There's a better (sane) reason to actually boycott girl scout cookies until 2015: The use of palm oil

All right, I'll say it. Romney's right. I am envious of millionaires. I would venture to say that most of my peers are "jealous" too... but for one reason, and one reason only:

If I had that much wealth (or a sufficient salary to reach that much in, say, 5 years of full-time work), I could rest a LOT easier and lead a far more relaxed life. I wouldn't have to worry about mortgage payments. I wouldn't have to worry about a medical emergency. I wouldn't have to worry about putting food on the table. I wouldn't have to worry about a child's college education. I wouldn't have to worry about retirement. Although not every one of those points apply to me (yet), there exist plenty of lower- and middle-income families for which all of those and more do.

That's it. There's nothing else. There were 3.1 million millionaires in the US at last count and obviously I don't and can't know all of them personally. It is patently illogical for me to begrudge and envy all of them in any way other than the element of financial security. I don't envy their boat; I don't enjoy that kind of recreation or the upkeep associated with it. I don't envy their second house; I only need one. I don't need a 60" plasma TV (or any TV at all for that matter, why, I have Videosift! <3). I don't need a Ferrari; the speed limit is 65 everywhere. And so on. It bears mentioning that most millionaires live very frugal lives themselves, anyhow.

What I do need are the basic essentials for living, enough that I can rest easy at night. And the bigger the safety net, the more comfortable I am.

Romney seems to think this envy is on the level of revolution and "class warfare." No. I don't give a single fuck about what millionaires do with their money. The problem is this: if you raise taxes 5% on the middle and lower classes, that could mean the difference between rice and beans vs. 3 square meals a day. Raise taxes 5% on the wealthy and the difference is keeping their BMW and Benz for 1 more year as opposed to trading up to the latest and greatest model.

TL;DR - Romney's right, but for the wrong reasons.

>> ^packo:

>> ^marbles:
Let me get this straight. MoveOn.org, a lobby group for the Wall Street financed Obama administration that is funded by Wall Street billionaire and financial criminal George Soros, has a problem with political spending? That's rich, Ha.
Oh and the "tax the rich" plan MoveOn and other groups are trying to push are widely supported by Wall Street oligarchs. Why is that? Hmmm....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650
932556900.html
"Roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama’s plan aren’t millionaires, and 99.99% aren’t billionaires."
It is the middle class – not Warren Buffett or Wall Street corporations – who will be most hurt by the very policies the "tax the rich" crowd are calling for.

did you actually read that article? the only thing you got right is the 90% of tax filers wouldn't be millionaires... if you think the 99% is made of people making 200k+ / yr... you are living in a world where pigs fly and Nickelback rocks
and to defend the 200k+/yr statement against the fact that anyone with half a brain knows that the 99% make an avg wage/salary FAR FAR lower than that, the article defends itself by saying these "200 thousandnaires" might only make this level of pay for a few years of their life... wow! how will they ever get by when a few thousand is obviously so much more large a number to them than people making millions
woops, i guess cold hearted conservatism kinda blinds one to the ironic nature of the difference someone making 30-50k/yr might figure a few thousand is proportionally
cry, cry for the 200 thousandnaires... because the American Dream no longer works as a carrot on a stick when dealing with millions... while you may not be able to become a millionaire, you might be able to still become a 200 thousandnaire... so you better not mess with them
the irony that most won't become a 200 thousandnaire is probably lost on you as well
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html


Thanks for confirming what I've already said.

The "tax the rich" legislation is mostly a tax on the middle class and small business owners and NOT on millionaires and corporations.

By the way, it ignores the crux of the problem anyway. ie: Financial fraud and corruption.

>> ^marbles:

Let me get this straight. MoveOn.org, a lobby group for the Wall Street financed Obama administration that is funded by Wall Street billionaire and financial criminal George Soros, has a problem with political spending? That's rich, Ha.
Oh and the "tax the rich" plan MoveOn and other groups are trying to push are widely supported by Wall Street oligarchs. Why is that? Hmmm....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650
932556900.html
"Roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama’s plan aren’t millionaires, and 99.99% aren’t billionaires."
It is the middle class – not Warren Buffett or Wall Street corporations – who will be most hurt by the very policies the "tax the rich" crowd are calling for.


did you actually read that article? the only thing you got right is the 90% of tax filers wouldn't be millionaires... if you think the 99% is made of people making 200k+ / yr... you are living in a world where pigs fly and Nickelback rocks

and to defend the 200k+/yr statement against the fact that anyone with half a brain knows that the 99% make an avg wage/salary FAR FAR lower than that, the article defends itself by saying these "200 thousandnaires" might only make this level of pay for a few years of their life... wow! how will they ever get by when a few thousand is obviously so much more large a number to them than people making millions

woops, i guess cold hearted conservatism kinda blinds one to the ironic nature of the difference someone making 30-50k/yr might figure a few thousand is proportionally

cry, cry for the 200 thousandnaires... because the American Dream no longer works as a carrot on a stick when dealing with millions... while you may not be able to become a millionaire, you might be able to still become a 200 thousandnaire... so you better not mess with them

the irony that most won't become a 200 thousandnaire is probably lost on you as well

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

You are a silly silly SILLY man. I was in the middle of writing exactly why you are a silly silly SILLY man and unfortunately lost the whole thing.

I don't have the energy to start over. But I do want to repeat the main argument -- I know that it is a waste of time to show you exactly how you are a silly silly SILLY man, uninformed, misguided, and trapped by some weird anti-tax obsession that beggars all logic of what it means to live in a wealthy society that provides services and protection for its people.

Silly silly SILLY man. That is my main point.

PS: I do taxes for a living. I have done more than one tax return for "middle class" folks who had up to $70,000 in taxable income who paid ZERO TAX. I am perfectly fine with those folks paying more taxes. Doesn't bother me a bit.



>> ^marbles:

Let me get this straight. MoveOn.org, a lobby group for the Wall Street financed Obama administration, that is funded by Wall Street billionaire and financial criminal George Soros, has a problem with political spending? That's rich, Ha.
Oh and the "tax the rich" plan MoveOn and other groups are trying to push are widely supported by Wall Street oligarchs. Why is that? Hmmm....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650
932556900.html
"Roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama’s plan aren’t millionaires, and 99.99% aren’t billionaires."
It is the middle class – not Warren Buffett or Wall Street corporations – who will be most hurt by the very policies the "tax the rich" crowd are calling for.

Let me get this straight. MoveOn.org, a lobby group for the Wall Street financed Obama administration that is funded by Wall Street billionaire and financial criminal George Soros, has a problem with political spending? That's rich, Ha.

Oh and the "tax the rich" plan MoveOn and other groups are trying to push are widely supported by Wall Street oligarchs. Why is that? Hmmm....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650932556900.html
"Roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama’s plan aren’t millionaires, and 99.99% aren’t billionaires."
It is the middle class – not Warren Buffett or Wall Street corporations – who will be most hurt by the very policies the "tax the rich" crowd are calling for.

A. I don't understand how you're arguing we haven't been practicing Keynesian economics since the Great Depression. We've run deficits almost the entire time, lowered interest rates even further during recessions, and enact stimulus when recessions hit in the form of tax rebate checks, income tax cuts to consumers, gov't programs to provide jobs to increase demand, extended unemployment, etc., although we normally do a poor job of running surpluses when we should. But in a nutshell, that is Keynesian economics. And it has worked pretty well overall. Influence of monetarist policies have tamed the Keynesian interventions, but there's little doubt that all the above actions in the last two recessions were born of Keynesian thought.

B. If a business is making $100,000 off your labor, but is paying you $80,000, resulting in a $20,000 profit, why wouldn't they fire you if they could fire someone to do your job for $50,000, resulting in a 250% increase in profit? It does happen. I was the victim of it in 2004.

C. If the devils in the details could be worked out, and that's a big if, I'd be in favor of having stipulations to unemployment benefits. But you got a lot of issues you'd have to deal with. What if the person on unemployment has kids? You're gonna deny them welfare if the kids would starve? Very complicated issue as just one example.

I do think though we need in this age better education to retrain workers for the new jobs that come into the US as jobs get outsourced to other countries.

D. About the FDIC... First off, you're saying that people could check the banks' ability to make too risky of loans, but it's a whole other thing to say FDIC insurance encourages bad lending. It's simply not true. Again, regardless if deposits are insured or not, banks will go under if they make risky loans regardless of deposit insurance for consumers in most cases. Again, bailouts are a whole other issue. As for people checking the banks for bad lending, that's a pipe dream. The general consumer has no clue what are good or bad loans overall, nor the time to monitor the lending practices of banks. Hell, BANKERS didn't understand the crap they got themselves into in the mortgage crisis until it was too late, and they're professionals in the field. It's not a practical solution. On top of all that, the FDIC does in some ways help to ensure baseline qualities of banks. Not every bank can be FDIC insured, and many of the regulations FDIC insist upon make the banks more solvent, etc. So when consumers insist the bank is FDIC insured, they're insuring their deposits as well as guaranteeing a minimal level of integrity in the bank itself.

Lastly, I'm totally down with reasoned dialogue, even from points of view I completely oppose. I'm not slamming this guy because he's a conservative. I'm slamming him because he made ridiculous claims that are obviously factually inaccurate. Ideology shouldn't blind people from obvious fact that don't fit.

>> ^bmacs27:

@heropsycho
I'd disagree with you on a couple of points.

However, I will say once again, Keynesian economics works. We've practiced it since the Great Depression, and it works without a doubt.
First of all, we haven't really practiced Keynesian economics since stagflation during Carter. The decoupling of inflation and growth was very troubling to economists as the Keynesian theory had no explanation for it. In the period between Carter and Obama, we effectively practiced Monetarist economics, or "supply-side" economics. It's that economic policy everyone is railing against even though it was practiced during one of the periods of greatest growth in our history (obviously there are confounds, e.g. the personal computer). The Austrians just don't think that demand focused interventions will work any better than supply focused interventions. There is always a deadweight loss to taxation.

Profit centers do in fact get outsourced, although granted not as often as cost centers. Why would a company not outsource a profit center if it would increase profits in the long run?
Profit centers are most often NOT outsourced. If there is another profit center abroad, you expand, you don't fire the guy that's making you more money than he's costing you.

And prolonging unemployment has also provided an artificial market for goods and services for those who do have jobs. It's not so simple to suggest that extended unemployment is a disincentive to work. It's also providing those who are collecting it who actually can't find another job with income to spend, which props the entire economy up. It's not an either/or; it's both. And there are far more people right now on unemployment who cannot find another job than those holding out for something that pays what they're used to.
I understand the demand side argument. I'm saying, rather than giving them money for nothing, let's give them money to become hirable. It's similar to saying that the money handed to banks should have had conditions attached. When people are begging for money, they ought to accept some stipulations.

Finally, bear in mind that when it comes to finding common ground, and that kind of thing, you cannot find common ground with people who are fundamentally altering obvious fact to suit their views. Schiff made to completely ludicrous claims (child labor was ended by the market, and the FDIC deposit insurance fuels bank speculation). Both claims are preposterous.
I agree with you about child labor, however I'd disagree with you about the FDIC. People should be paying attention to what banks do with their money, and respond to poor decision making with the withdrawal of their deposits. Instead, they just assume it doesn't matter (in terms of risk) where they keep their money and just shop for the highest interest rate. Those higher interest rates are most often fueled by more than traditional lending (as anyone banking in such a manner would lose deposits to higher yields in the distorted marketplace).
Also, I'm Keynesian. I just don't think free market viewpoint you'd read in the Economist, Financial Times, WSJ, or any other reasonably reputable conservative source is being well represented on this website. If we all cheerlead for one team, we'll never substantially challenge our own groupthink.

@heropsycho

I'd disagree with you on a couple of points.


However, I will say once again, Keynesian economics works. We've practiced it since the Great Depression, and it works without a doubt.

First of all, we haven't really practiced Keynesian economics since stagflation during Carter. The decoupling of inflation and growth was very troubling to economists as the Keynesian theory had no explanation for it. In the period between Carter and Obama, we effectively practiced Monetarist economics, or "supply-side" economics. It's that economic policy everyone is railing against even though it was practiced during one of the periods of greatest growth in our history (obviously there are confounds, e.g. the personal computer). The Austrians just don't think that demand focused interventions will work any better than supply focused interventions. There is always a deadweight loss to taxation.


Profit centers do in fact get outsourced, although granted not as often as cost centers. Why would a company not outsource a profit center if it would increase profits in the long run?

Profit centers are most often NOT outsourced. If there is another profit center abroad, you expand, you don't fire the guy that's making you more money than he's costing you.


And prolonging unemployment has also provided an artificial market for goods and services for those who do have jobs. It's not so simple to suggest that extended unemployment is a disincentive to work. It's also providing those who are collecting it who actually can't find another job with income to spend, which props the entire economy up. It's not an either/or; it's both. And there are far more people right now on unemployment who cannot find another job than those holding out for something that pays what they're used to.

I understand the demand side argument. I'm saying, rather than giving them money for nothing, let's give them money to become hirable. It's similar to saying that the money handed to banks should have had conditions attached. When people are begging for money, they ought to accept some stipulations.


Finally, bear in mind that when it comes to finding common ground, and that kind of thing, you cannot find common ground with people who are fundamentally altering obvious fact to suit their views. Schiff made to completely ludicrous claims (child labor was ended by the market, and the FDIC deposit insurance fuels bank speculation). Both claims are preposterous.

I agree with you about child labor, however I'd disagree with you about the FDIC. People should be paying attention to what banks do with their money, and respond to poor decision making with the withdrawal of their deposits. Instead, they just assume it doesn't matter (in terms of risk) where they keep their money and just shop for the highest interest rate. Those higher interest rates are most often fueled by more than traditional lending (as anyone banking in such a manner would lose deposits to higher yields in the distorted marketplace).

Also, I'm Keynesian. I just don't think free market viewpoint you'd read in the Economist, Financial Times, WSJ, or any other reasonably reputable conservative source is being well represented on this website. If we all cheerlead for one team, we'll never substantially challenge our own groupthink.

Dude, you quoted two Rupert Murdoch "news" organizations. Seriously, wtfbbq... Real nice diverse facts there to back you up. LOL...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

The only thing you proved is there are idiots in every crowd.
This is certainly true. I in no way mean to imply that the offenses were representative of "all OWS participants". Obviously not all OWS people are doing these kinds of things. But there is enough of it going on though that it is becoming a serious issue with how the public views OWS as a whole.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082
965745362.html
http://www.nypost.com/p/new
s/local/manhattan/angry_manhattan_residents_lambast_RjpTU0jG2z9yrgf5o4bRcO#ixzz1bPHgxmGZ
Manhattan residents are sick of them.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

The only thing you proved is there are idiots in every crowd.
This is certainly true. I in no way mean to imply that the offenses were representative of "all OWS participants". Obviously not all OWS people are doing these kinds of things. But there is enough of it going on though that it is becoming a serious issue with how the public views OWS as a whole.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082
965745362.html


Seriously? The Wall Street Journal is the source you're citing to show how the public views the Occupy Wall Street movement?

The only thing you proved is there are idiots in every crowd.

This is certainly true. I in no way mean to imply that the offenses were representative of "all OWS participants". Obviously not all OWS people are doing these kinds of things. But there is enough of it going on though that it is becoming a serious issue with how the public views OWS as a whole.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/angry_manhattan_residents_lambast_RjpTU0jG2z9yrgf5o4bRcO#ixzz1bPHgxmGZ

Manhattan residents are sick of them. The data shows that the OWS is vastly different in ideological and demographic makeup than average voters. This is very different from the Tea Party, which solidly reflects actual American voters...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-Partiers-Fairly-Mainstream-Demographics.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_cont
ent=morelink&utm_term=Politics

Really - when an 'average person' encounters the OWS movement, it is like walking into the Star Wars Cantina. We hike up an eyebrow and think, "Who the heck are THESE guys?" The average American has a family, a job, and social obligations. He doesn't want to ditch all that to go camp out in a filthy tent-city with a bunch of noisy, disaffected college kids. The average American has a 401K, investments, and other property. They don't want to blow up Wall Street. They just want Wall Street to no longer be the beneficiary of government favoritism - which is a GOVERNMENT problem, not a Wall Street problem. The average person has far more in common with the Tea Party than with OWS.

OWS doesn't want a specific message because that means they'd have to defend a position. When anyone comes at them and tries to have an actual discussion, they dive back into the tall grass of being a 'vague movement' with nothing but vagueries and sloganeering. The average american demands better than that. OWS is never going to be anything but a fringe group unless they can come up with a specific message.

Now, this vid bozo seems quite proud of the fact that they have no real message beyond "we are the 99%" and "we don't like Wall Street!" Well, that's fine. Most Americans are 'mad' at Wall Street if you only keep the topic vague, undefined, and ephemeral. The problem is that OWS is using that vague, ephemeral, nebulous "we're mad at Wall Street" message and saying that it means "most of America" agrees with the OWS movement. That is blatantly false, because while both OWS and 'average americans' can both agree on that generalization, they are as different as night and day when you actually get down to any specifics.

And that really is the problem for OWS. When the rubber meets the road and these yahoos try to actually build a REAL movement (as opposed to just a tent city of malcontents) then the effort falls apart because you can't build a large movement without a specific message. And the INSTANT that any of the OWS movement ever coughs up any specifics on what they want, then they drive away average folks like me like they were plutonium.

Well, as much as I like Biden, he's wrong. Crime does increase overall during higher unemployment, but crimes like murder and rape do not because "monetary gain is not usually a motive".

Another article

Biden can't say things that aren't true. Someone will eventually call him on it. Whether he knew it was untrue or was just pulling numbers out of his ass that he thought were close doesn't matter. He's the VP, and if he's gonna reference "numbers", he can be sure people will go look themselves.

To be fair, he was talking specifically about Flint, Michigan. Factcheck.org says he's still wrong.

>> ^lantern53:

here you go:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123414310280561945.html
'The gov't is here to help you...'
lol


Please find an article by someone using evidence instead of opinion. More to the point find it within a paper or repute rather than the Wall Street Journal which has gone downhill since being taken over by an mad Aussie.

here you go:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123414310280561945.html

'The gov't is here to help you...'

lol

I hope so.

Wall Street Journal article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP5e86a359373744d6a547625d2e88b14c.html#articleTabs%3Darticle