This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Saturday, October 8, 2011

VENT PAGE XXVI ...The "Occupy Watauga" Version


The Occupy Watauga Conservative Version

For all of our fans who don't have the time to go "occupy Wall Street" but still want their chance to rage against the machine, this Vent Page is dedicated to you. Think that the government should give you somebody else's money? Banks should not be allowed to be paid back the money they loaned? Corporations should not make a profit? Everything should be free just like it was when you lived with Mom and Dad?  Or if you just miss the sixties - this is your chance to join in protesting EVERYTHING without actually having to miss bathing, sleep in the streets or travel to New York!

And, we have NO DRESS CODE!




When old vent pages start "overflowing" ....a new one is started. This is the TWENTY SIXTH  in our series!

VENT PAGES are handy for posting of off-topic posts, rants, raves, rages, etc which might not be appropriate on other threads where adults are having serious discussions. Childish rant? Need to call another poster a name? Just feel like spouting off? Or even if you have something to say and there doesn't seem to be any other logical place to say it....THIS PAGE IS FOR YOU!

79 comments:

NewGuy said...

This is a non violent occupation!

G.I.G said...

What do we want ?

EVERYTHING!

When do we want it

NOW

What will we pay for it ?

NOTHING!

Sarkazein said...

I'm not taking a shower until the banks forgive all my loans.

Sarkazein said...

WOW!.

Sarkazein said...

This may be a little too obvious, but we have rioting going on across the country by Communists, supported by the President of the United States. What is it?

NewGuy said...

Good article here...

http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2011/10/07/why-liberaltarianism-is-doomed/

Blogger said...

NewGuy, great link. But if this Wall Street protest gets legs, this article leaves me unfulfilled. For example, there are a lot of similarities between the Tea Party and the great unwashed. However, the solutions are 180 degrees apart. Right now, it is obvious that these children in the street know they are upset, but they have not a clue what need to be done. Thus, they will soon be co-opted by the extreme Left's solutions.

If that movement keeps going, those on the Right will have to be able to make clear to Americans the dangers. At the same time, they have to be careful about being seen by those who are not paying attention, as against citizen protest. It will tricky.

Blogger said...

Sarkazein, Pelosi has now joined the president. As I said before, if these kids get ugly, then the Democrats now own it.

Sarkazein said...

Blogger- There is plenty of ugly already out there. Some too ugly to post.

Blogger said...

Sarkazein WOW is right! If it is going to take that long to make a simple decision, I am beginning to think we have nothing to worry about.

Wait until they try to decide if they want to go eat. By the time they decide, half of them will have starved.

Sarkazein said...

Blogger- They (WOW!) have made the decision to be treated like and to act like six year olds. Watching the congressman's face as he wonders "What the...'' is priceless. He is thinking he will have to stop after every phrase (if they ever agree to let him speak) and let the children repeat his words. A couple of times he tries the finger wiggle... kinda.
In the town hall meeting in Richmond, elections ago, a Lefty stood up and asked to be thought of as a child by the candidate. Well here it is.

guy faulkes said...

According to Fox News, Holder and his staff are going to be served with subpoenas over Fast and Furious. One of the items being requested is communications with the White House concerning this matter.

As it is apparent that Holder has been less than truthful with his testimony thus far, one has to wonder if the documentations is going to be released accurately.

This investigation is now really going to heat up.

NewGuy said...

Absolutely agree, Guy! Holder has to choose whether he wants to be seen as dishonest or incompetent.

IF IN FACT he knew nothing of the operation until a week or two prior to the previous Issa hearings, then we have to believe that government agents being killed with guns which were sold as part of a justice department program, didn't get brought to his attention?

How can an Atty General NOT be briefed on the death of an agent as a result of a botched operation?

guy faulkes said...

Do we need a thread on the purported Iranian assassination attempt of the Saudi ambassador?

I have heard three different commentators speculate as to why this was announced as a news story about a month after the arrest on the very day Holder was thought to be going to receive subpoenas about Fast and Furious.

Was this another example of not letting a crisis go to waste?

guy faulkes said...

Two thoughts:

1. Why do people find it surprising or significant that a liberal establishment Republican like Chritie would support another liberal establishment Republican like Romney? To my mind this does not change anything. If Christie had entered the race , the result would have only been he would have taken some of Romney's support.

2. I think Cain won another debate last night. Everyone was forced to talk about HIS 9-8-8 plan. He defended it well.

Sarkazein said...

How is "Fast and Furious" different than if Mexico had been caught selling arms to Al-Qaeda? Is Fast and Furious not an act of war against Mexico?

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes- I have little patience for any Republican candidate badmouthing the 9-9-9 plan. Most of the other candidates have been around DC for quite a while, where's their plan? This is why, for the first time so far, I would support for President a candidate who has never held a political office before.

Jack said...

Cain may have a plan, but it would be an economic disaster. For once, I'm on Bachmann's side, "the devil's in the details."

9-9-9? Cain has just recycled one of his old pizza promotions. Now we just wait for him to offer free crazy bread and a 2 liter soda.

There's a big difference between a plan and a good plan.

Sarkazein said...

Flat tax, national sales tax, corporate tax that all can understand... it is a plan. It takes the power away from lobbyists and their prey. Of course there are details to be ironed out.

Jack- Are you going to give credit to the person you heard tell the pizza joke? Or is this more plagiarism on your part?

Jack said...

Again, a plan doesn't mean a good plan.

Cain's tax plan is only "flat" in name. In practice, it would be regressive. And the plan would create an enormous budget deficit.

Sarkazein said...

Jack- There is one think the Liberals cannot get through their mushy heads... there is going to be spending cuts big time. We will come to a time where there will be no deficit spending. If the Treasury doesn't have it, it wont be spent. As I and most Conservatives have said over and over, the problem is in the spending, not the revenue. By the time I finish this comment, we will be closing in on a 18 trillion dollar debt. What does the debt have to get to before you realize spending is the problem?

Sarkazein said...

15 Trillion dollar debt and thing not think.

Sarkazein said...

This is what happens to men that allow Socialism in to their country

Jack said...

Sark, so you'd rather endorse Cain's plan to implement a regressive taxation system and worsen the annual budget deficit by slashing revenues in half? (Hint: spending cuts can't resolve that)

guy faulkes said...

What Jack refuses to acknowledge is that salvation for the economy has to come form spending and tax cuts, not more spending and increased taxes. This simple fact goes against his liberal religious beliefs.

Jack,you say the 9-9-9 plan is not a good plan. Tell us what is wrong with it and back up your statements.

If you can not do this, maybe you should go occupy somewhere so that you would have the company of like minded , irrelevant people.

guy faulkes said...

Jack, i forgot to remind you that historically tax cuts increased the net revenue that government gets. Reagan's policies were an example.

Jack said...

Cain's plan is neither revenue-neutral nor flat.

Plus, Reagan also increased taxes. Plus, Clinton raised taxes and saw an increase in revenue as well.

Plus, one of Cain's economic advisors, speaking about the 9-9-9 plan, "It's not a plan that I concocted. There's nothing wrong with the plan, it's just wouldn't be the one I picked."

Plus, Cain's chief economic advisor is not an economist, he's a wealth manager for Wells Fargo. Awesome.

Jack said...

I'm all for a flat tax on personal income (say, above $30,000). But it has to be flat. Cain's is woefully regressive.

guy faulkes said...

No proof, Jack? Even the man that posted his theory calls it a theory - a political theory.

You are correct in that Cain's plan is not a single flat tax, but a combination of flat taxes. Now, why will they not work?

You will never realize that spending means more than taxing.

Reagan cut taxes. The Democrat legislature increased spending.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

Jack said...

I don't know what "proof" you're seeking, Guy. It's pretty clear when you crunch the numbers.

My back-of-the-envelope evaluation of the income tax portion of Cain's plan will be posted tomorrow, but I'll gladly share it with you now:


Herman Cain claims that his 9-9-9 pizza and breadsticks deal……..oh…..I mean tax plan, is not regressive. So let’s do a quick and dirty calculation of the income tax portion.

It’s a 9% flat tax on personal income, except income from capital gains. Taking an easy “low”, “middle”, “high” quintile approach, we see this (focusing on asset income):

[graph]

Average annual earnings for the highest quintile is around $160,000. It’s $35,000 for the middle quintile, and around $15,000 for the bottom 20%.

Now for the math.

Top 20%: 18% of income from investment equals approximately $30,000 resulting in $130,000 of taxable income ($12,000 paid in taxes).

Middle 20%: 13% of income from investment equals approximately $5,000 resulting in $30,000 of taxable income ($3,000 paid in taxes).

Bottom 20%: 2% of income from investment equals approximately $500 resulting in $14,500 of taxable income ($1,400 paid in taxes).

So now for the effective “flat” personal income tax rates:

Top Quintile: 7.5%
Middle Quintile: 8.5%
Bottom Quintile: 8.9%

Also note that once the top quintile is broken down further, the percentage of income from capital gains reaches 50%. The top 0.1% earned around $6 million. With 50% of income coming from capital gains, taxable income drops to $3 million. 9% of $3 million? $270,000. Effective tax rate? 4.5%

Just like the Republican payroll tax proposal, how is this not regressive?

Jack said...

Gotta love Murdoch.

Sarkazein said...

There is a HUGE underground economy. If there is a national sales tax and a simple fair or flat tax, it could make the underground economy shrink. But, as we see here with Jack, the status-quo is alive and well.
Then stop the illegal aliens (also a HUGE part of the HUGE underground economy) from having money paid to them under the table and sent to Mexico, and we've done something.

Sarkazein said...

Gotta love Obama's homies

Jack said...

So then you're not denying that Cain's tax plan is patently regressive.

Sarkazein said...

Jack- The above link "homies" is why the funding has to be cut.

Sarkazein said...

Do you mean - as compared to the existing tax code?

Jack said...

I mean....Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan.

Sarkazein said...

First, in Obama-care, the Liberals won't even consider the trial lawyer problem because so many trial lawyers give money to the Democrats. Now the Liberals don't even consider deeply cutting spending while ignoring a 15 trillion dollar debt. Blinded by the light.

Sarkazein said...

Obama was going to apologize to the Japs for answering there attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese government told him no.
Obama should be apologizing to The United States for hood-winking the numb-nuts that voted for him and for what he has done to the economy.

Jack said...

So then you're not denying that Cain's tax plan is pretty bad.

guy faulkes said...

No Jack, we are saying Cain's plan pretty good. Apparently you cannot understand that just as you do not understand the 9-9-9 plan.

You still have proved nothing.

guy faulkes said...

Holder and crew have been subpoenaed as have specific documents. Would any one care to wager these documents are withheld by claiming they are part of an ongoing investigation such as the alleged assassination attempt on the Saudi ambassador being used to try to divert attention from Fast and Furious?

Jack said...

Guy, the only good thing about Cain's tax plan is that it significantly simplifies the tax code.

The rest is just terrible. The income tax and sales tax portions are both regressive, not flat. Good? Nope. And it would increase the annual budget deficit by over $1 trillion. Good? Nope.

So what's "good" about Cain's plan?

Sarkazein said...

Do you mean to the tax code we have now?

Jack said...

I mean....Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan.

Sarkazein said...

Mr Cain is a mathematician and a CEO, you put bandaids on bobos and have to sit when you pee. I'll take Mr Cains word for it

Jack said...

So you'd rather trust his "word" over mathematics, economics, and analysis?

Sarkazein said...

Way more. He's been there, you just read the text book.

Jack said...

^ Ladies gentleman, the problem with the Republican base.

You forgot to mention that Cain was a lobbyist.

Sarkazein said...

So?

Sarkazein said...

Some of my closest friends are lobbyists.

Sarkazein said...

Some lobbyists fight oncoming government regulation.
Some are only defending their industry against the pinheads that have no experience in a particular industry from attempting to regulate it out of business.
Thank you Mr Cain.

Jack said...

Oh, well you've been quite critical of lobbyists in the past. Actually, just a day ago:

“Flat tax, national sales tax, corporate tax that all can understand... it is a plan. It takes the power away from lobbyists and their prey.” --10/12/11

Plus, you had some fun this summer, pointing out perceived negatives of Obama's tenure with your "up" series. Including:

"Number of Lobbyists UP" --6/1/11

Plus, you've supported posts on this site that were critical of lobbyists, here, here, and here.

Have you suddenly changed your mind?

Jack said...

But the sad fact remains:

My stance: Cain's plan is terrible. When the numbers are crunched, we see that his claims are baseless. Economics, mathematics, and policy analysis all lead us to the same conclusion.

Sark and Guy's stance: Cain's plan is good because he says it is.

If you'd like to discuss it further, I'm all for it. But your "argument" is no argument at all.

Sarkazein said...

No change to it. It is the government forcing industry to have lobbyists. Lobbyist, in the way of trade associations, help save America. You are operating under a misconception. The only Lobbyists I don't like are the union lobbyists and other Leftist lobbyists because most of the time they are lobbying to take away someone's property rights and ripping off their membership at the same time.
Lobbyists are up, because Obama is attacking Free Enterprise.

Sarkazein said...

A Liberal says- "Cain's plan is terrible." Makes me like it a little more. If you don't like it, chances are it is good.
Cain's got you scared. Liberals HATE Black Conservatives. A fact of history.

guy faulkes said...

Jack, I beleive Cain's mathematics and experience. You have given us only links to a political theorist to back up your less than experienced opinion.

By the way, we have discussed the flat tax and a national sales tax for years. You have some catching up to do.

Jack said...

I would throw my support behind a flat tax....if it were indeed flat.

Cain's is not.

Some pretty simple math and economics proves Cain's "flat" tax horribly wrong. If you won't accept it, so be it.

Sarkazein said...

Horribly wrong compared to the existing tax code?

Jack said...

Just horribly wrong.

Anonymous said...

Does Jack just make up his numbers or does he copy them from unreliable sources? Maybe he just doesn't understand what he is reading.

According to Jack:
"Average annual earnings for the highest quintile is around $160,000. It’s $35,000 for the middle quintile, and around $15,000 for the bottom 20%"

One quick look at the CBO numbers show that Jack is misstating the numbers.

CBO numbers for 2007 tax year:

"Households in the bottom fifth of the income distribution (with average income of $18,400, under a broad definition of income) paid 4.0 percent of their income in federal taxes. The middle quintile, with average income of $64,500, paid 14.3 percent of that income in taxes, and the highest quintile, with average income of $264,700, paid 25.1 percent."

Now, if Jack is going to lie about even the most easily verifiable numbers, what is the point of discussing it further with him?

We have seen in post after post that Jack either is plagiarizing someone else's writings, or is telling lies to support his uninformed opinions.

Jack said...

Anonymous, the income numbers I used came from 2009 and were rounded to make the math easier to understand. Note that I used the words “around” and “approximately” a lot.

But let’s use your income numbers......

Lowest Quintile: $18,400
Middle Quintile: $64,500
Highest Quintile: $264,700

Now subtract the income from capital gains (averaged, from 2008) to find taxable income.

Lowest Quintile: $18,013
Middle Quintile: $56,308
Highest Quintile: $217,583

Now apply Cain’s proposed 9% income tax.

Lowest Quintile: $1,621 paid in taxes
Middle Quintile: $5,067 paid in taxes
Highest Quintile: $19,582 paid in taxes

Now divide, taxes-paid over total income, to find the effective tax rate.

Lowest Quintile: 8.81%
Middle Quintile: 7.86%
Highest Quintile: 7.39%

Wow. Still regressive. You can refine the numbers to the cent, but Cain’s plan will still be regressive.

Jack said...

It's also funny that you wanted more refined income numbers. My rounded-off numbers yielded effective tax rates of 8.9/8.5/7.5

Your need for pinpointing income yielded effective tax rates of 8.8/7.8/7.4

Your numbers made Cain's plan appear more regressive. Strong work.

Anonymous said...

I am not arguing for or against Cains plan. I am only pointing out that you mistate the facts. You lay down a false foundation and then build your case from there. I have no interest in checking your numbers line by line when the very first numbers I bother to check show that the actual average income for the middle quintile is nearly double what you state it to be.
I can't argue with made up numbers, and I can't be expected to take the time to verify and correct every number you lie about.

No point in arguing with a liar.

Jack said...

Again, I was rounding off (numbers from a different year) to make the back-of-the-envelope calculations simpler. I was only attempting to visualize a concept, not calculate individual tax returns to the ten-thousandth of a percent. There was no lie (i.e. the middle bracket earns $11K while the top earns $5.2 billion!)

But thanks for wanting more accurate numbers. The concept remains the same though.

Anonymous said...

Again Jack, you fail to comprehend that I am not taking a position either in support of or opposed to Cain's tax proposal. I am only pointing out to those who might be inclined to believe your numbers, that the numbers are false and thus your argument can't be supported by their use or by your continued lies.

Anonymous said...

Laughing....Yeah! You rounded off $64,500 to "approximately $35,000".

Nice try.

Jack said...

I used post-recession numbers, you quoted pre-recession numbers. But the figures you wanted to use still show a regressive tax plan.

The overall concept remains.

Sarkazein said...

"Post recession?"

Anonymous said...

When Jack gets caught in a lie he tries to lie his way out of it with even more ridiculous statements.

Is he now claiming that the average income has dropped from 64,500 to 35,000 in two years?

Really, Jack.

Jack said...

"Is he now claiming that the average income has dropped from 64,500 to 35,000 in two years? Really, Jack."

Just about, accordingly to the BLS. Same for 2010. But for the 2009 income numbers, I took into account some more conservative estimates and bumped the lower quintile up a bit, and the middle quintile down a bit. If anything, my completely rough numbers reflect a more conservative estimate.

You can nit-pick all you'd like, but I was visualizing a concept; Cain's tax plan is regressive (which he claims is not). That concept remains true.

guy faulkes said...

And your concept, Jack, is your religious belief in liberal policies that have failed and which you cannot bring yourself to question.

We should go to the new vent page that has been provided.

NewGuy said...

Gotta jump in and call BS here.

Jack, are you really trying to argue that AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME in the US dropped almost 50% in 2 (or 3?) years?

Don't you think that would have made the papers?

Jack said...

NewGuy, you can "call BS" all you'd like, but you'll find none. There's a difference between "average" and "middle quintile". There's also a difference between "household" and "individual".

If you have a problem with the numbers, and your own extensive population studies have yielded different results, then take it up with the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

While you're on your "calling BS" kick, why don't you contact Herman Cain and ask why he claims his tax plan is flat, when it is clearly regressive.

NewGuy said...

OK...let's not try to cloud the issue Jack. Just post your source showing where the average household income "in the middle quintile" dropped almost 50%.

Do you even realize what you are saying? A 50% drop in average income for the middle quintile of American households?

Yes, I call BS! Please show us a single reliable source that shows that average income in ANY quintile has dropped almost 50%.


Just quote the numbers and cite the source.

Jack said...

I've already linked to the BLS data. I also never claimed "average household income 'in the middle quintile' dropped almost 50%."

You can argue semantics all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Cain's tax plan is regressive.

NewGuy said...

"Is he now claiming that the average income has dropped from 64,500 to 35,000 in two years? Really, Jack."


TO WHICH YOU, JACK, RESPONDED>

"Just about, accordingly to the BLS. Same for 2010."

Now you say you didn't say it?
I can't argue with you Jack. You just use lies and when caught, you lie some more.

I realize you are math challenged, but 64,500 to 35,000 is "almost 50%"

I'm through with this. You are like a child with frosting all over his face denying that he ate the cake!

I would probably assume that you just don't understand the numbers you are referencing, but, your history on this board indicates more dishonesty than ignorance.

Jack said...

NewGuy, why don't you go after anonymous then? BLS data from 2007 show middle quintile gross income of $46,213...not $64,500.

Why not go after Herman Cain? He has blatantly lied that his tax plan is flat. It's clearly regressive.

You're smarter than this, though. Are you simply attempting to cloud the fact that Cain's plan is regressive? Are you trying to hide the fact that some pretty simple analysis proves the plan to be economically terrible?

Sarkazein said...

More regressive or less regressive than the existing tax code.
I for one, have always considered a flat tax to be a percentage. A 9% tax, to me, would be a flat tax if all the complication in the current Liberal tax code was gone.