Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, May 26, 2019

The rich are getting richer. It is a refrain that has certainly been uttered before, and likely will again, as Deutsche Bank Securities' chief economist points out that the gap between the haves and have-nots in the U.S. is, indeed, widening.

Advertisement

More

Comments

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

Welcome to California, land of plutocrats and poverty.

#1 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-26 11:29 AM | Reply

Now I need a lecture about how the rich earned all they have and the rest of us are just lazy. Like Donald Trump earned every penny and so did his wonderful children

#2 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-26 11:35 AM | Reply

I am sure BorderDenialism will make it better.

#3 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-05-26 11:35 AM | Reply

It's revealing that this isn't a topic of discussion on Pelosi's, DCCC's, or DNC's platform.

The only people talking about it are Bernie, Warren, and few progressives; targets of the above platforms.

Hillary, speaking to Texas Dem's yesterday, didn't bring it up either - www.houstonchronicle.com

#4 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-26 11:40 AM | Reply

Like Donald Trump earned every penny and so did his wonderful children
#2 | POSTED BY DANNI

How quickly and easily you turn a blind eye to filthy rich democrats beholden to bankers, lobbyists, corporations, and military contractors.

#5 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-26 11:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"How quickly and easily you turn a blind eye to filthy rich democrats beholden to bankers, lobbyists, corporations, and military contractors."

You possibly describe some Democrats but ignore the fact that all Republicans fit that description while many or most Democrats do not.
You ignore the good and pretend all the Dems are the same as the Republicans, both sides just aren't the same no matter how hard your try to convince us they are. Kind of makes me think you are working for the Republicans.
Convincing people that both sides are the same is definitely the goal of the Republican Party, I hope they pay you well.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-26 11:51 AM | Reply

"filthy rich democrats beholden to bankers, lobbyists, corporations, and military contractors."

Proving once again, nothing pisses off a right-winger more than...

...when Democrats act like Republicans.

#7 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-26 11:54 AM | Reply

"I am sure BorderDenialism will make it better."

No one would cross our border if no one would hire them. Let me know when you want to arrest and jail Republican contractors who hire them every single day while, at the same time, disingenously whine about illegal immigrants. They are everywhere, they do it every day right out in the open. I just can't take the arguments about immigration seriously when you don't ever talk about who is hiring these people. Many are donors to the Republican Party because they want the immigrants to be illegal so they can't demand anything like minimum wages, etc. You know this, everyone knows this. Illegal immigration is a topic used to divide people but has nothing to do with actually ending illegal immigration. Too many companies depend on them, that's why they support Republicans who always oppose immigration reform laws.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-26 11:57 AM | Reply

BTW, who was the worst Democrat in history? Joe Lieberman.

We wouldn't even be having an argument about Medicare for All if that piece of crap hadn't prevented the Public Option for Obamacare and then gone on to become a lobbyist for the insurance industry. Despicable human being.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-26 12:01 PM | Reply

...when Democrats act like Republicans.

#7 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I thought your argument has been that Dem's were morally and ethically above all that?

As soon as you can bring yourself to admit that both parties politicians are greedy special interest grifters

we can move on to solving the problem of a dysfunctional gov't and wealth disparity. But you won't.

#10 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-26 12:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

BTW, who was the worst Democrat in history? Joe Lieberman.
#9 | POSTED BY DANNI

You see, Danni? We have common ground.

#11 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-26 12:14 PM | Reply

Naturally the top ten percent's wealth has grown as many of the assets the would own have been growing in value over the years. Our economy is NOT a zero sum game and new wealth is continually created.

From WiKi for the uninformed: 'In game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which each participant's gain or loss of utility is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the utility of the other participants.'

#12 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-05-26 12:16 PM | Reply

We've experience tremendous wealth inequality before. We found that 90% marginal tax rates over everything earned above a certain level fixed it and ushered in decades of middle class prosperity and growth. Pretending we didn't do that is an attempt by Republicans to rewrite history to prevent us from doing what we need to do today.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-26 12:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"As soon as you can bring yourself to admit that both parties politicians are greedy special interest grifters"

Why would anyone support a lie like that? How much do they pay you to post lies like that?

#14 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-26 12:26 PM | Reply

--How much do they pay you to post lies like that?

"False allegations are made against retorters 24/7 by your tribe. People are either russians or nazis or sockpuppets with multiple accounts or paid posters or not really black as in the case of Boaz or god knows what. It's a retort Gsme of Lies played by mediocrities that can't honestly debate anything.

Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-26 09:49 AM |

#15 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-26 12:33 PM | Reply

"No one would cross our border if no one would hire them."

Drug dealers would die off if addicts would stop using.

#16 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-05-26 12:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Pretending that both parties are the same is a lie that only Republicans can benefit from. That's just a fact. So, anyone furthering that lie has a motive for furthering that lie. What, exactly, is that motive we can't know but we can suspect it is financial.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-26 12:41 PM | Reply

17
If anyone calls me a donkeyrat, its full on kungfoo. 😖

#18 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-05-26 12:46 PM | Reply

We've experience tremendous wealth inequality before. We found that 90% marginal tax rates over everything earned above a certain level fixed it and ushered in decades of middle class prosperity and growth. Pretending we didn't do that is an attempt by Republicans to rewrite history to prevent us from doing what we need to do today.

#13 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2019-05-26 12:23 PM | FLAG: FYI: Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes.Aug 4, 2017
Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation
taxfoundation.org

Danni, it was not tax rate that ushered in the middle class prosperity and growth, rather:

Many Americans feared that the end of World War II and the subsequent drop in military spending might bring back the hard times of the Great Depression. But instead, pent-up consumer demand fueled exceptionally strong economic growth in the post-war period.Jan 17, 2018
The Post-War Economic Boom After WWII -
ThoughtCo
www.thoughtco.com

A major cause of America economic prosperity in the 1950s was? An industrial base that, alone among major powers, was unscathed from WWII and had been vastly expanded by the demands of that war; a lot of it was now being re-tooled back into non-military purposes. A population that was growing more rapidly than before.

A major cause of America economic prosperity in the 1950s was? - Quora
www.quora.com

#19 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-05-26 01:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Of course, this is what was planned, when labor unions were decapitated, when service economy was envisioned, when manufacturing was offshored, when healthcare was surrendered to profiteers, when banks were deregulated, when Trump decided pollution is good for America, when public resources were taken from public school systems and diverted into the pockets of profiteers.

All of this is part of a Republican agenda, a program which too many Democrats are on board with.

#20 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-05-26 02:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"... the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes."

They're certainly not paying that rate today. Not even close.

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-26 03:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They're certainly not paying that rate today. Not even close.

#21 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2019-05-26 03:15 PM | FLAG: So?

#22 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-05-26 04:41 PM | Reply

About the time the 10% hit 50% things became immoral.

#23 | Posted by Tor at 2019-05-26 04:52 PM | Reply

I just bet the top .1% most likely appreciate being lumped in with the entire top 10%.

That way it gets lost in the numbers that the top .1% owns more than the other 90% of the top 10% all added together.

#24 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-05-26 05:10 PM | Reply

Here's a chart showing wage growth among Americans from 1965-2019. It's clear where the money went:

www.advisorperspectives.com

And another from Pew Research 1970-today:

www.pewsocialtrends.org

Same story. That's why so many Americans feel left behind. Wages for average Americans haven't kept up.

#25 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-26 05:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A kid graduates HS, goes to college to become a lawyer, and lands a job.

Another kid graduates HS, goes to work in constructing homes, laying brick.

Strange in four years, the kid working after HS is wealthier than that college grad.

That is so unfair.

In 10 years, this probably will flip.

Then the bricklayer sees the lawyer as wealthier.

Unfair.

Another kid just graduated HS today. These two older kids are wealthier than they are.

Freaking unfair.

Wow. Results aren't equal. Status isn't fair.

#26 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-05-26 06:18 PM | Reply

#26 | Posted by Petrous

You don't understand 'median income' or how wages haven't risen for everyone with even a semblance of equality.

An American brick layer made a very good living back when. The lawyers and those in their income brackets now pay Mexicans to do it for a fraction of the price. Many of them the same people who bitch about 'illegal immigrants.'

#27 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-26 06:23 PM | Reply

A kid graduates HS, goes to college to become a lawyer, and lands a job.

You missed the part where the kid who becomes a lawyer ends up with $300k of student debt if he wasn't from a wealthy family who paid his way through 8 years of school. Then he gets hired as a young associate working 100 hours a week for $60 or 70k, which leaves him no time and little left over for living expenses after he pays those student loan payments for years and years and years.

#28 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-26 06:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I thought your argument has been that Dem's were morally and ethically above all that?"

Don't take my condemnation of today's so-called Republicans as support for Democrats.

But haven't you noticed? Every time Dems act like Republicans, Republicans condemn them.

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-26 07:48 PM | Reply

#28 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY AT 2019-05-26 06:30 PM | FLAG: Guess my son is the exception. I paid 1/2 of his Bachelor's [his mother the other half]. He worked and paid for his Master's on his own and then, after graduating Rutgers Law School he joined the Army as a 1st Lieutenant, did the Dave Ramsey 'Beans & Rice, Rice & Beans' [i.e., lived extremely frugally] and paid off 87k student loan within less thatn years and now has a few hundred thou in investments as well as had built a rental property in Colorado that is being paid for by the renter. In life one can plan to succeed or fail to plan and be behind the 🎱

#30 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-05-26 07:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

he joined the Army as a 1st Lieutenant, did the Dave Ramsey 'Beans & Rice, Rice & Beans' [i.e., lived extremely frugally] and paid off 87k student loan within less thatn years

Good for him. And good for you and your wife. 4 year tuition would have made those beans and rice a much much longer diet.

You don't get it either. See, you gave him a leg up. The vast majority of college students aren't so lucky. We've owned several rental properties for years and rent to a lot of undergrads and grad students and new hires, so we get a look at their credit reports as part of the screening process.

You'd be amazed at the large percentage of them who've owed (or now owe) healthy six figure student debt after just undergrad. The grad students typically got a stipend of 3k a month (beans and rice), but we've helped all of them by charging substantially less than the going rate for rent around here. The ones who didn't have student debt had dads who earned six figures. Every single time.

BTW, you can't tell me your son paid $900-1200 per credit hour per semester at Rutgers without help. He wouldn't have had time to hold a job and carry a full load. Thanks to you, he wasn't faced with hundreds of dollars a month on undergrad student debt or the military would have been out of reach for him. Student loan payments start the clock a year after you graduate.

#31 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-26 08:03 PM | Reply

MSGT

OK, he paid off $87k. Not all that hard to do over time on a military salary.

Now, if he'd had another $100-200k stacked on top of that (what tuition at a good university runs), he'd have been paying off student debt for many, many, many years, and a butter bar wouldn't have been able to carry that load unless the military agreed to lighten it some. Which is what my late BIL did after med school. But back then, tuition was a fraction of what it costs nowadays.

The university I went to in the 70's was $2400-3000 a year back then (in state). That same university is now almost $38k a year, $79k out of state.

#32 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-26 08:12 PM | Reply

The top 10% pays 70% of the taxes, so this seems to be about right.

#33 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-26 08:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The top 10% pays 70% of the taxes, so this seems to be about right.

Now I understand why there is such an attack at right conservatives, with statements like this it serves you right.

#34 | Posted by Crassus at 2019-05-26 08:15 PM | Reply

--The top 10% pays 70% of the taxes, so this seems to be about right.

70 percent of income taxes. Just want to clarify that before you-know-who comes along and calls you a liar.

#35 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-26 08:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#33 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Nulli is right ... we don't want this thread to explode while you try to explain your meaning.

Especially anytime after 5pm ....

#36 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-05-26 08:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The university I went to in the 70's was $2400-3000 a year back then (in state). That same university is now almost $38k a year, $79k out of state.

Administrators are expensive ...

#37 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-05-26 08:26 PM | Reply

Don't take my condemnation of today's so-called Republicans as support for Democrats.
~Danforth

Of course not ....*eyeroll*

#38 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-05-26 08:27 PM | Reply

Just want to clarify that before you-know-who comes along and calls you a liar.

Awww, I was hoping for exactly that outcome...

#39 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-26 08:37 PM | Reply

#38

It's interesting that Dannie is now bending over backwards to shed his well deserved hyperpartisan label.

#40 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-26 08:39 PM | Reply

#37 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Bingo!

"No touching multi-billion dollar endowments for us! We'll just raise tuition!"

#41 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-26 09:04 PM | Reply

#40

Feel free to post where I praise Democrats.

And good luck finding any.

#42 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-26 09:06 PM | Reply

"Of course not ....*eyeroll*"

Oh, I'm not trying to kid anyone: were I elected, I'd definitely caucus with the Dems...but only because the real Republican Party ran away from me years ago.

Remember when Republicans were all about fiscal sanity, respect for the rule of law, and elevation of science and learning? I do.

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-26 09:08 PM | Reply

This math is actually wrong as it misses the giant wealth that the poor people in the US have in the form of an annual annuity payments in such things like medicare and other welfare programs. We are not ever going to cut these programs so why are these not seen as an asset like any other annuity people own - like a company pension or life insurance?

Total HH net worth in the US is $107T - which is a lot. But, let's now figure out what the value of that continual welfare spending is:

$1.1T/year at 5% (rate of program spending increase) and 2.5% discount rate (fed funds rate)

Present Value of a perpetuity = Payment / (discount rate - growth)

Present Value = $1.1T / (5% - 2.5%) = $44T

So, the present value of transfer payments = $44T, which is not counted in household wealth equations. If we add this in, we have total wealth of $151T, of which more than $44T (29%) is owned by the lower 50% of the population - and this is a low end calculation.

The problem with all these bleeding heart calculations by Liberals is that they assume there is no value in these transfer payments - there IS - obviously. So, any study that does not include transfer payments when calculating household wealth or household income is fatally flawed.

#44 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-05-27 02:51 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

Whoever marked my comment as funny is showing how intellectually lacking they are. How about an actual response? Do you know what a society looks like where there are not widespread transfer payments from the rich to the poor? They look like Africa or the Philippines. The poorest in the US is better off than middle class people in most of the world. Our poor have access to medical care, housing allowances, food stamps, heating/electrical assistance, cell phones, and public schools. That is not the case for most of the world. So, pretending that someone in the US with $0 in the bank is in the same situation as someone in Africa with $0 in the bank is the height of dishonesty. All those transfer payment have value - if they didn't, you would not fight tooth and nail to keep the funding of them growing.

So, to my original post - the poor in the US only have $0 net worth if you ignore their single biggest asset - an annuity/perpetuity of transfer payments. Any study that makes that assumption is not worth the paper it is printed on.

#45 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-05-27 03:33 AM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

Are you for real, comparing use to 3rd world Africa, what is wrong with you? And there is much more to the medical care, and allowances than you actually know or do know and have chose to ignore to suit your purpose.

What happens to the peoples assets when they die? do you even know about that fine print?

#46 | Posted by Crassus at 2019-05-27 05:26 AM | Reply

"Are you for real, comparing use to 3rd world Africa, what is wrong with you?
#46 | POSTED BY CRASSUS"

I agree - which is why the study's authors are being dishonest. Saying someone has no wealth while ignoring this huge asset is asinine.

#47 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-05-27 07:03 AM | Reply

#28
Sounds like he'd be better off as a plumber.

#48 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-05-27 07:27 AM | Reply

"You missed the part where the kid who becomes a lawyer ends up with $300k of student debt if he wasn't from a wealthy family who paid his way through 8 years of school. Then he gets hired as a young associate working 100 hours a week for $60 or 70k, which leaves him no time and little left over for living expenses after he pays those student loan payments for years and years and years.
#28 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY"

That kid sounds like an idiot, which is probably why they became a lawyer. Go to a state school (better yet, do 2 years of community college and 2 years at the 4 year school). If you graduate more that $50K in debt from undergrad, you are a moron. If you pile up another $50K during the next 3 years of law school, that is reasonable. If it costs you more than $50k/year to attend law school, it better be a top 10 program - in which case you won't be making $60K or $70K. Problem solved.

Here is a hint - if you are $300K in debt from school and your title is not MD or from an Ivy (or Ivy like) - you made very bad choices in life.

#49 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-05-27 07:38 AM | Reply

If you graduate more that $50K in debt from undergrad, you are a moron.

In-state tuition books room and board are estimated at 17k for my sons school. That would be 68k over 4 years.

#50 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-05-27 08:48 AM | Reply

"We found that 90% marginal tax rates over everything earned above a certain level fixed it and ushered in decades of middle class prosperity and growth. Pretending we didn't do that is an attempt by Republicans to rewrite history to prevent us from doing what we need to do today."

You think tax rates did that?

It had nothing to do with the fact that the US was the only country capable of heavy industry in the post-war years, did it.

#51 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-27 09:54 AM | Reply

"#50 | POSTED BY TAOWARRIOR "

And? He came into school with zero in the bank? And he has no plans to work while in school or in the summer? And this non-working, no wealth kid was not smart enough to use his time studying so they can get at least a partial scholarship? Hell, tell him to sell his blood plasma and he will make enough off that alone to keep his debt under $50K - that is like a 4 hour/week commitment.

Then again, I suspect he will be a 'super senior', blow his cash on spring break or having a nice car, etc.

It is all about choices.

#52 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-05-27 10:22 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

"It had nothing to do with the fact that the US was the only country capable of heavy industry in the post-war years, did it.
#51 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER"

The 91% top marginal tax rate was in place from 1944-1951, during the time the world was decimated and US was the only industrial power. Despite this, the real GDP growth was 2.0% average over this time.

In 1952 and 1953, the top rate was jacked to 92% and real GDP growth averaged 2.9% with 1953 being basically 0% growth.

Rates were lowered back to 91% for the rest of the 50's and GDP growth averaged 3.7%.

Now, despite the growth actually being pretty anemic despite this use industrial advantage the US had, people FELT wealthier. But, this is probably driven more by the depression letting up and people were happier with what they actually had because this economy is not this rip-roaring machine most envision during this time.

#53 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-05-27 10:38 AM | Reply

Then again, I suspect he will be a 'super senior', blow his cash on spring break or having a nice car, etc.
It is all about choices.

That right there tells me all I need to know about your understanding of poor people's fiances.

When is the last time you had to put 2 bucks of gas in the car so the other three bucks could feed the family dinner that night?

It's funny how the well-off project their own failings on the poor. Blowing his cash on spring break assumes having cash. Same with the car thing. No he will probably spend spring break at home working gig's because you can't get a job for 2 weeks. As far as the car goes he'll be driving a 2005 Pontiac vibe starting his sophomore year, no car freshman year because parking for freshmen is outrageous.

Being poor requires a whole different mindset and most middle class and above people simply don't get it. Sure some poor people make plenty of money and just don't know how to budget/save but mostly being poor means there is too much month for your money and all the scrimping in the world won't make it last longer.

#54 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-05-27 12:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"When is the last time you had to put 2 bucks of gas in the car so the other three bucks could feed the family dinner that night?"

More like $2 in gas, $5 in scratch offs and $7 for a pack of smokes.

"It's funny how the well-off project their own failings on the poor."

I don't have failings. I grew up 1 step above-----------.

"No he will probably spend spring break at home working gig's because you can't get a job for 2 weeks."

No reason why he can't work part time in school. Work in a computer lab, parking, or sell his blood plasma. If he is a good student, tutoring. Heck, sign up for "America Read" or "America Counts". On top of this, he will get a Pell Grant. Assuming you contribute nothing, that is like $6,000/year.

"As far as the car goes he'll be driving a 2005 Pontiac vibe starting his sophomore year, no car freshman year because parking for freshmen is outrageous."

If he ain't working and is living on campus, zero need for a car at all.

"Being poor requires a whole different mindset
54 | POSTED BY TAOWARRIOR"

No, STAYING POOR requires a different kind of mindset. It isn't that hard to be at least middle class in this country. As to the subject above, if your kid graduates with more than $50K in debt, he made very bad life decisions including being lazy. Just by selling his blood plasma and Pell Grants, he will get $40K to offset the $64K in tuition, room and board - so, you are looking at $24K in debt, which could easily go to $0 is he works 15 hours/week + summers and actually lives like a college kid and not an entitled millennial.

#55 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-05-27 12:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 3 | Newsworthy 1

"In 1952 and 1953, the top rate was jacked to 92% and real GDP growth averaged 2.9% with 1953 being basically 0% growth."

The other thing to consider, the thing no one talks about, is the fact that the tax code was a lot more liberal back then. Up until the tax reforms of the 1980s, you could deduct far more. Like the cost of taking your family with you on a work trip, or deductions on passive investment losses on real estate. Those things are gone now. And even when the tax rates were high, the effective marginal rate never exceeded 45%.

"Being poor requires a whole different mindset and most middle class and above people simply don't get it."

I disagree. When I ended my military enlistment to start college, I was making $1k a month, before taxes, which was far better than I was making as an E-4. I worked two jobs for most of my college years. With colleges currently tailoring class schedules to a broader range of people, it would be pretty easy to work full time. And many people do. I think comments like your cheapen their efforts, by implying that, because they weren't born rich, they shouldn't be expected to perform at a higher level or more difficult circumstances.

Ira is right, if you're down to your last three dollars to buy food, it's probably the result of a string of bad decisions.

#56 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-27 01:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"As to the subject above, if your kid graduates with more than $50K in debt, he made very bad life decisions including being lazy."

There more than a few examples of people who took out hundreds of thousands in student loans to get degrees from prestigious universities that weren't going to provide a return. Author Lee Steigel is one, who commented: "Maybe, after going back to school, I should have gone into finance, or some other lucrative career. Self-disgust and lifelong unhappiness, destroying a precious young life -- all this is a small price to pay for meeting your student loan obligations."

#57 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-27 01:11 PM | Reply

#53 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG AT 2019-05-27 10:38 AM | FLAG: Just a note: no country has ever taxed itself to prosperity.

#58 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-05-27 01:14 PM | Reply

#58 | POSTED BY MSGT

Taxes pay for roads, bridges, fire, police, water, sewage, libraries, parks, town squares, social safety nets, etc, etc.

The ability to raise a tax on manufacturing and commerce is the very difference between a prosperous nation and an impoverished nation.

Which is why I'm opposed to giving the likes of Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook a pass on taxes, or allowing them to bank overseas.

#59 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-27 01:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Pell Grants are on parents income. Good god you are so clueless. It is entirely possible for a family to make too much for pell grants and not enough for college, especially with multiple children. If you live in a high cost of living area it's even more likely.

So you back to the point of advantages you are saddling the kid with 24k in extra debt because their parents are right on the line and not perfect with money. So even counting summer work and selling plasma you are back at 48k. That's assuming the kid doesn't spend a penny besides tuition books and room and board (where do the stay during the summer, how does he get back and forth between school and home etc.) If he spends 600 bucks a year on those other expenses (does he go to class naked?) he just cracked your 50k line.

You expect a level of perfect money management from the poor that is simply not expected from any other group. The poor have no wiggle room, a budget that doesn't include emergency money is not a budget but a pile of numbers. You and most every other middle class and above person seems to think that just cause they can pull a pile of numbers out of their backsides that the poor can live on the pile of numbers.

We won't even get into the level of offensiveness that you are suggesting that you know better how they should live their life, how much free time they should have, how long they are going to need to spend on schoolwork, and how they should spend their money.

More like $2 in gas, $5 in scratch offs and $7 for a pack of smokes.

Amazing you turned 5 bucks to live-off to 14. I wish I had known you when I was poor.

#60 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-05-27 01:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The ability to raise a tax on manufacturing and commerce is the very difference between a prosperous nation and an impoverished nation."

Did Venezuela just not impose enough taxes?

#61 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-27 01:31 PM | Reply

Ira is right, if you're down to your last three dollars to buy food, it's probably the result of a string of bad decisions.

Yeah I decided not to abort a child and instead decided to become a father (there is a whole different thread about that which I avoid like the plague) I also decided to take in my nephew when his mom died and dad vanished, I also decided to get multiple sclerosis at 29 (18 months after taking in another kid).

Yes there were some genuinely bad decisions in there as well I'm not perfect.

I think comments like your cheapen their efforts, by implying that, because they weren't born rich, they shouldn't be expected to perform at a higher level or more difficult circumstances.

That was not intended and I don't really see it there. Certainly someone who struggles can and often will out preform someone who had life handed to them, however to ignore the inherent advantages of being "born on third" is to be willfully blind.

#62 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-05-27 01:34 PM | Reply

"Certainly someone who struggles can and often will out preform someone who had life handed to them, however to ignore the inherent advantages of being "born on third" is to be willfully blind."

I didn't say that either, but being born on third base isn't necessarily tied to income. There are many immigrant families who come over here dirt poor, but their kids go on to be highly successful. Were they born on first base because they didn't have money, or were they somewhere further along because they had parents who demanded that they excel? At the same time, there's no shortage of children from wealthy households whose parents weren't heavily involved in their life, or in some form or another drove them away from making good decisions.

All the money in the world isn't going to substitute for parental involvement and a supportive family. Unless the money is used to purchase new parents.

#63 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-27 01:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Unless the money is used to purchase new parents.
#63 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Agree with everything but the above! If your parents don't care, no one else will....

#64 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-05-27 02:04 PM | Reply

"The ability to raise a tax on manufacturing and commerce is the very difference between a prosperous nation and an impoverished nation."

Name a country that doesn't have the ability to "raise a tax".

But its the Laffer curve, eventually the taxation is so great, revenues begin drying up. Its a fine line and every country is different.

#65 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-05-27 02:07 PM | Reply

- Name a country that doesn't have the ability to "raise a tax".

Bikini Atoll

#66 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-27 02:19 PM | Reply

"All the money in the world isn't going to substitute for parental involvement and a supportive family. Unless the money is used to purchase new parents."

Or the money could be used to purchase time with your kids, instead of having to work, and not be with your kids.

Other than that, of course parental involvement matters. It's why we can't all actually be hunter gatherers in the woods. We don't know how.

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-27 02:40 PM | Reply

however to ignore the inherent advantages of being "born on third" is to be willfully blind.

Are you suggesting that people who passed on wealth to their kids, the kids should be punished?

I mean, that's why we are in this, right, so our kids can have better than we did?

So I guess people just get jealous by seeing someone else be able to send their kids to school?

I just don't think it's right that if I have $10 to send my kid to school and you have $2, I should have to give you 4 of my dollars just because you are poor.

#68 | Posted by boaz at 2019-05-27 03:13 PM | Reply

"Or the money could be used to purchase time with your kids, instead of having to work, and not be with your kids."

How would you ensure they used the time constructively as intended? A bad parent isn't going to get better just because he has more time away from work.

#69 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-27 03:46 PM | Reply

#68

Why does your ideology always jump to jealousy? No it's not jealousy I would expect people who did well to be able to pass that on to their kids.

However handicapping a kid because their parents weren't able to pass anything on doesn't seem like it serves society either.

I don't really have the answer, ok I do but no one wants to hear it, just pointing out the problem.

#70 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-05-27 04:07 PM | Reply

I don't really have the answer, ok I do but no one wants to hear it, just pointing out the problem.

Send it. I'm interested in what you're thinking.

#71 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-27 04:10 PM | Reply

I've thrown it out before MB but sure here goes again.

A UBI call it 1000 a month (the actual numbers would need to be tweaked but that is pretty close) that goes to every man woman and child in the US. For kids under 18 parents get 50% to spend raising their kid 25% goes to schooling (and it would work like vouchers it could be used on private school or go to increasing funding for a public school or even day care for those under school age) and the final 25% goes into a bank account for the kid that is untouchable for any reason until the kid is 18.

That would give every kid 54,000 to start off with when they turn 18. Either for college, a down payment on a house anything. So essentially every american child would be a trust fund kid.

#72 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-05-27 04:36 PM | Reply

Billionaire Ray Dalio said capitalism is no longer working for most Americans, adding that the expanding wealth gap is creating a volatile environment with disturbing parallels to the economic and social upheaval of the 1930s, he said in a blog on LinkedIn last month.

It's unclear, what the next 10 years will look like, but some have argued that a combination of monetary policy and fiscal policy may be necessary to span the yawning divide.

Interesting how the Federal Reserve's study doesn't match the recently published 7% owning the top 80%, which I presumed was also dumbed down.:/

#73 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-05-27 05:10 PM | Reply

Are you suggesting that people who passed on wealth to their kids, the kids should be punished?

That's not what Tao was suggesting at all.

Try reading everything before you knee jerk and come off looking like dummy.

#74 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-05-27 05:21 PM | Reply

San Fran has more Billionaires per capita than any where in the world. with all the homeless right there with them. that's your Dem utopia

Dems are the party of the rich and the party of racism

believe it, own it

#75 | Posted by Maverick at 2019-05-27 05:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

San Fran has more Billionaires per capita than any where in the world. with all the homeless right there with them. that's your Dem utopia
Dems are the party of the rich and the party of racism
believe it, own it
#75 | POSTED BY MAVERICK AT 2019-05-27 05:57 PM

You mean the rolling blackouts, moving the tech industry and removing shelters and medical care for the homeless, let alone the revocation of gay marriage are all Democrat platform and had nothing to do with capitalism, greed and religion?

Clue phone - those are REPUBLICAN ideals and generally those cretins can be found at the heart of every crisis. There are recordings of the board meetings that planned the blackouts. The replacement of key business components to eliminate the workforce and part companies offshore are TEAMS OF REPUBLICANS. What was that HP CEO convicted of? Selling secrets to China while her husband led a hatchet crew company to company..

#76 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-05-27 06:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

--Clue phone - those are REPUBLICAN ideals

Get a clue yourself. The last Republican mayor of San Francisco was in 1964. It's commonly considered the most liberal big city in the country.

Own it.

#77 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-27 06:24 PM | Reply

--Clue phone - those are REPUBLICAN ideals
Get a clue yourself. The last Republican mayor of San Francisco was in 1964. It's commonly considered the most liberal big city in the country.
Own it.
#77 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-05-27 06:24 PM

What I admit is that the majority if not the entirety of malfeasance is Republican-sponsored. There are exceptions.

One of the worse things to happen to our economy was Bill Clinton deregulating cable. That eradicated much of our future and essentially handed the paid-for infrastructure to corporations to gouge the citizenry further.

Otherwise, what I have expressed as the most agregious actions against California and American jobs is Republican capitalism.

ENRON was run by a close personal friend to the Bush family, btw.

The construction companies are Republican-run, many by non-nationals. The important aspects to running a city have been fought against by conservatives, Republicans and generally bigots.

A "utopia" would have legalized all drugs and made marijuana therapy available during the AIDS crisis.

#78 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-05-27 06:33 PM | Reply

Our crony capitalism as de facto owners of the government is high stakes poker game where there are only big moneyed winners and by-standing losers.

The game is rigged by who starts out with the biggest bankroll. The 10 percent Casino Owners always win.

#79 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-27 09:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Our crony capitalism as de facto owners of the government is high stakes poker game where there are only big moneyed winners and by-standing losers."

And your solution is to give more power to the government and assume that won't make the corruption worse - despite EVERY example in the history of mankind of that happening.

"The game is rigged by who starts out with the biggest bankroll. The 10 percent Casino Owners always win.
#79 | POSTED BY CORKY "

Casino owners go bankrupt very often - whether Trump, the Maloofs, or pretty much anyone that invested in Atlantic City....in addition to many Indian tribes that went into gaming and lost money.

#80 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-05-28 01:44 AM | Reply

"Casino owners go bankrupt very often - whether Trump, the Maloofs, or pretty much anyone that invested in Atlantic City....in addition to many Indian tribes that went into gaming and lost money.
#80 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG AT 2019-05-28 01:44 AM"

Interesting piece of information.

So, does this illustrate that Mr. Trump doesn't know how to run a casino successfully or that he doesn't have the business acumen when choosing good investments?

#81 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-05-28 03:30 AM | Reply

"So, does this illustrate that Mr. Trump doesn't know how to run a casino successfully or that he doesn't have the business acumen when choosing good investments?
#81 | POSTED BY TRUEBLUE"

The only people that don't make mistakes are those that play it safe and stay poor as a result.

#82 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-05-28 09:00 AM | Reply

"A UBI call it 1000 a month (the actual numbers would need to be tweaked but that is pretty close) that goes to every man woman and child in the US."

This is one of Andrew Yang's key platforms. I think the problem would be the inflationary effect of everyone effectively getting a raise. More money would mean greater demand, which would mean higher prices. Real world, this happens a lot in communities supporting military bases. In 2012, the AF increased the housing allowance by $500 a month. And landlords immediately adjusted rental costs up as well. It doesn't really hurt anything, but to a large degree all it would do is establish a new baseline.

"For kids under 18 parents get 50% to spend raising their kid 25% goes to schooling (and it would work like vouchers it could be used on private school or go to increasing funding for a public school or even day care for those under school age) and the final 25% goes into a bank account for the kid that is untouchable for any reason until the kid is 18."

Using your example, my family would get $36k per year for doing nothing. Not to mention another $6k a year for schooling. Median family income in the town I was born in is $34K. Not sure how you would pay for this. It may not matter. That much cash may just increase inflation to the point where $70k a year is the new $34k when it comes to purchasing power.

#83 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-28 10:26 AM | Reply

"The only people that don't make mistakes are those that play it safe and stay poor as a result.
#82 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG AT 2019-05-28 09:00 AM"

Now there's a classic truism that provides little insight.

Maybe if Mr. Trump didn't do the same thing over and over, while expecting a different result, one might be convinced he's just an unlucky risk taker. One thing that is consistent about his M.O.: he plays with OPM (other people's money). I know, that's because he's "clever" and "shrewd" (* cough *). More like: "there's one born every minute". Not much of a risk when using OPM is there? Now President Trump is in a position to tap into the ultimate OPM: the US Taxpayer. It'll be interesting to see Deutsche Bank's documents, especially now that they seem to have ‘wised up'.

www.politifact.com

www.thoughtco.com

#84 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-05-28 11:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#72,

There's no way to pay for that. Money has to come from somewhere.

It would be better if it came from the parents, in like, you know, responsibility and taking care of yourself. The big thing that would help this country out is figuring out a way to make the poor take care of themselves. I think it's the height of selfishness to just give up and say, "I cant do it anymore, I'm poor, so you are a douche-bag for not helping/handing out to me".

A school where I live decided to ask the parents to fund some extra stuff for the elementary school. They did. The school is nice. Only gets a limited amount of money from the state. But it's the most desired elementary school in the area. Poorer school districts always point to us and say, "See, it's unfair they get so much money". I dont see how it's unfair. We tell them those parents have just as much opportunity to do what we did. But instead, poorer parents expect the school district to make up the short fall. Which means, me as a tax payer am paying twice, for the district I live in and those I dont.

THAT's unfair.

#85 | Posted by boaz at 2019-05-28 01:08 PM | Reply

#83

The inflationary effect is one of the few good arguments I have heard against it. People simply raising prices to account for everyone having more money. One of the original ideas for UBI included a measure for that. It worked like this: Instead of 1000 per person it was 500 per person and the other 500 went to merchants to hold their prices steady. That by the way is a super simplified explanation of the mechanism. However that would be something that would have to be looked at for sure.

#85

The money is there I am talking about creating new money not racking up federal debt. However the banking system would have to be radically changed to make it work. No more fractional reserve banking for one thing. (I can hear the howls of the bankers already) I have actually spent a fair amount of time studying it and it is 100% possible however the political will is 100% against it. I know it won't happen in my life time but as automation takes away low skilled jobs something will have to be done about the 49% of the population that is below average and simply not capable of getting more skills.

As far as the school district goes I'm with you on that (to an extent) if the schools are all properly funded to start with and parents in one district are willing to pay more to fund more then bully for them. In that case even poor kids will benefit as even the best school districts have some poor kids in them. If the schools are not properly funded then yeah they need to increase taxes to pay for them. It sucks but a well educated youth is beneficial to you as well. (less crime, more wealth creation etc.)

#86 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-05-28 05:52 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 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort