And is it just me, or does that anchor look just like Randy Travis?

Really tired of all the "crushes" and "destroys" in titles. But I guess it keeps working to bring the votes...

>> ^Skeeve:

And is it just me, or does that anchor look just like Randy Travis?

As a bonus, Ms. Van Sustren is a big time Scientologist.

He lost me at "raise my taxes."

>> ^ridesallyridenc:

He lost me at "raise my taxes."
If he's talking about you you're making too much money. The income gap in the US is out of control.


graphic

>> ^ridesallyridenc:

He lost me at "raise my taxes."


Taxes are an investment in your country's future.

Do you drive on roads? Did you attend a school? Do you expect the food at the grocery store to be free of E.coli? Do you expect someone to answer and emergency services to respond when you dial 911?

When Americans were paying taxes to a foreign state, or the head of the empire, for their imports and exports, that was when taxes were theft. Think of the Actual Boston Tea Party, they were protesting paying tax to a different nation state.

"Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives." -wiki.

I repeat, their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives.

I personally think your view on taxes says a lot about your ability to empathize with the community within which you reside. Think about employment insurance and programs for the poor. Of course, maybe you live in a gated community out in the suburbs and the poor are forcibly segregated from you.

Of course, I must add that I do think governments must be held accountable for the manner in which they spend/invest the people's wealth. But frankly I'm sick of egocentric, ill informed people decrying the taxes that are necessary for their way of life, and necessary to sustain the community of humans beings within which they live.

their is some good discussion over here.

http://videosift.com/talk/Taxes-and-theft

Nearly all of the things you mention can and do exist outside of governments. My community has a privatively maintained road. There are private schools of various qualities. And our food is often still subject to large scale contaminations. Just because something isn't done by government doesn't mean it won't. Moreover, when government does do something, it usually means the tools for doing it yourself are outlawed. For example, it is illegal to sell unpasteurized milk products. Even if you are aware of the related health impacts, it is illegal to sell or buy.

Also, you might be aware but are mistaking the fact of the Boston tea party was actually in response to tax break and not a tax itself. The government was essentially acting as an agent of the East India Tea company, in the same way the modern FDA is frequently a tool to dispatch small time competitors with regulatory paperwork.

You seem to be instilled with this idea if you aren't for taxes, then you aren't for poor people, a fallacy of many well meaning liberal types. The problem isn't the support of helping the impoverished, but the means. It would be the same as me telling you to support theology based philanthropy, and ordering by the force of law. The problem of moral issues is they are exactly like the separation of church and state, by making a moral law you force people to agree with this morality. People whom don't subscribe to that line of moral reasoning are FORCED by law to release their funds or face some pretty dire consequences, including jail time.
If you believe in the separation of church and state, then you should also believe in the separation of philanthropy and state...they are essentially the same thing.


>> ^Peroxide:

>> ^ridesallyridenc:
He lost me at "raise my taxes."

Taxes are an investment in your country's future.
Do you drive on roads? Did you attend a school? Do you expect the food at the grocery store to be free of E.coli? Do you expect someone to answer and emergency services to respond when you dial 911?
When Americans were paying taxes to a foreign state, or the head of the empire, for their imports and exports, that was when taxes were theft. Think of the Actual Boston Tea Party, they were protesting paying tax to a different nation state.
"Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives." -wiki.
I repeat, their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives.
I personally think your view on taxes says a lot about your ability to empathize with the community within which you reside. Think about employment insurance and programs for the poor. Of course, maybe you live in a gated community out in the suburbs and the poor are forcibly segregated from you.
Of course, I must add that I do think governments must be held accountable for the manner in which they spend/invest the people's wealth. But frankly I'm sick of egocentric, ill informed people decrying the taxes that are necessary for their way of life, and necessary for to sustain the community of humans beings within which they live.
their is some good discussion over here.
http://videosift.com/talk/Taxes-and-theft

Get a job, hippies. I pay more in taxes than you make in a year.

>> ^Peroxide:

>> ^ridesallyridenc:
He lost me at "raise my taxes."

Taxes are an investment in your country's future.
Do you drive on roads? Did you attend a school? Do you expect the food at the grocery store to be free of E.coli? Do you expect someone to answer and emergency services to respond when you dial 911?
When Americans were paying taxes to a foreign state, or the head of the empire, for their imports and exports, that was when taxes were theft. Think of the Actual Boston Tea Party, they were protesting paying tax to a different nation state.
"Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives." -wiki.
I repeat, their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives.
I personally think your view on taxes says a lot about your ability to empathize with the community within which you reside. Think about employment insurance and programs for the poor. Of course, maybe you live in a gated community out in the suburbs and the poor are forcibly segregated from you.
Of course, I must add that I do think governments must be held accountable for the manner in which they spend/invest the people's wealth. But frankly I'm sick of egocentric, ill informed people decrying the taxes that are necessary for their way of life, and necessary for to sustain the community of humans beings within which they live.
their is some good discussion over here.
http://videosift.com/talk/Taxes-and-theft


News flash. Income tax doesn't pay for roads. Also, I've gotten sick TWICE in the past year from food poisoning. Um, I think during that period of time we still had the FDA, right? And the Supreme Court has upheld in every single case that has been brought to them when police refused or failed to protect the people that the government has zero obligation to protect it's citizens.

Not an investment in the country's future, thank you very much. It's just theft.

If he's not talking about you, it's your civic duty to make more money so you can pay more taxes. I mean, really. Give back some.

FWIW, I'm a small business owner that keeps twelve people employed and provides them the best benefits money can buy. Between my employees, they have 14 children who are also taken care of. I also volunteer my time and give charitably to a number of humanitarian organizations.

Personally, I'm just of the mindset that we don't need the government to tell us to do well by others, save for our retirement, and waste 80% of the money they collect in the process. I'd rather see the government use money efficiently for things that make sense at a federal level: Defense, Infrastructure, Energy, and *gasp* Insurance.

Let the states figure the rest out.



>> ^Truckchase:

>> ^ridesallyridenc:
He lost me at "raise my taxes."
If he's talking about you you're making too much money. The income gap in the US is out of control.

graphic

>> ^blankfist:


News flash. Income tax doesn't pay for roads. Also, I've gotten sick TWICE in the past year from food poisoning. Um, I think during that period of time we still had the FDA, right? And the Supreme Court has upheld in every single case that has been brought to them when police refused or failed to protect the people that the government has zero obligation to protect it's citizens.
Not an investment in the country's future, thank you very much. It's just theft.


bf, you're right about the FDA; they're mostly useless due to being more heavily influenced by the food industry than they are by the people they're supposed to protect. That said, local and federal taxes do fund state health departments, which in some cases can be very, very good. To go back to state's rights; if you're concerned with the food poisoning aspect you're free to move to a state that doesn't have a crappy health departmet.

>> ^Truckchase:

That said, local and federal taxes do fund state health departments, which in some cases can be very, very good. To go back to state's rights; if you're concerned with the food poisoning aspect you're free to move to a state that doesn't have a crappy health departmet.


So, another case of "like it or leave it". Let me clarify that statement. Another case of "we force you to pay for this, and if you don't like it you're free to go elsewhere. I hear Somalia is nice this time of year."

>> ^ridesallyridenc:

If he's not talking about you, it's your civic duty to make more money so you can pay more taxes. I mean, really. Give back some.
FWIW, I'm a small business owner that keeps twelve people employed and provides them the best benefits money can buy. Between my employees, they have 14 children who are also taken care of. I also volunteer my time and give charitably to a number of humanitarian organizations.
Personally, I'm just of the mindset that we don't need the government to tell us to do well by others, save for our retirement, and waste 80% of the money they collect in the process. I'd rather see the government use money efficiently for things that make sense at a federal level: Defense, Infrastructure, Energy, and gasp Insurance.
Let the states figure the rest out.

He is and I do. I'm not going to argue against govt. waste because I don't have a leg to stand on, but the fact of the matter is that the economy will continue to stagnate as long as the acting conservatives continue a policy that is pursuing a definitive division amongst classes. Due to the current political climate it seems to me that hiking taxes on the ultra rich is our only achievable option until to attempt to prevent the ultra-rich class from buying so much influence in our democracy that it is rendered permanently powerless to serve the majority. I don't see this as a long-term solution, but as a stop gap until we can hopefully culturally evolve to see this class warfare for what it is. The states are potentially as useless as the federal govt, so I don't see much hope there. In theory the states should be closer to the people they serve, but that's being co-opted as well. See: http://videosift.com/video/Wisconsin-Governor-Prank-Called-By-Billionaire-Tea-Party

We must stop the systemic buyout of our government and the destruction of the middle class to survive.

I think we're much more similar than you may think. From my perspective the ultimate question is "what will this system look like in 30 years"? I've got kids that I'd like to inherit a U.S. that is on the way back up instead of down. If anyone has a good idea as to how to dis-empower the rich in this country then I'm all ears.

Just a quicky, but is being ill due to food poisoning really the fault of the FDA? Isn't the FDA there to stop potentially toxic and life threatening food/drink substances entering the market? I'm fairly certain that an FDA representative doesn't have to supervise every cook in every kitchen both public and private. If you need someone to supervise your cooking to ensure you don't give yourself food poisoning you really shouldn't be anywhere near a kitchen.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Peroxide:
>> ^ridesallyridenc:
He lost me at "raise my taxes."

Taxes are an investment in your country's future.
Do you drive on roads? Did you attend a school? Do you expect the food at the grocery store to be free of E.coli? Do you expect someone to answer and emergency services to respond when you dial 911?
When Americans were paying taxes to a foreign state, or the head of the empire, for their imports and exports, that was when taxes were theft. Think of the Actual Boston Tea Party, they were protesting paying tax to a different nation state.
"Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives." -wiki.
I repeat, their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives.
I personally think your view on taxes says a lot about your ability to empathize with the community within which you reside. Think about employment insurance and programs for the poor. Of course, maybe you live in a gated community out in the suburbs and the poor are forcibly segregated from you.
Of course, I must add that I do think governments must be held accountable for the manner in which they spend/invest the people's wealth. But frankly I'm sick of egocentric, ill informed people decrying the taxes that are necessary for their way of life, and necessary for to sustain the community of humans beings within which they live.
their is some good discussion over here.
http://videosift.com/talk/Taxes-and-theft

News flash. Income tax doesn't pay for roads. Also, I've gotten sick TWICE in the past year from food poisoning. Um, I think during that period of time we still had the FDA, right? And the Supreme Court has upheld in every single case that has been brought to them when police refused or failed to protect the people that the government has zero obligation to protect it's citizens.
Not an investment in the country's future, thank you very much. It's just theft.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Truckchase:
That said, local and federal taxes do fund state health departments, which in some cases can be very, very good. To go back to state's rights; if you're concerned with the food poisoning aspect you're free to move to a state that doesn't have a crappy health departmet.

So, another case of "like it or leave it". Let me clarify that statement. Another case of "we force you to pay for this, and if you don't like it you're free to go elsewhere. I hear Somalia is nice this time of year."


True, true. I should have added a to that. This is a personal interest post more than anything. I'm close with people that work for a few different state health departments in food-born illness, and they're some the hardest-working, most underpaid people I know. (based on necessary college degrees) At the same time they've told me of their peers in other states who phone it in every day and take home a bigger paycheck. It's a difficult situation to gauge. All of them though have been on the same page that the FDA is, shall we say, lacking in it's ability to act. Anyhow, this was a bit of a topic divergence on my part. On to the show!

Actually blankfist, go to Somalia, I bet you won't get food poisoning there... Or vise versa, if we all stop paying taxes, food poisoning shouldn't be a problem anymore.

How does arguing about the inefficiencies of government show that taxes are theft? It merely shows that your government is inefficient.

GeeSussFreeK, you live in a community with a privately built and maintained road, seriously? Ha ha ha, why doesn't every other community do the same? I wonder... Maybe you just revealed that you're rich. Rich and religious, I wonder if you vote republican.

Also, the Boston Tea Party was about taxes and representation... So I don't think anything I said was wrong.

FWIW, if your business goes in the red for one of many possible reasons, and you have to lay off some employees are you going to pay them EI in this tax free world of yours?

FWIW, in countries with public healthcare like France, you don't have to buy your employees the best benefits money can buy. Because healthcare is free and its better than in America.

FWIW, if one of your employees died, in a tax free world, these children you speak of would go where? Certainly not to state run social services.

>> ^ridesallyridenc:


FWIW, I'm a small business owner that keeps twelve people employed and provides them the best benefits money can buy. Between my employees, they have 14 children who are also taken care of.

>> ^Peroxide:

Actually blankfist, go to Somalia, I bet you won't get food poisoning there... Or vise versa, if we all stop paying taxes, food poisoning shouldn't be a problem anymore.
How does arguing about the inefficiencies of government show that taxes are theft? It merely shows that your government is inefficient.


Actually, Peroxide, go to Nazi Germany. I bet you'll find the big government nanny state is to your liking there. Or maybe you'd prefer someone like Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini?

Also, I live in Los Angeles now for over ten years. They're about as big a nanny state as you could ask for in the entire USA, and, yes, the government here is terribly inefficient. They take (I meant steal) more money than most other cities in this country, yet they're claiming to be bankrupt. Yes, very inefficient.

So, let me ask you, if the state or city takes money from you in exchange for services, and that exchange of course is compulsory and nonnegotiable, and they take a king's ransom (nearly 10% on sales tax alone), yet cut services because they can't afford not to, how is that not a dereliction of duty? Furthermore, how's compulsory extraction of money not theft?

Why would you want to punish the people that actually succeed? How would it help to take away an individual's incentive to get ahead by taking more than half of their earnings when they do?

In 2006, the top 20% of earners in the country brought in 66% of the revenue and paid 85% of federal income taxes. The bottom 40%, on the other hand /consumed/ 3.6% in tax credits and incentives. Cumulatively, the bottom 60% of earners in this country paid only 0.8% of the federal income tax.

So, if you're making over $91k / year (which, face it, isn't rich), you're considered "elite" and should be punished for your success? Government programs that take from the rich and give to the poor disenfranchise people to try to succeed, as they'll be punished for it, while they reward people for doing nothing. And, somehow, it's a big puzzle why the income gap in America is growing? What's the incentive to bridge the gap?

If I can sit on my ass all day and make the same post-tax income as working 50 hours a week, why would I get a job? If I get sick, I just call an ambulance instead of a taxi - Medicare will pay for it after all. I get hungry - food stamps. If I need some extra cash, I sell my food stamps and buy beer. Beats working for a living.

If you want to combat earning discrepancies, provide incentive for people to get off their ass and make a decent living. And you don't do that by "dis-empowering" the rich.


>> ^Truckchase:

If anyone has a good idea as to how to dis-empower the rich in this country then I'm all ears.

^Well said.

Like throwing rhetoric to the wind and instead pettily calling people Nazi sympathizers and Communists? Sounds like the Glenn Beck show is for you!

>> ^ridesallyridenc:

Why would you want to punish the people that actually succeed? How would it help to take away an individual's incentive to get ahead by taking more than half of their earnings when they do?
In 2006, the top 20% of earners in the country brought in 66% of the revenue and paid 85% of federal income taxes. The bottom 40%, on the other hand /consumed/ 3.6% in tax credits and incentives. Cumulatively, the bottom 60% of earners in this country paid only 0.8% of the federal income tax.
So, if you're making over $91k / year (which, face it, isn't rich), you're considered "elite" and should be punished for your success? Government programs that take from the rich and give to the poor disenfranchise people to try to succeed, as they'll be punished for it, while they reward people for doing nothing. And, somehow, it's a big puzzle why the income gap in America is growing? What's the incentive to bridge the gap?
If I can sit on my ass all day and make the same post-tax income as working 50 hours a week, why would I get a job? If I get sick, I just call an ambulance instead of a taxi - Medicare will pay for it after all. I get hungry - food stamps. If I need some extra cash, I sell my food stamps and buy beer. Beats working for a living.
If you want to combat earning discrepancies, provide incentive for people to get off their ass and make a decent living. And you don't do that by "dis-empowering" the rich.

>> ^Truckchase:
If anyone has a good idea as to how to dis-empower the rich in this country then I'm all ears.

Man I've got to be more careful; that's quite a cherry-pick quote. Looks nice without the context.


Your statement assumes anyone is in a position to be successful, and that is exactly what is currently under attack. If that were the case I'd agree with you. My concern doesn't surround the 90th percentile as you've quoted, but rather the 99th percentile. This is the segment that makes enough money to undermine our democracy and needs to be brought under control. This segment is moving to lower working wages across all employment spectrum but their own, and in a position to reap the rewards. We've been slowly and steadily moving towards a system with a much larger income gap, and it's been accelerated over the last few years with both the Republicans and Dems being eager to please the people who get them elected. (old data here)

We want to work for small business owners to be successful. SBOs are the engines of a working economy. Tax rates for the upper 99th percentile have little to do with small business success, and I think the argument against is generally one of principal and not of actual impact. There's a whole other issue here, and that's the impact on small businesses due to a vanishing middle class. The business opportunities afforded to an entrepreneur are much more likely to be upward servicing (corporations) as opposed to downward, (individuals) which has all sorts of easy to outline effects on the already tilted power structure that don't really need spelling out.

Bottom line is this: We're quickly becoming a society divided, a two-tier system. Your assertions are true in the optimal version of the society that we claim to live in, but it's been co-opted to the point where hard work, a great idea, and timing = success increasingly less often.

So, let me change the quote but ask the same question: If anyone has any ideas on practical, tangible steps to take today to resurrect the "American Dream" I'm all ears. I can assure you that the end of collective bargaining is a step in the wrong direction.

Good conversation; I gotta get back to work.

Truckchase, you're right. With regard to your last two paragraphs, I think we are more similar than I may have thought. At least with respect to our perceptions of the problem. Our individual ideas of how to address the problem, however, may be divergent.

>> ^Peroxide:

Like throwing rhetoric to the wind and instead pettily calling people Nazi sympathizers and Communists? Sounds like the Glenn Beck show is for you!


When you can't win an argument, personal attacks are the way to go.

Implying it's personal assumes quite a bit.

thank god we got to watch this through tyt. i get to watch an advertisement and 3 minutes of filler instead of the original 30 second video. also, HOW IS THIS CRUSHING?

punishing success? Seriously? that's the card you're throwing out? That's the best you can do?

It's because of american government that you have the infrastructure and an educated and healthy workforce to allow you to succeed. Go to any other country and I guarantee you that you won't have the same ability to succeed

That infrastructure and education and health care comes at a cost though and I'd thank you to pay your share. Government always benefits the rich FAR more than it benefits the poor, so the rich should pay proportionally more for the benefits they receive

Good day, sir

>> ^ridesallyridenc:

Truckchase, you're right. With regard to your last two paragraphs, I think we are more similar than I may have thought. At least with respect to our perceptions of the problem. Our individual ideas of how to address the problem, however, may be divergent.


Man do I appreciate that; this is why I love the sift! I really mean it when I say I'm open to ideas. The initial thought of my "solution" makes me ill at first glance, but I've thought about this one for a long time and haven't yet come up with any other way to stem the tide in our lifetime. I do think we'll eventually get a shift against the immense corporate and personal power of the ultra-huge and ultra-rich as the mainstream populous is denied what has been promised to them, but often we humans take generations to see what has right in front of our face. My real fear is that by the time the US citizens wake up and see what has been going on, it'll be too late and we'll be a severely dis-empowered country with a heavily entrenched ruling upper class.

That said I do think there is certainly a need for workforce stimulus as you have laid out. Balancing the two concepts is the exceptionally hard part... apathy is the mortal enemy of progress.

Edit: replaced "can't" with "haven't yet"

>> ^Truckchase:

>> ^ridesallyridenc:
Truckchase, you're right. With regard to your last two paragraphs, I think we are more similar than I may have thought. At least with respect to our perceptions of the problem. Our individual ideas of how to address the problem, however, may be divergent.

Man do I appreciate that; this is why I love the sift! I really mean it when I say I'm open to ideas. The initial thought of my "solution" makes me ill at first glance, but I've thought about this one for a long time and haven't yet come up with any other way to stem the tide in our lifetime. I do think we'll eventually get a shift against the immense corporate and personal power of the ultra-huge and ultra-rich as the mainstream populous is denied what has been promised to them, but often we humans take generations to see what has right in front of our face. My real fear is that by the time the US citizens wake up and see what has been going on, it'll be too late and we'll be a severely dis-empowered country with a heavily entrenched ruling upper class.
That said I do think there is certainly a need for workforce stimulus as you have laid out. Balancing the two concepts is the exceptionally hard part... apathy is the mortal enemy of progress.
Edit: replaced "can't" with "haven't yet"


In my friends sci-fi, never to be, movie; the villain, through gene manipulation, became a world financial powerhouse. He was able to manipulate the world with this power, and the device of his power...a teleportation machine. Using this device, similar to the fly, he could modify himself, and indeed, store backup copies of himself if things went bad. The hero's couldn't combat him, he was to strong and powerful. The hero discovered that each day if the villain was alive, the clone was destroyed. The hero thought of a plan to combat the villain...with himself! They were able to unleash the clone of the villain, and of course, both wanted to be top dog.

I bring this story up because I think it has a lot to deal with our current situation. Their are 2 types of ultra rich, those who earned it, and those who exploited it. The former are more common then the later, but the later is the bad apple that spoils the bunch for sure. More often than not, usually their rise to power isn't because of any real thing, but of being able to game the system in their favor. The current game in town is government regulatory bodies. They are able to be top dog because they can run anyone out of business with their "power" (money, and the government is their teleportation device . In many cases, if you had other "villains" running around, they would be hard pressed to gain unchallengeable power. I have yet to be exposed to a "natural" monopoly spare ones dealing in raw earth resources.

I think one of the main problems you face if you wish to level the playing field with regulatory bodies is distributed costs, concentrated benefits. You can't gain much political capital to fight the unfair sugar tax all US citizens incur, the financial drain is just to small to get motivation to fight. That "tax" results in, if memory serves, a 4 billion dollar "subsidy" to the sugar growers of America. If you are a sugar company, it just makes since to pass laws like this. The same goes for any other US company. When you are talking billions of dollars, you can't NOT be in Washington...no matter how "legal" it is. If the drug war has taught us anything, when billions of dollars are at stake, there isn't a wall high enough to stop the flow. You will never, ever end regulatory corruption.

Personally, I feel things like videosift could replace many of what we consider government responsibilities. With, I say, about 120 people talking about all the things that matter, you could protect yourself from companies known for food contamination, health trends, investing in your retirement, ect. Even things like labor unions might be better served through communities of people and not just of workers.

I think that the answer to many social problems can be solved if we look to our own evolution. It has been said that brain size is directly correlated to the size of the animal group members. If you extrapolate from monkey brains to our brain size, the perfect group size is around 130-200 people. Any system larger than this flies in the face of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. You can expect much suffering and exploitation in a system that goes away from this number. I believe this is the reason a person can feel alone in a city of millions of people, your brain just isn't ready to handle it. Communities might not be the most efficient way to run things from a logical stand point...but we aren't mostly logical. We are animals trying to be more than what we are. As a result, we have caused much suffering and hardship.

My new metal experiment is developing a sort of "clan" system. Managing powers of clans and rights and responsible thereof. I think it would be inefficient, yet, highly effective because it takes into account the general nature of mankind. Of note, labor unions are already along the lines of clan thinking, so my thought experiment is already playing itself out through the natural course of the market.

I want to think you aren't a dick, but to do so we need to get real here for a minute. Are you including the FICA tax in your numbers? Do you agree with the social security raiders? Is the real problem where the actual thresholds are? Because if your problem is with raising taxes on people in the 90k area, I'm on board with you. The question becomes, why is there no support to raise taxes on people that earn over a million a year? Why is there no support to raise estate taxes? Indeed, how does taking away the basic human right to organize and negotiate even have anything to do with a budget crisis, particularly when that group is already prepared to make the necessary fiscal concessions?

I'm currently being paid about 10% of what I could be making. I'm working in the basic science of retinal function on work that could lead to all sorts of advances that benefit you, or your children, or for that matter humanity in general. I could be making ten times as much as a machine vision expert building predator drones to kill people whom most often I have no beef with. That's what you get with your "only spend it on 'defense', and let me keep the rest" attitude about taxation. FWIW, that's where I'm coming from, and that's why it pisses me off when millionaires don't want to give up an extra Ferrari in order to better educate the (by no fault of their own) underprivileged youth. Then out of the other side of their mouth they won't shave the $78 billion from the defense budget the DoD doesn't even want.

Nobody is trying to legislate morality here. You can write off the money you already give back for a reason. We just need to pay for all the infrastructure your business needed to succeed somehow. You're paying less in taxes than at almost any time since WWII. Cut us a little slack. We're barely making ends meet.

>> ^ridesallyridenc:

Why would you want to punish the people that actually succeed? How would it help to take away an individual's incentive to get ahead by taking more than half of their earnings when they do?
In 2006, the top 20% of earners in the country brought in 66% of the revenue and paid 85% of federal income taxes. The bottom 40%, on the other hand /consumed/ 3.6% in tax credits and incentives. Cumulatively, the bottom 60% of earners in this country paid only 0.8% of the federal income tax.
So, if you're making over $91k / year (which, face it, isn't rich), you're considered "elite" and should be punished for your success?

The only reason he "crushed" was because for once in the history of FOX "News" someone was allowed to talk for more than four seconds without being interrupted by a blowhard with an opposing view.

that's because the reporter's jaw is so large that she can't physically move it fast enough to interupt

>> ^garmachi:

The only reason he "crushed" was because for once in the history of FOX "News" someone was allowed to talk for more than four seconds without being interrupted by a blowhard with an opposing view.

Fact is that the federal government doesn't need 4+ TRILLION dollars to perform its constitutionally mandated functions. It takes that money to do a lot of unnecessary crap that buys votes (particularly union votes). The government could easily be trimmed back to a lean 1 trillion dollars by divesting itself of foolish entanglements in social experimentation and other welfare entitlements.

The states that are facing fiscal collapse (New York, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Illinois, California, et al) are almost UNIVERSALLY states that been controlled by decades of left-wing liberal "tax & spend" nanny state philosophy. The Chris Christies and Walkers of the nation were voted in to clean up the mess. To put it plainly, people got tired of dealing with children-liars who promise the world while brooming problems onto the next generation - and so they hired some grown-ups.

The kid in this vid doesn't come off as 'destroying' anything except his own credibility. It's an open display of a person who is not a critical thinker, and who has little or no understanding of economics, or civics.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Fact is that the federal government doesn't need 4+ TRILLION dollars to perform its constitutionally mandated functions. It takes that money to do a lot of unnecessary crap that buys votes (particularly union votes). The government could easily be trimmed back to a lean 1 trillion dollars by divesting itself of foolish entanglements in social experimentation and other welfare entitlements.
The states that are facing fiscal collapse (New York, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Illinois, California, et al) are almost UNIVERSALLY states that been controlled by decades of left-wing liberal "tax & spend" nanny state philosophy. The Chris Christies and Walkers of the nation were voted in to clean up the mess. To put it plainly, people got tired of dealing with children-liars who promise the world while brooming problems onto the next generation - and so they hired some grown-ups.
The kid in this vid doesn't come off as 'destroying' anything except his own credibility. It's an open display of a person who is not a critical thinker, and who has little or no understanding of economics, or civics.


On that note, Texas is sitting on a budget surplus last I checked, but then again we are the best country on this continent

A clan system? Like Afgahnistan, Irak, Libya, Saudi Arabia... need I go on?>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Truckchase:
>> ^ridesallyridenc:
Truckchase, you're right. With regard to your last two paragraphs, I think we are more similar than I may have thought. At least with respect to our perceptions of the problem. Our individual ideas of how to address the problem, however, may be divergent.

Man do I appreciate that; this is why I love the sift! I really mean it when I say I'm open to ideas. The initial thought of my "solution" makes me ill at first glance, but I've thought about this one for a long time and haven't yet come up with any other way to stem the tide in our lifetime. I do think we'll eventually get a shift against the immense corporate and personal power of the ultra-huge and ultra-rich as the mainstream populous is denied what has been promised to them, but often we humans take generations to see what has right in front of our face. My real fear is that by the time the US citizens wake up and see what has been going on, it'll be too late and we'll be a severely dis-empowered country with a heavily entrenched ruling upper class.
That said I do think there is certainly a need for workforce stimulus as you have laid out. Balancing the two concepts is the exceptionally hard part... apathy is the mortal enemy of progress.
Edit: replaced "can't" with "haven't yet"

In my friends sci-fi, never to be, movie; the villain, through gene manipulation, became a world financial powerhouse. He was able to manipulate the world with this power, and the device of his power...a teleportation machine. Using this device, similar to the fly, he could modify himself, and indeed, store backup copies of himself if things went bad. The hero's couldn't combat him, he was to strong and powerful. The hero discovered that each day if the villain was alive, the clone was destroyed. The hero thought of a plan to combat the villain...with himself! They were able to unleash the clone of the villain, and of course, both wanted to be top dog.
I bring this story up because I think it has a lot to deal with our current situation. Their are 2 types of ultra rich, those who earned it, and those who exploited it. The former are more common then the later, but the later is the bad apple that spoils the bunch for sure. More often than not, usually their rise to power isn't because of any real thing, but of being able to game the system in their favor. The current game in town is government regulatory bodies. They are able to be top dog because they can run anyone out of business with their "power" (money, and the government is their teleportation device . In many cases, if you had other "villains" running around, they would be hard pressed to gain unchallengeable power. I have yet to be exposed to a "natural" monopoly spare ones dealing in raw earth resources.
I think one of the main problems you face if you wish to level the playing field with regulatory bodies is distributed costs, concentrated benefits. You can't gain much political capital to fight the unfair sugar tax all US citizens incur, the financial drain is just to small to get motivation to fight. That "tax" results in, if memory serves, a 4 billion dollar "subsidy" to the sugar growers of America. If you are a sugar company, it just makes since to pass laws like this. The same goes for any other US company. When you are talking billions of dollars, you can't NOT be in Washington...no matter how "legal" it is. If the drug war has taught us anything, when billions of dollars are at stake, there isn't a wall high enough to stop the flow. You will never, ever end regulatory corruption.
Personally, I feel things like videosift could replace many of what we consider government responsibilities. With, I say, about 120 people talking about all the things that matter, you could protect yourself from companies known for food contamination, health trends, investing in your retirement, ect. Even things like labor unions might be better served through communities of people and not just of workers.
I think that the answer to many social problems can be solved if we look to our own evolution. It has been said that brain size is directly correlated to the size of the animal group members. If you extrapolate from monkey brains to our brain size, the perfect group size is around 130-200 people. Any system larger than this flies in the face of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. You can expect much suffering and exploitation in a system that goes away from this number. I believe this is the reason a person can feel alone in a city of millions of people, your brain just isn't ready to handle it. Communities might not be the most efficient way to run things from a logical stand point...but we aren't mostly logical. We are animals trying to be more than what we are. As a result, we have caused much suffering and hardship.
My new metal experiment is developing a sort of "clan" system. Managing powers of clans and rights and responsible thereof. I think it would be inefficient, yet, highly effective because it takes into account the general nature of mankind. Of note, labor unions are already along the lines of clan thinking, so my thought experiment is already playing itself out through the natural course of the market.

Actually, yes I do. Most of what you named where not clanish but rather dictatorships. Moreover, Irak, or as many of us spell it, Iraq, has only existed since British imperialism merged 3 separate states together. Even Afghanistan isn't exactly what I am talking about, nor a good seed state for any form of anything as it has been racked by centuries of wars and hardships. There is a difference from the pure tribal form, from which I am borrowing, and the idea of clans which I am proposing. It is more along the lines of Dune, but without the condition of it being strictly family or location based. Labor unions are already a close approximation to my idea, just of a more limited scope. Unless you are proposing that labor unions make us like Afghanistan, then I don't really think you have made a point yet.

>> ^Smugglarn:

A clan system? Like Afgahnistan, Irak, Libya, Saudi Arabia... need I go on?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Fact is that the federal government doesn't need 4+ TRILLION dollars to perform its constitutionally mandated functions. It takes that money to do a lot of unnecessary crap that buys votes (particularly union votes). The government could easily be trimmed back to a lean 1 trillion dollars by divesting itself of foolish entanglements in social experimentation and other welfare entitlements.
The states that are facing fiscal collapse (New York, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Illinois, California, et al) are almost UNIVERSALLY states that been controlled by decades of left-wing liberal "tax & spend" nanny state philosophy. The Chris Christies and Walkers of the nation were voted in to clean up the mess. To put it plainly, people got tired of dealing with children-liars who promise the world while brooming problems onto the next generation - and so they hired some grown-ups.
The kid in this vid doesn't come off as 'destroying' anything except his own credibility. It's an open display of a person who is not a critical thinker, and who has little or no understanding of economics, or civics.


Oh please, red and blue states are hurting across the board. Speaking for my own state (very red) we're hurting financially too and it's the same nonsense, give tax breaks away like candy to the people and companies who don't need them while at the same time, punishing the needy. We've gone through this shit before and it just doesn't work!

By your same logic, your top earners don't NEED all that extra money their tax breaks and bonuses net them. If you've got such moral outrage for the public sector "supposedly" having too much money, then where is the moral outrage for the private for having way more than they need when you're a top earner. Double standard much?

I totally agree that cuts need to happen, but they need to start at the top where it's fattest, not the bottom where it's already lean.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

On that note, Texas is sitting on a budget surplus last I checked, but then again we are the best country on this continent


Check again!

I don't see how he CRUSHED anybody, but okayyyy...

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
On that note, Texas is sitting on a budget surplus last I checked, but then again we are the best country on this continent

Check again!


We have had a budget shortfall for most of the great recession, I was referring to what the article also mentions...we have lots in savings over, 12 billion I think. That is green...for now, but it won't last of course without cuts. Still better than being red currently, though.

@GeeSussFreeK, paragraph #2 reads:

House legislators were forced to rely on spending cuts to close the shortfall -- estimated at between $15 billion and $27 billion -- because Republican leaders pledged not to raise taxes. They also did not touch the state's projected $9.4 billion rainy day fund, one of the most flush in the nation.

What's with all the snarling? Put your teeth away please, I was being civil this whole thread.

>> ^NetRunner:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK, paragraph #2 reads:

House legislators were forced to rely on spending cuts to close the shortfall -- estimated at between $15 billion and $27 billion -- because Republican leaders pledged not to raise taxes. They also did not touch the state's projected $9.4 billion rainy day fund, one of the most flush in the nation.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Peroxide:
Actually blankfist, go to Somalia, I bet you won't get food poisoning there... Or vise versa, if we all stop paying taxes, food poisoning shouldn't be a problem anymore.
How does arguing about the inefficiencies of government show that taxes are theft? It merely shows that your government is inefficient.

Actually, Peroxide, go to Nazi Germany. I bet you'll find the big government nanny state is to your liking there. Or maybe you'd prefer someone like Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini?
Also, I live in Los Angeles now for over ten years. They're about as big a nanny state as you could ask for in the entire USA, and, yes, the government here is terribly inefficient. They take (I meant steal) more money than most other cities in this country, yet they're claiming to be bankrupt. Yes, very inefficient.
So, let me ask you, if the state or city takes money from you in exchange for services, and that exchange of course is compulsory and nonnegotiable, and they take a king's ransom (nearly 10% on sales tax alone), yet cut services because they can't afford not to, how is that not a dereliction of duty? Furthermore, how's compulsory extraction of money not theft?


Try Norway. It's really nice up there.

Nazi germany was socialist-in-name-only. They banned unions/strikes and never had any significant welfare programs. They were virulently anti-communist. The only nationalization of industries was for the wartime production of military goods.

Here's Schwarzenegger's proposed budget from 07-08:

Income:
44.8% Personal Income tax (progressive)
27.3% Sales tax (flat)
9.3% Other
8.5% Corporation tax (?)
4.3% Motor Vehicle fees (regressive)
2.8% Highway Users taxes (regressive)
0.9% Tobacco tax (regressive)
0.3% Liquor tax (regressive)
1.8% Insurance tax (regressive)

Spending:
31.5% Education
26.6% Health & Human Services
10.4% Higher Education
8.4% Business, Transportation, & Housing
7% Corrections and Rehabilitation (Mostly to imprison nonviolent drug-possession offenders)
5.9% General Government
4.2% Executive, Judicial, Legislative
3.9% Resources
1% Environmental Protection
1% State and Consumer Services
0.3% Labor & Workforce Development

http://2007-08.archives.ebudget.ca.gov/BudgetSummary/SUM/1249561.html

Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:
South Carolina -50th
North Carolina -49th
Georgia -48th
Texas -47th
............Virginia -44th
If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd in the country

Are you sick of highly paid teachers?
by Meredith Menden on Friday, February 18, 2011 at 3:32pm

Are you sick of highly paid teachers?

Teachers' hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or10 months a year! It's time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - babysit!

We can get that for less than minimum wage.



That's right. Let's give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and plan-- that equals 6 1/2 hours).



Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day...maybe 30? So that's $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day.

However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations.

LET'S SEE....

That's $585 X 180= $105,300

per year. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries).



What about those special

education teachers and the ones with Master's degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an

hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year.

Wait a minute -- there's

something wrong here! There sure is!

The average teacher's salary

(nation wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days

= $277.77/per day/30

students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student--a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!) WHAT A DEAL!!!!



Make a teacher smile; repost this to show appreciation for all educators.



Update: I'm glad that many people have shown their support for teachers by reposting this note, but I am not the original author. I received this as an anonymous chain letter email, and I wanted to share it to support the public workers of Wisconsin.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Fact is that the federal government doesn't need 4+ TRILLION dollars to perform its constitutionally mandated functions. It takes that money to do a lot of unnecessary crap that buys votes (particularly union votes). The government could easily be trimmed back to a lean 1 trillion dollars by divesting itself of foolish entanglements in social experimentation and other welfare entitlements.
The states that are facing fiscal collapse (New York, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Illinois, California, et al) are almost UNIVERSALLY states that been controlled by decades of left-wing liberal "tax & spend" nanny state philosophy. The Chris Christies and Walkers of the nation were voted in to clean up the mess. To put it plainly, people got tired of dealing with children-liars who promise the world while brooming problems onto the next generation - and so they hired some grown-ups.
The kid in this vid doesn't come off as 'destroying' anything except his own credibility. It's an open display of a person who is not a critical thinker, and who has little or no understanding of economics, or civics.


Those states also have much higher income per capita than the red states. They're doing fine economically, just not quite balancing the budget.

It's a bit paradoxical that the states with the highest income per capita, which contribute much more to the Federal Government's income than they recieve in spending, are blue states, while the states with the lowest income per capita, which contribute much less to the federal government's income than they recieve in spending, are red states.

Maybe the reason the people in the red states think the government doesn't do jack shit for them is because they're in a state with both a poor population AND low taxes so as a consequence the government doesn't have the budget to do jack shit.

Rank↓ State↓ 2009↓ 2008↓ 2007↓ 2004-2006↓
1 Maryland $79,272 $78,454 $78,725 $77,985
2 New Jersey $68,342 $70,378 $67,035 $64,169
3 Connecticut $67,034 $68,595 $65,967 $59,972
4 Alaska $66,953 $68,460 $64,333 $57,639
5 Hawaii $64,098 $67,214 $63,746 $60,681
6 Massachusetts $64,081 $65,401 $62,365 $56,236
7 New Hampshire $60,567 $63,731 $62,369 $60,489
8 Virginia $59,330 $61,233 $59,562 $55,108
District of Columbia $59,290 $57,936 $54,317 $47,221 (2005)[3]PDF
9 California $58,931 $61,021 $59,948 $53,770
10 Delaware $56,860 $57,989 $54,610 $52,214
11 Washington $56,548 $58,078 $55,591 $53,439
12 Minnesota $55,616 $57,288 $55,082 $57,363
13 Colorado $55,430 $56,993 $55,212 $54,039
14 Utah $55,117 $56,633 $55,109 $55,179
15 New York $54,659 $56,033 $53,514 $48,201
16 Rhode Island $54,119 $55,701 $53,568 $52,003
17 Illinois $53,966 $56,235 $54,124 $49,280
18 Nevada $53,341 $56,361 $55,062 $50,819
19 Wyoming $52,664 $53,207 $51,731 $47,227
20 Vermont $51,618 $52,104 $49,907 $51,622
United States $50,221 $52,029 $50,740 $46,242 (2005) [4]PDF
21 Wisconsin $49,993 $52,094 $50,578 $48,874
22 Pennsylvania $49,520 $50,713 $48,576 $47,791
23 Arizona $48,745 $50,958 $49,889 $46,729
24 Oregon $48,457 $50,169 $48,730 $45,485
25 Texas $48,259 $50,043 $47,548 $43,425
26 Iowa $48,044 $48,980 $47,292 $47,489
27 North Dakota $47,827 $45,685 $43,753 $43,753
28 Kansas $47,817 $50,177 $47,451 $44,264
29 Georgia $47,590 $50,861 $49,136 $46,841
30 Nebraska $47,357 $49,693 $47,085 $48,126
31 Maine $45,734 $46,581 $45,888 $45,040
32 Indiana $45,424 $47,966 $47,448 $44,806
33 Ohio $45,395 $47,988 $46,597 $45,837
34 Michigan $45,255 $48,591 $47,950 $47,064
35 Missouri $45,229 $46,867 $45,114 $44,651
36 South Dakota $45,043 $46,032 $43,424 $44,624
37 Idaho $44,926 $47,576 $46,253 $46,395
38 Florida $44,736 $47,778 $47,804 $44,448
39 North Carolina $43,674 $46,549 $44,670 $42,061
40 New Mexico $43,028 $43,508 $41,452 $40,827
41 Louisiana $42,492 $43,733 $40,926 $37,943
42 South Carolina $42,442 $44,625 $43,329 $40,822
43 Montana $42,322 $43,654 $43,531 $38,629
44 Tennessee $41,725 $43,614 $42,367 $40,676
45 Oklahoma $41,664 $42,822 $41,567 $40,001
46 Alabama $40,489 $42,666 $40,554 $38,473
47 Kentucky $40,072 $41,538 $40,267 $38,466
48 Arkansas $37,823 $38,815 $38,134 $37,420
49 West Virginia $37,435 $37,989 $37,060 $37,227
50 Mississippi $36,646 $37,790 $36,338 $35,261
Puerto Rico $17,500 $17,000

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

What's with all the snarling? Put your teeth away please, I was being civil this whole thread.

Sorry, I mistakenly blurred your comment and W_P's together in my head.

I just get tired of the relentless attempt to falsely pin all debt on liberals. It also bugged me that you were holding up Texas as evidence supporting W_P's false premise, when it's actually an example that pretty definitively contradicts that premise.