Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

[Woodsman]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

The premise is that identifying yourself as a victim, real or imagined, doesn't make your viewpoint automatically valid, but you might think that it is because no other opinion is tolerated. And yes everyone seems to want to be a victim noways. The internet is saturated with it and so are collage campuses. I merely pointed out a possible cause which you never really addressed. Do you think that never telling children that they re wrong or that certain behavior is unacceptable leads to well rounded productive individuals? As these children grow into young adults their maladjustment to the actual struggles of real life is creeping up everywhere.

I don't accept the premise that everyone wants to be a victim. Neither do I think there is some crisis in parenting, where children are never told they are wrong or that their behavior is unacceptable. It's a red herring, right wing bullshit intended to divert and distract. And every generation tries to piss on the one before it and sees them as a portent of the end times. I knew it was bullshit when I was young and I still know it now as I face my personal end times. You can sell it to someone else Radon.

If you're unhappy with how your children and grandchildren turned out, step into the bathroom and take a look in the mirror for there is the party with all the responsibility. Have a talk with your kids, cut them off, send them to counseling. Do what you must, but don't do it through the electoral and legislative process.

And who here is trying to limit debate or bracket it within parameters acceptable to one favored cohort or ideology? It's telling that the moment a few people step out of line in the right wing orthodoxy that dominates the mind of the most active posters here, all of a sudden it's cats and dogs sleeping together and a plague of locusts.

Who exactly is attempting to enforce orthodoxy here at iTulip? Who fears diversity most of all? And just what is the right/left ratio of opinions here? 10:1 on the right (plus one "independent")?

But even that is too much for some, it seems. Forgive me if the lamentations on the death of free speech and civility seem somewhat insincere to my ears.

[vt]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

DC certainly the Democrats are not racists. And it's not that I want the Republicans badly. There is just no choice in either party that makes sense.

As you know I support an independent party that is socially moderate and fiscally pro TECI and anti FIRE.

It is interesting that the "racist" Republicans strongly support a black and two Latinos. I wish Trump hadn't decided his brand needs a boost because he has poisoned the entire process. Hopefully he falls by the wayside soon.
Yes there are a very small percentage of supporters who are true racists, just as a very small percentage of of democrat supporters that are anti-semitic.

I favor Rubio because he is not as conservative as Cruz or Carson, plus he understands foreign policy and is not old like the Democrat field.

I come from the working class so I understand the working man and woman.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

DC certainly the Democrats are not racists. And it's not that I want the Republicans badly. There is just no choice in either party that makes sense.

As you know I support an independent party that is socially moderate and fiscally pro TECI and anti FIRE.

It is interesting that the "racist" Republicans strongly support a black and two Latinos. I wish Trump hadn't decided his brand needs a boost because he has poisoned the entire process. Hopefully he falls by the wayside soon.
Yes there are a very small percentage of supporters who are true racists, just as a very small percentage of of democrat supporters that are anti-semitic.

I favor Rubio because he is not as conservative as Cruz or Carson, plus he understands foreign policy and is not old like the Democrat field.

I come from the working class so I understand the working man and woman.

The one glaring thing about Rubio is that his tax plan is the most regressive of any of the Republican candidates'. Zeroing out all capital gains and dividend and estate taxes is beyond the pale even for Trump and Bush and Cruz. It means that Warren Buffet and every other billionaire would be taxed at 0% if Marco got his way. If he does win the Republican nomination, Democrats are going to rake him over the coals for suggesting it.

[Woodsman]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

The one glaring thing about Rubio is that his tax plan is the most regressive of any of the Republican candidates'. Zeroing out all capital gains and dividend and estate taxes is beyond the pale even for Trump and Bush and Cruz. It means that Warren Buffet and every other billionaire would be taxed at 0% if Marco got his way. If he does win the Republican nomination, Democrats are going to rake him over the coals for suggesting it.

And who owns Rubio?




Top 5 Contributors, 2011 - 2016, Campaign Cmte

Goldman Sachs	$53,200	$48,200	$5,000
Microsoft Corp	$33,100	$24,100	$9,000
Wiley Rein Llp	$25,840	$25,840	$0
Fanjul Corp	$25,200	$25,200	$0
Rooney Holdings	$24,300	$24,300	$0

...view more data

Top 5 Industries, 2011 - 2016, Campaign Cmte

Retired	$878,747	$878,747	$0
Securities & Investment	$376,579	$346,179	$30,400
Misc Finance	$219,194	$217,694	$1,500
Real Estate	$207,952	$185,952	$22,000
Insurance	$168,701	$63,951	$104,750

A FIREman, through and through.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

True enough, Woody, although I think they are just the junior partners. Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson, Larry Ellison, Norman Braman, Harlan Crow - these 5 men each have put in more than all those corporations combined. That's the billionaire crew providing the money for this operation. They own the "Class A" shares in Rubio Inc. And conveniently, those 5 men would also see their effective tax rate reduced to zero in Rubio's tax plan.

FIRE in this case takes a back seat to the 5 Olympians.

[Woodsman]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

True enough, Woody, although I think they are just the junior partners. Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson, Larry Ellison, Norman Braman, Harlan Crow - these 5 men each have put in more than all those corporations combined. That's the billionaire crew providing the money for this operation. They own the "Class A" shares in Rubio Inc. And conveniently, those 5 men would also see their effective tax rate reduced to zero in Rubio's tax plan.

FIRE in this case takes a back seat to the 5 Olympians.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

[vt]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

Sigh. Yet another FIREman even more than Rubio:

Last Report:

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Top 5 Contributors, 1999 - 2016

Citigroup Inc	$824,402	$816,402	$8,000
Goldman Sachs	$760,740	$750,740	$10,000
DLA Piper	$700,530	$673,530	$27,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co	$696,456	$693,456	$3,000
Morgan Stanley	$636,564	$631,564	$5,000

Top 5 Industries, 1999 - 2016

Lawyers/Law Firms	$27,754,009	$27,324,014	$429,995
Retired	$19,264,463	$19,264,463	$0
Securities & Investment	$12,774,649	$12,617,435	$157,214
Real Estate	$11,124,309	$11,042,709	$81,600
Business Services	$8,196,678	$8,174,178	$22,500

Of course you know this is Hillary

[vt]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

And this guy:

1	University of California	$1,350,139
2	Microsoft Corp	$815,645
3	Google Inc	$804,249
4	US Government	$736,722
5	Harvard University	$680,918

He's owned by the Government/Education/Search Engine Cabal. Maybe this is why tuition and government spending has gone up so much.

This was Obama in 2012. But WTF about the U.S. government giving him so much money. Tax payers dollars? If this is not government matching then there is a problem

[dcarrigg]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

Sigh. Yet another FIREman even more than Rubio:

Last Report:

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Top 5 Contributors, 1999 - 2016

Citigroup Inc	$824,402	$816,402	$8,000
Goldman Sachs	$760,740	$750,740	$10,000
DLA Piper	$700,530	$673,530	$27,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co	$696,456	$693,456	$3,000
Morgan Stanley	$636,564	$631,564	$5,000

Top 5 Industries, 1999 - 2016

Lawyers/Law Firms	$27,754,009	$27,324,014	$429,995
Retired	$19,264,463	$19,264,463	$0
Securities & Investment	$12,774,649	$12,617,435	$157,214
Real Estate	$11,124,309	$11,042,709	$81,600
Business Services	$8,196,678	$8,174,178	$22,500

Of course you know this is Hillary

No doubt. 2 wrongs don't make a right. I'm well aware Hillary is in the pocket of big finance. Rubio too. Obama '08 was as well. Not too excited about any of those candidates myself.

[vt]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

According to PBS Rubio has the most progressive plan for incomes over $150K of the GOP candidates:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...ns-one-chart/#



I disagree with zero on capital gains. Maybe for lower incomes level but any capital gains income over $25K per year should have a progressive rate starting at 10% and going up 1% for every additional $10K to a cap of 20%.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

Hey DC, I'm confused. According to PBS Rubio has the most progressive plan of the GOP candidates:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...ns-one-chart/#

VT:

You're confused because you're only looking at income tax, which Mitt Romney proudly announced in 2012 that 47% of Americans do not pay with exemptions and credits today. It is not considering Payroll Taxes, Capital Gains taxes, Estate taxes, Dividend taxes, etc. The table is only considering income received from working.

Rich people make their income from dividends, capital gains, and inheriting estates and trusts. They do not make their money from earning an hourly wage or a salary. By zeroing out all capital gains, dividend, and estate taxes, Rubio is giving billionaires an entirely tax-free existence.

[vt]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

I agree. You posted before I could edit it. Please check the edited version and see if that's a fairer approach.

I'm well aware the rich can get more income from capital gains. A progressive ta over a certain limit makes sense. The same for dividends.

As for dividends I don't want to see widows with only social security and say utility dividends as the only source of income seeing her dividend income below $75K being taxed. The rich are fair game up to a point.

Remember some of these plans have no deductions for mortgage interest and other popular deductions that can substantially reduces taxable income.

[vt]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

Hey DC. One idea is to have a progressive tax on capital gains starting at 10% for such income over $25K, But every 1% additional tax as we go up the scale goes not to government but only to charities that give money to the poor for only food, shelter, clothing, and job training. And only to those charities where 95% of funds go to the purpose of said charities; in other words administrative costs can be no higher than 5%.

I have no confidence in government in being a fair conduit to help the poor. A good portion of tax money for these programs goes to government workers and useless bureaucracy.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

Hey DC. One idea is to have a progressive tax on capital gains starting at 10% for such income over $25K, But every 1% additional tax as we go up the scale goes not to government but only to charities that give money to the poor for only food, shelter, clothing, and job training. And only to those charities where 95% of funds go to the purpose of said charities; in other words administrative costs can be no higher than 5%.

I have no confidence in government in being a fair conduit to help the poor. A good portion of tax money for these programs goes to government workers and useless bureaucracy.

I have much more confidence in government than I do in private charities. Too many ways to skim off the top. My local Blue Cross Blue Shield is small, manages maybe 300,000 customers, and is not-for-profit. Talk about useless bureaucracy: "THIS IS NOT A BILL!" The CEO of my little BCBS manages a staff of about 2,000 and for that he makes a few million dollars per year. The President of the United States meanwhile makes $400,000 per year. Which job do you think is harder? CEO of a non-profit insurer with a couple hundred thousand customers, or leader of the free world, Commander-in-chief of the US military, and head of a 2 million employee civilian organization?

That's not to say I think private charities should be stamped out. I just think they are best suited to supplement, not supplant, government. We have had taxpayer funded social welfare programs since as long as land was commodified. The Elizabethan Poor Laws were carried over to America on the Mayflower. There's no way out of it. So long as a minority of people own a majority of the land and exclude everyone from access to it, there's no way around the fact some percentage of the population will end up propertyless, urban, and poor.

The way I see it, it's best to accept that this is a feature of the capitalist private, excludable, land-owning system of private property. For a while, the harshest effects could be mitigated by taking land from natives and opening up new land to homesteaders--"Go west young son..." But those days are over. Land is ever more expensive and controlled by fewer and fewer people.

You ever heard of John Malone? He just surpassed Ted Turner in the US. Owns a chunk of land about the size of Connecticut. Bigger than Rhode Island and Delaware anyways. Most of it is in Maine. Families will be born, grow up, and die in his state-sized fiefdom, paying rent all the while. And, of course, rents are ever higher. Turner owns a chunk the size of Delaware in New Mexico. I wonder what Jefferson and Madison and Adams would say about single men owning territory as big as states? You think they'd say, "Slash their taxes to zero and let them make unlimited donations to politicians!" At that point, why not just give them a crown, pack in the Republic, and be done with it?

No. I think in reality, we the people ought to do something to keep those at the very top in check. Not for jealousy. Not for sour grapes. Not even to help the poor. But to balance power and stave off oligarchy. If they run all the charities and they dictate who gets what under which terms, we give up a huge part of our sovereign rights as citizens. And, effectively, what you are proposing here means that functions formerly reserved for the town council or town meeting or community action agency or city council or ward meeting now become the sole province of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who are free to run whatsoever social experiments please them regardless of how voters feel about the matter.

Even beyond that, one must consider that a very small fraction of overall federal spending goes to means-tested social welfare. The mandatory stuff like Social Security and Medicaid is tied to each of us through payroll taxes and accounts. Even if it's not 1:1, there is a direct relationship there. The discretionary stuff is dominated by the DoD budget. I don't think it's fair that American soldiers should be asked to risk life and limb to protect the entire world capitalist and free trade system for a bunch of billionaires who don't have to pay a dime to cover the costs of the military, since they benefit most from its protection. Do you?

I'm sorry. But when it comes right down to it, there's only one direction I want to see billionaire's taxes go. North. I might even be able to forgive flat. But with surging income inequality, cutting them substantially or giving them any further perks than they already have is just a non-starter with me. If you have $50 billion invested, and you earn a conservative 5%/year on it, that's $2.5 billion per year in capital gains. Even if that capital gains rate was jacked to 90% on capital gains over $10,000,000 per year, that's still a cool $250,000,000 per year you can rake in in capital gains for doing nothing other than having that much money invested. That's like hitting the big Powerball every year forever. It's not a punishment. The current max rate of 28% is not onerous. It means that you pull in $1.8 billion per year after taxes on $50 billion invested earning 5%. I see no reason whatsoever to cut that percentage down. If anything, I say at least do what Reagan did and bring it up to match the top rates that people who work for a living have to pay--39.6%.

But then again, I think we desperately need more brackets, not fewer. It's crazy to me that as a society we agree that a fast food worker making $20,000 per year should be taxed at a lower rate than a teacher making $60,000 per year should be taxed at a lower rate than a doctor making $250,000 per year, but somehow that doctor should be taxed the same rate as a CEO making $2,500,000 per year and 11.6% more than the wealthiest billionaires taking earnings off passive income.

We need a bracket to capture people who make millions per year as separate from people who make doctor/lawyer money. And we need at least one more bracket to capture people with massive passive income flows who make billions per year. And we need to tax capital gains, dividends, and estate inheritances at least the same as income, if not higher. Otherwise things will just keep coming apart.

We accept that someone making $4k should be taxed less than someone making $40k should be taxed less than someone making $400k.

So why don't we also accept that someone making $400k should be taxed less than someone making $4m should be taxed less than someone making $40m should be taxed less than someone making $400m should be taxed less than someone making $4b?

The same principles should apply. At least that's how I see it.

[radon]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

I don't accept the premise that everyone wants to be a victim. Neither do I think there is some crisis in parenting, where children are never told they are wrong or that their behavior is unacceptable. It's a red herring, right wing bullshit intended to divert and distract. And every generation tries to piss on the one before it and sees them as a portent of the end times. I knew it was bullshit when I was young and I still know it now as I face my personal end times. You can sell it to someone else Radon.

That's fair enough, but it does seem fashionable these days. My own observation is that being a member of a group is becoming a prerequisite for engaging in any speech that is critical of it, and sure, I agree about the generational changes. But I feel like something different is happening here. I've been reading and writing on the internet and other mediums since the 80's, and there's always been rants, flame wars, trolling etc, but there has been an escalation in the past couple of years. There is a sort of virulent hate directed at people that has started to become de rigure in many circles. To me this represents an escalation, a wave of discontentment that is suspiciously timed. If it has nothing to do with childhood expectations or parenting why now? Is it the rise of social media that makes people think it's ok to treat each other like this? Things I've been seeing lately go way beyond http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 . What could be the cause?

If you're unhappy with how your children and grandchildren turned out, step into the bathroom and take a look in the mirror for there is the party with all the responsibility. Have a talk with your kids, cut them off, send them to counseling. Do what you must, but don't do it through the electoral and legislative process.

All of my descendants are fine thanks, and that would be agreeable if the education they received wasn't based on the electoral and legislative process.

And who here is trying to limit debate or bracket it within parameters acceptable to one favored cohort or ideology? It's telling that the moment a few people step out of line in the right wing orthodoxy that dominates the mind of the most active posters here, all of a sudden it's cats and dogs sleeping together and a plague of locusts.

Who exactly is attempting to enforce orthodoxy here at iTulip? Who fears diversity most of all? And just what is the right/left ratio of opinions here? 10:1 on the right (plus one "independent")?

But even that is too much for some, it seems.

Is left wing orthodoxy any better? Diversity implies divergent viewpoints. I have seen other forums collapse either to the left or right in recent years, and while I don't believe EJ will allow that to happen here it still bothers me. One thing I like about Itulip is that it still retains a variety of viewpoints. My disagreement with some of yours doesn't imply anything about the mindset of Itulip. I don't post for Itulip only on it. If you want to see who is afraid of diversity look to those who lash out or go for character assassinations when confronted by a post they don't like. Its like an updated version of goodwins law that is becoming increasingly common. To me it implies that they have no real reason to hold that opinion other than it is what everyone else thinks. Thankfully this is quite rare on Itulip and one of the reasons I poke my head in here occasionally to read and post.

If you have been subject to personal attacks based on your opinions I would consider that unwarranted and in poor taste. I hope FRED dealt with them appropriately. You shouldn't feel ostracized no matter what your political alignment. Personally I find your posts, even the ones I'm critical of, valuable and interesting.

Forgive me if the lamentations on the death of free speech and civility seem somewhat insincere to my ears.

This isn't really a question of free speech. It's the walling off of the internet and other forums into insular communities that don't tolerate dissent. The process doesn't involve overt censorship, they just heap abuse on the promoters of opposing views until they leave. Once they are gone the forum devolves into groupthink in which the remaining participants think they are right about everything because nobody would dare to say otherwise. The process is completely voluntary and seems to be part of the life cycle of blogs and some organizations. In the last stage the introduction of opposing views is no longer met with dismissal or even ridicule, it is shock and rage followed by attacks that completely ignore the details of whatever statement started it. Personally, as I've said before, I hope itulip remains rational and not turn into someplace where people feel the need to vent bile on anyone who dares to disagree with them.

Also, I don't believe I ever implied that you shouldn't post your opinion and argue for it. If I did it wasn't intended, and I apologize for any misunderstanding.