Economists call this behavior "rent seeking" and it is considered inefficient and undesirable. The idea that Microsoft should not be criticized for engaging in it is highly misguided.
File this under "unclear on the concept". Rent seeking has nothing to do with expecting compensation for producing value, or improving efficiency, or spending years (and vast sums of money) on education and certification in a field. Rent seeking attempts to close markets to competitors without actually producing anything.
I checked Wikipedia and there's a pretty good definition there:
The simplest definition of rent-seeking is the expenditure of resources attempting to enrich oneself by increasing one's share of a fixed amount of wealth rather than trying to create wealth. Since resources are expended but no new wealth is created, the net effect of rent-seeking is to reduce the sum of social wealth.
That doesn't really describe the situation that the OP was describing: "It seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without having to do the work."
Gates felt that Linux devs gained some sort of undue enrichment. It's a bogus and douchbag position, but it's not "rent seeking".
"Microsoft does not mandate or control the settings on PC firmware that control or enable secured boot from any operating system other than Windows"
What they mean, here, is that OEMs are welcome to refuse to sign the Microsoft contracts for discounted Windows licenses, and just add that extra cost to their computers, which can then boot other operating systems. Good luck selling any when everybody else is undercutting your prices by $100 or so.
I'd really like to see a breakdown of their subscription revenue. I heard a couple of years ago that their JBoss offerings were growing faster than the OS subscriptions, and they seem to be putting a lot of resources into that line. I think it offers a more compelling value proposition for businesses. I mean, their Linux OS isn't really anything special, compared to other distros or even [gasp!] Windows server, when you consider the subscription / support costs. On the other hand, when you compare the JBoss stuff to similar platforms from IBM, Oracle and the others, it's a hell of a bargain.
Do you favor a smaller public sector but oppose austerity because you fail to understand they are the same thing?
Well, they are not. They certainly have a relationship, but no, they are not the same thing.
there are roughly 700,000 law enforcement personnel in the US and 7 million teachers.
Citation needed.
According to the the FBI, it's closer to a million (you weren't counting the administrative staff). That also doesn't include prison guards (public and private), the 210,000 DHS employees, or the coast guard (they are considered military, but do plenty of law enforcement duties, and much of it directed at US citizens. Not sure if these numbers include all sheriffs (in many jurisdictions, they primarily act as jailers), but it certainly doesn't include the various jurisdictional courts and those employees.
According to this source, the total number of public school teachers (which we were discussing (or at least you brought up)) is 3,219,458. Less than half the figure you quoted.
Will this data cause you to reconsider your conclusion that the US is a distopian police state?
Even though your numbers were incorrect, I will indeed concede that the US is not a distopian police state. These numbers combined with the enormously disproportional incarcerated numbers, and the declining education results compared with the rest of the first world, mainly just indicates that law enforcement in the US is significantly more efficient than the public education system.
Will you concede that these thing indicate some serious issues with law enforcement and education that should be addressed in some way? Would you consider any proposals that do not involve spending increases? I won't hold my breath, either.
Okay, I get your point. And, yes, with more unemployed there are more people in the low-income / poverty level. Plus people that started the recession at low income and lost their job obviously had a hard time, since they are much less likely to have any saving or support system.
If you are looking for a job, you're more likely to get one if you are a higher skilled worker.
No, that is not true at all. If you have at least a bachelor's degree and some experience, then it's true, otherwise it's false. If you don't like that source, check out the report from the Center for American Progress on the "Polarization of the Job Market". Or this article from HuffPo
Are you just being contrary to be contrary? I never said there was anything wrong with the Wikipedia stuff - I used it myself.
Yea, I was wrong about the DHS. It's the "third largest cabinet department" behind DOD and Veteran's Affairs. Serves me right for repeating something without checking it out, I guess. Still, it's not really fair to compare them to the entire public school system - you would have to include all the local and state police, sheriffs departments, prisons, rangers, etc. And considering the US has the world's largest prison population and really lousy results from the public schools (compared to other first world countries), I can only guess that the police-state size is likely bigger and better funded.
Why would you assume I'm advocating austerity, or that social entitlements are Europe's biggest problem (although it is among the issues - not sure how you can deny that)? In fact, several places - Sweden and France come to mind - have already dealt with that and took entirely different approaches to find a solution.
The US, I think, is in a really bad position right now, and there doesn't seem to be much hope that the politicians in Washington are willing to do the right thing. Very few even talk about real solutions. And, no, I don't think "austerity" is one of them, and neither is massive tax hikes on the 5%'ers.
While I've been defending the middle class from further erosion by misguided policy
You have been arguing against a tax increase for people who making a MILLION dollars a year in income (and as you yourself admitted, has nothing to do with any capital gains these people might have)
So you're saying people who make a MILLION dollars a year in income are middle class?
No, not really. The proposals include a significant hike on anyone making over $200,000 a year, which is decidedly middle class (upper middle class, sure, but still middle class) - that's where most of the revenue is coming from. The vast majority of those folks are working for what they earn, usually working quite a lot.
If that's how you decide to paraphrase anything that I've said, you're either not reading my posts or you're completely missing the point. Nothing I've said even approaches this twisted viewpoint you claim I've espoused.
That is exactly what your viewpoint is showing. You are pushing for this "austerity" bullshit which is balanced on the backs of the poor, and stating that the rich owe absolutely nothing to society, despite the fact that it is our society that allowed them to flourish.
Meh - I hear this meme all over the place from the Left. Of course, by "society" you mean "government", and by "absolutely nothing" you mean "nothing more than the 40% of tax revenue on the 20% of the earnings that the top 1% already contribute."
Fine, I'll grant you all the tired hyperbole you want to spout, and acknowledge that these figures do not include state and local taxes, payroll taxes, consumption taxes, or any of the other taxes people pay without consideration of their income.
At least stop putting words into my mouth, it is disingenuous and unnecessary based on anything I said, even the North Korea crack. I have no interest in austerity, only in fiscal responsibility, and do not believe that granting a greater share of American's resources will suddenly prompt demonstrably-irresponsible-for-decades hegemony in Washington any new-found sense of fiscal restraint. There are plenty of ways to get back to firm financial standing without cutting anything from the most vulnerable in the country, but there are very few than I see even suggesting the measures necessary, and even less that I trust to follow through.
On the other hand, I didn't guess; I looked it up.
Wikipedia?
Probably an okay starting point, if anything there is inaccurate, you can point it out (and consider updating the articles, please).
Total Government spending in the US, sited for the 2010 fiscal year, was $5,798.8 Billion, or 39.97% of GDP.
I couldn't find an adjusted $/Yuan figure for Chiner, but it's listed as 20.8% of GDP. I really don't think that's an accurate depiction of the "public sector" for China, though, since so much of its industry is state-owned and state-run. It's difficult to find anything specific, but it looks like state-owned enterprises still account for just under 50% of the GDP. So "government spending", in this case, is not really a good comparison for "size of the public sector." Of course, the US government owns shares of Chrysler and GM (AFAIK), and Fannie and Freddie are lien holders of quite a bit of real estate. There are also a lot of municipal and state controlled enterprises such as airports, utilities, and others. It's all a difficult comparison to make.
Sweden and France probably provide some good lessons. Both have larger public sectors and both have struggled with social entitlements that grew too costly to support. They took radically different approaches to deal with the issues. France instituted austerity measures, and Sweden introduce industry deregulation to attract business and raised personal income taxes significantly to maintain the social safety net programs.
These are the types of things US policy makers need to be looking at, instead of lying about "cuts" (slower growth) and acting like they can continue to run deficits in perpetuity, or that they can levy heavy taxes on businesses without hurting consumers.
So I might try to figure out what measure of "largest" you were using
The "proof" thing was he and s73v3r claiming that there were countries that "proved me wrong", but didn't really explain what they meant.
Yes, there are countries with proportionally larger public sectors, probably none other than China with one actually as large. But with the vast amount of power the US Federal government currently has, the massive intervention in foreign countries, the massive domestic police state (the DHS is now the largest organization in the US outside the Defense Department), and rampant economic tyranny, when I think of it getting larger, I have a hard time of finding anything positive about it.
It was from an analysis of the data. I wanted to link to the actual source, the same figure are there, just not summarized the same.
The link did point this out:
Good Jobs Lost During the Recession Are Being Replaced By Low-Wage Jobs
The National Employment Law Project released a report that shows that while the recession’s job losses were concentrated in higher-wage industries (especially construction, non-durable manufacturing, finance/insurance, and information), the limited job gains since have come disproportionately in the low-wage industries (temporary jobs, retail, administrative support, and the service sector).
Which is the point I was making - the low-wage jobs are coming back (there are actually new jobs to be had), but the good-paying middle class jobs are not, and are probably gone forever. This is not only bad for the people that had those jobs and now can't find work, but also for low-wage earners who aspire to get better jobs. Training and education won't help, because the jobs just aren't there.
I guess you have not lived in other countries. Your tax system is very very progressive, but your deductions --WOW, what you can deduct is just amazing. In the end, bottom line, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
Very true. I don't think there's any debate about that - and perhaps even worse is the shrinking middle class, and the middle class jobs that have now probably disappeared forever. That situation leaves the poor in an even more hopeless situation.
Obviously, you don't know me at all, but of course it's easy to hate when you put people in a box, huh?
Solyndra is, of course, a minor issue, but indicative of the rampant corruption of Washington and politics in the US in general.
When you get tired of shilling for some party or another maybe you'll gain a little independent perspective. For now, you just seem too small-minded to even try to educate about the realities of the real world.
Oh, I see - now any investment is automatically a scam. That's not very Republican of you. Except when it's a Democrat's plan for investment. I get it now.
Don't you get it yet? Blinded by promises from your party or hatred for the other party?
Where's the money? That's what they want (don't be a fool, it's Republicans AND Democrats). It's all sitting in private retirement accounts. Untaxed 401Ks, 403Bs, IRAs, etc. How do you get your hands on it? "Infrastructure Bank"!! WooHoo!! It's the answer to the IMF and the World Bank for America this time.
The big investors in Solyndra were the Wal-Mart family, the Waltons.
Really? I hadn't heard that. They lost a lot of money, then, didn't they?
they got Bush to approve the loan that Obama's administration carried over.
Whoa - wait a minute - I know Bush was a fuck-up, but I had no idea he was involved in this scam... Ah - found this. Of course, the guy never mentions in his detailed time-line the Obama "photo-op" visit to the facility, taking full credit for promoting "green companies". But then, he's shilling for the Democrats, as if they are different or something.
Obama is just as bad as Bush, he's still pushing and promoting all the worst policies that Bush put in place, expanding and extending the Police State tactics, the foreign intervention, the market intervention, the crony capitalism, and on and on.
The worst part of all this is the people that go around claiming if only the RIGHT PARTY were in charge, things would change.
You're right - only a Communist or Republican would resort to name-calling over a disagreement. I'm afraid you got under my craw associating me with the them. Almost as insulting as being called a Democrat.
That's not even wrong. The Infrastructure Bank isn't subject to investment, it's a way to reserve infrastructure budgets protected from the general fund. The general fund that you Republicans have robbed at every step, except when it's not in a "lockbox".
Solyndra? You're a wind-up Republican blabberer. Goodbye.
I'm not a Republican at all (I mean, they eat puppies, right? and Democrats sing with Angels?), although you are obviously a douchebag - and an ignorant one at that. So pointing out rampant corruption in the administration of government is "blabbering". Got it.
Nothing in that link contradicts my statement (and the NYT's statement).
On the contrary. You claimed "The number of families not paying income tax has risen from about 30 percent before the recession" - the real figure is about 38%.
At one time we had intelligent conservatives who actually listened to the other side's argument and admitted it when they were wrong.
Well, I'm not really a "conservative", I'm a classical liberal. Waiting for you to admit you were wrong. I'll admit that the link only shows Federal Income taxes if you admit that the US has the most progressive tax policy of any first world country - people like you seem to run into a lot of cognitive dissonance when I point out that fact.
Yes, and we had principled Democrats that realized the government can't spend more than it takes in forever. Yes, it does seem those days are gone.
That's the first country you thought of, instead of all the countries much more like the US that prove you wrong, because you are indeed what that last post called you. And your followup post proves you're determined to prove it.
Two people have claimed that, and called me an "idiot" (yes, you did), claim that I'm wrong, and that there's proof!! and yet... nothing.
I guess you feel if you keep repeating this lie, people will just eventually assume I'm wrong.
You Republicans, er, "libertarians", of course, would rather we all hand over the other money we've managed to protect from the rich. Our Social Security principal you'd see evaporated in the stock market, along with the pensions the rich just destroyed in the past decade.
The Democrats are planning to do EXACTLY THAT as soon as possible, only they are calling it the "Infrastructure bank". This will be all your retirement savings going into a "public-private partnership" (how is that different than Mussolini-style fascism), and it will bubble and then crash, just like Fannie, Freddie, and Solyndra.
There's 1.4M people in the top 1%, according to your stats, who take in over $1.6 TRILLION, paying an effective income tax rate of 23.27% on it, leaving them with $1.3T. The Federal deficit was $1.17T in 2010. Based on income alone, just the top 1% could eliminate the deficit and have $130 BILLION left over (about $88,000 each - over double the gross median income). So your statement that there aren't enough is simply, mathematically and objectively false.
Except that's only for one year, and after you do it once, it's over, because all that money will be gone, along with the homes, lifestyles, and wealth-creation activities of all those people. Talk about killing the goose!
Your figures are off, too. I noticed that Wikipedia also made the $1.17T claim, so I added a [citation needed] tag to the entire. It's actually $1.293T, and the source reference is right here.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a lotta fear-based drivel to me. The needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the few, son.
Thanks, Karl.
Economists call this behavior "rent seeking" and it is considered inefficient and undesirable. The idea that Microsoft should not be criticized for engaging in it is highly misguided.
File this under "unclear on the concept". Rent seeking has nothing to do with expecting compensation for producing value, or improving efficiency, or spending years (and vast sums of money) on education and certification in a field. Rent seeking attempts to close markets to competitors without actually producing anything.
I checked Wikipedia and there's a pretty good definition there:
That doesn't really describe the situation that the OP was describing: "It seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without having to do the work."
Gates felt that Linux devs gained some sort of undue enrichment. It's a bogus and douchbag position, but it's not "rent seeking".
"Microsoft does not mandate or control the settings on PC firmware that control or enable secured boot from any operating system other than Windows"
What they mean, here, is that OEMs are welcome to refuse to sign the Microsoft contracts for discounted Windows licenses, and just add that extra cost to their computers, which can then boot other operating systems. Good luck selling any when everybody else is undercutting your prices by $100 or so.
I'd really like to see a breakdown of their subscription revenue. I heard a couple of years ago that their JBoss offerings were growing faster than the OS subscriptions, and they seem to be putting a lot of resources into that line. I think it offers a more compelling value proposition for businesses. I mean, their Linux OS isn't really anything special, compared to other distros or even [gasp!] Windows server, when you consider the subscription / support costs. On the other hand, when you compare the JBoss stuff to similar platforms from IBM, Oracle and the others, it's a hell of a bargain.
Do you favor a smaller public sector but oppose austerity because you fail to understand they are the same thing?
Well, they are not. They certainly have a relationship, but no, they are not the same thing.
there are roughly 700,000 law enforcement personnel in the US and 7 million teachers.
Citation needed.
According to the the FBI, it's closer to a million (you weren't counting the administrative staff). That also doesn't include prison guards (public and private), the 210,000 DHS employees, or the coast guard (they are considered military, but do plenty of law enforcement duties, and much of it directed at US citizens. Not sure if these numbers include all sheriffs (in many jurisdictions, they primarily act as jailers), but it certainly doesn't include the various jurisdictional courts and those employees.
According to this source, the total number of public school teachers (which we were discussing (or at least you brought up)) is 3,219,458. Less than half the figure you quoted.
Will this data cause you to reconsider your conclusion that the US is a distopian police state?
Even though your numbers were incorrect, I will indeed concede that the US is not a distopian police state. These numbers combined with the enormously disproportional incarcerated numbers, and the declining education results compared with the rest of the first world, mainly just indicates that law enforcement in the US is significantly more efficient than the public education system.
Will you concede that these thing indicate some serious issues with law enforcement and education that should be addressed in some way? Would you consider any proposals that do not involve spending increases? I won't hold my breath, either.
Okay, I get your point. And, yes, with more unemployed there are more people in the low-income / poverty level. Plus people that started the recession at low income and lost their job obviously had a hard time, since they are much less likely to have any saving or support system.
If you are looking for a job, you're more likely to get one if you are a higher skilled worker.
No, that is not true at all. If you have at least a bachelor's degree and some experience, then it's true, otherwise it's false. If you don't like that source, check out the report from the Center for American Progress on the "Polarization of the Job Market". Or this article from HuffPo
Are you just being contrary to be contrary? I never said there was anything wrong with the Wikipedia stuff - I used it myself.
Yea, I was wrong about the DHS. It's the "third largest cabinet department" behind DOD and Veteran's Affairs. Serves me right for repeating something without checking it out, I guess. Still, it's not really fair to compare them to the entire public school system - you would have to include all the local and state police, sheriffs departments, prisons, rangers, etc. And considering the US has the world's largest prison population and really lousy results from the public schools (compared to other first world countries), I can only guess that the police-state size is likely bigger and better funded.
Why would you assume I'm advocating austerity, or that social entitlements are Europe's biggest problem (although it is among the issues - not sure how you can deny that)? In fact, several places - Sweden and France come to mind - have already dealt with that and took entirely different approaches to find a solution.
The US, I think, is in a really bad position right now, and there doesn't seem to be much hope that the politicians in Washington are willing to do the right thing. Very few even talk about real solutions. And, no, I don't think "austerity" is one of them, and neither is massive tax hikes on the 5%'ers.
While I've been defending the middle class from further erosion by misguided policy
You have been arguing against a tax increase for people who making a MILLION dollars a year in income (and as you yourself admitted, has nothing to do with any capital gains these people might have)
So you're saying people who make a MILLION dollars a year in income are middle class?
No, not really. The proposals include a significant hike on anyone making over $200,000 a year, which is decidedly middle class (upper middle class, sure, but still middle class) - that's where most of the revenue is coming from. The vast majority of those folks are working for what they earn, usually working quite a lot.
If that's how you decide to paraphrase anything that I've said, you're either not reading my posts or you're completely missing the point. Nothing I've said even approaches this twisted viewpoint you claim I've espoused.
That is exactly what your viewpoint is showing. You are pushing for this "austerity" bullshit which is balanced on the backs of the poor, and stating that the rich owe absolutely nothing to society, despite the fact that it is our society that allowed them to flourish.
Meh - I hear this meme all over the place from the Left. Of course, by "society" you mean "government", and by "absolutely nothing" you mean "nothing more than the 40% of tax revenue on the 20% of the earnings that the top 1% already contribute."
Fine, I'll grant you all the tired hyperbole you want to spout, and acknowledge that these figures do not include state and local taxes, payroll taxes, consumption taxes, or any of the other taxes people pay without consideration of their income.
At least stop putting words into my mouth, it is disingenuous and unnecessary based on anything I said, even the North Korea crack. I have no interest in austerity, only in fiscal responsibility, and do not believe that granting a greater share of American's resources will suddenly prompt demonstrably-irresponsible-for-decades hegemony in Washington any new-found sense of fiscal restraint. There are plenty of ways to get back to firm financial standing without cutting anything from the most vulnerable in the country, but there are very few than I see even suggesting the measures necessary, and even less that I trust to follow through.
Come to Canada and live freer and better. Bring some skills
Canada is looking for skilled Americans.
Tempting - how's the craft beer? Can I still make my own?
Downside is the cold. I was raised in the Louisiana Bayou - not sure I could handle the winters there...
On the other hand, I didn't guess; I looked it up.
Wikipedia?
Probably an okay starting point, if anything there is inaccurate, you can point it out (and consider updating the articles, please).
Total Government spending in the US, sited for the 2010 fiscal year, was $5,798.8 Billion, or 39.97% of GDP.
I couldn't find an adjusted $/Yuan figure for Chiner, but it's listed as 20.8% of GDP. I really don't think that's an accurate depiction of the "public sector" for China, though, since so much of its industry is state-owned and state-run. It's difficult to find anything specific, but it looks like state-owned enterprises still account for just under 50% of the GDP. So "government spending", in this case, is not really a good comparison for "size of the public sector." Of course, the US government owns shares of Chrysler and GM (AFAIK), and Fannie and Freddie are lien holders of quite a bit of real estate. There are also a lot of municipal and state controlled enterprises such as airports, utilities, and others. It's all a difficult comparison to make.
Sweden and France probably provide some good lessons. Both have larger public sectors and both have struggled with social entitlements that grew too costly to support. They took radically different approaches to deal with the issues. France instituted austerity measures, and Sweden introduce industry deregulation to attract business and raised personal income taxes significantly to maintain the social safety net programs.
These are the types of things US policy makers need to be looking at, instead of lying about "cuts" (slower growth) and acting like they can continue to run deficits in perpetuity, or that they can levy heavy taxes on businesses without hurting consumers.
So I might try to figure out what measure of "largest" you were using
Should have said "government organization".
I was responding to Doc Ruby, sorry.
The "proof" thing was he and s73v3r claiming that there were countries that "proved me wrong", but didn't really explain what they meant.
Yes, there are countries with proportionally larger public sectors, probably none other than China with one actually as large. But with the vast amount of power the US Federal government currently has, the massive intervention in foreign countries, the massive domestic police state (the DHS is now the largest organization in the US outside the Defense Department), and rampant economic tyranny, when I think of it getting larger, I have a hard time of finding anything positive about it.
It was from an analysis of the data. I wanted to link to the actual source, the same figure are there, just not summarized the same.
The link did point this out:
Which is the point I was making - the low-wage jobs are coming back (there are actually new jobs to be had), but the good-paying middle class jobs are not, and are probably gone forever. This is not only bad for the people that had those jobs and now can't find work, but also for low-wage earners who aspire to get better jobs. Training and education won't help, because the jobs just aren't there.
I guess you have not lived in other countries. Your tax system is very very progressive, but your deductions --WOW, what you can deduct is just amazing. In the end, bottom line, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
Very true. I don't think there's any debate about that - and perhaps even worse is the shrinking middle class, and the middle class jobs that have now probably disappeared forever. That situation leaves the poor in an even more hopeless situation.
Obviously, you don't know me at all, but of course it's easy to hate when you put people in a box, huh? Solyndra is, of course, a minor issue, but indicative of the rampant corruption of Washington and politics in the US in general. When you get tired of shilling for some party or another maybe you'll gain a little independent perspective. For now, you just seem too small-minded to even try to educate about the realities of the real world.
Oh, I see - now any investment is automatically a scam. That's not very Republican of you. Except when it's a Democrat's plan for investment. I get it now.
Don't you get it yet? Blinded by promises from your party or hatred for the other party?
Where's the money? That's what they want (don't be a fool, it's Republicans AND Democrats). It's all sitting in private retirement accounts. Untaxed 401Ks, 403Bs, IRAs, etc. How do you get your hands on it? "Infrastructure Bank"!! WooHoo!! It's the answer to the IMF and the World Bank for America this time.
The big investors in Solyndra were the Wal-Mart family, the Waltons.
Really? I hadn't heard that. They lost a lot of money, then, didn't they?
they got Bush to approve the loan that Obama's administration carried over.
Whoa - wait a minute - I know Bush was a fuck-up, but I had no idea he was involved in this scam... Ah - found this. Of course, the guy never mentions in his detailed time-line the Obama "photo-op" visit to the facility, taking full credit for promoting "green companies". But then, he's shilling for the Democrats, as if they are different or something.
Obama is just as bad as Bush, he's still pushing and promoting all the worst policies that Bush put in place, expanding and extending the Police State tactics, the foreign intervention, the market intervention, the crony capitalism, and on and on.
The worst part of all this is the people that go around claiming if only the RIGHT PARTY were in charge, things would change.
You're right - only a Communist or Republican would resort to name-calling over a disagreement. I'm afraid you got under my craw associating me with the them. Almost as insulting as being called a Democrat.
My apologies.
You Republicans aren't fit to argue about the most basic economics math, let alone actually set the laws governing them.
Well I'm not a Republicans, but you Communists sure have killed a lot of people trying to implement your policies...
That's not even wrong. The Infrastructure Bank isn't subject to investment, it's a way to reserve infrastructure budgets protected from the general fund. The general fund that you Republicans have robbed at every step, except when it's not in a "lockbox".
I suggest you check into what the Infrastructure Bank is really all about. "Isn't subject to investment" is 180 degrees wrong! Should be easy to see what the proposals for this thing looks like.
Solyndra? You're a wind-up Republican blabberer. Goodbye.
I'm not a Republican at all (I mean, they eat puppies, right? and Democrats sing with Angels?), although you are obviously a douchebag - and an ignorant one at that. So pointing out rampant corruption in the administration of government is "blabbering". Got it.
Can I opt out, somehow? Every neighbor of mine is an ally.
If it were up to me, yea, you could. Really not any business of the US at all. Way too interventionist.
Nothing in that link contradicts my statement (and the NYT's statement).
On the contrary. You claimed "The number of families not paying income tax has risen from about 30 percent before the recession" - the real figure is about 38%.
At one time we had intelligent conservatives who actually listened to the other side's argument and admitted it when they were wrong.
Well, I'm not really a "conservative", I'm a classical liberal. Waiting for you to admit you were wrong. I'll admit that the link only shows Federal Income taxes if you admit that the US has the most progressive tax policy of any first world country - people like you seem to run into a lot of cognitive dissonance when I point out that fact.
Yes, and we had principled Democrats that realized the government can't spend more than it takes in forever. Yes, it does seem those days are gone.
Still no proof that I am wrong, and more name-calling. You must be a socialist.
That's the first country you thought of, instead of all the countries much more like the US that prove you wrong, because you are indeed what that last post called you. And your followup post proves you're determined to prove it.
Two people have claimed that, and called me an "idiot" (yes, you did), claim that I'm wrong, and that there's proof!! and yet... nothing.
I guess you feel if you keep repeating this lie, people will just eventually assume I'm wrong.
You Republicans, er, "libertarians", of course, would rather we all hand over the other money we've managed to protect from the rich. Our Social Security principal you'd see evaporated in the stock market, along with the pensions the rich just destroyed in the past decade.
The Democrats are planning to do EXACTLY THAT as soon as possible, only they are calling it the "Infrastructure bank". This will be all your retirement savings going into a "public-private partnership" (how is that different than Mussolini-style fascism), and it will bubble and then crash, just like Fannie, Freddie, and Solyndra.
There's 1.4M people in the top 1%, according to your stats, who take in over $1.6 TRILLION, paying an effective income tax rate of 23.27% on it, leaving them with $1.3T. The Federal deficit was $1.17T in 2010. Based on income alone, just the top 1% could eliminate the deficit and have $130 BILLION left over (about $88,000 each - over double the gross median income). So your statement that there aren't enough is simply, mathematically and objectively false.
Except that's only for one year, and after you do it once, it's over, because all that money will be gone, along with the homes, lifestyles, and wealth-creation activities of all those people. Talk about killing the goose!
Your figures are off, too. I noticed that Wikipedia also made the $1.17T claim, so I added a [citation needed] tag to the entire. It's actually $1.293T, and the source reference is right here.