Who are the 1%?

[kalm]

But I agree that spending needs to be addressed.

And how would you "address" it, O Mighty Kalm? "Please, sir, could you spend another [trillion]?"

Probably start with simplifying the tax code, eliminating 100,000 IRS workers. Might cost some corporate tax attorneys there jobs too.

[Ivytalk]

And how would you "address" it, O Mighty Kalm? "Please, sir, could you spend another [trillion]?"

Probably start with simplifying the tax code, eliminating 100,000 IRS workers. Might cost some corporate tax attorneys there jobs too.

I'll see your IRS and raise you Education, EPA and Energy!

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

And how would you "address" it, O Mighty Kalm? "Please, sir, could you spend another [trillion]?"

Probably start with simplifying the tax code, eliminating 100,000 IRS workers. Might cost some corporate tax attorneys there jobs too.

I found your form for this Kalm.

[AZGrizFan]

I found your form for this Kalm.

[kalm]

Probably start with simplifying the tax code, eliminating 100,000 IRS workers. Might cost some corporate tax attorneys there jobs too.

I found your form for this Kalm.

[YoUDeeMan]

I found your form for this Kalm.

Who was President in 2002?

[Grizalltheway]

And how would you "address" it, O Mighty Kalm? "Please, sir, could you spend another [trillion]?"

Probably start with simplifying the tax code, eliminating 100,000 IRS workers. Might cost some corporate tax attorneys there jobs too.

danefan is a nice guy, hater.

[kalm]

Who was President in 2002?

Oh shit, that's a damn good catch there.

[LeadBolt]

And how would you "address" it, O Mighty Kalm? "Please, sir, could you spend another [trillion]?"

Probably start with simplifying the tax code, eliminating 100,000 IRS workers. Might cost some corporate tax attorneys there jobs too.

Good Start! What's next? Increased unemployment benefits for former IRS workers and corporate tax attorneys/

[kalm]

Probably start with simplifying the tax code, eliminating 100,000 IRS workers. Might cost some corporate tax attorneys there jobs too.

Good Start! What's next? Increased unemployment benefits for former IRS workers and corporate tax attorneys/

Nay. Workfare. Crushing rock on some new infrastructure project would do em some good.

[LeadBolt]

Good Start! What's next? Increased unemployment benefits for former IRS workers and corporate tax attorneys/

Nay. Workfare. Crushing rock on some new infrastructure project would do em some good.

Whatever. You've addressed maybe 00.333% of the federal deficit by increasing unemployment. What's next?

[kalm]

Nay. Workfare. Crushing rock on some new infrastructure project would do em some good.

Whatever. You've addressed maybe 00.333% of the federal deficit by increasing unemployment. What's next?

Oh you were serious.

Well everyone has their favorites but greater efficiency has to be an objective and perhaps across the board cuts are in order. Of course the tricky part is when you make serious cuts to things like military spending you also run the risk of raising unemployment.

[LeadBolt]

Whatever. You've addressed maybe 00.333% of the federal deficit by increasing unemployment. What's next?

Oh you were serious.

Well everyone has their favorites but greater efficiency has to be an objective and perhaps across the board cuts are in order. Of course the tricky part is when you make serious cuts to things like military spending you also run the risk of raising unemployment.

Semi-serious. Agreed on increasing efficiency. That's Mom and apple pie. Agreed that major government spending cuts will increase unemployment.

Government deficits, whether caused by lower tax revenue or increased government spending are stimulative to the economy and will probably cause further economic pressure as we move toward a balanced budget.

The problem is that we have been on a bender for a long time, which only makes the inevitable hangover worse, kind of like reducing funding to Social Security by 13% to improve the economy just as the Baby Boomers start to draw it, making the impending crash closer and harder.

[UD77]

Unfortunately this country is in very bad shape. 50% of the people do not pay taxes - so anything they can get for free is all the better. Neither party really cares about cutting spending because it is too easy to buy votes by giving something to your favorite class of people. We need a tax system that all of us have some skin in the game - that way all of us would care about how the money is wasted. Or maybe the system is that if you do not pay an taxes you do not have a vote. No representation without taxation. Government is just spending too much and they like it.

[kalm]

Unfortunately this country is in very bad shape. 50% of the people do not pay taxes - so anything they can get for free is all the better. Neither party really cares about cutting spending because it is too easy to buy votes by giving something to your favorite class of people. We need a tax system that all of us have some skin in the game - that way all of us would care about how the money is wasted. Or maybe the system is that if you do not pay an taxes you do not have a vote. No representation without taxation. Government is just spending too much and they like it.

I'm quite certain that everyone including the 50 % who do not make enough to pay federal income tax wish that they did. But everyone pays taxes and everyone has skin in the game.

[UNI88]

Unfortunately this country is in very bad shape. 50% of the people do not pay taxes - so anything they can get for free is all the better. Neither party really cares about cutting spending because it is too easy to buy votes by giving something to your favorite class of people. We need a tax system that all of us have some skin in the game - that way all of us would care about how the money is wasted. Or maybe the system is that if you do not pay an taxes you do not have a vote. No representation without taxation. Government is just spending too much and they like it.

I'm quite certain that everyone including the 50 % who do not make enough to pay federal income tax wish that they did. But everyone pays taxes and everyone has skin in the game.

But it gets a little sticky when you realize what "skin" the various groups have in the game. The benefits (social security, medicare, etc.) we're giving/promising today are/will be paid for with borrowed money so effectively the Baby Boomers are getting what they want today and their children and grandchildren are going to have to pay for it tomorrow. The "greatest generation" sacrificed in their present to invest in the future (education, infrastructure, etc.). The nation as a whole has benefited from their sacrifices and contributions. We're experiencing the opposite now. So the "skin" the baby boomers have in the game is the benefits they are or will receive that they didn't completely pay for. The "skin" for gen x or y is money they're going to have to pay and the benefits they're not going to receive because their tax dollars will be needed to pay down the deficit. If we're serious about reducing the deficit and investing in the future then everything (social security, medicare, military spending) has to be on the table!

[kalm]

I'm quite certain that everyone including the 50 % who do not make enough to pay federal income tax wish that they did. But everyone pays taxes and everyone has skin in the game.

But it gets a little sticky when you realize what "skin" the various groups have in the game. The benefits (social security, medicare, etc.) we're giving/promising today are/will be paid for with borrowed money so effectively the Baby Boomers are getting what they want today and their children and grandchildren are going to have to pay for it tomorrow. The "greatest generation" sacrificed in their present to invest in the future (education, infrastructure, etc.). The nation as a whole has benefited from their sacrifices and contributions. We're experiencing the opposite now. So the "skin" the baby boomers have in the game is the benefits they are or will receive that they didn't completely pay for. The "skin" for gen x or y is money they're going to have to pay and the benefits they're not going to receive because their tax dollars will be needed to pay down the deficit. If we're serious about reducing the deficit and investing in the future then everything (social security, medicare, military spending) has to be on the table!

Damn good post 88!

[Ivytalk]

I urge you all to read another gem from the March 2012 issue of Reason: "Warren Buffett: Baptist and Bootlegger." It's a great read concerning America's most successful crony capitalist and master political manipulator. Watch how the cynical Buffett benefits Berkshire Hathaway's portfolio by shrewd, timely investments in politically favored Goldman, GE, Wells Fargo and other big banks right before TARP was enacted. If a private company did what he did legally through politics, it would be "close to insider trading." And of course he and BHO have a symbiotic relationship: Buffett earns huge returns from heretofore troubled companies, and Obama calls him a key economic adviser. Meanwhile, the pols buy Berkshire stock like crazy.

What a country.

Christ, I'm starting to sound like kalm!

[kalm]

I urge you all to read another gem from the March 2012 issue of Reason: "Warren Buffett: Baptist and Bootlegger." It's a great read concerning America's most successful crony capitalist and master political manipulator. Watch how the cynical Buffett benefits Berkshire Hathaway's portfolio by shrewd, timely investments in politically favored Goldman, GE, Wells Fargo and other big banks right before TARP was enacted. If a private company did what he did legally through politics, it would be "close to insider trading." And of course he and BHO have a symbiotic relationship: Buffett earns huge returns from heretofore troubled companies, and Obama calls him a key economic adviser. Meanwhile, the pols buy Berkshire stock like crazy.

What a country.

Christ, I'm starting to sound like kalm!

MUUUUUUUUUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH:lol:

That's a damn fine article IT and required reading for anyone who gives two shits about the economy and how fundamentally warped it is. I wanted to quote from it, but there's so many substantive thoughts and facts that it's pointless. Folk simply need to sit down and read it.

Both sides play the game for sure and it is a far cry from a truly competitive free market. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever read an article out of Reason that wasn't at least semi-thought provoking.

Good on ya Ive.

[HI54UNI]

I urge you all to read another gem from the March 2012 issue of Reason: "Warren Buffett: Baptist and Bootlegger." It's a great read concerning America's most successful crony capitalist and master political manipulator. Watch how the cynical Buffett benefits Berkshire Hathaway's portfolio by shrewd, timely investments in politically favored Goldman, GE, Wells Fargo and other big banks right before TARP was enacted. If a private company did what he did legally through politics, it would be "close to insider trading." And of course he and BHO have a symbiotic relationship: Buffett earns huge returns from heretofore troubled companies, and Obama calls him a key economic adviser. Meanwhile, the pols buy Berkshire stock like crazy.

What a country.

Christ, I'm starting to sound like kalm!

Good read. More proof that Buffet is a douchebag.

Here's one for you to watch, before the end of the year Buffet will start talking about how the tax credit for wind farms needs to be renewed. Based on the amount of wind resources that his MidAmerican Energy Holding Company owns his subsidy from the taxpayers in 2012 will be about $250 million. Berkshire is one of the few companies that has the tax bill hefty enough to keep building wind to get the tax credits but he needs the subsidy to make it work.

[kalm]

I urge you all to read another gem from the March 2012 issue of Reason: "Warren Buffett: Baptist and Bootlegger." It's a great read concerning America's most successful crony capitalist and master political manipulator. Watch how the cynical Buffett benefits Berkshire Hathaway's portfolio by shrewd, timely investments in politically favored Goldman, GE, Wells Fargo and other big banks right before TARP was enacted. If a private company did what he did legally through politics, it would be "close to insider trading." And of course he and BHO have a symbiotic relationship: Buffett earns huge returns from heretofore troubled companies, and Obama calls him a key economic adviser. Meanwhile, the pols buy Berkshire stock like crazy.

What a country.

Christ, I'm starting to sound like kalm!

Good read. More proof that Buffet is a douchebag.

Here's one for you to watch, before the end of the year Buffet will start talking about how the tax credit for wind farms needs to be renewed. Based on the amount of wind resources that his MidAmerican Energy Holding Company owns his subsidy from the taxpayers in 2012 will be about $250 million. Berkshire is one of the few companies that has the tax bill hefty enough to keep building wind to get the tax credits but he needs the subsidy to make it work.

He's a douchebag that's superior at PR. Apply this to nearly every large industry and you'll see how FUBAR'd the economy truly is.

Good to see some conk recognition here.

[Grizo406]

The ONLY reason I'd ever wear a North Face jacket is that I couldn't find my Patagonia.

[kalm]

The ONLY reason I'd ever wear a North Face jacket is that I couldn't find my Patagonia.

You are very wise AND conscientious Grizo!

Let My People Go Surfing
by Yvon Chouinard

At the core of Patagonia is its founder, Yvon Chouinard, a man who is saving the world one fleece jacket at a time. A legendary climber, surfer, entrepreneur, environmentalist, and philanthropist, he is justly famous for success on his own terms.

Chouinard brings his extraordinary life and work to the page in Let My People Go Surfing: The Education of a Reluctant Businessman (The Penguin Press; October 10, 2005; $26.95), the long-awaited story of the company he grew, now an American business legend. A world-class mountain climber from a very young age, Chouinard quickly discovered he could make higher quality and less environmentally damaging climbing equipment than what was available in the marketplace. Before he knew it his way of life became a business. Some forty years later, Chouinard still summits peaks around the world, and Patagonia continues to make exceptional gear; today, worldwide sales top $240 million annually. Under Chouinard's fearless leadership, Patagonia has been a consistent innovator in corporate practice, giving away a percentage of its gross annual sales to small-scale non-profit work around the world and switching to only organically grown cotton and other recycled materials in its production.

Let My People Go Surfing shows how, by keeping an explorer's spirit, it's possible to blend work, play and social duty — and be all the more successful as a result. The book outlines Chouinard's philosophies on product design, production, distribution, branding, finance, management, and environmental responsibility. Patagonia, Inc. perfectly illustrates just how far a business can go in the direction of long-term sustainability and good citizenship, while Yvon Chouinard is an inspiring example of how far an individual can go in the direction of making his life a grand adventure. Speaking to a diverse audience, from the outdoor enthusiast to the die-hard environmentalist to the business school graduate, Let My People Go Surfing is a stirring memoir and business manifesto from which everyone can draw inspiration.

[death dealer]

For decades, surveys have shown that upper-income Americans don’t give away as much of their money as they might and are particularly undistinguished as givers when compared with the poor, who are strikingly generous. A number of other studies have shown that lower-income Americans give proportionally more of their incomes to charity than do upper-income Americans. In 2001, Independent Sector, a nonprofit organization focused on charitable giving, found that households earning less than $25,000 a year gave away an average of 4.2 percent of their incomes; those with earnings of more than $75,000 gave away 2.7 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magaz ... wln-t.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Really? Cause I gave over 10% of my gross income to charity last year. So fuck you.

[AZGrizFan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magaz ... wln-t.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Really? Cause I gave over 10% of my gross income to charity last year. So fuck you.

I didn't give away a fucking dime. The government's doing a pretty good job of redistributing 35% of my income as it is.