Prior to my vacation this summer I was getting into a very necessary aspect of this topic- how much the government takes in in taxes, how much it spends, and broadly, in which areas- military, social aid, national debt, etc. Before proceeding further I am going to take a step back and tie the extent of one’s education to one’s expected financial earnings. Hopefully this is a task that will be more delicately done than accepting the, ahem- crappy job of narrator of a documentary about how effectively hippos release previously stored deposits of dung from the river bottom in order to discourage wildebeasts from crossing the said body of water in their territory. I could make an analogy between that endeavor and following the herd to the voting booth to choose between one pathetic democratic or republican candidate or another- but I'll abstain.
Don’t sound the alarm: In a June 17, 2007 Star Tribune editorial concerning Minnesota’s higher education needs, it was revealed that Minnesotans spent $7.31 in tax dollars per every $1000 of personal income, which ranked Minnesota 25th in the nation. Well, one state has to be in the middle of the road, a couple states have to be the best at something, and some have to be the worst- you can’t be the best in the nation at everything. And if we’re in the middle of the pack on education spending, then we may be the best-ranked state in terms of livability, and maybe trending toward the worst in terms of the number of gangs per 1000 people. I’m just trying to be reasonable. If you are alarmed by everything you read, you are dismissed, even if you bring plenty of alleged facts into the discussion that others do not want to hear. I am officially on guard anytime I read something from the Star-Tribune because they are not very objective politically, to say the least. They’d support an illegal alien, homosexual tree-frog who spear-heads a lobbyist group called the Bowel Movement, whose major desire is to be allowed to evacuate on city walkways because a limited study indicated that feces on sidewalks could environmentally improve the earth beneath the cement. Not wanting to be proven wrong is many people’s greatest fear, which is not quite as strange as a puppet’s strange attraction for a certain bird species, but it is close. Gonzo’s (from The Muppet Show) romantic proclivity for chickens is just slightly more disturbing than Bert’s (from Sesame Street) unhealthy co-dependence on pigeons- (poor Ernie). Inexplicable- for death awaits no matter how encouraged you might be about the voracity of your beliefs. Being wrong is alarming, but some are more concerned about that than the death that awaits after a voting career where they've done nothing but continue to justify the political good-old-boys.
Taxing Education: I happen to think that just because you throw a lot of money at a problem, it doesn’t mean that the situation improves, in short, you can (and I wouldn’t have this knowledge firsthand mind you), but shouldn’t, put a lot of dresses on a pig, or even one. It is how the money is spent that counts, which is what I was getting at last time with how the government allocates the money it collects from personal and corporate income taxes, among other sources. According to the editorial, the U of M and Minnesota’s State Colleges and Universities had a good legislative session in gaining increases of “17 and 13 percent, respectively, over the coming two years.” The reason that this is good news is that giving them tax dollars, which might be spent elsewhere, but goes instead to education, will hopefully slow the meteoric rise of college tuition.
Taxed coming or going: Sure, one way or the other, we’re paying for our education- and as the editorial reveals, and it is hard to disagree- “the rising tuition has been the result of the state’s tightfistedness toward its colleges and universities.” We either pay for it coming, by how our tax money is directed (I cite the increases from links to articles I've already referenced in previous installments on this topic) to Minnesota colleges and universities, or going, with a tuition hike if money is not directed to colleges and universities. Again, I think this true in moderation, that it depends on how those responsible for directing higher education money are spending it. If I’m making no sense so far, providing you are still reading this blog series, then prove me wrong. Otherwise, in terms of social importance, I might just barely rank ahead of the guy making balloon animals at the TGI Fridays.
Middle class exemption: The article also states things I reasonably believe to be true with a couple of caveats:
1- needy students can obtain a significant discount on tuition costs through the State Grant Program- (unfortunately, I don’t necessarily find this to be true, I didn’t receive any assistance and could have used it. If you live at home and the Grant people survey your financially struggling, divorced mother’s bank account, whose fairly limited savings is earmarked for her retirement, and find the amount of money to be “substantial,” it will get counted against you. I put myself through college- an option that won’t be possible for middle class kids in generations to come because of the rising tuition costs);
2. “the higher the share of college graduates in a state’s population, the larger the state’s median personal and household income. The higher the share of high-school graduates in a state’s population, the lower the unemployment and poverty rates.” (I have a graph in my word document but it won't paste here so I'll have to summarize what they found to be true in 2003 in regard to what level of education equates to what annual salary):
Advanced degree $72,000
Bachelor's degree $51,000
Some college $38,000
High school grad. $30,000
High school dropout $20,000
The editorial ranks the U of M, state colleges, and community colleges undergraduate programs against all other states nationally, and the average tuition in each case is higher in Minnesota than the national average; (Problem here is that costs are going up nationally. I’m not overly concerned with how specific states are doing, as the continued strain on the middle class economically is a national issue and not a regional one);
Much of the information comes from Tom Mortenson, whose report titled “Minnesota Coasting” documents the trend of rising higher education costs- the entirety of which can be found at: www.postsecondary.org including the missing graph, and the sentence: “States with better educated workforces are stronger on all measures of economic welfare.” Sure, this may be one person’s opinion or one website’s findings, but how many websites, studies, articles, percentages and dollar amounts would convince you of something that is nearly innately true? If you want to see if this site is reliable, head there in order to find the almighty percentages, the fractions, and the number of high school graduates matriculating to college;
Work it out: Republicans, who often make the point of stating that corporations won’t want to settle into a state’s economic system if corporate taxes are unfavorable, miss that the truth contained in #2 above is just as important an indicator of a state’s economic well-being. If you don’t have intelligent, skilled laborers comprising the workforce in a given state, how exactly is that corporation going to thrive? If the average republican can’t see this- then they’re probably interested in using leeches for all of their blood transfusion needs- just not the leeches and immigrants abusing the system. I thought this to be true prior to having read it elsewhere, and I just discovered it in my research for next time- in the 2000 press release link I will provide. The truth is fairly self-evident, given enough thought, and if a guy who bought into the theory that removing warts from your feet using strips of duct tape has surmised this likelihood, I must not be as dim-witted as I thought . . . or something;
If you can still deny these proofs you probably haven’t noticed the third-rate singers lip-synching terrible pop songs on The Tribute to Underdog Float at the Macy’s Thanksgiving day parade, run out of gas often, and forget the names of your own children. In short, go to the clinic and get tested- something is wrong with your mind.
Next time: More on how "necessary costs" from the private market will continue to tax (put a strain on) the middle class.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Monday, August 13, 2007
Middle Class Part 6: Where I Suspect I'm Going
I’m back. Start the insanity.
After a summer of news headlines featuring- a failed immigration bill, a wrestler committing a double-murder and suicide trifecta, Paris Hilton’s release from prison, incessant Kevin Garnett trade rumors, Michael Vick’s indictment for running a dog-fighting ring, the collapse of a well-travelled bridge, not to mention my own annual battle with sugar ants, I will withhold further comment on all of those and jump right into a Sam’s club-sized issue; this is big- the Middle class blog epic continued- part 6.
A dead horse: I’m sure that readers are coming to this site looking for something else, something more entertaining- well, not until I’ve beaten this subject to death can I will myself away. Hey, some people name their cars, some people water their lawns in the middle of the day when half of the water evaporates, and I beat dead horses. I took a Gallup poll . . . and thing is, this horse isn’t dead. There are PLENTY of, "facts", nay, “proofs” available in newspapers, online/internet articles, magazines, and books that support my points and from which one might logically make connections about the nature of the economic road ahead for future middle class citizens. Forgive me if I haven't set all of my cards out on the table quite yet . . . I'm still betting. I hate formulaic movies and books, and have a hard time writing linearly, because I like to exercise my imagination; if you love movies because the plots are familiar and books because of a certain genre- well, I'm sorry already. I'm directionally impaired and it seems that extends to the route I take to get to the crux of the matter with my blog topics. Forgive me if the subject matter this time out doesn't seem to build noticeably on what I established last time I posted. It is related, even if you can't see how at this point.
Skeptics and Revisionists: I’ve given a lot of information thus far, and I’m sure there are skeptics who question just about everything, except for their appetite for subjectivity. They continue to worship the proof not even a scientist can provide them and wouldn’t be convinced a set of Botox treatments would fill in the wrinkles on the face of a sharpie. Too many people wait for something to happen and then comment on its relative insignificance or importance- like how revisionists are stating that the gas tax should have been raised so that our roads and bridges could be improved and maintained. And, all of the money generated from the increased tax on gas would have gone to the 35W bridge. Nonsense! The trick is to be the odds maker of fortune and consider things that might happen. The economic forsaking of future generations of middle class kids by excessive taxation (a political issue) and the hefty price tags on PLENTY of products and services by businesses offering “necessary cost” items (a free market issue) will prevent the middle class from being economically able to afford a college education, because they won't be able to get married, go on a honeymoon, buy a house and a car and attend college- they won't be able to make enough money. I feel compelled to comment on this likelihood now, before it happens. If I’m wrong- wouldn’t that be great? While the middle class dilemma I see coming is hardly an "ideal" I can't wait for it to be realized before it is worthy of comment- it is worthy of comment now:
“An ideal cannot wait for its realization to prove its validity.” - George Santayana
By Degrees: I don’t want to overvalue a degree, because I have seen complete morons who have obtained one, probably through the mail, and am surprised they could work a stamp to send for it. I have also known those who have not “earned” a degree who are intelligent, and who reason more effectively than PLENTY of their “educated” counterparts. The financially leveraged college degree, or the lack of one, is almost as often a potential ticket to affluence than a demonstration of intelligence. I have a degree, but I do boneheaded things every day. A full realization of the problems facing the middle class is largely dependent on one’s class. If a person is doing fairly well, they are likely to be more apathetic or downright confrontational if you claim that things could be better, because they are hard-pressed to imagine things being better for them. I have seemed to complain a lot on behalf of successive generations of middle-class kids and their right to afford any number of things that might properly be termed- “necessary costs,” a right to an affordable college education among them. I’ve written to senators and district house representatives about immigration and the Twins stadium issue, so I don’t merely desire to fight battles with windmills, at least not exclusively. In fact, I have a strong hunch Don Quixote's antics will be considered more productive than mine.
Proposals: Below are four things I would do to begin to alleviate a money crunch that will soon overtax the coming generations of middle class kids. I’m sure you look forward to my constant diatribes at least as much as the ridding from your imaginations of the image of a giraffe spooning with an iguana slated for gender reassignment surgery, an image which wasn’t in place until just now- ha! There is some irreverence in them, but you can't get anything done if you don't upset someone's pristine notion of fairness. These are the short answer ideas, the embellishment and detail will likely come later, perhaps in various other associated blog topics, after I’ve exhausted this particular topic:
1) Find out how much of the $527 billion that is annually directed to military/defense spending is spent needlessly, and negotiate that price down; find out how much of it is earmarked for defense contractors, and how much is guaranteed to maintain the functionality of cold war weaponry that may never be used, etc.;
2) Likewise- remove the funding to the Welfare system that goes to people who abuse the system- who don’t look for jobs, who use money to support drug habits, who continue to have children, they, and society at large, cannot afford for them to have. Defense spending and money distributed to major social aid programs comprise a combined 49% of the federal budget- shouldn’t the money be spent wisely after we learn how and where money is currently directed?
3) Stop catering to the rich- the richest 1-5% of citizens and the corporations. No more corporate welfare. Change all state tax laws that make it a less attractive option for a corporation or little man with a big business idea to go to Vermont to start or grow a business than to stay put in Nebraska. That way, a business can’t hold a state, the state’s legislative and governing bodies, and worse yet, because of the potential for lost jobs, the citizens of that state, hostage by threatening to move their business. The free market won't crumble if you alter this aspect of it.
4) Pass a god-damned immigration bill! Make legal the 12+ million illegals that are already here. Many of them are doing a lot of work. Spend the money that would be saved by not hunting down every illegal on hunting down the illegals who are breaking other laws (besides being here illegally), that center around violence, drugs, gangs, irreverence, taxation, identity theft, etc. All immigrants must learn English, and cannot sue people for illegitimate reasons (more on that in the more complete version of the list). They must not prevent us from dressing our kids in Halloween costumes and sending them to school and saying “Christmas” whenever we please, (and again, I gave up being a christian for lent about 18 years ago), and they must pay taxes (which I understand plenty of them do). We could then concentrate on border control, citizen identification cards, making sure they can read traffic signs and acquire a driver's license only after demonstrating they can drive a car (I know, I'm shooting for the moon), and allow in only those who are productive, law-abiding, Americana-genuflecting immigrants. With that, and with an eye on #3 above, make it no more attractive for an illegal immigrant to settle in Minnesota, because of the welfare laws, than in Montana.
Four Limbs: I stopped at four because I think those are the most important. The other ideas aren’t all that less important, but these are just so big. Yes, yes, logistically, people would argue against undermining state’s rights, specifically where taxation is concerned, and we would have to get into the constitutionality of it all. But you have to start somewhere. It is thought that limbs once broken heal to be stronger than they were before. This country has many weak limbs in need of being broken, and coincidentally we have four limbs. Huh, ironic.
To show you that I am on the level, no anarchist, and worse yet, not a dismissively pompous republican or democrat, just someone in between who thinks that the rich should be a little more like Robin Hood and the poor not so much of a collective leech-gatherer, I give you the very quotable Winston Churchill-
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
Capitalism and Democracy: Capitalism has thus far proven to be the most effective economic system for fostering the free exchange of products, services, ideas, and money. There are some issues with it, but I can see no other economic system that has been as successful. I read Milton Friedman’s book- Capitalism and Freedom this summer. And though, he probably still knows more about economics, than I could ever hope to comprehend, and he’s been dead for nine months, I found a few faults in his line of thinking- foremost among them- that capitalism and democracy in concert, working together, are doing just fine, excepting that the rich are penalized too much for their success and the poor rewarded too often for their failure, according to him. Capitalism has been a grand success for reasons that if you have stomached reading to this point, you don’t need me to detail for you. But democracy? Yeah, riiiiiight- and there is no meaningful connection between children who spend their time at daycare and the prevalence of diagnosed cases of ear infections.
Four Score and "Soylent Green" spoiler warning: Another reason I stopped at four and decided that those four were the most imperative things to consider altering is because among them you will find that I am no republican as I desire to question outlays to the military and the filthy rich, and I am no democrat, as I would forsake the social aid/welfare people who are clearly abusing the system. I am what many people would be if they stopped continually voting for the lesser of two evils each election- sane. Yeah, I make up for that sanity by being crazy elsewhere. Sure, much of what I've written in the nine months since I started this blog is dismissed because it is combative, elusive, extremist, nonsensical and irreverent, and people think that I don't mean it, I'm just looking for shock value, like just about every other blogger out there. No, I actually think we should legitimize a third and fourth political party. I'm not being irreverent unnecessarily, but rather purposefully, with better intentions than most who continue to vote blindly like a barn full of livestock merely following the herd. I'm irreverent for a reason, but sometimes it just happens accidentally. While we are not slaves, or the proletariat in a socialist state, and we aren't served up as food like in the fairly unpredictable storyline of Charleton Heston's "Soylent Green," after we have ceased to lead productive lives, it is becoming a little more clear that the degree of liberty we enjoy is at issue. And shouldn't someone comment on this for the benefit of successive generations?
"Irreverence is the champion of Liberty"- Mark Twain
It is quite ironic, that I just this weekend heard that line in a speech given by Robin Williams playing the role of a president in "Man of the Year," a somewhat formulaic movie about a man elected to office, helped out by a computer glitch, who tells people the truth, whose irreverence for the status quo is downright respectable.
Next time- I'll take a few steps back- just wanted to show how profoundly far-reaching this topic is- that will make you long for my disgust for people who are apalled by someone putting ketchup on "their" steak.
After a summer of news headlines featuring- a failed immigration bill, a wrestler committing a double-murder and suicide trifecta, Paris Hilton’s release from prison, incessant Kevin Garnett trade rumors, Michael Vick’s indictment for running a dog-fighting ring, the collapse of a well-travelled bridge, not to mention my own annual battle with sugar ants, I will withhold further comment on all of those and jump right into a Sam’s club-sized issue; this is big- the Middle class blog epic continued- part 6.
A dead horse: I’m sure that readers are coming to this site looking for something else, something more entertaining- well, not until I’ve beaten this subject to death can I will myself away. Hey, some people name their cars, some people water their lawns in the middle of the day when half of the water evaporates, and I beat dead horses. I took a Gallup poll . . . and thing is, this horse isn’t dead. There are PLENTY of, "facts", nay, “proofs” available in newspapers, online/internet articles, magazines, and books that support my points and from which one might logically make connections about the nature of the economic road ahead for future middle class citizens. Forgive me if I haven't set all of my cards out on the table quite yet . . . I'm still betting. I hate formulaic movies and books, and have a hard time writing linearly, because I like to exercise my imagination; if you love movies because the plots are familiar and books because of a certain genre- well, I'm sorry already. I'm directionally impaired and it seems that extends to the route I take to get to the crux of the matter with my blog topics. Forgive me if the subject matter this time out doesn't seem to build noticeably on what I established last time I posted. It is related, even if you can't see how at this point.
Skeptics and Revisionists: I’ve given a lot of information thus far, and I’m sure there are skeptics who question just about everything, except for their appetite for subjectivity. They continue to worship the proof not even a scientist can provide them and wouldn’t be convinced a set of Botox treatments would fill in the wrinkles on the face of a sharpie. Too many people wait for something to happen and then comment on its relative insignificance or importance- like how revisionists are stating that the gas tax should have been raised so that our roads and bridges could be improved and maintained. And, all of the money generated from the increased tax on gas would have gone to the 35W bridge. Nonsense! The trick is to be the odds maker of fortune and consider things that might happen. The economic forsaking of future generations of middle class kids by excessive taxation (a political issue) and the hefty price tags on PLENTY of products and services by businesses offering “necessary cost” items (a free market issue) will prevent the middle class from being economically able to afford a college education, because they won't be able to get married, go on a honeymoon, buy a house and a car and attend college- they won't be able to make enough money. I feel compelled to comment on this likelihood now, before it happens. If I’m wrong- wouldn’t that be great? While the middle class dilemma I see coming is hardly an "ideal" I can't wait for it to be realized before it is worthy of comment- it is worthy of comment now:
“An ideal cannot wait for its realization to prove its validity.” - George Santayana
By Degrees: I don’t want to overvalue a degree, because I have seen complete morons who have obtained one, probably through the mail, and am surprised they could work a stamp to send for it. I have also known those who have not “earned” a degree who are intelligent, and who reason more effectively than PLENTY of their “educated” counterparts. The financially leveraged college degree, or the lack of one, is almost as often a potential ticket to affluence than a demonstration of intelligence. I have a degree, but I do boneheaded things every day. A full realization of the problems facing the middle class is largely dependent on one’s class. If a person is doing fairly well, they are likely to be more apathetic or downright confrontational if you claim that things could be better, because they are hard-pressed to imagine things being better for them. I have seemed to complain a lot on behalf of successive generations of middle-class kids and their right to afford any number of things that might properly be termed- “necessary costs,” a right to an affordable college education among them. I’ve written to senators and district house representatives about immigration and the Twins stadium issue, so I don’t merely desire to fight battles with windmills, at least not exclusively. In fact, I have a strong hunch Don Quixote's antics will be considered more productive than mine.
Proposals: Below are four things I would do to begin to alleviate a money crunch that will soon overtax the coming generations of middle class kids. I’m sure you look forward to my constant diatribes at least as much as the ridding from your imaginations of the image of a giraffe spooning with an iguana slated for gender reassignment surgery, an image which wasn’t in place until just now- ha! There is some irreverence in them, but you can't get anything done if you don't upset someone's pristine notion of fairness. These are the short answer ideas, the embellishment and detail will likely come later, perhaps in various other associated blog topics, after I’ve exhausted this particular topic:
1) Find out how much of the $527 billion that is annually directed to military/defense spending is spent needlessly, and negotiate that price down; find out how much of it is earmarked for defense contractors, and how much is guaranteed to maintain the functionality of cold war weaponry that may never be used, etc.;
2) Likewise- remove the funding to the Welfare system that goes to people who abuse the system- who don’t look for jobs, who use money to support drug habits, who continue to have children, they, and society at large, cannot afford for them to have. Defense spending and money distributed to major social aid programs comprise a combined 49% of the federal budget- shouldn’t the money be spent wisely after we learn how and where money is currently directed?
3) Stop catering to the rich- the richest 1-5% of citizens and the corporations. No more corporate welfare. Change all state tax laws that make it a less attractive option for a corporation or little man with a big business idea to go to Vermont to start or grow a business than to stay put in Nebraska. That way, a business can’t hold a state, the state’s legislative and governing bodies, and worse yet, because of the potential for lost jobs, the citizens of that state, hostage by threatening to move their business. The free market won't crumble if you alter this aspect of it.
4) Pass a god-damned immigration bill! Make legal the 12+ million illegals that are already here. Many of them are doing a lot of work. Spend the money that would be saved by not hunting down every illegal on hunting down the illegals who are breaking other laws (besides being here illegally), that center around violence, drugs, gangs, irreverence, taxation, identity theft, etc. All immigrants must learn English, and cannot sue people for illegitimate reasons (more on that in the more complete version of the list). They must not prevent us from dressing our kids in Halloween costumes and sending them to school and saying “Christmas” whenever we please, (and again, I gave up being a christian for lent about 18 years ago), and they must pay taxes (which I understand plenty of them do). We could then concentrate on border control, citizen identification cards, making sure they can read traffic signs and acquire a driver's license only after demonstrating they can drive a car (I know, I'm shooting for the moon), and allow in only those who are productive, law-abiding, Americana-genuflecting immigrants. With that, and with an eye on #3 above, make it no more attractive for an illegal immigrant to settle in Minnesota, because of the welfare laws, than in Montana.
Four Limbs: I stopped at four because I think those are the most important. The other ideas aren’t all that less important, but these are just so big. Yes, yes, logistically, people would argue against undermining state’s rights, specifically where taxation is concerned, and we would have to get into the constitutionality of it all. But you have to start somewhere. It is thought that limbs once broken heal to be stronger than they were before. This country has many weak limbs in need of being broken, and coincidentally we have four limbs. Huh, ironic.
To show you that I am on the level, no anarchist, and worse yet, not a dismissively pompous republican or democrat, just someone in between who thinks that the rich should be a little more like Robin Hood and the poor not so much of a collective leech-gatherer, I give you the very quotable Winston Churchill-
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
Capitalism and Democracy: Capitalism has thus far proven to be the most effective economic system for fostering the free exchange of products, services, ideas, and money. There are some issues with it, but I can see no other economic system that has been as successful. I read Milton Friedman’s book- Capitalism and Freedom this summer. And though, he probably still knows more about economics, than I could ever hope to comprehend, and he’s been dead for nine months, I found a few faults in his line of thinking- foremost among them- that capitalism and democracy in concert, working together, are doing just fine, excepting that the rich are penalized too much for their success and the poor rewarded too often for their failure, according to him. Capitalism has been a grand success for reasons that if you have stomached reading to this point, you don’t need me to detail for you. But democracy? Yeah, riiiiiight- and there is no meaningful connection between children who spend their time at daycare and the prevalence of diagnosed cases of ear infections.
Four Score and "Soylent Green" spoiler warning: Another reason I stopped at four and decided that those four were the most imperative things to consider altering is because among them you will find that I am no republican as I desire to question outlays to the military and the filthy rich, and I am no democrat, as I would forsake the social aid/welfare people who are clearly abusing the system. I am what many people would be if they stopped continually voting for the lesser of two evils each election- sane. Yeah, I make up for that sanity by being crazy elsewhere. Sure, much of what I've written in the nine months since I started this blog is dismissed because it is combative, elusive, extremist, nonsensical and irreverent, and people think that I don't mean it, I'm just looking for shock value, like just about every other blogger out there. No, I actually think we should legitimize a third and fourth political party. I'm not being irreverent unnecessarily, but rather purposefully, with better intentions than most who continue to vote blindly like a barn full of livestock merely following the herd. I'm irreverent for a reason, but sometimes it just happens accidentally. While we are not slaves, or the proletariat in a socialist state, and we aren't served up as food like in the fairly unpredictable storyline of Charleton Heston's "Soylent Green," after we have ceased to lead productive lives, it is becoming a little more clear that the degree of liberty we enjoy is at issue. And shouldn't someone comment on this for the benefit of successive generations?
"Irreverence is the champion of Liberty"- Mark Twain
It is quite ironic, that I just this weekend heard that line in a speech given by Robin Williams playing the role of a president in "Man of the Year," a somewhat formulaic movie about a man elected to office, helped out by a computer glitch, who tells people the truth, whose irreverence for the status quo is downright respectable.
Next time- I'll take a few steps back- just wanted to show how profoundly far-reaching this topic is- that will make you long for my disgust for people who are apalled by someone putting ketchup on "their" steak.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Middle Class Part 5: Paying to Live for Free
Now- Get: See, I get it. It boils down to, and I realized this quite some time ago, that the only way to get paid a lot of money for the work you do is:
1) to either learn, or be born with, an ability that not too many people have, and that people will pay to see, or to use, etc. (be able to hit a baseball thrown at 95 miles per hour, or dream up a computer software structure such as Windows that most of the country uses);
2) or work harder than most others to develop a physical or mental ability not otherwise granted to you naturally by fate;
3) be lucky or beautiful if you are not infused with talent or determination;
4) or fool people into believing you can run a multi-million dollar corporation and then accept a buyout after having proven that you don’t know the first damned thing about running a corporation.
So, the reason my kids don’t have a prayer in the world of attending a good college which will help them get a good job, that will allow them a decent living, and help them toward the social and economic goal of becoming more significant is because I am one ignorant, unmotivated, uncoordinated, talentless bastard! I get it.
This is our country: We live in a country where we are free to do plenty of things we want to do. We do, in fact, pay to live here, through various forms of taxation. And I choose that alternative rather than to live for free in Africa. I welcome being taxed as long as it is fair, and as long as it is proportional with the tax exacted from other income classes. And what I mean by fair is figuring out how much money the top 1-10% of people are accumulating and seeing how much they are taxed or otherwise giving back to the community or to charity. Because even if they are in a higher tax bracket, I wonder that the richest 5% need that many homes, vehicles, vacations, jewels, servants, etc. Dolts will tell you they earned it and many of them have, and people not even in that group will support their being able to keep all of it, but no one needs that many THINGS and I'm not a socialist for stating that very obvious point. Everyone who is not in the richest 5% shakes their head in disgust wondering at what point the richest people in the country might finally be satisfied that all their desires can be met. To everyone else, the uber-rich, and their lifestyles are instinctually disgusting.
A monopoly on class: Before making this into a class war from the get-go, I wonder that the government needs to be grabbing as much of our money as they are, including the money that many of the rich have earned by working at least as hard as anyone else- starting businesses, working long hours, late hours, overnight hours, risking their own money in the pursuit of a better life- the ultimate in capitalism. For whoever risks most should achieve most, as long as the risk is legal and fair, and doesn’t harm any but one’s competitors in the process, and as long as the victor does not create a monopoly situation, where too often the consumer has to pay more for less- whether that comes at the hands of a cable or phone company, or a chain of grocery stores that only sell one kind of canned corn and can charge more for it.
A proof pilgrimmage: In order to find out if we are over-taxed, or if we (the middle class) are overtaxed proportional to our income level compared to the upper class I have to do some research. I am in the middle of it and before beginning I had to determine if I would rather teach a blind pig how to detassle a field of corn, or do some google searching to find out where our money goes. As I remember my two days spent detassling at $3.65 an hour when I was 15, walking home with a severe sunburn and a rash between my thighs- I figured I would see how good I was at hunting down some numbers. I am probably about as qualified to start upon this long adventure as I am to teach a creature who likes to roll around in the mud any farm duties. At any rate, I typed: “where does our tax money go” into the Google search bar and was on my way. You might say this is a pilgrimmage that won’t end with any degree of satisfaction in my finding proof- at least not the kind that is believed, trusted, or welcomed by those that stand to lose the most- presented by a guy like me. They'll lose nothing to be sure, for even were I to prove my point and find millions who agree with me, nothing will change. Who am I? Well, you have to start somewhere- George Will (political and social theologian), Ken Burns (historical documentarian) and the like, are busy with other panaramic subject matter, though not as allegedly inherently fraudulent as the US government's insatiable need for tax money.
Government Intake: From an April 10, 2005 David Wallechinsky parade.com article. I learned that the government spent $2.5 trillion in 2005, at least that is what they took in. According to him, that money is collected in the following manner- income taxes- $894 billion, payroll taxes and related receipts- $774 billion and corporate income taxes- $226 billion. Along with that, the government borrows $427 billion (which is what continues to make the national debt grow, along with the interest accrued). Incidentally, an April 15, 2007 msnbc.com article written by John W. Schoen indicates that the federal government must keep track of where $2.7 trillion goes- so it seems that they get an extra 100- billion every year (as Wallechinsky in 2005 indicated the feds had $2.5 trillion to spend). Hopefully, I’m understanding the difference between $2.7 and $2.5 trillion (a difference of $200 billion?) I’m not used to dealing with numbers over a few thousand dollars.
Government outlays: Wallechinsky writes that three-fourths of the federal budget goes to four areas- the military ($527 billion), health-care (Medicare and Medicaid and other social programs- $721 billion), interest on the national debt ($321 billion) and Social Security ($519 billion). I could get into further gradations of what makes up the $527 billion to the military- things like paying out to the FBI and CIA and aid to foreign governments like Israel and Egypt, among others, and money to social aid programs like unemployment benefits and food stamp program outlays, but I think we have enough to go on at this point. I may get back to this, but if you want a more detailed view head to: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/sheets/hist03z2.xls
Wallechinsky has determined that this is the governmental spending breakdown:
Medicare, Medicaid and other Major social-aid programs: 28%
Military: 21%
Social Security: 20%
Other: 19%
National Debt Interest: 12%
Bill Me: My wife does the bills and keeps track of the money at our house and I can tell you that we can have fiscal mismanagement and would have it if I were doing the bills (we pay bills on line and I once paid the electric bill thinking I was paying the gas bill). Paying bills is tough- sometimes because we don’t have enough money coming in (a problem from which the federal government is not exempt). They can’t contain themselves from spending so much- a problem a government’s citizens can’t have. Yes, there are many differences between the financial management abilities of the federal and state governments and those of its citizens- foremost among them- the citizen is responsible for spending his own money, the government, while taxation is a necessary evil, for we wouldn’t have schools, roads and law enforcement, etc. without it, spends its citizen's money and I would guess, spends it irresponsibly. It is as if we are continually being invited to a neighbor’s house (the IRS/government) for dinner when we know he is notorious for cooking mad cow disease burgers, but out of politeness, naivete and concern about being labeled a non-conformist we passively swallow what we suspect is not good for us because we do not have the almighty proof.
What I’m saying: Now, I’d rather give myself a throat culture with a lit bottle rocket than spend the 35 hours necessary doing research on exactly where the government’s money goes (down to the last cent spent on a toilet seat in the Pentagon), but I think it not out of line or argumentatively irresponsible to assume there are plenty of millions of dollars they could and should be forced to spend in areas the public might consider more economically and socially advantageous. I’m a responsible citizen, who makes triple car payments when I can, has a retirement account, a savings account, and doesn’t charge on a credit card more than I can pay off when the bill comes. I expect my government to also be fiscally responsible, and not even so much so. If they’re taking in $2.5-$2.7 trillion there is no way they can keep track of it all, and I don't expect them to. Perhaps they can even account for where every dollar goes. My problem then would be- how in the world can you justify spending that amount of money in that area, in that department (for social aid- on people abusing the welfare system, or for space and technology- for yet another telescope, when you could be paying more on the national debt or for better border control). And if you can- if every expense is dutifully, heart-wrenchingly necessary, then, AND ONLY THEN, for christ's sake, take more from the people who have the most- the richest 1-10%. Because as I've stated a few times in the last six weeks, middle class kids won't be able to afford a college education if they have to pay for it on their own- because of the increased prices of other necessary costs- (rent, vehicles, homes, mortgages, weddings, furnaces, child care). There is the thesis, the neat little bow of a point, and I will seek to continue to tie it together when the summer is more mature.
I'm spent: The government probably is being completely conscientious and responsible in deciding where our money is spent; uh . . . no, I’d sooner believe that an aardvark could kick a crystal meth habit with the assistance of a grizzly bear who ate all the people who showed up in his cave for a Viagra dependence intervention than that the government is responsibly handling our tax money.
Hiatus: I’m going on a break of an indeterminate amount of time- and not because I have been audited and found to be delinquent in paying my taxes, but only to pacify my negative number of readers. This will allow them to digest the first five installments of this topic. I’ll be spending some time with my family, doing some research, golfing, yard work, drinking, reading, and writing- for this topic will find it into a book at some point- a book no one will read . . . kind of like the contents of some blogs. I wouldn't do this much work for no reason at all. Have a good summer!
1) to either learn, or be born with, an ability that not too many people have, and that people will pay to see, or to use, etc. (be able to hit a baseball thrown at 95 miles per hour, or dream up a computer software structure such as Windows that most of the country uses);
2) or work harder than most others to develop a physical or mental ability not otherwise granted to you naturally by fate;
3) be lucky or beautiful if you are not infused with talent or determination;
4) or fool people into believing you can run a multi-million dollar corporation and then accept a buyout after having proven that you don’t know the first damned thing about running a corporation.
So, the reason my kids don’t have a prayer in the world of attending a good college which will help them get a good job, that will allow them a decent living, and help them toward the social and economic goal of becoming more significant is because I am one ignorant, unmotivated, uncoordinated, talentless bastard! I get it.
This is our country: We live in a country where we are free to do plenty of things we want to do. We do, in fact, pay to live here, through various forms of taxation. And I choose that alternative rather than to live for free in Africa. I welcome being taxed as long as it is fair, and as long as it is proportional with the tax exacted from other income classes. And what I mean by fair is figuring out how much money the top 1-10% of people are accumulating and seeing how much they are taxed or otherwise giving back to the community or to charity. Because even if they are in a higher tax bracket, I wonder that the richest 5% need that many homes, vehicles, vacations, jewels, servants, etc. Dolts will tell you they earned it and many of them have, and people not even in that group will support their being able to keep all of it, but no one needs that many THINGS and I'm not a socialist for stating that very obvious point. Everyone who is not in the richest 5% shakes their head in disgust wondering at what point the richest people in the country might finally be satisfied that all their desires can be met. To everyone else, the uber-rich, and their lifestyles are instinctually disgusting.
A monopoly on class: Before making this into a class war from the get-go, I wonder that the government needs to be grabbing as much of our money as they are, including the money that many of the rich have earned by working at least as hard as anyone else- starting businesses, working long hours, late hours, overnight hours, risking their own money in the pursuit of a better life- the ultimate in capitalism. For whoever risks most should achieve most, as long as the risk is legal and fair, and doesn’t harm any but one’s competitors in the process, and as long as the victor does not create a monopoly situation, where too often the consumer has to pay more for less- whether that comes at the hands of a cable or phone company, or a chain of grocery stores that only sell one kind of canned corn and can charge more for it.
A proof pilgrimmage: In order to find out if we are over-taxed, or if we (the middle class) are overtaxed proportional to our income level compared to the upper class I have to do some research. I am in the middle of it and before beginning I had to determine if I would rather teach a blind pig how to detassle a field of corn, or do some google searching to find out where our money goes. As I remember my two days spent detassling at $3.65 an hour when I was 15, walking home with a severe sunburn and a rash between my thighs- I figured I would see how good I was at hunting down some numbers. I am probably about as qualified to start upon this long adventure as I am to teach a creature who likes to roll around in the mud any farm duties. At any rate, I typed: “where does our tax money go” into the Google search bar and was on my way. You might say this is a pilgrimmage that won’t end with any degree of satisfaction in my finding proof- at least not the kind that is believed, trusted, or welcomed by those that stand to lose the most- presented by a guy like me. They'll lose nothing to be sure, for even were I to prove my point and find millions who agree with me, nothing will change. Who am I? Well, you have to start somewhere- George Will (political and social theologian), Ken Burns (historical documentarian) and the like, are busy with other panaramic subject matter, though not as allegedly inherently fraudulent as the US government's insatiable need for tax money.
Government Intake: From an April 10, 2005 David Wallechinsky parade.com article. I learned that the government spent $2.5 trillion in 2005, at least that is what they took in. According to him, that money is collected in the following manner- income taxes- $894 billion, payroll taxes and related receipts- $774 billion and corporate income taxes- $226 billion. Along with that, the government borrows $427 billion (which is what continues to make the national debt grow, along with the interest accrued). Incidentally, an April 15, 2007 msnbc.com article written by John W. Schoen indicates that the federal government must keep track of where $2.7 trillion goes- so it seems that they get an extra 100- billion every year (as Wallechinsky in 2005 indicated the feds had $2.5 trillion to spend). Hopefully, I’m understanding the difference between $2.7 and $2.5 trillion (a difference of $200 billion?) I’m not used to dealing with numbers over a few thousand dollars.
Government outlays: Wallechinsky writes that three-fourths of the federal budget goes to four areas- the military ($527 billion), health-care (Medicare and Medicaid and other social programs- $721 billion), interest on the national debt ($321 billion) and Social Security ($519 billion). I could get into further gradations of what makes up the $527 billion to the military- things like paying out to the FBI and CIA and aid to foreign governments like Israel and Egypt, among others, and money to social aid programs like unemployment benefits and food stamp program outlays, but I think we have enough to go on at this point. I may get back to this, but if you want a more detailed view head to: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/sheets/hist03z2.xls
Wallechinsky has determined that this is the governmental spending breakdown:
Medicare, Medicaid and other Major social-aid programs: 28%
Military: 21%
Social Security: 20%
Other: 19%
National Debt Interest: 12%
Bill Me: My wife does the bills and keeps track of the money at our house and I can tell you that we can have fiscal mismanagement and would have it if I were doing the bills (we pay bills on line and I once paid the electric bill thinking I was paying the gas bill). Paying bills is tough- sometimes because we don’t have enough money coming in (a problem from which the federal government is not exempt). They can’t contain themselves from spending so much- a problem a government’s citizens can’t have. Yes, there are many differences between the financial management abilities of the federal and state governments and those of its citizens- foremost among them- the citizen is responsible for spending his own money, the government, while taxation is a necessary evil, for we wouldn’t have schools, roads and law enforcement, etc. without it, spends its citizen's money and I would guess, spends it irresponsibly. It is as if we are continually being invited to a neighbor’s house (the IRS/government) for dinner when we know he is notorious for cooking mad cow disease burgers, but out of politeness, naivete and concern about being labeled a non-conformist we passively swallow what we suspect is not good for us because we do not have the almighty proof.
What I’m saying: Now, I’d rather give myself a throat culture with a lit bottle rocket than spend the 35 hours necessary doing research on exactly where the government’s money goes (down to the last cent spent on a toilet seat in the Pentagon), but I think it not out of line or argumentatively irresponsible to assume there are plenty of millions of dollars they could and should be forced to spend in areas the public might consider more economically and socially advantageous. I’m a responsible citizen, who makes triple car payments when I can, has a retirement account, a savings account, and doesn’t charge on a credit card more than I can pay off when the bill comes. I expect my government to also be fiscally responsible, and not even so much so. If they’re taking in $2.5-$2.7 trillion there is no way they can keep track of it all, and I don't expect them to. Perhaps they can even account for where every dollar goes. My problem then would be- how in the world can you justify spending that amount of money in that area, in that department (for social aid- on people abusing the welfare system, or for space and technology- for yet another telescope, when you could be paying more on the national debt or for better border control). And if you can- if every expense is dutifully, heart-wrenchingly necessary, then, AND ONLY THEN, for christ's sake, take more from the people who have the most- the richest 1-10%. Because as I've stated a few times in the last six weeks, middle class kids won't be able to afford a college education if they have to pay for it on their own- because of the increased prices of other necessary costs- (rent, vehicles, homes, mortgages, weddings, furnaces, child care). There is the thesis, the neat little bow of a point, and I will seek to continue to tie it together when the summer is more mature.
I'm spent: The government probably is being completely conscientious and responsible in deciding where our money is spent; uh . . . no, I’d sooner believe that an aardvark could kick a crystal meth habit with the assistance of a grizzly bear who ate all the people who showed up in his cave for a Viagra dependence intervention than that the government is responsibly handling our tax money.
Hiatus: I’m going on a break of an indeterminate amount of time- and not because I have been audited and found to be delinquent in paying my taxes, but only to pacify my negative number of readers. This will allow them to digest the first five installments of this topic. I’ll be spending some time with my family, doing some research, golfing, yard work, drinking, reading, and writing- for this topic will find it into a book at some point- a book no one will read . . . kind of like the contents of some blogs. I wouldn't do this much work for no reason at all. Have a good summer!
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Middle Class Part 4: Rebuttal from Talk-Show Bob
Summary: I have detailed what I included, (or would have if a certain local talk-show host wasn't so hell-bent on thinking that everything should be proven instantly), over the course of a week long email exchange. And I must say, I felt a little like one of the members of Scooby-Doo's mystery solving party, attempting to prove that my hunch about there being political and economic ghosts haunting the middle class, was justifiable. For a look at how many things are difficult to prove see my column from May 2nd- due to space concerns, that is just the abridged version.
His "Points"-
1) the middle class is not shrinking or endangered; (this was never my point- it was that the income disparity between the upper and middle class will continue to grow; I continually corrected him on this point; perhaps he thought disproving a theory about the shrinking of the middle class would be easier for him);
2) “You can send me articles on medical costs all day”- (I was not aware that I had been so remiss in stating my point- all five of the links I sent had to do with the rising costs of college tuition; a kitten unleashed in JoAnn Fabrics that has never seen a ball of yarn in its life has more focus);
3) told me I “couldn’t prove my point,” “couldn’t prove it,” “can’t prove it,” “you haven’t proven it” about 15 times; (he is very intent on putting someone on the defensive, so much so that he offered not one shred of information disproving any of my assertions; he said that he could disprove them, and I wonder how that is any different than me not being able to prove them. Truth be told, I will attempt to approach the beloved proof, but keep in mind, on certain subjects, such as war, how tax money should be spent, scientific issues, sports, religion, history, philosophy, how to discipline a child, whether you should subscribe to online pornography, (man, I need an editor), there is a complete grey area where opinions reside that cannot ultimately, finally, and unceasingly be proven. If all of these topics could be proven- we wouldn’t have much to talk about would we? And we would have little use for talk-show hosts. I must admit- I have figured him for a cross-breed- yeah, that typical Ostrich-Parrot mix. It is a little known combination referred to as either the Ostrot or the Parrich. This strange bird has the behavioral trait of burying their head in the sand when they are afraid of anyone digging around them for the truth and still has the speaking ability to say things like: “caw, caw, prove it, prove it;” see, it wouldn’t be able to hear the proof because its head would be buried in the sand- those of the Ostrich species are said to do things like that);
4) he mentioned that a dumb poodle could out-debate me- (I neglected to remind him that I was making an analogy- with the pit bull comment- and didn’t ask him if he thought poodles could speak. Also, you may need to be the judge on who is winning the argument);
5) wrote that he has interviewed bankers and economists who told him to ask people attempting to advance an opinion like mine to prove it (I inquired into what economic class a banker and an economist might normally be fitted into- he made no answer; anyone care to wager a guess?)
6) mocked my reasons for not calling, and told me I didn’t have the balls to call in to debate. (This was the first response to my initial email and then he feigned being offended that I began a personal attack. Huh, I wonder why I would have done that. I don’t know, of the debates I have seen, usually you are allowed to make your case, before a moderator, under guidelines that allow all the debatees relatively equal time. The flow of a debate isn’t usually dictated by an unreasonable conservative who thinks that everything worth discussing should be provable; incidentally, I thought about putting him on the defensive by telling him I was lucky to have survived testicular cancer, but decided against it);
7) mocked that I “talked” to people about how real, frustrated middle class people are doing in life financially. (I didn’t get the chance to remind him that he is a TALK-show host. I was not aware that you could major in pomposity, minor in proof hypocrisy [demanding it while never providing it] and dismiss real exchanges people have with one another about the state of affairs in this country in favor of the accredited and apparently certified radio variety where private citizens are only allowed to speak when they agree with the host. How much is a bachelor’s degree in communications from Brown college? In fifteen years, my kids probably won't be able to go there either; Brown college is where many of our fine, quick-trigger-fingered talk show hosts matriculate in order to adopt their narcissistic radio personalities);
8) after I brought up all of the big-ticket items from my letter (e) from my previous column, he says that not all the prices are going up- how about big screen televisions, cell phones, toasters (I asked him- "when was the last time you financed a toaster?" Didn’t get an answer on that one either);
9) stated that economists do not measure the size of an income class according to the potential costs of any good, or service. (no, you designate an income class based on how much NET money they have coming into the home- anyone who measures it any differently is as naive as a red-necked Alabaman virgin on prom night when the guy goes to the trouble of borrowing his cousin/father's Chevy Cavalier hoping to get lucky in the trunk. Hey, hey, hey, this is a family blog- I was talking about the trunk of a car. This naivete is not restricted to goof-balls like me, but apparently to those in the business of defining political and economic terms- and I don't care if Adam Smith* defines an economic class based on gross income, the size of house they live in, what they do for a living, how many opposable thumbs their sheep have, or how much they earn from their profession. It should be defined by their net income relative to what part of the nation they live in. This may be as controversial a viewpoint as any in this series of columns so far, as the learned economists would look upon the idea of circumventing their economic monarchy of powers in the area of providing all things fiscal with definitions as sacrilege . . . tough friggin' hop! If I leave the house with 100% of my clothes on and return with 25-33% of them gone (because the metaphorical tax bracket has physically stripped them away), I may feel as if I was taken advantage of . . . I'd also feel fairly guilty about subjecting the neighbors to such a sight);
10) Asked me, “based on pre tax income, prove your point.” (Oh boy, that is the problem, I’m not basing it on pre tax income- because the whole thing revolves around goods and services becoming more expensive so that the middle class has to finance them for a longer period of time- which I think everyone will agree is more expensive. See, because the longer you are paying on it- because of the interest, which you always have to pay on first when you take out a loan or finance something, the more expensive everything is going to be).
And why would I base my argument on pre-tax income? The only money that counts is what we have left after the government takes it. You don’t ask a hungry man if his stomach is full, or if he enjoyed his meal after you have pretended to give him food. If the experts in the economic field are basing everything on pre-tax income levels then this initially, and perhaps purposefully distorts the numbers for people trying to ask questions I’m asking, and to what end, to keep the public in the dark perhaps? Shocking!
11) I listen to him once a week- to listen to, sometimes point on, sometimes misguided, opinions about politics and current events. A month or so after the exchange was over Bob admitted on the air, perhaps without this topic in mind, that he didn't finance anything anymore. Now, how does a middle class person do that, unless they are a petless, childless, vegan with no idea what is on cable television, walks to work, lives in a cave, has no wants or needs and perhaps was immaculately conceived. See, because then he wouldn't have to buy food and supplies for a domesticated animal, pay for the food, care, clothing, entertainment, marriage and education of an offspring, wouldn't own a television, have a car payment, a house payment, have home repair issues, property taxes, and wouldn't have to bury his parents- well, at least one of them, for the other would likely be immortal.
Any remote possibility this guy would get your vote if there were an election held on the basis of this debate? Wow!
___________________
*Adam Smith wrote what is still considered a masterpiece in the area of political economy- the short title of which is- The Wealth of Nations.
Planning: Eventually, I plan to bring in the part of the conversation that has to do with how we are taxed, where the money goes, the role of politicians, and perhaps what we should do about it? Keep in mind- I don't yet have a connection between the rising costs of goods and expected big ticket items (furnaces, vehicles, homes, etc.) where the pricing of things is up to the capitalists in any given field, and my disgust with taxation, where the state and national government sets our tax rate, but I'm working on it. The two issues combined, in my opinion, will over-burden the coming generations of the middle class in such a way that they will not be able to compete with the rich for jobs, among other things, and we will see a widening gap between the rich and the middle class- economically. I'm letting the subject matter take me where it will, and have no strictly defined procedural approach currently in mind. In that way- you might compare me to a CEO of a large company that is paid $126 million as a buyout for having nearly run the company into the ground, while the middle class employees that make sure the day to day operations run smoothly are asked to take pay cuts. Ah, perhaps I shouldn't be so honest.
The Rebuttal in summation: Over the course of a week- his responses consisted of what appears below; I have left nothing out and that is an important point, for there was little in the way of what one might call- a compelling argument to begin with. The text that is in parenthesis, is my comment now, basically what I've already touched on in my argument with some sarcasm thrown in. This is the equivalent in print of what many talk-show hosts will do if they disagree with you. Keep in mind- this is a local talk-show host who is fairly well-versed in political discussions- who has interviewed bankers, economists, historians, and politicians, if this were an idiot-savant who stood on the street corner holding a sign- "Will werk 4 food" I wouldn't have brought his toreador style of skirting the issue into the fray:His "Points"-
1) the middle class is not shrinking or endangered; (this was never my point- it was that the income disparity between the upper and middle class will continue to grow; I continually corrected him on this point; perhaps he thought disproving a theory about the shrinking of the middle class would be easier for him);
2) “You can send me articles on medical costs all day”- (I was not aware that I had been so remiss in stating my point- all five of the links I sent had to do with the rising costs of college tuition; a kitten unleashed in JoAnn Fabrics that has never seen a ball of yarn in its life has more focus);
3) told me I “couldn’t prove my point,” “couldn’t prove it,” “can’t prove it,” “you haven’t proven it” about 15 times; (he is very intent on putting someone on the defensive, so much so that he offered not one shred of information disproving any of my assertions; he said that he could disprove them, and I wonder how that is any different than me not being able to prove them. Truth be told, I will attempt to approach the beloved proof, but keep in mind, on certain subjects, such as war, how tax money should be spent, scientific issues, sports, religion, history, philosophy, how to discipline a child, whether you should subscribe to online pornography, (man, I need an editor), there is a complete grey area where opinions reside that cannot ultimately, finally, and unceasingly be proven. If all of these topics could be proven- we wouldn’t have much to talk about would we? And we would have little use for talk-show hosts. I must admit- I have figured him for a cross-breed- yeah, that typical Ostrich-Parrot mix. It is a little known combination referred to as either the Ostrot or the Parrich. This strange bird has the behavioral trait of burying their head in the sand when they are afraid of anyone digging around them for the truth and still has the speaking ability to say things like: “caw, caw, prove it, prove it;” see, it wouldn’t be able to hear the proof because its head would be buried in the sand- those of the Ostrich species are said to do things like that);
4) he mentioned that a dumb poodle could out-debate me- (I neglected to remind him that I was making an analogy- with the pit bull comment- and didn’t ask him if he thought poodles could speak. Also, you may need to be the judge on who is winning the argument);
5) wrote that he has interviewed bankers and economists who told him to ask people attempting to advance an opinion like mine to prove it (I inquired into what economic class a banker and an economist might normally be fitted into- he made no answer; anyone care to wager a guess?)
6) mocked my reasons for not calling, and told me I didn’t have the balls to call in to debate. (This was the first response to my initial email and then he feigned being offended that I began a personal attack. Huh, I wonder why I would have done that. I don’t know, of the debates I have seen, usually you are allowed to make your case, before a moderator, under guidelines that allow all the debatees relatively equal time. The flow of a debate isn’t usually dictated by an unreasonable conservative who thinks that everything worth discussing should be provable; incidentally, I thought about putting him on the defensive by telling him I was lucky to have survived testicular cancer, but decided against it);
7) mocked that I “talked” to people about how real, frustrated middle class people are doing in life financially. (I didn’t get the chance to remind him that he is a TALK-show host. I was not aware that you could major in pomposity, minor in proof hypocrisy [demanding it while never providing it] and dismiss real exchanges people have with one another about the state of affairs in this country in favor of the accredited and apparently certified radio variety where private citizens are only allowed to speak when they agree with the host. How much is a bachelor’s degree in communications from Brown college? In fifteen years, my kids probably won't be able to go there either; Brown college is where many of our fine, quick-trigger-fingered talk show hosts matriculate in order to adopt their narcissistic radio personalities);
8) after I brought up all of the big-ticket items from my letter (e) from my previous column, he says that not all the prices are going up- how about big screen televisions, cell phones, toasters (I asked him- "when was the last time you financed a toaster?" Didn’t get an answer on that one either);
9) stated that economists do not measure the size of an income class according to the potential costs of any good, or service. (no, you designate an income class based on how much NET money they have coming into the home- anyone who measures it any differently is as naive as a red-necked Alabaman virgin on prom night when the guy goes to the trouble of borrowing his cousin/father's Chevy Cavalier hoping to get lucky in the trunk. Hey, hey, hey, this is a family blog- I was talking about the trunk of a car. This naivete is not restricted to goof-balls like me, but apparently to those in the business of defining political and economic terms- and I don't care if Adam Smith* defines an economic class based on gross income, the size of house they live in, what they do for a living, how many opposable thumbs their sheep have, or how much they earn from their profession. It should be defined by their net income relative to what part of the nation they live in. This may be as controversial a viewpoint as any in this series of columns so far, as the learned economists would look upon the idea of circumventing their economic monarchy of powers in the area of providing all things fiscal with definitions as sacrilege . . . tough friggin' hop! If I leave the house with 100% of my clothes on and return with 25-33% of them gone (because the metaphorical tax bracket has physically stripped them away), I may feel as if I was taken advantage of . . . I'd also feel fairly guilty about subjecting the neighbors to such a sight);
10) Asked me, “based on pre tax income, prove your point.” (Oh boy, that is the problem, I’m not basing it on pre tax income- because the whole thing revolves around goods and services becoming more expensive so that the middle class has to finance them for a longer period of time- which I think everyone will agree is more expensive. See, because the longer you are paying on it- because of the interest, which you always have to pay on first when you take out a loan or finance something, the more expensive everything is going to be).
And why would I base my argument on pre-tax income? The only money that counts is what we have left after the government takes it. You don’t ask a hungry man if his stomach is full, or if he enjoyed his meal after you have pretended to give him food. If the experts in the economic field are basing everything on pre-tax income levels then this initially, and perhaps purposefully distorts the numbers for people trying to ask questions I’m asking, and to what end, to keep the public in the dark perhaps? Shocking!
11) I listen to him once a week- to listen to, sometimes point on, sometimes misguided, opinions about politics and current events. A month or so after the exchange was over Bob admitted on the air, perhaps without this topic in mind, that he didn't finance anything anymore. Now, how does a middle class person do that, unless they are a petless, childless, vegan with no idea what is on cable television, walks to work, lives in a cave, has no wants or needs and perhaps was immaculately conceived. See, because then he wouldn't have to buy food and supplies for a domesticated animal, pay for the food, care, clothing, entertainment, marriage and education of an offspring, wouldn't own a television, have a car payment, a house payment, have home repair issues, property taxes, and wouldn't have to bury his parents- well, at least one of them, for the other would likely be immortal.
Any remote possibility this guy would get your vote if there were an election held on the basis of this debate? Wow!
___________________
*Adam Smith wrote what is still considered a masterpiece in the area of political economy- the short title of which is- The Wealth of Nations.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Middle Class Part 3: The Class Defined and the Rest of My Points
Before continuing with all of the things I actually did include, or had a mind to, in an email exchange with a narrow-minded talk-show host I thought I should define what most people generally understand to be the middle class.
Any definition of who is referred to when speaking about the middle class, must take at least two things into consideration- a social and an economic component (how much you think the former is dictated by the latter is a matter of debate):
1) Wikipedia’s social definition of the middle class- “consists of those people who have a degree of economic independence, but not a great deal of social influence or power.” I would argue the idea of “economic independence,” because it implies that they have ready money spirited up from some place other than what is earned working for someone else. It is clear that the middle class doesn't have an awful lot of social power- at least not manifest/real power. Karl Marx probably has a better definition, but it probably includes the word “bourgeoisie,” and people hate it when I use big words. Besides, quoting Marx is liable to have me pegged as a communist- funny stuff.
2) an economic definition would run something like this, from numerous clicks on the internet in search of a working definition: a household income of between $30-$90 thousand dollars a year, give or take. Unfortunately, we are taxed, so that is an ill-defined barometer, as it isn’t actually “income;” it isn’t coming INto our household. Also, as Liz Pulliam writes in a May 21, 2007 article for MSN money, (one that should be read for a further idea of what I’m talking about), $50,000 in San Francisco or Manhattan is different than it is in Iowa.
The URL: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/general/2003-09-14-middle-cover_x.htm
Here are the rest of my points sent to the talk-show host in the course of the email exchange:
*- actually included in the text of at least one of my emails
* a) the income disparity between the upper and the middle class will continue to grow because the rich can send their kids to school, to good schools. With a good school on the resume, a job seeker can get a leg up on the competition- Stanford, Arizona, even the U of M will allow one this advantage, as compared to a community or technical college, if any. An education from a more respected institution gets someone a job that pays more. People go back to college to earn master’s credits so that they can earn even more money. Hopefully, having the majority opinion of a good education equating to more lifetime earnings, by and large, isn’t a non sequitur, or something that cannot be proven. Just go with me on this one.
b) Minnesota is continually in the top 7 most taxed states in the country. What kind of overtaxation relative to the rest of the country, well, I'll have to look into that;
* c) college tuition costs keep rising; I attached five links to articles that backed up my point with quotes such as college tuition rising 6% in 2006 (my “cost of living” increase was about half that). The quotes immediately below were included in one of my emails (courtesy of a Rob Kelley cnn.com article).;
"After grant aid and tax benefits, full-time students at public four-year colleges are paying an average of $2,700 a year in net tuition and fees. But this number has increased at an even faster rate than published prices because grant aid hasn't kept pace with tuitions.” AND "Over the past decade, total student aid, including grants, loans, work-study and tax benefits, increased by 95 percent, adjusted for inflation.” AND "But loans have grown to become a bigger part of aid packages, while grant aid has shrunken.” See, this is important because loan implies something that will need to be paid back with interest; a grant is a gift.
Here is just one link: http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/24/pf/college/college_costs/index.htm?postversion=2006102716
* All of that means, in my opinion, that children born to middle class families will have to pay until middle-age on the loans they will have to take out in order to afford college. Again, I can’t prove that, and I’m bad at math, but that looks pretty bad. Yes, education will cost plenty 15 years from now. Get out your abicus and use any % increase you want, but the cost of education isn't going down and the government isn't likely to regulate the price, just like they can't regulate the price of gas . . . hahahahaha, that was funny.
* d) students must take out loans because the middle class parents don’t make enough in salaries to put the necessary money away which would prevent the middle class kids from paying so much interest on the borrowed money for college;
* e) middle class parents won’t be able to put away money because just as the rich, they would like to at some point- go on a vacation, buy a reliable vehicle; have to pay for: a daughter’s wedding, their son’s participation in a youth sports activity, their parent’s funerals, a new furnace and air conditioner when they break down after 18 years, gas in their vehicle, property taxes, state and federal income taxes, medical costs, a tree to plant in their yard, which gives back to the environment by producing oxygen and reducing carbon dioxide; we might also like to put as much money away for our kids to help them out in life, and to help ourselves in our old age by saving money for retirement. Oh, and let us not forget about a mortgage payment- for it is a good thing to own a home- I’ll get back to this one;
* f) those things in (e) above, the rich can pay outright for and have money left over for servants, extravagant eating out, multiple vacations, multiple homes, more vehicles than one can drive at a time, spoiling their children with things they may never make them work for, appreciate, or earn- like mopeds and college educations. And I’m not being unreasonable, I know that those making just over $90k a year are not going to be able to purchase outright the things in (e), but they can do more than the middle class and the poor. I am primarily talking about the richest 10% of people in the country;
* g) cost of living increases are not matching inflation; (I got an above average raise, so someone thinks I worked hard enough and didn’t just milk the system. I will net about $22 every two weeks after taxes, medical costs, charity contributions, and 401k retirement account deductions- hardly things for which I can or should avoid having deducted from my paycheck. By the way, I work the entire year for that type of raise;
* h) and I work for a company in good standing, that is perceived to be an industry leader, though I am not obliged to reveal its name;
* i) I speculated that he was short and mentioned that he was a pit bull without any teeth based on the lack of a compelling argument (and this is before the recent outbreaks of pit bull attacks)- huh, precognition- who would have thought that- I should attempt to reveal something with more political gears, something with more impact- like excessive taxation and the continual rising costs of goods and services, the future effects of constant waves of illegal immigration, the punishment of narcissistic professional athletes on capital punishment islands . . . but I digress;
* j) I conceded that I could not, in fact, prove my point because you can find numbers that completely contradict other numbers if you are partial enough to your own cause; but then I mentioned that he must be a science fiction fan, because everything I was speculating on wouldn’t be able to be proven for the next twenty years and unless time travel were an option available to him- he also could not disprove it;
* k) I mentioned that getting through to him was more difficult than getting peas into the mouth of a two-year old and that he was more stubborn than Mad Jack’s old Number 7, a mule the character escorted through the mountains on his way to meet up with Grizzly Adams (a television program from the late 70s);
* l) I stated that I was emailing in lieu of calling in because he was a talk show host and you don’t win arguments with them- because they have all day to research for a two hour show, take your call with 30 seconds left in a segment, hang up or interrupt when they disagree with you, and can then spend the next two segments stating things you would have touched on if you weren’t interrupted in the first place;
m) An income class should be measured by how much NET income is brought into the household- not because a person who has a doctorate in economics says that it should be measured by pre-tax income. You can’t spend money you don’t have- this is something the poor and responsible middle class have known for years and the rich will never know.
Next time: a summary of his responses, such as they were. Again, I must take this approach in order to reveal the short-sightedness, and the laziness of his argument, which reflects the going rate of exchange on this topic by those who aren't thinking much about the future, judging by what is happening in the present- primarily because it does not benefit them to do so.
Any definition of who is referred to when speaking about the middle class, must take at least two things into consideration- a social and an economic component (how much you think the former is dictated by the latter is a matter of debate):
1) Wikipedia’s social definition of the middle class- “consists of those people who have a degree of economic independence, but not a great deal of social influence or power.” I would argue the idea of “economic independence,” because it implies that they have ready money spirited up from some place other than what is earned working for someone else. It is clear that the middle class doesn't have an awful lot of social power- at least not manifest/real power. Karl Marx probably has a better definition, but it probably includes the word “bourgeoisie,” and people hate it when I use big words. Besides, quoting Marx is liable to have me pegged as a communist- funny stuff.
2) an economic definition would run something like this, from numerous clicks on the internet in search of a working definition: a household income of between $30-$90 thousand dollars a year, give or take. Unfortunately, we are taxed, so that is an ill-defined barometer, as it isn’t actually “income;” it isn’t coming INto our household. Also, as Liz Pulliam writes in a May 21, 2007 article for MSN money, (one that should be read for a further idea of what I’m talking about), $50,000 in San Francisco or Manhattan is different than it is in Iowa.
The URL: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/general/2003-09-14-middle-cover_x.htm
Here are the rest of my points sent to the talk-show host in the course of the email exchange:
*- actually included in the text of at least one of my emails
* a) the income disparity between the upper and the middle class will continue to grow because the rich can send their kids to school, to good schools. With a good school on the resume, a job seeker can get a leg up on the competition- Stanford, Arizona, even the U of M will allow one this advantage, as compared to a community or technical college, if any. An education from a more respected institution gets someone a job that pays more. People go back to college to earn master’s credits so that they can earn even more money. Hopefully, having the majority opinion of a good education equating to more lifetime earnings, by and large, isn’t a non sequitur, or something that cannot be proven. Just go with me on this one.
b) Minnesota is continually in the top 7 most taxed states in the country. What kind of overtaxation relative to the rest of the country, well, I'll have to look into that;
* c) college tuition costs keep rising; I attached five links to articles that backed up my point with quotes such as college tuition rising 6% in 2006 (my “cost of living” increase was about half that). The quotes immediately below were included in one of my emails (courtesy of a Rob Kelley cnn.com article).;
"After grant aid and tax benefits, full-time students at public four-year colleges are paying an average of $2,700 a year in net tuition and fees. But this number has increased at an even faster rate than published prices because grant aid hasn't kept pace with tuitions.” AND "Over the past decade, total student aid, including grants, loans, work-study and tax benefits, increased by 95 percent, adjusted for inflation.” AND "But loans have grown to become a bigger part of aid packages, while grant aid has shrunken.” See, this is important because loan implies something that will need to be paid back with interest; a grant is a gift.
Here is just one link: http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/24/pf/college/college_costs/index.htm?postversion=2006102716
* All of that means, in my opinion, that children born to middle class families will have to pay until middle-age on the loans they will have to take out in order to afford college. Again, I can’t prove that, and I’m bad at math, but that looks pretty bad. Yes, education will cost plenty 15 years from now. Get out your abicus and use any % increase you want, but the cost of education isn't going down and the government isn't likely to regulate the price, just like they can't regulate the price of gas . . . hahahahaha, that was funny.
* d) students must take out loans because the middle class parents don’t make enough in salaries to put the necessary money away which would prevent the middle class kids from paying so much interest on the borrowed money for college;
* e) middle class parents won’t be able to put away money because just as the rich, they would like to at some point- go on a vacation, buy a reliable vehicle; have to pay for: a daughter’s wedding, their son’s participation in a youth sports activity, their parent’s funerals, a new furnace and air conditioner when they break down after 18 years, gas in their vehicle, property taxes, state and federal income taxes, medical costs, a tree to plant in their yard, which gives back to the environment by producing oxygen and reducing carbon dioxide; we might also like to put as much money away for our kids to help them out in life, and to help ourselves in our old age by saving money for retirement. Oh, and let us not forget about a mortgage payment- for it is a good thing to own a home- I’ll get back to this one;
* f) those things in (e) above, the rich can pay outright for and have money left over for servants, extravagant eating out, multiple vacations, multiple homes, more vehicles than one can drive at a time, spoiling their children with things they may never make them work for, appreciate, or earn- like mopeds and college educations. And I’m not being unreasonable, I know that those making just over $90k a year are not going to be able to purchase outright the things in (e), but they can do more than the middle class and the poor. I am primarily talking about the richest 10% of people in the country;
* g) cost of living increases are not matching inflation; (I got an above average raise, so someone thinks I worked hard enough and didn’t just milk the system. I will net about $22 every two weeks after taxes, medical costs, charity contributions, and 401k retirement account deductions- hardly things for which I can or should avoid having deducted from my paycheck. By the way, I work the entire year for that type of raise;
* h) and I work for a company in good standing, that is perceived to be an industry leader, though I am not obliged to reveal its name;
* i) I speculated that he was short and mentioned that he was a pit bull without any teeth based on the lack of a compelling argument (and this is before the recent outbreaks of pit bull attacks)- huh, precognition- who would have thought that- I should attempt to reveal something with more political gears, something with more impact- like excessive taxation and the continual rising costs of goods and services, the future effects of constant waves of illegal immigration, the punishment of narcissistic professional athletes on capital punishment islands . . . but I digress;
* j) I conceded that I could not, in fact, prove my point because you can find numbers that completely contradict other numbers if you are partial enough to your own cause; but then I mentioned that he must be a science fiction fan, because everything I was speculating on wouldn’t be able to be proven for the next twenty years and unless time travel were an option available to him- he also could not disprove it;
* k) I mentioned that getting through to him was more difficult than getting peas into the mouth of a two-year old and that he was more stubborn than Mad Jack’s old Number 7, a mule the character escorted through the mountains on his way to meet up with Grizzly Adams (a television program from the late 70s);
* l) I stated that I was emailing in lieu of calling in because he was a talk show host and you don’t win arguments with them- because they have all day to research for a two hour show, take your call with 30 seconds left in a segment, hang up or interrupt when they disagree with you, and can then spend the next two segments stating things you would have touched on if you weren’t interrupted in the first place;
m) An income class should be measured by how much NET income is brought into the household- not because a person who has a doctorate in economics says that it should be measured by pre-tax income. You can’t spend money you don’t have- this is something the poor and responsible middle class have known for years and the rich will never know.
Next time: a summary of his responses, such as they were. Again, I must take this approach in order to reveal the short-sightedness, and the laziness of his argument, which reflects the going rate of exchange on this topic by those who aren't thinking much about the future, judging by what is happening in the present- primarily because it does not benefit them to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
