***
facebook link
LEE:
It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones
motherjones.com
Eight charts that explain everything that's wrong with America.
DAR
The US has a very high level of inequality when compared with our peer countries and this has profound societal results. Consider this excerpt from the book "The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better"
ROB responds:The theory of everything
These two British academics argue that almost every social problem, from crime to obesity, stems from one root cause: inequality.
...almost every social problem common in developed societies - reduced life expectancy, child mortality, drugs, crime, homicide rates, mental illness and obesity - has a single root cause: inequality.
"It became clear," Wilkinson says, "that countries such as the US, the UK and Portugal, where the top 20% earn seven, eight or nine times more than the lowest 20%, scored noticeably higher on all social problems at every level of society than in countries such as Sweden and Japan, where the differential is only two or three times higher at the top."
The statistics came from the World Bank's list of 50 richest countries, but Wilkinson suggests their conclusions apply more broadly. To ensure their findings weren't explainable by cultural differences, they analysed the data from all 50 US states and found the same pattern. In states where income differentials were greatest, so were the social problems and lack of cohesion."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/ ... sh-society
"So instead of helping the bottom earners rise up, we should bring the top down? That goes against everything this country was founded on. Free market capitalism is the only way for an individual to be at the income level you want to be. Redistribution of wealth is Marxism to the letter. The fall of the USSR proved that redistributing wealth did not work. With Marxism, you still have an elite group at the top taking all the wealth. With capitalism..." [snip horseshit]>>
[blah blah blah, this goes on and on. This is when you know you have a nut that needs to be roasted. Below I'll just post my responses which include enough of the comments in question. There are two of them Rob and Jason.
Robert: "If we increase our own [oil] supply, the price goes down. Years ago when we did have more domestic drilling">>
DAR
What nonsense. US oil production peaked in the early 70's, as predicted, and has been in decline ever since. This is not from a lack of trying, we have more wells going now than ever before. The US has about 2% of the world's oil reserves and uses about 20% of the oil. That math is not difficult. "Drill here drill now" is nonsense on stilts.
ROB: " Taxes, as we all know, go straight to the coffers of corporations. Oh wait. No they dont.">>
Taxes largely go to build and maintain roads and last I checked, they didn't cover that and money still had to come from general revenue. Thus, gas taxes should be higher.
ROB: "Liberalism demands that there be a low income class to depend on the government to survive.">>
Standard rightwing canard but entirely false. Republicans are much better at creating poor people:
Except for Nixon, poverty went up under every Republican president since 1961. Under every Democratic president since 1961, it fell. The republicans aren't even good for the rich:
viewtopic.php?p=16511#p16511
ROB: "1% pays about 40% of the entire income tax. sounds fair to me. the bottom 50% pay about 3%.">>
More republican tax mythology. It ignores FICA and medicare taxes that go right into the general fund and also ignores that the poor get hammered at the state level, paying a higher percentage than the rich.
Just one of ten republican tax whoppers here (yours is #3):
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archi ... 69.htm#ten
Jason comments:
JASON: "Countries such as Sweden are not equal comparisons">>
My citation referenced 50 of our peer countries. Certainly a representative sample.
JASON: "Japan is not doing that well economically.">>
Japan is the size of Montana and until a few months ago had the second largest economy on the planet. That's doing well.
JAS: "there are individual states in the United States that are doing relatively well.">>
Not clear how that is relevant to the fact that these social problems consistently follow wealth inequality, in 50 states and 50 countries.
JAS: "Americans have a safety net with social welfare, which not all citizens of the world enjoy.">>
Our peer countries are consistently better at that then us. Examples provided upon request.
***
JAS: "if you have people in poverty and the wealthy (inequality), people may be poor due to their drug use and so forth.">>
Now you're just making things up. They have drugs in all counties. When you compare states, inequality correlates with these societal problems. Same result is found when you look at countries. I see no reason to find you drug hypotheses plausible.
JAS: "There is this idea that money will solve problems with drugs, obesity, mental illness, and so forth...">>
That is a simplistic misunderstanding of what the book suggests. It's not raw dollars or even standard of living, but rather, specifically, inequality. The US has a high standard of living, and yet, profoundly high levels of inequality. And it reaps the societal problems that consistently correlate with such inequality: "reduced life expectancy, child mortality, drugs, crime, homicide rates, mental illness and obesity..." Do we really need to have 9x (per capita) people in jail as Japan? Something is broken. Our peer countries are far more successful at distributing the wealth of society more evenly and more fairly.
JAS: "A good data set to examine would be obese, drug addicts with mental health issues who win the lottery.">>
No, the fact that people freak out and do crazy things and quickly lose their money after a lottery win wouldn't have anything whatsoever to do with a comparison or measurement of inequality in society. Bad example.
ROBERT said: "my numbers came from the IRS.">>
Notice the chart, second from the bottom at LeeWood's Mother Jones link. Federal revenue from individual income tax now equals that received from payroll tax. Your assertion about what people pay in income tax completely (and conveniently) ignores... payroll tax (and all of the other taxes, such as state, etc).
Republicans and their conservative policies aren't even good for the rich:
http://hnn.us/articles/8301.html
***
ROB: "Yet it's the GOP at fault.">>
Yes it is. Bigtime. Bush, the crowning achievement of modern conservativism was easily the worst president in a century.
RB: "Blame Republicans that gave in and joined the Dems in passing... spending bills.">>
Contrary to what you read on the side of the box, republicans having always been bigger spenders. Observe the record:
1) Over the last 75 years, Republican administrations have had an average annual deficit of $83.4 billion. The average for Democratic presidents is one fourth of that, only $20 billion.
http://hnn.us/articles/8301.html
2) Since 1959 federal spending has gone up an average $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. Republican presidents increased the national debt much faster, more than $200 billion per year, versus less than a $100 billion per year under Democrats."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 5Apr1.html
3) "Using the Bush White House's own numbers, the federal
government under Bill Clinton grew at an annual rate
of 3.4 percent. But over the past four years under
George W. Bush and his Republican Congress, the
federal government has grown at a staggering rate of
10.4 percent. More damning is the fact that... George
Bush never once vetoed a congressional bill."
--Republican Joe Scarborough, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day”, pg. 29 (2004)
That bit about the conservatives being fiscally responsible? It's a crock.
RB: "the people are demanding less spending.">>
Then the record shows they should run from the republicans.
RB: "best election results in 70 years by the GOP in 2010.">>
Ah yes, your right-wing sources assured you it was an historic election! More rubbish. Note, Obama lost 60 seats. Observe the historical Mid-Term context:
1930-(R)..Hoover...........60
1938-(D)..FDR...............79
1946-(D)..HST...............66
1958-(R)..Ike................60
1966-(D)..LBJ................56
1974-(R)..Nixon.............52
1994-(D)..Clinton...........62
And do note that the republican majority in the house is actually smaller now than the Demo majority just was. Hardly historic. Reagan lost 12 senate seats in his first mid term, Obama lost six.
***
RB: "Have you lived in a socialist country,">>
I don't find those on the far right are very good at using anything other than a caricature definition of the word "socialist."
RB: "The middle class in the US is the richest middle class in the world.">>
Rubbish. Show this.
RB: "Compare that with the poor in Argentina">>
Amazing. You want to compare the US to Argentina to make it look better? US per capita GDP (10th in the world), Argentina? 80th. Pitiful.
RB: "I have seen socialism up close, it does. not. work.">>
No one said it does. But as our actual, comparable peer countries show, it is possible to have a thriving capitalism and also have far less wealth inequality and all of the societal problems that follow it. It's a ridiculously absurd, simplistic and false dichotomy to pretend the choice is to be capitalist or socialist.
RB: "Small govt, free market capitalism made this the richest country in the world in only 230 years.">>
Actually, wiping out the Indians, ravishing a new world full of natural resources, importing millions of slaves, getting on the top of the world pile after WW2, and enforcing our selfish business interests around the world with the marines, had a hell of a lot to do with it. And as the record shows, if you like smaller government, vote Demo.
***
JASON: Sweden is not a good comparison to the United States>>
Again, that's why 50 peer countries were used to compare, not just Sweden.
JAS: "Japan's geographical size is close to Montana but the population is a lot larger.">>
Japan, with only 4% of the population of China has an identical GDP. They'll do fine.
JAS: "Drug addiction causes property and so do a number of other factors;>>
I didn't know drug addiction caused "property" but... this was not a study of *poverty* but rather wealth inequality. Different kettle of fish.
JAS: "WE ARE ALL MARXISTS:">>
Be honest with language. Turn off the Glenn Beck and learn what the word marxist means.
JAS: "The United States is more communistic than China in some regards.">>
Then you shouldn't have any trouble giving an example of the US being more *communistic* than China. Stop using words such as "communist" as ridiculous caricature.
***
RB: " we are BROKE.">>
Just factually wrong. The US is the wealthiest country in the world. That's not broke. Per capita GDP comes in 10th.
RB: "Take more from the rich?">>
Yes. A lot more. Overall tax burden is at a 50 year low.
RB: " and when that money is all gone?">>
Eat them.
RB: " how do you get wealthy without capitalism?">>
More absurd simplistic, black/white, up/down, false dichotomies. Best to avoid fallacies when making your points. Best to turn off the FOX/Beck/Drudge/Dittohead stuff too.
JASON said: "democrats are mostly Creationists">>
Wrong. Creationism has much more support with the dimwits in the republican party. Not a close call.
JAS: " Both the Republicans and Democrats love to spend.">>
And as I show above with reference, the republicans love to spend much more. Not a close call.
RB: "[if... then...] the Tea Party will be the prevalent conservative party.">>
The Tea Party won't amount to anything and is quickly being absorbed by the republican machine. Simple demographics show that the republican party is on track to be a party of regional angry white folks who are mad because they will have minority status by 2044 (and in about 12 years for the age 25 demo).
Recommended reading: "The Truth About the Tea Party"
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... 928?page=1
***
RB: "yea rolling stone mag is not a biased source.">>
Genetic fallacy.
RB: "I can spend the next hour finding links countering everything you have said.">>
Of course you can't. Action, not words.
RB: "You say you don't like the parties">>
I never said that.
RB: "you defend everything Democrats do.">>
I didn't defend anything they do. I just referenced the historical record on spending. I've never been a democrat and the first democratic president I have ever voted for is Obama.
RB: "You blame Republicans for everything.">>
No, only what they screw up, which is a lot.
RB: "If you think the Tea Party is "regional angry white folks" then I call you a racist sir.">>
Don't care. I was putting sugar on it. They are also profoundly ignorant and usually fat. Since when is the Tea Party a "race?" The demographics of the republican and tea party base are there for anyone to see. Perhaps you can point me to a black republican senator or congressman?
RB: "I leave with you these: http://www.youtube.com/>>
I don't do "argument by what someone said on youtube." If you can back up your assertions with references, as I do, then do so.
RB: "Scarborough may call himself a Republican,">>
Genetic fallacy and irrelevant to his point which is simple historic record. Attack the message, not the messenger.
[random assortment of links snipped]
RB: "Already, according to the Obama administration’s estimates, the federal government is planning to spend...">>
Rubbish. The VAST majority of current spending is cleaning up leftover Bush ineptitude. All laid out directly here in this New York Times piece:
***
"America’s Sea of Red Ink Was Years in the Making
"The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.
You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.
The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.
About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.
Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.
About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/busin ... .html?_r=1
So, for last year, something less than 10% from Obama's agenda, the rest sweeping up after the train wreck of an eight year run with your "fiscal conservativism." Bush's mess is not something that can be turned around on a dime. Let's review:
"The national debt doubled during Bush's tenure. His was the worst eight-year economic record of any modern president. Worse still, by 2007 the U.S. reached levels of income inequality not since 1929."
References here:
viewtopic.php?p=22525#p22525
RB: "read the Webster's definition of Marxism, and apply it to Obama's policies.">>
That you would say this reveals you either aren't honest with language or have no understanding of what the word means. Turn off the Beck, acquire a grown up understanding of words like "communist" "marxist" and "socialist."
RB: "look up other sources of information.">>
Spare me.
***
Rob and Jason didn't respond.
***