Service economy jobs at odds with cost of living in Orlando area

In fairness, my criticism isn't solely directed at Obama, but much of Congress as well. Many of them are rich and/or live like it, all while condemning the rich. It's their very policies that are designed to penalize the "wealthy" (more like the middle class) while they themselves are exempt from them.

I don't see anyone condemning the rich. I do see many pointing out that it's strange that it's easy to dodge taxes when you make more money, which is fair criticism.

Perhaps not surprisingly, I am totally in love with the current pope, in spite of having very strong theological opposition to the office of the papacy. In contrast to his successors, his message is bold, needed, and risky. Whether or not he has personal sway over the finances of the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church in general, he is a bringing a message which is infinitely more powerful. For instance, the pope hugging a leper does way more to change the world than a donation of a billion dollars to whomever.

Getting people to invest in each other gives significantly better return for all sides than a straight up cash donation. (And will probably end up creating more distribution of wealth because of the relationships created).

Vater said:

The Pope actually tweeted "Inequality is the root of all social evil"? Because stealing money from people who earn it and giving it to those who don't is somehow noble and good...

I'm pretty sure that you're making a logical leap there. The tweet does not in any way imply the policy, nor does the existence of the (strawman) policy imply the tweet's inaccuracy.

Another possible way (not to put words in mouths) would be to encourage people to get to know each other so that they voluntarily help each other out of love.

Jeff said:

I don't see anyone condemning the rich. I do see many pointing out that it's strange that it's easy to dodge taxes when you make more money, which is fair criticism.

But interestingly, it doesn't seem like those who make more money are doing too much dodging.

ApolloAndy said:

I'm pretty sure that you're making a logical leap there. The tweet does not in any way imply the policy, nor does the existence of the (strawman) policy imply the tweet's inaccuracy.

I don't think it's much of a leap when placing his statement within the context of the article, and considering his criticisms of capitalism. The pope is calling for governments, world-wide, to redistribute wealth to the poor. I like what I've heard of the man so far, but I think his views on capitalism are just wrong.

Another possible way (not to put words in mouths) would be to encourage people to get to know each other so that they voluntarily help each other out of love.

And I wholeheartedly agree with this philosophy. That, along with massively reducing government intervention in every facet of our lives, is something I profess every time I debate with someone who finds no issue with wealth redistribution. We can take care of each other (and of course ourselves) without our government doing it for us, usually ineffectively, on our dime.

Jeff said:

Vater said:

By that same token, that's precisely how I feel about our beloved President, who wastes hundreds of millions of our tax dollars for his vacations, fundraisers, and who knows what else, and lectures us about income inequality.

To me this is one of those irrelevant straw man arguments about any sitting president. Seriously, the guy (or woman, at some point) can't exactly go down to the local Sonic for a milkshake any time he wants.

Hard to imagine conservatives talking about the expense of Obama's "endless vacations." He doesn't have another residence outside of DC referred to as "The (X) White House."

On a separate point, where is the outrage over corporate welfare recipients that cost taxpayers 50+% more on the annual budget than do individuals...(roughly 90B to less than 60B last year). There are certainly people who will "cheat the system" to the tune of a few hundred bucks a month...and they should be ferreted out....but why no attention to those who take thousands of dollars per minute?

Honestly, I think it's because it's easier to have contempt for someone who does nothing to get something for nothing than it is someone who uses their status (earned wealth, achievements, etc.) to get something for nothing.

This came across my Facebook feed today, so I thought I might as well share it:

http://www.npr.org/2014/05/11/310784652/on-income-inequality-a-fren...t=20140511

Those are interesting theories in a strange imaginary debate. It's kind of based on a false assumption that higher taxes are intended strictly for the purpose of redistributing wealth or some other social programs, which is insanely ludicrous. Sometimes higher taxes can be used for getting to a balanced budget, as it did in the Clinton years. There's also a strange assumption that wealthy people having more money means they will more freely spend or invest that money. I can't speak for others, but I do pretty well, and after the last decade, I honestly get nervous if I'm not packing away serious coin for a rainy day.

Sometimes I'm not sure what economy the economists are looking at.

I guess I didn't read him to be saying the only purpose for higher taxes is for redistributing wealth or other social programs. Just that they can be used for that. Not saying I am agreeing with the approach but just that I how I read it.

As for balancing the budget in the 90s, dot-com boom and boomers in highest earning years (both of which led to huge amounts of receipts to treasury (with or without higher marginal tax rates)) and reduced military spending had a much bigger role.

Presumably he is talking about people making a lot more money and with a lot more wealth than any of us here. Though unless you are putting your rainy day fund under your mattress or burying it in coffee cans in the backyard, you are making investments.

I prefer a secret wall safe behind a painting of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

The reduced military spending in the Clinton years was definitely a factor, but it's still interesting that the appetite for higher taxes on "the 1%" (before people called them that) was a lot higher. With that appetite gone, and military spending still entirely too high, it's no surprise that we're still drowning in deficits. As soon as you talk about reducing military spending, the fear mongers jump up and say you hate freedom or we're putting ourselves at risk.

Investor enthusiasm of the time didn't have that much to do with the dotcom era (which didn't start in earnest until 1999), because if you look at the Dow, it had healthy growth and few tech companies. That's an anecdote from memory, mind you, so I could be wrong.

Not only is the appetite for higher taxes on the top gone, but its gone as well for everyone else. Biggest part of the Bush tax cuts went to the non-"rich." If I remember right it was something in the magnitude of 2-3 times what went to the "rich." No one ever talked about being able to afford the non-rich tax cuts. It was just a given. I thought at the time they were enacted, those tax cuts were dumb (on everyone) and never would have extended any of them.

Its amazing to me the number of people who say we can't cut 50 cents from the defense budget. Even if the non-politician folks in charge of the military say we can.

I think you are right in terms of the dot com boom being later in the decade. But the overall market optimism was mid-90s if I recall. Down days were viewed as investing opportunities. Boomers were trying to catch up on retirement savings and were pumping huge amounts into the stock market (which was yet another bubble). Entire market was viewed as something that could not have extended down period (in part at least because you had people with no experience in market going head first into it).

A big factor back then that doesn't exist today were social security surpluses. Boomers were in their peak income years and thus peak social security tax paying years. Now they are retiring taking record amounts out in social security benefits. Just like the two people in Andy's piece acknowledge that the 1950s were a unique time that we cannot duplicate at this point, I think the same is true in terms of the 90s and social security. Deficits are projected to decrease until 2016 when they start to climb out to the horizon in large part because of social security and medicare.

* Edited to add: Greenspan made his "irrational exuberance" statement in December 1996. I think the dot com bubble is viewed to run from 1997 to 2000 so that wasn't what brought about Greenspan's comment.

On the subject of Self Interest vs The Greater Good:

http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/zero-moment/mathematics-murder-s...e-save-two

Interesting to think about using technology to determine common good (in an instant in the case of the robot driven vehicle). Two lives greater than one. Though there would be nuances. Young life over old one? Healthy over sick?

And even with all of the technology, there still will be our old friend chance, right? So outcomes of different actions won't necessarily be certain, will they? And by the time we get to that point, who knows what safety systems will permit.

The poor against Obama?

(not sure why stories that keep making me think of this thread keep popping up for me)

Racists.

I wish that were just a joke, but having worked remotely for a Kentucky company, I think there might be some truth to that. That's unfortunate, because there are plenty of bona fide policy issues to rag on.

In Kentucky (not to pick on our Wildcat friends too much) - ObamaCare has a 57% unfavorable rating, while Kynect, the state's implementation of ACA under a less obvious name, has only a 22% unfavorable rating. Same law, same program, VASTLY different impressions.

Grr. I accidentally deleted my comment last night, so Jeff's response doesn't make sense now. Suggestion - add an "are you sure?" pop-up that comes up when you click the Delete button.

So now to respond to Gonchar's post (again), now severely out of order:

Racists.