Our country has survived without many, many things. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." Only one is "necessary" and even that is debatable.
Which is only one "necessary?"
Why do you believe only one is due America?
Last edited by brickhistory : 17th October 2008 at 17:08.
Location: FR | IC luftballons | Page 20 - photo thread: there be PPRuNe's most beautiful woman...
Posts: 297
BenThere raised an interesting point:
Quote:
Today the top 5% of American income earners pay 60% of the income tax collected. The bottom 50% pay 3%.
I'm not sure what significance one should attach to this. Why? Because here in France, all the tax collected under "personal income" goes towards paying just the interest to holders of French public debt...?! It's probably like trying to compare apples and oranges anyway - most European countries also have very heavy taxes on petroleum products, VAT rates of between 15-20% or so compared to the USA where the sales taxes are usually in the low single digit %...so all said and done, perhaps the USA do actually tax their 10% most well-off higher than European countries do theirs overall? Here in Europe, the burden does appear to be much more evenly shared especially amongst the 'common folk' who earn anywhere between 1.0-2.0 times 'average wages', what with the very high social security charges - about 22% for French employees (upper-limit ceilings available for those high-earners though) and an additional 44-50% additional employer's social security contributions. Then there's the VAT or sales taxes in double-digits etc. that's taxed on whatever remains of your monthly check when you actually begin to spend what's left...
One sometimes wonders whether the worst tax regime under the Republicans or Democrats over there, would actually win 'hands-down' over here in Europe should any European politician or party ever be brave enough to commit such 'a sin'? But why change the status quo? I remember almost 2 decades ago when a Mazda Miata (USA) sold for about US$9,000, the same car Mazda MX-5 (Europe) sold for the equivalent of US$15,000 or so. Microsoft products are invariably at least 50% more expensive in Europe compared to the USA. Also, US resellers aren't allowed to ship MS products to Europe normally. I get the overall impression that European consumers have somehow been taken for a ride for many years. Whether it's just GM or Ford selling us Fiestas and Corsas or whatever with wind-up windows, for the price of an equivalent mid-sized car sold in the US with electric windows and A/C...
Are European politicians more corrupt than American ones? Do more elevator companies in Europe get asked to fund political parties on the quiet? Is that why the big elevator companies in Europe can organise price-fixing cartels?
PS. I've just learned that Joe Biden is in fact the Republican's secret Presidential candidate. The Republicans will lose on Nov 4th. Obama will be driving himself early one December morning. He will lose control of his vehicle and suffer a fatal crash. An autopsy will reveal that his blood-alcohol content was well over the limit. If that sounds like what just happened to Jorg Haider, the Austrian right-wing extremist politician, well that's only coincidence. Unfortunate accidents happen all the time...
Today the top 5% of American income earners pay 60% of the income tax collected. The bottom 50% pay 3%.
I'm not sure what significance one should attach to this.
Don't forget (and this is conveniently ignored - or not realised - by those who trot out these statistics) that the top 5% of American income earners also earn about 50% of all the total income. So for them to pay 60% of total tax is hardly surprising, and some might argue in a progressive society nowhere near enough.
d) Interesting use of the word "atavistic". Perhaps trying to make it sound like an insult. In the context it is completely meaningless.
Meaningless?
Wikipedia: Cultural references to atavism
The term atavism is sometimes also applied in the discussion of culture. Some social scientists describe the return of older, "more primitive" tendencies (e.g., warlike attitudes, "clan identity," etc. -- anything suggesting the social and political atmosphere of thousands of years ago) as "atavistic." "Resurgent Atavism" is a common name for the belief that people in the modern era are beginning to revert to ways of thinking and acting that are throwbacks to a former time. This is especially used by sociologists in reference to violence.
The notion of atavism was used frequently by social Darwinists, who claimed that inferior races displayed atavistic traits, and represented more primitive traits than their own race. Both the notion of atavism, and Haeckel's recapitulation theory, are saturated with notions of evolution as progress, as a march towards greater complexity and superior ability.
(Ibid.)
Given the context, accusations of atavism in the Obama campaign are either pot/kettle, racial insults or meaningless. I suggest you stop using long words you found through Google or Wikipedia and start using your own words - Oh - Sorry - I forgot - you don't ever do that, do you? You prefer only to Google and to quote selectively those extremist right-wing websites of whose opinion you most approve.
Abut the stock markets, read this from Greg Mankiw's econ blog:
Quote:
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2008
Republicans, Democrats, and Stock Returns
A reader asks me what I think about this graphic from the NY Times, which purports to show that the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the White House.
My interpretation: It is meaningless.
I can imagine good reasons for being a Democrat (see this link), but stock market returns are not one of them. First of all, the stock market is hardly a barometer of economic well-being. Second, as David Backus wisely points out, the President's policies are only a small part of what drives the economy. Third, it is nearly impossible to get the timing right to do this kind of comparison.
Let me explain this last point.
According to the efficient markets hypothesis, financial markets are forward-looking. If so, you would expect the entire impact of a candidate's election on the market to occur on election day, or maybe even during the days leading up to the election, as the market learns about the party of the next administration. By the time the new President takes office, the news has been fully priced in, and it will not show up in returns during his term.
But suppose you thought that stock investors were not forward-looking, or did not understand the differences between the parties. If so, the stock market would respond to economic events only as they unfold. In that case, you would have to wonder whether the timing is off in the other direction. Does the President influence the direction of the economy from the first day he takes office? Do the effects of his policies disappear the day after he leaves office? Of course not. Policy influences the economy with long and variable lags.
The bottom line: Trying to isolate the differences between the parties using this kind of stock market data is silly at best.
He further argues that Democrat control of government could mean greater risks to financials and they are rewarded with greater returns.
Of 2600 trading days, if you took out the top-gaining 10 days, your returns were halved, if you take out the top-gaining 30 days, you had negative returns. Market timing is for fools, evidently also good for Democrats.
About Social Security, you should be glad you are not part of it. Citizens have no property rights to their benefits, they can, and have, been modified, reduced or eliminated by Congress. The Supreme Court has ruled on this many times, but never called them anything but political promises.
Read Heritage Report on SS returns. Social Security is worst for the less well-off, in terms of financial returns. It is a horrible plan and destined to get worse over the next 20 years and not one politician has said anything about fixing it.
Don't believe Heritage, don't have a statement, how about this from the Commissioner:
"...Social Security is facing serious financial problems, and action is needed soon to make sure the system will be sound..." "In 2017 we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2041, the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted." Note the word "taxes", even the Social Security Commissioner doesn't use the word "contributions" anymore. The "Trust Fund" contains US Government securities and, by law, nothing else. So, in 2017, the Commissioner will, to pay benefits, take a Government bond to the Treasury, ask the US Treasurer to "cash" the bond, so Social Security can pay benefits. Where does the US Treasurer get the cash to pay off the bond? Why, either floats another bond OR increases taxes on YOU! And me, which will be coming out of my Social Security benefits.
Good book "The Coming Generational Storm" by Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns. Now updated in paperback; praised by Brookings, Bob Shiller, Paul Samuelson and Jeffrey Sachs, all noted economists. ISBN is 0-262-61208-9 (pb) MIT Press.
Et tu, Brick ? You've transformed the question somehow. Nevertheless (and to mix some metaphors) -- you have buried a bone in a molehill and now you can't stop worrying over it -- wondering if it will grow into a mountain I suppose. It's still a molehill and shall remain so but I'm more than happy to let you worry over it.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." Only one is "necessary"...
There is nothing hidden there. No buried treassure for you nor GF.
Quote:
Liberty - the freedom to pursue intellectual or other pursuits after retiring at 55?
55 ? Not me. I left the week I was eligible. While I'm sure that will ratchet up your blood pressure another notch, I'm always left wondering why others don't want the same things I am fortunate enough to have for themselves.
I never had nearly a million dollars in the bank as many younger controllers I know did with the 401K-type retirement (FERS). OTOH, I never had to worry about shifting all my money around. And with the current economy, I still don't have to worry. The Republicans would rather you have yours in the (failing) market.
I was only able to retire when I did because my union was able to negotiate a good contract with a substantial raise (after 16 years without a raise to meet inflation.) But the Republicans would rather you not have a union.
The airline pilots of my youth made twice as much as I did. But the Republicans would rather you have a deregulated airline industry. They'd rather you lose your union and your pension to bankruptcy laws while the CEOs take home $70 million a year and a golden parachute should that fail.
As I tell my friends Brick, I'm king of the world. I've got it made. Retired, two kids going to fine schools and a wonderful home. I'm not rich -- I never thought I would be working for the government -- but I'm happy, healthy (did I mention good health insurance ?) and secure. And so is my family.
I wish everyone was as well off as I am --and, for the life of me -- I can't figure out why the Republicans don't. I guess all that "free market", "death tax", "Pro life", "right to work" and "Creationism" stuff is more important the a dumb redneck like me can understand. Heck, I don't even know what tax bracket I'm in. I'm too dumb to even worry about it.
Actually GTF, you are incredibly rich. Just by being born in the United States, you are in the top 10% of global standards of living. You are a very rich and fortunate man.
Fortunate that many entrepreneurs too risks and founded companies to make profits, building the airframes and engines, and owning the planes that you controlled.
Fortunate that our founding fathers enabled the people to accumulate wealth, going on holiday in the planes that you controlled.
Fortunate that our economy allows diversification into all kinds of unheard of businesses, such as FedEx and UPS, creating tens of thousands of great jobs for workers and airplane controllers.
Nobody begrudges your success or lifestyle. It is a bit disingenuous of you to claim that "republicans" don't want the same success for others.
I can't and won't speak for anyone else, but I want everyone to reach his/her potential, in whatever field they choose. Nothing makes me happier than to see others either reaching or in "the pursuit of happiness."
I want equality of opportunity, not forced equality of outcome. You seem to want equality of outcome, regardless of effort, risk or value added.
Our country has survived without many, many things. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." Only one is "necessary" and even that is debatable.
You've been asked, repeatedly, to expand on what you meant and which one is "necessary?"
As an American, regardless of any other affliation, that clause in the Declaration of Independence* is the one thing that binds us and makes America what it is, a country based upon an ideal, a principle of individual freedom and choice.
I do not want this to digress into what America has become in your opinion. I am asking, as are numerous other Americans on PPRuNe, what you meant by your statement.
It's not an attack, it's not an insult, it is a request to see your thinking.
It's a very simple question: What did you mean by your statement?
Declining to answer or circumventing the question will reveal much about you as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
edited to admit that I botched it originally and said it was from the Constitution. A kind soul corrected, thanks.
Last edited by brickhistory : 18th October 2008 at 00:36.
Nobody begrudges your success or lifestyle. It is a bit disingenuous of you to claim that "republicans" don't want the same success for others.
Then why is the Republican Party so anti-union ? Why are they against national health insurance/care ? Why are they against regulated...anything ? Why don't they want their government to work for The People ?
"Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem."
The Government is Us -- The People -- and the Republican Party has idolized the man that said We are the problem. Do you see how simple words are ? How they have meaning ? And are so easily turned against us ?
The Republican Party has done its best to destroy our Government is some twisted belief that is was a "solution." And look where it has gotten us. Torture. War. Financial havoc. And a nation bitterly divided.
Please, save the cliched clap-trap for the Daily Kos. They'll appreciate it there.
Take one example where the Democratic party, and modern liberal practices have dominated for more than 40 years....inner city public school education.
Most large U.S cities are governed by Democrats, and have been for years.
Most school boards and city councils in large inner cities are owned by Democrats. Think Washington, D.C., Chicago, L.A., etc.
Most faculties are dominated by strong, often radical unions.
Yet, the results are horrendous. The United States spends more on public school education than any other country, yet our poor inner city school children spend their days in overcrowded, filthy, unsafe "schools." It is a national embarrassment, and I say the Democrats should be mighty ashamed.
Wouldn't it be great to give parents a choice? Force some competition and accountability? The Republicans at least want to try to improve the lot of these poor, often minority children. Where are the democrats?
No way, the unions won't have it. Accountability is bad.
No way, vouchers are opposed by every democratic candidate.
No way, standardized testing is "biased."
Look, "No Child Left Behind" wasn't perfect, but it was a start at accountability. Vouchers aren't perfect either, but they do force competition.
Liberals mock parents who home-school their children....but what these parents are showing is that they will seek alternatives for their children, unions and democrats be damned.
Where are you on this issue affecting so many poor minority children, GTF? I know I'm 100% on the side of parents and children.
Yes many parents are pulling there children out of the public schools and going to the home school program.
Ones I have talked to are for good reasons and I support what they are saying and doing.
It all goes back to our family values slowly depreciating here in the USA.
When I was in high school back in the mid 70's we started the school day with the pledge of allegiance, followed by the lords prayer.
Now all thats gone and for what reason?
Don't get me wrong I am in no way a religious person.
Now in the schools they are teaching so called alternate life styles.
So its OK to be Gay,,,, Bullshit, another mental illness, and saying that parents that have 5 kids cant work, its up to the government to support them, goes on all the time here.
How many parents would want to hear this being taught with there children?
This is something Clinton started and most good parents want no part of it.
I really feel talking to other parents that this country is going down quick.
Unless we take a stand about these things we are going to be in for some bad times.
Its starting to get here in the USA that you cannot cross the street without a lawyer in one hand and a shrink in the other, otherwise something is wrong with you unless you accept these new standards.
Its time we took back our country, and put the family values back in place as we had before.
When I went to Instructor school in the USAF I was taught something I will never forget.
You have a set of standards, once you drop or exceed these standards you set a new standard.
Before long you have no standards at all.
This is what I see here in the USA.
This applies to everything in life, not just aircraft operations.
A vote for welfare man is a big step in this direction, before long we will all be
in trouble!!!
Yes Bush has helped put us here, not in a good way, McCain is not Bush, Obama is welfare trouble.
Illegal immigration, another issue, one of our Harley guys was just killed here last week in Charleston, South Carolina by a illegal Mexican that had been charged 3 times for no drivers license, he was released after posting a 400 usd bond, he was at fault with this accident as running a red light.
Things need to change here quick, people are angry, !!!!
But what bothers me is that this illegal immigration issue wont be brought up because of the Spanish vote.
Yet these illegals are costing the American taxpayer millions.
The sad thing here is that they are not wanted, go home Pedro.
Take your illegal wife and anchor babies with you!!!!
Closer Than You Think? Presidential Polling Data Leave Room for Interpretation - FOXNews.com Elections
Here is a different poll other than CNN.
Does any one remember CNN on the day the Gulf war started?
Skys over Bahgdad illuminated.
Remember Wolf Blister and Barnard Shaw reporting like vagina boys from under the bed!!!
Oh! someones knocking at the door!!!
What limp dicks!!!
Some of us was on the ground in the USAF in Daharan I was one, what a joke CNN was then an now.
Polls from them are not accurate.
Sometimes I think they are trying to influence the election.
When the US citizen pulls that curtain in a vote, then we will know for sure .
Linear Mode
