Occupy

[dougd]

People aren't pissed because someone else is making an extraordinary amount of money, Minx, they're pissed because somebody else is making an extraordinary amount of money while using that money to lobby the government to further subsidize their profit-making endeavors at the expense of the underprivileged.

 

People are pissed because the rich are getting richer than ever before and yet paying fewer taxes than ever before, and yet are militantly opposed to raising taxes back to normal, historical rates, even in the face of economic collapse -- and instead insist on cutting social programs, public education and infrastructure investments in order to continue to pay for their tax breaks. On top of that, they've convinced the government to give them money to make up for their bad investments by holding the world hostage and threatening to crash the stock market if they don't get their way. Things have swung so far in favor of the few and the fortunate that I'm surprised people still try to deny it. People who think this is just "jealousy of the rich" clearly just don't get it.

 

 

I gave your words to a very conservative friend of mine (well worded and good job).....his response.

 

I get it... I get the fact that social welfare programs are more robust than they have ever been. I get the fact that 40 percent of Americans pay no...NO taxes...40%. I get that liberals want to continue to build this welfare state to reinforce their voter base that is otherwise a minority. I get that the "rich" are the ones creating ALL of the jobs. I get that the occupiers don't actually have a cause... Some protesting capitalism completely or student loans. I get that it's because it's led by the entitlement generation who thinks they deserve something they haven't earned.

 

Everybody has to make their decisions on what they believe and live with those decisions. I have my own strongly held positions. I examine them from time to time... More aligned with rob's post than with kevin's conservative friend's certainly. I have friends who are very conservative, one of which is a climbing partner. One of my very best friends. We talk about politics, comparative religion etc from time to time and it can be difficult. We don't take it personal if we disagree, which often happens...

 

There are no end to the arguments. Haves/have nots, class warfare, consumer protections, entitlements, wars, war' on poverty/drugs/illiteracy not to mention taxes, health care, jobs. Societal equitability... There are so many issues that divide us, and no end to the reasoning and justifications of all the positions. Many of these issues are very complicated, often, people don't really understand what they are arguing about. Some prefer oversimplification... I have been guilty of both at times I suppose when trying to figure out my own positions on things.

 

It can be overwhelming, this rhetorical cacophony...

 

What to do? I suggest doing something, anything positive. Just get off your ass go do something to contribute instead of incessant complaining about how things are or how much better things would be, if only...

 

Since I cannot participate in the republican caucuses (being an avowed independent) on Saturday, I"ll join a voter registration drive. Could we all agree that participating in a positive way is a good thing? It's something to feel good about at the end of the day, whatever it is one does end up doing.

 

Sincerely,

 

d

[Jim]

Well, I'm no expert but here's how I see it.

 

1) raising taxes helps the economy how?

 

You might be a bit more precise and accurate by asking the question "How does lowering the tax rate for the upper 5% to lows not seen since the guilded age and allowing for redistribution of wealth upward and increased concentration of wealth help the economy? Funny, the economy managed quite fine when marginal rates were higher - that BS about trickle down has been proven to be just that. Also - I believe in paying as you go, not borrowing as you go. The bottom line is the wealthy have very low taxes, you and me have low taxes. All the Bush era tax giveaways should be stopped and we should all pay for things we need as a society instead of borrowing.

 

 

2) the education system is all kinds of fucked up. what makes you think throwing more money at it is the answer?

Didn't say anything of the sort. The primary problem with schools is the expectations we put on them. Expecting them to solve all the problems we have created outside the walls within a 7 hr school day. Public schools have to take all comers - kids who don't speak English, severe ADHD, Aspergers, severe discipline problems, fetal alcohol syndrome. Private schools do not. Poor districts get screwed, rich districts have great fund raisers.

 

Frankly, I'll go with Ivan on this. I volunteer at a school regularly and the kids are sharp, engaged, and have promise. And they are not WASP.

 

3) social programs need to be cut. not entirely but even i, the advocate of the group hug, think we've gone to far.

BS! You are out of touch if you think we have cast too wide a social safety net. Pick a vulnerable population - the mentally ill, the poor, the infirm, the lower end of the working class - all have seen drastic cuts in social services. What is your specific solution here? Get rid of medicare? Social security? Food stamps?

 

4) i agree that infrastructure investment is important

No shit. And how do you suppose we pay for it?

 

 

5) i never thought we should bail out the bank ect. they should've failed. it would've been painful but so has the current situation

I partially agree. But savings banks are backed by the FDIC and deserve saving. Investment banks, however are a different animal. Unfortunately, thank to Glass-Steigel (thanks Clinton and Congress) the distinction is more fuzzy than it needs to be.

 

6) i don't think its jealousy of the rich.

Neither do I.

 

 

i think its a complex problem that people are trying to boil down to a catch phrase and that isn't going to happen.

 

no i have no sympathy for the guy who might have to take his kids out of private school b/c he only made $350K. guess he should've saved some more of that money. however, i doesn't bother me that he made $350K.

And neither do I, nor I think do OWS folks. The issue is the political power they have, they way they have continued to leverage this power into protection of their tax havens, resources, and bought politicians.

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

Well, I'm no expert but here's how I see it.

 

1) raising taxes helps the economy how?

 

You might be a bit more precise and accurate by asking the question "How does lowering the tax rate for the upper 5% to lows not seen since the guilded age and allowing for redistribution of wealth upward and increased concentration of wealth help the economy? Funny, the economy managed quite fine when marginal rates were higher - that BS about trickle down has been proven to be just that. Also - I believe in paying as you go, not borrowing as you go. The bottom line is the wealthy have very low taxes, you and me have low taxes. All the Bush era tax giveaways should be stopped and we should all pay for things we need as a society instead of borrowing.

 

 

2) the education system is all kinds of fucked up. what makes you think throwing more money at it is the answer?

Didn't say anything of the sort. The primary problem with schools is the expectations we put on them. Expecting them to solve all the problems we have created outside the walls within a 7 hr school day. Public schools have to take all comers - kids who don't speak English, severe ADHD, Aspergers, severe discipline problems, fetal alcohol syndrome. Private schools do not. Poor districts get screwed, rich districts have great fund raisers.

 

Frankly, I'll go with Ivan on this. I volunteer at a school regularly and the kids are sharp, engaged, and have promise. And they are not WASP.

 

3) social programs need to be cut. not entirely but even i, the advocate of the group hug, think we've gone to far.

BS! You are out of touch if you think we have cast too wide a social safety net. Pick a vulnerable population - the mentally ill, the poor, the infirm, the lower end of the working class - all have seen drastic cuts in social services. What is your specific solution here? Get rid of medicare? Social security? Food stamps?

 

4) i agree that infrastructure investment is important

No shit. And how do you suppose we pay for it?

 

 

5) i never thought we should bail out the bank ect. they should've failed. it would've been painful but so has the current situation

I partially agree. But savings banks are backed by the FDIC and deserve saving. Investment banks, however are a different animal. Unfortunately, thank to Glass-Steigel (thanks Clinton and Congress) the distinction is more fuzzy than it needs to be.

 

6) i don't think its jealousy of the rich.

Neither do I.

 

 

i think its a complex problem that people are trying to boil down to a catch phrase and that isn't going to happen.

 

no i have no sympathy for the guy who might have to take his kids out of private school b/c he only made $350K. guess he should've saved some more of that money. however, i doesn't bother me that he made $350K.

And neither do I, nor I think do OWS folks. The issue is the political power they have, they way they have continued to leverage this power into protection of their tax havens, resources, and bought politicians.

 

 

 

 

Jim:

 

I'd expect you of all people to understand the difference between nominal and effective tax rates:

 

 

 

 

-Over time the top marginal rate and the effective tax rate on the highest income quintiles *have* gone down, but the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest 20% has actually increased relative to their share of national income.

 

-Your effective rate increases along with your income even after accounting for payroll taxes (Medicare, Medicaid, SS) once you factor in the value of transfers that go to folks in the lowest income quintiles.

 

 

The facts show that we've got a progressive tax system in both theory and practice. It's fine if people want to argue that it isn't progressive enough for their purposes - but it's strange to hear that the tax code isn't progressive at all, much less that it serves to redistribute income upwards.

[rob]

 

I gave your words to a very conservative friend of mine (well worded and good job).....his response.

 

I get it... I get the fact that social welfare programs are more robust than they have ever been. I get the fact that 40 percent of Americans pay no...NO taxes...40%.

 

tell him he listens to too much Glenn Beck.

 

The truth is far different. Only about 10% pay no federal taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Meanwhile income for the top brackets have grown faster than every other bracket, while their taxes keep lowering -- more than any other tax bracket, btw. Meanwhile middle class wages are barely keeping up with inflation. Sure, the rich's income is SOARING, so of course they're paying even more taxes. That's hardly a good reason to give them tax cuts.

 

It's a good article, make your friend read it. But it won't change his mind. People like that want to believe what they believe.

Edited March 2, 2012 by rob

[Jim]

As usual, it depends on how you chop up the data, eh?

 

[img:left]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Distribution_of_U.S._Federal_Taxes_2000.JPG[/img]

 

Yes, nominal vs. actual should be taken into account. Which group do you think has the advantage using this metric, the bottom 5% or the top 5%. I'd say that answer easily reinforces the amount of political and financial power attained and used by the upper 5%. And value of transfers to the bottom end? Serioiusly? Compare that to say one metric of the top end - tax on capital gains compared to income - there's a real value transfer.

 

No - there will never be a flat field for all to play on and that should not be the goal of fair (open to your interpretaion) society. That said, the financial benefits, political power, and corruption assocated witht he current concentration of wealth is a bit too much and needs to be curtailed with some moderate tax policy changes. IMO.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The plot "... top statutory tax rate" is misleading. In the 40's the rate may indeed have applied to folks making a much higher income, however, at that time there were many more than just a half-dozen or so marginal rates. I'll bet if you looked at the income for those being taxed at the 5th or 6th rate (whatever the 35% rate currently is) you'd see something much more like a straight line going across.

[ivan]

It's a good article, make your friend read it. But it won't change his mind. People like that want to believe what they believe.

it sure doesn't help when you live in a political culture where the label of "flip-flopper" is instantly applied to anyone who dares to change their mind.

[rob]

It's a good article, make your friend read it. But it won't change his mind. People like that want to believe what they believe.

it sure doesn't help when you live in a political culture where the label of "flip-flopper" is instantly applied to anyone who dares to change their mind.

 

STAY THE COURSE!!!!

[kevbone]

It's a good article, make your friend read it. But it won't change his mind. People like that want to believe what they believe.

it sure doesn't help when you live in a political culture where the label of "flip-flopper" is instantly applied to anyone who dares to change their mind.

 

STAY THE COURSE!!!!

 

I would rather STAY FROSTY

[dougd]

It's a good article, make your friend read it. But it won't change his mind. People like that want to believe what they believe.

it sure doesn't help when you live in a political culture where the label of "flip-flopper" is instantly applied to anyone who dares to change their mind.

 

One man's flip flopper is another man's pragmatist.

[ivan]

It's a good article, make your friend read it. But it won't change his mind. People like that want to believe what they believe.

it sure doesn't help when you live in a political culture where the label of "flip-flopper" is instantly applied to anyone who dares to change their mind.

 

One man's flip flopper is another man's pragmatist.

hard-core folks on either side of the political divide seem to despise pragmatists though, and everyone's playing to their base - there's a pragmatic solution to just about every issue confronting us at the moment (debt, immigration, energy, healthcare, etc), and not a one has a chance in hell of going anywhere it seems

[dougd]

It's a good article, make your friend read it. But it won't change his mind. People like that want to believe what they believe.

it sure doesn't help when you live in a political culture where the label of "flip-flopper" is instantly applied to anyone who dares to change their mind.

 

One man's flip flopper is another man's pragmatist.

hard-core folks on either side of the political divide seem to despise pragmatists though, and everyone's playing to their base - there's a pragmatic solution to just about every issue confronting us at the moment (debt, immigration, energy, healthcare, etc), and not a one has a chance in hell of going anywhere it seems

 

I guess that makes me a "centrist"... I prefer pragmatism in national leaders. Being pragmatic suggests one is thinking and not trusting assumptions or preconceived notions totally while making decisions. Honestly seeking the correct course for a given set of circumstances. They won't get it right all the time. They're human still...

 

We have a pragmatic President now. We (those of us who voted for him in '08) sent him to Washington thinking he might be able to get things done that needed done. I have not been pleased with all of it. I don't have to be. It has appeared at times that this pragmatic, thinking man has been jerked around pretty good by political forces at times, but he has some notable accomplishments to his credit in his first term. Taking the broad view, I still like this guy. I think we should keep him and elect more like him to congress if possible.

 

Back on topic, I like the occupy movement. These folks are at least off their duffs and attempting to do something. Yeah, it seems disorganized but if you really want to hear what they are about just listen. And read rob's concise post above.

 

Doing big things has always been hard in America. We like to fight. It's genetic I think. Blame the brits. The sensible thing, it appears to me, is to work for change from within somehow.

 

d

[Coldfinger]

Just noticed something about this thread;

 

for the most part it's the men that are arguing......

 

Wonder what that says.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Just noticed something about this thread;

 

for the most part it's the men that are arguing......

 

Wonder what that says.

 

That's simple: cc.com is one giant sausage party.

 

;-)

[minx]

i do believe that P-wookie has contributed.

[JayB]

As usual, it depends on how you chop up the data, eh?

 

[img:left]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Distribution_of_U.S._Federal_Taxes_2000.JPG[/img]

 

Yes, nominal vs. actual should be taken into account. Which group do you think has the advantage using this metric, the bottom 5% or the top 5%. I'd say that answer easily reinforces the amount of political and financial power attained and used by the upper 5%. And value of transfers to the bottom end? Serioiusly? Compare that to say one metric of the top end - tax on capital gains compared to income - there's a real value transfer.

 

No - there will never be a flat field for all to play on and that should not be the goal of fair (open to your interpretaion) society. That said, the financial benefits, political power, and corruption assocated witht he current concentration of wealth is a bit too much and needs to be curtailed with some moderate tax policy changes. IMO.

 

-I'm sure that distribution is accurate, but if the goal is to understand what's actually happening in society, rather than on an Excel sheet, you have to think about what the statistical data actually means, and to do that you have to ask what has changed during the interval that you are measuring.

 

Is the concentration of wealth increasing? I think it probably is, but I'm less confident in our ability to precisely define what that actually means in terms of real people living in real households. I've shown data before showing that people's income varies throughout their lives, that the top income quintiles tend to contain intact families where both adults have full-time jobs, that there's lots of turnover between income quintiles, that people in the top quintile tend to be folks who are in their peak earnings years, etc.

 

To the extent that wealth is concentrating in the hands of people who are older, more experienced, more highly educated, more likely to be working full time, more likely to maintain intact households, etc* - I don't think that there's anything about the resuting distribution of wealth that's unfair, bad for society, or really anything that the government can or should do much to change. Even if we transfer more money from the top quintile to the bottom quintile - these disparities are going to persist.

 

Having said that, I think that most people who are interested in doing more than exchanging articles of faith back and forth (I put you in this category), can still have interesting discussions about tax and transfer policy. Even if you fundamentally agree on the ends, there's still plenty that well intentioned people can disagree on regarding the best means of achieving them.

 

*

 

[minx]

Jay

 

I like that table. apparently you need to work full time, be educated and preferably married to be in the upper quintiles. gee i'm stunned

[AlpineK]

Apparently rich folks don't like part time work. Full time or no time.

[Mtguide]

It's a good article, make your friend read it. But it won't change his mind. People like that want to believe what they believe.

it sure doesn't help when you live in a political culture where the label of "flip-flopper" is instantly applied to anyone who dares to change their mind.

 

One man's flip flopper is another man's pragmatist.

hard-core folks on either side of the political divide seem to despise pragmatists though, and everyone's playing to their base - there's a pragmatic solution to just about every issue confronting us at the moment (debt, immigration, energy, healthcare, etc), and not a one has a chance in hell of going anywhere it seems

 

Pretty much agree with your assessment of the general situation. But I think at least part of the reason for this lack of rational, bipartisan discussion, and what could otherwise be a pragmatic approach to solutions based in reality, is that the conservative war on truly public government, has resulted in serious damage at all levels, from federal to state and municipal. And one of the saddest victims, (and this was NOT unintentional) has been the destruction of the public schools.

 

What we are witnessing is what happens when the last three generations have been so badly educated that a dangerously sizeable proportion of the populace doesn't know what "debate" really is or how to engage in it without digressing into personal attacks, have little understanding of even the most basic facts of the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, don't really have any skills in critical thinking, read and spell generally (if at all) at or well below the 6th grade level, and have come to believe that the clown shows, posturing and outrageous lying and distortion of fact seen and heard in the media IS, what journalism and politics really are.

 

When large sections of the populace can be fooled into voting time and again against their own best social and economic interests, basic education is at fault. But this is all in line with conservative thinking on the "place" of the masses in society. And it is NOT necessarily the fault of the educators themselves. It goes all the way back to the battle between the Federalists (conservative) and the Jeffersonian democrats(moderate to liberal) during the drafting of the Constitution and Bill of rights.

 

The Federalists did not believe that the ordinary masses should have any right to participate, other than very superficially, in the actual governing of the nation. The Electoral College, and many of it's rules, are a compromise to them. Many federalists felt that only landed gentry, slaveholders, and the educated should be able to vote at all. They believed that there should be an educated elite who would rule, and that the main, if not the only purpose for the existence of the masses, was to serve this ruling elite.

 

On the other hand, the Jeffersonian democrats believed in, and trusted the innate ability of ordinary people, provided they had access to education, and the opportunity to better themselves, to govern wisely, and above all, fairly, given that they often would have had a more personal acquaintance with the injustices of poverty and economic servitude.(This was at a time when Indentured servitude and "impressment" were still a very common fact of life for the masses.) The very fact that any of the general populace was given the right to vote at all, is due to Jefferson. It took over 200 years to achieve full voting rights for all, and of course voter suppression is still a venal factor in every election.

 

[An interesting side note is the way that conservatives have actually appropriated, to some extent, the Jeffersonian ideas of equal economic and social opportunity for all, as an excuse for the wealthy and powerful to grab as much of whatever they can, by any means necessary; thus we have "Citizens United" paying off the Supreme Court to rule that, yes, "corporations are people.".]

 

Hard conservatives and neocons are still harking back to the Federalists. And their standard practice and policy has been to denigrate and denounce the viability and value of public government ("government is the problem") and public education (the teachers are stupid, curriculum is inadequate--[meaning not business-oriented enough; we need scientists and engineers, and shovelers,godammit, not dreamy artists or (God forbid!) THINKERS,]), and then, in concert with the "dumbing down" of curriculum and public media, set about to starve both government programs and public schools of funding. Then, when they inevitably fail, the conservative refrain is always, "See? We told you they don't work." Santorum, with three degrees, is just the latest example of the conservative hypocrisy of savaging public and higher education as "snobbery". (Gotta keep those masses down there, boy. Ah ya'll listenin' tuh me, theah, boy?)

 

A well-orchestrated campaign of disinformation, financial starvation, the scapegoating of minorities and an ever-handy national enemy or two thrown in for good measure ("How dare you question or dissent the need to go to war!!"), and you wind up with what we are now seeing. Various reasons/excuses for environmental destruction, reduction/elimination of civil rights, elimination of worker benefits and union busting, much the same.Nor are the present-day Democrats without complicity and an equal share of fault in all this. What it has come down to is now well beyond mere conservatism or liberalism. Really, how quaint. The operative principle now is an ever-hardening amalgam of hypocrisy and greed, plutocracy, oligarchy. I'm not sure just what you might call it.

 

But Lloyd Reynolds, my late, great professor at Reed, in his commencement speech in 1968, characterized it about as accurately as anyone I've ever heard; "Forward to the Tar Pits!! And don't you dare disturb our sleep!!"

[PrincessWookie]

i do believe that P-wookie has contributed.

 

And some pretty profound contributions at that. Fuckin' A.

 

But nothing wrong with a good old American sausage fest. I pretty much work at a Fest of Sausages.

 

Umm...I thought you were a female, too, Minxie?

[minx]

PW - I'm definitely a girl. I'm just not sure I've contributed anything valuable to the discussion.

 

I am trying to find my occupy montreal pics though

[PrincessWookie]

PW - I'm definitely a girl. I'm just not sure I've contributed anything valuable to the discussion.

 

I am trying to find my occupy montreal pics though

 

Ha! OK, that's what I thought!

 

Wait...ALL your post have value, IMHO. Besides, this is "Spray." Valuable comments are optional.

 

 

[DPS]

PW - I'm definitely a girl.

I'll attest to that. And a girl who fills out a pair of Carharts nicely at that.

[PrincessWookie]

PW - I'm definitely a girl.

I'll attest to that. And a girl who fills out a pair of Carharts nicely at that.

Well, alright. Get 'em Girl, BOOTYLICIOUS!

Hey minx, I think this dude is hittin' on ya.

[j_b]

Is the concentration of wealth increasing? I think it probably is, but I'm less confident in our ability to precisely define what that actually means in terms of real people living in real households. I've shown data before showing that people's income varies throughout their lives, that the top income quintiles tend to contain intact families where both adults have full-time jobs, that there's lots of turnover between income quintiles, that people in the top quintile tend to be folks who are in their peak earnings years, etc.

 

To the extent that wealth is concentrating in the hands of people who are older, more experienced, more highly educated, more likely to be working full time, more likely to maintain intact households, etc* - I don't think that there's anything about the resuting distribution of wealth that's unfair, bad for society, or really anything that the government can or should do much to change. Even if we transfer more money from the top quintile to the bottom quintile - these disparities are going to persist.

 

Nice dodge but nobody is pointing the finger at the top quintile. People are pointing the finger at the upper 1% that have captured most of the income growth over the last 30+ years and got 93% of the "recovery" since 2008.