When is humor no longer funny?

[Vandiablo]

-- Warning: Partisan mumbling ahead --

Maybe you've seen this piece from The Onion of January 2001.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784

Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'

WASHINGTON, DC–Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

(click link for more)

I have no idea if it's authentic 2001, but it's true enough to be sad. I'm pretty sure that Gore would not have prevented 9/11 and that Gore or Kerry wouldn't have prevented our current economic crunch, but I'm positive we'd be using less oil and there'd be a lot less damage to many things -- U.S. credibility, air, water, parks, science, etc. The last eight years will forever in my mind be categorized as "botched" and "squandered".

-V

[Jester]

The idea that satirists make better news than the official media has been around for quite a few centuries now, but it's only recently that we've made strides towards turning this cynical comment into a pragmatic reality.

-Jester

[Nystul]

If it was actually written in 2001, it's odd they consider genocide in Bosnia, conflict in Somalia, etc. as "sustained peace overseas". Not that it would be realistic to expect a U.S. President to sustain peace overseas in the first place! As for the other stuff, the House went Republican in 1994 (apparently because the all Democrat government was doing such a bang up job) and blocked off virtually the entire Clinton agenda for the rest of his 2 terms. In some ways, that combination was far more conservative than any portion of the Bush presidency. You can't get much more conservative than refusing to pass a budget for months and operating at the previous year's apportionment.

[Vandiablo]

the House went Republican in 1994 (apparently because the all Democrat government was doing such a bang up job) and blocked off virtually the entire Clinton agenda for the rest of his 2 terms.

I remember 1994.

The GOP won in 1994 because of fearmongering about Hillary and homosexuals. Not much has changed I guess, except the voting percentage this strategy garners.

With Hillary, it was: Big Government was going to come between you and your doctor.

(BTW much of the GOP supports government coming between you and your doctor. For example, if you are raped and you want to get a drug to prevent any fertilized eggs from lodging in your body.)

Now, as in 1994, I already do have someone coming between me and my doctor. It's the insurance companies. Why should my health depend on an organization that is trying to maximize its profits? This is what I was hoping would change in 1993 (it didn't) or change now (not holding my breath -- not good for the heart.)

With homosexuals, it was the "gay agenda" taking over our schools etc etc and "gays in the military". Nowadays it's "gay marriage". You know, if you let that gay couple down the road get married, next they'll be marrying pigs in your church on Christmas morning.

In some ways, that combination was far more conservative than any portion of the Bush presidency. You can't get much more conservative than refusing to pass a budget for months and operating at the previous year's apportionment.

I'd say "obstructionist" not "conservative". After all, the only "accomplishment" Democrats could muster early this decade was to use the filibuster ability in the Senate to slow the pace of the GOP damage, er, legislation. You wouldn't call them "conservative" would you?

Back to 1994, I remember the GOP coming in with a wrecking ball. I was working as an EPA contractor at the time. (Fortunately for me, the loss of a couple weeks' pay was not a big issue.) They were not interested in understanding what was being done and figuring out what was most important, they were interested in complete destruction, like a mob burning a library.

It was a worse time than the Reagan/Watt years, you know, when trees caused pollution...

I'm a little optimistic now regarding environmental issues. Maybe, just maybe, the "profound irresponsibility" (to use an Obama term) of 26 of the last 28 years will finally be over! ... even though its damage will continue for many years.

Obama is also challenging the Reagan ideals of "Government is the problem" and "trickle-down". The "trickle-down theory," as it was called, is where the government reduction of tax collection is given to the rich, with the idea that the rich people will spend money and so the money will eventually get to the not-so-rich. (Add deficit spending and you have what Bush Elder called "Voodoo Economics".) Now for the Vanadoo Economics: I think the rich are the people who are most likely to send the money overseas one way or another, and the money leaves our economy pretty much permanently. Instead, give the money to the not-so-rich, and, guess what?!?!? They spend the money and then the rich people get it again anyway! ... ok, I'm no economist...

-V

[eppie]

... ok, I'm no economist...

-V

Ok but Reagan was an actor. Actors are not generally known for being very intelligent.....although Schwarzenegger keeps amazing me.

But you are right....trickle down was indeed a very stupid remark and even stupider as a base for a tax system of a country.

Bush jr was much smarter...he kept the taxes but used them to pay contracts with companies owned by the rich. And to be even smarter he did this in a country far away where there is nobody who can check what is being actually done by these companies for their money.

[Occhidiangela]

Ok but Reagan was an actor. Actors are not generally known for being very intelligent.

Then why do the Democrats try to recruit them?

Eppie, regarding Reagan, you demonstrate ignorance yet again. Reagan had been Governor of the most populous state, with an economy and population greater than your nation, before he was elected president. Before that, in politics, he'd been involved as a leader in a sort of trade union, the trade being actors. If you don't think being a labor leader, or a unior leader isn't a form of political activity, think again. I learned face first with the Teamsters about how political labor organizations are, and with a government employees union as well.

Was trickle down ecnomics successful? Somewhat, and somewhat not. Mixed bag.

There was far more to Ronald Reagan than "just being an actor." Your adapting that trivially silly caricature ought to embarass you. That it doesn't disgusts me.

Occhi

[eppie]

There was far more to Ronald Reagan than "just being an actor." Your adapting that trivially silly caricature ought to embarass you. That it doesn't disgusts me.

Occhi

I took a cheap shot because Reagan´s presidency is over....so I am making comments after everybody could see the results for themselves.
In my defence I was too young during the Reagan years, but I think I made up for that during the Bush years.

By the way, Bush has shown us that the fact that you have been chosen to perform a difficult job (one of the most difficult in the world in this case) doesn't make you a great man perse.

[Sir_Die_alot]

I took a cheap shot because Reagan´s presidency is over....so I am making comments after everybody could see the results for themselves.

You tried to trivialize a popular president you happen to not agree with based more on stereotype than facts. Hopefully you are confronted with this the next time someone else does it and you want to ride in on your high horse.

[Jester]

There was far more to Ronald Reagan than "just being an actor."

Yeah. For starters, that description manages to completely miss Reagan's actual role.

-Jester

[eppie]

You tried to trivialize a popular president you happen to not agree with based more on stereotype than facts. Hopefully you are confronted with this the next time someone else does it and you want to ride in on your high horse.

I couldn't give less about a presidents popularity.
And I also don't see what not agreeing with eg the Iran-contra affair or trickle down has to do with anything.
Maybe you should think about other things than some popularity contest before you start feeling attackt.

But than again..in my words about Bush.....our President followed the US in the Iraq war without getting anything back......not very smart either.....and he has a PhD.

[Nastie_Bowie]

But than again..in my words about Bush.....our President followed the US in the Iraq war without getting anything back......not very smart either.....and he has a PhD.

Hmm, your prez has a PhD. ...

Ever think that maybe it is you that isn't smart?

:w00t:

[kandrathe]

Obama is also challenging the Reagan ideals of "Government is the problem" and "trickle-down". The "trickle-down theory," as it was called, is where the government reduction of tax collection is given to the rich, with the idea that the rich people will spend money and so the money will eventually get to the not-so-rich. (Add deficit spending and you have what Bush Elder called "Voodoo Economics".) Now for the Vanadoo Economics: I think the rich are the people who are most likely to send the money overseas one way or another, and the money leaves our economy pretty much permanently. Instead, give the money to the not-so-rich, and, guess what?!?!? They spend the money and then the rich people get it again anyway! ... ok, I'm no economist...

-V

Obama's last speech was fear mongering at its worst. {source}

Some quotes...

"We start 2009 in the midst of a crisis unlike any we have seen in our lifetime, a crisis that has only deepened over the last few weeks."

"Manufacturing has hit a 28-year low. Many businesses cannot borrow or make payroll. Many families cannot pay their bills or their mortgage. Many workers are watching their life savings disappear. And many, many Americans are both anxious and uncertain of what the future will hold."

"We could lose a generation of potential and promise, as more young Americans are forced to forgo dreams of college or the chance to train for the jobs of the future. And our nation could lose the competitive edge that has served as a foundation for our strength and our standing in the world."

Oh my! What are we to do? Oh, wait. Here is the answer...

"Only government can break the cycle that are crippling our economy -- where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit."

I see. Only government can solve this problem. Somewhere in the near future I expect to hear that phrase, "we must raise taxes now to solve this impending crisis". Because only the federal government can spend our way out of this recession. It's the only way. We will hear that the Bush Tax Cuts ("for the rich") must be repealed, when it's the middle class (not the rich) that have benefited the most from them. Government knows best how to spend your money to save the economy.

And, while he assures us, "That's why the overwhelming majority of the jobs created will be in the private sector, while our plan will save the public sector jobs of teachers, police officers, firefighters and others who provide vital services." Meaning some significant minority of these new jobs will be government jobs requiring new sources of revenue.

Then he squarely places the blame for this mess on the "Wallstreet wrong doers" who slipped through the regulatory cracks. Ahem. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the mess of primarily the Presidents party who deferred corrective action on sub prime lending for over a decade. But, many politicians were culpable of taking the large campaign contributions from Fanny and Freddie in return for maintaining the status quo. Of course, fuel prices jumping from $2 to $4 per gallon wouldn't have any impact on this economic slow down now would it?

Here is hesitantly my answer Van. Spend the money on business development loans which will be used for creating or expanding small businesses employing less than 200 people. Here is the catch, the amount given will be determined by the number of people added to the businesses payroll and paid back over 10 years with very low interest. We might also encourage innovation in some way. I don't see that giving $1000 of tax payer collected money and then redistributed back to consumers to spend on a new washing machine will go very far in rebuilding confidence in the economy. But, put people to work where they have disposable income, and they will pretty much spend it.

The bottom line: The engine of the economy is not government, it is business. If you want to accelerate the economy, you need to invest in business. I don't like the idea of government taking money from people, and then giving it away again for other people to spend it as they see fit. This is why I would structure the stimulus as low interest loans to small and medium sized businesses which intend to improve the economy by hiring or other innovations which will lead to stimulus. Not hand outs, but revenue neutral over the tens years in such a way as to not be onerous for the small business.

[Jester]

We will hear that the Bush Tax Cuts ("for the rich") must be repealed, when it's the middle class (not the rich) that have benefited the most from them.

Got some data for that one there? Everything I've seen has said the exact opposite.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Got some data for that one there? Everything I've seen has said the exact opposite.

-Jester

I would start with The Bush Tax Cuts explained which is erroneously attributed to David R. Kamerschen, or to T. Davies. The allegory is still useful to analyze. While the wealthy did experience tax cuts, the heaviest cuts to rates were in the middle, while the lowest 2/5 of wage earners pay zero already and with earned income tax credits on their tax returns actually get more back than they paid. Be sure to read through some of the animated and useful commentary below it.

The ten people represent decile's. If you repeal the Bush Tax cuts, the lower 4 deciles continue to pay nothing, but decile 5 now instead of paying nothing would need to begin contributing about 1% of gross income, and deciles 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 pay 33%, 28%, 25%, 22%, and 16% more on their taxes effectively.

If you look at it in terms of raw dollars, then yes, the people who pay the most benefit the most in dollars from lowering the rates. But, in terms of percentage of income you can see that the weight of the cuts favors the middle deciles more than the upper deciles. The GAO also corroborates this in terms of real income. The mistake that most liberals make is in thinking that capital gains affects wealthy people more than middle or lower income people. The reality these days is that most people have their retirement savings invested in a market account, so that capital gains in terms of percentage of wealth affect all classes almost equally.

In terms of impact on people, which do you think will hurt more? Asking the middle income (~$60K) family to increase their taxes from $9k to $12k ($3K or ~5% more), or asking the top decile (the $1M> crowd) to pay $35k more? The point here being that realistically the cost of living remains about the same for every person, and that $3k means much more to that middle income family than the $35K ( ~3.5%) does to the very wealthy family (little johnny doesn't get that new Ferrari, but has to settle for the Dodge Viper).

Here is another pretty objective source for the data, the CBO (CBO Effective Tax Rates). If you look at the first chart, you will see that effective tax rates drop substantially since 1984 for the lowest 4/5 of tax payers, but for the top 5% the effective tax rates actually increase over time.

My analysis therefore is that the impact of sunsetting the Bush Tax Cuts is that the middle classes will be hurt the most. The comparison which matters is not in overall revenue paid to the government, but in terms of personal impact from what each of us paid yesterday, to what we will pay tomorrow.

[eppie]

Hmm, your prez has a PhD. ...

Ever think that maybe it is you that isn't smart?

:w00t:

Well I also have a PhD, but than again, that doesn't say anything.

[kandrathe]

Well I also have a PhD, but than again, that doesn't say anything.

I often wonder if a Ph.D is a better measure of a persons willingness to put up with academic BS and department politics for an additional 4 to 6 years. I guess they also are supposed to be able to do independent research and seemingly objective analysis.

[Nystul]

I would start with The Bush Tax Cuts explained which is erroneously attributed to David R. Kamerschen, or to T. Davies. The allegory is still useful to analyze. While the wealthy did experience tax cuts, the heaviest cuts to rates were in the middle, while the lowest 2/5 of wage earners pay zero already and with earned income tax credits on their tax returns actually get more back than they paid. Be sure to read through some of the animated and useful commentary below it.

Now I'm feeling kind of ripped off. I am for sure in the lowest 40% of households, and I still have to pay all kinds of taxes! I need to start makin babies or somethin. :ph34r:

[Jester]

I would start with The Bush Tax Cuts explained which is erroneously attributed to David R. Kamerschen, or to T. Davies. The allegory is still useful to analyze. While the wealthy did experience tax cuts, the heaviest cuts to rates were in the middle, while the lowest 2/5 of wage earners pay zero already and with earned income tax credits on their tax returns actually get more back than they paid. Be sure to read through some of the animated and useful commentary below it.

That thread makes me want to gouge my eyes out. "Animated and useful" indeed.

The mistake that most liberals make is in thinking that capital gains affects wealthy people more than middle or lower income people. The reality these days is that most people have their retirement savings invested in a market account, so that capital gains in terms of percentage of wealth affect all classes almost equally

One might suggest that liberals make this "mistake" on the basis that capital gains do not even exceed 1% of income until you cross above the 80th percentile, but is over 10% of income for the top 1%, and nearly half of the income of the top 0.01%. You may even be right that in terms of wealth it is a similar amount, but in terms of income, it's not even close. Rich people grow their money through investments, poorer people make their money through wages. The "interest and dividends" category tells a similar story.

Regardless, the easiest way to deal with this is an exemption for low-level capital gains in the form of retirement savings, which nearly everyone is in favour of. Repealing a capital gains tax cut benefits the wealthy, and if it benefits anyone else, it is almost entirely as a side effect of that.

-Jester

Afterthought: Why start measuring tax burden at 1984? The chart goes back to 1979.

[eppie]

I often wonder if a Ph.D is a better measure of a persons willingness to put up with academic BS and department politics for an additional 4 to 6 years.

:D

Point taken. Well, in many european countries trying to obtain a PhD is normally done by giving you a 4 year contract at a university. So you get a salary that is a bit lower than what you could have gotten at a company, but not very much. Also you get all the other benefits like pension build up, allowance for paying monthly fess to medical insurance etc.

And by the way...department politics in industry are probably worse (especially because as a PhD student you hardly are bothered by these things).


By the way, yesterday I saw by accident a documentary about Arnold Schwarzenegger on TV. Let's just say it didn't increase my appreciation for actors in politics.

[kandrathe]

That thread makes me want to gouge my eyes out. "Animated and useful" indeed.

Better them than us. :)

One might suggest that liberals make this "mistake" on the basis that capital gains do not even exceed 1% of income until you cross above the 80th percentile, but is over 10% of income for the top 1%, and nearly half of the income of the top 0.01%. You may even be right that in terms of wealth it is a similar amount, but in terms of income, it's not even close. Rich people grow their money through investments, poorer people make their money through wages. The "interest and dividends" category tells a similar story.

So then are you saying that a flat tax on investment income is fair?

Regardless, the easiest way to deal with this is an exemption for low-level capital gains in the form of retirement savings, which nearly everyone is in favour of. Repealing a capital gains tax cut benefits the wealthy, and if it benefits anyone else, it is almost entirely as a side effect of that.

Although, in the libertarian way of thinking, taxes are an almost punitive action. I don't really have issues with taxing conspicuous consumptions, but when you tax "income" and "capital" you are sinking the greedy fangs of government directly into the roots of growth and success. I've made this argument here before, but wealthy people can choose their level of income while its the middle class who cannot and pays the taxes.

According to David Goldman from the former Bear Stearns, "An investor pays the capital gains tax only when he liquidates his investment. In practice, investors liquidate taxable securities and incur the capital gains tax only if they must do so in order to meet large, non-recurring expenses. Wealthy investors often hold onto assets that have appreciated in value until they die, passing them to their heirs and avoiding the capital gains tax (though not the estate tax) altogether. In contrast, middle-class families who have either invested in securities or built small businesses typically must sell a large portion of their investment at the peak of their savings, in order to pay for a large expense like retirement, a child’s education, or the purchase of a home. At that time, these investors have no choice but to pay tax on their capital gains."

Afterthought: Why start measuring tax burden at 1984? The chart goes back to 1979.

I don't have a problem with that. Ronny Reagan didn't get the first wave of voodoo tax reforms passed until midterm, so what we see in 79 is the aftermath of the Carter years. In fact, even through this last Bush term, revenues into the federal coffers have been growing while effective rates continue to fall (source). However, new spending combined with run amok entitlement programs are rising much faster than revenues ever could. Obama offers no change from the past 30 years where both Republicans and Democrats continue to hyper-inflate the size of government.