The Fed Shutdown Poll and Megathread

[Zanza2]

"It's no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened," Joseph E. Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, writes in the latest issue of Vanity Fair. "The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation's income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent."

Here is the article for those interested:
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?fb_ref=social_fblike&fb_source=profile_multiline

[CountDeMoney]

Actually, Seeds, it does kinda sound like a bait and switch.  Everything in the article that's not the last paragraph points to finding a way to cap exec pay, not increase their tax burden.  When an author starts talking "executive pay," they're talking about amounts, not percentages.  These shareholders would have been just as pissed if the guy had "only" made $5 million with a higher tax rate than $7 million without. (edited to remove weasels)

It's not an article, it's an opinion piece.

[CountDeMoney]

It is interesting the way it is taken as a matter of faith that the "rich" have enough cash to fund the infinite desires of the socialist state that the Seedys of the world demand - even when the data makes it clear that it simply is not the case.

They don't have to fund it;  they should just have to do their part.  Which they'd haven't done for quite some time.

It is like they think that if they want it to be true hard enough, then it will become true. It *should* be the case that the State can take care of everyone, therefore it MUST be the case that they can, if only the "rich" weren't being so selfish...

You're such a GOP Uncle Tom.

[MadImmortalMan]

We make CEO pay contingent on the number of employees. 10k employees, you get 2 million. 20k, 3 million. See? An incentive to create jobs. 

[sbr]

CdM's signature reminded me of something I saw written somewhere, probably a newspaper.  They wrote General Sherman's name as William "Tecumseh" Sherman.  Wasn't that his real middle name or was a it a stage or ring name like Andre "The Giant" Roussimoff?

[Kleves]

Tecumseh was, indeed, his middle name. Papa Sherman liked the Indian Tecumseh, and named his kid after him.

[Ed Anger]

CdM's signature reminded me of something I saw written somewhere, probably a newspaper.  They wrote General Sherman's name as William "Tecumseh" Sherman.  Wasn't that his real middle name or was a it a stage or ring name like Andre "The Giant" Roussimoff?

It was Tecumseh. If I remember my Ohio history classes, Tecumseh was fairly common in Ohio.

His ring name would be 'rebelsmasher'

[CountDeMoney]

To be fair the US's socialist state that needs funding isn't that massive.  A pension scheme, healthcare for the elderly, the poor and the disabled; that is hardly infinite and is actually pretty basic.  And it is broadly speaking true that if income tax revenues as a percent of GDP went back to what they were before Bush then you'd have a controllable, healthy deficit.

For myself I think tax and welfare have to part of a social contract which means everyone gets the benefits and you don't pay for it by soaking the rich.

The truth is, I think, most Americans actually want their welfare state, not least because it is minimal.  Also, with austerity across the board - I know it's already happening at a state level - I think people will turn more to tax.

The problem is, Sheilbh, for the Berkuts and Yis and derspiesses of America, it's just a matter of what they see and what they don't see.  They don't see the results of the sheer greed and venality that powers the 1% to obscene amounts of wealth and even greater damage to this nation.  CEO Daddy Warbucks cashes in $44 million in compensation?  That's not their world.  CEO Daddy Warbucks slashes 15,000 jobs?  That's in another state.  They don't see that.

But they DO see the unemployed nigger on the street getting his Independence card cash from the ATM when they're at a red light.  They see an unwed mother of 5 buying WIC-discounted groceries in front of them at the cash register.  They drive past the community clinic giving out free healthcare to those that can't afford it.   With THEIR tax dollars.

They see that, but they don't see the damage Wall Street and their GOP sugardaddies cost this nation at a hell of a lot more a year than our social net programs ever could.  One's tangible, and one isn't.

If GOPtard sympathizers only realized they have more in common with the unemployed niggers, the unwed mothers of 5, and the indigent patients at free clinics than they do with Wall Street and the Masters of the Universe who would hate them if they knew them, politics in America would be a different story. 

Social contract, Shielbh? Not in America.

[Ed Anger]

DAMN YOU KLEVES!

[Admiral Yi]

Actually, Seeds, it does kinda sound like a bait and switch.  Everything in the article that's not the last paragraph points to finding a way to cap exec pay, not increase their tax burden.  When an author starts talking "executive pay," they're talking about amounts, not percentages.  These shareholders would have been just as pissed if the guy had "only" made $5 million with a higher tax rate than $7 million without. (edited to remove weasels)

Teabagger.

[Tonitrus]

We make CEO pay contingent on the number of employees. 10k employees, you get 2 million. 20k, 3 million. See? An incentive to create jobs. 

And would completely kill all development towards replacing humans with robots. 

[dps]

You want the rich to pay their fair share?  It's simple--leave the tax rate itself alone, get rid of all deductions, abolish the capital gains tax, and tax capital gains as ordinary income.

[Neil]

In the UK I think the problem's social and not helped by this government's complete lack of understanding for the middle class.  I'm quite London in my politics.  So I'm intensely relaxed about oligarchs and bankers getting millions in bonuses.  But there's real, intense, burning anger about this.  And it's not just a thing  of the left.

The problem is social only because of the mentality of class warfare that has poisoned British society.  Getting angry because somebody makes more than you do is intensely damaging to society.

[Hansmeister]

To be fair the US's socialist state that needs funding isn't that massive.  A pension scheme, healthcare for the elderly, the poor and the disabled; that is hardly infinite and is actually pretty basic.  And it is broadly speaking true that if income tax revenues as a percent of GDP went back to what they were before Bush then you'd have a controllable, healthy deficit.

For myself I think tax and welfare have to part of a social contract which means everyone gets the benefits and you don't pay for it by soaking the rich.

The truth is, I think, most Americans actually want their welfare state, not least because it is minimal.  Also, with austerity across the board - I know it's already happening at a state level - I think people will turn more to tax.

The problem is, Sheilbh, for the Berkuts and Yis and derspiesses of America, it's just a matter of what they see and what they don't see.  They don't see the results of the sheer greed and venality that powers the 1% to obscene amounts of wealth and even greater damage to this nation.  CEO Daddy Warbucks cashes in $44 million in compensation?  That's not their world.  CEO Daddy Warbucks slashes 15,000 jobs?  That's in another state.  They don't see that.

But they DO see the unemployed nigger on the street getting his Independence card cash from the ATM when they're at a red light.  They see an unwed mother of 5 buying WIC-discounted groceries in front of them at the cash register.  They drive past the community clinic giving out free healthcare to those that can't afford it.   With THEIR tax dollars.

They see that, but they don't see the damage Wall Street and their GOP sugardaddies cost this nation at a hell of a lot more a year than our social net programs ever could.  One's tangible, and one isn't.

If GOPtard sympathizers only realized they have more in common with the unemployed niggers, the unwed mothers of 5, and the indigent patients at free clinics than they do with Wall Street and the Masters of the Universe who would hate them if they knew them, politics in America would be a different story. 

Social contract, Shielbh? Not in America.

Fuck the social contract, I didn't sign on to having millions of worthless pieces of shit demanding handouts while contributing no effort themselves.  Why should those who work hard, save money for the future, and take responsibility for themselves be required to bail out all the worthless layabouts who blow all their money and then some ob big-screen TVs and XBOX 360's and then want a handout because working would distract from their play time.

Fuck em all.  There is nothing more antisocial than the "social contract", which rewards bad behavior and punishes responsibility.  This is why the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote: they end up voting to rob the public until eventually society collapses under their irresponsibility.

[Tonitrus]

Fuck the social contract, I didn't sign on to having millions of worthless pieces of shit demanding handouts while contributing no effort themselves.  Why should those who work hard, save money for the future, and take responsibility for themselves be required to bail out all the worthless layabouts who blow all their money and then some ob big-screen TVs and XBOX 360's and then want a handout because working would distract from their play time.

Fuck em all.  There is nothing more antisocial than the "social contract", which rewards bad behavior and punishes responsibility.  This is why the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote: they end up voting to rob the public until eventually society collapses under their irresponsibility.

For the same reason we bailout incompetent banks and financial institutions entrusted with the money of those people who work hard/save money, and then piss it away by betting on those aforementioned worthless layabouts who had taken out untenable adjustable-rate mortgages?

Wall Street bankers probably shouldn't be allowed to vote either.