Missing the point
Posted by Paul Cox on November 2nd, 2009
I think some of you missed the point about the last entry. It wasn’t so much to argue in favor of healthcare reform (though I think that’s plainly needed), but to point out that there’s definite priorities in how the government spends money- and at least the spending that’s going on now will have more money going to regular people instead of to the already-really-rich.
How that becomes tremendously controversial is kind of mystifying to me, but then again “common sense” isn’t always that common.
Stop for a minute and think. Bush ran monster deficits through his tax cuts. The tax cuts primarily benefited really really really rich people. For less money than we spent on that, we could pay for the entire healthcare reform that’s proposed, and get healthcare coverage to pretty much everyone in the USA (and lower everyone’s costs at the same time).
Whether you support the manner they’re proposing to change healthcare or don’t support it isn’t the point. The point is that you can spend the money on a very few rich folks (the top 20% got more of Bush’s tax cuts than the remaining 80% of the American population) or you can spend it on everyone.
Which do you think is a better idea? Me, I’ll go for targeting the majority.
Please note, that does not automatically equate to communism, socialism, nazi-ism, or anything else; it’s just common sense.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:22 am
Common sense has been in very short supply for over 3 years at the facility level, and continues today. Change takes time, it may take another year to get FAA management back to where they need to be about bargaining. It may take longer to get the Bush mind set gone from the rest of the world.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:54 am
Public Option.
Now.
Pass the National Health Care reform plan.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:43 am
Paul, a tax cut isn’t government spending. Of course the top 20% got 80%, they pay far more than 80% of the taxes. About a third of earners pay no tax at all. In fact many receive a “return” from tax credits.
I don’t see the common sense in the government taking money from my pocket (I’m in the top 20% thanks to reclass) and giving it to folks who have less. Personal property rights are one of the founding principles of our country. The Gov. should not take one penny from the people (even rich ones) that it doesn’t absolutely have too.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:45 am
We saw first hand how Snakey gave away FSS to Lochmart AND created another finacial windfall for Raytheon, by freezing controller hiring for three years and then stuffing zero experience new hires in to places like SCT and other busy terminals. WCG a non AIA company, had no more of a chance in that bid, than the FSS employees did against LM.
After engineering this financial bonaza she sails away from FAA to her payoff, the AIA job. LM and Raytheon are both AIA client companies.
And the notion that “conservatives” actually cut a dime of government spending is silly. They merely distribute it differently as you indicate Paul.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:55 am
Employing your logic Nice Try, FAA ATC shoild be privatized and your salary, benefits and pension eliminated to save ALL taxpayers money, both rich and poor.
That’s the logic Snakey employed when she screwed nearly 2000 federal FSS employees in the LM giveaway.
If you want to make the case that your(my)job should be federal, I’m willing to listen. But frankly, Boeing, LM, others, have plans all set and ready to roll, to takeover FAA ATC and make all of us controllers their employees. And they can show the Congress/taxpayers on paper anyway, all the billions they’ll save (can you say 18 bux an hour to vector at N90, SCT, C90, MIA etc.)
And your 80/20 figures on who pays what….would you care to provide some data to back that up ?
“Of course the top 20% got 80%, they pay far more than 80% of the taxes.”
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:56 am
should (sorry)
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:44 am
We tend to be a selfish lot. Anyone that makes more than me should have to pay more taxes, but not me, I work too hard for my money. I believe if we all live in a village, then it is our responsibility to help support that village.
Off topic but kind of the same thing- I think the FAA screwed up letting NATCA decide seniority. How many conventions has the issue come up with people trying to find ways to take away seniority, or make themselves more senior? I think seniority was a huge issue back when unions first started. Companies getting rid of older (higher paid) workers and replacing them with less expensive new ones. Seniority should not be negotiable. Wonder why we only get the bottom of the barrel for supes? We used to have supes that were on our side, and many were decent controllers. Now we get the weak sticks that are easy puppets for management. No good controller is going to give up their seniority to take a temp job, so we get garbage when we need talent.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:26 am
“And your 80/20 figures on who pays what….would you care to provide some data to back that up ?”
Even a cursory glance around the internet will show you that this figure is accurate and might even be understated. In 2006 the top 80% of wage earners paid more than 86% of all taxes. The bottom 20% paid a -2.8%. (yes that is a NEGATIVE 2.8%) Here are a couple of links for your socialistic leaning brain.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm2420.cfm
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:37 am
SCT, if you feel ATC is not a legit funtion for the gov. (I know this doesn’t apply to you), then yes. it should be privatized. I happen to feel it’s a good use of gov funds. A biased opinion for sure.
If you feel obligated to pay the health care costs of others, feel free to whip out your checkbook and do it.
The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay less than 3%. Why not just cut that to zero, and let them keep their cash.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
This is for 2007. It’s gone up every year since 2001.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:45 am
The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.
Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush’s tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.
The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.
The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.
The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.
From the Treasury Dept. Office of tax analysis.
Keep in mind this info was released by the Bush admin in 04. Info from the National Taxpayers Union seems to verify.
Note. This is not to be taken as a defense of the bush admin. He also spent way too much money we simply don’t have.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:18 am
Top 20% (sorry)
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:31 am
NICE TRY, Nice try;
Anyone can spew numbers and make them say what they want. The top 1% wage earners have a combined wealth equal to the bottom 90%. Let’s all feel bad for these individuals that Pres. Obama wants them to pay more taxes. And all he really wants to do is roll back the tax rate to the Reagan years so these mega-rich start bearing the burden of all the deficits that Bush ran up.
A majority of the taxpayers you say don’t pay any taxes at all live below the poverty level. In your eyes they are not paying their fair share. Really? Give me a break.
It all comes down to ideology. Some believe that it is everyone for themselves and earn and keep as much as you can. That is “capitalism” and that is the principle that our country was founded.
I believe that the true measure of our country is the way we treat the least fortunate of us.
No one, and I mean NO ONE, should be denied medical care in this country just so someone else can have more money to spend on expensive homes and fancy vacations.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:37 pm
It’s simply impossible to “spend” money on a tax cut. The simple economic fact is that lowering tax rates increases revenue. Period. It’s been proven over, and over, and over again. JFK, Reagan and yes W. all RAISED federal tax revenues by cutting income tax rates. Facts:
Table 1.
Tax Revenues, 2003 and 2006
Billions of Dollars Percentage of GDP
Individual 2003 2006
Income Taxes 794 7.3 1,044 8.0
Corporate 2003 2006
Income Taxes 132 1.2 354 2.7
2003 2006
Other Taxes 857 7.9 1,009 7.7
2003 2006
Total Revenues 1,783 16.5 2,407 18.4
Source: Congressional Budget Office.
Note: GDP = gross domestic product.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:39 pm
“SCT, if you feel ATC is not a legit funtion for the gov. (I know this doesn’t apply to you), then yes. it should be privatized. I happen to feel it’s a good use of gov funds. A biased opinion for sure.”
I’m not the one screaming about smaller government and lower taxes……you are. What I am saying is based on your logic, and displayed in all it’s glory by Bush’s FAA witch Blakey, they 86ed FSS and screwed nearly 2000 feds out of their careers, salaries, pensions and benefits. The entire effort aimed at saving taxpayers money (allegedly) If you want smaller government and lower taxes, then why not actually ABIDE by your stated principles, and demand privatized ATC as well ? In fact, you should quit the employ of the federal government immediately, and go to work in the private sector performing contract ATC or some other job….come on, practice what you preach NT ! Oh that’s right, that would mean you’d get screwed.
“If you feel obligated to pay the health care costs of others, feel free to whip out your checkbook and do it.”
Apparently the 1.45% of your salary that funds medicare has escaped your attention. And we’re already opening our wallets in the form of higher insurance premiums, for the uninsured that inhabit America’s emergency rooms, in an effort to secure their primary medical care. Do you support dismantling medicare and social security NT ?
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:43 pm
How much money did W borrow to fund his trillion plus dollar tax cut ? Or his medicare drug plan for that matter.
Didn’t cost anything ?
LOL
The last time I borrowed money in a refi, there was this thing called interest I had to pay, in addition to the principle.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
“I’m not the one screaming about smaller government and lower taxes……you are.”
I didn’t realize I was screaming about anything. I haven’t said anything about smaller gov. or lower taxes. I think I pay enough taxes.
Why not abide by your principles and pay the insurance premiums for some uninsured people.
I always considered the 1.45% medicare tax to be my “premium” for my medicare insurance. Stupid I know, because the gov is spending more money than they have. There is no SS trust fund or medicare trust fund and billions are spent “off budget” so the a-holes in DC don’t have to deal with reality.
When the gov borrows money, they (we) have to pay interest too. There is no free ride.
ZOB- how much did your house cost? What kind of car do you drive? Who gets to decide what constitutes an “expensive” house or a “fancy” vacation?
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:45 pm
I love it when folks interject “our founding fathers” into a discussion. Limbaugh,Hannity, etc bring this up all the time. Well in regards to capitalism and personal property it is always good to remember that most of these “founding fathers” were slaveholders. Their free market was perched on the backs of the work of slaves, their personal property. Slavery the real “white book” in terms of oppressive work rules. So really its hard to bring our “founding fathers ” into a 21st century conversation concerning capitalism or alot of other things. Alot of things change in 200+ years that those guys with the possible exception of Benjamin Franklin would never have dreamed of.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Lots of professional economists would disagree, Mr. Nightmare.
From the Big Picture blog, Oct. 6, 2009…
The article links to this NY Times piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/business/07leonhardt.html?_r=1
David Leonhardt has a terrific piece in the Times today on Bruce Bartlett — “the most persistent — and thought-provoking — conservative critic” of the GOP.
The discussion of tax cuts is fat too common sense to be seen in print very often:
“His conservatism starts with the idea that high taxes are no longer the problem, even if complaining about them still makes for good politics. This year, federal taxes are on pace to equal just 15 percent of gross domestic product. It is the lowest share since 1950.
As the economy recovers, taxes will naturally return to about 18 percent of G.D.P., and Mr. Obama’s proposed rate increase on the affluent would take the level closer to 20 percent. But some basic arithmetic — the Medicare budget, projected to soar in coming decades — suggests taxes need to rise further, and history suggests that’s O.K.
For one thing, past tax increases have not choked off economic growth. The 1980s boom didn’t immediately follow the 1981 Reagan tax cut; it followed his 1982 tax increase to reduce the deficit. The 1990s boom followed the 1993 Clinton tax increase. Tax rates matter, but they’re nowhere near the main force affecting growth.
And taxes are supposed to rise as a country grows richer. This is Wagner’s Law, named for the 19th-century economist Adolf Wagner, who coined it. As societies become more affluent, people demand more services that governments tend to provide, like health care, education and a strong military. A century ago, federal taxes equaled just a few percent of G.D.P. The country wasn’t better off than it is today.
Modern conservatism, Mr. Bartlett says, should therefore have two main economic principles. One, it should prevent government from getting too big. There is no better opportunity than health reform, given that the current bills don’t do nearly enough to slow spending growth. Instead of pushing the White House to do better, however, Congressional Republicans are criticizing any effort to slow spending as an attack on Grandma. They’re evidently in favor of big Medicare, just not the taxes to pay for it.”
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:20 am
NT:
“Why not abide by your principles and pay the insurance premiums for some uninsured people.”
Do you have difficulty actually answering a question or defending your principles ?
Now, have you looked at the details of Obama’s healthcare plan, the different congressional plans ? Are you certain that your taxes will increase when a healthcare reform bill is finally passed ?
And both of us are ALREADY paying for other people’s insurance through the higher premium/ER healthcare plan that curently exists. A situation Obama would like to fix.
Do you support dismantling SS and medicare…yes or no ?
Did you support what Bush Blakey did to FSS…yes or no ?
Easy questions. We’ll see if you’ll answer them
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:36 am
I went back up the thread and read the third post by Nice Try:
“I don’t see the common sense in the government taking money from my pocket (I’m in the top 20% thanks to reclass) and giving it to folks who have less. Personal property rights are one of the founding principles of our country. The Gov. should not take one penny from the people (even rich ones) that it doesn’t absolutely have too.”
What government programs/services/agencies that benefit those who have less than you, should be cut or eliminated to ensure that not one penny is taken from the people (you) in the form of taxes ?
Name 6.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:48 am
Capitalism was not “built on the back of slavery.” Slavery is what held us back. Compare the economic state of the North vs the South in 1860.
I still cannot understand how anyone of functioning adult intelligence can spew this crap.
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I am a libertarian by nature. I feel the government should stay out of the peoples lives as much as possible. I believe that when government taxes a dollar, the return to the economy is something less than if an individual spent the dollar.
Just about all government programs are about the redistribution of dollars from one place to another. All of it is debatable based on personal ideas. There really is no right or wrong just opinion. In the case of government, all have a vote yet few have money. Balance comes from those with money have power.
We live in a great country. Our version of capitalism has contributed to the goal that hard work converts to more comfortable life style. It is also true that our social safety net leads to the future genrations enjoying the same options that we have enjoyed.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:20 pm
How much of another person’s life, liberty, and property is someone ENTITLED to?
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:45 pm
No
Yes
I hope whatever plan finally passes is coupled with a tax increase to pay for it.
No
No
Dept of Education
No child left behind act
Farm subsidies
Home interest deduction
Amtrack
Community Block grants
Cash for clunkera
8K home buyers credit
You’re an faa employee. You can’t come up with several examples on your own.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:02 am
Dear Joe Cool:
Let’s see 1860 and 1776. Um 64 years. Well things do change don’t they over time. Which is my point. At the time our “founding fathers” were writing there was no industrial north. I contend ideally capitalism must have a free labor force for one thing. A give and take between labor and management. Today capitalism in the USA means moving the company to other countries where they can employ folks at extremely low wages to increase the bottom line. In Mexico you have plants that have relocated there that have employees living in tin huts outside the fences. Is this what our “founding fathers” envisioned?
November 4th, 2009 at 5:07 am
I’m sorry about the math. 1860 and 1776. 84 years! Maybe Joe Cool is right about “my functioning adult intelligence.”
November 4th, 2009 at 6:15 am
Nice Try says:
“I always considered the 1.45% medicare tax to be my “premium” for my medicare insurance. Stupid I know, because the gov is spending more money than they have. There is no SS trust fund or medicare trust fund and billions are spent “off budget” so the a-holes in DC don’t have to deal with reality.”
Who exactly are the A Holes in DC ?
And did that include Bush, Cheney, Blakey and Sturgell when they were in DC ?
And you want to get rid of Amtrak(and a transporation subsidy for tens of millions of Americans in the DC-NY corridor) but you didn’t support the FSS privatization ?
November 4th, 2009 at 7:12 am
Too many too name.
Yes, although in general, it wasn’t about appointees, just elected ones.
I’m fairly sure ” tens of millions” don’t ride Amtrak.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:24 am
“Too many too name.”
Cop out.
“Yes, although in general, it wasn’t about appointees, just elected ones.”
Gonzales at DOJ, Blakey at FAA, Doans at GSA, Brown at FEMA…yea, it was about appointees too.
“I’m fairly sure ” tens of millions” don’t ride Amtrak.”
Tens of millions of Americans live in that corridor and many of them on a frequent basis do ride Amtrak.
“Amtrak carried 7.05 million passengers from October through December, the first quarter of fiscal year 2009. That’s just slightly fewer riders than the same period last year, but nearly 5 percent below what the company expected for the quarter”
http://amtraktrack.blogspot.com/2009/01/amtrak-ridership-falls-below.html
November 4th, 2009 at 10:08 am
“Amtrak carried 7.05 million passengers from October through December, the first quarter of fiscal year 2009. That’s just slightly fewer riders than the same period last year, but nearly 5 percent below what the company expected for the quarter”
So I was right. Thanks for the confirmation.That looks like at least 12.95million less than “tens of millions.” That 7 million figure probably doesn’t account for repeat riders. Regardless, you asked, that’s one I would phase out.
“Tens of millions of Americans live in that corridor ”
Sounds like some Palin logic there. Good work.
“yea, it was about appointees too.”
No it wasn’t. While many of the appointees are aholes. That wasn’t who I was referring to; so no, it wasn’t about appointees.
“Cop out.”
Look at the list of congressmen and senators for the last 35 yrs. Scratch of the names of any that never voted for ome of these sham budgets. The ones left are the a-holes I was referring to. Congress controls the spending, or rather doesn’t control the spending.
Apparently you think the gov can do no wrong and all spending is good. Aren’t there things you think the gov is doing wrong or shouldn’t be doing at all?
November 4th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I never said tens of milions rode Amtrak, I said tens of millions lived in the NE corridor and many of them rode Amtrak. Limbaugh logic.
So, why do you want to 86 Amtrak again?
And Palin may very well be the candidate of the lower taxes/smaller government (allegedly) party called the GOP….right ?
Next:
“No it wasn’t. While many of the appointees are aholes. That wasn’t who I was referring to; so no, it wasn’t about appointees.”
So any Congress member who voted for what you call a “sham” budget (by the way, budgets in DC don’t mean squat, approps bills do) the last 35 years is an A Hole. Would that include your member of Congress ?
Next:
“Apparently you think the gov can do no wrong and all spending is good. Aren’t there things you think the gov is doing wrong or shouldn’t be doing at all?”
What do you know about government ? I own a commercial fruit operation that’s currently in a quarantine zone because of a pest fruit fly. I’ve got the county and the state up my ass 24/7 trying to comply with their requirements so I can harvest my crop. Believe me, if all you have to do is pay taxes and get a driver’s license renewal/vehicle registration every few years (which you can do online unless you’re 80) consider yourself lucky.
What would I cut ? For starters I’d fire the Bush appointee Krakowski and not replace him, freeze any more managament hires at FAA/ATO, and contract out TM/move the TMCs back to the boards.
Government does plenty of wrong (at many levels)….usually when it’s run by the lower taxes/smaller government types like Bush, who jammed the IWRs down NATCA’s throat.
What I can’t understand is guys like you who cry about paying taxes, but in the same breath say oh no, don’t touch my federal job, benefit package, salary, pension. You want government to go away, to get out of your life…unless it’s your federal job of course. Strikes me as hypocritical.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I’ve got the county and the state up my ass 24/7 trying to comply with their requirements
How’s that workin out for you?
November 4th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
31 comments, 10 of ‘em by Athass. I’m guessing his wife must spend a fortune on earplugs.