Pin the Tale on the Donkey: Democrats' Horrible Racist Past | Bill Whittle

[ben_who]

I try to be. ;-)

Think of it this way: If you had someone badmouthing you constantly, and then that person said to you, "By the way, I need $50...", how likely are you to give that person the $50?

In other words, it's probably not a good idea for those who are vocal about it to vilify the very people they're asking to help the less fortunate.

And I still have to ask again: I must question how many of these programs have gone beyond just helping someone "stay afloat" and put the recipients on a path toward the middle class.

All right; if this is the road that you want to go down, fine, but you're probably not going to like some of the answers.

Do you really think job creators are holding back on living wages out of spite because liberals are insufficiently respectful to them? We're not asking for that $50 out of charity. Wages are not the largesse of job creators. They're what we're owed in exchange for working for them.

Real wages have stagnated while corporate profits have spiked. It's clear that job creators feel they owe nothing to the people without which they would have no livelihood. When Obama said, "You didn't build that," he was referring to an entire infrastructure upon which these businesses, and the wealth of their management, was exclusively dependent. Yet in the last thirty years, there's been a shift from treating employees like business assets to company liabilities. Employers resent having to actually pay employees, and they don't feel beholden to the infrastructure that made their businesses possible in the first place.

So employees wind up paying taxes that support the businesses through subsidy, they pay taxes that support the businesses through infrastructure, and they pay taxes that support the labor force through welfare programs and education. We're propping them up. Where's our thanks?

Employers should not be trusted and we need to regulate them. The theoretical $50 we're asking for isn't some sort of charity - it's what we're owed for the work we've done.

[mjr]

All right; if this is the road that you want to go down, fine, but you're probably not going to like some of the answers.

I think you're (slightly) misunderstanding what I'm saying.

Do you really think job creators are holding back on living wages out of spite because liberals are insufficiently respectful to them?

NOT what I said. At all.

Wages are not the largesse of job creators.

That depends. I've heard the argument "If you can't afford to pay a living wage, you shouldn't be in business".

But for the most part, if you're talking about "bigger" businesses, I never said wages were the largesse of job creators, either.

When Obama said, "You didn't build that," he was referring to an entire infrastructure upon which these businesses, and the wealth of their management, was exclusively dependent.

And he offended a LOT of people with that statement. You can say, "Oh, they misunderstood what he meant", but the bottom line is a lot of those "job creators" and a lot of the people who were offended by that were small business people who took a risk and started their own business.

If I started my own business, and someone said, "You didn't build that", after I'd put in time and "sweat equity", I'd be offended, too.

Employers should not be trusted and we need to regulate them.

Would you feel the same way if you were an employer?

The theoretical $50 we're asking for isn't some sort of charity - it's what we're owed for the work we've done.

I'm not talking about wages. I was referring to taxation as it relates to social programs.

[Hyena Dandy]

That depends. I've heard the argument "If you can't afford to pay a living wage, you shouldn't be in business".

Yeah, well, you shouldn't. You don't have a right to have employees. You have a right to start a business, sure, but if you can't pay people to work there, the government doesn't give you slaves. If you can't afford to pay your employees, you shouldn't have employees.

I'm not talking about wages. I was referring to taxation as it relates to social programs.

Social programs are a national obligation. They are not a charity. I don't like the fact that the US military budget is so disproportionately huge. I ESPECIALLY don't like that the latest budget cuts got my friend cut by it, yet we're STILL building military equipment that the Joint Chiefs have said they want us to stop giving them. That doesn't mean that I'm going to pay a smaller percent of my taxes because I don't want the US to have a military.

The reason we talk about the rich paying their share, is that we're tired of the fact that the people who have all the money take loopholes and breaks to get out of paying as much in taxes as those who have less. The reason we want them to pay their share is that THEY DON'T. It's not an INSULT. If I take the donuts at work tomorrow, then don't give the guy who bought them a cent, it's not an INSULT to say that I didn't do my share. It's just a plain fact.

ANd I'm used to people in government insulting me. The question of whether I should be able to be with my boyfriend is, inexplicably, a national issue. When Republicans get elected and promise to fuck me over, I don't get to stop paying taxes.




As for "You didn't build that," the quote is

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

If you somehow manage to interpret the president pointing out that YOU DIDN'T INVENT ROADS as an insult to your business, you've not merely misinterpreted him, you've had to do so willfully. You're either malicious, narcissistic, or delusional.

[Shangri-laschild]

a lot of the people who were offended by that were small business people who took a risk and started their own business.

I would think of all the business owners who really ought to understand just how much goes into their business and how true that statement is, it ought to be small business owners. If a road goes down, how does it impact their business? What about their suppliers? They don't exist in their own little vacuum where nothing outside of their control effects or contributes to their business.

Small business owners are taking a risk in opening a business. They are also accepting the responsibility of doing so. And people getting offended by something is not the same thing as them being right.

Would you feel the same way if you were an employer?

I don't know about ben_who but if I was an employer I'd be fine with it, so long as the restrictions were fair to the employees. It would suck that the crappy employers created a need for those regulations but I'd see the employee rights and well being as more important.

I'm not talking about wages. I was referring to taxation as it relates to social programs.

It goes hand in hand. If people were being paid fair wages, how much less money would be needed for social programs like welfare and food stamps? And as far as taxation for social programs, it's completely fair to expect people to pay their share of those programs so no, the $50 isn't asking for a handout.

[mjr]

Yeah, well, you shouldn't. You don't have a right to have employees.

I also don't have an obligation to hire employees, either, if I have a business.

The reason we talk about the rich paying their share, is that we're tired of the fact that the people who have all the money take loopholes and breaks to get out of paying as much in taxes as those who have less.

Almost everybody takes advantage of some sort of tax loophole. That's a fact. Got kids? Child credit. Got education expenses? Credit. Got a house? Credit. The list goes on.

The reason we want them to pay their share is that THEY DON'T. It's not an INSULT.

Ok, but again, what is their "fair share". Give me some numbers. And do you break it up regionally, by state, or what? Because I can guarantee you that $300K in Texas goes a lot farther than it does in New York or California.

But that's not quite what I meant. I mean, heck, at one point the President himself said, "At some point, you've made enough money."

[mjr]

Small business owners are taking a risk in opening a business. They are also accepting the responsibility of doing so.

True, on both counts.

But this ties immediately into what I said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...on-employment/

And people getting offended by something is not the same thing as them being right.

To a point I agree with this. But too many people these days get offended by every little thing. It's ridiculous.

It goes hand in hand. If people were being paid fair wages, how much less money would be needed for social programs like welfare and food stamps?

I don't know. And neither does anyone else, really. Making a claim is different from actually knowing. I posit that it might not have the net positive effect that people think it will. I mean, McDonald's is already taking adverse action regarding the $15/hour thing. That's not me making stuff up. That's a fact.

Touch Screens at McDonalds: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u...r-minimum-wage

An article from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoco...d-15-per-hour/

The cost of a Big Mac–at least to consumers–probably wouldn’t go up at all. Why? In order to remain compeditive with rivals on price, the company, as economist Adam Ozimek pointed out earlier this week, would probably find a way to keep overall labor costs in check, most likely by reducing the number of workers and introducing more automation–think ATMs in the banking industry.

They're also closing restaurants:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/bu...ades.html?_r=0

Laying off people:

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/241629

And the list goes on:

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/07/...welfare-228745

http://therightscoop.com/seattle-rai...-benefits-lol/

http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/this...tay-on-welfare

And if you don't think other industries wouldn't follow suit, I've got a bridge to sell you.

And as far as taxation for social programs, it's completely fair to expect people to pay their share of those programs so no, the $50 isn't asking for a handout.

I think you may have missed the point of that particular exercise.

[ben_who]

I think you're (slightly) misunderstanding what I'm saying.

I sincerely hope so. The trouble is...

But for the most part, if you're talking about "bigger" businesses, I never said wages were the largesse of job creators, either.

...you seem kind of tentative on this point. A job is not its own reward.

Wal-Mart employees qualify for food stamps. Why do Wal-Mart employees qualify for food stamps? Because that's what Wal-Mart pays them. That means your tax dollars are subsidizing Wal-Mart's payroll. Wal-Mart could easily pay its employees enough not to qualify for food stamps. It's not like they're hurting for money. Wouldn't that save tax dollars, too?

Except they won't do it, because your outrage is aimed at the people who need the food stamps and the government that provides it rather than the corporation that makes it necessary.

Like I said...they have you pretty well snowed.

And he offended a LOT of people with that statement. You can say, "Oh, they misunderstood what he meant", but the bottom line is a lot of those "job creators" and a lot of the people who were offended by that were small business people who took a risk and started their own business.

Oh, I don't think the people that were offended by that misunderstood it in the least. I think they knew exactly what he was saying.

The narrative that you built what you have without any help from anyone is a pretty common one, but no one ever stood out in a field and just had money brought to them. It requires being a part of a system greater than yourself, a wonderful capitalist society doing its best to provide for everyone within it. If you get all hot and bothered because someone reminds you that this system exists, you are part of the problem.

Nobody was trying to take their precious struggle and sweat away from them. The hard work they put into their passions wasn't being diminished in the slightest. They were being reminded of the necessity of the system that they used. Imagine if a fish got offended when you reminded him that water was a thing.

Would you feel the same way if you were an employer?

I'm not talking about wages. I was referring to taxation as it relates to social programs.

...Damn. I was hoping I was misunderstanding you, but it's starting to look like I actually understand you pretty well.

A higher minimum wage would reduce the welfare rolls. It would also stimulate the economy as poor people bought more stuff, increasing demand and the need for additional employees. You hate food stamps, the solution is staring you in the face, but you seem terrified of blaming the corporate beneficiaries of an unbalanced system. Instead, you've decided to blame the liberals, who are trying to get people off welfare not by burning down the program, but by making sure people are paid enough to not need it.

I'm not going to try to explain to someone why a robust regulatory environment is necessary; if, after Union Carbide, Deepwater Horizon, and the West Fertilizer Company, you can't at least grudgingly admit to the necessity for some oversight, I don't have the rhetoric to change your mind.

Companies have a responsibility to the people they hire and the communities they're in. That responsibility is to not impoverish the system that supports them. Companies have abdicated that responsibility. These days, a company can starve a community and then move on to the next one. And because people still use this traditionalist top-down model of capitalism, it's allowed in the name of job creation. Communities actually compete with each other to invite businesses that will starve them.

[Estil]

Raising the minimum wage is LONG overdue, it's been what, 10 years already? And would you believe that even though me and my wife are both on SSDI, we don't qualify for food stamps? Yes, disability for two people in the same household is "too much". But considering the debt/deficit we've been facing for the past several years let's just say now is most definitely not a good time to raise gov't programs (as I point out to my wife sometimes, families with dependents should always come first on programs like these).

But what can we do (especially on the federal level)? Economics issues have never been my strong point and apparently it's the most popular gov't programs like Social Security, Medicare, defense and so on that are most responsible for the debt/deficit in the sense that's where the biggest portions of gov't spending goes. Problem is, even hinting (or even being accused of by your political opponents) at cutting back on especially the first two is political suicide...but I'd hate to see a future where we end up with nothing at all left for people who have no choice but to be on those programs...such as us.

PS: That scene in that Dave movie with the pretend President makes it sound so easy...if only it were that simple in real life...

[mjr]

And modernizing our grade school education to reflect the world we are in today would go a long way towards that.

This is part of my broader point, Huckster.

Seems that a lot of schools these days are more interested in churning out automatons who aren't necessarily ready for the "real world" or "Corporate America" (or are they -- if you catch my drift...).

[TheHuckster]

Almost everybody takes advantage of some sort of tax loophole. That's a fact. Got kids? Child credit. Got education expenses? Credit. Got a house? Credit. The list goes on.

A kid gives you, what, a thousand or two per child in credits? Which, from my own experience, I will tell you is really for the child's benefit more than the tax payer's, as that extra money you get is used to feed and clothe them. There's no such thing as a house credit. You might be able to deduct interest payments on your mortgage, but that's not the same thing, and even so, that deduction is similarly offset with your mortgage payments.

Those aren't friggen loopholes, either. A loophole is an unintended, yet technically legal, exploit of the tax code, which is a consequence of a clusterfuck of laws that have been amended to for the past 70+ years and virtually requires every CPA to own his/her own library to fit. A tax credit on something as fundamental and black-and-white as dependents and education expenses is not what the rich are taking advantage of.

If you look at the tax brackets, you'll see that for what it's worth, income tax is quite progressive. The highest bracket pays about 40%, whereas the lowest pays about 10%. If the richest actually paid that amount, I don't think we'd see what we're seeing now. Instead, thanks to credits and loopholes in the tax codes (some of which I'm sure are "intended" in that they have the lobbying power to pass these kinds of laws) they are paying much smaller amount. Romney himself admitted paying only 14% in taxes.

Meanwhile, even after my deductions and credits, as a middle-class taxpayer in a high cost-of-living region, I'm paying an effective rate of 20-25%, which is not only a higher tax rate for me, but a higher burden for me than if someone like Romney paid that amount, since my margins determine if I can afford the next mortgage payment, whereas Romney's determine if he can afford his next yacht.

Keep in mind, I'm not adverse to the rich. I am perfectly fine with people who work hard, build businesses, and are worthwhile participants in the economy earning as much as they can. I just expect them to pay their share in taxes. What's greatly crippling us right now is small business owners, who especially in the beginnings of their enterprises are middle-class, have a far greater burden to succeed than the big business juggernauts. If we continue down the road we're on, we're going to see small-business's last gasp of air as we continue to progress into a pure oligopoly run only by the richest and most powerful 1%. When that happens (and it's already happening now) it's going to lead to the situation you see in many developing countries, where there's a few rich people, and everyone else is dirt poor straining to stay alive.

[Andara Bledin]

If you look at the tax brackets, you'll see that for what it's worth, income tax is quite progressive. The highest bracket pays about 40%, whereas the lowest pays about 10%.

This is a very common mistake, but the highest bracket earners don't pay about 40% (absent deductions). They only pay 40% on the income in that bracket. Each bracket is taxed at its own rate for each individual. They pay 10% up to $9225, then 15% from there to $37,450, then 25% from there to $90,750, etc, etc, etc. They only pay 39.6% on earnings over $232,246.

Of course, anyone making that kind of money can afford a very good accountant that can find all sorts of deductions as well as arrange for things like tax shelters and the like so that the richest of society is dodging most of their fair share of taxes while the burden is shouldered by those least able to afford it. Greedy assholes. It's no wonder the poor and middle class hate the rich.

[Shangri-laschild]

True, on both counts.

But this ties immediately into what I said

And if a small business can't afford to pay it's workers a reasonable amount then they can't really accept the responsibility of having a small business can they? Which is something you have to be willing to do. That would be like saying "I can't afford to pay my supplier anymore, it's really unfair that I can't stay open anyway." Yes there were bound to be some business closures due to wage increase but that doesn't mean it's not an important thing to do.

To a point I agree with this. But too many people these days get offended by every little thing. It's ridiculous.

I'm not sure then why you were making the point that people were offended by the quote.

I don't know. And neither does anyone else, really. Making a claim is different from actually knowing.

The economy has been changing and minimum wage hasn't and the effect on the lower income population has been fairly clear.

I posit that it might not have the net positive effect that people think it will. I mean, McDonald's is already taking adverse action regarding the $15/hour thing. That's not me making stuff up. That's a fact.

Touch Screens at McDonalds: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u...r-minimum-wage

Wrong. This was not at all in reaction to minimum wage issues and it's actually supposed to increase the amount of employees, not reduce it.

http://m.snopes.com/mcdonalds-kiosks-minimum-wage/

“Self-order kiosks are not designed to replace front-counter service, a spokesman for Mcdonald’s Europe said in an email.

http://goodjobsseattle.tumblr.com/po...nalds-ordering

McDonald’s does not expect any reduction in staffing as a result of the changes. “In fact the business is growing so we would expect to see an increase in overall staff numbers and we’re still on track to create an additional 15,000 new jobs in Europe in 2011,” it said.

An article from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoco...d-15-per-hour/

This article basically says that they don't know what effect raising minimum wage would have but that it probably wouldn't increase the cost of McDonald's hamburgers. I fail to see how it at all shows that minimum wage increase would be bad.

They're also closing restaurants:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/bu...ades.html?_r=0

She noted that the closings were part of a strategic review intended to set the stage for future growth.

Nowhere in that article did I see any reason given for the closing other than this. All sorts of arguments could be made for the reason including people not buying as much McDonalds because they aren't making a decent minimum wage.

Laying off people:

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/241629

They laid off 63 people from headquarters. In other words, not people who are making minimum wage anyway. Again no real reason given as to why their profits are down and it says that they are learning to adapt to make things work which sounds like a good thing to me.

And the list goes on:

I'll address the articles but I'm going to start out by saying that these articles are either incorrect or misleading.
$15 is being phased in. The current minimum wage in Seattle at $11. In fact, it's actually maximum $11, some businesses don't have to pay that much yet. They are phasing in a change so the argument that people are making $15 and hour and aren't instantly out of poverty is not reasonable. http://www.seattle.gov/civilrights/l...s/minimum-wage
Large businesses have 3-4 years, small businesses have 5-7 years. If $11 an hour was enough to pull everyone out of poverty and off of welfare then they wouldn't need to continue to push minimum wage up to $15 would they? That's like giving someone a year to finish a project that then using the fact that they didn't finish it 6 months in as evidence that the project won't be finished. A $15 minimum wage hasn't fixed things yet because it's not $15 yet! So far minimum wage is increasing and the amount of people on welfare is decreasing which would show that it is in fact working. Previously Seattle's minimum wage was $9.32 so people are getting at most $1.68 more an hour at the moment. Funny how your articles make it sound like they are suddenly getting a lot more than they were before.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/07/...welfare-228745

Raising minimum wage is important but of course it's not going to magically instantly fix things. This started in April. People need more than a couple of months to pull themselves out of poverty. It's already been mentioned that if people had a higher minimum wage, they may not need to work two jobs which opens up their second job for someone else. That also takes time and isn't an instant fix. I'd say that 475 people off of welfare in the span of 3 months is pretty good all things considering especially when unlike this article says, people are not actually making $15 an hour yet.

http://therightscoop.com/seattle-rai...-benefits-lol/

This article is basically the previous article but worse. First off, it's hard to take someone seriously when they start their article with the words "liberal douchebag commie crowd." The fact that they try and compare March's numbers with April's numbers as proof that it didn't magically fix it in a month of people making less than $2 more an hour is ridiculous. The article makes it sound like $15 an hour isn't enough to pull everyone out of welfare when that isn't actually what people are making. Once they are making $15 an hour, that may in fact be enough to take a lot of them off welfare. The numbers seem to be headed that direction.

http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/this...tay-on-welfare

I can't help but notice that all three of these articles are quoting ONE business about the effect on businesses and using a quote by a radio host as if he's an authority on the subject. I've heard radio host say all sorts of things before, doesn't make it true. And again, it's not $15 an hour yet! Yes, some businesses are going to close. They took that risk when they opened and if they can't afford to pay fair wages then they can't afford to stay open.

And if you don't think other industries wouldn't follow suit, I've got a bridge to sell you.

So far from your arguments all i'm seeing is that McDonalds is employing less people in corporate, working on plans that will involve hiring more lower ranking people and arguments about a few small businesses that can't adapt and 475 less people on welfare just in 3 months of less than $2 more per hour.

I think you may have missed the point of that particular exercise.

Ok so what was your point then?

[s_stabeler]

also, its' worth noting that not only do the rich come up with umpteen different schemes to avoid paying as much tax as they are supposed to, thye keep pressing for tax cuts for them and welfare cuts on the poor- which is making the tax system less and less progressive.

ultimately, however, what people resent is that rich people are drawing a false equivalence between the burden of tax payments for rich people and poor people. A 1% increase in tax (or reduction in welfare payments) might mean a rich person needs to buy one less Ferrari per year ( and YES, I understand that that WILL have an effect. Ferraris are, however, not expensive enough that one or two less sold per year will lead to mass layoffs) while for a poor person, it might mean they have to go hungry a couple of days per month because otherwise they can't pay their bills.

It's not quite the same. Yes,nobody particularly likes paying tax. But it pisses people off when rich people, when they are already paying less in tax percentage-wise than poorer people, complain about how much they pay in tax, and start going on about how welfare programs- which they set the wages of their workers low enough that said workers have no choice but to go on said welfare programs- should be cut so they can have their taxes cut. ( like who the republicans, during the last negotiation over how to cut the deficit, insisted that ALL the money come from cutting welfare programs- with NO tax rises for the rich AT ALL.)

[TheHuckster]

This is a very common mistake, but the highest bracket earners don't pay about 40% (absent deductions). They only pay 40% on the income in that bracket. Each bracket is taxed at its own rate for each individual. They pay 10% up to $9225, then 15% from there to $37,450, then 25% from there to $90,750, etc, etc, etc. They only pay 39.6% on earnings over $232,246.

You're right, and I'm actually OK with that, and here's why:

It reduces the possibility of someone choosing an income of, say, $232,245 and paying 35% and if they make just one extra dollar for that year, they are paying 40% for the entire amount. Same goes for virtually anyone on the cusp of a tax bracket, where someone who is at 15% gets a modest raise and suddenly actually makes less net income. This approach fixes that.

Now, I'd be fine with tweaking it so any income they make after $232,246 is 50% or 60%... or whatever the percentage is necessary. The key is to still give them an incentive to make extra income despite the tax burden, since otherwise they're simply going to dodge even making that income, reducing the tax revenue and defeating the purpose of having a progressive tax code.

[Nekojin]

Whoo. Read the OP and the first page, which is an argument about how the Democrats were evil slimy people for a long time, and they did all the nasty things we attribute to the Republicans. No shit, really? There's this thing called the Southern Strategy in the 60s that effectively swapped parties - the liberal Republican party, losing rapidly, decided to play on racial prejudices in the South, and the then-conservative Democratic party shifted in opposition. This is not news, and attempting to paint the pre-1970 sins of the Democratic Party on modern Democrats is flat-out wrong.

The problem here is that you're relying heavily on labels, party titles. Labels don't matter. The mentality of the people is what matters, and as I said before (and has probably been mentioned a dozen times at least over the 10+ pages I didn't read), the two parties switched places.

- - - - -

Now, 11 pages later, we're arguing about taxes and income and all that. mjr mentioned the "tax the rich" as though we're accusing the rich of being greedy. That's not an inaccurate way of putting it, although most people would be greedy if their shoes were in the same position, so calling them "greedy" is pointless.

The best way to look at it is that the rich are the people who are benefitting the most strongly from the way our country has been built, and as such, they should be putting the most effort (taxes) in supporting and maintaining the system. Instead, they want to take all of the benefit, but shunt the costs over to someone else - taking a double gain from the system, in effect.