The Housing Bubble

“…fending off the corner-cutting and deception in the private sector…”

Actually the Nation would be better off if governments invested more in rooting crooks out of the private sector — especially the pirate’s brigade known as the investment banking sector.

federal employees get SS? if they had private employment at some time. When I worked at the post office we didn’t pay SS.

I think the new ones pay into SS. The pre-1980’s system did not. The Post Office has a separate system.

Ox, for state employees, the range that I’ve seen is 2-3% x years served. Some employees get 90%+ their highest 2 years, and at least in CA, in their last year, they can sell back all their unused vacation time to count toward their salary for that year, so sometimes their pension is higher than any base salary they ever received…

It’s called pension spiking, and while I agree that in your example the pension is far from lavish, there are many examples that I’ve seen that make me want to throw up…

Using overtime to set a log term pension’

save up your vacation time and use that too

Please.

FACT. You don’t know your history.

Progressives change history to when it’s convenient for them politically, but nice try.

“nothing to do with freeing the slaves”

Yeah, it was about “States Rights”

What “right” specifically?

The right to own slaves.

Don’t tell anyone from out here in the “Border War” area that it wasn’t about slavery.

Revisionist history works both ways.

Tell us again who fired mortars from Fort Sumpter at an unarmed supply ship? Those aggressors?

Que Rio, to tell you you are a snake and a liar, because you don’t have a Wiki link.

‘What “right” specifically?

The right to own slaves.’

‘What “right” specifically?

The right to own slaves.’

That’s worth repeating again, for those who missed it the first three times..

‘What “right” specifically?

The right to own slaves.’

War of “Northern” Aggression? Who attacked whom, may I ask.

The South seceeded directly because Lincoln’s election platform was to stop the spread of slavery West, and the Southern states saw Lincoln’s election as opening the door to abolishing slavery altogether.

Then during all the bloody fighting, the slavery part of the cause was kinda forgotten.

Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation because Britain and France, desperate for Southern cotton,* were very close to joining sides with the South. When Lincoln suddenly brought up the slavery issue again, the British and French were repulsed by the reminder that cotton came with a human price, and backed off.** That gave Lincoln time to start winning battles.

————-
*As a war tactic, the South burned most of its cotton shipments on the docks, to purposely deprive Europe of cotton. The South would ship cotton again in exchange for European support.
** Firing up the abolitionist sectors — especially freed blacks — in the North was a side benefit of the proclamation, not the motive.

Nobody that I know is pro-slavery. The greater issue then and now, since slavery was doomed to fail anyway, is the reach of the Federal Government.

Here is some history on the subject which will hopefully open a few eyes.

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

~ Abraham Lincoln, Debate with Stephen Douglas, Sept. 18, 1858, in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, 1832-1858 (New York: Library of America, 1989), pp. 636-637.

These are the words of the real Lincoln, who was as much a white supremacist as any man of his time. In fact, he was a much more extreme white supremacist than most, for he advocated “colonization” or the deportation of black people from America for his entire adult life. As soon as he entered politics in the early 1830s he became a “manager” of the Illinois Colonization Society which sought to use state tax funds to deport the small number of free blacks living in Illinois out of the state (the state amended its constitution in 1848 to prohibit the immigration of black people into the state, an amendment that Lincoln supported).

Lincoln followed in the footsteps of his idol, Henry Clay, who was the president of the American Colonization Society, and quoted Clay often on the subject. During his presidency he established a colonization office in the Department of Interior and funded it with $600,000, while working diligently to plan on deporting black people to Liberia, Haiti, Jamaica, Central America, the West Indies – anywhere but the U.S.

These historical facts have long presented a problem for the purveyors of the comic book/fairy tale history of Lincoln that has been taught to Americans for generations. For they suggest that, rather than being a racial saint, as the comic book/fairy tale version of history contends, the exact opposite is true. The Lincoln cult has mostly covered up these truths by seeing to it that they rarely, if ever, make it into the public school textbooks. But just in case the truth does seep out, the Cult has concocted several excuses, “justifications,” and rationales for Lincoln’s extreme racist language and actions.

One excuse that is associated with Princeton University historian James McPherson is that “Honest Abe” was lying when he spoke of colonization in connection with emancipation (as he always did) so as to soften Northern opposition to emancipation. This is called the “lullaby theory” among Lincoln cultists. Lincoln himself never said any such thing; McPherson simply fabricated the story out of thin air.

A second excuse is an equally unfounded theory that is not based on anything Lincoln himself ever said. It is a speculation that, sometime in 1863, Lincoln experienced some kind of divine transformation and was no longer the extreme racist and white supremacist that his speeches had established him as being for his entire adult life. Lincoln cultists naively contend that because Lincoln quit making speeches about colonization, he must have abandoned the idea.

Of course, politicians always do their best to keep the public in the dark with regard to their political machinations; they do not make public speeches announcing every bit of their strategies and conniving. It is not unusual for a politician to keep his plans to himself, and this is true of Lincoln as much as any politician. The divine transformation theory is based on an extraordinarily naïve view of the political world.

Both of these theories have been demolishd in a monumental new book entitled Colonization after Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement, by Phillip W. Magness of American University and Sebastian N. Page of Oxford University. Based on newly-rediscovered documents in the American and British National Archives, including letters signed by Lincoln himself, these researchers have established that Lincoln continued to pursue colonization right up to the days before his assassination, when he discussed plans with General Benjamin Butler to deport the freed slaves. There was no divine transformation; and McPherson’s “lullaby” is in reality a fake alibi.

Magness and Page meticulously document how, during the last two years of Lincoln’s presidency, work on various colonization plans “progressed . . . often aided by the president’s direct encouragement and approval” (p. 10). Lengthy discussions took place with the British and Dutch governments, which were negotiating on behalf of business interests in their own countries that were experiencing labor shortages in such places as British Honduras, Guiana, and elsewhere.

After the Emancipation Proclamation (which only “freed” slaves where the government could not do so – in “rebel territory”) was issued, Lincoln was hard at work on his various colonization projects. Magness and Page cite British Foreign Minister Lord Lyons as saying in a dispatch to London that “The President of the United States sent for me yesterday, and upon my presenting myself, told me that he had been for some time anxious to speak to me in an informal and unofficial manner on the subject of promoting the emigration of colored people from this country to British colonies” (p. 26).

Shortly thereafter, Lincoln met with one Thomas Malcom of the Pennsylvania Colonization Society to discuss deporting Pennsylvania blacks to Liberia; and sent an emissary to visit the “contraband camps” (where captured Southern slaves were kept) to find “recruits” for colonization to Honduras.

The most pro-colonization member of Lincoln’s cabinet, Postmaster General Montgomery Blair, publicly announced that the “destined glory” of any freed slaves “is to be consummated in the American tropics” (p. 35). Interestingly, the first black man to ever hold an administrative position in the U.S. government was J. Willis Menard, who favored black colonization. He was employed as a clerk in the colonization office.

Magness and Page document that colonization remained the official policy of the Lincoln administration throughout 1864 and early 1865, with several plans being foiled by bureaucratic bungling, corruption, and political bickering. Lincoln is said to have completely lost his temper over such failures.

Late in his life General Benjamin Butler recalled a “colonization interview” that he had with Lincoln two days before the assassination. “What shall we do with the negroes after they are free?”, Lincoln is said to have asked the general. According to Butler, Lincoln then said, “I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes” (p. 109). Butler then proposed deporting the freed slaves to Panama to dig a canal, decades before the actual Panama Canal was dug. “There is meat in that, General Butler, there is meat in that,” Lincoln reportedly said.

Early Lincoln scholars accepted that this meeting occurred, but then Lincoln cultist/excuse fabricator Mark E. Neely claimed that the meeting could not have happened because Butler was not in Washington on the day he said the meeting took place. Magness and Page disprove Neely’s conjecture and conclude that “the meeting itself indisputedly happened.”

Colonization after Emancipation proves unequivocally that “colonization remained on the table well beyond the Emancipation Proclamation,” contrary to the “accepted wisdom” of James McPherson and other Lincoln cultists. Magness and Page conclude that “The prospect that the ‘Great Emancipator’ subscribed to colonizationist beliefs, particularly at the end of his life, seems to completely dispel his popular reputation as a racial egalitarian.” Yes, it does.

Oxy, if you are interested in learning more on this topic, investigate the effects of the industrial revolution in the north, the effects of tariffs on machinery on the southern farmers, the resultant economic strains between the two regions. Your opinion could shift slightly.

The sideshow does not necessarily cause the main event. Take a clue from current events. Is human dignity the primary driving force behind our current or recent wars, or merely a thin veil.

Free the Kurds!

Thank you, SV guy and Blue Skye, for including relevant information. People do tend to get very upset when actuality does not fit the version of history they’ve been taught. Sometimes facts are shocking and unpleasant. Although I knew a bit of what SV excerpted, I didn’t even realize the extent. It would appear that ole Honest Abe would have “freed” the slaves and then consigned them by deportation to further slavery or indentured servitude.

My point was that the War Between the States (I refuse to call it civil and WONA makes others extremely uncomfortable) never needed to take place and the issues could have been solved without carnage and bloodshed. Anybody got a problem with that?

Would have been interesting to see what might have happened had Lincoln lived, given his plans and perferences.

It was a war against slavery. NOBODY has any right to make slaves. Period.

Your welcome Palmy,

It seems that when one disagrees with the victor’s account of the war the knee jerk reaction is the race card.

I seek only the truth. And that journey includes calling BS when necessary.

I remember when GWB tried to turn the war in Iraq into an issue of “freeing” the Iraqi people from oppression. Yep, he sure did them a favor. Ask any citizen of Iraq who had their home, family and friends bombed into oblivion. He and his merry band of war mongers turned the place into an abattoir.

Read Smedley T. Butler’s “War is a Racket”. Just as relevant now as it was when written. Maybe more so.

Never outed this obviously pathetically easy and insightfully clear analysis on the MSM.

Asleep at the wheel.

Please recall that the up-coming about-to-be-shafted older generation is the same one that burned the banks in the ’60’s AND battled the public/private union goons in hardhats.

Please recall that the currently shafted Xers and under will be the ones to push the wheelchairs. Or not…

ahansen,

Please recall that the generation that got shafted out of their promises in the 70’s was the ones that served in WW2.

I’m thinking Finland, Sweden, Norway, the UK, France, Germany, etc.

The world doesn’t revolve around the US.

This is not just a tradition. It’s practically conventional.

They will learn it again. You are shooting the messenger.

Right, Puss. The WW2 vets around the planet have/had it sooooo bad compared to previous generations. What with the hellhole of Euro/Scandinavian socialism, massive Japanese/Taiwanese/Singaporean poverty, those poor backwards Aussies, The “Greatest” Generations’ horrible, horrible 1950’s through 1990’s America…. Even India and much of Africa have come into modern industrial and agricultural economies during the last fifty years, and the Middle East, of course, got OPEC and Israel. Central and South America weren’t particularly involved in the war effort, but arguably, the standard of living for their 1920’s era born was elevated as well.

The only comparatively difficult time for the middle class of America (which presumably we’re discussing here,) the inflation of the seventies, only lasted about eight years, and the standard of living at that time was far from dreadful.

Are we talking about the same demographic? Perhaps we know different 60-year-olds, but the ones I hang out with kick butt.

Nonetheless, I agree we’re gonna get skewered. Again, and massively.

Did you miss the crash of the “wishing prices” and the subsequenct still-continuing carnage?

Try some intelligence for a change. It might be a worthwhile pursuit.

But does the common man see it. Did you get a raise? And if you did was it more than the official CPI?

Money is poofing faster than the rate at which it is created at the moment. If the Fed engages in an all-out money creating binge then we will get hyper-inflation, that will be the end game. However before that deflation is what we are bound to see.

Stagflation is the reality.

Please……enough with the “50% of the people pay no taxes”

They still pay Sales taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, taxes n their phones and utilities, Social Security taxes.

Here’s the deal. The top 10%ers are the only people who have actual disposable income to tax. A bunch of us are trying to pay the bills on 60-75% of the income we made 3 years ago. Nobody I know is partying, just trying to hang in there, paying a lot more for stuff, while making less.

This “Don’t increase our taxes, because it won’t make a difference anyway” attitude doesn’t play well with the serfs

Taxes are my biggest expense too. On one hand, I am glad to have enough earnings to be qualified to pay taxes. On the other hand, I’d like to see “my money” spend prudently. Not on killing people on the other side of the planet. Not on boondoggles. Not on propping up Wall Street. Not on grandiose politician supporting projects. Just the things that strengthen the country for the benefit of my kids. That latter is not a very big % of what “my money” gets spent on.

It’s the people who pay significant taxes that think government and its spending needs to come to heel. Big surprise.

“They still pay Sales taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, taxes n their phones and utilities, Social Security taxes.”

Sales taxes, yes.
Property taxes, probably not directly (at least not a large proportion of the bottom 50%).
Fuel/phone/utilities, yes.
Social Security isn’t actually a tax. And the lower income folks get a much larger benefit from it than higher incomes, so, I’d argue that this isn’t a valid comparison.

“This “Don’t increase our taxes, because it won’t make a difference anyway” attitude doesn’t play well with the serfs”

See, this is exactly what I’m trying to dispel. People in my income bracket don’t have nannies and servants. I go out and work in my yard most weekends. I do most of my own yard work. I don’t have a housekeeper. I’m certainly not “poor”, but, at the same time, I’m not the “rich” that everyone seems so desperate to tax.

“The top 10%ers are the only people who have actual disposable income to tax. ”

How do you know that? A lot of 20 somethings are making 30-40K a year and living at home. They have TONS of disposable income. Should we tax them because they’re not up to their eyeballs in debt?

There’s a HUGE difference between the top 10% crowd and the top 1-2% crowd. The top 1-2% are in the “F-U money” category, the other 8-9% of the top 10% are not (in most cases) anywhere near that level. The bottom of the top 10% is mostly dual income families (like mine) both with professional jobs. Basically, well off middle income folks. The top of the top 10% is Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. You and I have much more in common (financially) than Bill and I do, that’s for sure!

The point of my post is that, even if you raise taxes on us (the top 10%) it’s going to have no/little effect on the overall problem (which is out of control spending). At some point, it will become more effective for me to hire lawyers and setup (financially) like the truly rich (to avoid taxes) than it will be to just pay my “share” and move on. There’s a “tipping point” for how much you can tax people before you move the economy underground (or behind lawyers desks), and we’re getting there.

The problem isn’t that we’re not taxing enough, it’s that we’re spending like a bunch of drunken sailors.

“On one hand, I am glad to have enough earnings to be qualified to pay taxes. On the other hand, I’d like to see “my money” spend prudently. Not on killing people on the other side of the planet. Not on boondoggles. Not on propping up Wall Street. Not on grandiose politician supporting projects. Just the things that strengthen the country for the benefit of my kids. ”

You said it better than I could. This is exactly the problem. We don’t have a revenue issue, we have a spending issue. I’m thankful to have a good job and income to be able to contribute to this great country. I just get mad when they tell me I’m not contributing enough because they are busy flushing my contributions down the toilet.

There are a number of issues to be addressed here.

1) The median household income in this country is $50,000. In other words, half the country makes less than one-sixth of what you and your wife make (assuming that it is, in fact, 300k). So a large majority of all Americans, probably 2/3 or more, would probably consider you to be rich.

2) If you get a large portion of your income from dividends and capital gains, you may actually be in the same situation as Warren Buffett, i.e. paying a lower tax rate than people who have significantly lower incomes. In any case, do you think it is reasonable that income from investments should be taxed at a lower rate than W2 income?

3) What the president is proposing is allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on income over $250,000 for couples. In other words, if your taxable income is $300K, the tax would be applied only to the $50k, so that your taxable income would be just a few thousand dollars lower. Of course, if your total income is 300k, it’s possible that your taxable income is less than $250K, in which case the expiration of those tax cuts wouldn’t affect you all.

4) Finally, you mention that you work in IT. I’m a programmer myself. I wonder if you know where the IT industry came from. It got its start shortly after the end of WW2. The first computers were made out of vacuum tubes and relays.

So how did the industry progress? There were two major sources of research and development. One was AT&T. At the time AT&T was a monopoly and charged outrageous rates for long distance calls. These high long distance rates were like a regressive tax on the American people. With that flow of revenue it was able to fund Bell Labs, which developed the transistor, the Unix OS, the C programming language and many other important things that make up modern IT systems.

Of course, the other source of R & D was the federal government. It’s pretty well known that the government developed the internet. It may not be as well known that the government funded R & D in many other technologies, such as programming languages, semiconductors, the GUI, relational databases, etc.

These industries - computers, electronics, cell phones - are the most dynamic, cutting edge part of our economy, a sector where America leads the world. It was made possible through taxpayer-funded research and development.

Most of that government spending on IT R & D took place between the end of the war and the late ’70s. That was a period when taxes on high incomes were much higher.

So you (and I) owe our good jobs to high tax rates paid in past decades. Now you insist that it would be outrageous for you to have to pay the tax rates that existed at that time.

““I’ll help you write your resignation letter.”

That’s not my point. My point is that the spending is unsustainable, ”

So what IS your point? That the government should cut spending somewhere else rather than depriving you of a little bit of your boat? Very well, point taken.

MY point was that if the income tax on your $300K job is too darn heavy, then by all means quit. Let someone else take your nice job. In fact, if you work so darn hard that you would be so hard to replace, then let two people take your job for $150K each (or $75K, if you were including your wife in your $300K income).

Meanwhile, if you want the joy of low income taxes, go work at Wal-Mart. You won’t be able to afford gas to get to work, and you’ll have trouble buying food, but at least you won’t have the heavy burden of complaining about those high taxes. You won’t lay awake at night stressing over paying that onerous 15% on your capital gains either. Why, you may gain membership in that august and desired crowd of 50% who pay no taxes at all. You’ll be happy and stress free for life!

Mike,

In general, I’m against government spending for most things, research included. I realize that much of IT today came from government spending, but, even still, I don’t support the idea of the government interfering in the market. My philosophy is very Ayn Rand based, free markets.

1) Yes, a large majority would consider me rich. However, plenty of people would also consider me poor. I don’t think that “what it looks like to other people” is a good starting basis for setting tax policy.

2) I get some of my income from dividends and capital gains. Certainly nothing like Warren (or the “truly rich” do). I’m VERY conflicted on the lower tax rates for capital gains and dividends (vs ordinary income). I realize that it’s unfair, and that its a benefit that flows in large to the rich (the “truly rich”). However, take it away, and I’m terrified that the rich will move their money elsewhere (and our markets would collapse). It’s not fair, but I’m not sure what you do about it. Muni bonds are probably the most stark example of this; who owns munis? Almost exclusively, the rich. And they pay a rate of 0% on the income from munis. Is it “fair”? Of course not. But take it away, and all municipalities will see their borrowing costs go up 30%. So.. What to do?

3) I’m not specifically for or against the proposed tax cuts, I’m speaking more in general than in specific about this proposed change. However, in general, I always try to look at things not “is this good for me” (which, as you point out, the proposed change would have little/no effect on me), but “is this good policy”. The home buyer tax credit was great for me (I wasn’t married, so my fiance was able to get the 8K), but was terrible policy. So was the giveaway for energy efficient upgrades, another government handout that I took advantage of. Terrible policy, good for me personally though.

Much of my work today is with the government. Yes, they do some wonderful work (and have in the past, come up with some great additions to human knowledge), but the waste and expenses are just totally out of line with the rest of the industry. If it should cost 1M dollars (for a private customer) it will wind up at 3M to the government (because of all the layers, all the contractors and purchasing arrangements that have their hands in the pot, and the general increase in cost to do things in the way the government requires). It’s a shockingly inefficient process, and it should be stopped (again, even though I get much of my income from this source).

Oxide,

You’re setting up a false dichotomy, either I quit and work at Wallmart, or I buck up and pay the taxes. There’s a 3rd choice, the government can stop spending money like a trust fund baby and reduce the aggregate tax burden on all of us. And there’s also a whole spectrum of choices between; moving the tax rates, reducing the debt load (and the interest that we have to pay), changing the nature of tax (spending based instead of income based)…

Yes, my point is, in essence, 2 fold:

1) There’s a huge difference between the top 10% and top 1%. The top 10% are not universally “rich” (in fact, the vast majority of the top 10% aren’t rich at all) and are already paying significant taxes.

2) There’s no excuse for the spending level of the American government. Get control of the spending before you start to talk about needing more revenue.

the government can stop spending money like a trust fund baby and reduce the aggregate tax burden on all of us.

You need to do some research on this whole issue. The federal government is currently running massive deficits. Addressing that problem will require both spending cuts and tax increases. Tax cuts are just not in the cards.

the government can stop spending money like a trust fund baby and reduce the aggregate tax burden on all of us.

How dare you? That would mean Oxide may be soon out of job and may have to work like you and me for the “Man.” You have the responsibility to think of people like Oxide’s welfare even though she will not give a flyin’ yuck about your welfare.

both spending cuts and tax increases

Somehow it sounds oxymoronic to me……

Actually, I tried to work for The Man. Unfortunately, the private sector Man likes to lie and cheat. I was bad at it. It didn’t go well.

We need to cut some spending.
We need to raise revenue.
But raising revenue on the exisiting workers (rich or poor) will not be enough.
Instead of a few workers paying a lot of tax, we need MORE WORKERS paying Some tax.
That is, bring back the jobs from overseas and stop employing illegals.

“…the private sector Man likes to lie and cheat.”

Been there, done that.

Not only are ethics a serious problem in much of the private sector, but it is not all that much fun to work alongside of people whose sole concern and all-absorbing preoccupation in life is making and spending more money.

“Not only are ethics a serious problem in much of the private sector, but it is not all that much fun to work alongside of people whose sole concern and all-absorbing preoccupation in life is making and spending more money.”

I hate to say this..

But this is just the world we live in today. If you don’t have an almost all-consuming love and preoccupation with making a lot of money, you’re not going to get there in this society. Used to be, if you were really good at something, you almost certainly could expect to make somewhere between a decent and a very good living (just because you were good at it). That’s no longer the case; the best teachers I know are all making peanuts compared to what lackluster employees in my field make. The name of the game is really now trying to leverage advantages over your employer (and over other employees) into outsized salaries/bonuses/etc. If you’re good at it, you’re going to succeed (even if you’re not wonderful at your job). If you’re good at it, and your really good at and enjoy your job, you’re going to make a whole lot of money..

We did this to ourselves. Instead of family/friend/etc, we became a “bling-bling” culture that cares about money/power over almost everything else. The Japanese and Chinese cultures have been like this for a long time (why do you think they have almost a fatal attraction to all Veblen goods), and we’re just following suit. When I was younger, I honestly didn’t know what a LV handbag was. Now, kids everywhere know what they are, and what they stand for (someone who can drop 5K on a handbag). We’ve become totally obsessed with money/status in this country and, at the same time, have lost most of our family values and morality in the process.

I’m very lucky, I work in a field that I love. And I enjoy playing the “money game”, I find it exciting and rewarding. There are a lot of people who can’t stand their jobs, and also, don’t have the will to climb the ladder (which, today, almost always involves burning others down on your climb upwards).

It’s a sad commentary that this is what we’ve become as a country, our new “heros” are basketball/baseball/football players, rappers, and trust fund babies. We’ve started to “worship the rich”; what we see today is a direct result of this unhealthy attachment to wealth.

1) Yes, a large majority would consider me rich. However, plenty of people would also consider me poor. I don’t think that “what it looks like to other people” is a good starting basis for setting tax policy.

This prompts more thoughts and questions.

If 300k is not rich, what does that about the half of the country that makes one-sixth of that amount or less? Are they poor? Do we have a 50% poverty rate in this country? If we do, if half the country lives in poverty, then we have a huge problem in this country which needs to be addressed.

Also, look at what you wrote. “…large majority would consider me rich …”, yet you don’t think that is good way to determine tax rates.

In a democracy, that is supposed to be the way that policies, laws, and budgets are determined. If a large majority wants the government to do something and the government doesn’t do it, there is a problem there.

Also, when you say that 300k/year is not rich, do you realize that almost no one in America feels rich? Let’s say I ask you what income level you consider to be rich. Let’s you say $600k or even a million a year. If we go and find people who make that much, guess what they’ll say? They’ll say that they’re not rich. It’s ridiculous. A few days, that character Mitt Romney let some words slip out of his mouth that implied that he thought was middle class. His net worth has been estimated at $200 million.

IMHO, rich is when you could lose your job tomorrow, never work again and have no impact what-so-ever on your lifestyle. If I lost my job I’d have about 2 years before I was broke. That’s not rich…

“In a democracy, that is supposed to be the way that policies, laws, and budgets are determined. If a large majority wants the government to do something and the government doesn’t do it, there is a problem there.”

This is a major mistake when thinking about American politics. Do you think that the majority would support 95% income tax on those making over 500K a year? How about 1M a year? How about 100% income tax on any banker salary over 250K a year? Or, more damaging.. Do you think that the majority would support a bill that would prevent any immigration from any Arab country? What about deporting all Mexican naturalized citizens that are hear today? What about deporting all blacks, that might get majority support..

We don’t have a democracy, we have a republic; the above examples are EXACTLY the reason why.

The reason that “almost nobody feels rich” is because, shockingly, almost nobody is rich. That’s why this whole “tax the rich” thing is a total red herring. Sure, there are some really rich people out there (Buffet, Gates, Jobs, etc). The CEO of my company just got about 100M bucks in a buyout; that’s pretty wealthy as well. But it’s a TINY fraction of the population who is actually rich; most of the folks that many people see as rich are just upper middle class (often dual income) families. If these people lost their jobs, they’d be in the gutter just like everyone else after some period of time (they depend on their income to finance their lifestyle, not investments). Income doesn’t determine (at least not by itself) if you’re rich or not (I think it’s Steve Jobs who has a salary of 1 dollar per year); it’s your assets that determine your wealth.

“We don’t have a democracy, we have a republic”

I see this kind of statement on this blog a lot, but it doesn’t really make sense because you can’t really compare the two words directly. For example, if you go to http://www.dictionary.com, you’ll see that the first definition for “democracy” is:

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

In other words, the word “republic” is a specfic term, whereas “democracy” is a general concept. We have implemented a democracy in this country in the form of a republic.

Now, as to your questions:

Do you think that the majority would support 95% income tax on those making over 500K a year? How about 1M a year? How about 100% income tax on any banker salary over 250K a year? Or, more damaging.. Do you think that the majority would support a bill that would prevent any immigration from any Arab country? What about deporting all Mexican naturalized citizens that are hear today? What about deporting all blacks, that might get majority support..

I read the opnion polls when they appear in the newspapers. One thing about this country is that the American are being polled constantly, so we have a pretty good idea of where they stand.

So what I would say about your questions above? The only proposal that might get majority support would be the one banning immigration from Arab countries. The American people do see a need to raise taxes on high incomes, but I don’t think that they would support rates as high as those in your questions. In other words, your position on taxes is pretty extreme, i.e. it’s far away from what the majority wants. However, the American are not as “left wing” as you might think.

Also, any law that would deport American citizens who are Black or Mexican would be unconstitutional.

I should have mentioned that obviously the will of the majority should not extend to laws directed against specific races or religions. Fortunately, the constitution prevents that.

However, when it come to economic or policy, we should have pretty much unfettered democracy. In other words, government policy should reflecy popular opinion. If laws, budgets and taxes are not to be determined by popular opinion, how should they be determined? Who should get to decide if not the American people?

“However, when it come to economic or policy, we should have pretty much unfettered democracy. In other words, government policy should reflecy popular opinion. ”

You overestimate the charity of the American people.

If you put a ballot to the people tomorrow that said (in easy to understand words) “All income up to 90K/yr is exempt from taxes, only 90K plus is subject to income tax”, and then adjusted the tax rates to result in the same income to the government (probably a 70+% tax rate, although that’s just a guess), you better believe that would pass, and by a huge margin. “Unfettered democracy” (direct citizen voting on all issues) would result in the majority voting all the taxes onto the minority, there’s little/no doubt about it. That’s why we have a republic, where, instead of issues like this going to the masses (where they could vote themselves largesse from the government) it’s run through representatives that are supposed to know better.

We’ve had a 80-90% tax rate in the past, I see no reason to believe that, given the choice of “my taxes or that a**hole who makes 250K a year” the American people wouldn’t overwhelming choose to vote their taxes to others.

Who decides? Our elected representatives decide.

Who decides? Our elected representatives decide.

So our elected representatives decide and they “are supposed to know better.” So you’re opposed to democracy because you think democracy would mean less money for people like you. That’s quite an admission.

Umm….Direct democracy is mob rule and would be suicidal. What if you are on the wrong side of the mob? Have you seen some of the nutty Ballot measures passed in some states? You better slow down and really think about this one.

“Direct democracy is mob rule and would be suicidal.”

Exactly, no way that’s going to work; that’s why I gave some examples of things in an earlier post that, in a direct democracy, would probably be passed.

“So you’re opposed to democracy because you think democracy would mean less money for people like you. That’s quite an admission.”

No. I’m opposed to direct democracy because “mob rule” isn’t a good way to govern a nation. It would mean less money for people like me. It would also mean less freedom for everyone. Do you think that woman’s liberation ever would have passed in a direct democracy? What about abolishing slavery? I’ll clue you in, not a chance in he**.

Level 3 asset unwind is indeed the elephant in the room .

100*(113.93-80)/113.93 = 29.8% drop in Black Au since the 52-week high. That’s a pretty good haircut, no?

Not to suggest it is over yet or anything…

“Who knows?”

Your absolutely right Bear. Nobody really knows with absolute certainty.

It’s always useful to have a convenient red herring on which to shift the blame away from the real cause.