How liberals mislead about the tax history of the past 30 years
President Obama’s (latest) soak-the-rich plan is bringing out the worst in his fellow liberals. If you want to understand exactly what’s wrong with their mindset on taxes, and why it is irreconcilable to reality, you must read Michael Tomasky’s column in the Daily Beast today.
Not because Tomasky points out the deficiencies. On the contrary, he recites nearly every one of them with gusto.
To begin, Tomasky states that taxes — not spending, not debt, nor cultural politics, nor anything else — have been “the biggest problem in our politics for the last 30 years.” By “biggest problem,” he apparently means what follows:
The anti-tax revolt that started in 1978 in California (Proposition 13) has destroyed this country. Our taxophobia has made the rich vastly richer and reduced the amount of money for the public benefits the rest of us depend on, and a hundred other horrible things besides.
One can hardly argue against “a hundred other horrible things” that Tomasky hasn’t specified, but there’s plenty to discuss about what’s wrong with the rest of that second sentence.
Part 1: “Our taxophobia has made the rich vastly richer…”: Really? The top marginal tax rate in the Internal Revenue Code is what’s made the rich “vastly richer”? Not such economic trends as the shift toward an information-based services economy, or the ever more rapid rise of global manufacturing competition, or the change in the way corporate boards have awarded executive compensation? Or any of the things Tomasky means, several paragraphs later, when he acknowledges, “A hundred factors affect economic performance”?
Certainly, lower tax rates have allowed higher earners to keep more of what they earn, which has compounding effects on wealth, but the tax code does not explain why those higher earners are earning more than did the higher earners of earlier generations. Which is where the “problem” Tomasky identifies really begins. If you agree that this is a problem, the tax code is not the place to “fix” it.
Part 2: “…and reduced the amount of money for the public benefits the rest of us depend on…”: I didn’t realize columnists at the Daily Beast were on welfare — and with “the rest of us,” Tomasky is necessarily excluding those public functions (e.g., the military) that benefit everyone regardless of income. But that’s a side point. Have lower tax rates really “reduced the amount of money” sent to the government?
From 1944 (the first year federal revenues exceeded even 14 percent of GDP) through that year Tomasky so rues, 1978, federal revenues averaged 17.6 percent of GDP.
From 1979 through 2010, the last complete fiscal year, federal revenues averaged 18 percent of GDP.
Hmmm. That can’t be correct. We all “know” that Republicans since Reagan have been starving the beast. The post-1979 data must be skewed by the Clinton years, right?
Well, federal revenues certainly flourished under Bill Clinton, averaging 19 percent of GDP. But even if we exclude 1993-2000, federal revenues since 1979 have still averaged 17.7 percent of GDP — that is, just a tad more than they averaged before 1979.
OK, Wingfield. But we all “know” that George W. Bush completely obliterated the federal fisc with his ruinous tax cuts.
Not really. Federal revenues from 2001 to 2008 averaged 17.6 percent of GDP. Exactly what they averaged before that dread year of 1978.
It turns out that the Clinton years were an anomaly in modern tax history. Do Tomasky and his fellow travelers truly believe that those eight years were the only ones in which America wasn’t being “destroyed”?
***
So, the premise of Tomasky’s piece is demonstrably wrong. But that doesn’t stop him from making another crucial error.
Presumably, he writes, President Obama’s plan “will include taxing capital gains and carried interest at the same rate (for millionaires only, that is, not for middle-income Wall Street dice-rollers) as regular income.” Presumably, he’s right about that.
Yet, a bit later, he suggests that Rep. Paul Ryan is “stupid, a liar, or something even more malevolent, a morally diseased ogre who secretly believes with his delirious mentor [Ayn Rand] that the rich deserve every handout government can offer them” for saying Obama is engaging in class warfare and claiming these tax increases won’t work economically. Set aside for now Tomasky’s repugnant rhetoric — it hardly qualifies as an argument — that anyone who disagrees with Obama’s position on taxes must lack intelligence, honesty or morals. He unintentionally undermines his own claims — and the argument for raising capital gains tax rates — here:
Under what recent president was the economy strongest? Bill Clinton. Under what recent president were tax rates the highest? Bill Clinton. I don’t claim direct cause and effect. A hundred factors affect economic performance. But I certainly and emphatically claim that recent history disproves Ryan’s [claim that tax increases don't work] to such an extent that he can’t possibly be taken seriously.
If Tomasky won’t claim direct cause and effect, it’s not out of modesty. It’s because it’s not true.
Under which years of the Clinton presidency was the economy strongest? I don’t think anyone would dispute that it was the years 1997 through 2000, when real GDP growth surpassed 4 percent every year. But which part of tax policy changed during this second term of Clinton’s? Not the individual income tax rate; that increase came in 1993. No, it was the tax rate on capital gains, which actually fell in 1997. Tax receipts and the economy soared.
Now, they soared because of the tech bubble, which produced the growth and stock earnings that were taxed in such large numbers. Like Tomasky, I’m not claiming direct cause and effect. But unlike him, I know it defies logic and the facts to claim that the Clinton years prove higher taxes on capital gains won’t hurt the economy.
I’ll leave Tomasky to his opinions as to whether all of this will make for good politics. But, if the American public understands what really happened during the past 30 years, he’ll be wrong about that, too.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
200 comments Add your comment
The Real Fletch
September 20th, 2011
4:14 pm
Is Bookman out of town or something? Usually the Libs are suckling at his misguided teat and not just giving condescending, indignant quips on Kyle’s blog. MarkV, how can someone of your obvious intellectual prowess spare time that could better be spent solving global economic crises (which coincidentally are in heavily socialized countries) or curing cancer?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
4:19 pm
Your point being, John?
You will hardly ever see me defending what Rush Limbaugh or Michele Bachmann says, as I am not a Republican nor a conservative.
I am a Constitutionalist, which is why you consistently fail to make any headway in your debates with me. You’re not equipped to handle someone who is truly independent of the right/left, conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat mode of restrictive thinking.
John
September 20th, 2011
4:23 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
“Don’t you mean that was passed by both Democrats AND Republicans, John?””
I would hardly call it bipartisanship when in the House it passed with only 16 Democrats voting yes and in the Senate, it was 11. Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill’s passage.
MarkV
September 20th, 2011
4:25 pm
Tiberius @3:46 pm: You may understand English. What you do not understand is the meaning of what you have read.
“From each according to his ability” = The rich can afford to be taxed more.”
“Is not the advocating of taking more from the wealthy a government-mandated “From each according to his ability”? Of course it is.”
Of course it is NOT. Yours is a silly, ignorant and laughable misinterpretation of the communist manifesto, which refers to people doing their work as best as they could – so that the society gets from each of them the products of their work “according to their ability.”
“To each according to his needs” = Funding social programs and entitlements.
This part of the motto refers to a utopian stage of the society, in which technology is so developed that everybody can get what he/she needs. Again, it is a laughable nonsense to compare it with a safety net in a capitalist society. How many people get “what they need” from the social programs and entitlements? Would you like to have all you needs satisfied by what the people below the poverty line get from those programs?
MarkV
September 20th, 2011
4:29 pm
The Real Fletch @4:14 pm: “MarkV, how can someone of your obvious intellectual prowess spare time that could better be spent solving global economic crises (which coincidentally are in heavily socialized countries) or curing cancer?”
You mean in countries like China? And why a concern how I spare my time?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
4:32 pm
“I would hardly call it bipartisanship when in the House it passed with only 16 Democrats voting yes and in the Senate, it was 11.”
Well considering that without the 11 Democrat Senators it wouldn’t have passed the Senate (cloture rules, remember), then yes, it was very much bi-partisan.
MPercy
September 20th, 2011
4:37 pm
MarkV @4:25 pm
I suspect part of the disconnect will lie in the definition of “what they need”. Humans all around the world demonstrate how little is truly required to survive. This might be one definition of “what they need”, but is probably not close to what progressive liberals mean when they say the words “what they need”, which apparently has come to mean “providing means for everyone to live a U.S. standard lower middle class lifestyle without any further requirements or responsibility on the recipients’ part”, i.e., an air-conditioned home or apartment with an assortment of electronic gadgets, cable TV, broadband internet, free cell phone, free food, reduced electric bill, reduced gas bill, a car and oh yeah, toss in some walking-around money.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
4:39 pm
MarkV, you are now deflecting, rather than answering the question directly. You can state what was “intended” to be meant all day long, but the issue isn’t what was “intended” but what is occurring right now. That you continue to deflect shows your inability to defend the reality of the situation around you.
“How many people get “what they need” from the social programs and entitlements?”
Need? Almost everything the “need” to survive. Food, shelter, medical, etc.
“Would you like to have all you needs satisfied by what the people below the poverty line get from those programs?”
Do not confuse “needs” with “wants”, MarkV. What they “need” is to survive. What they “want” is not the purview of any Constitutional form of government ever devised.
MarkV
September 20th, 2011
4:43 pm
Mpercy @4:37 pm
What you have written is a truly malicious, ignorant misinterpretation of “what progressive liberals mean when they say the words “what they need.” It deserves only contempt.
MarkV
September 20th, 2011
4:51 pm
Tiberius @4:39 pm:
You are now only trying to confuse issues to hide your ignorance. It was you who introduced the words of the communist manifesto without understanding its meaning. The expression of that philosophy does not refer to what is “needed to survive.” When you compare it with social programs and entitlements, you shown either an ignorance of the subject you introduced, or a deliberate falsification. And I am not confusing “needs” with “wants,” you are.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
4:53 pm
“It deserves only contempt.”
No, it deserves being backed up with a bit more facts than hyperbole, but there is no denying that the “poor” in America have a better standard of living than the vast majority of “poor” in every other country on Earth.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
4:57 pm
“It was you who introduced the words of the communist manifesto without understanding its meaning.”
Uh, no, it wasn’t. I was merely expounding on the usage based on your original response to the original poster.
“And I am not confusing “needs” with “wants,” you are.”
Uh, actually, you did. Hence, your two statements responding to me: “How many people get “what they need” from the social programs and entitlements? Would you like to have all you needs satisfied by what the people below the poverty line get from those programs?”
MarkV
September 20th, 2011
5:13 pm
Tiberius @4:57 pm
MarkV: “It was you who introduced the words of the communist manifesto without understanding its meaning.”
Tiberius: “Uh, no, it wasn’t. I was merely “expounding on the usage” based on your original response to the original poster,”
Are you trying to be funny? You only used the exact words of the motto of communism as a form of “expounding on the usage,” when you have done it in response to my suggestion that you did not understand the philosophy of socialism and communism? And now you are saying that you did not introduce it into the debate? No, you are not trying to be funny, you are plain lying.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
September 20th, 2011
5:18 pm
According to the IRS, taxpayers with incomes over $1 million paid an average rate of 23.3%, while those earning $50K-100K paid 8.9%, and of course lower incomes paid even a lower percentage.
Your Idiot Messiah is a liar.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
5:33 pm
MarkV, here is the original post with the time stamp from – wait for it – USMC!
“USMC
September 20th, 2011
12:05 pm
“Gomer is calling people commies over here too…”–Jefferson
Well if the shoe fits, Weezy…
When you Bolsheviks espouse the philosophy of Marx, you might be a Marxist/Socialist
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.[1] The phrase summarizes the principles that, in a communist society, every person should contribute to society to the best of his or her ability and consume from society in proportion to his or her needs.”
Don’t run from it. Wear it with pride.”
Note the time stamp of 12:05. You followed up with a question at 1:20 responding to his usage of the phrase:
“Can you name anybody in these posts, or in a position in the government, advocating this philosophy?”
And I responded to your comment at 1:29, thereby proving that I did NOT inject this phrase into the conversation.
Now, I will accept your sincere and heartfelt apology for calling me a liar, which you had no reason to do.
Michael H. Smith
September 20th, 2011
5:45 pm
Good column Kyle. I’m sure your resident blog Marxists will defend their progressive tax – actually it’s a “compound progressive tax” – to no socialist end and their rob the Evil Rich mentality expressed by the current resident of the oval office: Who believes it is fair to rob the rich simply because they are wealthier than others that pay zero income or capital gains tax and receive taxpayer checks and/or benefits.
It’s the same old Karl Marx line Kyle no matter how they repackage, reword or – excuse the pun – “REDISTRIBUTE” it:
“From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”
MarkV
September 20th, 2011
5:59 pm
Tiberius @5:33 pm:
Wrong again. There was an exchange between me and USMC @12:05 pm, in which USMC cited the motto, with a correct meaning. When you posted your comments addressed to me, and in the discussion that followed, you cited the motto, and then you misrepresented its meaning. You introduced it into OUR debate. You did it with a specific purpose as a response to a post, in which I suggested that you were ignorant regarding the philosophy of communism and socialism. You cannot argue that somebody else introduced it in a different exchange.
THE "REAL" TRUTH
September 20th, 2011
6:02 pm
Whatever, Kyle (rolling eyes)..the only revisionist theories offered here are the one’s under your tin foiled hat…
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
6:11 pm
Fine, MarkV, whatever. Move those goal posts and change the argument.
I’m so used to your intellectual dishonesty that you’ve become a pathetic figure on this blog.
And typical of the liberal mentality.
I suggest you look up the meaning of the word “Introduced” before you respond to one of my posts again, however, since you called me a liar when I am clearly not, I doubt I shall be responding to any of your drivel any time soon, as people such as you do not deserve attention.
MarkV
September 20th, 2011
6:17 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate! @6:11 pm: Make me happy! I can do without your weaseling.
the red herring
September 20th, 2011
6:42 pm
let everybody including the 48% of those not paying federal income tax pay the same rate—it will work out wonderfully—- if you make 10,000 and pay 10% then you pay $1,000—-if you make 100,000 and pay 10% then you pay 10,000. same hit per same amount of income. simple—but the dems don’t want people making under 50k to pay any federal income tax—– because??? that’s how they buy their votes….
John
September 20th, 2011
6:50 pm
the red herring
Let all income (wages and investments) be taxed at the same rate.
John
September 20th, 2011
6:58 pm
the red herring
Don’t forget to make all income subject to Payroll taxes as well…with no limit.
John
September 20th, 2011
7:12 pm
the red herring
And if that still doesn’t bring in enough revenue to pay the bills, I’m sure you would have no problem in your taxes being raised to 20 or 25 percent or more…just as long as the millionaires and billionaires pay the same percentage.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
7:59 pm
Understand, MarkV, you are not going to get off the hook when it comes to the factually incorrect posts you constantly make. Oh, no. Those will still be exposed for the drivel they are.
We are just not going to engage in any back and forth from now on. There is nothing in my particular world worse than a liar. Second worse are those who call others liars. Right behind that are those who will not apologize for lying about someone.
You met two of those three criteria, MarkV.
The one thing you will NEVER see me do is call anyone a liar, unless the repeat something that has already been proven to be false. The definition of a liar is one who tells something that is untrue KNOWING that it is untrue.
You crossed my particular line, MarkV.
Don’t do it again.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
September 20th, 2011
8:39 pm
Before raising ANYONE’s taxes, the Idiot Messiah’s un-American, obscene, job-killing spending problem must be fixed.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
September 20th, 2011
8:47 pm
“Congressman Phil Roe performs CPR on man at airport”
———-
Roe, of course, is a Republican. A Democrat would have waited for the government to do something.
MPercy
September 20th, 2011
10:11 pm
MarkV 4:43 pm Mpercy @4:37 pm What you have written is a truly malicious, ignorant misinterpretation of “what progressive liberals mean when they say the words “what they need.” It deserves only contempt.
Why? It appears accurate to me. Allow me to explain, with references.
A Department of Energy Survey [www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/#undefined], includes a part of which breaks down appliance use in US homes by household Income.
For example it states that 16.9M households are below the poverty line, and of those 15.6M have microwaves, 8.6M have coffee makers, 10.6M have top-door (top freezer) refrigerators, 1.8M have a 2nd refrigerator, 3,9M have a separate freezer, 4.8M have a dishwasher, 10.9M have a clothes washer in their home.
For TVs, of the 16.9M households below the poverty line, only 0.3M had no TV, while 4.8M had one TV, 5.9M had two TVs, 3.5M had three TVs, 1.6M had four TVs, and 0.7M had five or more TVs. Some 8.9M had TVs between 21 and 36 inches in screen size, and 4.4M had “big screen TVs” of 37 inches or more, with 5.7M being LCD or plasma TVs. Some 6.1M had cable TV boxes connected to their primary TV, and 3.9M had a video game console, and 7.1M had a DVD player.
In addition 5.8M of the 16.9M households below the poverty line had computers, while 1.8M more had two computers (and nearly1M had three or more). Some 7.2M had internet access, of those 2.7M had cable broadband, 3.1 had DSL or fiber. And 5.2M had at least one printer.
8.0M (of 16.9M poverty-level) households have cordless phones, 5.2M have answering machines, 0.8M have fax machines, and 0.8M have photocopiers. 5.8M have stereo equipment.
“The Federal Communications Commission’s National Broadband Plan, scheduled to be publically presented to Congress next week, may have something for everyone, but a new intriguing bauble is the suggestion by the FCC that Congress will be asked to “consider use of spectrum for a free or very low cost wireless broadband service.” [www.informationweek.com/news/government/enterprise-architecture/223500023]
Free cells phones are being provided, too. “The latest expansion of an already bloated federal government is a program aimed at putting free cell phones into the hands of low-income Americans.” [www.ibtimes.com/articles/198119/20110816/verizon-cell-phones-tax.htm]
There are certainly programs for reduced utilities, federal programs such as Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), plus a bevy of state programs.
Foodstamps provide at least some free food, even fast food. “Food stamps – known more formally as the USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – have been in use for grocery staples, such as bread and milk, since 1934, but now, for the first time, they can be used for fast food in four states across the country.” [abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/09/fast-food-chains-getting-into-the-food-stamp-act/]
“Just last month the National Economic Development and Law Center (NEDLC) issued the findings of what must be the most comprehensive survey to date of low income car ownership (LICO) programs. The study gathered information from 110 different LICO programs across the country working to “improve access to cars for low-wage workers and their families.” [workforcedev.typepad.com/workforcedev/car_programs/]
I’ll call UI benefits, SSD, etc. “some walking-around money.”
Given the above, what is there about my characterization that is inaccurate?
MPercy
September 20th, 2011
10:16 pm
John @6:58 pm Don’t forget to make all income subject to Payroll taxes as well…with no limit.
Are you going to take the SS payout limits away too? Right now, there is a limit on the income that is taxes and a corresponding maximum payout level. Remove the one and not the other and SS becomes simply another redistributive program without even a pretense that people are just getting back what they paid in. I suspect that’s fine with you though.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
10:17 pm
You do realize that typing is all capital letters is the equivalent of shouting, don’t you, STUPID?
And while I don’t agree with the Republican platform on abortion, I do know that there is a moral difference between an innocent life and a guilty criminal’s life.
Do you?
MarkV
September 20th, 2011
11:02 pm
Tiberius @7:59 pm:
Too bad you did not keep your promise. But it is not any surprise.
Neither is the tactic you constantly use. When caught in error, first change the issue, and then accuse the other one of doing that. It is so transparent, and pathetic. Another one: Falsely accuse whoever you debate, such as in “the factually incorrect posts you constantly make.” No evidence, just false accusation.
“You crossed my particular line, MarkV. Don’t do it again.”
Am I supposed to shake in my boots? Who do you think you are?
Peter
September 21st, 2011
12:14 am
Sorry Kyle, you can’t cherry-pick years for your stats. 2001 revenue was 19.4% due to the tech bubble, higher tax rates, and Clinton budget where he worked with a R congress to keep spending under control (remember when compromise wasn’t a dirty word). Bush had nothing to do with it.
Better to take the 3 middle years where Bush had no-bubble/no-recession. (I am being kind, not including the later years)
2004-2006: 6+% GDP growth (well above his average), low unemployment, low tax rates, R congress so no gridlock/vetoes, basically everything the R’s could ask for. Revenue of 15.8, 17 and 18% – about 17% average. Unfortunately, they were spending over 19.5% including 2 stimulus (and up from 18% in 2001), and the R’s had created multiple unfunded liabilities that would last beyond Bush’s time (2 wars, Medicare Part D, the tax cuts themselves – around $300B/yr in unfunded spending). All passed by the R’s over the objections of D’s. That includes Yes votes from Bachman, Ryan, Boehner, et al. No funding, add to the deficit, no problem back then. Funny how they all became fiscal conservatives once they were out of power. That is where our spending problem came from, not from the D’s.
So, the sad fact is that people gave the R’s total control in 2000 and they did everything they said it would take to create an economic boom, plus a permanent R majority (per Rove). Cut taxes, put industry people in charge of regulations (repealed Glass-Steagall which directly led to ‘Too Big to Fail’; allowed mountain top mining that destroys mountains and streams, and many other industry wish list items), repealed laws that restrict businesses, etc. Instead, we had no job growth, a declining middle class, no regulation, a new class of uber-rich that produce nothing (hedge fund managers), and the worst recession since the 1930’s. And now we may actually give them control again. Why? Isn’t one deep recession enough?
As for the notion that raising tax rates back to the Clinton rates (when the economy boomed and 20M jobs were created) would stunt growth, you are talking about 3.6% difference on income above $250K. That’s it.
A simple example:
You make over $250K today. Great for you. You have a chance to earn a $100K bonus if you do really well. Today, you’d pay $36K in Fed taxes on that bonus. With the Clinton rates, you’d pay $39.6K, or $3600 more. So, the R’s would have you believe that you’d not try for the bonus (where you pocket over $60K) just to keep from paying $3600 in taxes. Why does anyone believe that? I’d be happy to make a $1M bonus and pay $40K in ‘extra’ taxes, if I get to pocket $600K. As an old broker told me, no one goes broke paying taxes on profits.
So, please stop preaching supply side, it has never worked. It’s just created huge deficits and led to bubbles. Reagan cut taxes, increased spending, and doubled the deficit. W doubled down on that and then some. He cut taxes and revenue below anything we’d seen, increased spending $150B a year with a R congress walking in lock-step (remember, no vetoes, not even a threat), they added over $3T to the deficit after taking over a surplus, left us with trillions in unfunded liabilities, and handed off the worst economy we’ve seen in 70 years. So, why I am supposed to turn things back over to the Republicans?
And, for those of you that say Obama has made things worse. He took over an economy that actually shrunk 1.7% in 2009, was shedding 100’s of thousands of jobs each month, and was on the verge of total collapse. In less than a year, growth was over 2% (a 4% turnaround), jobs were being created, and we were talking about how to get the deficit under control. He’s the first president to deal with state/local governments cutting lots of jobs in a recession (over 500K so far), and he has a global recession that has slowed exports, plus interest rates at 0%, which limits what can be done to stimulate the economy. All in all, he’s done better than anyone should expect, despite plenty of mistakes and having to work with idiots like Pelosi/Reid and a R party that openly says they will do nothing to help.
MPercy
September 21st, 2011
1:02 am
Peter, one nit to pick. Glass-Steagall was repealed under Clinton, not Bush. Or more specifically, given your comment, before the “R’s total control in 2000″ and as a bipartisan action.
“The bill that ultimately repealed the Act [Glass-Steagalll] was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate[15] and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives.[16] After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362–57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.” [wikipedia]
It’s too late for me to stay up any longer and address more of your comment.
MarkV
September 21st, 2011
9:08 am
MPercy @10:11 pm:
I guess you never heard about hunger in this country. How poor would you like the people in one of the richest countries to be to satisfy you?
You presented a lot of numbers. Have you given any thought to those numbers? For one thing, they do not tell you anything about the age and condition of the items. But even without that, let’s have a look at their meaning. Out of 16.9 million households under poverty line, 4.8 M have a dishwasher. That means that there are 12.1 million households without a dishwasher. How many of your friends have no dishwasher? 10.6M have a refrigerator- meaning that over 6 million households are without a refrigerator. Can you imagine your life without a refrigerator? Almost 9 million do not have a cordless phone. How many of you relatives or friends do not have a cordless phone? 13 million do not have a computer. You dare to cite a statistic of that as evidence that these people have no needs?
Given the above, what about your characterization is accurate?
MPercy
September 21st, 2011
10:53 am
MarkV
I’ve given a lot of though to those numbers. In my mind the notion that I am being forced to pay welfare benefits to even on household that chooses to squander their real income on Playstations and big screen TVs is too many. If they can afford to buy a TV, they can afford to buy their own food. If they’ve got a big TV from before they were poor (they lost a job perhaps), then sell the TV first to buy food, then when you’ve truly got nothing left, we can talk about your “needs”.
First of all, there is an extremely high correlation between poverty and obesity in this country, so it seems that most people are getting more food than they need.
So we should be paying benefits so that more people can have a dishwasher, cordless phone, and computer? As I said, it seems that you’re supporting the notion that everyone should be able to live a lower middle-class lifestyle, one that includes all those things, and that our welfare state should provide it without question of other lifestyle choices that may have been made, without requiring work on their part. Your language such as “How many of your friends have no dishwasher?” and “Can you imagine your life without a refrigerator?” implies that everyone is entitled to my lifestyle, which does currently include a refrigerator and dishwasher. You do realize that 75 years ago, even the very richest didn’t have any of the above and people got along fine?
No one needs a dishwasher. It is a luxury, work-saving device. No one needs a TV. It is an entertainment device. No one needs a Playstation, it is a game. No one needs a tattoo. It is a personal choice. No one needs Big Macs, Coke, beer, booze, or cigarettes. If you can afford to buy those, you can afford to meet your basic needs, but are choosing not to and expecting others to subsidize your decisions.
My definition of “need” comes in much lower than yours, and includes minimal support–I don’t want anyone to starve in this country, and want to provide a helping hand. But if you want more than the most basic subsistence level of support, get it yourself. Of course, though, people who simply lack the basic mental or physical ability to support themselves cannot be excluded from a reasonable level of support.
How rich do you want the poor people in this country to be? The onus should be on you,since you want to forcibly take money from me and other to redistribute it to those you feel do not have enough. You have not defined “enough” but your level of expectation on the word “need” seems much higher than mine.
MarkV
September 21st, 2011
11:29 am
MPercy @10:53 am
Perhaps nothing can illustrate better your blindness than the following:” First of all, there is an extremely high correlation between poverty and obesity in this country, so it seems that most people are getting more food than they need.”
Had you done the slightest amount of research, you would now that the obesity of poor people is not due to more food than they need,” but because of the high cost of healthier foods, severe limitation of food sources poor neighborhoods, less time to cook meals, less money to join sports clubs, less opportunity to exercise outdoors, etc.
We do live like 75 years ago. Most people are not below poverty line because they do not want to work or to work hard. That is a conservative fantasy. They are poor because their jobs they do not pay enough, while incomes of people in upper brackets are often obscene and soaring.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
September 21st, 2011
12:14 pm
Why do some have low paying jobs while others have high paying ones?
Work ethic, ambition, personal responsibility, moral values, intact normal two parent families. All things that libtards oppose or actively work to weaken.
MPercy
September 21st, 2011
1:24 pm
Obesity is caused by consuming more calories than you expend. It’s a simple equation. All of the things you mention are irrelevant to the fact that they are consuming more calories than are necessary. You are simply trying to excuse the decision-making process. Rice & beans are cheap, an excellent source of nutrition and are sold in bodegas–and doesn’t the bus line in most urban areas reach a grocery store that lies outside the food desert? Cooking rice & beans is a no-brainer and doesn’t take any more time that going over to the junk food place for a burrito or cheeseburger. Most people eat for other reasons than being hungry; but if what you have is beans and rice that is less likely to happen–when I was a kind and whined that I was hungry, my mother would say, “There’s a can of corn in the kitchen, want me to warm that up for you?”. She had a point, I never did eat that can of corn.
Then there is your implication that we need to have a gym membership to be healthy? Shall we subsidize aerobics classes? And needing to go outside? You can exercise quite nicely in a very small area without any equipment–pushups, situps, for example.
While it is certainly easier for all the reason you list to be obese than to be healthy, barring some actual endocrine system failure, obesity is primarily lifestyle choice. And one that we enable in the poor by allowing foodstamps (EBT, SNAP, whatever they call it this week) to be used at convenience markets and fast food restaurants is simply enabling that lifestyle choice.
MPercy
September 21st, 2011
1:53 pm
While we’re on rice&beans…”The Obama administration’s focus on what Americans eat includes Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who said on Monday that Americans will “adjust” their tastes to the food the government says is best for people to eat.”
MarkV
September 21st, 2011
3:13 pm
MPercy @1:24 pm
All I can say is that you are painfully ignorant of the issues involved in the obesity of the poor people. It is the same attitude of superiority that you are displaying in all your writing. Poor people kids having a play station – what a travesty. People who get some help from the society – and they want to have a TV? How dare they?
I do not like my taxes to be used to support people who do not want to work hard either. But if I should make a list of things I do not like to be supported by my taxes, it would be a long one. I do not want my taxes to be used to build unneeded fighter planes. I do not want them used to pay contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan who cheat the government of billions of dollars. And so on. The money wasted because some of the poor people getting government support do not deserve it is way down on my list. What I found unacceptable in your writing is the broad brush with which you have painted those receiving support.
MarkV
September 21st, 2011
3:41 pm
MPercy @1:24 pm
I should also add that the way you started this discussion about the “need” was a misdirection from what the original issue, which was that Tiberius claimed that those who want to fund our social programs (“99% of the elected Democrat representatives, you, and virtually every other liberal poster on this blog”) were advocating the philosophy of Marx and communism, the motto of which is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” That was the kind of scurrilous attack and labeling people like him make all the time, which shows either ignorance or deliberate misinformation. In fact, Marx specifically denounced the use of a social safety net in capitalist countries.
MPercy
September 21st, 2011
3:55 pm
MarkV
I”m sorry you think I’m painfully ignorant, but you have not provided any counterpoint other than your emotional personal attacks on me whereas I have at least provided some independent background supporting my thesis, which is that progressive liberals seem to believe that everyone is entitled to at least a lower-middle class lifestyle, through government redistribution programs and no effort of their own. This is in contrast to the dire “people will starve to death in the streets” hyperbole. You honestly done nothing to dissuade me from my thesis, and in fact have consistently furthered it.
Re: poverty vs obesity, how about this NIH conclusion? “The association between poverty and obesity may be mediated, in part, by the low cost of energy-dense foods and may be reinforced by the high palatability of sugar and fat. This economic framework provides an explanation for the observed links between socioeconomic variables and obesity when taste, dietary energy density, and diet costs are used as intervening variables. More and more Americans are becoming overweight and obese while consuming more added sugars and fats and spending a lower percentage of their disposable income on food.”
How else can I read that but to think that people are simply choosing to eat low-cost food that are high in fat and sugar (energy-dense) because they like it and it’s cheap? And that given people in poverty a “chose any food you want” card is a bad idea? People in poverty are not starving, they are eating too much of the wrong food, by choice. Or maybe they just don’t know any better, I have to admit that, but really how stupid must you be to not know that Big Macs make you fat?
You seem to think that I am incapable of distinguishing between someone who is milking the system (please do not claim there are none) and those who simply could not survive without it (and I never claimed there are none). I am not painting with a broad brush either. I believe I was quite clear in distinguishing between the truly needy and those who use the programs but do not truly need them, where my distinction involves their ability to choose to spend their money on luxury items or “wants” (and yes, big-screen TV and Playstation are some examples) rather than food, rent, or bills or “needs”.
MPercy
September 21st, 2011
4:07 pm
MarkV @3:41
It was not my intent to misdirect anything. A the time you two were arguing about Marx, I was merely predicting that the root of the point you raised about getting what you need from government services would hinge on what you were using as the definition of “need”. I explained that my definition of need (vs want) would certainly differ from yours and provided my estimation of what I believe the progressive liberal definition of “need” seems to be. Subsequently, I backed up my thesis with external sources.
At no point have you said anything that indicates you disagree with my thesis, and everything you’ve said (well, at least everything that is not some emotional personal attack) seems to solidify the notion that you (as a progressive liberal) believe that everyone is entitled to at least a lower middle-class lifestyle and that the government is right to pursue redistributive programs to that effect, and specifically to provide things like free cells phones, free broadband, free Big Macs, free rent so that the little real income *some* people living in poverty have can be used for big screen TVs and playstations.
Is that or is that not your position?
MarkV
September 21st, 2011
4:34 pm
MPercy @3:55 pm
I am not going to discuss such a complex issue as poverty/obesity in these posts. I do not believe you are competent to do that, and neither am I. I have no quarrel with the NIH conclusions you have cited. It is enough to quote your one sentence: How else can I read that but to think that people are simply choosing to eat low-cost food that are high in fat and sugar (energy-dense) because they like it and it’s CHEAP?” (My emphasis) Would you expect them to eat food that is expensive? I could go on and on, picking up your arguments: For instance: “…but really how stupid must you be to not know that Big Macs make you fat?” You really expect the usually less educated poor people to be less “stupid” than those in upper classes who get fat by eating Big Macks?
I think I have expressed clearly enough that there are people milking the system, and that I have no sympathy with that. What you failed to explain is what you want to do about it? Deny the help to all because of some are milking the system? Double the size of the government to watch every one who receives support whether he/she buys a big screen TV or a Playstation?
And yes, you have painted with a broad brush, which was the reason for my original response. Just read your post at 4:37 pm yesterday.
MarkV
September 21st, 2011
4:38 pm
MPercy @4:07 pm: “…everything you’ve said (well, at least everything that is not some emotional personal attack) seems to solidify the notion that you (as a progressive liberal) believe that everyone is entitled to at least a lower middle-class lifestyle and that the government is right to pursue redistributive programs to that effect, and specifically to provide things like free cells phones, free broadband, free Big Macs, free rent so that the little real income *some* people living in poverty have can be used for big screen TVs and playstations.”
Why don’t you show me exactly where I expressed such a notion. It is not and never was my position.
MPercy
September 21st, 2011
4:53 pm
You’re right, I did use a broad brush…to paint progressive liberals. You seem to think I’m attacking people in poverty. I’m not. I’m attacking progressive liberals who do not clearly distinguish between wants and needs. There could possibly be progressive liberals who will use the words “want” vs “need” in a forthright and honest fashion, and my broad brush did not allow for that prospect. Apologies.
I tried to support that statement using evidence from a number of sources. In essence, I was arguing that progressive liberals regularly and with malice aforethought attempt to portray poverty in the most negative possible way, when in reality the standard of living among the poor in the United States has steadily increased to the point where a US person living in poverty has a standard of living similar to middle-class Europeans, and would be the envy of much of the world’s truly poor.
These folks did a nice job capturing this idea…
[Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America's Poor]
“For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests near destitution: an inability to provide nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter for one’s family. However, only a small number of the 46 million persons classified as “poor” by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity.
“Although the mainstream media broadcast alarming stories about widespread and severe hunger in the nation, in reality, most of the poor do not experience hunger or food shortages. The U.S. Department of Agriculture collects data on these topics in its household food security survey. For 2009, the survey showed:
* 96 percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food.
* 83 percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat.
* 82 percent of poor adults reported never being hungry at any time in the prior year due to lack of money for food.
“Other government surveys show that the average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and is well above recommended norms in most cases.
“Television newscasts about poverty in America generally portray the poor as homeless people or as a destitute family living in an overcrowded, dilapidated trailer. In fact, however:
* Over the course of a year, 4 percent of poor persons become temporarily homeless.
* Only 9.5 percent of the poor live in mobile homes or trailers, 49.5 percent live in separate single-family houses or townhouses, and 40 percent live in apartments.
* 42 percent of poor households actually own their own homes.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom.
* The vast majority of the homes or apartments of the poor are in good repair.
“By their own reports, the average poor person had sufficient funds to meet all essential needs and to obtain medical care for family members throughout the year whenever needed.
“Of course, poor Americans do not live in the lap of luxury. The poor clearly struggle to make ends meet, but they are generally struggling to pay for cable TV, air conditioning, and a car, as well as for food on the table. The average poor person is far from affluent, but his lifestyle is far from the images of stark deprivation purveyed equally by advocacy groups and the media.
“The fact that the average poor household has many modern conveniences and experiences no substantial hardships does not mean that no families face hardships. As noted, the overwhelming majority of the poor are well housed and not overcrowded, but one in 25 will become temporarily homeless during the year. While most of the poor have a sufficient and fairly steady supply of food, one in five poor adults will experience temporary food shortages and hunger at some point in a year.
“The poor man who has lost his home or suffers intermittent hunger will find no consolation in the fact that his condition occurs infrequently in American society. His hardships are real and must be an important concern for policymakers. Nonetheless, anti-poverty policy needs to be based on accurate information. Gross exaggeration of the extent and severity of hardships in America will not benefit society, the taxpayers, or the poor.
“Finally, welfare policy needs to address the causes of poverty, not merely the symptoms. Among families with children, the collapse of marriage and erosion of the work ethic are the principal long-term causes of poverty. When the recession ends, welfare policy must require able-bodied recipients to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid. It should also strengthen marriage in low-income communities rather than ignore and penalize it.
The rest of the essay cites provides plenty of government surveys, studies, etc.
[http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor]
MPercy
September 21st, 2011
5:03 pm
“Why don’t you show me exactly where I expressed such a notion. It is not and never was my position.”
I never said you said it, I said that you seem to believe, appear to support, I have a notion that you believe, etc. Your words implied this notion, and I inferred it from your words. You say this is not your position, but the things you’ve said are not consistent with that statement.
For example, you said “You dare to cite a statistic of that as evidence that these people have no needs?” This was preceded by several items such as dishwashers, cordless phones, and computers that it seems reasonable to infer, based to their position leading up to this question, that you included those items in your list of “needs”. The inference is mine, but should I not have made it given what you wrote?
Subsequently, you called me ignorant and blind. These emotional personal attacks do nothing to help your argument.
MPercy
September 21st, 2011
5:05 pm
“What you failed to explain is what you want to do about it? Deny the help to all because of some are milking the system? Double the size of the government to watch every one who receives support whether he/she buys a big screen TV or a Playstation? ”
I believe I addressed that, at least with respect to foodstamps: “I’m thinking more like a 10lb bag of rice, 10lb bag of beans, and a bottle of multi-vitamins (adjust as needed for # people and time period covered). I.e., you won’t starve or be malnourished, but you won’t be too happy about your diet either. You want chips & beer? Get a job.”
MarkV
September 21st, 2011
5:43 pm
MPercy @5:03 pm: “Subsequently, you called me ignorant and blind. These emotional personal attacks do nothing to help your argument.”
I do not make personal attacks of the kind I see and get from some people here. But I am also straightforward in expressing my opinion, and it is never an emotional attack. I did not call you “ignorant” and “blind” in the sense of calling you an ignorant person. I called you “painfully ignorant of the issues involved in the obesity of the poor people.” I am sorry if you do not understand the difference. I have not change my opinion. While I do not want, as I have written, discuss those issues here because of their complexity, I have read enough about it to have an opinion that your view is painfully one-sided, and that you lack sufficient sympathy for people, many of whom try hard to make ends meet and give their families some measure of happy life. Yes, even buying their kids Playstations and good TV. It may be a difficult concept for you to understand – it is not for me. Buy the mothers, who come home after a day of heavy work, a dishwasher to allow her a little more rest. You may call it luxury – I do not.
MPercy
September 21st, 2011
6:09 pm
Well you’re certainly entitled to your opinion.