patrick.net

marcus says

Instead, GWB passes massive tax cuts that went mostly to high income earners

Not entirely true. The top bracket got $80B, the rest got $300B.

Of course, the top bracket is only 2% of the population IIRC.

Troy says

Not entirely true. The top bracket got $80B, the rest got $300B.

Of course, the top bracket is only 2% of the population IIRC.

Yes. According to new figures released by Citizens for Tax Justice:

The richest one percent would receive an average tax cut of $68,079 in 2013.

The poorest 60 percent of taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of just $487 in 2013.

http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2011/06/the_bush_tax_cuts_after_ten_ye.php

http://www.ctj.org/fed_pub_news/bush_tax_policy.php

Also from the same site:

"CTJ and others have noted that the cost of the Bush tax cuts from 2001 through 2010 was about two and a half trillion dollars. The recent “compromise” that extended them for another two years, through the end of 2012, cost $571.5 billion. But this is only the beginning. If Congress makes permanent the Bush tax cuts or extends them for another decade, the cost will be $5.4 trillion."

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

Rich people eat babies on buttered toast for breakfast - and you know what that costs?
BUCKS! Like 35K+ per baby, otherwise you're eating crap like caviar.

And they can afford real butter and the expensive bread. I'm willing to bet that babies taste the same whether they're the cheaper ones or the super expensive test tube type.

AF, you crack me up.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

Why the fuck does America want to starve its achievers to death?

Well, in a pinch they could always eat their fingers like they're just another meal. That would be ambitious, I think.

terriDeaner says

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

Why the fuck does America want to starve its achievers to death?

Well, in a pinch they could always eat their fingers like they're just another meal. That would be ambitious, I think.

If they develop an iron deficiency they could always eat part of their livers. It'll grow back...

It's sad how so many liberals show up and start defending government spending and socialism. It's like they have not noticed that our nation is broke and in debt. Because we keep on spending more per citizen than we make.

But they want their welfare checks, union thug payout, and government officials bribes rolling in, they don't care for consequences outside of that. As long as they get their checks they don't care who pays for it.

I too agree that govt. spending is bad EMan. WHich is why I have personally wrote a letter to Obama telliing him to stop sending all Social Security checks to your parents and not to send a single one to you when your 65.

Chris, yes there is waste in government, but no your union thug bs shows you know absolutely nothing about unions. Here's a taste of reality, and what's really sad is that you refuse to consider it.

Obama yesterday:

“Our problem is we cut taxes without paying for them for the last decade. We ended up instituting programs like the prescription drug program for seniors that was not paid for. We fought two wars, we didn’t pay for them. We had a bad recession that required a recovery act and stimulus spending and helping states. All that accumulated and there’s interest on top of that.
“To unwind that, what’s required is to roll back those tax cuts on the wealthiest individuals.”

He is only asking for minor tax increases to complement the huge spending cuts he will agree to.

What's really sad, is that I fear he won't hold out enough, because he feels he needs his tax argument next year.

marcus i'm already paying nearly half my income into taxes.

This government has a huge spending problem. Every politician that comes in right away starts handing money out in every direction like it's hot potatoes because it is not his money. They want to pay for all that, than they should cut their frivolous spending.

simchaland says

terriDeaner says

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

Why the fuck does America want to starve its achievers to death?

Well, in a pinch they could always eat their fingers like they're just another meal. That would be ambitious, I think.

If they develop an iron deficiency they could always eat part of their livers. It'll grow back...

This begs the question of which wine to go with the meal choice; I found this online.

The question was "Is Chianti a good wine to go with liver?"

Jade Orchid says

What I find interesting is that they chose Chianti for that line in the movie. Chianti is a horrible choice to go with liver as it's too fruity to be a serious match, especially to a connoisseur, like Hannibal. He would have more likely chosen a fine dark red like a Côtes du Rhône to bring out the flavor of the liver and to enhance the dish. I mean why kill someone and cook them when you plan on pairing it with the wrong wine, right? :)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100309141953AARyxxH

BTW, I was impressed at how California Companies Fleeing the Golden State becomes a liberal/conservative issue immediately. ;)

EMan says

t's sad how so many liberals show up and start defending government spending and socialism.

I defend it because what you call "socialism" -- high tax & high services -- works very well in Norway, Sweden, Canada, Australia, Denmark.

Economically, what I think is happening with this high tax level is the state is taking up the natural rents in the system and redistributing them evenly to all.

(All honest economists will say that taxing rents is the least worst tax)

Our system with very very low taxation is allowing the rents to collect in the top 1-5%. The rich get richer by plowing their income into more income-producing assets. These are largely not wealth-creating assets (that increase employment) but wealth itself -- land and natural resources (that are parasitical takings from the community).

It's like they have not noticed that our nation is broke and in debt.

This is because what you say here is not true. 80% of the nation might be broke, but the top 10% has never been richer.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/z1r-5.pdf

shows we have $71.9T of assets against $13.9T in liabilities. That's not broke.

The problem is simply that taxes are way, way too low. Cutting taxes in 2001-2003 was a horrible mistake at a very fundamental level.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=15G

If it wasn't an intentional attempt to destroy government, it was the stupidest thing we've done in my lifetime.

Because we keep on spending more per citizen than we make.

This is yet another one of your "thought-terminating cliches", it is a rare post of yours here that does not have one or several of these bon mots.

Per-household GDP is $130,000. Per-household government spending is $50,000. We are not spending more than we make.

Troy says

I defend it because what you call "socialism" -- high tax & high services -- works very well in Norway, Sweden, Canada, Australia, Denmark.

we are not a tiny little place like norway, sweden, canada or australia. communism works in an african tribe too, it doesnt work in a large economy.

EMan says

we are not a tiny little place like norway, sweden, canada or australia. communism works in an african tribe too, it doesnt work in a large economy.

communism? What the eurosocialists are doing is not communism, and it's not really socialism, either, since communism is fancy word for socialism.

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html

What they are doing is simply a mixed economy, putting the state in charge of what it does best and putting free enterprise in charge of the rest.

right wing cranks simply lack the perspective and understanding to successfully parse that last sentence.

As for the point that we have 60X the population of Norway and 10X the population of Canada, point taken. Perhaps we are in fact too large to govern ourselves as well as eg. Norway.

Troy none of those nations lead the world in anything. They are all small, and small scale situations are different. US was founded upon rugged individualism, upon freedom from big brother. It's what made us great and the greatest nation in the world.

EMan says

US was founded upon rugged individualism, upon freedom from big brother. It's what made us great and the greatest nation in the world.

thing is, we also had over three million square miles of mighty fine land available to us -- the Louisiana Purchase alone was 800,000 sq miles, 5 acres per household now, 500 acres per household back then.

The election of 1800 had under 70,000 voters -- total.

The corn-pone history of the Wild West is over now, the good land was all given away by 1920 and what was left for the nation to pursue was internal development in manufacturing and industrial processes (which we did quite well at, 1910-1990).

And as the cities grew in development so did the need for social justice and government regulation of the market. The 1912 Progressive Party platform is indicative of the modernization that was sorely needed by then:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=607

Your cartoon view of history is useful as propaganda but we are no longer a rural country with plenty of opportunity for everyone with the gumption to take an axe and go find land. Quite the opposite, we're an empire in decline that is falling increasingly into a parasitical rich/ fucked poor divide that as it continues will take us out as a world power, and as a place worth living.

We have great economies of scale but we also have millions of people living in poverty or worse. It doesn't have to be this way, but conservatives have zero policy fixes for this. Going back to the 19th century isn't going to be progress.

Troy says

It doesn't have to be this way, but conservatives have zero policy fixes for this. Going back to the 19th century isn't going to be progress.

taking money from people that survive through labor, and giving it to people that willingly make bad choices and do not support themselves, is not a good idea in any era. Is it?

There's a strawman or two in there, bap.

One of the drivers of poverty in this country is the parasitical rent-seeking going on all over the place -- in housing, medicine, energy, everything with inelastic demand, since rents live there.

It is this rife rentierism that is keeping the lower classes down. Individually, anyone with the talent is able to escape this predation by joining it, but not everyone can, nor can most people stuck on the low end of the totem pole.

Poverty goes beyond "bad choices". Bad choices are an element, but the dynamics that induce these bad choices are systemic.

eg. people with money have connections, credit, and the luxury of being able to bounce back from multiple failures (cf Trump). Poor people have little of that.

I don't pretend to have any magic bullets here. But what we really need in this country is much more public investment in housing, education, and healthcare.

Pay peanuts, get monkeys. If we cut our defense budget 50% we'd have $400B to invest in housing and education. That's FOUR MILLION middle-class jobs making a difference in communities that need the investment.

Things can't turn around in a year, we need a generation or 3, but we could de-slum and de-ghetto our cities in 30 years if we decided to.

The poor need jobs. We -- the wealthy -- should pay them to improve their communities.

Bap33 says

taking money from people that survive through labor, and giving it to people that willingly make bad choices and do not support themselves, is not a good idea in any era. Is it?

Is it better to continue to support a massive military complex and projects such as the bridge to nowhere (which, although not built, was funded anyway)? Is it better to fund special interest groups and tributes to dead politicians and useless programs?

We're in a recession - I'd rather be helping the people who are out of work and need assistance than funding other shit.

BTW, the title of this post was that companies are fleeing the state. However, the subject is about libs bad and they're killing the world.

Yawn.

Bap33 says

taking money from people that survive through labor, and giving it to people that willingly make bad choices and do not support themselves, is not a good idea in any era. Is it?

Very true. That's why cutting government jobs (people that survive through labor), to pay for tax cuts for the rich (who make questionable choices w/respect to the productivity of their capital), continues to f*&& over the US, compared to all the more successful first world economies.

Cali is over with, I used to live in the hell hole of SoCal. Why would a company open up operations in Cali when they have to pay staff 50% more to afford a love shack and 80% of the applicants are uneducated gang bangers. In CO you get educated applicants, operating costs are half and houses are almost free. I have lived in both areas and for Cali will soon be Detroit with good weather

@Troy,
I just do not think Gov has the same role in housing or education that it MUST in defense. Housing is a luxury. Public funded education is a luxury. Defense is a need.

But, I agree with you 100% on the rentism deal. 100%. I am all for outlawing two things right now. 1) Renting/used as income/absent owner of SFH zoned R1, and 2) Section 8 or any other welfare support paid to any privatly owned home. If I am going to help a poor person have a place to live I want the assett to be America's, not some rich dude with multiple houses willing to rent to Section 8 since he don't live near by..

@marcus,
I agree.

@Ellie,
I put my response with a quote so as to explain my response since I knew I came late and was off topic. Liberals are ok, it's liberalism/socialism/progressive-ism that is the problem!! lol. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Bap33 says

Public funded education is a luxury. Defense is a need.

It'll be a great day when schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy bombers.

Our defense budget isn't about protecting our country. It's about spending ridiculous amounts of money on boondoggles and planes that don't work and military bases we don't need and equipment & electronics that don't work - and the lives of our young. The people in charge of the military - politicos - are able to protect their children with cushy positions where they'll never be in harm's way and award huge contracts to their districts. Our military needs an overhaul.

Years ago I remember learning that it would take 1/10 of our military budget to completely wipe out poverty in America (approx 1987). I don't know if that holds true - but I don't doubt it.

I'm surprised that you don't believe that publicly funded education is vital to our future but you believe that 32 planes are worth nearaly 400 billion dollars:

Cost estimates have risen to $382 billion for 2,443 aircraft, at an average of $156 million each. The rising program cost estimates have cast doubt on the actual number to be produced for the U.S. In January 2011, the F-35B variant was placed on "probation" for two years because of development issues. In February 2011, the Pentagon put a price of $207.6 million for each of the 32 aircraft to be acquired in FY2012, rising to $304.15 million ($9,732.8/32) if its share of RDT&E spending is included.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Joint_Strike_Fighter

Don't you need a good public education system to have a strong defense? How can you possibly have one without the other?

HousingWatcher says

Don't you need a good public education system to have a strong defense? How can you possibly have one without the other?

Here's what ya do: you send the uneducated (stupid) ones in first, giving the educated ones time to figure out what to do. ;)

I disagree. The education system is absurd and is only a goldenchild of the left becasue it gave them direct access to the youth to force upon them their leftist anti-God/American/Freedom queer way of thinking.

And no, an education system of any type is not possible without a defense to ensure FREEDOM to learn as you wish, where you wish. The first thing leftist or communist or Arabists do is attack the educational process and who gets educated. Only a strong military gives you the access to education miss, since those crazy arabs' first order of business is to outlaw female education.

also, your connection between uneducated and stupid is not correct in my book.

Bap33 says

I disagree. The education system is absurd and is only a goldenchild of the left becasue it gave them direct access to the youth to force upon them their leftist anti-God/American/Freedom queer way of thinking.

Nominated for stupidest things ever said on Patrick.net

Bap33 says

The first thing leftist or communist or Arabists do is attack the educational process and who gets educated.

So, you believe that publicly funded education is a luxury and that you believe our education system is absurd.

Are you leftist, or communist, or an Arabist? By your own definition, you're one of 'em.

Bap33 says

Only a strong military gives you the access to education miss, since those crazy arabs' first order of business is to outlaw female education.

What is an "education miss?"

no, I aint one of them. But, I would like to see a voucher system. Teachers and higher education are so far to the left it is disgusting.

"education miss" was a case of bad punctuation. I was speaking to you (or any female) and should have put a comma after education. Does that make it easier to see? I write like crap.

Bap33 says

Teachers and higher education are so far to the left it is disgusting.

I'm a teacher in LA. Not that you will believe me (actually being there), but the many teachers I know are not particularly left wing. Yes, more are democrats than republican, but you have it backwards. Teachers are likely to be democrats because democrats support them.

I am a Math teacher, and I assure you that I very rarely share any political opinions with students. I come here to vent. Although I know that I see myself as very moderate, and actually even as a true conservative, whereas to you I may be practically a communist.

One of my best teacher friends is a republican, that is the old fashioned conservative kind, not a right wing fundamentalist wacko (no offense) kind that are so prevalent now. Forgive my rambling here, but my point is that I am actually fairly moderate on most issues and most teachers I know are as well.

I guess on the "guns, gays and God" trio teachers are sort of left wing.

But that's because they are educated (and a little above average intelligence), and they know that these have nothing to do with actual governance that will occur, and are only about the marketing that will get people like you to vote against your own interests.

I think I can see where you left the rails now. I said the "education system" .. the entity .. the whole monster ... I did not mean to say the individual cells (teachers) that make up the monster were all bad. Just most, many, lots and lots, but not all. Since math is your bag, I'll give ya a pass for reading comprendo-ing. lol

Also, it should be mentioned that you teach an applied science that has no room for personal interpratation. No need for sexes or races or politics. But, when you open that math book of any junior high kid you will see OBVIOUS installations of all three of those non-math items. Right? Right!

Troy says

eg. people with money have connections, credit, and the luxury of being able to bounce back from multiple failures (cf Trump). Poor people have little of that.

It has always been that way. Rich always had more chances in life and more opportunities. That has never changed and never will. Yet, today if one is willing they can accomplish greatness from being a nobody. It is harder with more competition out there, but it is possible.

Hard work, is what the greatest generation was not afraid of. Today many people avoid it like plague.

Bap33 says

But, when you open that math book of any junior high kid you will see OBVIOUS installations of all three of those non-math items. Right? Right!

You must be drinking tonight because the lack of inhibition is causing you to show some truly scary ignorance. Wtf are you talking about ? Man, I've always respected your manners on here, which are better than mine, I dare say. But when your beliefs slip out, we find out how incredibly FAR FAR FAR FAR to the CRAZY CRAZY right you are.

You scare me very much for the future of our country Bap. They've got you by the soul. No offense, but thank your lucky stars you weren't born in Germany around 1910 or so. God only knows what they would have had you believing, and doing.

Bap33 says

Since math is your bag, I'll give ya a pass for reading comprendo-ing

I comprehended this.

Bap33 says

it gave them direct access to the youth to force upon them their leftist anti-God/American/Freedom queer way of thinking.

This implies that teachers, who are the ones with direct access would have to believe and teach these views, I'm sorry, force these views, on to children.

Sorry, I'm sure that teaching them your fear, hate and extremely twisted views would better prepare them for the coming fascist government that you apparently want so badly.

Secular humanism, ooooooh scary evil stuff.

marcus says

You must be drinking tonight

my surmise, too

God only knows what they would have had you believing, and doing.

The Nazis weren't doing more than the people wanted. Well, 60% of them or so.

There was a liberal left in that country (AFAIK centered mostly towards Hamburg and the Ruhr) whose leaders had been jailed and exiled starting in 1933, so they were dragged along for the ride.

The 1930 Federal election was interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_1930

Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) 24.5%
National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) 18.3%
Communist Party of Germany (KPD) 13.1%
Centre Party (Z) 11.8%

The rest, 32%, were split among mostly reactionary right fringe parties (except for the 3.8% for the German Democratic Party, who were "progressive")

So right here we see the conservative have ~60% of the vote sewn up -- Nazis, Centre Party, and the fringe. The Centre Party was socially conservative and not revisionist WRT the Weimar constitutional order, but in 1933 they chose to throw the SPD under the bus and let Hitler have his Enabling Act, so he could do some housecleaning.

The KPD were the Naderite purity trolls of the era, them and the SPD never got along all that well since the SPD sold them down the river during the revolutionary birth of the Weimar Republic.

So in Germany, the sensible left was outnumbered and outgunned by the right. The left and center had around 50% but they couldn't coalition together to hold the Weimar system together.

This is what happened up in Canada recently and is probably what's going to happen here later this decade. I don't think this country is smart enough to figure out what's going down.

Nomograph says

It is FAR easier to succeed today then ever before in the entire history of mankind.

I wish this were true. If you are speaking in geological time, where "now" includes 15 or 40years ago, then yes. Or if you are talking about the prospects for the most intelligent and best educated in the sciences or engineering, then yes.

But if you think that it's "easier than ever before" now, for average intelligence people coming out of average colleges with majors in business or communications or liberal arts etc, then you aren't paying attention. We are still in a terrible recession.

But I will acknowledge that believing what you are saying would be the optimal belief to hold.

elliemae says

Our defense budget isn't about protecting our country. It's about spending ridiculous amounts of money on boondoggles and planes that don't work and military bases we don't need and equipment & electronics that don't work - and the lives of our young. The

Our education budget isn't about educating our youth. It's about employing asn many people as possible and padding the pockets of the teacher's unions.

zzyzzx says

padding the pockets of the teacher's unions

Says the angry misinformed right wing extremist.

What are the "teachers unions" to you ? Couldn't have have just said "the teachers." Yes, teachers these days are so coddled, and under-worked, and overpaid. It's a travesty.