"Makers vs. Takers" and why it's dangerous

[Gerald McGrew]

http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2012/1 ... s-and.html

Part of the reason "stimulus" became a bad word was that it was equated with "socialism"; "Obamacare" was "socialism" (and "Obamacare" is still struggling in the polls, even after the guy it's named after won reelection); fear of "socialism" help drive the GOP takeover of the House in the 2010 midterms.

I'm concerned that the same thing is beginning to happen with the right's "makers vs. takers" meme, with the "takers" described as people who just want "free stuff" from government...

...I'm worried about this because, while Republicans have been rage junkies in need of anger management for some time now, their rage has mostly been directed at public figures -- the Clintons, Obama, Reid and Pelosi, the Evil MSM. Now every individual Democratic voter is the Antichrist. Every individual Democratic voter is a bloodsucking leech. Ted Nugent tweets, "What subhuman varmint believes others must pay for their obesity booze cellphones birthcontrol abortions & lives." Someone goes to a polling place in Pennsylvania and hangs signs in the parking area that say, "NO PARKING FOR DEMOCRATS - WALK THAT WILL BE THE MOST WORK YOU DO ALL DAY." Ordinary citizens are the new scapegoats, the new people who must be crushed to save America.

I think that's a very good point. The right has been working on demonizing anyone who gets any sort of public assistance for some time now. John Stossel of Faux News did an hour-long program on how well-off poor people are because they have TV's and refrigerators. Mitt Romney's infamous comments about 47% of Americans thinking their "entitled to food" and "not taking responsibility for their lives".

IMO, this is indeed a dangerous trend (not to mention the hypocrisy in decrying public assistance for the poor while fighting to the death to preserve public benefits to the uber-wealthy).

[laklak]

I agree that the demonization of the poor is a stupid thing to do and it's being done for slimy political ends. There is some truth to it, though. I do think that if you're farting about on the internet on your smart phone or watching pay-per-view on your 60 inch flat screen you don't need food stamps. It's a question of priorities, and an inability to prioritize is something I see as a major problem. It certainly isn't just poor people. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who overextended and bought ginormous houses that ate up half of their income and now can't make the payments. My daughters do it - can't pay their car insurance because they have to have the latest cell phone or that really cute pair of boots. I got suckered into cosigning a car loan for my oldest - free advice here - don't do that.

I don't know what the answer is, doing something like any of those things simply never would have occurred to me. How did I manage to end up with a surfeit of self-discipline and so many people simply have none? I tried to raise my kids as much like I was raised as possible, they went to decent schools and got a reasonable education. So what's the difference?

[Gerald McGrew]

No doubt that some people make stupid choices. But hopefully in this country we don't let people starve because of them.

My conservative friends often bitch about seeing the person in front of them in a check-out line using food stamps or a card or something, while also having a nice handbag, car, or shoes. But when I point out that they really have no idea how that person got those things...were they gifts, purchased when things were better, bought at a garage sale...they kind of fumble for answers. It's hard to come to terms with the possibility that your assumptions may be coloring your perception of a situation.

Plus, what about the public assistance for corporations and the very rich? If someone is pissed off about a person getting food stamps also having an XBox, why aren't they equally pissed off at "too big to fail banks" getting billions of taxpayer dollars? Or oil companies getting tax breaks while breaking all-time profit margins? Or multi-millionaires like Romney paying lower tax rates than they are?

Interesting how we all pick and choose who and what to be angry over.

[Warren Dew]

As soon as the Democrats stop demonizing the makers, I'm sure the Republicans will quit demonizing the takers.

[Robert_S]

As soon as the Democrats stop demonizing the makers, I'm sure the Republicans will quit demonizing the takers.

Sure they will.

[laklak]

Oh, I'm extremely pissed about the banks. Should have let them go belly up and paid out the depositors. Same with GM - let it go bust. It isn't the government's job to subsidize bad business decisions any more than bad personal decisions. Same with agricultural subsidies, though there is at least some argument about strategic food reserves that can be made about those.

The "Romney paid only 14%" argument is a bit disingenuous. For example, one commonly quoted statistic is that Warren Buffet's secretary paid 34% in taxes while he paid 17 or so. Well, no she didn't. First off, to pay more than 33% (in 2011) you'd need to earn in excess of 379,150. Hardly a poor person and far above Obama's $250,000 "rich" threshold. Actually, in terms of income, she's a 1 Percenter. Secondly, you only pay the higher percentage on money in THAT bracket. You pay 10% on the first 8500, 15% on the amount between $8,501 – $34,500, 25% on the amount between $34,501 – $83,600, and so on. So you aren't paying 34% of your salary ever, under any circumstances. Then there's deductions. Mortgage, personal, medical, whatever fits. That reduces your tax load. Mrs. Lak and I, on an income made by two full time working professionals, actually pay an effective rate of about 10% after all deductions (well, when we worked and paid income tax). Romney paid an effective rate of 14%. Could he afford to pay more? Probably. But it isn't as unfair as it seems at first glance.

Unless you're going to open the flood gates and give everyone food stamps or other assistance, then at some point you'll have to make a moral judgement. If you earn more than X amount then you should be able to support yourself and you don't need assistance. That isn't a scientific, unbiased decision, it's a moral one. Society, in the guise of it's appointed bureaucrats, have decided that if you make less than X then we'll give you some money, but if you make more than that you don't deserve it.

I'd look at income and expenses. If you're making 10,000 a year but you're spending 200 a month on a cell phone and 200 a month on FIOS cable, then you have fat in your budget you can cut out. If you're making 10,000 a year and spending that same 400 on rent, have a pay as you go phone and a TV antenna, then you don't have much fat. Yes, it's a moral judgement, but if the taxpayer is footing your bills then the taxpayer has a right to make that judgement.

[Drewish]

I don't give a shit about people who believe in sky man, that is unless they try to force their bullshit on me. I don't have a problem with people giving money to a cause I dont' support, unless they try to force me to 'give' money to it too. The only issue I have with this demonization is that not everyone who voted Democrat did so because of the hand outs. Many did it because they are gay (or know people who are gay) or have a uterus (and want to have control over it). There are many blue dog Democrats and people who vote that way for many other reasons. But as to those who are after the hand out, fuck them and they can eat shit and die

[Drewish]

Unless you're going to open the flood gates and give everyone food stamps or other assistance, then at some point you'll have to make a moral judgement. If you earn more than X amount then you should be able to support yourself and you don't need assistance. That isn't a scientific, unbiased decision, it's a moral one. Society, in the guise of it's appointed bureaucrats, have decided that if you make less than X then we'll give you some money, but if you make more than that you don't deserve it.

So whether one deserves free shit is based on need. Good. Always glad when communism is willing to put itself out in the open rather than pretend it's something else.

[surreptitious57]

Unless you're going to open the flood gates and give everyone food stamps or other assistance, then at some point you'll have to make a moral judgement. If you earn more than X amount then you should be able to support yourself and you don't need assistance. That isn't a scientific, unbiased decision. Society, in the guise of it's appointed bureaucrats, have decided that if you make less than X then we'll give you some money, but if you make more than that you don't deserve it

I'd look at income and expenses. If you're making 10 000 a year but you're spending 200 a month on a cell phone and 200 a month on FIOS cable, then you have fat in your budget you can cut out. If you're making 10 000 a year and spending that same 400 on rent, have a pay as you go phone and a TV antenna, then you don't have much fat. Yes, it's a moral judgement, but if the taxpayer is footing your bills then the taxpayer has a right to make that judgement

I don't think it is a moral judgement as it is based more on logic : if you earn below a certain amount you get help / if you earn above a certain amount you get no help. It only becomes moral because of the consequences, but in and of itself is not

I do agree with you however about prioritisation, and so much so that financial responsibility is something that should be taught at school because it is a necessary life skill and many adults simply do not have it. They either do not have enough to live on or they do, but budget inappropriately. Purchasing things you cannot afford but convincing yourself otherwise, is an absolute con and retailers should not be targeting people in this way. The nonsense of buy now, pay later is one that should be outlawed. First of all the language is wrong. If you are buying it now, you will not need to pay it later. But more seriously is the culture where the possession of something is more important than the payment for it. It should be the other way round. No one should be buying anything unless they can afford it - money upfront in other words - including property. Everyone should live within their means all their life. No exceptions. End of. This isn't exactly rocket science after all

[laklak]

That's always been my philosophy, if I don't have the money I don't buy it. Different with a house, and maybe a car if you really need it, but otherwise fuck credit. But - I'm a free market kind of guy. If people are stupid enough to sign away their future in order to have the latest 3D TV then fine, just don't come to me later begging food because you can't afford to eat. Harsh, I guess, but I really don't have much sympathy for stupidity. I saw an advertisement for a furniture rental company, offering a low-end HD television for only "pennies a day"! I actually called them to get more info. They didn't actually want to give it to me, but eventually did. The upshot was a TV that can be had for maybe $300 at Walmart will cost more than $2000 by the time it's paid off.

[laklak]

Just saw this on the local news, this is beyond fucking stupid. Sarasota county is going to give away free, "green" LED Christmas lights if you bring in an old string of lights. Free fucking CHRISTMAS LIGHTS. Because they're fucking green. Jesus Christ. Jesus fucking Christ.

Why the goddamn fucking motherfucking fuck should my fucking tax money go to pay for someone else's fucking CHRISTMAS LIGHTS?

This is why people take a ridiculously hard line on things. This is why people end up saying shit like "let the fucking mooching lazy assholes fucking starve, I don't give a shit". Honestly. Today - just TODAY, I wrote a check to pay my 2012 property taxes. And this is what these morons, these fucking idiots, these ASSHOLES are going to spend MY money on? What........the..........FUCK.

[Gerald McGrew]

Oh, I'm extremely pissed about the banks. Should have let them go belly up and paid out the depositors. Same with GM - let it go bust. It isn't the government's job to subsidize bad business decisions any more than bad personal decisions. Same with agricultural subsidies, though there is at least some argument about strategic food reserves that can be made about those.

IMO, the problem wasn't that we bailed out the banks, but that we had to at all. No way we should have banks that are "too big to fail", such that if they do they take the whole economy down with them. That has to end.

The "Romney paid only 14%" argument is a bit disingenuous. For example, one commonly quoted statistic is that Warren Buffet's secretary paid 34% in taxes while he paid 17 or so. Well, no she didn't. First off, to pay more than 33% (in 2011) you'd need to earn in excess of 379,150. Hardly a poor person and far above Obama's $250,000 "rich" threshold. Actually, in terms of income, she's a 1 Percenter. Secondly, you only pay the higher percentage on money in THAT bracket. You pay 10% on the first 8500, 15% on the amount between $8,501 – $34,500, 25% on the amount between $34,501 – $83,600, and so on. So you aren't paying 34% of your salary ever, under any circumstances. Then there's deductions. Mortgage, personal, medical, whatever fits. That reduces your tax load. Mrs. Lak and I, on an income made by two full time working professionals, actually pay an effective rate of about 10% after all deductions (well, when we worked and paid income tax). Romney paid an effective rate of 14%. Could he afford to pay more? Probably. But it isn't as unfair as it seems at first glance.

No matter how you parse it, the end result is people like Romney pay an effective rate of ~13%, which is lower than the effective rate of people who are far less well off. Yet the GOP will fight to its own death to keep it that way while at the same time demonizing someone who gets food stamps because they also have a TV.

Unless you're going to open the flood gates and give everyone food stamps or other assistance, then at some point you'll have to make a moral judgement. If you earn more than X amount then you should be able to support yourself and you don't need assistance. That isn't a scientific, unbiased decision, it's a moral one. Society, in the guise of it's appointed bureaucrats, have decided that if you make less than X then we'll give you some money, but if you make more than that you don't deserve it.

Except the wealthy do get assistance in the form of tax breaks, corporate subsidies, deductions, etc.

I'd look at income and expenses. If you're making 10,000 a year but you're spending 200 a month on a cell phone and 200 a month on FIOS cable, then you have fat in your budget you can cut out. If you're making 10,000 a year and spending that same 400 on rent, have a pay as you go phone and a TV antenna, then you don't have much fat. Yes, it's a moral judgement, but if the taxpayer is footing your bills then the taxpayer has a right to make that judgement.

I'd say if you're making $10,000 a year, you're fucked no matter what, and if you have any kids or anyone else depending on you, even more so.

[Gerald McGrew]

Just saw this on the local news, this is beyond fucking stupid. Sarasota county is going to give away free, "green" LED Christmas lights if you bring in an old string of lights. Free fucking CHRISTMAS LIGHTS. Because they're fucking green. Jesus Christ. Jesus fucking Christ.

Why the goddamn fucking motherfucking fuck should my fucking tax money go to pay for someone else's fucking CHRISTMAS LIGHTS?

More than likely it's because LED lights use waaaaaaay less electricity than the old style lights (like 90% less), last 10 times longer, and reduce the risk of fire. So the more people who make the switch, the fewer problems the county has in terms of demands on the electricity grid, landfill space, and fire response...not to mention a lower net carbon footprint.

This is why people take a ridiculously hard line on things. This is why people end up saying shit like "let the fucking mooching lazy assholes fucking starve, I don't give a shit". Honestly. Today - just TODAY, I wrote a check to pay my 2012 property taxes. And this is what these morons, these fucking idiots, these ASSHOLES are going to spend MY money on? What........the..........FUCK.

Perhaps you should ask to see their cost/benefit analysis on the program rather than simply engaging in knee-jerk online ranting.

[laklak]

Fuck their cost benefit analysis, I don't give a shit. It has nothing at all to do with electricity usage, fuck that too. What next, pay their fucking power bill? It has nothing to do with anything except taking other people's money and spending it on absolutely frivolous bullshit simply because they can. Because they're arrogant little shits who think those of us who earned our goddamned money are cash cows just there for the milking.

Why just Christmas? Why not Diwali? They use lights. How about free menorahs for Jews? Free sheep for Muslims on Eid? How about free beer for me, eh?

If anyone wants to contribute free fucking Christmas lights they are free to do so. However, to take my money, at gunpoint (if necessary), to do utterly stupid shit like this is beyond ridiculous.

[laklak]

Mind you, this is a city that is considering contracting out their police department to the county because they can't afford to pay them. They cannot afford to supply the most basic of services to their citizens yet they're giving away Christmas Lights? Do you honestly, all bullshit aside, think that's a rational position? After spending $50,000 fixing THIS thing after some ancient biddy ran into it with her Cadillac (I kid you not).



Yeah, my tax dollars went to put this fucking thing up in a public park. Honestly, Gerald.