For investors only

[Duff Miver]

I spent most of a year in rural West Virginia. All white, mostly of English desent. Hard workers, coal and oil, and mostly dirt poor.

The sort doggy hates.

 

[hedgehog]

Percentiles Ranked by AGI

Percentiles Ranked by AGI

AGI Threshold on Percentiles

Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%
$410,096
40.42

Top 5%
$160,041
60.63

Top 10%
$113,018
71.22

Top 25%
$66,532
86.59

Top 50%
$32,879
97.11

Bottom 50%
<$32,879
2.89

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

top 1% pay 40% of the taxes:scared

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Different ways to look at things, again. You use terms like productive and non-productive as a catch all to describe entire classes of people. It's just not that simple. There are plenty of people who work their ass off that don't make a lot of money. Are they unproductive? Hardly. They just don't make a lot of money. Many work two jobs, or more, and actually work harder than most who make a lot more money. Plenty of non-productive people who make a ton of money. You can't just wash things away as simply as you do. Just because somebody doesn't make a lot of money does not make them a dead beat.

Was Bernie Madoff productive? Kenneth Lay? George W. Bush? If deemed productive, are they considered worthwhile people? Many ways to look at things. There are existing laws on the books and time limits to drawing money from the governement. If they aren't being enforced, whose fault is that?

And you call it pandering, I call it noticing. You don't give an entire group of people any credit whatsoever, and that's generally the mentality of most strict conservatives. And liberals are classified as being elitist in many cases, so which is it? Educated people, literate people, are called liberals and democrats. They supposedly control the media and print, etc. They are considered scholars. Are they unproductive? Because they choose a different path, deciding that educating and learning is more important than chasing the dollar?

Very much a matter of opinion.

And I certainly have seen some ghetto-like areas inhabited by white people - completely white. Ever been to a trailer park? Ever traveled around Kentucky much? Not just the good parts? I'm heading back to the Ozarks this weekend, I can assure you there's plenty of white trash areas around there, with plenty of people continually sucking up the government dollar in many ways. Plenty of unproductive white folk out there. Plenty.

I never said anything about black or white or any color Chad--I said Getto's--your doin a little subconsious profiling

I emphatically agree dead beats come in all colors.
Best way to remain objective and non biased is to look at the stats and let the chips fall where they may--
Which #'s would you like to look at--
crime-unemployment-welfare-literacy orto be fair we can use any other eco stats you choose but we will come up with same results. I think I've been this route with someone before a couple times and their only out is to divert subject into tacial BS. I don't think you will but to use an analogy--
Do you bet on teams you like and against those you don't--or do you look at them objectively and let the #'s over ride emotion.
I have tried my best to be statisically predjudice in all aspects of life--

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Lets see-they 400 billion cut from medicare and today we get-

"AP - The Social Security Administration makes it official Thursday: There will be no cost of living increase for Social Security recipients next year, the first year without one since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975."

Hmm I believe someone said something prior where Gumby's cuts would be and who would benefit--

"In stimulus, social programs get largest boost in decades"
http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2009/02/14/r_twyyundqjans0ix_uq_9q/index.xml

The retired working class:mj08:

Da Base :00hour

 

[Chadman]

Wayne, you say you never said anything about race, then want me to look at statistics to prove your point. What do those statistics say? I assume that is what your point is, and if not, what is your point? You've made reference to other ethnic groups in this way: "why there are no german-french-japanese etc getto's", and in the post after your address to me again refer to "da base".

And you say you're not saying anything about race? Again, then, what is the point of your statistics? And, what specifically does the "word"

DA

mean, in "da base?" Are you suggesting you aren't making a racial comment every time you type in "da base?"

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"Da" base is no more racial than Gumby is black--he's always been green

What is it about liberals that make them think they pull out the ole racial tags everytime they have no answers :shrug:

 

[Chadman]

I don't think even you think that (not racial) about the term "da" Wayne. It's just coincidence that da is essentially used as slang, mainly made popular by rappers? "Da" club, "da gang", in "da" house, etc. Why would you select "Da Base" in the first place? Are you quoting it from someone else? If it's not to describe something that's EXACTLY on your point with the statistical group you are referring to, then why are you using it? And if you aren't calling out a group of people that your statistics are singling out, then what is the point? Who are the people in your statistics, if not primarily black?

I understand the Gumby thing, tall, rubbery, etc. I don't think you use that all that racisty, but I sure do with "da" base. If you don't, again, why do you use it at all?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I don't know better adjective to name party who's theme is to redistribute wealth/socialism--
or as they say robbing peter to pay paul to get pauls vote.

Which the voting demographics overwhelmingly verify

--and issues the party supports in effort to shore up their voting block are- no ID's to vote and allowing felons to vote.

I would think one would have to be very naive not to see the obvious.

They can make all the changes they want--the problem they will face is revenue to fund it.

 

[Chadman]

I would think one would have to be very naive not to see the obvious.

I think I do see the obvious, in your comments. But I think you dance around what you ask people to see in what you say. That's my point. You just won't say it specifically, but I don't expect you to. Others here are more blatant and obvious, but when you ask people to look at something specific, and use the terminology you do, it seems pretty obvious to me.

But, enough about that. I'm comfortable in this assessment. Carry on.

 

[Chadman]

Here's another thing I wonder about, when reading people complain about how much in taxes the upper class pays. The upper class tax burden is comparatively low - quite low, in fact - to other times in our history. There was one stretch in there that was lower, but the majority of time, our country had MUCH higher tax rates for high incomes. Seems like the country did ok then, for the most part, give or take. And now, we have pretty low tax rates for this group, and they (and others under them, interestingly) gripe about their burden.

If you don't know this, Google it. At one time the top bracket had a 91% rate. It's been MUCH higher than the current 35% it is now. I just think that's interesting. But one thing's for sure. The upper bracket now makes a hugely disproportionate amount of the overall money in this country. So, it's no secret why they are doing pretty well, and I have a hard time feeling their "struggle."

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I think I do see the obvious, in your comments. But I think you dance around what you ask people to see in what you say. That's my point. You just won't say it specifically, but I don't expect you to. Others here are more blatant and obvious, but when you ask people to look at something specific, and use the terminology you do, it seems pretty obvious to me.

But, enough about that. I'm comfortable in this assessment. Carry on.

What specific Question--the-- Da Base

Then I guess this shirt would be racial--by liberal standards--correct?

Now that I answered your question directly you might answer 1st part of mine from above--

Best way to remain objective and non biased is to look at the stats and let the chips fall where they may--
Which #'s would you like to look at--
crime-unemployment-welfare-literacy orto be fair we can use any other eco stats you choose but we will come up with same results. I think I've been this route with someone before a couple times and their only out is to divert subject into racial BS. I don't think you will but to use an analogy--

--appears you answered 2nd part as you did go directly to racial BS--when you had no answers but so does everyone else--

 

[Trench]

Here's another thing I wonder about, when reading people complain about how much in taxes the upper class pays. The upper class tax burden is comparatively low - quite low, in fact - to other times in our history. There was one stretch in there that was lower, but the majority of time, our country had MUCH higher tax rates for high incomes. Seems like the country did ok then, for the most part, give or take. And now, we have pretty low tax rates for this group, and they (and others under them, interestingly) gripe about their burden.

If you don't know this, Google it. At one time the top bracket had a 91% rate. It's been MUCH higher than the current 35% it is now. I just think that's interesting. But one thing's for sure. The upper bracket now makes a hugely disproportionate amount of the overall money in this country. So, it's no secret why they are doing pretty well, and I have a hard time feeling their "struggle."

Chad, now you've exposed the fallacy of the whole "redistribution of wealth" claim the right-wing blowhards have hung on Obama, which of course, their legion of tea-baggers was all too willing to seize upon. If Obama's evil plot to redistribute the wealth hinges on raising the tax rate from 36% to 39% for the highest tax bracket, I doubt many of the wealthy are losing any sleep over it. But Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity sure have their legion of lap-dogs frothing at mouth over it. LOL

Pavlov's Dogs they are and the alpha dog is our friend Linus. Lap it up Linus, lap it up. :142smilie

Btw... We ALL understand the racial meaning behind Linus's use of the terms "Gumby" and "Da Base". He's fooling no one.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I thought thread title might keep you and your mate -muffy out but I guess not.

 

[Trench]

I thought thread title might keep you and your mate -muffy out but I guess not.

Wayne, I know I bust your chops on alot of stuff we disagree on, but hey, that's half the fun of an Internet forum. In all honesty, your Gumby and Da Base references really don't bother me. I figure if ya can't have a little fun ribbing your political adversaries on an Internet forum, where can you? I will say you take my ribbing pretty well. I'm still gonna keep bustin your chops though.

 

[Chadman]

Wayne, was out of town visiting family all weekend, just now back and getting caught up. Will hopefully get back to this tomorrow, plenty to do around here.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Hers a pretty good article Chad on stimulus pointing out what I have been preaching ( was basically 1/2 stimulus and 1/2 uping anti on social programs) might be why it has been collosal failure
--and "if" this article is correct it basically push up defict 140 Billion a year --


Sickening Deficit

<CITE>Alex Brill and Amy Roden</CITE>, 10.19.09, 12:00 AM EDT
The nauseating stimulus bill may be worse than the health care bill.

<SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://images.forbes.com/scripts/jquery/jquery.js"></SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://images.forbes.com/scripts/jquery/jquery.dimensions.js"></SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://images.forbes.com/scripts/jquery/ui.core.js"></SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://images.forbes.com/scripts/jquery/ui/ui.tabs.js"></SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://images.forbes.com/scripts/story/behavior.js"></SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript>var EmailSponsor=1;var adStringx92 = "

";</SCRIPT>

<SCRIPT type=text/javascript>var EmailSponsor=1;var adStringx91 = "

";</SCRIPT>

<SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://images.forbes.com/scripts/acs/thickbox.js"></SCRIPT> <LINK rel=stylesheet type=text/css href="http://images.forbes.com/css/story/thickbox.css" media=screen><LINK rel=stylesheet type=text/css href="http://images.forbes.com/css/signup_module.css" media=screen>
A key driver behind the president's health care agenda is to, "help bring our deficits under control in the long term," and yet the latest health care bill will reach annual savings of only $18 billion by the end of the decade. Before deficit hawks try to applaud Congress for fiscal responsibility, Americans should recognize that the recently enacted stimulus bill will push up the deficit by $140 billion a year.
The "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" (ARRA), was rushed through Congress on the grounds that fast-acting and temporary measures were needed to counteract the recession. The bill included $288 billion in tax relief, $144 billion in transfers to states and $357 billion in federal spending.

However, many of the provisions in the stimulus will not be temporary. Less than two weeks after ARRA was enacted, the Obama administration released its Fiscal Year 2010 Budget, which proposed to make five major components of the stimulus bill permanent, at a cost of $94 billion per year. Permanently extending the Making Work Pay Credit, the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the refundable portion of the child tax credit, and the expansion of the American Opportunity Tax Credit would cost $82 billion per year. Expanding Pell Grants for college education would cost $12 billion annually. All told, the Obama administration's budget seeks to make at least 37% of ARRA's spending and tax cuts permanent on an annual basis.
A number of other provisions are likely to have a permanent impact on the budget as well, since it would be political suicide to eliminate them now that they are enacted. Permanently extending just a subset of tax or spending provisions could further enlarge the deficit by over $48 billion per year.
--The Obama administration has recently expressed support for extending the $8,000 first-time home-buyer credit that is set to expire on Nov. 30, 2009. A permanent extension could cost $6 billion annually.

--Second, the stimulus package provided additional aid to laid-off and low-income workers and their families by subsidizing the cost of COBRA benefits, granting more funding for Supplemental Nutrition Program (food stamps) and excluding $2,400 of unemployment benefits from gross income calculations. Although the number of eligible workers and families will decline as the economy recovers, we estimate that the annual cost of extending these popular programs to be $12 billion per year.

--Third, education was a major theme of the stimulus bill and $100 billion was directed to this cause. While we do not assume that all of this spending is to be permanently expended, the termination of additional funding for disadvantaged children and special education would be particularly unpopular; an extension of these programs would increase spending by an estimated $12 billion per year.

Extending funding for a subset of other federal programs run by the National Institute of Health, the National Science Foundation and the Department of Labor, among others, would add another $18 billion in permanent spending.
In total, we have identified policies in the stimulus bill that will add over $140 billion annually to the federal deficit forever, representing roughly 57% of the total average annual cost of the bill. It is important to stress, however, that this estimate is likely the floor and not the ceiling for what this bill will eventually cost. Our analysis was restricted to those policies estimated to cost $1 billion or more. But this legislation will create hundreds of distinct programs. Furthermore, we also excluded policies that were included in the stimulus bill but that existed previously, such as the alternative minimum tax patch and an array of energy tax provisions. Finally, we generously assumed that many other programs that potentially could be extended would not be, including the $144 billion in temporary aid to the States and the one-time $250 payment to Social Security recipients that now appears likely to reoccur at least in 2010.
While there is no question that rising health care costs pose a serious threat to our fiscal outlook, the health care proposals being debated in Congress will do little (if anything) to solve the problem. While this debate consumes our public attention, don't forget that a bigger fiscal wound has already been inflicted. Not only has the stimulus bill failed to turn the economy, but it promises to be a permanent drag.
Alex Brill is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Previously, he was senior advisor to the chairman and chief economist of the House Ways and Means Committee. Amy Roden is a program manager in economic studies and Jacobs associate at AEI. This article was adopted from a longer paper published in Tax Notes.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/18/he...inions-contributors-alex-brill-amy-roden.html

 

[Chadman]

Ok, back at it. Wayne, you say you answered my question. I don't see it that way, because you found a pic of a t-shirt that represents a Chicago SNL skit?

Seriously, why do you use the term "Da Base?" What purpose does it serve in your commentary? Why use the word "da"? Are you really suggesting it doesn't relate to blacks? If not, how is it generally used in this relationship, to Obama's followers? You are tying statistics that you have always maintained are related primarily to black people, and the words you pick start with "da?"

I don't think you've answered anything, I think you've danced around it. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion and sticking to it. But I don't think that's what you're doing, for obvious reasons.

And what is your point? My point was to ask about your terminology. Are you asking about who blacks are more likely to vote for? And support? I'd guess the successful black man. Next question? What about all the white folk that voted for him? That aren't a part of, um, "da base?"

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Chad Seriously-never thought of term Da relating to blacks. Da base is certainly not confined to blacks either.

O backers consist of 3 basic elements

You have Da base -which is anyone who has monetary reason to be for redistribution of wealth.

You have liberals/PC crowd

Then you have the Dem diehards--those that will vote for a dem regardess
if his name is Barrack Hussein Obama
with 0 experiece or quailification
- is a halfrica america/no other family members citizens or here "legally"

oops--he might have one 1/2 or 1/4 sister--not sure

 

[Chadman]

Ok, Wayne. I can see that we're not going to pin this one down, that's fine. I find it hard to believe that the main point you are trying to make deals essentially with black people - the poor black people - and you continually use the term in most posts that deal essentially with poor black people. The statistics you mention, and always referring to the majority of a certain group of blacks that vote for Obama, because he is black. I think you are mainstream and intelligent enough to know what the "da" word is generally thought to be used for since rap music and that genre came around.

Just too much to analyze that you personally put forward for me to think differently, but whatever you say. You certainly try to make that a point in your posts, I can say that with confidence.

And, you know that you have diehards in any party, that will vote for their party regardless. I hardly think that's something to pin on Obama or dems. And I still disagree that he has zero experience, there is plenty of experience in his portfolio, as we've discussed in the past. But all that is off my point, which we can all judge for ourselves, I guess.