A few pictures from the Denver Flea Party

Sister Toldjah had a link to El Marco’s pictures of the Occupy Denver rally, and three of them caught my attention.


Joe Sacco has a degree in film making. I asked him if he would turn down a job with a salary of $74,000, and he said that he would consider it, depending on the benefits package. He made it clear that his sign is totally serious. Note the high quality, expensive astroturf signs stacked in the background.


Many college grads voiced their grievances about the fact that they didn’t immediately get high paying jobs right out of school. Choosing fields of study that are not in high demand, or racking up debt rather than working and saving, were their choices. The consequences of getting a degree in art history or an advanced degree in basket weaving, like Stanley Ann Dunham, can be living on food stamps when one is unwilling to take a job below one’s qualifications. Boo Hoo.


Yadda yadda yadda. To whom is his sign addressed? The job fairy!

Now, when I look at these pictures, what I’m seeing is the complaint that these new grads can’t find the jobs that they want. Mr Sacco, the gentleman in the top picture, got his degree in film making, apparently without considering that there might not be all that many jobs available in his major. He wants $75,000 to work for somebody, and while El Marco might have been being a bit snarky when he asked Mr Sacco if he’d turn down a job offer of $74,000, what I would have asked him is whether he’d turn down a job paying $50,000. The Bureau of Labor Statistics states that the mean annual wage¹ for all occupations in the United States is $44,410. Mr Sacco is asking for a wage 68.9% higher than the national mean. Will he work for less, or is he too good for that?

The gentleman in the second picture, the one who looks like he stole Yassir Arafat’s hijab scarf to hide part of his face, stated with his sign that he’s $50 grand in student loan debt, and has zero prospects of getting a job. If his prospects truly are near zero, one ought to ask: in what did he major? If he had majored in electrical engineering or nursing or pharmacy, he’d probably be employed today. If he majored in English literature, yeah, I can see where it might be more difficult to find a job.

But the third picture ties it all together. The semi-masked sign holder wants to see Better Jobs 4 College Grads. While El Marco snarked about the “job fairy” providing such, I’d ask the question more seriously: just what better jobs does he believe ought to exist?

It seems to me that there is a very serious disconnect between the fleabaggers’ notions of what ought to exist and the types of jobs the economy can actually provide. Our economy runs on private businesses — including those wicked old corporations — producing sufficient goods and services to meet the reasonable economic demands of the public, reasonable meaning, in this case, the things for which the public can actually pay. Because we are productive and prosperous, we can provide more than basic subsistence, but can also provide luxury goods and services. We can provide a cinema, we can afford the arts, we can employ journalists and writers and musicians, all things which make life and society more pleasant, but things without which we could still survive.

But there must be a relationship between the number of luxury services provided and the capacity of the necessary production industry to pay for them. We have to have food and we have to have clothing and shelter and roads and automobiles and tools and heavy equipment, we need plumbers and electricians and HVAC technicians and carpenters and garbage collectors and even concrete producers in our industrialized economy. But the profit from providing the necessities can support only so many luxuries, and for many of our graduates I have to wonder if proper consideration was given to that economic relationship; how many of them considered majors and careers in the necessities?

Because reality bites, and the current reality is that a lot of people who used to (borrow and) spend more money on the luxury items have become much more concerned about keeping their jobs, and have cut back on luxury spending. Consumer price increases have outpaced wage growth, further restricting the amount available for luxury consumption, and the savings rate has increased significantly as well. People, faced with an economic downturn and uncertainty about keeping their jobs, responded responsibly, spending less on luxury items and putting away more money for future needs. And that is going to have an impact on new college graduates who have chosen careers in luxury fields.

The problem for the fleabaggers is that they just don’t seem to have any concept about economics. They hate those evil corporations, but four out of every five Americans who are employed are employed by private businesses, by corporations. It is private business which organizes our productive capacity and provides the structure and equipment to turn American labor into the goods and services we use, and for which we pay. They seem to not like the bosses and capitalists who take the risks and make good money for having done so — forgetting that many people tried and failed at business — because those people make more money than they do, and that’s just not fair! But if Mr Sacco expects someone to pay him two-thirds again the mean annual wage, he’s going to have to look to someone making much more than that to be able to hire him and pay him that 75 grand.

________________________
¹ – BLS defines the “mean annual wage” as “the estimated total annual wages of an occupation divided by its estimated employment, i.e., the average annual wage.” This is different from the median annual wage, which would be the point at which 50% of the population earned that or more, and 50% earned that or less.

114 Comments

  1. I found El Marco’s photojournalism of the Denver mob via Professor Jacobson’s Post of the Day and posted a couple other photos that caught my attention over at TBD. Bunch of crazies, those Occupy crazies.

  2. Just a couple of reminders:

    i, The majority of Americans support OWS.

    ii, OWS involves people from all walks of life, including Marine veterans. Why do w1ngnuts hate Americans and Marine veterans?

  3. The Phoenician wrote:

    The majority of Americans support OWS.

    Do they? Well, possibly; I guess we’ll see if that translates into votes for “progressive” candidates.

    But whether a majority support the fleabaggers or not is almost irrelevant to the question I posed: are the “demands” noted by the fleabaggers above actually reasonable, logical and consistent with real world economics? If our economy does not produce enough Better Jobs 4 College Grads to provide all of the college graduates with those Better Jobs, there’s really nothing which can be done about that. They might just have to learn skills or trades different from what they thought/ hoped they’d do as careers when they were in college.

  4. The majority of Americans support OWS.

    Uh huh. It all depends on how you ask the question. For example, if you ask, “Do you support OWS’s stance that the government should be doing a better job regulating and overseeing the banking industry,” then heck, I support that. I previously showed how Time magazine asked its question about OWS and compared it to how its question about the Tea Party was asked. Not to mention, as you’d expect, the MSM is slobbering all over the OWSers, while it did its level best to demonize the TP at every turn.

    BTW — how many OWSers are in NYC? Approx. 6,000? In NYC??? An insurance convention draws that many.

  5. Dana, the point is that from either the TEA Party or the Occupy protests, anyone can pick out individuals and attempt to besmirch the movement with anecdotal tid-bits. This is what Hitchcock does all the time, and some of you do quite often. Just the fact that you would choose to label the Occupy movement as “fleabaggers” says a lot about your attitude.

    The fact is that the Occupy protest represents, as I see it, a genuine movement of folks who are mainly concerned about the deterioration of the American middle and poor, economically. They see an elite wealthy “1%” who continue to suck wealth unto themselves, and corrupt the government to supplement their efforts to do just that.

    It does not take a genius to understand that this trend is unsustainable, therefore the Occupy movement is an expected and proper response to the problem, as I have predicted for quite some time. Let us hope that we can put in place policies which will create jobs and grow the economy, otherwise an increase in crime and violence will be the next stage of this expanding chaos.

    We already know historically what policies work and what policies do not work, lessons that the American Right have not yet learned!

  6. Hube, this says it all about your thesis, which is flawed I think, here with the concluding statement from you cite:

    “No doubt the past few years have been terrible. But the past few decades have been pretty good—for everybody.”

    Sure, we have gone from one family member being able to support the family to two, and we have supplemented this “good-for everybody” lifestyle by going ever more deeply into debt. This lifestyle was not sustainable, as we now know, and will grow more difficult with the shortage of jobs, the decreases in salaries/income, and the increases in the cost of living for fuel and medical care. Your author seems to overlook these issues.

  7. Dana, the point is that from either the TEA Party or the Occupy protests, anyone can pick out individuals and attempt to besmirch the movement with anecdotal tid-bits. This is what Hitchcock does all the time, and some of you do quite often. Just the fact that you would choose to label the Occupy movement as “fleabaggers” says a lot about your attitude.

    You just gotta love the sanctimonious hypocrisy. It really, truly is unbelievable.

    Turnabout sucks, doesn’t it, Perry?

  8. How smart are the OWSers?

    What is the top marginal income tax rate for the richest 1 percent?

    32% say 10-25 percent.
    30% say 0-10 percent.

    Answer? 35 percent.

    What does the government spend more on? Health care and pensions, education, or the military?

    A whopping 94% say the military.

    Answer? Healthcare and pensions.

  9. To further refute Hube’s point, I think this pretty well describes what has happened in the last three of four decades to which the Occupy movement is finally responding:

    “The regressive right has slowly consolidated power over the last three decades as income and wealth have concentrated at the top. In the late 1970s the richest 1 percent of Americans received 9 percent of total income and held 18 percent of the nation’s wealth; by 2007, they had more than 23 percent of total income and 35 percent of America’s wealth. CEOs of the 1970s were paid 40 times the average worker’s wage; now CEOs receive 300 times the typical workers’ wage.

    This concentration of income and wealth has generated the political heft to deregulate Wall Street and halve top tax rates. It has bankrolled the so-called Tea Party movement, and captured the House of Representatives and many state governments. Through a sequence of presidential appointments it has also overtaken the Supreme Court. “

  10. We Americans by far spend more on the military than any other nation on earth. And, as individuals, we spend almost double for our health care than any other developed nation. For these expenditures we should be proud?

  11. We Americans by far spend more on the military than any other nation on earth. And, as individuals, we spend almost double for our health care than any other developed nation. For these expenditures we should be proud?

    Irrelevant to the point that 94% of the OWSers believe that’s where we spend most of our money (military).

  12. To further refute Hube’s point, I think this pretty well describes what has happened in the last three of four decades to which the Occupy movement is finally responding

    Except that your article laughably blames the Right for this, when the Democrats (and Obama in particular) are just as in bed with Wall Street as the GOP.

  13. It’s cute how an article written by the hyper-partisan Robert Reich, formerly of the Clinton Administration, could be taken as anything other than Leftist claptrap. But when the person linking Robert Reich thinks NPR and MSNBC are centrist-minded and truthful broadcasts …

  14. Perry wrote:

    Dana, the point is that from either the TEA Party or the Occupy protests, anyone can pick out individuals and attempt to besmirch the movement with anecdotal tid-bits. This is what Hitchcock does all the time, and some of you do quite often. Just the fact that you would choose to label the Occupy movement as “fleabaggers” says a lot about your attitude.

    Actually, Perry, I took three photos, from the same rally, and attempted to figure out if they had a logical and coherent goal in mind, something that they wanted to accomplish with these protests that was based on economic realities. So far I haven’t posted on the anti-Semitic rants of a few of the fleabaggers, though I do wonder just what might happen when you start getting the pro-Palestinian folk mixed with the people hating bankers — which will lead someone to point out that Jews are more heavily involved in the financial industry.

    I’m wondering just what these people really want to do, what they really expect. Even with your comment, in which you complained about income inequality, but you have no ideas about how such could be changed that have any bearing upon economic realities.

  15. As for the name “fleabaggers,” that comes from what Ann Coulter called the Flea Party. When you have a bunch of people going unwashed and camped out in the park, in the rain and the mud, thinking that they might attract small insects hardly seems beyond the realm of possibility.

  16. As for the name “fleabaggers,” that comes from what Ann Coulter called the Flea Party. When you have a bunch of people going unwashed and camped out in the park, in the rain and the mud, thinking that they might attract small insects hardly seems beyond the realm of possibility.

    Like the Marine veterans you’re spitting on?

  17. 5 reasons why income inequality is a myth — and Occupy Wall Street is wrong.

    “Journal of the American Enterprise Institute”. Riiiiiight.

    Here’s what the CBO data says

    You lose, sucker.

  18. Actually, Perry, I took three photos, from the same rally, and attempted to figure out if they had a logical and coherent goal in mind

    Here’s your problem – “I…attempted to figure out…”,

    You’re not a fair observer, you’re not capable of reporting neutrally, and you’re unable to represent the OWS people except in your own caricatures.

  19. You’re not a fair observer, you’re not capable of reporting neutrally, and you’re unable to represent the OWS people except in your own caricatures.

    Uh huh. And this doesn’t apply to what you wrote about the Tea Party why …?

    “Journal of the American Enterprise Institute”. Riiiiiight.

    I’ll keep that in mind the next time you quote Krugman or some other lefty person/site …

  20. I’ll keep that in mind the next time you quote Krugman or some other lefty person/site …

    You already dismiss credible sources because they disagree with your fantasies. A threat to continue acting like a toddler having a tantrum is hardly scary.

    Rising income inequality in America is a fact, and demonstrated by such credible sources as the CBO data graphed. Grow up and deal with that reality.

    Anyway, here’s a chart comparing OWS positions with those of polls of ordinary voters. Because Hube has problems comprehending credibility, I’ll point out “it gives its sources at the end”.

  21. What does the government spend more on? Health care and pensions, education, or the military?

    A whopping 94% say the military.

    Answer? Healthcare and pensions.

    Not quite that simple I’m afraid, Hubey-wubey. Two thirds of the Federal Budget – Congress doesn’t set spending on that. They’re based on entitlements for which people are or are not eligible, and half of which is Social Security – which, as we all know, is seperately funded.

    Congress sets the spending on about a third of the budget, the discretionary spending.

    And here’s a graph of what Congress CHOOSES to spend money on.

    Gosh, don’t you look foolish?

    [released - pH]

  22. Dana, I’m not the least bit surprised that you will come up with any excuse to demonize those who would subject themselves to adverse conditions for days on end in order to voice their protest. And there certainly is more than enough to protest, related to the economy and jobs.

    You claim to be a great proponent of strict, absolutist application of the First Amendment, until some folks speak/behave in a manner that you deem inappropriate, then you cannot wait to demonize them and in effect attempt to quash their voices, or until Hitchcock decides to delete some posts on your blog which he does not like.

    So what does this behavior make you, Dana? It certainly is not very complimentary of a person I used to hold in high regard. Let me just say that you are hardly living up to your Libertarian ideals.

    And then you quote Ann Coulter, of all people, one of the most obnoxious public figures around, next to Rush Limbaugh. Do you also listen to Rush at work? Figures!

    “In the 1920s Wall Street was unfettered, the rich grew far richer and everyone else went deep into debt, and the nation closed its doors to immigrants.

    Rather than conserve the economy, these regressives want to resurrect the classical economics of the 1920s — the view that economic downturns are best addressed by doing nothing until the “rot” is purged out of the system (as Andrew Mellon, Herbert Hoover’s Treasury Secretary, so decorously put it).

    In truth, if they had their way we’d be back in the late nineteenth century — before the federal income tax, antitrust laws, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and the Federal Reserve. A time when robber barons — railroad, financial, and oil titans — ran the country. A time of wrenching squalor for the many and mind-numbing wealth for the few.

    Listen carefully to today’s Republican right and you hear the same Social Darwinism Americans were fed more than a century ago to justify the brazen inequality of the Gilded Age: Survival of the fittest. Don’t help the poor or unemployed or anyone who’s fallen on bad times, they say, because this only encourages laziness. America will be strong only if we reward the rich and punish the needy. ” [Robert Reich]

    Do you dismiss this brief history, Dana? Or will reviewing it cause you some pause?

  23. You’re not a fair observer, you’re not capable of reporting neutrally, and you’re unable to represent the OWS people except in your own caricatures.

    Here, Dana, is how a credible person states it:

    The protesters at Occupy Wall Street and their fellow travellers at We Are the 99% have a number of demands: lower unemployment, relieving the overwhelming debt burden, and making the tax structure more progressive to relieve middle class and poor people from carrying the tax burden.

  24. Not quite that simple I’m afraid, Hubey-wubey.

    But that is precisely what the question asked now, wasn’t it?

    Gosh, don’t you look foolish?

  25. You already dismiss credible sources because they disagree with your fantasies.

    Just because you call them credible does not [always] make them so, despite your delusions to the contrary. The sooner you realize this, the better, Kiwi Pussy.

  26. Just because you call them credible does not [always] make them so, despite your delusions to the contrary

    Uh-huh.

    Grow up and face reality some time, toddler.

  27. Grow up and face reality some time, toddler.

    Right. You cite a lefty blog to praise a lefty economist. As I said …

    Maybe you oughta try this.

    Time to piss on another Maori now, Kiwi Pussy.

  28. Now, a class at Hamilton College led by public policy professor P. Gary Wyckoff has analyzed the predictions of 26 prognosticators between September 2007 and December 2008. Their findings? Anyone can make as accurate a prediction as most of them if just by flipping a coin.

    The study was confined to the 2008 election season, starting at the beginning of September, 2007 and ending on December 31, 2008.

    LMAO …

  29. Perry wrote:

    Dana, I’m not the least bit surprised that you will come up with any excuse to demonize those who would subject themselves to adverse conditions for days on end in order to voice their protest. And there certainly is more than enough to protest, related to the economy and jobs.

    You claim to be a great proponent of strict, absolutist application of the First Amendment, until some folks speak/behave in a manner that you deem inappropriate, then you cannot wait to demonize them and in effect attempt to quash their voices, or until Hitchcock decides to delete some posts on your blog which he does not like.

    So what does this behavior make you, Dana? It certainly is not very complimentary of a person I used to hold in high regard. Let me just say that you are hardly living up to your Libertarian ideals.

    Perry, has anyone here said that the fleabaggers don’t have a right to express themselves? I certainly haven’t! However, in saying that they have a right to express themselves does not mean that it is inappropriate to criticize what they say or how they say it, a freedom which you exercise here just as much as anyone else.

    They want to live in the streets? Go right ahead! They want to bathe once a week, whether they need to or not? That’s entirely up to them. They want to mouth wholly uninformed and unrealistic socialist bromides? Hey, have at it! But if that is how they choose to express themselves, then they ought not to be surprised when I mock them.

    When I look at tyhe fleabaggers, I see people who are just so darned upset that their lives aren’t what they think they should be, and hurt that other people make more money than they do; it just isn’t fair! In a lot of ways, they are the embodiment of the feelings which motivated Karl Marx and the European socialists of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a feeling that things are just too unfair, just not right. Herr Marx managed to put it down in book form, complete with some important and intellectual-sounding economic projections, but he got it wholly wrong because he just never did understand human nature. Regardless of how much people like to say that they think that sharing is fair, individuals, on the whole, try to maximize their personal advantage, and it will always be that way. And despite Thomas Jefferson’s inspiring words in the Declaration of Independence — you know, the document he actually did write! :) — all men are not created equal. Some are stronger, some are smarter, some more diligent, some harder workers, some better looking, some taller, and some just plain luckier, and all of these things translate into real economic advantages. People are very different, and many of those differences result in greater or lesser economic success. That’s life, and it will never change.

  30. The Phoenician wrote:

    Here, Dana, is how a credible person states it:

    The protesters at Occupy Wall Street and their fellow travellers at We Are the 99% have a number of demands: lower unemployment, relieving the overwhelming debt burden, and making the tax structure more progressive to relieve middle class and poor people from carrying the tax burden.

    Assuming that to be an accurate statement, let’s look at it, shall we?

    Lower unemployment: to lower unemployment requires the creation of jobs, which is driven by increased demand. The federal government certainly tried that, both specifically with the misbegotten 2009 stimulus plan, and, more generally, with deficit spending for all but three years since 1969, and it still hasn’t worked. Regardless of our continual economic stimulation, we continue to have recession and growth periods. The 47%ers want the government to do something to create jobs, but, in the end, the government doesn’t create jobs. And the places with the best job growth in the United States just happen to be those states with the most conservative governments, the least interfering governments.

    Relieving the overwhelming debt burden: The conservatives have tried to lead the way in this, by saying we needed to pay our existing debts, and stop accruing new ones; it’s our friends on the left who want to keep piling on more and more debt.

    But, perhaps you are referring to individual, private debt? The 47%ers want someone else to pay off the debts for which they contracted, want someone else to pay for their past overspending? Yeah, I can actually see that people would like that. But as one of the 53%ers, I have absolutely no desire to make my familu and myself poorer by paying off someone else’s debts.

    Making the tax structure more progressive to relieve middle class and poor people from carrying the tax burden: the top producers already pay in far more than their fair share of taxes, with the top earners paying about twice as much of total federal income taxes as their share of total income. Some of the 47%ers actually get tax money back that they never paid in, through things like the Earned Income Tax Credit. But, in the end, it’s simple greed: they want other people to pay for their benefits. Fornicate that!

  31. Actually, Dana, I heard on the radio today that you’re wrong about the 47 percent. I heard that now, over 50 percent of Americans pay zero dollars in federal income tax (or less), while less than 50 percent pay all federal income tax. Yup, when you’re payin’ nuttin in, it’s easy to demand more out and give the finger to those who are actually paying in so you can be a Socialist leech on society.

    Perry’s red herring diversion shall be along shortly, as always with Perry the Red (herring).

  32. Let’s gut and fillet Perry’s standard-issue red herring now.

    Perry, what unfair taxes do the poor pay to the federal government in your Tenth Commandment violating soul?

    Is there a Federal Sales Tax, Perry? Come on, Perry. Is there a Federal Sales tax? Be truthful. Is there one? No, there isn’t. So you cannot use that demented attack against Conservatives or the Federal Government. Heck, there are a couple states that have neither an income tax nor a sales tax. And they are not the rabid Liberal/Socialist/Progressive states that you love so much.

    Is there a Federal Real Estate Tax, Perry? You know darn well there is no Federal Real Estate Tax. So you cannot use that in your demented attack against Conservatives or the Federal Government. But tell me, Perry, in your ever so intellectually honest mind (which only exists in fairy tales), do the poor pay State Real Estate Taxes? Come on, Perry. What say you? Darn tootin’, that’s a trick question. Because if you tell the truth to that question, it absolutely destroys your Tenth Commandment violating Class Warfare propaganda. And if you lie in your answer to that question, it does great harm to your Tenth Commandment violating Class Warfare propaganda that claims the poor pay too much in taxes.

    And do you want to bring up FICA and Medicare Taxes? Are you sure you want to broach those issues and the poor? As I have noted numerous times and Dana broached here, EITC returns more money than some people paid in. In fact, many people get so much money back from EITC that they get all their FICA and Medicare Taxes back, and more extra money on top of it, all due to EITC rules and regulations. In short, they pay neither Federal Income Taxes nor FICA nor Medicare Taxes, but rather get extra money (also called welfare payments among those who actually understand what’s going on) that they never paid in, to boot.

    So tell me, red herring Perry (who loves to death the act of violating the Tenth Commandment), what Federal Taxes are the poor paying too much of? Name those taxes. And name the side of the aisle that put those taxes in place.

    That is if you have even a shred of integrity to your name.

  33. Hitch:
    And do you want to bring up FICA and Medicare Taxes? Are you sure you want to broach those issues and the poor? As I have noted numerous times and Dana broached here, EITC returns more money than some people paid in. In fact, many people get so much money back from EITC that they get all their FICA and Medicare Taxes back, and more extra money on top of it, all due to EITC rules and regulations. In short, they pay neither Federal Income Taxes nor FICA nor Medicare Taxes, but rather get extra money (also called welfare payments among those who actually understand what’s going on) that they never paid in, to boot.

    They are like nine month olds. You feed them, burp them, change their crappy diapers, feed them again, and they still want more. Meanwhile, you’re stuck with the shit.

  34. When I look at tyhe fleabaggers, I see people who are just so darned upset that their lives aren’t what they think they should be, and hurt that other people make more money than they do; it just isn’t fair

    Why do you hate Marine veterans, Dana?

  35. Lower unemployment: to lower unemployment requires the creation of jobs, which is driven by increased demand

    Which means putting more money in the hands of those most likely to spend it, the poor.

    The federal government certainly tried that, both specifically with the misbegotten 2009 stimulus plan, and, more generally, with deficit spending for all but three years since 1969, and it still hasn’t worked

    You have been shown you are wrong. You continue to parrot lies.

    Relieving the overwhelming debt burden: The conservatives have tried to lead the way in this, by saying we needed to pay our existing debts, and stop accruing new ones;

    And you have been showen that you cannot reduce private debt, reduce public debt, and run a trade deficit. It is a mathematical impossibility.

    [Comment edited to repair broken html tag; no changes made to text. -- DRP]

  36. The Phoenician claimed:

    The federal government certainly tried that, both specifically with the misbegotten 2009 stimulus plan, and, more generally, with deficit spending for all but three years since 1969, and it still hasn’t worked

    You have been shown you are wrong. You continue to parrot lies.

    If I’m wrong, why are we, after stimulating the economy to the tune of over six trillion dollars over the last ten years, including $4 trillion in the last three years, in a period of very low growth, with many economists worrying about a double-dip recession? If the Keynesian stimulus plans you think are so brilliant actually work and have worked recently, why aren’t things just humming along splendidly?

    While I know that y’all can come up with all sorts of speculative numbers as to what you say would have happened without the 2009 stimulus plan, you can actually prove none of it; they are nothing but guesstimates. As for me, I’m not using guesstimates, but actual, real numbers1 of our total federal deficits, money added to our economy via action of the federal government which was not taken out of the economy via taxes, and was borrowed instead.

    Real numbers, Phoe, real numbers, not guesses, not estimates, not speculation, but actual, hard data, and those real numbers indicate that I’m the one who has been telling the truth, not you.

    We’ve been trying it your way, trying not just with the recession-encouraged stimulus plans, but all along, and where are we today?
    ________________________

    1. FY2012 budget, Historical Tables 1.1 The figure for FY2011 was replaced by me, away from the table estimate to the actual number reported at a few days ago. [back]
  37. It seems that the fleabaggers are getting support from all of the usual suspects around the world:

    The reclusive North Korean government says the Occupy movement shows that people are fed up with capitalism’s ills, and attributes the protests to the “extremely acute socio-class contradictions” created after the global financial crisis in 2007. The official Korean Central News Agency said North Koreans are proud of their socialist system because it is ruled by science and will continue flourish in the future. In a separate dispatch titled “Capitalism has no Future,” the agency said worldwide events never unfold the way imperialists want them to. North Korea is one of the world’s most impoverished nations and relies on outside aid to feed many of its 24 million people.

    Hat tip to Sister Toldjah. Hey, when you’ve got Kim Jong-il on your side, you just know you’re going to win. :)

  38. Just a few headlines fron Drudge today:

    JOBLESS CLAIMS TOP 400,000 — AGAIN…

    ‘Under-employed’ rate soars…

    ‘Misery Index’ Rises to Highest Since 1983…

    Americans’ Standard of Living Drops Sharply…( mostly due to a 3.9% rise in that nasty CPI, you know the inflation that Pho says dosen’t exist).

    You would think the people would notice these liberal/progressive/socialist/ marxist or whatever kleptocrats in office would try someting new, but no no, we must demonize “the rich” and fracture the nation more. Suddenly since I earn more than 200k a year I’m a “millionaire and billionaire” and deserve to be “eaten”, but not before they tax me more because “I owe them”. You see, I’m one of the bad guys, not the kleptocrats in Washington feeding our tax money to their crony capitalists who in turn shovel money back to their re-election campaigns. And the average salary in Washington, DC rose to $126,000 out pacing Silicon Valley and San Jose. What do they “produce” in DC?

    Certain rich guys are good though. Like Alec Baldwin or Michael Moore or Steve Jobs. Hell, Jobs created the iPhone (of course they were manucactured in China, how’s that for building American jobs?). Nancy Peloosi makes more off one of her Napa Valley wineries in a year han I’ve made in a lieftime but she’s with the fleabaggers. Of course she is, being a liberal means never having to say you’re sorrry, or wrong for that matter.

  39. I note that the demonization of the Occupy movement by the radical Righties on here continues in full force by the radical right boys on here, as expected!

    And the best they can come up with is innuendos, anecdotes, and outright lies. But that was/is also to be expected, and it will continue, you can bank on it!

    And then Dana here has the audacity to call instead for austerity, as if there is any historical or even logical argument presented that demonstrates the efficacy of such an approach. There is not! ‘Tis all ideology, and that hasn’t worked for us 99%ers in decades.

    As a matter of fact, the opposite is true. Take the UK on austerity – is it working? How are they doing? GDP is contracting, jobs are decreasing, and social unrest is increasing. Good solution, Dana!

    Or how about Greece on austerity? The country is falling apart, GDP has tanked, jobs are virtually disappearing, and the country is now in total chaos.

    In fact, the approach which does work is stimulus, because it has worked before (’33-’37), and because it has already worked recently, preventing us from going into a deep depression. Dana claims there is no proof. Ask Hank Paulson and GW Bush about that, Dana. We ALL know we were headed for a depression without TARP and ARRA, so you are just trying to rewrite history according to your ideology instead of acknowledging the reality which we faced, and still face. We are not over this crisis yet, as we have only bought a little time.

    To buy a little more time, we need more stimulus, like the Obama’s Jobs Act, which will create jobs, reduce taxes, and hire back teachers, police and firefighters, all paid for by taxing those making over a million a year.

    Problem is, the Repugs blocked it, preventing it from even coming up for a vote, because politically they think it won’t work for them to rescue the President. Well this is about rescuing the country, idiots! And guess what? They/you will have to answer for that come November 2012. Parsing the bill will not even be enough. In fact the bill is not even enough stimulus as it is.

    The idea is to use stimulus to get the economy growing, then to phase in austerity in order to address our deficit/debt problem. Makes a lot of sense to me!

  40. Hoagie defines the current symptoms:

    “Just a few headlines fron Drudge today:

    JOBLESS CLAIMS TOP 400,000 — AGAIN…

    ‘Under-employed’ rate soars…

    ‘Misery Index’ Rises to Highest Since 1983…

    Americans’ Standard of Living Drops Sharply…( mostly due to a 3.9% rise in that nasty CPI, you know the inflation that Pho says dosen’t exist). “

    This is why we’ve come to this “Occupy” movement, Hoagie. This is how deep in do-do we have slid, the culmination of a slide downward for the middle and poor which has been going on for decades, because the productivity increases achieved by the masses have gone mainly to the top 1%, which is unsustainable.

    And yes, Hoagie, you are in the 99% category, just like the rest of us on here. I want to see you with continued success. So let us get together and make the changes we need to make to put us back on track again.

    At least President Obama is making an effort. Please tell me what you see coming out of Congress that is a step in the right direction for us, and for that matter, the Repub candidates for the nomination to be President. I detect no vision for the future from any of them!

  41. “That is if you have even a shred of integrity to your name.”

    I’ll skip the integrity issue, considering the source of this remark, but just say, Hitchcock, to debate taxes, you must look at the impact of the total tax picture, federal, state, local, and others on folks, a point I have made in detail many times on here. Your focus only on federal taxes is at least very misleading and at most totally meaningless. But then again, that is to be expected from a propagandist who selects out only that which supports some ideological point.

  42. Perry wrote:

    In fact, the approach which does work is stimulus, because it has worked before (’33-’37), and because it has already worked recently, preventing us from going into a deep depression. Dana claims there is no proof. Ask Hank Paulson and GW Bush about that, Dana. We ALL know we were headed for a depression without TARP and ARRA, so you are just trying to rewrite history according to your ideology instead of acknowledging the reality which we faced, and still face. We are not over this crisis yet, as we have only bought a little time.

    Really? Then why didn’t the almost constant stimulation of our economy, through deficit spending allowing us to spend more dollars than we earned, keep our economy humming along? Regardless of whether you believe it worked in the 1930s, it hasn’t worked this time.

    And no, we don’t “ALL know we were headed for a depression without TARP and ARRA.” You assume such to be the case, but you don’t know it, and can’t know it. Even President Obama didn’t think so: he projected unemployment to rise to 9% if we hadn’t passed the porkulus plan, certainly high, but nowhere near depression level conditions, and lower than where unemployment topped out in the 1981-2 and 1991-2 recessions.

  43. Perry wrote:

    At least President Obama is making an effort.

    Oh, he certainly is, but making an effort and actually being successful are two different things. Donovan McNabb was making an effort with the Minnesota Vikings, and he was certainly given a fair chance to succeed there, but he didn’t, and now he’s been benched.

    Please tell me what you see coming out of Congress that is a step in the right direction for us, and for that matter, the Repub candidates for the nomination to be President. I detect no vision for the future from any of them!

    That’s because you don’t agree with their views, but they certainly have visions for the future.

  44. I undertand your frustration Perry, I’m frustrated too. Tuesday I had a heart to heart with a close friend about how he’s barely able to keep his head above water. Tomorrow I’m having lunch with another old friend to to talk about another mutual friend who can’t make ends meet in a business he’s been in 40 years. My buddy wants me to come up with a marketing and “upgrading” idea to bring the guy into the 21st century.

    But I gotta tell you Perry, throwing in with socialists, communists, nazis, anarchists, North Korea and other assorted and sundry thugs and neerdowells isn’t the answer. Neither is demonizing 1% of the population and making them the scapegoat for all the ills of the world. We’re all Americans Perry, even that hated 1% and we’re all entitled to equal treatment ubder law. Now if you are prepared to shrug off all your precincieved notions and take a look from outside the box you may be able to realize that the same old lies from the same old liars ain’t doin’ it any more.

    The other thing is, if we demonize the 1% then why not 5%, or the top 10%? You guys can play the blame game all day long but if you won’t change the cast of characters making the rules the story will always turn out the same. With few exceptions they’ve been pulling the same crap for 70 years and we now have 14 trillion in debt, a AA credit rating, 9.1% unemployment to show for it.

  45. If I’m wrong, why are we, after stimulating the economy to the tune of over six trillion dollars over the last ten years, including $4 trillion in the last three years, in a period of very low growth, with many economists worrying about a double-dip recession? If the Keynesian stimulus plans you think are so brilliant actually work and have worked recently, why aren’t things just humming along splendidly?

    You have been pointed at this before. Read and learn.

  46. And then Dana here has the audacity to call instead for austerity, as if there is any historical or even logical argument presented that demonstrates the efficacy of such an approach. There is not! ‘Tis all ideology, and that hasn’t worked for us 99%ers in decades.

    You don’t even have to look at history. Go look at what has happened to Britain.

  47. Perry wrote:

    to debate taxes, you must look at the impact of the total tax picture, federal, state, local, and others on folks, a point I have made in detail many times on here. Your focus only on federal taxes is at least very misleading and at most totally meaningless.

    Well, for most of us 53%ers, our federal income tax bill is the biggest one we pay. Everyone pays Social Security and Medicare taxes, the top producers as well as lower income people. But we 53%ers wind up paying federal income taxes on top of that.

    Most states have state income taxes; Pennsylvania’s is a flat 3.07%, but there are tax forgiveness provisions which refund some state income taxes to lower income people. California, on the other and, charges the top producers 10.3% in state income taxes. Amazingly enough, despite the very high taxes in the Pyrite State, they’re still way in the hole; it’s almost as if the problem isn’t taxes being too low, but spending being too high.

  48. The other thing is, if we demonize the 1% then why not 5%, or the top 10%?

    Because of this graph.

    Oh, wait a minute – it’s Hoagie asking.

    Because of COMMON SENSE!!!! Which means I win and you lose. Suck it.

  49. I’ll note that Perry has once again acted without integrity (as he always does) in that he absolutely chose to ignore the challenge to his red herring before he produced his red herring (that I said he would produce).

    Perry, now that you have proven that you have zero integrity, do you want a mulligan? Name the taxes outside the list of taxes I already showed had nothing to do with the Federal Government, and name the side of the aisle that implemented those taxes. It shouldn’t be all that difficult, especially since part B of the challenge is well-known and obvious. But you don’t actually want to debate facts; you merely want to obfuscate, redirect, throw red herrings, and make baseless accusations you have no intention of backing up with any facts. As has been the case with you for over three years and all across the blogosphere, so will be the case with you from this point forward. You have zero integrity and you always had zero integrity and you always will have zero integrity.

  50. Perry wrote:

    We Americans by far spend more on the military than any other nation on earth. And, as individuals, we spend almost double for our health care than any other developed nation. For these expenditures we should be proud?

    Remember our Kiwi Kommenter and his ingrown toenails? Yeah, the New Zealand single-payer system would have taken care of them for him . . . if he’d have been so kind as to wait, in pain, with his toenails still growing, for something like four months. Instead, he chose to pay, out of pocket, to have a very painful problem taken care of promptly, by the same podiatrist (podiatrists?) who would have done the job on the state’s dime if he had just waited for a few months.

    In the US, we have podiatrists actually advertising for patients; if you have an ingrown toenail bad enough that it requires that kind of treatment, you can get it done today.

    Or perhaps you’ll remember the story about the Premier of Labrador and Newfoundland, Danny Williams, decided to get his heart condition treated in the United States, promptly, rather than have to wait and suffer through the “free” single-payer Canadian health care system.

    So, yeah, we do pay more for our health care, but we also get much more.

  51. “So, yeah, we do pay more for our health care, but we also get much more.”

    These are two examples, thus anecdotal, therefore meaningless, Dana. But you and your buddy Hitchcock do this all the time!

    How about the Americans who travel south or east to get major surgeries in other lands, of high quality and at much lower cost. You never mention that.

    I can give you plenty of anecdotal tales of relatives and other people I know who’ve received lousy medical services right here in the good old USA. Shall I now form a general conclusion from that sampling of experience, like you do?

    But speaking personally, I have received quality care at reasonable cost, mainly because I have had insurance all my life, and because I am particular regarding my choice of medical service providers. But what about the 50 million Americans who are not insured, Dana? Means absolutely nothing to you, I’ve come to understand that very well! But it means something to President Obama and the Dems, just like the environment did to TR, just like Social Security did to FDR, just like Civil Rights did to LBJ, just like welfare-to-work did to BC. And even you regressive, unthankful Repubs have benefited greatly from these social programs. But that’s OK, we Dems care about your welfare anyway, in spite of your hard-hearted, uncaring demeanor toward your fellow Americans!!!

  52. DP:
    Yeah, the New Zealand single-payer system would have taken care of them for him . . . if he’d have been so kind as to wait, in pain, with his toenails still growing, for something like four months. Instead, he chose to pay, out of pocket, to have a very painful problem taken care of promptly, by the same podiatrist (podiatrists?) who would have done the job on the state’s dime if he had just waited for a few months.

    In the US, we have podiatrists actually advertising for patients; if you have an ingrown toenail bad enough that it requires that kind of treatment, you can get it done today.

    Today, as of right about now, is the 5th anniversary of Dr. Bill stealing my leg. Two days before this surgery I had an ingrown toenail on the big toe of the leg Dr. Bill sawed off. I thought why do anything about because it would soon be gone. After surgery all went well. About two weeks later, due to phantom pain and sensation, I started to feel the pain of the ingrown toenail. Well, I thought I have no leg or foot or toe, so why does it hurt? Then I remembered the Phantom Pain. The brain has the nervous system totally mapped out and knows where things hurt, not hurt, or feel good, even if it doesn’t exist anymore. So, how do you take care of a pain from where nothing exists? Well, you get out your phantom nail clippers and other things and pretend you’re work ing on it. Well that didn’t work. So, you just grin and bear it, and laugh. Or take two aspirin and call yourself in the morning.

  53. “You have zero integrity and you always had zero integrity and you always will have zero integrity.”

    Yet you seem to lower yourself to respond to my post, don’t you Hitchcock? You are such a loser, demonstrably so, time and again, as this example proves one more time.

    My point remains, that the total taxes paid have to be taken into account to assess the impact on people at different income levels. Your point about the EITC paying for SS and Medicare taxes has to be documented to be believed, especially considering that you wrote it. And regarding property taxes, of course everyone pays it, even renters, indirectly. Moreover, sales taxes, which most states have, impact the middle and poor much more than those with higher incomes. And finally, you know as well as I that the wealthy hire accountants and tax lawyers to lower their taxes. Think about Warren Buffet and his secretary, as one example which is probably typical. And we all know about the Corporate tax loopholes. So please, don’t continue to give me this cry baby stuff about the impact of taxes on the middle and poor, because you are dead wrong, as usual!!!

  54. “But I gotta tell you Perry, throwing in with socialists, communists, nazis, anarchists, North Korea and other assorted and sundry thugs and neerdowells isn’t the answer.”

    Come on, Hoagie, you can do better than this. You are behaving just like the people who called the TEA Partyers Nazis. You simply have little idea about the make up of the Occupy movement! Or if you do, then you have to document it for your comments to be anything other than made up stuff.

    Secondly, who is demonizing the 1%? It does not take a genius to be informed about the behavior of the Wall Street manipulators who created worthless default swaps, and the multimillion dollar bonuses paid to these people, or to note the outrageous salaries paid to many large corporation CEO’s, even the ones who have led failed companies. And then we have the ratings agencies who gave triple A ratings to the likes of AIG. This is not demonizing, Hoagie, it is revealing the truth, and that is a good thing. And now shall I start on the corruption of our government by these people who can afford to do it and do it. There’s plenty of documentation to back up these allegations, and you know it! So please don’t play the foil, Hoagie.

  55. “That’s because you don’t agree with their views, but they certainly have visions for the future.”

    Sure they do, Dana! And the vision for creating jobs and growing the economy is exactly what? Or are you waiting until November 2012 to give us all your wisdom???

  56. “And no, we don’t “ALL know we were headed for a depression without TARP and ARRA.””

    Then Dana, I have to say it: You simply are not telling the truth.

  57. “So, you just grin and bear it, and laugh. Or take two aspirin and call yourself in the morning.”

    You have a great attitude about this whole thing, Yorkshire! I would think that five years would erase this phenomenon, but apparently not. Your story makes me think of the tens of thousands of our vets who have been wounded in battle, yet we still read that they are not being adequately cared for by our government, a pox on President Bush, and now a pox on President Obama.

  58. Perry doesn’t seem to know what “all” means:

    “And no, we don’t “ALL know we were headed for a depression without TARP and ARRA.””

    Then Dana, I have to say it: You simply are not telling the truth.

    Given that I certainly don’t know such a thing, your use of the word “ALL,” which you stressed with capitalization, makes your statement the incorrect one. It takes only one person to not :know” such a thing to make your statement false.

    But the fact is that no one actually knew that “we were headed for a depression without TARP and ARRA,” because only God knows the future; the rest of us can only guess at it. As I pointed out earlier, even President Obama, in his eagerness to sell his porkulus plan, made no such projections in the absence of passing it. He said that unemployment would have been higher — a whopping 9% — if the pork plan wasn’t passed, but 9% unemployment isn’t depression level, and that number was exceeded in two previous recessions which were never considered depressions.

    Perry, one of us told the truth in this brief exchange, but I’m afraid it wasn’t you.

  59. Perry wrote:

    “That’s because you don’t agree with their views, but they certainly have visions for the future.”

    Sure they do, Dana! And the vision for creating jobs and growing the economy is exactly what? Or are you waiting until November 2012 to give us all your wisdom???

    Perry, in the right hand side bar of this blog, you will find the links to the campaign websites of every one of the Republican candidates, and without my bothering to do the work for you, you can go to any and all of them and look up their economic plans; I would guess that they all have something up. Rick Perry, for one, has a plan posted, and he’s going to be announcing a new flat tax plan sometime next week. You might not like his plans, or anyone else’s, but when you try to claim that the Republicans have no plans or are keeping them all deep dark secrets from us, you are not telling the truth.

    Heck, it’s entirely possible that the next President’s economic plans, if passed by the Congress, would utterly fail. If that turns out to be the case, they’ll have done just as well as has President Obama.

  60. Perry says:
    20 October 2011 at 19:28

    “So, you just grin and bear it, and laugh. Or take two aspirin and call yourself in the morning.”

    You have a great attitude about this whole thing, Yorkshire! I would think that five years would erase this phenomenon, but apparently not. Your story makes me think of the tens of thousands of our vets who have been wounded in battle, yet we still read that they are not being adequately cared for by our government, a pox on President Bush, and now a pox on President Obama.

    Five years ago at Walter Reed AMC, the Army built a state of the art Amputee training center. I know, because I was personally on and ran the selection committee that picked the contractor to design and build it. I still had two legs then. After it was built, and after my surgery, I went to visit the site physically. It was built to accomdate the soldier and his or family. It was built with the latest in training equipment, and for fitting of prosthetics. They went as far as adding an indoor running track, and all terrain treadmill, a rifle range (no bullets, all electronics. Tried it out) a rock climbing wall (2 stories) This center was duplicated at Ft. Hood. With WRAMC being closed, the center is being moved to Bethesda joint forces hospital and to Ft. Belvoir.

    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/military_amputee_070912w/

    But I don’t do stand -up comedy. And if I were a woman, my name would be Eileen.

  61. I note that the demonization of the Occupy movement by the radical Righties on here continues in full force by the radical right boys on here, as expected! And the best they can come up with is innuendos, anecdotes, and outright lies. But that was/is also to be expected, and it will continue, you can bank on it!

    And I note that Perry is yet again acting like the insanely hypocritical asshole that he’s proven himself to be 100% of the time here!

  62. Perry, your point remains that you refuse to answer my questions because in doing so, you would utterly destroy your own propagandistic agenda. And as Dana has so helpfully pointed out, you are replete with false statements (called lies) while you accuse others (who are telling the truth) of lying. It’s what you do. It’s why you are disdained at Conservative sites, Libertarian sites and by other Liberals. Because you’re hyper-partisan and dishonest in your agenda and your passive-aggressive assaults on people who point out your continued failings and flailings. You have no sense of integrity whatsoever.

    And no, I’m not going to do your work for you. There are numerous Federal Income Tax sites where you can plug in numbers that are affected by EITC. You can find out for yourself that there is a wage range where people getting EITC get every cent of their Federal Income Tax, every cent of their FICA tax, every cent of their Medicare tax, and more “back” in the form of a Federal Income Tax Refund.

    By the way, when are you going to apologize for falsely accusing me of lying when I talked about Roseanne Barr’s suggestion of re-education camps and the guillotine for people who refused to live without their large personal wealth, since I provided unassailable proof that she did in that very same thread?

    When are you going to admit that the three big Broadcast Networks have vastly larger numbers of viewers than the Cable FOX News Network, since unassailable proof of that was also provided for your lazy butt in the very same thread?

    Or are you going to continue on with your lies and false accusations as you always do?

  63. Hitch:
    And no, I’m not going to do your work for you. There are numerous Federal Income Tax sites where you can plug in numbers that are affected by EITC. You can find out for yourself that there is a wage range where people getting EITC get every cent of their Federal Income Tax, every cent of their FICA tax, every cent of their Medicare tax, and more “back” in the form of a Federal Income Tax Refund.

    I will say this about EITC. Last year I did a tax return for a low wage earner. Income was in the moderate 4 digit range, and income taxes withheld were in the low 3 digit range. When TurboTax ran the numbers, the return to the person was 4 digits or over 3 times the amount amount of income taxes withheld.

  64. “And no, I’m not going to do your work for you. There are numerous Federal Income Tax sites where you can plug in numbers that are affected by EITC. You can find out for yourself that there is a wage range where people getting EITC get every cent of their Federal Income Tax, every cent of their FICA tax, every cent of their Medicare tax, and more “back” in the form of a Federal Income Tax Refund.”

    Of course not, because your original point was invalid, and you know it! You refuse to consider the impact on folks of the total tax package, not just the federal taxes. That’s on you!

    “By the way, when are you going to apologize for falsely accusing me of lying when I talked about Roseanne Barr’s suggestion of re-education camps and the guillotine for people who refused to live without their large personal wealth, since I provided unassailable proof that she did in that very same thread?”

    Citation please!

    “When are you going to admit that the three big Broadcast Networks have vastly larger numbers of viewers than the Cable FOX News Network, since unassailable proof of that was also provided for your lazy butt in the very same thread?”

    You forgot that I pointed out to you that the data re the networks included not only the News shows, but also all the “touches”, therefore your contention was invalid.

    “Or are you going to continue on with your lies and false accusations as you always do?”

    This coming from a demonstrated liar who would not recognize the truth even if he tripped over it!!!

  65. “And no, I’m not going to do your work for you. There are numerous Federal Income Tax sites where you can plug in numbers that are affected by EITC. You can find out for yourself that there is a wage range where people getting EITC get every cent of their Federal Income Tax, every cent of their FICA tax, every cent of their Medicare tax, and more “back” in the form of a Federal Income Tax Refund.”

    Of course not, because your original point was invalid, and you know it!

    Absolutely wrong, Perry. Not only is my original point valid but it’s also sound and factual. And if you got off your lazy butt and did the research for yourself, you’d know it.

    “By the way, when are you going to apologize for falsely accusing me of lying when I talked about Roseanne Barr’s suggestion of re-education camps and the guillotine for people who refused to live without their large personal wealth, since I provided unassailable proof that she did in that very same thread?”

    Citation please!

    No, Perry. You continued blustering in that very thread long after the proof was given, even after you were repeatedly pointed to that proof, as you continued to ignore it.

    “When are you going to admit that the three big Broadcast Networks have vastly larger numbers of viewers than the Cable FOX News Network, since unassailable proof of that was also provided for your lazy butt in the very same thread?”

    You forgot that I pointed out to you that the data re the networks included not only the News shows, but also all the “touches”, therefore your contention was invalid.

    No, Perry. Hube gave the actual viewership numbers, not the internet hits, that proved the case, in the very same thread where you accused me of lying about Rosanne Barr’s asininity and refused to retract your false accusation in the face of unassailable proof.

    “Or are you going to continue on with your lies and false accusations as you always do?”

    This coming from a demonstrated liar who would not recognize the truth even if he tripped over it!!!

    No, Perry. Nobody here has ever been able to demonstrate where I have ever lied, despite your false accusations and myriad allusions to something nobody here has ever been able to demonstrate. On the contrary, multiple people have already shown that I have not lied, despite the accusations of the “Two Ps in a Pod”. But you’ll continue with your lies and rumors and false accusations, and you’ll continue refusing to apologize for any of it when confronted with the truth, because that’s who you are.

  66. But I continue to note that you refuse to answer my questions, because the answers to my questions would destroy your propagandistic hyper-partisan radical Leftist claims.

  67. “I will say this about EITC. Last year I did a tax return for a low wage earner. Income was in the moderate 4 digit range, and income taxes withheld were in the low 3 digit range. When TurboTax ran the numbers, the return to the person was 4 digits or over 3 times the amount amount of income taxes withheld.”

    Yorkshire, four digits is nnnn. Is that what you meant? I suggest you give another try at explaining your point.

  68. “And I note that Perry is I, Hube, am yet again acting like the insanely hypocritical asshole that he’s proven himself to be 100% of the time here!”

    Just thought I’d step in and make your correction for you, Hube! :)

  69. “But I don’t do stand -up comedy. And if I were a woman, my name would be Eileen.”

    Sorry, Yorkshire, but that one goes past me.

    But anyway, on the subject of care for our vets, It took a crisis before Bush et al reacted. Then the Walter Reed AMC was expanded and refurbished and repopulated with care givers, which is why I am amazed to hear that after all that they are moving it. I hope it is for good reason.

    I am still reading stories of our returning vets who are not being properly cared for, and, who are having great difficulty finding jobs. President Obama has called attention to this, but it is up to us to retrain these folks and up to the private sector to hire them.

  70. “I would guess that they all have something up.”

    Right, and they have all signed the Norquist no tax pledge, which pretty well nullifies any of their plans, because without even reading them I know it is going to be more of the same old same old Republican crapola which has caused many of the economic problems from which we are suffering: cut taxes, small government, kill the EPA, dump the education department, privatize social security, cut Medicaid, cut Medicare — we’ve heard it all, nothing new and little worthwhile!!!

  71. “Perry, one of us told the truth in this brief exchange, but I’m afraid it wasn’t you.”

    Right, my error was in assuming a modicum of intelligence being possessed by “our friends” on the Right.

  72. “But I continue to note that you refuse to answer my questions, because the answers to my questions would destroy your propagandistic hyper-partisan radical Leftist claims.”

    Each and every one of your questions have been answered, Hitchcock. Now go ahead and read them, then THINK this time around!

  73. Each and every one of your questions have been answered, Hitchcock. Now go ahead and read them, then THINK this time around!

    To quote Representative Joe Wilson: You lie! (Because you have not even attempted to answer my questions, and you continue to avoid answering my questions, and you will continue to avoid answering my questions. Because if you answered my questions, your propagandistic hyper-partisan radical Left-Wing talking points would be dead.)

  74. Perry, referencing this comment, wrote:

    “Perry, one of us told the truth in this brief exchange, but I’m afraid it wasn’t you.”

    Right, my error was in assuming a modicum of intelligence being possessed by “our friends” on the Right.

    The quote of mine that Perry omitted was:

    Given that I certainly don’t know such a thing, your use of the word “ALL,” which you stressed with capitalization, makes your statement the incorrect one. It takes only one person to not :know” such a thing to make your statement false.

    But the fact is that no one actually knew that “we were headed for a depression without TARP and ARRA,” because only God knows the future; the rest of us can only guess at it. As I pointed out earlier, even President Obama, in his eagerness to sell his porkulus plan, made no such projections in the absence of passing it. He said that unemployment would have been higher — a whopping 9% — if the pork plan wasn’t passed, but 9% unemployment isn’t depression level, and that number was exceeded in two previous recessions which were never considered depressions.

    Well, apparently President Obama also lacks “a modicum of intelligence,” because he certainly never “knew” that “we were headed for a depression without TARP and ARRA,” given that, in his eagerness to get the stimulus plan passed, he neither made such an argument nor presented projections which would have shown we were headed for a depression if the stimulus plan wasn’t passed.

    But, perhaps we disagree on what constitutes “a modicum of intelligence.” To me, a statement that no one can know — know being defined as having certain knowledge, as opposed to selecting from a list of unprovable projections — what the future will bring is displaying intelligence. The last I knew, only God knew, absolutely, what would happen in the future; such foresight seems to be denied to men.

    What doesn’t display “a modicum of intelligence” is a flat statement that something would have happened, as in absolute terms — and how many times have you decried “absolutism” on this site? — and that “ALL” people knew this. Even in physics, there is a small quantum uncertainty, but the topic here is economics, a less than exact science, and a subject on which even the President you support has demonstrated he can’t project future events very accurately.

    In the end, your position is based on the odd notion that we must all accept the premises under which you operate, and if we don’t accept them, why we just aren’t very smart. Trouble is, we have a President who uses pretty much the same premises as do you, and he based his policies on them, and though it was a struggle, he got his policies passed by the 111th Congress . . . and they didn’t work! Unemployment is significantly higher than what the President projected it would be, and growth is much smaller than he told us it would be. Naturally, your “defense” is that we didn’t know how bad the recession would be, but that attempt to move the goalposts to cover up for President Obama’s failures carries with it the refutation of your own arguments: if you tell us that we didn’t know just how serious the recession would be, then we couldn’t “ALL” have known that “we were headed for a depression without TARP and ARRA,” could we?

  75. Perry says:
    20 October 2011 at 23:55 (Edit)

    “I will say this about EITC. Last year I did a tax return for a low wage earner. Income was in the moderate 4 digit range, and income taxes withheld were in the low 3 digit range. When TurboTax ran the numbers, the return to the person was 4 digits or over 3 times the amount amount of income taxes withheld.”

    Yorkshire, four digits is nnnn. Is that what you meant? I suggest you give another try at explaining your point.

    I would, but it would betray the trust of the person I helped. And I thought a 3 or 4 digit number is self explanatory. But I guess it isn’t for some people on the left.

  76. Perry:
    Sorry, Yorkshire, but that one goes past me.

    ONE LEG

    But anyway, on the subject of care for our vets, It took a crisis before Bush et al reacted. Then the Walter Reed AMC was expanded and refurbished and repopulated with care givers, which is why I am amazed to hear that after all that they are moving it. I hope it is for good reason.

    It was finished before the mold showed up in a corner of a rented building. And as far as moving, blame Congress for BRAC.

  77. But I don’t do stand -up comedy. And if I were a woman, my name would be Eileen.

    Hoagie says:
    20 October 2011 at 20:40

    And if you were a Korean woman your name would be Irene.

    Dana Pico says:
    20 October 2011 at 21:02

    Oh, man, June is so going to smack you for that one!

    By accident I ran into a Amputee Joke page on FaceBook the other night. Gotta check it again. Need new material. But I am available for the three legged race at the first CSPT Picnic some year.

  78. “Perry yet again proves why he’s the memory-loss champion of CSPT. Perry also yet again proves why he is worthy of great disdain wherever he posts anything, due to his complete lack of integrity whatsoever. But that’s to be expected from someone who was slapped down for one of his big lies back in the early days of 2009 but continues to use it to this day.”

    A modicum of intelligence would go a long way here, Dana.

    First of all, you missed the fact that “all” was a hyperbolic figure of speech. I guess that needs to be spelled out when used in the future.

    Secondly, people smarter than you and I feared that we were in for a global depression due to the fraudulent behaviors on Wall Street, added to the unconscionable personal and national debt that the policies of your party and the Fed (Greenspan) generated during your party’s rein of terror, er power.

    There is no President who could have successfully pulled us out of this mess given what President Obama inherited. Under the circumstances, (Repub obfuscation via the Senate filibuster), it is remarkable how well Obama has done.

    And talk about moving the goal posts, Dana, you do this frequently, like just now in attempting to shift the blame from Cheney/Bush to President Obama.

    So yes, a modicum of intelligence would be most pleasant to detect here, and a little bit of honesty thrown in, instead of political spin, would be welcomed as well!

  79. Under the circumstances, (Repub obfuscation via the Senate filibuster), it is remarkable how well Obama has done.

    Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn. Been there, done that, and Perry was made to look like an idiot THERE, too.

    BTW Perry, why has Obama been the beneficiary of more Wall Street cash than all the GOP prez candidates combined, hmm? (Cue the blame on the GOP for that one too in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 …)

  80. After a couple of comments, Perry backs off:

    First of all, you missed the fact that “all” was a hyperbolic figure of speech. I guess that needs to be spelled out when used in the future.

    Given that it was emphasized, by being placed in all capitals, I thought it was being stressed.

    Then he backs off a second part:

    Secondly, people smarter than you and I feared that we were in for a global depression due to the fraudulent behaviors on Wall Street, added to the unconscionable personal and national debt that the policies of your party and the Fed (Greenspan) generated during your party’s rein of terror, er power.

    The original statement was that “We ALL know we were headed for a depression without TARP and ARRA. . . .” Now “ALL” has become (some?) “people smarter than you and I” and “know we were headed for a depression” has become “feared that we were in for a global depression.”

    Let me be plain with this: you have now backed off of both parts of your original statement, which brings it in agreement with what I wrote here and here1, that nobody can know it, because nobody knows what the future will bring. Yet, when I challenged your original statement — a challenge with which you now agree — you called me a liar:

    Then Dana, I have to say it: You simply are not telling the truth.

    OK, now that we have the unpleasant part of the debate out of the way, we can address your revised statement.

    Secondly, people smarter than you and I feared that we were in for a global depression due to the fraudulent behaviors on Wall Street, added to the unconscionable personal and national debt that the policies of your party and the Fed (Greenspan) generated during your party’s rein of terror, er power.

    Assuming that you meant, but simply omitted, the modifier “some” before “people smarter than you or I,” your statement would almost certainly be correct: I am sure that there were some people, maybe even some of the few2 who actually are smarter than I am, feared, worried, fretted, were concerned, however you wish to word it, that we were headed toward a global depression. But it is also true that there were some people, possibly including some of the few who are smarter than you or I, who did not believe that a global depression was approaching or even a significant possibility. I noted that, whatever President Obama might have believed, deep down, he made absolutely no projections suggesting that we were headed toward a depression. The fact is that a depression might have occurred had the porkulus plan not been passed, but it also might not have occurred, and while professional economists can make projections either way, such do not constitute proof.

    To put it briefly: your claims that President Obama and his plans staved off a depression are unsupported and unsupportable. You may believe that such is the case, but your beliefs do not constitute proof of any sort. And calling someone a liar because he does not accept your unproven and unprovable beliefs hardly falls within calling for “a little bit of honesty.

    ______________________________

    1. The second link came after Perry accused me of lying. [back]
    2. Few million, anyway :) [back]
  81. Perry wrote:

    There is no President who could have successfully pulled us out of this mess given what President Obama inherited. Under the circumstances, (Repub obfuscation via the Senate filibuster), it is remarkable how well Obama has done.

    Actually, I agree: “There is no President who could have successfully pulled us out of this mess given what President Obama inherited,” not because President Obama “inherited” it, but because the government simply does not control the economy, as I have said many times before. The government, at best, nibbles around the edges, but the economy is controlled by the billions of economic decisions taken by over a hundred and fifty million economic actors, every day. Our government tries to influence those decisions, but can’t control them.

    But while the government can’t control the economy, it can do some rather harmful things, and one of those harmful things was adding nearly a trillion dollars in additional debt for the porkulus plan. It didn’t get us out of the recession, but it did obligate us to send a good chunk of the fruits of our productivity in the future overseas, and out of our economy; for a plan which did not get us out of the recession, we will make Americans a little bit poorer in the future. I don’t see that as particularly wise.

    As for “Repub obfuscation via the Senate filibuster,” while I believe you meant “obstruction” rather than obfuscation, the greatest problem we faced was that the filibusters slowed things down a bit, but, in the end, did not stop the porkulus plan and ObaminableCare from being passed. It’s kind of difficult for you to blame Republican filibusters when y’all got your legislation passed despite them.

    And talk about moving the goal posts, Dana, you do this frequently, like just now in attempting to shift the blame from Cheney/Bush to President Obama.

    So yes, a modicum of intelligence would be most pleasant to detect here, and a little bit of honesty thrown in, instead of political spin, would be welcomed as well!

    Perry, President Obama asked for the responsibility for the economy, remember? And he campaigned on claiming that he would fix things, and blaming his predecessor for everything bad which happened, so I think it’s perfectly fair to hold him accountable for the state of the economy, whether he could actually have done anything about it or not; call it hoist by his own petard if you will, or perhaps karmic justice.

    Of course, whether you think it’s fair or I think it’s fair, it has been a demonstrated trait of the American electorate to hold the President and the President’s party responsible for the state of the economy. In 2010, the voters held the President’s party responsible, since Mr Obama wasn’t up for re-election then, and it is my guess that they will hold him responsible 13½ months from now. If the economy improves between now and then, he’ll be re-elected; if it doesn’t, he won’t.

    But it’s amusing to note that President Obama isn’t trying to run on his own record right now, but on trashing his opponents. His campaign slogan seems to be, “yeah, I suck, but the Republicans are even worse.”

  82. But President Obama is running on his record, as perusal of his web page lists them in great detail.

    But back on topic, the following lists one of the main gripes being made about the mess that Wall Street and the Republicans have caused:

  83. Looks like I was spot-on when I wrote

    BTW Perry, why has Obama been the beneficiary of more Wall Street cash than all the GOP prez candidates combined, hmm? (Cue the blame on the GOP for that one too in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 …)

    Thanks for proving me right, Fossil!

  84. What’s wrong with the picture? First off, it’s wrong. Bernie Madoff is in jail, remember. The people who have actually been convicted of crimes are in jail.

    The trouble is that you claim that people who have neither been convicted nor even accused (as in legally accused, indicted) of a crime are criminals. Last I knew, it wasn’t a crime to make money, nor even a crime to lose money.

  85. “What’s wrong with the picture? First off, it’s wrong. Bernie Madoff is in jail, remember. The people who have actually been convicted of crimes are in jail.

    The trouble is that you claim that people who have neither been convicted nor even accused (as in legally accused, indicted) of a crime are criminals. Last I knew, it wasn’t a crime to make money, nor even a crime to lose money.”

    Dana, I think you are not at all informed about allegations of Wall Street crimes together with coverups and destruction of evidence, especially by the SEC. Here is an introduction for you. I suggest you read through Matt Taibbi’s entire piece. Here is an excerpt:

    Much has been made in recent months of the government’s glaring failure to police Wall Street; to date, federal and state prosecutors have yet to put a single senior Wall Street executive behind bars for any of the many well-documented crimes related to the financial crisis. Indeed, Flynn’s accusations dovetail with a recent series of damaging critiques of the SEC made by reporters, watchdog groups and members of Congress, all of which seem to indicate that top federal regulators spend more time lunching, schmoozing and job-interviewing with Wall Street crooks than they do catching them. As one former SEC staffer describes it, the agency is now filled with so many Wall Street hotshots from oft-investigated banks that it has been “infected with the Goldman mindset from within.”"

    There have been some firms fined, but no jail terms. And who do you think pays the fines? Answer: The stockholders!

    Now you see the truth to that cartoon I posted above!

  86. OK, so now you are stating that, due to an article from a left-wing source — I am familiar with Reader Supported News; that’s where Marc Ash, the guy who kept cocaine-addled “journalist” Jason Leopold on the payroll at truthout.org, now resides and blegs — that people you don’t like may be defined as “criminals” even thought they have been neither convicted or indicted of anything? And, of course, you make the excuse that the federal regulators are in bed with the “criminals,” so there can’t be any convictions. Your “proof” becomes perfectly circular: they are criminals because I say they are, but they haven’t been convicted of anything because the regulators are corrupt, having come from the criminal organizations in the first place.

    Well, the Department of Justice under the esteemed Eric Holder isn’t an independent regulatory agency like the Securities and Exchange Commission, so if you believe that there is a massive crime wave on Wall Street and a thorough cover-up by the SEC, the obvious question becomes: why isn’t the Justice Department, under President Obama and Attorney General Holder, doing anything about it? These are the guys you support, and the President you believe has done a tremendous job and for whom you plan to vote next year; if it’s just so obvious that there is criminal activity, obvious to “reporters, watchdog groups and members of Congress,” why hasn’t the Justice Department done anything about it?

    You quoted Mr Tiabbi:

    As one former SEC staffer describes it, the agency is now filled with so many Wall Street hotshots from oft-investigated banks that it has been “infected with the Goldman mindset from within.”

    Really? Federal salaries are capped, and no one in the federal government may be paid more than the top Members of Congress and Supreme Court Justices, other than the President and Vice President; we are talking about salaries a bit under $200,000. Why, then, would “Wall Street hotshots” move to the SEC, given that “Wall Street hotshots” can make millions?

  87. Hube says:
    23 October 2011 at 10:00 (Edit)

    Perry: Why has Obama collected more Wall Street cash than all the GOP contenders combined?

    Of course BO is, and has been two faced in this issue. In 2008 he couldn’t get enough money from Wall Street. Then he turns around and winks, and blasts Wall St.

  88. York wrote:

    Of course BO is, and has been two faced in this issue. In 2008 he couldn’t get enough money from Wall Street. Then he turns around and winks, and blasts Wall St.

    Well, reading what Perry wrote, I have to conclude that President Obama is doing so only for demagogic political gain, since his Justice department hasn’t prosecuted the top Wall Street executive that Perry is convinced are criminals. Kind of makes me wonder why Perry is going to vote for Mr Obama in the 2012 election.

  89. DP:
    Kind of makes me wonder why Perry is going to vote for Mr Obama in the 2012 election.

    It’s what you get with programmed “O”bots.

  90. Hube, you really shouldn’t point out the facts about Teh Won’s campaign cash contributors, because pointing out the facts about Teh Won’s absolute and utter hypocrisy is demonization; however, if you wish to levy major spurious charges against someone with an R after their name, that’s all good because then, it’s all about the seriousness of the false charges not about whether the R actually did what you claim the R did.

  91. “OK, so now you are stating that, due to an article from a left-wing source — I am familiar with Reader Supported News; that’s where Marc Ash, the guy who kept cocaine-addled “journalist” Jason Leopold on the payroll at truthout.org, now resides and blegs — that people you don’t like may be defined as “criminals” even thought they have been neither convicted or indicted of anything? And, of course, you make the excuse that the federal regulators are in bed with the “criminals,” so there can’t be any convictions. Your “proof” becomes perfectly circular: they are criminals because I say they are, but they haven’t been convicted of anything because the regulators are corrupt, having come from the criminal organizations in the first place.”

    Dana’s main point here is to attack the messenger, which is not impressive at all in a debate. Moreover, you will note in my post that I used the word “allegation”, which you carefully avoid acknowledging, permitting you to go off fully cocked for blood. Unimpressive!

    “…, why hasn’t the Justice Department done anything about it?”

    Yeah, I’m very upset about that! I think that the reality is that our system of financing campaigns has been so corrupted by the wealthy and the takers, that even a reformer has to partake in the corrupt system in order to stand a chance of getting elected, since we all know that getting elected takes tons of money. This is just one more American shame! It is well known that the wealthy, Wall Street as an example, are donate to both parties so that their political influence is not lost when their favorite is defeated in the election.

    And guess what, the SCOTUS has magnified this problem with their Citizens United decision.

  92. “Kind of makes me wonder why Perry is going to vote for Mr Obama in the 2012 election.”

    Dana, is there any current Republican candidate for your party nomination who you would not vote for if nominated? In my view, President Obama has proven himself worthy of being reelected. But of course, you already knew that!

  93. Perry wrote:

    “Kind of makes me wonder why Perry is going to vote for Mr Obama in the 2012 election.”

    Dana, is there any current Republican candidate for your party nomination who you would not vote for if nominated? In my view, President Obama has proven himself worthy of being reelected. But of course, you already knew that!

    If we wind up nominating Mitt Romney, and it’s obvious that Pennsylvania’s electoral votes are not in doubt, I will vote for a third party candidate. If the Pennsylvania vote appears to be close, I will vote for the Republican nominee, regardless of whom it is, because all of them are better than the man in office now.

    Perry, President Obama has simply failed in his job: he wasn’t prepared for it and never grew into it. Apparently even Steve Jobs, who liked the man and who knows something about success, told President Obama he’d be a one-term President:

    Steve Jobs told President Obama that he was “headed for a one-term presidency” if he did not adopt more business friendly policies, according to a biography of the legendary Apple CEO to be released Monday. He even offered his assistance to avoid that outcome.

    Jobs met the president in in the fall of 2010 and later offered to help make political advertisements for his re-election campaign. The book, based on interviews with Jobs, says the Apple CEO hoped the ads would do for Mr. Obama what the famous “morning in America” ads did for Ronald Reagan in his 1984 landslide re-election victory over Walter Mondale.

    “I think political advertising is terrible. I’d love to get Lee Clow out of retirement, and we can come up with great commercial for him,” Jobs told Walter Isaacson, author the forthcoming biography “Steve Jobs.” Clow is the ad executive partially responsible for Apple’s famous 1984 advertisement launching the Macintosh.

    Isaacson’s book is being published by Simon & Schuster Inc, which is owned by CBS Corporation, the parent company of CBS News and CBSNews.com. CBSNews.com obtained a copy of the book. Isaacson will appear on CBS’ 60 Minutes Sunday to promote it.

    Jobs told Isaacson he was not impressed with the president after their meeting, in part because of Mr. Obama’s focus on what is not possible, rather than what is possible.

    “The president is very smart. But he kept explaining to us reasons why things can’t get done,” Jobs told Isaacson. “It infuriates me.”

    Jobs told Obama that American regulations make it more difficult for Apple to build its products cheaply in the United States compared to the cost of building them in China. Chinese health and safety standards are more lax than the United States.

    Jobs almost missed the San Francisco meeting last year because he initially refused to attend unless the president himself invited Jobs.

    Jobs also slammed the U.S. educational system as “crippled by union work rules.” He proposed longer school days – until 6 p.m. – and a longer school year – 11 months.

  94. “So, yeah, we do pay more for our health care, but we also get much more.”

    No, you don’t. You are ly1ng.

    I chose, in one particular circumstance, an American-style pay-for-care model. I have also chosen in other circumstance good quality free-to-the-user public health care.

    We pay less, and we have a choice. You pay more and you don’t even have that choice. And many Americans live in fear of a major illness and bankruptcy.

    This is why socialised public health care is superior to the American system.

  95. The brain has the nervous system totally mapped out and knows where things hurt, not hurt, or feel good, even if it doesn’t exist anymore. So, how do you take care of a pain from where nothing exists?

    Well, I’d make an appointment and see a specialist for free within two or three weeks. Why aren’t you doing that?

  96. The Phoenician wrote:

    The brain has the nervous system totally mapped out and knows where things hurt, not hurt, or feel good, even if it doesn’t exist anymore. So, how do you take care of a pain from where nothing exists?

    Well, I’d make an appointment and see a specialist for free within two or three weeks. Why aren’t you doing that?

    You would? Yet when you were in actual — not phantom — pain, you were told that it would take four months to get it treated. Why would you be able to “see a specialist for free within two or three weeks,” when it would have taken four months to get a simple, well-known procedure done?

  97. The Phoenician wrote:

    “So, yeah, we do pay more for our health care, but we also get much more.”

    No, you don’t. You are ly1ng.

    I chose, in one particular circumstance, an American-style pay-for-care model. I have also chosen in other circumstance good quality free-to-the-user public health care.

    Nope, I told the truth: I’ve never had to wait any significant length of time, for anything. My health care is pretty good, and I don’t want to see it changed.

  98. Nope, I told the truth:

    No, you l1ed. Americans pay much more as a country than other Western nations, and as a country get worse results.

    We will note here that you are weaseling between the plural (“WE do pay more for our health care, but WE also get much more.”) and the singular (“My health care is pretty good”), in your typical; deceitful way. You’re transparent, Dana, and contenmptible.

  99. American corporate health care in action

    Last month, a Time Warner Cable customer service rep died at her desk. After any unexpected death, people searched for answers, explanations, someone to blame. But in this case, there may have actually been something foul afoot. A local news station reports that after a co-worker began giving CPR to 67-year-old Julia Nelson, a supervisor allegedly told her to stop and “get back on the phone and take care of customers.”

    Nelson slumped at her desk at the Time Warner Call Center in Garfield Heights, Ohio, and wasn’t breathing by the time paramedics arrived. But before that happened, a co-worker rushed over and began administering CPR, the woman told WOIO, only to be asked to stop. Employees at the scene have confirmed this report.

    The woman was also told later by another supervisor that she could be “held liable if something goes wrong.”

  100. Pingback: The fleabaggers have an ally in President Obama « Common Sense Political Thought

Comments are closed.