Rep. Rangel will seek to reinstate draft

Parent Cafe
101

<br>

<br>

<p>It’s actually pretty fair, in my opinion, but I feel free to “gripe” when, for example, a president proposes eliminating the tax on capital gains. But regardless of whether the current system is good or bad, I don’t believe that citizens earn the right to “gripe” (a.k.a., petition their government for the redress of grievances) by “buckling down” until they make a salary that qualifies them to have an opinion. If you don’t like the law, you’re entitled to complain about it, even if you’re a janitor.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>Did you read my previous post? I’m not going to post my salary, but I’m a corporate litigator at a big firm. I AM “those of us.”</p>

102

<p>

Then I don’t know what you’re griping about. I’m glad you’re doing so well at your young age as a junior litigator, Hanna. I was more concerned with Kluge, who seems to self-destruct over these issues at the kitchen table all the time.</p>

<p>BTW–Don’t forget that “those of us” is a graduated concept, thanks to our fair tax system–and I welcome you to your tier in the upper echelon.</p>

103

<p>I read Kluge as primarily griping about the widening gap between rich and poor and about the national deficit & debt. I think that’s all worth griping about, and I don’t think you need to be in the top bracket to do it. But we may be seeing different ideas in the same posts.</p>

104

<p>Driver, my gripe is this: If we keep segregating into an increasingly economically stratified nation, the world our kids inherit as young adults is going to be an ugly place. I make no bones about being one of those who are at least on the edge of the group that’s the “haves” - and I’ve sincerely advised my kids to do the same or better. But a nation that’s split between the very rich and the poor with little in between isn’t a good place to call home even if you’re a “have” - and that’s the direction we’re heading.</p>

<p>We’ve always had the rich and the middle class and the poor. I think that’s a good thing - rewarding effort and spunk, providing incentive, etc. But statistically the gap started to widen about 25 years ago. Around 1980 things began to change qualitatively; the ratio between the rich, middle and bottom sectors of society began to widen. And that trend has continued, with cumulate effects which are now large enough that some people are finally beginning to notice. </p>

<p>The tax thing? People are quick to point out that the top X% pay X% of income taxes. What isn’t brought out is that the top X% are paying a smaller % of those taxes relative to their share of the nation’s income than they used to. (And people only talk about the one slightly progressive tax - income tax - and ignore all of the flat to regressive taxes - sales, FICA, etc.)</p>

<p>These are simple policy facts and opinions. Name calling is the usual response. And no, I’m not a communist, and I’m not “griping” that I don’t make enough money, ot pay too much or too little in taxes. I’m simply stating that our country is heading in a direction that many otherwise well-informed people seem to be oblivious of. </p>

<p>If somebody wants to refute the cold fact of increasing wealth stratification, I’m all ears. If anyone wants to make the argument that its not a bad thing, I’d be interested to hear the logic. If anyone wants to address all of the tax burden on various econoomic sectors and try to seriously claim that the wealthy are overtaxed - or even that they pay a measurably larger share of their income in taxes than do the middle class - bring it on.</p>

<p>But I think that a lot of people are simply oblivious to what I think are the salient economic facts of American life for the past 25 years: the rich are getting much richer, the poor are getting no less poor, and the middle class is treading water while their costs rise. </p>

<p>Oh, and I am actually royally ****ed off that the Republicans have borrowed billions from the Chinese, handed the cash to the extremely wealthy, and stuck our kids with the tab. That sucks. If you’ve got a coherent defense of that policy I’d love to hear it.</p>

105

<p>

Actually that’s not true (and you know it - or at least should now it because I used your own statistics the last time you started this topic several months ago). The statistics show that the gap reached its greatest disparity during the Clinton years; since then things have moderated a bit.</p>

106

<p>Well, the “shrinking budget deficit” statistic is a little misleading. I think the deficit is expected to be $296 billion this year. That’s only “smaller” in comparision to other years of the George W. Bush presidency. If it weren’t for the whopping deficits Bush ran up in 2003-2005, this year’s deficit would be the largest in history.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

107

<p>Conyat, if your post was a reply to mine, I was not talking about deficits but what kluge’s pet peeve is - the income gap.</p>

108

<p>No, sorry, FF. It was more aimed at the general budget deficit discussion and golani, who always brings up the allegedly “shrinking” deficit when the economy is discussed.</p>

<p>ETA: I suppose I should be more concerned about the gap between rich and poor, but right now, most of my worry goes into the intersection between tax revenue and interest payments on the debt. If we keep going at the rate we are, all of our revenue is going to be going toward interest payments in as little as 20-30 years, leaving absolutely nothing to run the government, much less pay down principal. This year, the interest payments alone will be over $400 billion.</p>

109

<p>Fundingfather, you’re behind the recent data. The previous peak was 2000, and there was a trough in 2001-2003; but 2004 is back up to 1999 levels and I expect 2005 will continue the trend. But while there are blips along the way (as you would expect) the overall trend is clear. </p>

<p>To flesh it out; percentage of national personal income for the top 1%, 5 % and 10% of taxpayers:
in 1985: 10.03, 22.67, 33.77
in 1990: 14.00, 27.62, 38.77
in 1995: 14.60, 28.81, 40.16
in 2000: 20.81, 35.30, 46.01 (alltime high)
in 2004: 19.00, 33.45, 44.35 </p>

<p>Bottom 50%?</p>

<p>1985: 17.26%
1990: 14.96%
1995: 14.54%
2000: 12.99%
2004: 13.42%</p>

<p>There have been dips and humps along the way, but overall it’s a steady progression of increasing concentration of wealth. I wish I had figures from the late '70’s and early 80’s, but I haven’t found comparable data yet.</p>

<p>And I’m an equal opportunity peever - the national debt is pretty much a co-equal gripe for me. Both serve to totally screw the next generations for the benefit of a few very wealthy people who really don’t need the money.</p>

110

<p>I guess I never really thought of it as a zero-sum game. Most of you know more economic theory than I do. Is it a realistic goal to have a society where there is both unlimited (more or less) access to wealth for some, and a decent standard of living for those who have the least?</p>

<p>It boggles my mind that in this country, we have things like this:
<a href=“http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/wwl112006khhomeless.9baa6f7.html[/url]”>http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/wwl112006khhomeless.9baa6f7.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>It’s below freezing at night in New Orleans now; we have 3000 homeless and only 450 shelter beds. The executive director of the lead agency helping the homeless says the rest, “adults and children alike, are living in cars, ungutted houses, and abandoned buildings.” </p>

<p>This is about par for the course, even when you adjust for the effects of Katrina. Two years ago, we had about the same ratio of homeless to shelter beds (about double of each). The federal government estimates that nationally, 1/3 of the homeless are veterans of the military (200,000 homeless vets, nationwide). If this holds true for New Orleans, about 1000 of the homeless tonight are veterans. Even if every single shelter bed were to go to a vet (not that I am advocating this), 550 veterans will be out in the cold tonight, in New Orleans alone.</p>

111

<p>“Is it a realistic goal to have a society where there is both unlimited (more or less) access to wealth for some, and a decent standard of living for those who have the least?”</p>

<p>History says no. Never been done anywhere in the history of the world. (though there was a period in the area around Kashmir circa 1790…)</p>

112

<p>I was afraid of that.</p>

113

<p>“Is it a realistic goal to have a society where there is both unlimited (more or less) access to wealth for some, and a decent standard of living for those who have the least?”</p>

<p>There aren’t many societies in human history where those who have the least have a decent standard of living, period, no matter what was going on at the top of the pyramid. Present-day Scandinavia and Japan stand out as the places I’d most like to be in the bottom 5%.</p>

114

<p>

A lot of people with that attitude migrated to SF and other west coast locales over the last few decades. I don’t think it worked out that well. Better to aspire to the upper deciles.</p>

115

<p>Driver, I think you missed the point of Hanna’s post. But you got in your obligatory SF insult, so good for you, I guess.</p>

116

<p>Kluge-</p>

<p>“There’s one born every minute.”</p>

<p>I take it that you are calling me a fool. I had been participating in this discussion in a manner that I thought was civil, but when data gets in your way you respond with insults.</p>

<p>“There’s no evidence of any cause and effect relationship between anything any Republican administration has done…”</p>

<p>OK, let us accept that Federal revenue has increased through various administrations and various income tax rates. Thank you for pointing that out. If Federal revenue is not dependent on tax rates, then I will opt for low tax rates since it allows me to keep more of what I make and allows me to decide how to spend it and not politicians and bureaucrats.</p>

<p>“But I think that a lot of people are simply oblivious to what I think are the salient economic facts of American life for the past 25 years.”</p>

<p>Now I see what is your pet peeve. We the great unwashed, the unenlightened, the fools, are, despite your brilliance, refusing to accept your obviously correct understanding of the economy. No pity for us? Only contempt?</p>

117

<p>Conyat, I just caught your post several back. I’m not doing any more hijacking, but, the short answer is, of course not. That’s just simply silly. My point is that in general, people need to take responsibility, instead of whining and walking around with chips on shoulders, etc.</p>

<p>Reminds me of a quote that someone once accredited to St. Francis but others have told me Voltaire - anyway - someone said “if you want to change the world, begin with yourself”.</p>

118

<p>

Exactly. What is more pathetic than a Willy Loman sitting around grousing, waiting for an Eva Peron to come to the rescue and make things right?</p>

119

<p>“I guess I never really thought of it as a zero-sum game.”</p>

<p>Get with the program, especially if you are going to develop the proper level of righteous indignation like kluge on the subject. If the economic pie doesn’t change then the only way the rich can get richer is by taking from the poor. Since the poor would never give up what they have voluntarily, it must be theft! Oh, the injustice. Oh, the guilt.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if the economy is growing then the social problems in America can be approached with a different set of priorities and policies that aren’t aimed punishing the successful and making perpetual victims out of the poor. But where’s the fun in that?</p>

120

<br>

<br>

<p>I don’t know why you think that political dissatisfaction, and its expression, is incompatible with a work ethic.</p>

<p>We’ve got a lot of people in this country working their butts off at two or three jobs and still just scraping by financially. Plenty of them are working just as hard as I am, but no one paid their prep school, college, and law school tuition, as my parents did for me. If these individuals support universal health insurance or an increased minimum wage, that doesn’t mean that they are “sitting around.”</p>

<p>I am making lots of money because I work hard AND because I was given lots of opportunities as an accident of birth. With different opportunities, I would probably still be working hard, and I’d probably still be paying the bills, but there’s no way in the world I’d be in the financial position I’m in now. How come you assume that left-leaning salesmen vote that way because they want to “sit around and wait for rescue,” when you don’t assume that about me?</p>