Budget talks: This is getting nasty

I would assume you meant to say "developed" rather than "developing." A comparison between the U.S. and a "developing" economy would not be a valid comparison.

I would also argue with your conclusion that the U.S. has "very low wealth and class mobility" in comparison with its "developed economy" peers. From a 2010 Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development study: "Mobility in earnings across pairs of fathers and sons is particularly low in France, Italy,
the United Kingdom and the United States ... " I am not familiar with the metric of mobility (intergenerational earnings elasticity) used in this study, so I'm not going to attempt to interpret it. Yet it is difficult to see this relative immobility as an artifact with political origins, given the variety of orientations across these four economies.

Finally, you might take care that you don't overly generalize this "rich vs. poor" research into a conservative-liberal comparison. There is substantial evidence that conservatives donate more -- both on an absolute and relative basis, even when one controls for religious donations -- to charity than do liberals.

 

I'm fine with the $200K or $250K per family. Except for NYC and a few areas of California, that's a pretty penny in which they can easily bank $50K a year.

 

That may be the single-most idealogical-driven post I've ever seen. Really.

Nothing short of "Obama is hopeless. His ideas are lame and he reeks of dirty socks" is

I'm fairly well-versed in Marxism (or was, it's been many a moon since I've cracked open the Marx/Engels reader I still own somewhere in this house), but so are most poli-sci majors. And I'll go so far as to say that Marx/Engels had fair observations to make about contemporary society in his time. But he went off the rails with his predictions/remedies.

But being well-versed and finding redeeming qualities in something does not make one a subscriber to its theory. Hell, many of us are well-versed in the ways of Gannett, but it doesn't make us true believers in the Gannett way, ha.

 

Per family or per person?

 

Nothing wrong with being financially successful, as long as you're making a safe product and you're not screwing over the people underneath you.

And if you're concerned about government spending, that's fine. But don't be spewing "Shared Sacrifice" without being willing to share in the sacrifice yourself.

Whether or not what we're doing in Afghanistan right now is making our country bettter is irrelevant. Fact is, when we first went in there, we thought it would make our country better by getting rid of the assholes who were harboring the terrorists that killed 3,000 of our people.

And, as Dick Cheney reminded us so eloquently a few years back, those soldiers volunteered. Maybe they did it because they had no other options in life. Or maybe they did it because they love their country, like Pat Tillman.

I'd find it hard to believe that we wouldn't characterize our soldiers as "successful". Even if they are only making $30K a year.

 

$200K per person, or $250K per family, in after-tax income, which is what the whole debate is about.

Meaning, after itemized deductions, the $250K family is actually making at least $275K, if not more.

 

I did mean developed. Duh on me.

Regarding wealth mobility/immobility, I was referring to this article and nifty chart in NYT from 2010, based on the same study you mentioned. The chart shows the link between parent and child earnings to be highest in Great Britain, Italy and USA, with a fairly substantial drop to #4 France and an even more substantial drop to #5 Spain.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/are-you-better-off-than-your-parents-were/

Charity donations are interesting, but not a great reflection of true generosity. The Koch Brothers donate tons of money to go to New York society parties and be big men in Manhattan, and they are about the least generous and compassionate people in the world. Many other charity donations are done for the same reason -- you know, the $1,000-a-plate dinners and such. That's something the rich have more access to doing.

 

Same logic can be used when explaining how the Senior Bowl in Mobile works.
Still, Steve McNair should have won The Heisman over the guy from Colorado back in '94 so that proves there are different reasons that figure into why different things happen

 

Really, you pick this thread to fellate that wonderful family man McNair?

 

Well said.

 

Ragu -- you are jimmying the numbers. Some people don't pay "income tax" as you describe it, but they pay their payroll, state and other taxes and are contributing just as much of their income in taxation. And you can wrap yourself in the flag and the ideal of this America that you describe all you want, but the basic fact is that vision of America is not what the country was founded on but what Milton Friedman came up with in the 1970s. It is not our heritage. It is a distinct turn in the American ethos (and one I find more than a bit distasteful, with the excesses of the last three decades on full display).