Doug:
Until you establish that money is speech -- which you have not -- the rest of your argument is moot. Seriously...you keep rephrasing the same argument and ignoring your debunked premise. Did you think no one would notice? :P
I don't have to establish it. The Supreme Court has ruled, repeatedly, to my point.
More than 50% is spent on the military alone. Not counting intelligence agencies....How the crap do you figure 70% of federal spending goes to the poor or middle class? Social Security and medicare "goes" to people who are eligible to collect, including the rich, who pay proportionally less into the SS fund than do people of lower income. Since SS, Medicare and Defense add up to about 60% of the budget, that's already a BS figure.
Even if you did somehow did the twist semantically, that 70% of federal money goes back to 90% of the population still seems like a raw deal.
In reality about 13% of the federal budget goes to social safety net programs like unemployment and foodstamps.
18% is spend on the Dept. of Defense. Now, I'm no path PhD, but I'm pretty sure 18% < 50%.
Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security alone are about 50% of the budget.
I'm not talking about "social safety net programs." I'm talking about the whole of federal spending. 70% is sent to the poor and middle class. That includes things like military salaries, for those who can't quite grasp how this figure is arrived at.
Tell me, what other minorities should have their rights restricted in arbitrary ways?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More than 50% is spent on the military alone. Not counting intelligence agencies....How the crap do you figure 70% of federal spending goes to the poor or middle class? Social Security and medicare "goes" to people who are eligible to collect, including the rich, who pay proportionally less into the SS fund than do people of lower income. Since SS, Medicare and Defense add up to about 60% of the budget, that's already a BS figure.
Even if you did somehow did the twist semantically, that 70% of federal money goes back to 90% of the population still seems like a raw deal.
In reality about 13% of the federal budget goes to social safety net programs like unemployment and foodstamps.
18% is spend on the Dept. of Defense. Now, I'm no path PhD, but I'm pretty sure 18% < 50%.
Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security alone are about 50% of the budget.
I'm not talking about "social safety net programs." I'm talking about the whole of federal spending. 70% is sent to the poor and middle class. That includes things like military salaries, for those who can't quite grasp how this figure is arrived at.
Tell me, what other minorities should have their rights restricted in arbitrary ways?
The problem is that stating the statistic as you did, it sounds as if you're claiming that 70% of the budget is being spent on social welfare benefits. Paying someone a salary to do a job is not a social welfare benefit, particularly if that job is providing some sort of service that is of value to the country and not simply a "make-work" job.
So yes, you're correct in saying that the majority of money spent on federal employee's pay is "money going to the middle-class", but the government (and by extension the citizens) are receiving value for that money spent, so it's a disingenuous thing to state the way you stated it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting fact, the highest paid public employees in most states are college/university football coaches.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to reiterate, why is 70% of the federal budget going to 80% of the population seen as a giveaway to those 70%. It's as if you, DW, are suggesting MORE should just be given away to the rich.
A useful and often-used definition of "middle class" is having income between 50% of and 200% of the median income. In the US the median household income is 51k, so between 25k and 102k. This accounts for about 55% of the population and those below that level another 25%. Together this makes 80%. This means that, even if we take DW's figure at face value, the poor and middle class are getting short shrift.
Ignoring for the moment that no household subsisting on 25k a year, or $12/hr for a single full-time worker, feels remotely middle class. This is largely because this definition was useful in the 1950s, 60s and 70s before the steady productivity growth we saw from 1982 to today, when consumer prices steadily rose while wages did not.
18% is spend on the Dept. of Defense. Now, I'm no path PhD, but I'm pretty sure 18% < 50%.
Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security alone are about 50% of the budget.
I'm not talking about "social safety net programs." I'm talking about the whole of federal spending. 70% is sent to the poor and middle class. That includes things like military salaries, for those who can't quite grasp how this figure is arrived at.
Tell me, what other minorities should have their rights restricted in arbitrary ways?
He meant the discretionary budget, of which 55% goes to defense spending. Of the general fund (FY 2012) 20% goes to defense spending.
It's disingenuous to talk about social security and medicare/medicaid because they are part of segregated and managed funds. The US is not allowed to spend money from those funds on anything but SS/Medicare. It's as if you wanted to consider bank cash withdrawals as part of a bank's business expenditures. Regardless, they only add up to about 43%.
It is, however, perfectly acceptable to consider any additional funds the US spends to offset budget shortfalls in other areas. Like the discretionary budget. Again, 55% of the US discretionary budget is defense spending and almost none is social security, at least in recent years.
And it's honestly a lousy definition because it assumes and only applies when a large percentage of the population is middle class. Back in the days when the bulk of the population were impoverished peasants or low end laborers that would have the majority of them as "middle class".
The late-middle twentieth century in the West is an exception to most of history and it will remain so unless we work at it. And work to spread it to the rest of the work. At least the relatively high level of equality part.
The key to what happened from 1982 to today isn't so much that consumer prices rose while wages did not, but that productivity rose while wages did. Where did that money go?
If you agree with everything I'm saying, why are you posting a counterpoint?
I was trying to give DW every benefit of the doubt in his figures, which included a grossly overexaggerated "middle class".
Yes, productivity rose while wages were stagnant, but your average consumer doesn't experience the benefits of his own productivity growth, they only experience the gap between money they earn and money they have to pay out (wages and consumer spending) and the larger that gap is the more rich (or poor) they feel, regardless of arbitrary definitions.
"The middle class" is also a silly term regardless. It's just some arbitrary assignment for the purpose of splintering the working class, by making it seem like there is a conflict between the "middle class" and the working class.
There is the working class that has to sell its labor, and there is the owning class that lives on the worker's labor. Yes, there is a small group that is in the borderline between them, but it's ridiculous to view them as a separate class.
Was it not radioactive (or at least not dangerously so) or were you wearing protective gear?
The naturally occurring metal isn't highly radioactive, so for short periods of exposure you don't have to worry about it. Sort of like x-rays: the technician running the instrument sits 20 feet away from where you're actually getting the dosage, because one zap isn't dangerous to you, but she's doing it all day long.
I can say there was nothing between my eyes and the dull gray block except my normal eyeglasses. We did wear gloves, though.
My initial reluctance was overcome, and I managed to get a great lesson in how nuclear explosions worked. Thus starting my lifelong addiction to things that go boom.
If it wasn't radioactive, why did you bring it up?
You wouldn't do that based on race, would you? Or religion? Well, some of you would, based on your previous posts. What about gender? Are the rights of a minority, any minority, only given at the whim of majority vote?
The difference is no one is saying blackness = speech. Just because it's a bad idea to allow mob rule doesn't mean a plutocracy is a good idea.
I don't have to establish it. The Supreme Court has ruled, repeatedly, to my point.
As some wise and handsome fellow said upthread:
Your argument is predicated on the premise that the SCOTUS is infallible. One needs look no further than Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott to see that this is untrue. Unless, of course, you agree that blacks people are “an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race..."
To which you replied...well, nothing. Nothing at all. :P
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yesterday morning, the Americans for Austerity and Citizens United held a confab here in lovely New Hampshire, with such luminaries in attendance as Rand Paul, Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee and other assorted plutocrats. There was a protest rally called by the AARP at, of course, 8:30 in the morning, so me and my comrade went to stand on the picket line with 15 Now! signs and peddle socialist newspapers.
Anyway, we weren't allowed to park in the lot of the convention center hosting the event, so we snuck into the parking lot of the abutting Best Western.
Anyway, blah blah blah, talk to the pissed off retirees, talk to pissed of young white kids who staff over at the NAACP (this is New Hampshire, after all), talk to the pissed off Democrat staffers and front group members all dressed in matching sexy soccer mom chic bought straight off the rack at Macy's outfits, etc.
Protest kinda ends when it's time for all the liberals to drive across Manchester to St. Anselm's to see Bernie Sanders speak. Comrade and I go back to the Best Western parking lot where we see four well-dressed men ascending a small staircase leading to a secluded path between the hotel and the convention center.
"Is that Donald Trump?" my comrade asks. I look over and, sure enough, it's Donnie. "Yup," I say. "That's f+~%ing Donald Trump!" my comrade says, rolling down the window. I start the car and begin backing out.
My comrade leans out the car window. "Hey, scumbag!" Donald Trump freezes. "Yeah, hey you, scumbag!" Donald turns around, his face red, and like a good New Yorker, starts to puff up from across the way.
"Hey, scumbag! You're fired!"
I gunned the Doodlemobile and we raced off into great New Hampshire morning, cackling, cannabis smoke pouring out the windows, neither of us wearing our seat belts.
Live Free or Die!
Vive le Galt!
Comrade, sometimes I love you.
Not wearing your seatbelts!? Sometimes you go too far.
The problem is that stating the statistic as you did, it sounds as if you're claiming that 70% of the budget is being spent on social welfare benefits.
I'm responsible for you misreading what I wrote?
You misread it, blame me for writing it, and then admit that I'm right.
Perhaps instead of banning speech, you should take a moment and try to listen.
I'd like to reiterate, why is 70% of the federal budget going to 80% of the population seen as a giveaway to those 70%. It's as if you, DW, are suggesting MORE should just be given away to the rich.
The top 10% pay about 70% of federal income taxes. Which means the government takes from "the rich" and gives to "the poor and middle class." This risks the very real situation where the bottom majority simply vote to eliminate the rights of others and simply award others' property to themselves.
DeTocqueville noted, over a century ago, that is is what led to the downfall of previous democracies.
And you want to ban DeTocqueville from speaking for the simple reason he has more money than you.
It's disingenuous to talk about social security and medicare/medicaid because they are part of segregated and managed funds. The US is not allowed to spend money from those funds on anything but SS/Medicare.
News flash: For decades, the government spent SS funds on things other than SS. The "lockbox" never existed.
There is the working class that has to sell its labor, and there is the owning class that lives on the worker's labor. Yes, there is a small group that is in the borderline between them, but it's ridiculous to view them as a separate class.
Everyone who works in the US trades their labor for money. Even "the rich." Turns out their labor is just worth a lot more than yours.
I don't have to establish it. The Supreme Court has ruled, repeatedly, to my point.
As some wise and handsome fellow said upthread:
Your argument is predicated on the premise that the SCOTUS is infallible. One needs look no further than Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott to see that this is untrue. Unless, of course, you agree that blacks people are “an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race..."To which you replied...well, nothing. Nothing at all. :P
What does "multiple" mean in your world?
Also, what does "establish" mean? Because if you just ignore what I wrote, it's no wonder that you're wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone who works in the US trades their labor for money. Even "the rich." Turns out their labor is just worth a lot more than yours.
"The rich" don't really work for the lion's share of their money. Their position and assets generate wealth, which is then taxed at a much lower rate than actual earnings from labor.
Take a the CEO of [radacted], a modest Fortune 500 company. His salary is $1M, which is reasonable. But somehow his "total compensation" is actually $11M with stock options, and his total earnings including capital gains are off the charts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention, labor as in repaving roads so everyone can drive on them, or "labor" as in signing an endorsement deal because you're a media figure. 'Cause one of those actually holds our society together in a functional way, and the other is something we all ignore if we can't fast forward our DVR through it, and guess which one earns the big bucks?
"The rich" don't really work for the lion's share of their money. Their position and assets generate wealth, which is then taxed at a much lower rate than actual earnings from labor.
Take a the CEO of [radacted], a modest Fortune 500 company. His salary is $1M, which is reasonable. But somehow his "total compensation" is actually $11M with stock options, and his total earnings including capital gains are off the charts.
You don't know any rich people, do you? The majority work extremely hard, and they are rewarded for their ability.
85% of millionaires are first-generation millionaires. Which means they started at the bottom and worked.
One of those jobs can be taken right out of high school (or with a GED). The other usualy involves an entire career invested towards becomming an CEO/CFO to even be possible.
To try to equate them in any way is ridiculous.
Comrade, sometimes I love you.
[Makes kissy face]
If it wasn't radioactive, why did you bring it up?
I didn't say it wasn't radioactive. What is it with not reading what I write? Is it some sort of competition?
The difference is no one is saying blackness = speech. Just because it's a bad idea to allow mob rule doesn't mean a plutocracy is a good idea.
If rights can be eliminated by simple majority vote or a law passed by Congress, then this is indeed what we are talking about.
Just because you don't like "the rich" doesn't mean you get to infringe on their rights through government action.
Maybe our representatives are outraged at homosexual groups using the "Eich Treatment" and therefore passes a law saying gay groups cannot advertise on television? Or that black musicians have too much influence thanks to the popularity of the hip-hop world and limit the number of albums that are sold to allow the acoustic-folk crowd to gain market share? Or that I can''t contribute $2601 to a candidate, but $2600 is fine?
I know it won't matter to you.
Doug, do you think that a first generation millionaire (who could very well be someone who inherited $990,000 after taxes and owned $11,000 of their own beforehand) is even in the top 10%?
That's an honest question, but I've got to say that at this point someone with a million dollars in assets is not riding around in their lear jet and eating lobster every night for dinner. I wouldn't be surprised if they're within the middle class tax bracket, tbh.
One of those jobs can be taken right out of high school (or with a GED). The other usualy involves an entire career invested towards becomming an CEO/CFO to even be possible.
To try to equate them in any way is ridiculous.
Richard Branson seems to be doing okay, and he dropped out of school at 16.
Larry Ellison founded Oracle.Kenneth Hendricks founded ABC supply.
Andrew Carnegie.
Do you want more? Or do just want to admit you were wrong?
You don't know any rich people, do you? The majority work extremely hard, and they are rewarded for their ability.
On the contrary, I lived for a number of years in New Canaan, CT. Google it sometime. I knew a number of notables at the country club there.
Doug, do you think that a first generation millionaire (who could very well be someone who inherited $990,000 after taxes and owned $11,000 of their own beforehand) is even in the top 10%?
That's an honest question, but I've got to say that at this point someone with a million dollars in assets is not riding around in their lear jet and eating lobster every night for dinner. I wouldn't be surprised if they're within the middle class tax bracket, tbh.
According to Leonard Beeghley (from 2004), the top 5% of households had a net worth of $1,000,000 or more. Usually in the form of a house.
So, yes, I'm confident that someone with $990k is in the top 10%.
You don't know any rich people, do you? The majority work extremely hard, and they are rewarded for their ability.On the contrary, I lived for a number of years in New Canaan, CT. Google it sometime. I knew a number of notables at the country club there.
Knew? Or caddied for?
There's a difference.
I didn't say it wasn't radioactive.
Depleted uranium is still radioactive. It's "depleted" in U-235 (vs. U-238), but U-238 is still a radioactive element. It ultimately decays by a long string of alpha and beta emissions to non-radioactive lead.
There's a difference.
Less than you'd think, if you actually keep your ears open and talk to them as if they were people.
One of those jobs can be taken right out of high school (or with a GED). The other usualy involves an entire career invested towards becomming an CEO/CFO to even be possible.
To try to equate them in any way is ridiculous.
Richard Branson seems to be doing okay, and he dropped out of school at 16.
Larry Ellison founded Oracle.
Kenneth Hendricks founded ABC supply.
Andrew Carnegie.Do you want more? Or do just want to admit you were wrong?
You missed my point.
People have the missconception that a CEO doesn't earn his or her pay, which they do. They've usually had schooling, started on the bottom of a company (possibly as an unpaid intern) and through a career spanning at least 20 years may be in a place where he or she might be voted in as a CEO/CFO.
That is hard work. Long hours.
Just because it's not physically intensive like someone who builds roads doesn't cheapen the value of the work done, or the person doing it.
You missed my point.
You're right. I did. Sorry about that.
1) Not all federal revenue is income tax, so that's a major distortion, right there.
2) You still haven't said what percentage of the population you think the "poor and middle class" is.
3) Are you suggesting that government spending on each income class should be directly proportional to the tax revenue they contribute? If that spending includes actually hiring people to do work, it's not going to work very well.
4) You're also ignore that a lot of "welfare" to the rich is done as tax expenditures, which don't show up as spending.
4) If the rich didn't have such a high percentage of the income and even more so the wealth, they wouldn't be paying such a high percentage of the total taxes. Over the last several decades the percentage of income taxed from the wealthiest has dropped significantly. The percentage or revenue from the wealthiest has risen, because they've gotten even wealthier over that time.
While I don't disagree, the point remains the same: If we can pass laws that take away the rights of people we don't agree with, we've reached a point when we are no longer a free society.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whenthe things doug/the rich likes are clnsidered fundamental rights that stand above all other rights, and we live in the perfect Hunger Games arena. Except the unarmed eleven-year olds arent allowed todisarm the paramilitary thugs, because thats stealing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What does "multiple" mean in your world?
Also, what does "establish" mean? Because if you just ignore what I wrote, it's no wonder that you're wrong.
I frankly have no idea what you're trying to say...it's completely incoherent.
In any event, you have failed to construct and support a rational argument, and I no longer have the patience to hand-hold you through remedial logic in the face of your breath-taking arrogance.
Enjoy your serfdom in the "plutocracy is freedom" theme park. I understand there are balloons.
What does "multiple" mean in your world?
Also, what does "establish" mean? Because if you just ignore what I wrote, it's no wonder that you're wrong.
I frankly have no idea what you're trying to say...it's completely incoherent.
In any event, you have failed to construct and support a rational argument, and I no longer have the patience to hand-hold you through remedial logic in the face of your breath-taking arrogance.
Enjoy your serfdom in the "plutocracy is freedom" theme park. I understand there are balloons.
I've said repeatedly that multiple Supreme Court decisions have established my point. You apparently have a different definition of "multiple" than I do, because I can (and do) disagree with single decisions. But several decisions, over the course of decades, do carry a different weight.
Plus, you demand that I "establish" what the Supreme Court has said many times. Establish the historic record? Because it's totally not written down? You seem to use "establish" as "convince me." Hard to do when the one needing the convincing doesn't go do the work to read the decisions.
Good luck to you.
Whenthe things doug/the rich likes are clnsidered fundamental rights that stand above all other rights, and we live in the perfect Hunger Games arena. Except the unarmed eleven-year olds arent allowed todisarm the paramilitary thugs, because thats stealing.
The freedom to speak applies to everyone.
The fact that you dislike what others say does not give you a moral right to limit their freedoms.
Or, Ilja doesn't want you to be able to exercise your liberties because SHUT UP.
So when were we a free society, by that standard?
The threat of the majority trampling over the rights of the minority has been recognized since before the Constitution was ratified.
If you want to say "our society was never perfect, and therefore it is perfectly reasonable to inflict further wrongs against those we disagree with" you are no better than those who came before you.
Expect strong resistance from those who would not be serfs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, Jefferson wrote a lot about "rightful liberty," as opposed to "total liberty." It's sort of a very important distinction, because the latter is internally self-contradictory when applied to more than one individual or group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of those jobs can be taken right out of high school (or with a GED). The other usualy involves an entire career invested towards becomming an CEO/CFO to even be possible.
To try to equate them in any way is ridiculous.
Richard Branson seems to be doing okay, and he dropped out of school at 16.
Larry Ellison founded Oracle.
Kenneth Hendricks founded ABC supply.
Andrew Carnegie.Do you want more? Or do just want to admit you were wrong?
You missed my point.
People have the missconception that a CEO doesn't earn his or her pay, which they do. They've usually had schooling, started on the bottom of a company (possibly as an unpaid intern) and through a career spanning at least 20 years may be in a place where he or she might be voted in as a CEO/CFO.
That is hard work. Long hours.
Just because it's not physically intensive like someone who builds roads doesn't cheapen the value of the work done, or the person doing it.
Your comments would appear more valid if it wasn't involving absurd ratios of pay.
In the US CEO pay is over 350 times that of the average worker. In Germany, a fairly successful country in terms of economics, it's 147.
US: $12,000,000
German: $5,900,000
Cutting CEO pay in half sounds harsh, until you look at the actual numbers, that the highest paid will still be paid in 8-digits. You will never get me to be concerned for someone making 8-digits of income.
The thing is, Jefferson wrote a lot about "rightful liberty," as opposed to "total liberty." It's sort of a very important distinction, because the latter is internally self-contradictory when applied to more than one individual or group.
I understand.
But is it rightful to disregard the rights of others, or to set up arbitrary barriers to the exercise of those rights?
I donate $2600 to a candidate for office, and I'm within the letter of the law. I donate $2601 and I'm breaking the law.
If I give $283 to 435 candidates, I'm legal. If I give $284 to each I've broken the law. This latter example is what this entire thread is about.
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Yeah, I can quote it (and a large volume of the rest of his writings and correspondence). The barriers are not arbitrary if they serve to remind people that, "hey, you're overstepping your bounds and beginning to step on mine."
What can be considered arbitrary is the decision of where those bounds lie, exactly. I tend to think that, if someone in the store hits me with a shopping cart, I should be allowed to kick their ass. Mrs Gersen tirelessly reminds me that the law sees it differently.
And that's what it comes down to: at some point you need a written code of laws so that everyone, even if they don't necessarily agree, sees where the limits have been drawn.