Greeks Bearing Gifts....

[Jim]

I'm just waiting for ONE succinct and coherent reply.

 

I don't have a comprehensive plan..........

 

Well, you proposed taxing the richest 200 Greeks as a solution - just asking for the details behind this brillant plan. Nothing more. Waiting. Or have you abandoned that concept already?

[j_b]

and Pat came to your defense when I said the ethics and logic displayed in your post were shameful .. keep it up dude.

[billcoe]

Well, you proposed taxing the richest 200 Greeks as a solution - just asking for the details behind this brillant plan. Nothing more. Waiting. Or have you abandoned that concept already?

 

HELLO FELLOW BRO I HAVE ALREADY INITIATED THE TRANSLATION OF JB TO ENGLISH AND ANSWERED THIS 4 POSTS BACK

 

I can only assume at this point that the handwaving thing is contagious and spreading?

[prole]

Well, you proposed taxing the richest 200 Greeks as a solution - just asking for the details behind this brillant plan. Nothing more. Waiting. Or have you abandoned that concept already?

 

HELLO FELLOW BRO I HAVE ALREADY INITIATED THE TRANSLATION OF JB TO ENGLISH AND ANSWERED THIS 4 POSTS BACK

 

I can only assume at this point that the handwaving thing is contagious and spreading?

 

Nice try.

[Jim]

Well, you proposed taxing the richest 200 Greeks as a solution - just asking for the details behind this brillant plan. Nothing more. Waiting. Or have you abandoned that concept already?

 

HELLO FELLOW BRO I HAVE ALREADY INITIATED THE TRANSLATION OF JB TO ENGLISH AND ANSWERED THIS 4 POSTS BACK

 

I can only assume at this point that the handwaving thing is contagious and spreading?

 

I apologize for my irrelevant rambling.

 

 

[billcoe]

Welcome back from the abyss Jim. LOL!

[j_b]

Well, you proposed taxing the richest 200 Greeks as a solution - just asking for the details behind this brillant plan. Nothing more. Waiting. Or have you abandoned that concept already?

 

HELLO FELLOW BRO I HAVE ALREADY INITIATED THE TRANSLATION OF JB TO ENGLISH AND ANSWERED THIS 4 POSTS BACK

 

The salient point of the piece you posted was: "Greece is undoubtedly in dire fiscal straits, but the blame does not lie with overspending. On the contrary, Greek spending is exactly in line with what one might expect from a modern, Western member of the European Union. Its tax revenues, on the other hand, are clearly on the low end. Average spending plus below average revenues equals large, persistent deficits, and that is precisely what happened in Greece."

 

how is it different from what I said in a few words?

 

sheesh! It feels like I am arguing with 4th graders.

 

 

Edited June 15, 2011 by j_b

[Jim]

The salient point of the piece you posted was: "Greece is undoubtedly in dire fiscal straits, but the blame does not lie with overspending. On the contrary, Greek spending is exactly in line with what one might expect from a modern, Western member of the European Union. Its tax revenues, on the other hand, are clearly on the low end. Average spending plus below average revenues equals large, persistent deficits, and that is precisely what happened in Greece."

 

how is it different from what I said in a few words?

 

Oh. Now I understand. Maybe it was because your explanation was fragmented among 20 some odd posts. I've stitched them together here and now the narrative regains its wholistic clarity. Thanks.

 

you'd first have to demonstrate there isn't a store of wealth sufficient to pay for services. 200 individuals own more than the remaining of Greeks yet they pay little to no taxes. Again, there are at least 2 components to a budget: spending AND revenue. right genius, the debt has to disappear at this very instant

do I have a few days to put my expert report together or will soundbites suffice? Kind of interesting how "government spending is responsible for budget shortfall" doesn't elicit as much as a pip of questioning from you but "elites don't pay their fair share" is somehow a big point of contention.

 

Merkel knew about it because the German surplus has its roots in a deficit somewhere. It takes 2 to tango. the details of what, jackass? the same elites that don't pay taxes and profited from the crisis were in charge of policy for as long as we can remember, so why shouldn't they make sacrifices, first?

 

for the nth time, insults and ad-hom aren't equivalent. Now fuck off, goon. You'll note that the preceding insults all relate to your behavior and therefore aren't ad-hom. more continual off topic drivel from Attila by opposition to your 401k after the Wall Street bailout?

 

yeah right, Jim claiming that I handwave supposedly in contrast to his non critical approach to the drivel of neoliberals going after public workers is not a personal attack. indeed, there has been a neoliberal revolution to defund the state since Thatcher and Reagan. Time to pull your head out of ass, perhaps. tongue in cheek, my ass.

 

why didn't you ask Jayb what he meant when he attributed the budget crisis to overspending? was he hand waving? how eloquent. retard. you keep spewing about government spending for services being unsustainable but you don't want to acknowledge that 401k values are propped by Wall Street speculation and bailouts, and government bonds. How sustainable is that?

 

Try to be coherent once in a while. As if rebounds after a crash happened without government spending. the seattle times is for austerity. Who knew? LOLZ structural change is parlance for enforcing the neolib agenda of slashing social services while making the peons pay for the crisis engineered by elites and their puppets.

 

except that I don't claim that government spending shouldn't play a role like you and your pals do at every opportunity. That kind of flip flopping is called hypocrisy by most people. In addition to coherence, you should work on being consistent as well

 

you were agreeing with Bill, which means you had to know 'structural reform' involved some sticking it to the peons. The company you keep isn't my responsibility. Good, but you forgot your repeated calls to take it to public employees and your inexplicable "the states are on their own" knowing full well what it meant.

 

As for the rest of these terms: I will not be harassed systematically by goons without payback. If thugs want to continuously attack my person without hardly ever addressing content, they will have to bear these various epithets like trophies around their neck for they are well earned.

why didn't you ask some rationale from JayB when he pinned the entire crisis on government spending, when it is abundantly obvious that revenue shortfall due to the economic crisis and failure to tax the wealthy are primary reasons for budget shortfall?

 

I also never claimed that taxing the wealthy would be sufficient, only a necessary first step. right, you were against the bailout because you wanted to let it burn despite the obvious consequence for main street versus I was for the bailout until it was clear there would be no strings attached and it became a free for all for those who engineered the crisis.

 

Yes, I am not for all and any types of gov spending but you haven't shown how that would be inconsistent with what I said.

The issue was Jim's odd complaint about gov spending being unsustainable while he touts schemes like 401ks ignoring in the process that stocks and bonds values are regularly propped by government spending (after bubble crashes or during industry 'restructuring')

 

what we should worry about are the numerous job losses that result from austerity (~600,000 more in the US if the current cuts in fed budget are implemented as planned) and the depressing effect it will have on the economy, especially when combined with the current near 0 effective growth. The UK is in a very similar boat, if not worse.

 

not that it really matters whether or not I write 4 or 10 posts in a row, but where do you see 4 self-replies? dimwit! more off topic drivel from the peanut gallery.not especially.

 

why should I take seriously anything you say after your dismal display in the OBL thread and those that ensued? dude, give it a rest. Granted, your silly demonizing of opponents combined with the emptiness of your posts made you look like an ass but you don't have to keep doing it. I am all for 2nd chances.

I don't have a comprehensive plan as I am SURE you don't either despite your silly posturing. It's pathetic how you claim to have an intimate knowledge of the Greek situation, yet when JayB points to government spending as the cause of the crisis, you approve. As has been established beyond any doubt, skyrocketing debt is mostly due a) the neoliberal policy of not taxing income on capital and b) the economic recession following the financial crash of the casino economy. Yet not a word from you on these salient points.

 

Of course, no comment from you on the sustainability of your portfolio in light of the fact that it would be worth squat without repeated government intervention

 

and Pat came to your defense when I said the ethics and logic displayed in your post were shameful .. keep it up dude.

[j_b]

how is it different from what I said in a few words?

 

Oh. Now I understand. Maybe it was because your explanation was fragmented among 20 some odd posts. I've stitched them together her and now the narrative regains it's wholistic clarity. Thanks.

 

in other words, beside your silly stunt you have nothing, yet here you are posturing again.

 

Moreover, my position on Greece and other current state budget shortfalls has not changed over the course of the many exchanges I had with you and others on this topic, which suggests that your continual posturing and pretending I haven't made myself clear (or rather accusing me of being incoherent among many other disparaging comments) is either due to your being reaaaaalllly slow in the uptake or your having a dubious sense of ethics.

Edited June 15, 2011 by j_b

[JayB]

And I agree, we need to make structual changes back here as well.

 

structural change is parlance for enforcing the neolib agenda of slashing social services while making the peons pay for the crisis engineered by elites and their puppets.

 

I think the more thoughtful response would have been -"Can you provide details on what you mean?

 

you were agreeing with Bill, which means you had to know 'structural reform' involved some sticking it to the peons. The company you keep isn't my responsibility.

 

Well sure - cut the Pentagon budget by 25%, provide meaningful finanical sector oversight, do away with ALL the Bush tax cuts. That's a start.

 

Good, but you forgot your repeated calls to take it to public employees and your inexplicable "the states are on their own" knowing full well what it meant.

 

Now, without the use of the following adjectives: peon, elite, thug, goon, noecon, liar, and, oh jeesh,

 

what's the problem with elite, peons and neocon? are they so "shrill" they harsh your mellow?

 

As for the rest of these terms: I will not be harassed systematically by goons without payback. If thugs want to continuously attack my person without hardly ever addressing content, they will have to bear these various epithets like trophies around their neck for they are well earned.

 

whatever.....you can provide some rational on how you would restructure Greece's debt by taxing the 200 richest as you suggested.

 

why didn't you ask some rationale from JayB when he pinned the entire crisis on government spending, when it is abundantly obvious that revenue shortfall due to the economic crisis and failure to tax the wealthy are primary reasons for budget shortfall?

 

I also never claimed that taxing the wealthy would be sufficient, only a necessary first step.

 

 

 

"The biggest potential gains for the federal government's tax collections are to be had by going after the where the amount of white space in the chart is the greatest."....because that's where the money is. Which is why all of the Eurostates generate much more of their total tax take from broad consumption taxes than income taxes, and why all of them generate less of their total taxes from income taxes than the US does.

 

Not enough rich people in the US or Greece or anywhere else to foot the bill for the welfare state. You need broad consumption taxes to pay for that.

 

[/img]

[JayB]

People need to stop worrying about Greece. They are small potatoes. If Italy, Ireland, and Portugal require more bailout, which they will, there will be nothing left for Spain, which by all accounts will need it. Spain will make or break the Eurozone.

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/01/07/132717135/a-theme-park-an-airport-and-the-next-banking-crisis

[KaskadskyjKozak]

People need to stop worrying about Greece. They are small potatoes. If Italy, Ireland, and Portugal require more bailout, which they will, there will be nothing left for Spain, which by all accounts will need it. Spain will make or break the Eurozone.

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/01/07/132717135/a-theme-park-an-airport-and-the-next-banking-crisis

 

j_bot has a solution: tax the richest 200 Spaniards. QED! LOL!

[j_b]

"The biggest potential gains for the federal government's tax collections are to be had by going after the where the amount of white space in the chart is the greatest."....because that's where the money is. Which is why all of the Eurostates generate much more of their total tax take from broad consumption taxes than income taxes, and why all of them generate less of their total taxes from income taxes than the US does.

 

as if the symptom was the cause of the problem. Have you heard of Margaret Thatcher? she was European you know and the wealthy not paying their fair share, fiscal evasion, rising inequalities, etc are as much a problem over there as they are over here despite your usual rhetoric about europe. Moreover, have you ever looked at a fed budget pie to see how funds are allocated? there are lots of federal spending besides those that go toward social services and public employee compensation (what about over 50% of the US budget going for the military past and present)

 

Not enough rich people in the US or Greece or anywhere else to foot the bill for the welfare state. You need broad consumption taxes to pay for that.

 

well, first it gets more and more difficult to tax the peons when they don't earn a living wage; a worsening situation over the last 30+ years (i.e. one of your favorite policy apparently). Second, you are cherry picking again by ignoring that a) marginal tax rates are way down compared to when the economy was roaring post WW2 b) by ignoring that trillions in financial scheming and corporate profits evade taxation or at taxed at a much smaller rate than income. Also your graph stinks by only showing federal taxes on income thereby ignoring payrolls taxes (i.e. the people who work for a living) that have increased substantially, regressive sales taxes, property taxes, etc ..

 

But you have been told all of the above several times already without your commenting on it. So I don't expect that it will have a great effect on your thinking, unfortunately.

Edited June 15, 2011 by j_b

[JayB]

When you factor in the value of transfer payments from the government (people that are paying income taxes) that goes a long way towards eliminating the effect of the "regressive" taxes on the folks at the lower ends of the income spectrum. I've posted various figures that demonstrated this quantitatively in the past.

 

Ditto for the graphs showing that real hourly total compensation per worker has been rising steadily since whatever arbitrary starting point in the post WWII halcyon days that you want to choose. Most plots that show something different either use the statistical smudges like "households," or "income quintiles" instead of real hourly compensation per worker, and/or ignore the value of non-cash compensation and only tabulate money wages. That would make sense if benefits were free, but they aren't, so it doesn't.

[prole]

"Yeah see, everything is cool, you...you working people."

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

"Yeah see, everything is cool, you...you working people."

 

 

Magnificent and impressive rebuttal. Almost as high quality as j-bot can muster.

[prole]

Thanks, Lick Sack Man!

[j_b]

When you factor in the value of transfer payments from the government (people that are paying income taxes) that goes a long way towards eliminating the effect of the "regressive" taxes on the folks at the lower ends of the income spectrum. I've posted various figures that demonstrated this quantitatively in the past.

 

My point when mentioning payroll and regressive taxes was to show that many more people pay taxes despite what your graph showed. It's a classic regressive talking point to only discuss federal income tax as if that was the only way people were taxed, which it isn't.

 

Ditto for the graphs showing that real hourly total compensation per worker has been rising steadily since whatever arbitrary starting point in the post WWII halcyon days that you want to choose. Most plots that show something different either use the statistical smudges like "households," or "income quintiles" instead of real hourly compensation per worker, and/or ignore the value of non-cash compensation and only tabulate money wages. That would make sense if benefits were free, but they aren't, so it doesn't.

 

Your "real hourly compensation" doesn't accurately account for real costs of living. One income family used to make the ends meet whereas many 2 income families can't make ends meet today. Their standard of living isn't higher than it used to be either (as shown by Warren's study among other evidence), so there is something wrong with your data, which isn't too surprising considering how many time methodologies have been tweaked to make numbers look better by successive administrations.

 

but none of the above addresses the salient points of my post above: inequalities that are as large as during the age of robber barons, trillions in profit not being taxed, paltry marginal rate of taxation, federal spending on many other things than the "welfare state", etc ...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Thanks, Lick Sack Man!

 

JayB regularly posts thoughtful detailed, posts, chock full of plots, data, and citations. You, j_bot and other assclowns have nothing to post in response other than "you are wrong" coupled with lame insults and inanities. JayB may have the patience and feel it is worth replying to you as he does, but I don't. Lick sack is about all you really warrant for a response and your dancing gigolo video is just proof positive of that, not that further proof was required.

 

 

[prole]

 

Even conservatives are starting to acknowledge the smoke and mirrors show!

 

Over the last decade, the share of U.S. national income taken home by workers has plummeted to a record low.

 

Check out the chart, compiled by the Labor Department, and posted this week by conservative writer David Frum. It shows that the decline began with the brief recession that followed 9/11 in 2001. But it continued even as the economy picked up again, and got even worse once the Great Recession hit. In the weak recovery since then, workers' share of income just kept on falling.

 

Why are workers taking home such a reduced share of the pie? Opinions differ, but many experts think that the trend has to do with a number of factors, including a decline in the bargaining power of labor, and increased competition from foreign workers. Similarly, over the last year or so, U.S. companies have made record profits, while unemployment has stayed high and wages have barely risen.

 

The chart jibes with other data, which show that since the 1980s, income for the richest 1 percent of Americans has exploded, while hardly budging at all for everyone else.

 

Still, there's little sense that either Obama administration or Congress plan to do much about this growing inequality. Indeed, any serious action to boost the economy and cut unemployment now seems to be off the table.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

When you factor in the value of transfer payments from the government (people that are paying income taxes) that goes a long way towards eliminating the effect of the "regressive" taxes on the folks at the lower ends of the income spectrum. I've posted various figures that demonstrated this quantitatively in the past.

 

My point when mentioning payroll and regressive taxes was to show that many more people pay taxes despite what your graph showed. It's a classic regressive talking point to only discuss federal income tax as if that was the only way people were taxed, which it isn't.

 

Ditto for the graphs showing that real hourly total compensation per worker has been rising steadily since whatever arbitrary starting point in the post WWII halcyon days that you want to choose. Most plots that show something different either use the statistical smudges like "households," or "income quintiles" instead of real hourly compensation per worker, and/or ignore the value of non-cash compensation and only tabulate money wages. That would make sense if benefits were free, but they aren't, so it doesn't.

 

Your "real hourly compensation" doesn't accurately account for real costs of living. One income family used to make the ends meet whereas many 2 income families can't make ends meet today. Their standard of living isn't higher than it used to be either (as shown by Warren's study among other evidence), so there is something wrong with your data, which isn't too surprising considering how many time methodologies have been tweaked to make numbers look better by successive administrations.

 

but none of the above addresses the salient points of my post above: inequalities that are as large as during the age of robber barons, trillions in profit not being taxed, paltry marginal rate of taxation, federal spending on many other things than the "welfare state", etc ...

 

j_bot's reply as usual:

 

- you're wrong

- I'll rephrase that you are wrong by making claims with no backing data other than "because I said so"

- chuck in a few insults

- include a few comments critical of administrations, policies, and historical situations he disagrees with, but are not directly related to the points being raised

 

Yes, indeed, substantive debate of the 'bot. He's really walking the walk!

 

 

[j_b]

You, j_bot and other assclowns have nothing to post in response other than "you are wrong" coupled with lame insults and inanities.

 

what a pathetic clown. You spent the last 2 years chasing me around to verbally abuse me and rarely commenting on subject and this is what you come up with? You are the typical wingnut who accuses his opponents of what he does systematically. How can you even look at yourself in the mirror? Douchebag.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You, j_bot and other assclowns have nothing to post in response other than "you are wrong" coupled with lame insults and inanities.

 

what a pathetic clown. You spent the last 2 years chasing me around to verbally abuse me and rarely commenting on subject and this is what you come up with? You are the typical wingnut who accuses his opponents of what he does systematically. How can you even look at yourself in the mirror? Douchebag.

 

1)You are not a serious person to debate with (and you are mentally ill to boot).

2)All you want to do is harp on the same boring political bullshit endlessly. This is a climbing site, you moron.

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

j_bot's reply as usual:

 

- you're wrong

- I'll rephrase that you are wrong by making claims with no backing data other than "because I said so"

- chuck in a few insults

- include a few comments critical of administrations, policies, and historical situations he disagrees with, but are not directly related to the points being raised

 

Yes, indeed, substantive debate of the 'bot. He's really walking the walk!

 

 

more off-topic drivel from Attila (and false too but why lose time on the resident moron)

Edited June 15, 2011 by j_b

[j_b]

1)You are not a serious person to debate with (and you are mentally ill to boot).

2)All you want to do is harp on the same boring political bullshit endlessly. This is a climbing site, you moron.

 

still no response on topic from Attila.