This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: White House Playbook: Arbitrary Numbers and Financially Ignorant Sloganeering
Submitted by Brad Schaeffer
White House Playbook: Arbitrary Numbers and Financially Ignorant Sloganeering
President Obama this Tuesday stated his case for increased taxes on “the rich” as part of his solution to balance the deficit. “Keep in mind,” he assured the American people, “that under a balanced approach, the 98% of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all.”
I have a very basic question that I am not sure anyone has pressed Mr. Obama to answer: Where did this figure of 250k, north of which one is considered by him to be among “the rich” even come from? Its very roundness tells me that it was the result not of a detailed actuarial analysis but rather some sort of arbitrary caprice that only those completely isolated from any private sector experience can conjure up. I almost get the feeling it was something as off-hand as: “Hey 250k sounds right to me. Nice number. So whattya think?” Sure write it in there.
Consider: if you are living in Little Rock, Arkansas and make $249,000 according to the president you are not “rich” and thus do not need to kick in more. Yet if you live in, say, New York City and make $251,000 you are “rich” and so it’s time to ante up. Is that how it works? Again I ask: what is so magical about $250,000? Why is the cut-off not $246,500 or $310,231? Isn’t anyone curious about how this man creates economic policy?
Let’s look at it this way. Someone in the New York metro area making $251,000 need only make $100,000 to garner the same standard of living in Little Rock, Arkansas. For instance, a family of four searching for a two-bedroom apartment in Manhattan can expect to pay anywhere from the low end of $2,100/mo in Harlem to $6,700/mo+ in Tribeca. (That of course makes the two kiddies double up in one room). In Little Rock you can find a comparable apartment for an average of $700/mo. New York’s low end is three times Little Rock’s average. (This standard of living discrpency, in fact, serves as an indictment of the unfairness of our entire messed up tax code but I digress.)
So again I ask where does this $250,000 level come from?
Am I the only one who would like to see the methodology that prompted Mr. Obama to conclude that $250k is universally “rich” across the entire landscape? Just the very neatness of this number and the lack of any tax rate increase that takes into account zip code shows that this man still has little understanding of the way things really work. This is the classic symptom of the ideologue + academic wonk formula.
Furthermore, as if Mr. Obama does not show enough ignorance when it comes to what numbers really mean, in the very next sentence he changes his tune and offers this: “What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade – millionaires and billionaires – to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make.” So who will be targeted for higher taxes, the $250k+ crowd or the $1mm+? Make up your mind and tell is who in Obamaland who are “the rich” exactly? Are they people who make 250k or those who make four timesthat amount and higher?
One facet of public discourse that makes it hard for me to watch addresses like his is that once a platitude sticks, it cannot be shaken off the hand (“kinder gentler nation,” “compassionate conservatism,” “hope and change,” etc.) And the latest arrow drawn from the Obama class warfare quiver is the phrase “tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires” as if these two decidedly different groups are somehow one in the same. Heck even a well-read historian hit me with this “millionaire and billionaire” phrase on Facebook today. Let me explain something. The difference between a millionaire and a billionaire can be summed up in this handy illustration: If you have one million dollars and you spent one dollar a second on a 24/7 cycle you would have enough to last you eleven and a half days. If you had a billion dollars and spent it one per second, you would be dropping down George Washingtons every day, day in and day out, month in and month out, for the next thirty-one and half years before you finally exhaust your bank account. That is what 1,000 times more really means. The phrase “millionaires and billionaires” sounds nice because it’s catchy, indeed it rhymes, and thus fits well into the teleprompter-in-chief’s modus operandi. But to even utter millionaire and billionaire in the same breath as part of a single class is the mathematical equivalent of comparing a foot stool to the Empire State Building…literally.
Many so-called “millionaires” are classified as such not by annual income but rather by net worth. They are often small business owners who, though on paper are worth seven figures, cannot just sell their business and go liquid. They also employ anywhere from 50% to 60% of the workforce depending on how you classify them. And many, in fact, take home less than $250,000 a year in compensation at times. The business comes first. Conversely, many households that bring in $250k+ (especially that 4-person family crammed into that 2-bedroom Manhattan apartment) don’t have even close to a million dollar net worth. So though the rhetoric strikes a chord in the Sherwood Forest of Obama’s core constituency, the truth is that individual household situations are much more complex and varied than Obama’s blanket ”millionaire” classification implies…and most millionaire-next-door types hardly live the lives of a billionaires. (I mean, I doubt many of them have $99,000,000 in their passbook savings account that was shown to be the case for one East Hampton billionaire when he left his ATM receipt at the machine a month back).
So, on behalf of those who live in the most expensive areas of the country (often because in this economy that’s where the jobs are) I want a more detailed explanation from the president as to why he thinks it will be easy for us to cut back on our spending in other areas to support an even higher tax bill, but it is impossible for the Federal government to do its own cutting so that I needn’t pay more at all. I want to know why I am “rich” but someone making just shy of a quarter stick per annum in inexpensive Arkansas is middle class. I want to see the formula he used for coming up with a $250,000 cut off point…if one even exists at all. And finally, I would just like to ask does he even know the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire? And if not, quit lumping them together. Honestly, it looks foolish and reeks of blatant and unapologetic class warfare. Uniter indeed!
»
- 7901 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Government has no corner on lies. Corporations outdo them (OK, equal).
The government is made up of people; people are mostly delusional, greedy, and egotistical, and certain that their own little set of ideas is the Truth.
We're fucked.
BTW, I do know what freedom is. It's not what you think.
Just because government and corporations lie, you think everyone else has to pay?
Your "freedom" is turning over half of your pay to the government and having them tell you what to do. Pathetic.
@suntzu
<<Just because government and corporations lie, you think everyone else has to pay?>>
Not what I said; was talking about who is leading the world to oblivion.
<<Your "freedom" is turning over half of your pay to the government and having them tell you what to do. Pathetic.>>
I don't know where you got that idea. Actually, come to think of it, I do: it's one of the only three you have. In fact, real freedom has nothing to do with how much taxes I pay (I pay very little). That's just money. And generally speaking, I do what I want.
A little advice for you: ????????????
Starvation is free also. I hope you get some.
gh
Stupidity is free also. I see you had the buffet
Starvation is free also. I hope you get some.
Sorry to disappoint but I'm a productive human being. Starvation is not on the menu. On the other hand, moochers such as yourself...
Go back to huffpuff/dailykos, you ignorant liberal fucknut. You are not welcome here.
Ah, yes, a subtle point...and so well articulated.
Yeah, can't you see ZH is only for ignorant libertarian fucknuts!
Top rate under Reagan was 28% dipshit.
You want more money, earn it. The biggest source of human suffering in the history of mankind is government...period. Just because you are a failure and are so devoid of pride that you take comfort in stealing other people's money doesn't mean we should structure gov't around it. Been tried many times before, and was an epic failure every single time. Get it through your dope-addled skull: You don't have the right to anybody else's money. You don't have the right to their labor or their know-how. That, my friend, is called FUCKING SLAVERY and we settled that question in this country 150 years ago.
Yes, you're right--top rate under Reagan was 28%; but only in his last year. Prior to that, for 6 years, it was 39.5%, and in his first year, 50%. So my point was correct but overstated. And he did raise taxes by broadening the tax base; overall average tax burden was a bit more under Reagan than it has been so far under Obama.
Dipshit.
Damn fucking straight I'm right...which makes your ass dead fucking WRONG...DIPSHIT.
Just because you didn't articulate yourself, either through plain fucking stupidity or willful deceit, don't blame me for setting the record straight.
Don't try to pass off the notion that broadening the tax base is equivalent to 'raising taxes.' That's a pathetic piece of chicken-shit deception - which, I suppose is par for the course when leftists/statists/'progressives' (read: communists) are involved.
How about this, asshole. Since you're so fond of spouting the party line du jour, that Reagan was some tax hound, let's just revert to the tax code under Reagan...your Lord and Savior will get his beloved 'tax increase' and the rest of us, who live in the real world, can wait for your latest line of shit to come down the pike.
DIPSHIT
Hey, watch your blood pressure, man!
And no, it doesn't make me dead wrong--it makes me a bit wrong, and you more so, since the average maximum rate under Reagan was indeed more than the current one.
I don't see how you can claim broadening the tax base is not the same as raising taxes--it certainly raises the overall tax burden. If you have anything rational to say about that, I'll listen.
I'm struck by the way, for someone who claims to value facts and reason, that you rely so much emotion-laden language--as if you need rage and contempt to support your opinions. Also, the way you immediately slot me (or rather, your image of me) into neat, pre-formed categories (which automatically justify your negative emotions and no doubt reinforce your image of yourself as right and powerful). Yes, I know we all tend to do that, myself included--but it seems you don't even know you do this.
And who would ameliorate the situation? The gang of Ds?
BTW, you tipped your hand when you mentioned 'right wing' blah, blah. Don't you get it? BOTH Left and Right are screwing us. Sheesh.....
As to who is going to...etc, actually I don't think anyone is. I think we're fucked. The Power Addicts (William Burrough's term) have the power (big surprise! and that means government, corporations, propaganda think-tanks, shadowy conspiracies, etc), and they're not giving it up. Their greed is destroying us.
Yes, I do agree both sides are screwing us. Just because we have bad government doesn't mean good government isn't possible. And I see more more people genuinely interested in good government on the left than the right--but agreed, not nearly enough. I am not a supporter of the Democrats, but those who identify themselves as right-wingers make me want to vomit.
Actually I think the Tea Party and the Progressives (you would probably--and mistakenly--call them socialists) have common cause; unfortunately the Power Addicts have skillfully set them at each others throats.
Ok so to raise taxes we should come up with a complex formula based on getting the author out of the taxmans way. Sounds great, just let us know your arbitrary formula you seem to be hinting at.
Also let us know what to do with the existing arbitrary brackets, and a solution to the conundrum that hot dogs come in packs of ten and buns in packs of eight.
If taxes are raised, somebody has to get it, and nobody will feel they deserve it.
I agree they should cut spending, blah, blah blah, but lets be real. They are going to ride this train till the wheels come off.
Sliding logarithmic rate scale (no brackets...a nice smoooth continuous function, if only Americans could do math without H&R Block)...and you can buy 40 of each (4 packs of dogs and 5 packs of buns).
Here a nice easy simple progressive tax: flat rate.
Tax at 30% income. Give back a third (of the total) per head. Done.
Make the math, it's tamper proof.
a) that's not progressive for any accepted definition of the term (it's actually quite regressive, when examined from the perspective of marginal utility)
b) that would raise even the most "overtaxed" people's effective rates by ~7.5%
c) if that incuded hedge compensation and corporations, I'd probably do it
Dear God please get me reelected, Dear God please get me reelected..
and here I thought buzzsaw was master of the pithy one-liners...ha! well done
Ive been thinking about something lately, feel free to weigh in. Doesnt progressive taxation make sense in the face of the mathematics of compound interest? It seems necessary to keep the disparity of wealth from time, assets, and eternal trust funds from happening that ends up "correlating" with crises.
Marxist! /sarc
A logical person would get rid of eternal trust funds. A socialist would want to punish everyone who actually goes to work and earns over a certain amount of money ($250K?).
Sooo...I'm just guessing here Pagan, but you're not at the $250K level then, are you?
Not yet...but I guarantee you, my opinions won't change. If they do, please shoot me.
If you want to make yourself a slave, feel free. Don't force others into slavery.
You Chinese sure have strange ideas about slavery.
Many of the very rich and multinational US companies do not pay any taxes..Probably because they are "creating jobs" in...outsourcing them abroad !
THE main argument to avoid to tax these very rich peoples or companies is because "they could go live abroad and take their money with them "!
This argument is full of BS and I will tell you why.
All these peoples and organisations NEED the protection of the US military to protect their assets if something goes wrong abroad ; without this protection the value of their assets abroad ( not only in China ) is close to ZERO !
They know that and thats why they pay the politicians to avoid that such taxation be set in law. I do not remember who said something like "a country got the politicians they deserve "!
Then go after the very rich and multinationals, not people making $250K
So you support higher taxes on the very rich and the multinationals?
Such flexible principles on that scumbag.
Move to New Jersey, pay less state income tax, and please stop your whining Brad.
I really hope you don't think your comment is really reflective of all of us down here on the lower rungs... if so, you are falling for their class warfare scheme just as much as the next person...it works both ways. United we stand, divided we fall.
I would bet one of my hard earned dollars that my 12 year old knows more about economics than most high school grads.... she knows because she has seen with her own eyes what inflation is. She knows bc I have tried to instill the value of a dollar and how it changes with monetary policy and the actions of the federal reserve. Poor does NOT mean stupid. I hope someday we can drop poor from our self description but it doesn't look promising....I think more of you will be joining our ranks than us moving up in the world but such is life.
Sticking it to whitey! (or returning the shiv) http://books.google.com/books?id=kEPSJa0etIYC&pg=PA668&lpg=PA668&dq=us+incomes+by+race+%2B$250000&source=bl&ots=72cReQJzHm&sig=CF_4zPE13oXy49eojQojDPnOpec&hl=en&ei=Trs0Tt63HuKusAKytOijCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Does he even know the difference.
What is a millionaire. Someone with a net worth of one million dollars. A million dollars invested in 1O year treasuries yielding 2.8% would give an income of $28,OOO before taxes.
Do you really think of someone who makes $538.46 a week as having a millionaires income.
A billion dollars would yield $28,OOO,OOO a year. Now we are talking.
Glib talk about millionaires and billionaires and $25O,OOO a year incomes is just the usual hooey.
$2152/mo....to sit on your ass and cash coupons?
Most lame strawman...eva.
Do you know the difference between $2,152 a month and $2,152,OOO a month. Evidently Obama does not because he lumps them together as if they are practically the same.
He is also the one who intends to visit all 57 states, and thinks the stock market is a good deal because of the price profits ratio.
Why does anyone listen to this dick. Because he is the president and has his finger on the button thats why. But dont confuse his bullshit with good sense.
Sure, change the subject...quick: what's their hourly rate?
Oh...divide by zero error. How quaint.
C'mon Brad....
How many $100k jobs are their in Little Rock? And how many $250k jobs in the Big Apple?
How much do people in NYC get to write off on their taxes for their plush condo? And the guy in Little Rock?
And they're taxed on their income.
What an obseqious twit.
1. Every number, word and phrase that comes out of Pres. Obama's mouth is poll tested. The small business concept gets lost on many folk. "Millionaires and billionaires" appeals to those who feel that those who have that much money probably did something illegal or immoral to get that money. They certainly didn't earn it themselves, or if they did it wasn't done honestly. It's class warfare and it gives them a reason to feel morally superior as well.
2. Yeah, everyone should have skin in the game if you are a citizen in a representative-based government. If you go through the tax rates through the years, you'll note that while the upper income rates were certainly far higher than they are now, the lower rates were as well. I don't know that taking the federal income tax pain out of the hands of the lower income earners has really done anyone any favors.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/federalindividualratehistory-20080107.pdf
2. B. My husband is an artist who employs studio assistants (not so much right now). His starting salary is about 30% higher than minimum wage and he pays well when he finds good ones. It's all about learning on the job because the skills needed are varied. The most important things are honesty, reliablity and a willingness to do what they're asked to do. Most do, with caveats: He's run into a flabbergasting number who know exactly how many hours they can work per week without losing their state benefits of Medi-Cal, food stamps, etc. and they all know that they'll get money from the Feds in the form of a federal income tax "rebate" -- even though they pay no federal taxes. They prefer to work for cash so they can retain all these goodies. (These aren't the keepers.)
3. I know that a complete structural change from our current tax system is unlikely but a anything that would more fairly capture the underground economy is _very_ appealing.
Have you tried living as a working poor person in the good ole USA? I have lived just over the poverty level for just over a year and it BLOWS! I don't have health insurance but have on more than one occasion NEEDED to see a doctor. Do you actually blame people for trying to hang on to their only means of having insurance? Do you mean to tell me you wouldn't do the same? Yes...we all want to be self reliant but the system of for profit healthcare has made that impossible. Until something is done to make healthcare more affordable for the working poor... I don't blame anyone for trying to keep themselves or their children covered. I make just a little too much to be eligible for state insurance and going without is horrible....and I am young. I have seen my mother go without needed medical care many times and she has had an individual policy but then couldn't afford the deductible bc the premiums are so high!
So what you are saying is that the doctor, nurse, and janitor at the hospital should be your slaves? That's just what you said. You think that you have a "right" to their effort, their schooling, and all of the shitty hours and shitty tasks they performed along the road to where they are today. The day medicine ceases to be for-profit will be the day that medicine becomes as cutting-edge and efficient as the DMV. Meanwhile, the docs are going to be in India, making more money, working at private for-profit clinics and hospitals
You show a great lack of empathy--this seems to be true of many of the more rabid libertarians. Serious failing! Puts you in with narcissists and psychopaths.
Propaganda to the contrary, the quality of health care in Canada, Britain, Germany, and most other developed countries that have not-for-profit systems is not inferior to that of the US, and is vastly more available. Of course, if you earn enough in the US, this doesn't bother you, and you can feel contempt for those not as rich as you. Bad for the soul, man!
I love how leftists/statists define "empathy" and compassion as stealing from one person so they can give it to another...wow, mighty big of ya. And I also love how they classify inconvenient facts as "propaganda." Do you, or any of the other socialized medicine zombies, recall that healthcare wasn't a problem in this country until big government got involved? Their "compassion" bastardized "insurance" to mean "somebody else pays for everything so I can get another tattoo and go to Starbucks every day."
You know, I just came up with a business model whereby you won't be struggling so: Why don't you write a new dictionary for liberals or, rather, for Conservatives and other rational-thinking people so we will understand what the hell you are talking about. You'll be a millionaire in about 10 minutes. I've already given you a couple of words as some seed ideas. And in the spirit of empathy, I won't charge you for my trouble.
<blockquote>define "empathy" and compassion as stealing from one person so they can give it to another<blockquote>I think rather that this is how you actually think about empathy.
And surely you are intelligent enough to realize that "one man's fact is another's propaganda". Well--maybe not.
Touche! You hit me with the "I know you are, but what am I?" move when I wasn't even expecting it. I think your Clearasil is affecting your brain, sonny. Sorry if you don't like seeing your fucked-up views put down in black and white, but that isn't my problem. I've spelled out quite clearly what is your definition, as demonstrated by your words and by the policies you support, of empathy. You want to steal from "the rich" to give to "the little guy," and you therefore fancy yourself as compassionate.
Facts are facts. Perhaps after you finish high school you can spend a bit of time learning about propaganda and propagandists. Propaganda, such as the crap you spew on this site, withers quite quickly when put under the light of logical tests.
What kind of "artist" draws a salary? How'd your hubby hook that up?
(I was just reassigned to some rather unpleasant duties in my current employment and am seriously considering ditching for just about anything else. I used to work with some young hotties at Starbucks.)
My mistake. The starting salary for his studio assistants is what I meant. Working artists are small businesses. If they realized their positions, fewer of them would be liberals.
And when people demand free healthcare, they choose to ignore the ramifications for the providers of that care. Slogging through med school sucks but getting through an internship, then residency is far worse. As for nurses, I wonder how many civilians would be willing to show up the next day after a shift of bedpans and urinals (many missed altogether), projectile vomit, morbidly obese, upper and lower GI bleeds, tracheal mucus and self-inflicted embedded foreign objects. Well, that last one can be entertaining, depending on the creativity of the person involved.
How many primary care doctors do you think will stick it out when Obamacare is a reality? Sure, it'll be cheaper then (sort of) but good luck getting in to see someone.
I have several very good friends who are doctors. None of them went into it for the money--folks who go through medical-school because they think they're going to get rich as MDs are stupid and/or very poorly informed. Not even any of their friends went into it for the money. And they complain a lot about the work, but if you actually pin them down, they'd never leave.
The notion that huge numbers of doctors are all suddenly going to leave the field is hysteria and scaremongering. It's not gonna happen. They've invested $250,000 or so on an education and gone through YEARS of the most intensive on-the-job training program that exists. Even the laziest and worst earn in the top 15% of salaries. What are they going to do? Jump ship for some huge growth industry right now? Hair-salons and internet startups? Silly.
Not just doctors, primary care physicians. Many are going to go concierge. It'll give them a way to practice medicine the way they always thought it would be: No rushed 10 to 15 minute appointments, a practice of 600 rather than 2500, 10-12 hour days instead of 18. Where will the access to care be, then?
There will be others who actually WILL leave the system. They've had enough of the grind, having to staff for insurance companies and government agencies (Medicare, Medic-Aid) rather than patient needs, not to mention the cost of defensive medicine. Obamacare is the biggest elephant in the room and no one knows what the implications of that will be yet. The doctors I know are convinced that while our system desperately needs reform, there are so many problems in Obamacare that this particular solution is hopelessly flawed.
Sure, people go to med school with the idea they'll do well financially. (Do you think they ALL go into medicine to save humanity? Get real!) It's not the best way to make a choice like that given everything involved but there you are. Once upon a time, being a doc was a far more lucrative profession than it is now. And smart people make career changes all the time. Maybe not right now but as soon as a better opportunity presents itself, you betcha. I know two former docs who say they're netting about the same amount of money and claim they are much happier.
The health-care bill is total shit, no doubt about it. It's the worst possible approach, and should never have happened. It does nothing for health-care and focuses solely on propping up a completely parasitic industry of insurers. It's the single clearest and simplest demonstration of just how fascist US society has become.
That has nothing to do with what I said, which is that significant numbers of doctors aren't suddenly going to bail from the profession.
You sound like a shill.
There are a few major contradictions which are worth pointing out...if you're going to spread FUD for some sort of political gain, at least do it WELL. My constructive criticism:
1) If you're concerned about *care,* there's no loss when PCPs "go concierge." Quality goes up. So you contradict your own point worrying that care "won't be available" when you say it'll be better.
2) Doctors who hate the grind are VERY ill-suited to leaving to do something else. Most of them spent their most adaptive and educable years in school and working as slaves--they generally lack real-world business experience and the type of soft-skills which are important to success in most private industry. If they "hate" working for insurance companies and government agencies, there aren't many opportunities. The pharma industry is already huge and incredibly competitive. Perhaps a few will retire, and perhaps a few really will give up doctoring so they can farm potatoes. I'm sure we'll see plenty of interviews of them when it happens. The most common practical position would be in sales, and sales is a career that doesn't suit most people.
3) You rephrased my claim, so here it is: no one goes to medical school *solely* for the money. It's too much work and the rewards just aren't there. If you choose your profession just for income and earning potential, and you have half a brain, you went into finance or politics.
4) Although on the one hand you say no one knows what the implications of Obamacare will be yet, you're adamant that you know what's going to happen with the career choices of millions of people you've never met.
You need to work on the propaganda, tiger. That shit's weak.
Glad to help. Free tips. Rewrite your script and show it to the boss.
Blunderpuss, if you read more slowly your comprehension will go up. Also, your idealogy seems to be getting in the way of absorbing information.
Here's how it works: Access to care for many goes down when there are fewer providers. There will be fewer providers when a given area's current primary care doctors decide to go to a concierge practice. That will leave the current population more underserved than it already was as doctors reduce the size of their practices. Many of their current patients will not be able to afford the price of concierge care. So these patients who used to have a regular primary care provider, particularly Medicare-age patients will now seek care at the local Emergency Dept. where they will wait for hours to get chronic care. It's getting increasingly difficult in many areas of the country for Medicare patients to find physicans who will accept them as patients. (Remember the Obama administration sting that was called off because of the bad press it got?)
The further clogging of the Emergency Dept. is bad because it adds to the already overcrowded conditions and hinders the ability of staff to respond to real-time emergencies. Most ERs have an Urgent Care set-up to handle the less emergent problems but the increased patient influx will overwhelm them too.
The doctors who hate the grind have being planning for years to find a way out. They're far more adaptable than you give them credit for being. Not all, of course, but some are figuring out what else to do because they know this isn't what they signed on for. And I'm not just guessing about the career choices of people I've never met, I'm writing about people I know and the people whom they tell me about. But I'm no shill. Just concerned.
"My ideology" is that government shouldn't be involved in subsidizing health-insurance.
If that blinds me to your powerful command of the argument, I'd ask what your ideology is.
Surprisingly enough, we've reached an agreement. Who would have thought?
Why does bald face professional liar puppet to the corporate Empire Obama use the $250,000 figure as the people who he wants to target for new tax? That is a simple strategy of middle class warfare and political jingoism. $250,000 sounds like a lot of money to the average worker.
Obama speaks in political sound bites; you see 16 trillion doesn’t sound like much, however 16,000 billion or 160,000 million does. The bankster political puppets will never suggest taxing the 400 trillion derivatives market even at .01%.
EXCELLENT article.
It's almost as though he equates $250K/yr with being a corporate jet owner. You'd need to be bringing home 10x that amount to even by a fractional share, much less have full ownership in a light corporate jet.
This is pure populist class warfare at it's best (nee worst).
I'll venture a bet that the average guy making $250K/yr pays more in tax than the average billionaire in this country after all deductions, etc. are applied. I know that's the case with corporations: large multinationals are getting REFUNDS while small business owners pay out the ass.
WTF, over?
250k is a quarter of a million dollars. So if you live like most working class people live when earning your quarter of a million per year, in 5 years you would have a million in the bank. Sounds rich to this country boy....
gh
You summed it up when you note that you're a country boy. So am I, but you do need to remember that not everyone is. There is a lot of truth to be found in calculating cost-of-living adjustments. What I pay for a mortgage on a 4 bedroom house on a one acre lot in my area wouldn't get you a closet in the bad neighborhoods of New York.
Personally, I can't figure out why anyone would want to live in a place like that, but they do, and it's none of my business. It doesn't change the fact that $250/yr just isn't that much in some places, and they're skull-fucking you for votes when that old strawman gets dragged out.
Congress annual salary $174,000,
salary with perks and benefits $285,000.
When CONgress critters use Tiny Timmy's Tax Service on K-street, they can easily squeeze reported income under that evil $250,000. Exempt from the class warfare.
It's $200k for individuals...squeeze harder.
you need a round number for people to grasp and it has to make for an appropriate divide in population by percent. would you have had him say 235,376.86$
Here in lies my problem. You gonna pay for any tax hike any way. When we talk about plugging in a number it does not fricking matter. You and I are gonna pay. The fed needs to keep on ah spendin so we can bend over and continue to get screwed. I get tired of all we need to help this and we need to help that and all we really need to help is the elderly that paid into the system all their lives and the politicians stole from it all their lives to buy votes. Until they close some tax loopholes nothing will change. The rich will not pay more, pretty simple concept. They never do.
The poor keep getting richer and the middle class pay for it. The rich keep getting richer and the middle class pay for it. Pick your number and keep on believeing the crap your fed. there is a reason your here and that is to try and make some dam money to etch out a dam living and not give to every poor mother who makes fucking bad choices and pops out children to garner the ever increasing welfare check. We got to support the war machine by God!
Time to bring them home, time to close the bases in Europe and let those smucks pay for their own defense. Time to pull out of S. Korea they hate us anyway. Decrease the spending to 15% of GDP and thats it.
When you talk welfare alot here may be getting some in the form of a child deductions, do you want to loose it? Most likely not. But it is a welfare check. I did not have your child nor should I pay for it. "No", needs to become apart of some peoples vocabulary. I could give a rats ass what someone makes. I do not care it they make a billion an hour it does not effect me. I am not concerned. I am concerned when the Fed wants more to basically garner votes and take even more from my production. No I do not make a 6 figure salary. If I was going to use a figure it would be 400k that way they are not penalizing a two worker household. This has never made sense to me one person can make 200k yet the spouse can only make 50k. So stupid. Lets penalize two professional people working and married.
how much business has the large multinationals taken from small businesses in the US by impoverishing the people who used to work for those companies? I'd say a lot, that I believe is the crux of the issue. As far as the deficit spending goes, it seems most of that, if not all of it, is fiat being used to bail out bankers, large businesses that got involved in financial derivatives ponzi scheme, and lastly manipulating markets to make it all look 'normal'.
There's a world of difference between some small business owner that makes $250k a year (that is quite good except in high cost of living areas) and the yuppie who graduated from college and with a few years of sales/marketing (or other) experience got a job with large company making $250k plus. The yuppie's big employer will eventually destroy the small business owner if it operates in the same market. i.e: cheap furniture being sold in an increasingly impoverished population, the local woodworker/furniture maker will not survive.
It's very simple. He chose 250k because that was the number on the piece of paper he drew from the hat.
250K "as rich" sounds a lot like the 700 Billion needed for TARP. I think there is a dart board in the speech writer's room.
As to 250K is "rich":
A) speech writer does not know what "rich" is.
B) 250K sure ain't what it used to be.
C) if that is your receipts, and you have a small business, you are in trouble.
Ahhh, come on you bunch of Cl*sterF*cks. The average income for small business owners is $35K-$70K depending on where you live. (See: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Small_Business_Owner_%2f_Operato...). Do you think owners of vending machines, laundromats, sewing maching repair shops, salons, and Chinese restaurants are making $250K a year? Get with it. The families earning $250K a year are government workers, laywers, Doctors, administrators and other government protected unionized types.
Sloganeering? From the Propaganda President? No! You don't say!
Inflatable Products
Name Card Holder
Wholesale Raincoat
Wholesale Playing Card
Promotional Gifts
Wholesale Glove
Lady Beauty Care
Mouse Pad
Wholesale Mat
Baby Products Suppliers
Promotional Products
Business Gift
Safety Products
Wholesale Mirror
Wholesale Pen
Wholesale Flashlight
Computer Accessories
Hair Products
Arts Crafts
Reflective Safety Vest
Safety Suppliers
Wholesale Vuvuzela
Wholesale Mug
Wine Set
Wholesale Radio
Wholesale Candle
Poncho Raincoat
Wholesale Clap Hands
Promotional Gifts
Beauty Equipment
Recorder Pen
Wholesale Pedometer
CD Holde
Garden Decorations
Wholesale Tellurion
Wholesale Umbrella
Wholesale Poncho
Wholesale Lighter
Wholesale Cup
Silicone Products
Wholesale Massager
Wholesale Swimming Products
Wholesale lable
Wholesale Keyboard
China Wholesale