Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
MrMickeysMom
MrMickeysMom's Journal
MrMickeysMom's Journal
December 7, 2015
For more of this unreadable intent about progressive taxation...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-nonexistent-case-for-progressive-taxation/2015/12/04/4ef17830-99e6-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html
If someone is given national exposure to a writing, is it too hard to hard to expect a clear argument? I think he should go back to sports analogies, because the subjects in which he does not excel are not presented clearly either... certainly not progressive taxation, and for that matter, anything political. Reading him is like a getting through a sand and mud in your flip-flops.
George Will can't express himself very well on taxation, it seems...
This morning's Pittsburgh Post Gazette predictably carried Will's Wash-Po column, though, for the life of me, I can't figure out WHY. He's such a bad writer. I've historically stopped mid column, mostly due to the nonsense within each missive, but lately, I've actually tried to understand the logic behind it, or why it couldn't be said with clearer intent. I gave this morning's read the good ole college try again...
So, in this 103rd year of the income tax, it is timely to note that there still is no intellectually sturdy case for progressive taxation.
Arguments for it are invariably arguments for increased equality of social outcomes. Because individuals have different vocational desires and different aptitudes for adding value to the economy, inequality is inevitable. Because individuals have different social sensibilities, opinions will differ about what degrees of inequality are intolerably unlovely (more about this aesthetic metric in a moment). But inequality, even when unlovely to some, is unjust only when it arises from unjust social arrangements. So, the degree to which inequality is morally troubling depends on the degree to which the process that allocates wealth does so according to political influence and rent-seeking rather than merit and self-reliance.
Arguments for it are invariably arguments for increased equality of social outcomes. Because individuals have different vocational desires and different aptitudes for adding value to the economy, inequality is inevitable. Because individuals have different social sensibilities, opinions will differ about what degrees of inequality are intolerably unlovely (more about this aesthetic metric in a moment). But inequality, even when unlovely to some, is unjust only when it arises from unjust social arrangements. So, the degree to which inequality is morally troubling depends on the degree to which the process that allocates wealth does so according to political influence and rent-seeking rather than merit and self-reliance.
For more of this unreadable intent about progressive taxation...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-nonexistent-case-for-progressive-taxation/2015/12/04/4ef17830-99e6-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html
If someone is given national exposure to a writing, is it too hard to hard to expect a clear argument? I think he should go back to sports analogies, because the subjects in which he does not excel are not presented clearly either... certainly not progressive taxation, and for that matter, anything political. Reading him is like a getting through a sand and mud in your flip-flops.
December 1, 2015
Arundhati Roy
Saturday 28 November 2015 06.00 EST
This is an example of why persons walk the walk, and what can only be imaged as the price. John Cusack is credited for the accompanying pictures. But, more to the article, anyone who has pondered what the U.S. role in a widening control of events will be drawn to what expressed by Roy. I couldn't reproduce pix here. Read the article, please.
The Guardian's Full article here: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/28/conversation-edward-snowden-arundhati-roy-john-cusack-interview
This is why I read the Guardian... Superb article - Edward Snowden meets Arundhati & John Cusack
Edward Snowden meets Arundhati Roy and John Cusack: ‘He was small and lithe, like a house cat’Arundhati Roy
Saturday 28 November 2015 06.00 EST
The Moscow Un-Summit wasn’t a formal interview. Nor was it a cloak-and-dagger underground rendezvous. The upshot is that John Cusack, Daniel Ellsberg (who leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war) and I didn’t get the cautious, diplomatic, regulation Edward Snowden. The downshot (that isn’t a word, I know) is that the jokes, the humour and repartee that took place in Room 1001 cannot be reproduced. The Un-Summit cannot be written about in the detail that it deserves. Yet it definitely cannot not be written about. Because it did happen. And because the world is a millipede that inches forward on millions of real conversations. And this, certainly, was a real one.
What mattered, perhaps even more than what was said, was the spirit in the room. There was Edward Snowden who, after 9/11, was in his own words “straight up singing highly of Bush” and signing up for the Iraq war. And there were those of us who, after 9/11, had been straight up doing exactly the opposite. It was a little late for this conversation, of course. Iraq has been all but destroyed. And now the map of what is so condescendingly called the “Middle East” is being brutally redrawn (yet again). But still, there we were, all of us, talking to each other in a bizarre hotel in Russia. Bizarre it certainly was.
The opulent lobby of the Moscow Ritz-Carlton was teeming with drunk millionaires, high on new money, and gorgeous, high-stepping young women, half peasant, half supermodel, draped on the arms of toady men – gazelles on their way to fame and fortune, paying their dues to the satyrs who would get them there. In the corridors, you passed serious fistfights, loud singing and quiet, liveried waiters wheeling trolleys with towers of food and silverware in and out of rooms. In Room 1001 we were so close to the Kremlin that if you put your hand out of the window, you could almost touch it. It was snowing outside. We were deep into the Russian winter – never credited enough for its part in the second world war. Edward Snowden was much smaller than I thought he’d be. Small, lithe, neat, like a house cat. He greeted Dan ecstatically and us warmly. “I know why you’re here,” he said to me, smiling. “Why?” “To radicalise me.” I laughed.
What mattered, perhaps even more than what was said, was the spirit in the room. There was Edward Snowden who, after 9/11, was in his own words “straight up singing highly of Bush” and signing up for the Iraq war. And there were those of us who, after 9/11, had been straight up doing exactly the opposite. It was a little late for this conversation, of course. Iraq has been all but destroyed. And now the map of what is so condescendingly called the “Middle East” is being brutally redrawn (yet again). But still, there we were, all of us, talking to each other in a bizarre hotel in Russia. Bizarre it certainly was.
The opulent lobby of the Moscow Ritz-Carlton was teeming with drunk millionaires, high on new money, and gorgeous, high-stepping young women, half peasant, half supermodel, draped on the arms of toady men – gazelles on their way to fame and fortune, paying their dues to the satyrs who would get them there. In the corridors, you passed serious fistfights, loud singing and quiet, liveried waiters wheeling trolleys with towers of food and silverware in and out of rooms. In Room 1001 we were so close to the Kremlin that if you put your hand out of the window, you could almost touch it. It was snowing outside. We were deep into the Russian winter – never credited enough for its part in the second world war. Edward Snowden was much smaller than I thought he’d be. Small, lithe, neat, like a house cat. He greeted Dan ecstatically and us warmly. “I know why you’re here,” he said to me, smiling. “Why?” “To radicalise me.” I laughed.
This is an example of why persons walk the walk, and what can only be imaged as the price. John Cusack is credited for the accompanying pictures. But, more to the article, anyone who has pondered what the U.S. role in a widening control of events will be drawn to what expressed by Roy. I couldn't reproduce pix here. Read the article, please.
Oddly, when I think back on the meeting in the Moscow Ritz-Carlton, the memory that flashes up first in my mind is an image of Daniel Ellsberg. Dan, after all those hours of talking, lying back on the bed, Christlike, with his arms flung open, weeping for what the United States has turned into – a country whose “best people” must either go to prison or into exile. I was moved by his tears but troubled, too – because they were the tears of a man who has seen the machine up close. A man who was once on a first-name basis with the people who controlled it and who coldly contemplated the idea of annihilating life on Earth. A man who risked everything to blow the whistle on them. Dan knows all the arguments, For as well as Against. He often uses the word imperialism to describe US history and foreign policy. He knows now, 40 years after he made the Pentagon Papers public, that even though those particular individuals have gone, the machine keeps on turning.
The Guardian's Full article here: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/28/conversation-edward-snowden-arundhati-roy-john-cusack-interview
December 1, 2015
Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts at Amherst
more...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html
An Open Letter to the Wall Street Journal on Its Bernie Sanders Hit Piece
Gerald Friedman Become a fanProfessor of Economics, University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Gerald Friedman's research was cited in a Wall Street Journal story about Bernie Sanders's proposals for government spending. Friedman responds to that story below.
It is said of economists that they know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. In the case of the article "Price Tag of Bernie Sanders's Proposals: $18 Trillion," this accusation is a better fit for the Wall Street Journal that published it.
The Journal correctly puts the additional federal spending for health care under HR 676 (a single payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. It neglects to add, however, that by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation.
These financial savings would be felt by businesses and by state and local governments who would no longer be paying for health insurance for their employees; and by retirees and working Americans who would no longer have to pay for their health insurance or for co-payments and deductibles. Beyond these financial savings, HR 676 would also save thousands of lives a year by expanding access to health care for the uninsured and the underinsured.
The economic benefits from Senator Sander's proposal would be even greater than these static estimates suggest because a single-payer plan would create dynamic gains by freeing American businesses to compete without the burden of an inefficient and wasteful health insurance system. As with Senator Sanders' other proposals, the economic boom created by HR 676, including the productivity boost coming from a more efficient health care system and a healthier population, would raise economic output and provide billions of dollars in additional tax revenues to over-set some of the additional federal spending.
The Journal correctly puts the additional federal spending for health care under HR 676 (a single payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. It neglects to add, however, that by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation.
These financial savings would be felt by businesses and by state and local governments who would no longer be paying for health insurance for their employees; and by retirees and working Americans who would no longer have to pay for their health insurance or for co-payments and deductibles. Beyond these financial savings, HR 676 would also save thousands of lives a year by expanding access to health care for the uninsured and the underinsured.
The economic benefits from Senator Sander's proposal would be even greater than these static estimates suggest because a single-payer plan would create dynamic gains by freeing American businesses to compete without the burden of an inefficient and wasteful health insurance system. As with Senator Sanders' other proposals, the economic boom created by HR 676, including the productivity boost coming from a more efficient health care system and a healthier population, would raise economic output and provide billions of dollars in additional tax revenues to over-set some of the additional federal spending.
more...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html
November 30, 2015
John Barbour's Last Word on the Garrison Tapes
This is a terrific interview. If you're too young to have heard about John Barbour, you'll catch up to some early television productions that line his resume. He's also one of the most well versed persons to be interviewed on Jim Garrison and the Kennedy assassination for some time on Black Op Radio.
Here's the YouTube:
November 29, 2015
It's just ONE THING... Inequitable Distribution of Wealth, Stupid...
I wonder how many people are willing to talk about a wealth tax? I think it's high time we did...
One of the simplest of neutralizing the heat around here is to discuss the recognition of where we should be with wealth distribution. I say, it's WAY past time to establish a tax on wealth that is similar to those that exist in MOST European countries. It's a way of admitting that true democracy includes some democratic socialism. We've always operated that way when our government responded to the inequitable past. History has proven this already. And, when looking at the misuse of the budget, including its shortfalls, it's easy to figure out where the money has gone and how much money to redistribute.
A wealth tax would require the very wealthiest Americans (my definition is those worth millions of dollars) to pay taxes on their accumulated wealth, rather than enabling them to get richer without giving anything back to the society that makes their wealth possible. That kind of tax could raise tens of billions of dollars a year. It's fair. The other way that has been going on for FAR too long is NOT fair.
Here's something else... We can also reverse the inequitable distribution of wealth by closing loopholes in corporate taxes. If we eliminated tax breaks for corporations, corporate subsidies, and other forms of corporate welfare, we could save $125 billions a year.
Here's where some of that money could be applied to health care, education, social services and to balancing the budget.
Why this isn't on the mind of EVERY working family? Think of it.. elect a government that will look out for their interests and fight for a fairer distribution of wealth. This is no mystery. It's just one thing, but it's big in itself. Lots of posts here criticism "where the budge comes" from to do what you want to do to rectify social justice.
Or, maybe it ISN'T... because THAT is the message that is getting out.
November 26, 2015
What might be the reason for never getting results after jury request?
I've noticed in more of my recent requests to vote hide or leave that there was no result.
Is this common, and if so, what are the possible reasons?
I also recently alerted a post, and never received any response. Same question for that.
Thank you.
November 24, 2015
Somebody recently pointed that out. I think every person on this board understands what he meant. It does not mean we are looking for SOMEONE to create this outcome. It doesn't mean that it's transformation is felt with a mere win of the presidency. No, it means that we have to do the hard thing. After all these years of being trained to be so passive, it means it's TIME to do the hard thing.
Many a person doesn't recognize that this country used to practice Democratic Socialism to a much higher degree. It was so high in its accomplishment compared to what passes for Democracy today that we stopped recognizing what it means to socialize the benefits of Democracy.
It means...
We stop having the top one-tenth of 1 percent owning nearly as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.
It means...
The middle class stops disappearing where median family income is $4,100 less than it was in 1999.
It means...
Americans realize that "the wealthiest country in the history of the world" stops having more than half of older workers without retirement savings... ZERO... while millions of elderly and people with disabilities are trying survive on $12,000 or $13,000 a year.
It means...
Americans stop being known for having 29 million of us with NO health insurance and having even more of us underinsured with outrageously high co-payments and deductibles.
It means...
We stop paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. ONE OUT OF FIVE PATIENTS CAN'T AFFORD TO FILL THE PRESCRIPTIONS THEIR DOCTORS WRITE.
If we no longer wish to be caught up in this obscenity of living between the haves and have nots, we need to realize that this big task is ours.
We own it, so do not think it will take one person to deliver us from this shame ownership.
If We Are Serious About Transforming Our Country...
If we are serious about rebuilding the middle class...
If we are serious about reinvigorating our democracy....
We need to develop a political movement which, once again, is prepared to take on and defeat a ruling class whose greed is destroying our nation. The billionaire class cannot have it all. Our government belongs to ALL OF US.... NOT JUST THE ONE PERCENT.
Somebody recently pointed that out. I think every person on this board understands what he meant. It does not mean we are looking for SOMEONE to create this outcome. It doesn't mean that it's transformation is felt with a mere win of the presidency. No, it means that we have to do the hard thing. After all these years of being trained to be so passive, it means it's TIME to do the hard thing.
We need to create a culture which, as Pope Francis reminds us, cannot just be based on the worship of money. We must not accept a nation in which billionaires compete as to the size of their super-yachts, while children in America go hungry and veterans sleep out on the streets.
Many a person doesn't recognize that this country used to practice Democratic Socialism to a much higher degree. It was so high in its accomplishment compared to what passes for Democracy today that we stopped recognizing what it means to socialize the benefits of Democracy.
It means...
We stop having the top one-tenth of 1 percent owning nearly as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.
It means...
The middle class stops disappearing where median family income is $4,100 less than it was in 1999.
It means...
Americans realize that "the wealthiest country in the history of the world" stops having more than half of older workers without retirement savings... ZERO... while millions of elderly and people with disabilities are trying survive on $12,000 or $13,000 a year.
It means...
Americans stop being known for having 29 million of us with NO health insurance and having even more of us underinsured with outrageously high co-payments and deductibles.
It means...
We stop paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. ONE OUT OF FIVE PATIENTS CAN'T AFFORD TO FILL THE PRESCRIPTIONS THEIR DOCTORS WRITE.
If we no longer wish to be caught up in this obscenity of living between the haves and have nots, we need to realize that this big task is ours.
We own it, so do not think it will take one person to deliver us from this shame ownership.
November 24, 2015
Cross posting from "the other part of DU"....
But, you guys may be more open to sweet potato pie OR Sweet Potatoes like some of those DUers...
Sweet potato pie.... Do you good when you make it this way ...
1 - 10 inch pie crust
2 3/4 cups cooked mashed sweet potatoes
1 stick unsalted butter, softened
1 3/4 cups sugar, or less to taste
1 teaspoon ground nutmeg
1/3 cup Myers rum
2 large eggs
1 (7 ounce) can evaporated milk (or re-constitute non-instant milk, making it thick)
pinch of orange peel (dried)
Preheat oven to 300 degrees (f)
Beat the sweet potatoes and butter with an electric mixer until smooth, add sugar, nutmeg and rum, and continue beating until incorporated.
Add eggs one at a time, beating well after each addition. Add milk, beating continuously. Stir in the orange peel.
Transfer filling to the pie crust, and smooth the top with a spoon.
Bake until pie is set in the center and lightly brown, about 40 minutes
That'll teach ya not to like sweet potatoes...
1 - 10 inch pie crust
2 3/4 cups cooked mashed sweet potatoes
1 stick unsalted butter, softened
1 3/4 cups sugar, or less to taste
1 teaspoon ground nutmeg
1/3 cup Myers rum
2 large eggs
1 (7 ounce) can evaporated milk (or re-constitute non-instant milk, making it thick)
pinch of orange peel (dried)
Preheat oven to 300 degrees (f)
Beat the sweet potatoes and butter with an electric mixer until smooth, add sugar, nutmeg and rum, and continue beating until incorporated.
Add eggs one at a time, beating well after each addition. Add milk, beating continuously. Stir in the orange peel.
Transfer filling to the pie crust, and smooth the top with a spoon.
Bake until pie is set in the center and lightly brown, about 40 minutes
That'll teach ya not to like sweet potatoes...
November 24, 2015
Bloomberg View Link: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-22/clinton-s-weaknesses-are-hidden-by-republican-disarray
Clinton's Weaknesses Are Hidden by Republican Disarray
NOV 22, 2015 12:15 PM EST
By Albert R. Hunt
There's cause for concern in Hillaryland, the constellation of Democratic advisers, supporters and politicians counting on the former secretary of state to lead the party to a sweeping victory next November.
Hillary Clinton's nomination is almost a forgone conclusion, barring any unlikely legal or health issues. Democrats will offer a more coherent and unified front for the general election than fractious Republicans.
Still, this optimism is based on the weakness of the opposition, and ignores the candidate's own glaring vulnerabilities.
The worries of some Clinton insiders are focused on the general election. There is an "enthusiasm gap." She doesn't excite important constituencies: young people, independents, possibly even minority voters.
To be sure, a number of women, especially middle-aged ones, are energized by the prospect of electing the first female U.S. president. That's a strong asset.
But Clinton has a striking problem with young voters. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed a solid plurality of young voters has a negative view of Clinton. She did even worse in Bloomberg Politics national poll.
Hillary Clinton's nomination is almost a forgone conclusion, barring any unlikely legal or health issues. Democrats will offer a more coherent and unified front for the general election than fractious Republicans.
Still, this optimism is based on the weakness of the opposition, and ignores the candidate's own glaring vulnerabilities.
The worries of some Clinton insiders are focused on the general election. There is an "enthusiasm gap." She doesn't excite important constituencies: young people, independents, possibly even minority voters.
To be sure, a number of women, especially middle-aged ones, are energized by the prospect of electing the first female U.S. president. That's a strong asset.
But Clinton has a striking problem with young voters. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed a solid plurality of young voters has a negative view of Clinton. She did even worse in Bloomberg Politics national poll.
Bloomberg View Link: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-22/clinton-s-weaknesses-are-hidden-by-republican-disarray
November 22, 2015
52 Years Ago... The Peace Speech, American University...
This is one example revealing Kennedy's threat to the MIC and everyone who would benefit from war.
Profile Information
Name: WhoisSkinnerMarriedToGender: Do not display
Member since: Tue Dec 14, 2004, 07:30 PM
Number of posts: 20,453
