I didn't know it, did you?
Maybe it's because we don't give a damn about children, once they're born?
Maybe because we revile the poor?
The lazy, no good, mooching bums...
Right?
Great Christians, aren't we?
Posts
2:00PM Water Cooler Christmas Eve 2024
56 minutes ago
30 comments:
1. War on terrorism...terrorism got worse.
War on drugs...drug abuse got worse.
War on poverty...Maybe war isn't such a good idea?
2. Define poor. I bet there are a lot of African, South American and Southeast Asian families (among others) who would love to be poor in America.
3. The system is broken, and there isn't nearly enough incentive or help in getting off welfare--instead there are often programs encouraging people to apply for benefits.
Declaring war on everything?
Agreed. Bad idea whose time never came, period.
And sure, if you want to compare the worst of the world's poor compared to America's? Sure, it's worse elsewhere?
Does that mean you'd care to trade your spot for one of America's poor?
I thought not.
And yes, the system is broken but the lies and untruths from the Republicans by themselves, let alone from the rest of the Right Wing are monumental:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/169659/lies-republicans-tell-about-obama-and-welfare
The worst vacuums of government money for "welfare" are the rich and corporations, by a long, long shot, statistically, factually. Get "Big Oil" off the government dole and we'd have far more money in our coffers than if we ended all social welfare today. And the oil industry is the most profitable industry in the nation and the world.
Agreed. Kill the "war on" idea. It just doesn't work.
But in order to make ourselves feel better about poverty in America, we have to compare our hungry or cold or sick or homeless to the worst in the rest of the world? Seriously?
No, that's ridiculous. You or I wouldn't want to trade our places, no matter what we do or don't have, with the poor of this nation.
Sure, we all agree the system is broken but let's kill the welfare of the wealthy and corporations in the nation first and foremost and we'll have far more money in our coffers than if we end all social welfare in this country.
"Big Oil" alone gets far more money in tax breaks than our nation's poor and they do a lot less for it. Why should we give tax breaks to the nation's and world's most profitable industry? It makes no sense.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/169659/lies-republicans-tell-about-obama-and-welfare
End corporate welfare first, then let's talk about social welfare problems.
Does that mean you'd care to trade your spot for one of America's poor?
Do you donate most of your income above poverty level to charity? If you don't, do you have the right to lecture others?
How is the 'child poverty' in your poster calculated--is it an apples-to-apples comparison of living standards? Or is it instead some sort of calculation of income distribution?
I would be glad to get rid of corporate welfare, as long as it is ALL of it, including Democrat pet projects like Solyndra. Simplify the corporate tax code, make the overall rate similar to countries whose economies we want to emulate.
Tell you what, Sevesteen--come over to the Kansas City area and I'll show you how much money I make and all I own. If you knew anything, anything about me--and you don't, though you judge and assume the worst--you would know where I am from the poverty level.
And you say you're "glad to get rid of corporate welfare, as long as it is ALL of it, including Democrat pet projects like Solyndra" while I say I and a lot of us who feel and believe similarly to me feel exactly the same way. This isn't about keeping pet projects for one group--the Left, say--while cutting those for any other group like the Right Wing. We need to especially kill tax deductions for the most profitable industry in the nation and world which is "Big Oil." Why we give them money and let them off the hook makes no sense at all.
I finally did a little bit of Googling to see where that statistic likely came from. As I suspected, it isn't based on need, hunger, lack of necessities or any sort of standard of living--rather it merely measures inequality. Based on that measurement, deporting anyone with an above-average income would reduce poverty.
What are the 'tax breaks for big oil' that you keep objecting to? They certainly exist--but the ones I'm aware of are promoting some politician's agenda, like 'domestic production', or 'job creation'. It distorts the free market--in the same way that bailing out GM and Chrysler does, or forcing everyone to buy a certain type of medical insurance.
Great. Your response and reaction to this statistic about the United States having the second highest poverty rate in the world for children is racist.
Nice.
Deport Mexicans and we solve our child poverty rate.
I don't suppose you're familiar with the fact that America has always, always had immigrants, are you? Yeah, it used the be the Germans we hated and East Europeans. And the Irish. Etc., etc. Now it's the Mexicans and Hispanics.
Nice.
As for the tax breaks for big oil I keep objecting to that you keep defending, nearly unbelievably but definitely indefensibly, here you go--it's these:
Factbox: Big tax benefits enjoyed by oil companies
Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-obama-energy-idUSBRE82S11P20120329
The only reason they have them is because they are already filthy rich and they keep feeding "campaign contributions" to our legislators so they create their legislation for them so that's what we get in our laws and so, in our government. We could have them for ourselves, too, if only we were wealthy enough and handed them out also.
Why any "small government" and/or Right Wing and/or Libertarian or Republican or Tea Party person would support tax breaks for the most profitable industry in the nation and world is beyond me.
Mexicans? WTF did that come from?
According to Wikipedia, Deport means to remove from a place or territory, although they do say it usually refers to non-citizens. I wasn't talking about race or nationality here.
What I was pointing out was that if you examine the statistic being used, it is far more a measure of envy than of poverty. By their logic and math, removing rich people (or reducing their income) without doing anything that improves the lives of the poor would nevertheless improve the 'child poverty' score.
Hogwash. Or rather the score is hogwash.
...and while my wife is a US citizen born in Texas, she is of Mexican descent, didn't learn English until kindergarten, when her Hispanic migrant worker family settled in Ohio. Racist? More hogwash.
The tax breaks in the article aren't much to get excited about.
In the order they show up in the article--Intangible drilling costs is about timing rather than what can be deducted, the actual money involved is just the interest on the tax over the depreciation period. Crap like this is inevitable with a complicated tax code.
Dual Capacity rules--the US is one of very few countries that taxes foreign income. If the country it was earned in has already taxed it, you don't have to pay twice.
"Percentage depletion" doesn't apply to the biggest oil companies. I also don't know why this isn't a legitimate expense, isn't a depleted oil field worth less than a 'full' one?
The final tax in that article is one that I predicted in a previous response--a protectionist measure to favor domestic production--and oil companies get a smaller break than most other industries.
I would get rid of all of these, but none strike me as outrageous. The problem is essentially not solvable as long as we are taxing production. The real solution is to shift taxes from production to consumption.
For a number of reasons, it is difficult to remain as polite as I would like in this reply.
I have no idea where “deport Mexicans” came from, it certainly wasn’t in what I wrote. Deport can be applied to people other than Hispanics, and although it is most common in the context of non-citizens it is not necessarily limited to that use. I said essentially ‘deport rich people’—not Mexicans, not even rich Mexicans. Even that was obviously an illustration of the absurdity of the original ranking, not an actual proposal.
As far as the specific racist accusations—If you look through the pictures in my blog, you will see several pictures of a Hispanic woman. She was born in Texas, but her ancestry is entirely Mexican—she didn’t learn English until her migrant worker family settled in Ohio and enrolled her in Kindergarten. Oh—she is also my wife.
I Googled “child poverty rank”. The first thing I found were progressive websites saying that the US was #2, matching your graphic—however I actually read the articles to see what they were measuring.
a child is deemed to be living in relative poverty if he or she is growing up in a household where disposable income, when adjusted for family size and composition, is less than 50% of the median disposable household income for the country concerned
Based on that definition, forcing or encouraging rich families to leave the country would reduce ‘childhood poverty’—not by helping the poor in any way, but by reducing the median income. Reducing the income of rich and upper middle class people—just throwing the money away, not even taking from the rich and giving to the poor—would reduce ‘childhood poverty’ in the same way. A hypothetical country where all children had a standard of living at least equal to an average American upper middle class family—but where 51% of families had more than twice the income of the remaining 49%...would have a 49% ‘childhood poverty’ rate. Meanwhile in a different hypothetical country where most family incomes were under $2000 per year, only the ones under $1000 would be considered in poverty. The definition is useless, except as class warfare ammunition.
If we are going to compare poverty rates between countries in a meaningful way, it needs to be based on standard of living and not envy.
On to tax breaks for big oil, based on the article you point to:
Intangible Drilling Costs—There isn't an argument about whether these are justifiable deductions, the argument is whether they can be deducted quickly as an expense, or depreciated slowly, as a capital improvement.
Dual Capacity rules—Most countries don't try to tax income earned elsewhere, the US does. This is just the US not forcing companies headquartered here to pay tax in America on income that has already been taxed.
Percentage Depletion—Again, they aren't arguing about the validity of the deduction, but rather how fast it can be taken. I don't know if 15% per year is reasonable, it does sound too fast. It also only applies to 'medium sized oil', the biggest companies aren't eligible.
And finally, the domestic activities deduction—as I thought earlier, a “buy American” incentive.
As long as we insist on taxing productivity, we will have these arguments about what is a legitimate deduction, and over how quickly it can be deducted. Individual industries will lobby for special treatment, and will often win. I say we give up this fight entirely, and instead we switch taxes to consumption—move taxes to the retail level, with a sales or value added tax replacing (key here is replace, not in addition to) income and corporate income taxes. This will drastically reduce the ability of big corporations to tweak the code for their specific benefit.
I'll respond shortly, later today.
Sorry for the double, thought I'd lost the first version.
No need to apologize. Again, I'll respond Sunday.
No one is remotely calling for taxes that would end up "forcing or encouraging rich families to leave the country..." This last round of tax increases was only to bring the wealthiest of us--those earning $250,000 or more per year--up 3 to 5 percent. As it ended, it raised the rates of those making $400,000 per year or more and still only this small amount. As we know, there are plenty of millionaires who were willing to take the very public stance that their taxes should be raised for the benefit of the nation.
Democrats have been cutting spending, actually, and the old, tired canard that the Dems are only for spending--blowing--lots of money while Republicans are only for cutting is not only a really bad cliche', it's just patently untrue. Note this from economist Robert Reich:
"...federal deficits are dropping as a percent of the total economy.
For the fiscal year ending in September 2009, the deficit was 10.1 percent of the gross domestic product, the value of all goods and services produced in America. In 2010, it was 9 percent. In 2011, 8.7 percent. In the 2012 fiscal year, it was down to 7 percent." (Link: http://robertreich.org/post/39402888541).
You defend tax cuts for "Big Oil"?
The most profitable industry in the nation, the most profitable industry, in fact, in the world and they need more of our nation's money, more of our tax money, more of the middle- and lower-classes money in the form of our taxes? And you defend that? I now ask, as I did before, were you born to wealth? And now to that I add, were you born to wealth in an oil family, like, say, the Bush family or some such? I can't explain why you would otherwise defend such irresponsible taxing.
It isn't even "taxing productivity." The fact is, in order to operate as a nation, we have to have a good, strong, well-done infrastructure of schools and highways and airports and sewers and streets and on and on. Why shouldn't businesses have to pay at least a part of that, first, and why shouldn't they have to pay at least some in order to have access to what are easily, arguably the greatest markets in the world?
I'm surprised I have to even state or ask such a thing.
I don't know if it is possible for us to communicate, you seem to misunderstand anything that doesn't match your views.
You still haven't answered how you got from 'deporting anyone with an above average income' to me being racist and hating Mexicans.
You don't appear to be able to understand hypothetical examples. One last attempt--The point I was making is the measurement of child poverty from the poster is completely useless--If you were to open a factory in a poor country and pay 3 times the average wage...by the measurement they are using you have made things more unequal and therefore worse. It says that a country where everyone is equally desperately poor is better than one where some people are slightly poor and others wealthy.
Republicans are no better than Democrats at spending--both are equally bad, they just spend in slightly different areas. I would be glad--Thrilled! to go to Clinton-era spending.
OK, oil is evil, so let's tax it at 100%. That will solve everything.
Success shouldn't make tax rates as a percentage go up, even though it will make taxes paid go up. Oil companies should pay the same percentages as any other company, with the same sort of deductions. While some deductions are wrong, others are necessary and proper.
You think companies that earn income in Europe and pay taxes on that income in Europe should pay full taxes on that same income again in America because their headquarters are here? It is somehow unfair to at least deduct taxes they have already paid, so they only pay the highest of the two rates and not both rates?
Private schools have better results with less per-pupil spending than public schools by almost any measure--standardized test scores, graduation rates, college acceptance. Highways and sewers are a legitimate government function. I don't know why airports shouldn't be paid for by the businesses and people who use them, why they should be subsidized by people who don't fly.
I don't know if it is possible for us to communicate. You seem to misunderstand anything that doesn't match your views. Worse, you exaggerate wildly, in an effort to either mock my point(s) or be sarcastic, apparently because it entertains you while insulting your conversational opponent.
You also seem to think just because your "hypothetical" gets both addressed and dismissed--with logic and facts--means I don't understand it but worse, that I don't understand hypotheticals, period. Far from it, rest assured. If you're going to get insulting, there really is no point in communicating.
I've said many times that "Republicans are no better than Democrats at spending" and that it will continue as long as we require them to need and accept campaign contributions in order to get elected or re-elected. Until we kill them, until we kill campaign contributions and get the big, ugly, corrupting money of the wealthy and corporations out of our election system and so, our government, nothing will change.
Then you take my statement that corporations and businesses need to contribute to the very existence, let alone success, of our nation so that we can function into saying that "oil is evil..." which is just absurd exaggeration by itself and then you say "let's tax it at 100%" and "That will solve everything."
That's not what I ever remotely suggested, let alone said.
Yes, I do believe that companies that earn income in Europe and pay taxes on that income in Europe should pay at least a minimum amount of tax on that same income again in America precisely because they have access to our markets, yes. I find it surprising anyone in the Right Wing would find otherwise but then, the Right Wing feels fettered by the remotest government.
As for private schools out-performing public ones, there's this, disproving your blanket statement with those pesky things called facts and statistics: Public Schools Perform Near Private Ones in Study
Link here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/15/education/15report.html?_r=0
And then there's this study:
Are Private Schools Really Better?
Link: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1670063,00.html
And if, in fact, any private schools outperform public ones, it is extremely likely that they are better funded and/or the teacher/student ratios are better in the private schools and/or that the private schools are teaching more middle- or upper-class students whose parents have more time and money to spend on and with the students, so it would be no wonder those private school students would do better. Once again, "Them what has, gets."
And here's why airports should be "subsidized by people who don't fly": Because the nation needs them to function in this modern society and in order to be competitive with the rest of the world. As it is, those who fly bear the greatest burden of paying for them. Surely you know and acknowledge both these facts.
You did no investigation of the initial caption that started this--someone made a simplistic caption that fits your view, so it must be accurate. When what the caption actually measures is pointed out, you change the subject.
You've got no basis for calling me an anti-Mexican racist--called on it, you change the subject. Called on it again, you change the subject again.
Despite that, I'm trying to argue with your ideas rather than calling you names.
I don't intend to comment on any of your 2013 posts, I'm saying that here to keep me honest.
I responded to your response to this caption, above, with statistics and data.
You don't intend to respond to anything here in 2013 in order to "get even" with me.
So be it.
I mistakenly, earlier read your "deport" statement as that we should deport those who didn't have money. I read you wrong, that's the long and short of it. I thought you had said and were saying we should deport the poor, including Hispanics. My mistake.
I thought you had said and were saying we should deport the poor, including Hispanics. My mistake.
I would believe that if you had paid attention the first or second time I objected that it wasn't what I said That you read it exactly the opposite of what I wrote even after having it pointed out to you illustrates the point I was making with 'we can't communicate'.
I'm not trying to punish--It appeared that you'd rather I leave you alone, take my racism and sarcasm elsewhere.
I said I overlooked it.
Your assumption is mistaken. I don't wish you'd leave me alone. I appreciate a good conversation.
That said, sarcasm serves little purpose but you don't shell out that much of it and we dealt with what I thought was your racism.
When I write that it seems you were born to wealth, as I have in the past, and that now, you seem to have been born to wealth of an oil family, I meant it. You do seem to defend the way the wealthy exploit the lower economic classes.
Again, I could believe you overlooked my comment, until I said "Mexicans? WTF did that come from?"--if our positions were reversed, that would cause me to carefully re-read previous comments and at least say 'oops, misread' immediately. Personally, I would re-read very, very carefully before I accused someone of racism based on a blog post, and if I made the accusation based on a misreading, I'd be embarrassed and apologetic.
You also seem to think just because your "hypothetical" gets both addressed and dismissed--with logic and facts
Except it is the same logic, facts and careless reading that lead to unfounded accusations of racism.
No one is remotely calling for taxes that would end up "forcing or encouraging rich families to leave the country..
...and I didn't say anyone was. Another example of why I'm frustrated in debating with you, to the point where I no longer feel it is worth my time.
There is no way that a sensible definition of child poverty could show that America is worse than The Congo, Liberia, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Burundi, Afghanistan, Mozambique, AND Hati--which would be necessary for us to be the second worst in the world. That you accepted that definition without question is part of the communications problem.
When I asked what that definition was, you started talking about corporate welfare instead.
Since you were either unwilling or unable to explain the logic behind the statement, I tried to find it myself. The best I could find was from the Huffington post:
"The term "relative child poverty" refers to a child living in a household where the disposable income is less than half of the national median income.
It also limited the comparison to 35 richest countries, a far cry from 'in the world'
By that definition, removing "disposable income" of anyone above the median level reduces child poverty. If our knowledge of math and statistics is so far apart that you don't understand what I'm saying here, we can't communicate, regardless of whether it is you or me who is wrong.
If you think that destroying wealth will help poverty, we are too far apart for effective communication.
If I'm using the wrong definition, but you can't or won't point me to the right one, it is a waste of my time in trying to debate under those circumstances.
We have drastically different definitions of 'exploit', and of class.
I misread one of your statements and stances and you now paint me with the very broad brush of not, then, being able to trust any response to you I have. It's understandable, then, why you would come to the conclusion that you don't care to read or respond any further. You come to other conclusions and have other base beliefs so this makes it convenient for you.
You take a stand of mine, then assume I'm suggesting "destroying wealth."
It's a far-too-typical exercise of far too many people, especially on the internet, of taking a person's stance and extending it to an absurd extreme.
This latest attempt at raising the tax rates of the wealthy 3 to 5 percent is nowhere near "destroying wealth."
You take a stand of mine, then assume I'm suggesting "destroying wealth."
Not even close to what I said.
The mathematical formula that is necessary to claim that the US is #2 in child poverty does in fact 'show' that eliminating wealth from families of above average income would reduce poverty. That is so absurd that their definition of poverty cannot have any significant overlap with the definition of poverty understood by most people. I have not accused you of that level of absurdity, although you apparently continue to support that definition.
That is precisely what you said. I quoted you:
"If you think that destroying wealth will help poverty, we are too far apart for effective communication."
Clearly, with your repeated ability to defend tax breaks for one of the wealthiest, most profitable industries in the nation and world--"Big Oil"--I agree with your earlier statement that we have very fundamental differences in our core beliefs. On this, you support an intrinsically unfair and unnecessary status quo and I absolutely do not.
That is precisely what you said. I quoted you:
Out of context. I'm not talking about any current or proposed policy here, I'm talking about the absurdity of using a measurement of poverty that would regard destroying wealth as an improvement--as this one would.
Based on your understanding of this measurement--what would happen to this child poverty rate if the top 5% of incomes were removed from the calculation? Is that a reasonable measurement of poverty?
Can you answer that question, or are you going to ignore it and switch to bashing big oil again?
As for big oil loopholes--The tax law changes we need are huge. Arguing about which deductions are valid and which are loopholes is the status quo, and similar to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. We need a simple system with the primary goal of revenue rather than social engineering--that simplicity is not possible with a tax on corporate profits, because there are so many ways to manipulate profits.
Quoted you out of context my butt. Not only did I quote you precisely but I put up your entire sentence and it stood alone, literally. If you'll look at your statement of January 6, 2013 at 10:36 PM, you'll see that's so, too.
"what would happen to this child poverty rate if the top 5% of incomes were removed from the calculation?"
Here, let me address that--I deal with and am now and always have been dealing with the reality of what we do and have right now, with what exists. My concern isn't statistics on their own, of their own right. What is, is, sure and we need to make changes and improvements in humankind's situations but how the statistics stand aren't even remotely important to me. That's all utterly irrelevant.
Your statement that "Arguing about which deductions are valid and which are loopholes is the status quo, and similar to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.." is a huge rationalization for the status quo, first, and blatantly untrue, too, since taxes paid by oil companies could, by themselves, see to a great deal of the infrastructure across the country that we need so sorely. And those taxes, if they paid them, could and would make a) for jobs for the middle- and lower-classes so they could purchase that oil and cars and clothing, etc. and b) then make for yet more consumers of their products. What goes around could, in fact, come around, back to those very oil companies.
how the statistics stand aren't even remotely important to me. That's all utterly irrelevant.
I cannot think of any way to interpret that other than 'the truth doesn't matter...don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up', facts and numbers are only good for their propaganda value.
Objective truth matters, and good arguments don't rely on deceptive statements.
Why wouldn't gasoline taxes count towards the oil industry paying tax for infrastructure? I don't object to motor fuel taxes, they are a good way to put most of the burden on the people who benefit from roads--I just don't think they should be ignored when calculating 'fair share'.
The PROBLEM is when we decide this industry or this company is good, lower their taxes, this other one is bad, raise theirs, this factory is in the district of a powerful senator...this other one didn't donate enough... Tweaking isn't the solution, it is the problem. We need fundamental change so that tax rates are fair, predictable, relatively simple and not subject to exceptions and influence.
No one, no one, least of all me is saying or suggesting " this industry or this company is good, lower their taxes, this other one is bad, raise theirs."
What we're saying is that ALL companies should pay at least a bit in order to have access to these markets and so the whole nation can function and function well. For that, again, we need schools and educated students and highways and all the infrastructure we need.
A minimum, required, say, 10% tax contribution, no matter how much a company deducts, only makes sense. Companies and corporations need to be good citizens, too.
It's difficult to believe you're so adamantly against that.
Short version of our arguments so far:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TugslL45aXk
(I'm not claiming either role there...)
Oh, come on.
You're the ibex.
Clearly.
:)
Post a Comment