones before you take it as scripture?

#119 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 02:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Let's just compare America to America"

That's like saying "lets just compare the Hamptons to the Hamptons."

#120 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 02:39 PM | Reply

From MadB's article at The Economist,

"The other, more numerous, group consists of those who are middle-class by the standards of the developing world but not the rich one."

#121 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-14 02:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#119 |

I'm going to refer you to the more recent Pew and other links you ignored in 97 which debunk your nonsense.

Viewing the video in 108 would prolly convulse you into reality, so I don'r recommend it for you without adult supervision.

#122 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 02:43 PM | Reply

in 98

#123 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 02:43 PM | Reply

That's like saying "lets just compare the Hamptons to the Hamptons."

#120 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-07-14 02:39 PM | FLAG:

Why even think things can be better, right?

#124 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-14 02:48 PM | Reply

"No, it did raise millions out of poverty, often at extreme costs to rights and freedoms, but getting out of poverty is not the same thing as entering the middle class"

You're conflating the notion of the global middle class to the US middle class. If you're in the middle class in the US, you're fabulously wealthy by global standards. Worldwide it's defined differently. The researchers cited in the Economist piece defined it as being in a financial position where you had sufficient money to both cover the cost of survival and spend on consumer items. The methodology isn't terribly important. What matters is the comparison to the standard of living that much of the developing world had access to prior to globalization, and what they have access to now.

#125 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 02:48 PM | Reply

"I'm going to refer you to the more recent Pew and other links you ignored in 97 which debunk your nonsense."

I have no nonsense. I'm simply parroting what is probably the most reputable economic publication in the world. But like I said, there are more. Let me get them for you.

#126 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 02:49 PM | Reply

Let's start here, with a Feb 2017 Brookings report that renders your pew studies obsolete:

"These new data, especially on prices and growth, suggest that the global middle class, numbering about 3.2 billion in 2016, may be considerably larger, by about 500 million people, than previous calculations suggested. Asian households, in particular, are now thought to be much richer, relatively speaking, than before."

www.brookings.edu

#127 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 02:53 PM | Reply

Blah, blah, blah... comparing apples to oranges is no comparison at all.

We are talking about tax laws and the economy in the US, not about your fantasy where it matters what poor means to that in Bangladesh.

It's a tired old rwing saw that the wealthy use to make people like you stay in their place and needs to be put to sleep.

#128 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 02:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The researchers cited in the Economist piece defined it as being in a financial position where you had sufficient money to both cover the cost of survival and spend on consumer items."

How much $$$ is that in America, MadB?

#129 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-14 02:59 PM | Reply

"Viewing the video in 108 would prolly convulse you into reality, so I don'r recommend it for you without adult supervision."

Huh?

Why would you think I give a ---- about the fact that some people are richer than others. I don't. If you had very rich and very poor, like Haiti...that's different. But we don't have that. Take the Hamptons again. In any given neighborhood, there is a low income earner and a high income earner. Should we care that the high income earner makes far more than the lowest? And the income inequality in the top 1% of income earners is far higher than in the remaining 99%.

#130 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 02:59 PM | Reply

"How much $$$ is that in America, MadB"

>$13 a day

#131 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 03:01 PM | Reply

"You're conflating the notion of the global middle class to the US middle class."

That's exactly what you do, every time this topic comes up, MadBomber.

(By ignoring purchasing power.)

#132 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-14 03:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

- you had very rich and very poor, like Haiti...that's different. But we don't have that.

--------, we have exactly that here. And Deflecting to the world economy when the subject is the US economy is just more --------.

But obviously as the video proves you wrong, your closed mind won't accept the facts presented there on topic.... the US economy.

#133 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 03:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Middle Class Contracted in U.S. Over 2 Decades, Study Finds

Middle-class Americans have fared worse in many ways than their counterparts in economically advanced countries in Western Europe in recent decades, according to a study released Monday by the Pew Research Center.

What is more, as Mr. McCabe's experience suggests, the authors of the Pew study found a broader contraction of the American middle class, even as the ranks of the poor and the rich have grown.

www.nytimes.com

Speaking of the US economy and not Deflecting to the world economy.

#134 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 03:08 PM | Reply

I can pay rent, buy food, and have money left over for fun on $13 a day in America, MadB?

LOL.

#135 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-14 03:09 PM | Reply

U.S. inequality keeps getting uglier

The rich are money-making machines. Today, the top mega wealthy -- the top 1% -- earn an average of $1.3 million a year. It's more than three times as much as the 1980s, when the rich "only" made $428,000, on average, according to economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman.

Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of the American population earned an average of $16,000 in pre-tax income in 1980. That hasn't changed in over three decades.

money.cnn.com

This is not news to anyone but MB, who's only response is, "But, but... Zimbabwe!".

#136 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 03:12 PM | Reply

"--------, we have exactly that here."

We do? We have neighborhoods built out of old palettes and crates, with no running water or electricity. Communities that don't have schools, infrastructure, or healthcare-beyond what's provided by USAID or some other group. I wanna see it!

"Middle Class Contracted in U.S. Over 2 Decades, Study Finds"

Which is predictable if you consider the changes in the labor markets away from unskilled labor towards skilled labor. Because during these same two decades, incomes for college graduates have gone up dramatically, and continue to grow up.

#137 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 03:14 PM | Reply

"--------, we have exactly that here."

We do? We have neighborhoods built out of old palettes and crates, with no running water or electricity. Communities that don't have schools, infrastructure, or healthcare-beyond what's provided by USAID or some other group. I wanna see it!

"Middle Class Contracted in U.S. Over 2 Decades, Study Finds"

Which is predictable if you consider the changes in the labor markets away from unskilled labor towards skilled labor. Because during these same two decades, incomes for college graduates have gone up dramatically, and continue to grow up.

#138 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 03:14 PM | Reply

"--------, we have exactly that here."

And it is only getting worse. What do you suppose happens if this keeps up?

#139 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-14 03:15 PM | Reply

Now he's stuttering.

#140 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 03:15 PM | Reply

= I wanna see it!

You need to get out more. And stop deflecting to foreign economies. We have one right here that needs all kinds of work, your flippant attitude about the poor notwithstanding.

#141 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 03:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- What do you suppose happens if this keeps up?

As long as rwingers buy into the garbage about how, well, they are better off than people Haiti, which is setting the bar awfully low, they'll remain blind proxy voters for their Massas.

What will happen is their Massas is just a matter of history repeating itself.

#142 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 03:20 PM | Reply

to their

#143 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 03:21 PM | Reply

"And it is only getting worse. What do you suppose happens if this keeps up?"

We wind up like Venezuela. Destroyed by entitlement.

Not the rich though, they will have left. Found a place where they weren't viewed by society as a resource to be exploited while being offered nothing in return. And the masses will revolt when given their "fair share" of the cost of running society. Just like in VZ.

#144 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 03:27 PM | Reply

"And the masses will revolt when given their "fair share" of the cost of running society."

Meanwhile, Republicans who bitched about the debt have promised to balloon it by slashing income taxes, mostly on the wealthiest.

#145 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-14 03:35 PM | Reply

"We wind up like Venezuela. Destroyed by entitlement."

Rising wealth inequality is "entitlement?"

"Not the rich though, they will have left. Found a place where they weren't viewed by society as a resource to be exploited while being offered nothing in return."

Off to Galt's Gulch, I suppose? You are so damned predictable.
They owe everything they have to society. It is sycophants like you that want to give them a free ride.

"And the masses will revolt when given their "fair share" of the cost of running society."

More likely they will revolt once they realize that they are doing all the work, for scraps from the 1%. Not everyone is as immune to class consciousness as yourself.

#146 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-14 03:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Rising wealth inequality is "entitlement?"

It's entitlement to feel you're due money that someone else earned simply because they do it better than you.

"Off to Galt's Gulch, I suppose?"

A lot of Venezuelans, like the Cubans before them, fled to the US. I don't know where we USans will flee to when and if the time comes.

"More likely they will revolt once they realize that they are doing all the work, for scraps from the 1%. Not everyone is as immune to class consciousness as yourself."

If they can get by without the goods, services, and financial support provided by the rich, then there won't be a problem. In fact that wouldn't even take a revolt. It would only take USans not participating in those activities that lead to wealth concentration or income inequality. The biggest blow you could land against the rich is to stop taking loans and stop using credit cards. But USans want iphones. And new cars. And new houses. And new furniture. And vacations. And for most USans, acquiring those things requires borrowing money, with interest, in a manner that will make someone else rich.

#147 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 03:47 PM | Reply

The rightwing has this fantasy that the problem with our economy is that our poor people aren't poor enough and our rich people pay too much in taxes.

If there was ANY validity to it then 40 years of slashing taxes on the rich and cutting aid to the poor should have resulted in a lower level of poverty in America. Instead it has nearly obliterated the middle class and exploded the ranks of the working poor while a few people became obscenely wealthy.

#148 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-07-14 03:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"If there was ANY validity to it then 40 years of slashing taxes on the rich and cutting aid to the poor should have resulted in a lower level of poverty in America."

Those people who say that cutting taxes will increase the economic value of a poor person's labor are only slightly less full of ---- than those people who say that increasing taxes will increase the value of their labor. There is nothing an outside can do to influence the economic value of someone else's labor. Only the individual themselves can do that. And progressives, led by Bernie, have saturated the media convincing them that A) they shouldn't have to worry about the value of their labor because someone else should be forced to provide for them, or B) they're only considered to be low value because of rich people.

Labor behaves as a commodity. Low skilled workers earn low wages because the market is extremely competitive. We all fully qualified unskilled workers. High wage earners get there because their labor is either absolutely essential, or because the relative supply of the services they provide is low compared to the demand.

You guys and gals would know this if you'd ever taken an econ course.

#149 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 03:56 PM | Reply

"It's entitlement to feel you're due money that someone else earned simply because they do it better than you."

They earned it because society allowed them to. Because they took
advantage of the benefits provided them by others. It is not entitlements that demands they pay their share backninto society, it is simple fairness.

"A lot of Venezuelans, like the Cubans before them, fled to the US. I don't know where we USans will flee to when and if the time comes."

Maybe they could find a place filled with people like you, who think they deserve all they have, that they are oppressed even! We could call such a society a "useful idiocracy."

#150 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-14 03:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- They earned it because society allowed them to

And because they paid pols to write tax and other laws that benefit them, you know, like this Trump Tax Cut.

- a place filled with people like you

Pretty much modern Russia, where there is a Dictator and crony capitalist oligarchs to tell the authoritarian loving populace what to do.

And to tell them that if someone complains about oligarchs, to just remind that person that they could be living in Haiti.

It werks on the weak minded.

#151 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 04:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"There is nothing an outside can do to influence the economic value of someone else's labor."

My son received a $4000 bonus not long ago. He asked why, his boss said he'd rather give it to him than the government. You can say it's not so but I live it. Companies also purchased lots of new equipment around tax time back then, expanded and hired more people. And the companies that made the equipment did too.

#152 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-14 04:10 PM | Reply

Crony capitalist oligarchs...

Why is it we usually only use that term for Russians? Seems we have more than a handful right here.

#153 | Posted by TedBaxter at 2017-07-14 04:27 PM | Reply

#153

They learned it from us. They are a rwinger's dream though because they already have a Dictator. Which is why Trump admires Putin so... well, that and his approval of building Trump Towers across Russia.

#154 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 04:29 PM | Reply

I wouldn't consider Trump an oligarch, he's a tool. He actually works for some in his Cabinet.

More of an oligarch wannabe, he's not near rich enough.

#155 | Posted by TedBaxter at 2017-07-14 04:41 PM | Reply

- he's not near rich enough.

Another reason he admires Putin, who has almost as many billions as Trump has lies. Almost.

#156 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-14 04:43 PM | Reply

How long do you expect people to work twice as hard as the people "above" them without getting a raise before their effort begins to decline?

There is this myth that hard work is the key to success.

I have been in the workforce over 35 years. Very rarely have I seen the hardest worker get the promotion or the biggest raise. More often I have seen the hardest worker passed over REPEATEDLY simply because management wanted to keep the best worker in that position IN THAT POSITION.

#157 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-07-14 04:44 PM | Reply

Low workers earn low wages beacuse there is NO labor market at the low end. Wages are dictated by the employer. They often have skills to work better jobs but if we have 100 network engineers and 80 job openings for network engineers then 20 network engineers have to take the job that is available to pay the rent that month. When the economy went sour in 2009 I had a friend who was an expert hardscaper but suddenly demand for hardscapers fell off a cliff. At one point there was over 40% unemployment among hardscapers. He worked at a gas station for 3 years before the economy recovered enough for him to get back to work AT ENTRY LEVEL PAY despite his experience. His only other option was to turn up his nose at it and keep working at the gas station so he took the hit. Once upon a time companies valued employee loyalty and gave it back. Now many, especially the low wage payers want the churn. The cost of training is minimal so they would rather churn through employees than keep someone and have them get raises.

#158 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-07-14 05:13 PM | Reply

"They earned it because society allowed them to."

Allowed them to? They didn't allow them to...they gave them the money. Handed it to them in return for services rendered.

"It is not entitlements that demands they pay their share backninto society, it is simple fairness."

And if those who support society elect not to do it for free...then what? They got rich because they added value to society. They provided something that was needed. To keep them from getting rich, it's as simple as preventing them from making those goods or services that got them there. Demanding that they be as mediocre as everyone else.

Is that the answer you want to go with?

#159 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 05:41 PM | Reply

"My son received a $4000 bonus not long ago. He asked why, his boss said he'd rather give it to him than the government."

Not uncommon. I have a close friend who is the president of a medium sized manufacturing firm. His annual bonus was $200K last year. More than my entire household income.

"Wages are dictated by the employer."

No. This another of those areas where you could have benefitted from an economics class. Wages are dictated by the markets. Employers are always going to want to maximize their own incomes, and you can only do that by taking money from somewhere else in the value stream.

No employer wants to pay a professional worker anymore than they have to pay the janitor. But if you need the employee, you're going to have to pay whatever is asked. And if you need a highly skilled professional worker, often times it's going to be a LOT. Even though the employer would prefer to pay far less.

#160 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 05:47 PM | Reply

"Very rarely have I seen the hardest worker get the promotion or the biggest raise."

That's not uncommon either. Promotions are typically based not on what you've done, but what your boss assesses you as being able to do in a higher position of authority. And when you get down to it, there are a lot of people who would prefer to do something they like and experience less ass-pain, then move up the chain of command and have to engage in the politics and court rules that come with such a move. That's me. I've never been front-office housebroken. There's always been a point in my career where I was, by design, not going to go any further. And that's OK.

#161 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 05:51 PM | Reply

"And if those who support society elect not to do it for free...then what?"

For free?
Paying taxes is free?

#162 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-14 05:57 PM | Reply

"No employer wants to pay a professional worker anymore than they have to pay the janitor."

Except you've also argued that ever increasing CEO pay is justified because companies want the best.

#163 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-14 06:05 PM | Reply

"Allowed them to? They didn't allow them to...they gave them the money. Handed it to them in return for services rendered."

Laughably untrue. Do you actually believe this nonsense?

"And if those who support society elect not to do it for free...then what? They got rich because they added value to society."

Looks like someone thinks Atlas Shrugged is a documentary...

#164 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-14 06:14 PM | Reply

"Wages are dictated by the markets."

Paychecks don't get signed by the market.

Wages are set by the person paying the wage.

What market do you perceive dictated your government wage?

#165 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-14 06:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Except you've also argued that ever increasing CEO pay is justified because companies want the best."

Yes.

I would like to be able to purchase a new Ferrari for the price of a Fiesta. But If I really need that Ferrari, I'm going to be forced to pay a lot more for it.

"Laughably untrue. Do you actually believe this nonsense?"

No, it's pretty much an undeniable constant.

"What market do you perceive dictated your government wage?"

The one where I interact with my employer and agree (or disagree, if that's the case) to the terms of employment.

#166 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-14 06:53 PM | Reply

"Allowed them to? They didn't allow them to...they gave them the money. Handed it to them in return for services rendered. "

Bwahahahahahahaha!

Try those same services in sub-saharan Africa.

#167 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-14 10:03 PM | Reply

"The one where I interact with my employer and agree (or disagree, if that's the case) to the terms of employment."

So the market dictated their offer?

Seems kinda impossible, when corporate lawyers easily make multiples of say Supreme Court justices.

#168 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-14 10:11 PM | Reply

"I'm going to be forced to pay a lot more for it."

No, you're going to choose to pay a lot more for it.

Voluntaryism, remember?

It's funny how you rail against dictators but are happy to install "the market" as one. LOL!

#169 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-14 10:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Some markets are transparent, efficient and symetric like eBay.
Labor and healthcare markets are neither of these. Which is why they require regulation to control abuses and promote fairness, much like property rights are intended to promote fairness.

#170 | Posted by bored at 2017-07-14 10:44 PM | Reply

"No, it's pretty much an undeniable constant."

Because you say so?

#171 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-14 11:09 PM | Reply

You have the analogy backwards. You say you want a Ferrari for the price of a fiesta but if you want the Ferrari you are going to have to pay more.

The correct analogy is that the Ferrari wants to race as long on the autobahn but the only people looking for vehicles need trail riders on the farm. The farmer is only offering ATV prices. The Ferrari can sit on the lot without a job or work the trails for the price of an ATV.

The place this really breaks down is that workers have bills to pay and have to take low wage jobs to survive.

There are a lot of Ferrari workers on food stamps and welfare.

#172 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-07-15 02:12 PM | Reply

"Because you say so?"

Did you go to college Dirk? If you did, I guess Econ wasn't one of your electives...

#173 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 03:40 PM | Reply

"The place this really breaks down is that workers have bills to pay and have to take low wage jobs to survive."

To survive? People across the world are surviving under far more dire circumstances. I think what you mean is they have to take a low wage job in order to achieve the standard of living they desire. But that's as true for a janitor as it is for a CEO.

#174 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 03:42 PM | Reply

"The place this really breaks down is that workers have bills to pay and have to take low wage jobs to survive. "

Nah, labor doesn't need food to survive, or time to sleep.

It behaves like a commodity, remember?

Labor might need some refrigeration, possibly a container if you want to ship some, but it certainly doesn't need time off, or bathroom breaks, or health care.

#175 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-15 04:52 PM | Reply

--It behaves like a commodity, remember?

That's right. When you increase supply via legal and/or illegal immigration--the Democrat platform-- prices (wages) drop.

#176 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-07-15 05:01 PM | Reply

Did you go to college Dirk? If you did, I guess Econ wasn't one of your electives...

#173 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-07-15 03:40 PM | FLAG:

So, no real explanation for your fawning, then? This notion that the rich get rich by adding value is just dogma for you. You couldn't defend it if you wanted to.

#177 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 05:07 PM | Reply

This notion that the rich get rich by adding value is just dogma for you.

The more rent seeking the government enables the less it is true .......

#178 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-07-15 05:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Conservative economist Ben Stein - "the relationships between lower taxes for the wealthy and economic growth are purely imaginary."

www.drudge.com

New Study Finds Tax Cuts For The Rich Cause Income Inequality, Not Economic Growth

According to a new report by the Congressional Research Service, cutting taxes for the wealthiest does not cause economic growth, despite constant conservative claims that it will. Instead, tax cuts for the rich merely exacerbate income inequality, CRS found:

thinkprogress.org

Another rwing myth perpetuated by.... rwingers.

maybe if you took about 5 minutes to educate yourself via a video of the actual statistical reality of inequality in this country, you might develop the beginnings of a conscience... naw!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

#179 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-15 05:36 PM | Reply

www.youtube.com

#180 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-15 05:37 PM | Reply

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for more than a century.

CRS is well-known for analysis that is authoritative, confidential, objective and nonpartisan. Its highest priority is to ensure that Congress has 24/7 access to the nation's best thinking.

www.loc.gov

#181 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-15 05:40 PM | Reply

"You couldn't defend it if you wanted to."

No more than an scientist could defend evolution against a committed creationist. Your position is based on you committed faith to your ideology. I could present you with the conclusions of a thousand economists and it's not going to change your mind.

#182 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 05:57 PM | Reply

"New Study Finds Tax Cuts For The Rich Cause Income Inequality, Not Economic Growth"

It would follow that allowing people to keep the money they earned is going to contribute to income inequality.

#183 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 05:58 PM | Reply

"A change in after tax income is not the same as a change in the % rate of the tax cut."

Okay, then based on after tax changes, who has the greater cut?

I mean, that was your original point, right?

#184 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-15 06:01 PM | Reply

"You then used that mistake on your part to claim that someone else was wrong. I'm sure you're very embarrassed now and will be offering a retraction of that."

Even after re-adjusting for "after-tax income", you're still wrong.

I'm guessing you're not embarrassed, and a retraction won't be following.

#185 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-15 06:03 PM | Reply

"I could present you with the conclusions of a thousand economists"

No, you really couldn't.

#186 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-15 06:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It would follow that allowing people to keep the money they earned is going to contribute to income inequality."

When people are allowed to keep their earnings, it increases their pay?
Did you mean wealth? LOL.

#187 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-15 06:13 PM | Reply

"This notion that the rich get rich by adding value is just dogma for you."

MadBomber doesn't call that dogma, he calls it a law of economics. ;)

#188 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-15 06:17 PM | Reply

"No, you really couldn't."

No...I could. But I doubt you'd listen. More importantly, I doubt you'd understand.

#189 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 06:18 PM | Reply

No more than an scientist could defend evolution against a committed creationist. Your position is based on you committed faith to your ideology. I could present you with the conclusions of a thousand economists and it's not going to change your mind.
#182 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-07-15 05:57 PM | FLAG:

Project much?

#190 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 06:19 PM | Reply

No...I could. But I doubt you'd listen. More importantly, I doubt you'd understand.

#189 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-07-15 06:18 PM | FLAG:

You are talking out of your pointy hat, per usual. What are you qualifications supposed to be again, by the way?

#191 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 06:20 PM | Reply

"MadBomber doesn't call that dogma, he calls it a law of economics"

It is economics.

I think it's crazy that none of you idiots went to college. It's not like economics is quantum physics.

I guess I made the mistake of thinking that more people than not took econ in college.

#192 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 06:23 PM | Reply

MadBomber doesn't call that dogma, he calls it a law of economics. ;)

#188 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-07-15 06:17 PM | FLAG:

Exactly! And we ALL know that economics is a monolithic discipline whose conclusions are unassailable and proof positive of the whole library of conservative talking points and yet whose details are conveniently only accessible to bluster-prone regressives who never quite grew out of their adolescent Objectivist phase. Don't be upset everyone: the rest of us just wouldn't understand.

#193 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 06:24 PM | Reply

"What are you qualifications supposed to be again, by the way?"

I have a BSBA in Int'l Business and an MBA with a focus on Economic Strategy. How about you Dirk?

#194 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 06:25 PM | Reply

"It is economics."

Economics is a remarkably broad and diverse discipline, you simple creature. Marxism is economics too. Or was that not covered in whatever watered down intro course you like to bemoan the rest of us not taking?

#195 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 06:26 PM | Reply

"I have a BSBA in Int'l Business and an MBA with a focus on Economic Strategy."

Did you find them in your breakfast cereal?

#196 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 06:27 PM | Reply

#193

You're right Dirk. Economics was created by Satan to divert devout progressives away from the faith. No different than biology, geology, and the other disciplines that would suggest that the earth is more than 4k years old and man wasn't created by god to live in the garden of eden.

#197 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 06:28 PM | Reply

"Marxism is economics too."

Stop dude...you're just embarrassing yourself.

#198 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 06:29 PM | Reply

And the Chicago Boys took their economic theories which are now also MADBOMBER'S to Chile where they destroyed the economy, depleted their Social Security system and ended up in a military dictatorship.
When I need economic theories I look to John Maynard Keyne's accolytes of today.
No nation has ever followed the Chicago Boys recipe and ended up successful.

#199 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-15 06:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's like saying that creationism is science too...

#200 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 06:30 PM | Reply

Stop dude...you're just embarrassing yourself.

#198 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-07-15 06:29 PM | FLAG:

Well, one of us is. Marx was an economic theorist no less than a social one. There is a legacy of Marxist economists going back more than a century. Would the conclusions of those thinkers along with yours?

#201 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 06:33 PM | Reply

"You're right Dirk. Economics was created by Satan to divert devout progressives away from the faith."

You don't speak for economics, nor does economics agree with you. Your claims otherwise are laughable.

#202 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 06:34 PM | Reply

It's like saying that creationism is science too...

#200 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-07-15 06:30 PM | FLAG:

Because you say so? Frankly, you say a lot of things.

#203 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 06:35 PM | Reply

"And the Chicago Boys took their economic theories which are now also MADBOMBER'S to Chile where they destroyed the economy, depleted their Social Security system and ended up in a military dictatorship."

OMG..are you all on drugs?!?!?!? The only redeeming quality that Pinochet had was that he can legitimately be credited with improving Chile's economy...including their Social Security system. And that didn't happen until well after Pinochet was dictator, an event itself precipitated by the disastrous results of Allende's attempt to force socialism in that country.

"When I need economic theories I look to John Maynard Keyne's accolytes of today."

You don't have the first ------- klew about Keynesian economics. Wanna know how I know that? Because I'm a fan of Keynesian economics...yet you and I couldn't be anymore different in our outlook. You're more a fan of Galbraith...even if you have no idea who that is.

"No nation has ever followed the Chicago Boys recipe and ended up successful."

You mean other than Chile?

#204 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 06:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Marx was an economic theorist no less than a social one."

Wanna know the easiest way to determine that someone has never taken an econ course?

They state that Marx was an economist.

After that you can simply stop paying attention. At least when it comes to economics.

#205 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 06:38 PM | Reply

"Because you say so? Frankly, you say a lot of things."

Dude, by all means...claim that creationism is a science. You've already claimed that Marx was an economist...no reason to depart fantasyland now...

#206 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 06:39 PM | Reply

You haven't yet mentioned your academic pedigree, Dirk.

What was your field of study, again?

#207 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 06:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"And that didn't happen until well after Pinochet was dictator, an event itself precipitated by the disastrous results of Allende's attempt to force socialism in that country."

Another morally bankrupt apologia for a murderous despotic regime from the usual suspect.

And, your historical revisionism notwithstanding, Pinochet's rise to power was due to US meddling: disruption of the economy ("make the economy scream") and political system of the country followed by backing of the new regime. Are you a Holocaust denier too?

#208 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 06:41 PM | Reply

Wanna know the easiest way to determine that someone has never taken an econ course?
They state that Marx was an economist.

#205 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-07-15 06:38 PM | FLAG:

That he was just that is controversial, save perhaps in whatever "school" you attended. There are Marxist economists today.

#209 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 06:43 PM | Reply

"Dude, by all means...claim that creationism is a science."

False comparison, but you know that. Your effort to claim (without real argument) that economic schools other than yours aren't economic schools at all just proves what we already know about you: you are a dogmatist, uncritical and ignorant.

#210 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 06:44 PM | Reply

"That he was just that is NOT controversial."

#211 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 06:45 PM | Reply

en.m.wikipedia.org

For those wanting a quick look at how monolithic economics actually is....

#212 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 06:51 PM | Reply

"Another morally bankrupt apologia for a murderous despotic regime from the usual suspect."

Pinochet was an opportunistic scumbag who took advantage of an idiot leftist who put ideology over duty to his country.

"Pinochet's rise to power was due to US meddling: disruption of the economy ("make the economy scream") and political system of the country followed by backing of the new regime."

That's super cute. Pinochet's rise to power was precipitated by the abject failure of Chilean socialism. Turns out that when progressives hand the means of production over to the workers, the works don't always know how to manage the means of production. And while I smile every time I hear some idiot progressive blame the failure of Chilean socialism on the CIA or MI5 or some other group, it's also a little annoying. The fact is that it was the Chilean people, not to mention 2/3 branches of government that were calling for Allende to be removed from office. But I guess the people don't matter when ideology is at stake, no?

#213 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 06:51 PM | Reply

"There are Marxist economists today."

There are even more creation biologists.

#214 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 06:52 PM | Reply

Marx wasn't even that controversial. Really he was just repeating what Smith and Ricardo had had stated earlier. In fact there are some aspects of economics where I think Marx was correct...but not in ways that would lend credit to any position you would support.

#215 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 06:54 PM | Reply

"Your effort to claim (without real argument) that economic schools other than yours aren't economic schools at all just proves what we already know about you: you are a dogmatist, uncritical and ignorant."

I still have my textbooks from both grad and undergrad...they're not tethered to any particular school, and written and reviewed by professors from numerouns schools.

Where did you take your econ classes again? I'm just curious what formal economics program still regards Marx as an economist. Because to do so would be to identify the labor theory of value as being the theory representing the best fit for how society behaves in an economic sense. It would mean abandoning marginalism, which is the foundation of every econ program I'm aware of. To put it in perspective, LTV is the creationism of economics, whereas marginalize represents evolution.

Did they not teach you think when you took econ?

#216 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 06:58 PM | Reply

www.theguardian.com

In case anyone needs to wash Mad's well-worn lies about the Chilean coup out of their brains...

#217 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 07:02 PM | Reply

"I still have my textbooks from both grad and undergrad...they're not tethered to any particular school, and written and reviewed by professors from numerouns schools."

So what? Your laughable claims as to the monolithic character of economics show you for the ignorant dogmatist you are. Who cares what books you own?

#218 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 07:03 PM | Reply

There are even more creation biologists.

#214 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-07-15 06:52 PM | FLAG:

Still a false comparison, slick.

#219 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 07:04 PM | Reply

"But I guess the people don't matter when ideology is at stake, no?"

You should put that on a t-shirt, you damned fascist. In case anyone missed it, Mad goes from decrying Pinochet as opportunistic scum to praising him as a heroic representative of popular will in the space of a single post.

#220 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 07:07 PM | Reply

I guess I missed the part where you studies econ Dir...refresh my memory?

#221 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 07:18 PM | Reply

"In case anyone needs to wash Mad's well-worn lies about the Chilean coup out of their brains..."

Nice article. But it failed to mention how the Chilean Supreme Court had called on the military to restore constitutional law after Allende willingly and knowingly committed more than 7500 constitutional violations, such as allowing for paramilitary groups to confiscate private property, or creating a private army that reported only to Allende. It also failed to mention that the Chamber of Deputies, the equivalent to the US HoR, had called on the military do restore law as well. Or how 2/3ds had voted to remove Allende from power. Or how the government had demanded that Allende sign a declaration stating that he would respect the Chilean constitution (which he repeatedly violated). Or how hundreds of thousands of Chileans were taking to the streets because there was no more milk or bread in a country that had once been flush with both.

But none of that matters...right. Socialism is what mattered. Regardless of whether the people of Chile wanted it or not.

#222 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 07:28 PM | Reply

"So what? Your laughable claims as to the monolithic character of economics show you for the ignorant dogmatist you are. Who cares what books you own?"

Did you keep any of your econ books from college?

#223 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 07:28 PM | Reply

So explian how a Chile that got whatever Pinochet wanted is an improvement.

#224 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-15 07:37 PM | Reply

MadB you have a MBA right?
You realize that's not a degree in evonomics right?

#225 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-15 07:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- allowing people to keep the money they earned

In an 80/20 system like capitalism that flows money upwards, progressive taxation is what helps reduce inequality.

Of course, you don't want to buh-lieve that fact, you were told not to, so you don't.

Ignorance often comes from ignoring facts, don't 'cha know.

#226 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-15 07:41 PM | Reply

"The only redeeming quality that Pinochet had was that he can legitimately be credited with improving Chile's economy."

So carrying out the will of 2/3 of government, and "the people", wasn't a redeeming quality?
Why'd you bring it up then?

#227 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-15 07:42 PM | Reply

"But none of that matters...right."

Nope. Not a bit.

Because you give no context for any of that. None. You don't mention how the new government found itself in an economic crisis not of its making virtually immediately. That this crisis was a result of collusion between US and corporate interest with the explicit intent of destabilizing the country (we have the declassified documents to prove it; they are in the article I posted, for starters). The situation was not a failure of socialism, it was a conspiracy of the worst sort of Capitalist imperialism. And in the end, the capitalists got their man put in place.

#228 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 07:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So carrying out the will of 2/3 of government, and "the people", wasn't a redeeming quality?
Why'd you bring it up then?

#227 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-07-15 07:42 PM | FLAG:

Because, as usual, he is a water carrier for the worst people in the world. His half hearted attempts to pretend otherwise should be collapsing any minute now.

#229 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 07:48 PM | Reply

Has he mentioned Haiti yet, as in "you should just be happy you don't live there" in his excuse-making for the US economy that he can't talk about with out that old canard?

#230 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-15 07:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You realize that's not a degree in economics right?"

If you or Dirk have something that would suggest a greater level of familiarity...Now's the time to mention it.

"In an 80/20 system like capitalism that flows money upwards, progressive taxation is what helps reduce inequality."

I have two ----- to give about inequality. That's literally the richest of the rich people problems. If you want to have a discussion about poverty, let's do it, but I can't say that I'm terribly concerned that the highest paid player on the Dallas Cowboys roster earns 6600% of the lowest paid player, given that the lowest paid player gets $258K for 2017.

#231 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 07:53 PM | Reply

"Because you give no context for any of that. None. You don't mention how the new government found itself in an economic crisis not of its making virtually immediately. That this crisis was a result of collusion between US and corporate interest with the explicit intent of destabilizing the country (we have the declassified documents to prove it; they are in the article I posted, for starters). The situation was not a failure of socialism, it was a conspiracy of the worst sort of Capitalist imperialism. And in the end, the capitalists got their man put in place."

Yeah...What you're basically saying is that socialism can't survive without a Capitalist infrastructure to support it.

#232 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 07:55 PM | Reply

-That's literally the richest of the rich people problems.

You mean the people for whom your vote is always a proxy in their best interest?

You don't give a ---- about inequality because you think it only effects the very poor, not you. You are dead wrong about that.

But hey, as a Randian Objectivist, those people don't exist for you anyway.

#233 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-15 07:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I have two ----- to give about inequality"

Yeah, we know. It is a part of what makes you so hard to take seriously. In any case, the 1% appreciate your unthinking compliance.

#234 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 07:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You are dead wrong about that.... and here is the proof.

www.youtube.com

#235 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-15 07:58 PM | Reply

Yeah...What you're basically saying is that socialism can't survive without a Capitalist infrastructure to support it.

#232 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-07-15 07:55 PM | FLAG:

That is not at all what I am saying. Nor is it true. But you know both of those things.

#236 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 07:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

That's not my position though...the fact is that the people of Chile didn't want Allende's socialism. By the time of the coup, even Allende's former allies had aligned against him. He had destroyed the country in pursuit of his ideological goals.

It wasn't the CIA that brought down Allende...it was the people of Chile.

#237 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 07:59 PM | Reply

"That's not my position though...the fact is that the people of Chile didn't want Allende's socialism."

Sure they did. They elected him handily.

#238 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 08:01 PM | Reply

#238

There you go again, trying to confuse him with facts.

#239 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-15 08:04 PM | Reply

"That is not at all what I am saying. Nor is it true. But you know both of those things."

Have you ever studies the events that led to the Chilean Coup? Not from Mother Jones, Counterpunch, or some other western source? Have you ever read anything detailing the Chilean point of view.

I became interested in Chile because I think that the 1973 coup represents the most likely outcome of a similar circumstance here in the US. All elected officials and military officers take an oath to support and defend the constitution of the US. I a sitting president were to violate the constitution in the way Allende did, it would be their duty to remove that president from power. Like many other progressives, you seem to believe that ideological goals warranted constitutional violations. I'm quite sure that here, like there, that would get you crushed.

Pinochet was a douche. But the other coup leaders by and large did their duty to their country. Where they failed was not treating Pinochet the same way they had Allende. While they were willing to fight Allende, the rest chose to resign rather than fight Pinochet.

#240 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 08:08 PM | Reply

"Sure they did. They elected him handily."

Handily?

They elected him by less than 1% in a three way race.

#241 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 08:09 PM | Reply

"Have you ever studies the events that led to the Chilean Coup?"

Why yes. Have you? I ask because, of the two of us, I am the one providing actual context...

#242 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 08:12 PM | Reply

Handily?
They elected him by less than 1% in a three way race.

#241 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-07-15 08:09 PM | FLAG:

More than the current US president won by.

And, of course, that is only looking at the popular vote. His confirmation was overwhelming.

en.m.wikipedia.org

#243 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 08:16 PM | Reply

"I became interested in Chile because I think that the 1973 coup represents the most likely outcome of a similar circumstance here in the US."

Oh look, another historical illiteracy based violence fantasy by a right wing crackpot. Must be Saturday.

#244 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 08:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"But the other coup leaders by and large did their duty to their country."

So the violent disruption of the democratic process and establishment of a dictatorship was their "duty", huh?

#245 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 08:22 PM | Reply

"Why yes. Have you? I ask because, of the two of us, I am the one providing actual context..."

Are you?

I haven't yet seen you address the decision by the Chilean Chamber of Deputies or the Supreme Court?

Any comments on their comments?

#246 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 08:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"And, of course, that is only looking at the popular vote. His confirmation was overwhelming."

It was. And accompanied by a demand that before being confirmed, Allende was to sign a declaration stating his commitment to adhering to constitutional law. He broke that declaration, and intentionally violated constitutional law.

Care to comment on that?

#247 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 08:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Oh look, another historical illiteracy based violence fantasy by a right wing crackpot"

So how do you think it would look if the HoR and the SC demanding that the military intervene in the event that a sitting president went rogue?

Comments?

#248 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 08:41 PM | Reply

"So the violent disruption of the democratic process and establishment of a dictatorship was their "duty", huh?"

It's no longer a function of the democratic process if the president isn't following the law.

#249 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 08:42 PM | Reply

"So how do you think it would look if the HoR and the SC demanding that the military intervene in the event that a sitting president went rogue?"

Before or after subversions by corporate interests and the military with the support of a foreign power?

#250 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 09:43 PM | Reply

It's no longer a function of the democratic process if the president isn't following the law.

#249 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-07-15 08:42 PM | FLAG:

Of course it is. For any but totalitarians, that is.

#251 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 09:44 PM | Reply

"It was. And accompanied by a demand that before being confirmed, Allende was to sign a declaration stating his commitment to adhering to constitutional law. He broke that declaration, and intentionally violated constitutional law.
Care to comment on that?"

He didn't precipitate a constitutional crisis: he reacted to one put into play by others. The moment he took office, the US and conservative factions within the country (landowners and corporate interests) began full scale economic warfare against Chile, plunging the economy into crisis. Meanwhile, the CIA pumped millions into dissident groups and opened lines of communication with conservative elements within the military (who had become insulted from society and heavily influenced by paranoid American anti-communist hysteria through decades of cooperation and training at such infamous facilities as The School of the Americans).

After his election, Allende's Popular Unity grew in popularity and gained ground in the assembly, but the Christian Democrats were "motivated" to break their coalition and side with the National Party. Meanwhile, an attempted putsch by dissident army factions and increasing disruption by rightist and foreign funded dissident elements encouraged the reorganization of the police and military.

All of this, along with increasing efforts to combat the crisis brought on by the aforementioned dissident groups and economic warfare, was used by Allende's opponents to issue statements and resolutions accusing Allende of wanting to establish a tyranny and encouraging the military and police forces to intervene. The pretense of justification established, the enemies of the regime could at last proceed as they had intended all along: to overthrow the government by force and establish a "friendly" government beholden to their interests.

That you could try to spin this well documented conspiracy as a victory for law and order rather than the naked power grab that it was merely highlights your own moral bankruptcy and hatred of freedom.

#252 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 10:06 PM | Reply

"Before or after subversions by corporate interests and the military with the support of a foreign power?"

You mean like the fact that Allende was a paid Soviet agent?

"Of course it is. For any but totalitarians, that is."

You know, you could be honest and just state that the achievement of progressive goals justified the eradication of the reactionary and counter-revolutionary forces that opposed them.

I respect honesty, even from monsters. I'm less accommodating of those authoritarians who try and pretend that they're helping everyone.

#253 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 10:30 PM | Reply

"He didn't precipitate a constitutional crisis: he reacted to one put into play by others."

What "others" asked him to sign an agreement to adhere to constitutional law. And in what world would anyone think it OK for a sitting president to violate that? Would you bee cool with it if Trump was delacred in violation by the HoR and the SC? Would you defend him? Should the president be a dictator, because that's what it seems like you're suggesting.

#254 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 10:33 PM | Reply

"Meanwhile, the CIA pumped millions into dissident groups and opened lines of communication with conservative elements within the military (who had become insulted from society and heavily influenced by paranoid American anti-communist hysteria through decades of cooperation and training at such infamous facilities as The School of the Americans)."

The CIA funded unions groups (which Allende had tried to nationalize), and an opposition newspaper. In fact that US had wanted Allende gone long before 1973...but the Chilean military had defended him. Up until the point where the Chilean Chamber of Deputies and Supreme Court declared that, if Allende were to remain in office, Chile was no longer a Democracy. And that's when they made their move, offering Allende the option to abdicate. He chose to eat a bullet.

"That you could try to spin this well documented conspiracy as a victory for law and order rather than the naked power grab that it was merely highlights your own moral bankruptcy and hatred of freedom."

Yeah. It's a shame that Allende was never able to eliminate his opponents in the way that other Marxist leaders were.

Allende was very close to Fidel Castro, who told him that he needed to put holes in the heads of those who opposed him. Allende thought he could implement socialism through popular support, not realizing that the majority of Chileans were unwilling to sacrifice their standard of living for the sake of socialism. Which is why he and it failed.

#255 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-15 10:42 PM | Reply

I respect honesty, even from monsters. I'm less accommodating of those authoritarians who try and pretend that they're helping everyone.
#253 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-07-15 10:30 PM | FLAG:

You are the one justifying a coup that established a dictatorship. Oh, and using said regime's own arguments to do it.

#256 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 10:50 PM | Reply

"The CIA funded unions groups (which Allende had tried to nationalize), and an opposition newspaper."

Uh huh. And the US funded death squads were "security consultants" and so on. You can believe the euphemisms.

"In fact that US had wanted Allende gone long before 1973...but the Chilean military had defended him. Up until the point where"

...they had a legal sounding excuse to depose him.

"Yeah. It's a shame that Allende was never able to eliminate his opponents in the way that other Marxist leaders were."

He had no intention of doing so, the claims of regressives to the contrary. Of course that's the nice thing about a coup: by the time it was all wrapped up, there was no one to argue with the claim that he was trying to become some sort of tyrant. Probably why the matter was handled the way it was to begin with.

#257 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 10:58 PM | Reply

Hey Mad, do you believe that Hitler was acting in the best interest of the German state too? Just curious.

#258 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 10:59 PM | Reply

"You mean like the fact that Allende was a paid Soviet agent?"

True to form of you to repeat this oft repeated but utterly discredited lie. The KGB archives have been opened and declassified. Not only do they lend no support to that claim, but they show Soviet policy prohibited recruitment of agents in South American leftist parties for both political and diplomatic reasons.

#259 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 11:23 PM | Reply

You sure?

This heroic portrait of Allende has emerged without input from a key player, the intelligence service of the former Soviet Union. In recently revealed KGB files, Allende emerges as a client of the Soviet Union and its most important asset in Latin America after Fidel Castro.
legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com

#260 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-07-15 11:31 PM | Reply

en.m.wikipedia.org

Yeah, pretty sure:

"Allegations have been made in a book by Christopher Andrew, based on the handwritten notes of alleged KGB archivist Vasili Mitrokhin that Allende was connected to the KGB.[25] However, these allegations are not accurate because the KGB was not allowed to recruit members from communist or other left wing parties in Latin America, because the Soviet Union thought that doing so had the potential to damage the Communist doctrine or other left wing brother parties. In addition, the Soviet Union did not consider Latin American countries as enemies, so their intelligence was not targeted towards Latin America but towards the United States.[26]"

#261 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-07-15 11:41 PM | Reply

"For the poor, the US is way better"

Better off than the poor people we bomb into the stone age. OK, but why do we have to do that and how much money would we have if we stopped doing it? Better than Asia, Africa or Greece maybe, but there aren't any homeless poor in Germany or Scandinavia. In England you can own a house and still be provided healthcare, disability or welfare. In the USA they will strip you of those assets, including your savings before they will pay any benefits.

#262 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-07-16 10:21 AM | Reply

"You are the one justifying a coup that established a dictatorship."

The coup didn't establish a dictatorship. In fat the coup was staged to prevent Allende from forming a dictatorship, which is basically what the coup plotters saw happening.

I don't know what oath Chilean officers take when being sworn in, but if it's anything like the one taken by US military officers (and office holders), it's to support and defend the constitution. Whici is why you would very likely see the same thing happen here if a sitting president knowingly and continually violated constitutional law.

#263 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-16 10:25 AM | Reply

"Hey Mad, do you believe that Hitler was acting in the best interest of the German state too? Just curious."

Not sure what you're asking, but what we know beyond any shadow of a doubt is that the German people, even those who despised Hitler, thought he was doing what was right for Germany...many of whom didn't view Germany as having lost the first war, and viewed the treaty of Versailles as having been an unfair imposition on the German people.

#264 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-16 10:28 AM | Reply

#261 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

Link for quote, so we can examine [26]

#265 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-07-16 11:14 AM | Reply

"Not sure what you're asking, but what we know beyond any shadow of a doubt is that the German people, even those who despised Hitler, thought he was doing what was right for Germany."

The stupidity of that comment when you look at Germany in late 1945 is incredible. Right for Germany? Millions dead, cities destroyed? Half of Germany was lucky for the mercy America and our allies showed Germany, the other half lived in dire poverty until the USSR collapsed.
Your willingness to give dictators like Pinochet and even Hitler compliments is very revealing.

#266 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-16 11:33 AM | Reply

"Not sure what you're asking, but what we know beyond any shadow of a doubt is that the German people, even those who despised Hitler, thought he was doing what was right for Germany."

The stupidity of that comment when you look at Germany in late 1945 is incredible. Right for Germany? Millions dead, cities destroyed? Half of Germany was lucky for the mercy America and our allies showed Germany, the other half lived in dire poverty until the USSR collapsed.
Your willingness to give dictators like Pinochet and even Hitler compliments is very revealing.

#267 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-16 11:33 AM | Reply

In 1958, shortly before his second run for president, Allende was approached by a KGB agent codenamed
LEADER. Whose appraisal of Allende was that "his willingness to co-operate on a confidential basis and
provide any necessary assistance" meant he considered himself "a friend of the Soviet Union" and
"willingly shared political information."
digitalcommons.wou.edu

Not only do they lend no support to that claim, but they show Soviet policy prohibited recruitment of agents in South American leftist parties for both political and diplomatic reasons.

#259 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

I say you are wrong ...

Just because the Soviets advertise a policy doesn't mean they didn't, much like US policies where we don't supply arms to terrorist.

Again just because a country has "policy" doesn't make it true, the policy is in place for political considerations, in the Soviet case it was because of our overtures to China....

#268 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-07-16 11:41 AM | Reply

"In England you can own a house and still be provided healthcare, disability or welfare. In the USA they will strip you of those assets, including your savings before they will pay any benefits."

And now the vampires of the Republican Party are trying their best to take all benefits away from us even if you are already impoverished. Their greed is insatiable.

#269 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-16 11:47 AM | Reply

"In 1958, shortly before his second run for president, Allende was approached by a KGB agent codenamed
LEADER. Whose appraisal of Allende was that "his willingness to co-operate on a confidential basis and
provide any necessary assistance" meant he considered himself "a friend of the Soviet Union" and
"willingly shared political information."

I don't know if that is true and you don't either but I do know even if that were true he was duly elected and we didn't have any right to assasinate him but we did anyway.

#270 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-16 11:49 AM | Reply

"Whici is why you would very likely see the same thing happen here if a sitting president knowingly and continually violated constitutional law."

So now you think that the military is responsible to determine constitutionality of the decisions made by any of the three parts of our government? You do realize that your comment, in itself, encourages unconstitutional behavior? A coup, by definition, is unconstitutional. No good can come from an unconstitutional coup. You do realize that, right?

#271 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-16 11:54 AM | Reply

"The coup didn't establish a dictatorship. In fat the coup was staged to prevent Allende from forming a dictatorship, which is basically what the coup plotters saw happening."

That comment reveals your total misunderstanding of history. Allende was elected. The coup did install an unelected dictatorship. Ideas like yours encourage coups whenever your ideas are rejected by the population. That is how NAZI Germany happened. You are a dangerous lunatic. Rule of law, is the most powerful force in America, long may it remain so, never let lunatics convince us that a coup is needed to reverse even a bad outcome of an election, such as Donald Trump. No, the reason America is rich and strong is that we don't destroy ourselves every few decades with civil wars. We did that once and hopefully we'll never do it again. Elections not wars change America and those who respect coups are f*****g crazy.

#272 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-16 12:01 PM | Reply

"I only ask because taxes that are collected in the present and misused don't change the liability that remains on the books for that person."

Absolute nonsense. Why? Two main reasons:

1) The return on SS is a stealth tax; if the investment is 2% for me, and they can get 4.5%, most of the gains are going for other purposes...like YOUR income tax cut

2) The liabilities are subject to cuts going forward. See Paul Ryan's fevered dreams for proof.

#273 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-16 12:07 PM | Reply

I see that MythBomber has successfully diverted the thread from US economics to world economics, yet again, so that he can claim that the poor here are better off than the poor elsewhere, so they should just STFU.

Congrats!

btw....

www.youtube.com

#274 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-16 01:20 PM | Reply

"The stupidity of that comment when you look at Germany in late 1945 is incredible. Right for Germany?"

I read a lot. I went through a phase where I read a bunch of books on the German Army in WWII. What was revealing for me was the prevailing attitude that many German officers held towards Hitler, and the Nazi party in general. But they fought the war for the reasons I outlines earlier...they felt that Germany had been screwed by the allies after WWI. And it's also important to remember that Hitler became Supreme chancellor not through the use of force, but rather through direct democracy. Something like 80% of German voters supported Hitler holding the two most powerful political positions in that country.

#275 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-16 01:33 PM | Reply

"I say you are wrong..."

He's wrong...It's tough to deny when the KGB has records stating that Allende was given $30K in order to solidify the relationship between him and the KGB.

"That comment reveals your total misunderstanding of history. Allende was elected."

So was Trump. If he started violating the constitution by creating a private army or ordering property to be seized illegally, would you approve?

"Ideas like yours encourage coups whenever your ideas are rejected by the population."

It was Chileans who rejected Allende's policies. And rightly so. In much the way Chavez would later destroy the Venezuelan economy, Allende destroyed Chile's economy.

"Rule of law, is the most powerful force in America"

You're standing in support of a president who willingly and knowkingly violated the rule of law in order to carry out an ideological agenda. By the time of the coup, Allende no longer had any allies in government. And it should be pointed out that previously the Chilean military had acted in support of the Allende regime when threatened with a coup. But when the Supreme Court calls on you directly to restore constitutional law, there's not much you can do.

#276 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-16 01:41 PM | Reply

"Congrats!"

You're welcome for the free education, lil buddy!

#277 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-16 01:42 PM | Reply

Really, you can thank Allende for creating the conditions that led to the coup. Constitutional crises are relatively rare events when compared to the rule of law, and the outcomes far less certain. Had Allende simply carried out his duties as proscribed by law, Pinochet would have very likely wound up as another military leader to be mostly forgotten by history.

#278 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-16 01:55 PM | Reply

"The return on SS is a stealth tax; if the investment is 2% for me, and they can get 4.5%, most of the gains are going for other purposes...like YOUR income tax cut"

You would appear to be making a strong argument against Social Security if your numbers are anywhere near correct.

#279 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-16 01:56 PM | Reply

"You would appear to be making a strong argument against Social Security if your numbers are anywhere near correct."

Perhaps, if he were arguing that Social Security is an investment vehicle.

How much did you think your Social Security dollars were going to earn between the time they were removed from your paycheck and given to Afkabl2?

#280 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-16 02:14 PM | Reply

"Really, you can thank Allende for creating the conditions that led to the coup."

What utter nonsense. Pinochet's coup was illegal under the rule of law. No excuses can be made for that murdering, disappearing, torturing dictator. When you do you really make yourself look like a sympathizer.

#281 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-16 02:22 PM | Reply

Social Security is an insurance program guaranteed by the federal government. No investment program would provide disability benefits if you become unable to work before reaching retirement age.

#282 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-16 02:23 PM | Reply

"You would appear to be making a strong argument against Social Security if your numbers are anywhere near correct."

The collapse of the stock market in 2008 proves you are full of crap. It can and will happen again.

#283 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-16 02:25 PM | Reply

"You would appear to be making a strong argument against Social Security if your numbers are anywhere near correct."

I would also appear to be destroying your claim that payroll taxes are only there for the benefit of the payers.

#284 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-16 02:44 PM | Reply

#277

You being smug in your ignorance and uncaring could, one supposes, be an education on what a Randian Objectivist really is... and what a non sequitur is.

As far as you retorting any facts that have been shown to prove that the kind of inequality on display with this Trump Tax Plan, you know, the topic here, is only being exacerbated by it, well, that's imaginary.

#285 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-16 03:39 PM | Reply

should be, "and your lame arguments about third world economies define what a non sequitur is."

#286 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-16 04:23 PM | Reply

"What utter nonsense. Pinochet's coup was illegal under the rule of law."

It wasn't Pinochet's coup. He was the last to have been brought in. And it only occurred because of the illegal activities that Allende had been engaging in. In fact at least one coup leader fell out of favor specifically because Pinochet refused to set a date where the country would return to democratic rule.

#287 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-16 08:22 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort