Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

What is going on is a slight lowering of the first world standard of living in the attempt to raise the rest of the worlds standards.

How do you figure?

I'd like to see what evidence you have that things have gotten worse in the last 8 years than the previous 20 combined.

Two years ago, the evidence would have been undeniable though we've seen enough of a recovery so that we're back at the level we were at in 2001. So under Bush, we've seen overall economic stagnation.

Tallgeese wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

What is going on is a slight lowering of the first world standard of living in the attempt to raise the rest of the worlds standards.

How do you figure?

Part of it is deliberate and part of it is simply the way things work.
Trade agreements and basic gov't policies (removal of a great deal of protectionism for example) have been designed to encourage growth in 2nd and 3rd world nations at the 1st worlds expense. You can't believe that when US manufacturing started to move outside the country it wasn't known that it was the death knell for unions and the higher wages. Hell, people have written books describing the process and the need for "countries to do what they do best and cheapest" to allow an overall raise in the standard of living worldwide. Al Gore would be an example name you know.

ScifiterX wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

It may have started in the 70s but all but those most stubbornly committed to ignoring what's going on see that things have gotten far worse under the current Bush administration than it's gotten under the Nixon to Clinton administrations combined.

What is going on is a slight lowering of the first world standard of living in the attempt to raise the rest of the worlds standards.
I'd like to see what evidence you have that things have gotten worse in the last 8 years than the previous 20 combined.

The devaluation of the dollar, the rise in prices (particularly gas and food) without a corresponding rise in income, the raiding of the budget surplus, the raiding of the social security fund, the devaluation of people's retirement, the reduction in insurance benefits tied to a rise in insurance fees, people losing houses. None of those were near as bad as they currently are.

The first two of what you are calling bad is directly tied into oil price.
Income is not tied to commodity markets.
Budgets surplus' are practically unheard of in my lifetime with the exception proving the rule that they will overspend every year. SSI has been abused since Reagan.
Insurance is just a continuation of the decades long trend.
What's mainly different about this recession is you're alive and being effected by it this time.

Farmerkev wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

What is going on is a slight lowering of the first world standard of living in the attempt to raise the rest of the worlds standards.

How do you figure?

Part of it is deliberate and part of it is simply the way things work.
Trade agreements and basic gov't policies (removal of a great deal of protectionism for example) have been designed to encourage growth in 2nd and 3rd world nations at the 1st worlds expense. You can't believe that when US manufacturing started to move outside the country it wasn't known that it was the death knell for unions and the higher wages. Hell, people have written books describing the process and the need for "countries to do what they do best and cheapest" to allow an overall raise in the standard of living worldwide. Al Gore would be an example name you know.

Trade agreements have been constructed to benefit developing countries at the expense of developed countries? You must be joking.

To begin with, other countries have seen industry move away too. Mexico, for instance, has been hit really hard by the emergence of China, as have many other developing countries. China is swiftly becoming the workshop of the world.

In vast regions of the world, there has been a catastrophic drop in living standards. Most of Africa, for instance, is far poorer now than it was in the 1960s, even though in that time Africa has exported massive amounts of raw materials (including oil).

I've never understood this Lou Dobbs view of trade agreements. And doesn't the at-least-we're-not-Haiti meme indicate that that view is completely false?

Hank Rearden wrote:

Oil dropped $6 today. So did every other commodity worth mentioning. No one's buying. That, to me, is indicative of something nasty.

Margin requirements have likewise started to drop, so that's good news to me.

But then, I'm one of those evil speculators you've been hearing so much about.

NokX wrote:

correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't it because tax on capital gains tax is less than being taxed on a working income?  isn't that what he ended up comparing?

The lower capital gains tax is part of it:

It also comes as Congress debates changes to the tax code that would decrease take-home pay for managers of private-equity firms and hedge funds, pools of money for wealthy families and institutional investors. The rich can take advantage of tax loopholes, including one that allows those managers to pay the capital gains tax rate of 15 percent instead of the ordinary top income tax rate of 35 percent.

That's not all of the story, however.

the only thing about his tax remarks that annoy me is that it reminds me of how we're taxing those who actually get up, make an effort, and work in this country.  i've never understood this "work tax" on the income.

We also tax various other forms of wealth transfers that don't involve "work."   

which is 110% true, but forced charity through government taxation?  i can't agree with that.

Where did he say anything about "forced charity?"  He's suggesting a comparable tax rate be established. 

again...  the government's job is to distribute money to make life more 'even'?  insane.

That isn't what he said.  He is of the belief that it is the rich who are receiving the uneven benefit, here.  That's where the field is "uneven," in his view.

bratboy wrote:

Where did he say anything about "forced charity?"  He's suggesting a comparable tax rate be established.

he's talking about how the rich need to pay more in taxes to "...do more to help the less fortunate".

bratboy wrote:

That isn't what he said.  He is of the belief that it is the rich who are receiving the uneven benefit, here.  That's where the field is "uneven," in his view.

Buffett said he thought Democrats would do a better job in evening out the field for those who had drawn the unlucky tickets in life.

that's not talking just about "making the tax code" more even.

NokX wrote:

he's talking about how the rich need to pay more in taxes to "...do more to help the less fortunate".

Perhaps he has specifically referred to other acts elsewhere but here he just seems to be advocating for a comparable tax burden (which would help wage earners, if you think about it). 

that's not talking just about "making the tax code" more even.

Anything else you're drawing from that particular article is just conjecture.

NokX wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Anything else you're drawing from that particular article is just conjecture.

well i'm not sure what else you can draw from, "...evening out the field for those who had drawn the unlucky tickets in life...".

if he would've said, "...evening out the field for taxing people appropriately..." (which i still don't agree with income tax, but that's another thread) that would've made more sense than what he did say which suggests government assistance to those who "drew unlucky tickets", as if that's the government's responsibility anyway.

...except the comment was made in a discussion about TAXATION, and how he feels that the current system of TAXATION is UNEVEN.

The American Colonies, France, & Russia come to mind, as does Roosevelt's rationale for Social Security.

Not at all but there are systems like Social Security & unemployment which are insurance against loss of wages due to layoffs, disability, or age related factors. They do keep the peace and the society running as it ought to. Workers and institution pay into them as any other form of insurance but unlike other forms of insurance people have a better likelihood of collecting. Knowing that safety is there prevent a lot rebellion far more effectively than a mere bribe.

It sort of like companies providing benefits to skilled workers because they know if they are happy and healthy they are more productive.

Particularly when keeping her alive provides low cost daycare.